It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

WAR: EU-Iran nuclear talks break down

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 23 2005 @ 05:53 PM
link   
Talks between Iran and the EU3 (France, Germany, and Britain) have broken down. The group has failed to reach an agreement with Iran over that countries nuclear program. Iran has indicated that it will reconsider its position on negotiations if no progress is made. It insists that its right to a to a civilian nuclear program is non negotiable.
 



news.bbc.co.uk
Iran and leading EU nations have failed to reach agreement in talks about Tehran's nuclear ambitions.
The EU Three - France, Germany and the UK - want Iran to abandon its uranium enrichment and reprocessing activities.

They are offering Tehran economic, political and technological incentives for giving up the program.

Iranian negotiators, who insist Iran has the right to a civilian nuclear program, said all sides have agreed to meet again in the coming weeks.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


It looks like this mater is heading for the Security Council to debate. Iran seems bent on going critical with its reactor and no doubt is actively disbursing its research facilities to make them difficult targets. The EU3 have indicated that they would back a U.S. plan to take the matter to the Security Council if the negotiations fail.




posted on Mar, 23 2005 @ 05:56 PM
link   
Now let's see if Europe lives up to its agreement with the U.S. to take some real action. I'm crossing my fingers but not holding my breath.



posted on Mar, 23 2005 @ 06:28 PM
link   
It's all so predictable. Iran will just keep stringing the UN along and the UN will happily let it happen. They might eventually grow a spine and threaten Iran with sanctions, but by the time that happens Iran will probably have "the bomb" anyway. I'm fairly certain US Cruise Missiles will be raining down on Iran within the next 18 months....it's just a matter of time. They left it too late with NK, they won't make the same mistake again.

Interesting related article: news.bbc.co.uk...

Sorry if it's been posted already somewhere...



posted on Mar, 23 2005 @ 07:08 PM
link   
I don't think America has long to attack. According to Israel, Iran will have all the knowledge to make the bomb very soon. After that point, we can destroy the facilities, but it won't matter much in the longrun. They will have a nuke eventually.

Bombing may already be useless. If Iran has underground facilities, we may not be able to find them all.



posted on Mar, 23 2005 @ 07:40 PM
link   
I do not think Iran has weapons, and I dont think they have started building weapons... (yet)... They'll just keep pursuring Nuclear Technology for civillian purposes, then when the US has jumped the gun, bombed Iran - Found no weapons of mass destruction (again)... America will be ruined, and they will then develop their weapons with little opposition capable of doing anything...



posted on Mar, 23 2005 @ 07:56 PM
link   
That doesn't even make a bit of sense. If we bomb, how exactly could no WMD's be found? We're talking about hitting a nuclear plant, which is undeniably there. If its destroyed, that's that.



posted on Mar, 23 2005 @ 08:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
That doesn't even make a bit of sense. If we bomb, how exactly could no WMD's be found? We're talking about hitting a nuclear plant, which is undeniably there. If its destroyed, that's that.


Isn't the whole point of Iran having a Nuclear power-plant merely the first step... Isn't that what the Pentagon is pushing... That its not just nuclear power they are making, but infact their sole purspose of having nuclear technology is to make a nuclear weapon - Thus disrupting the scale of power the US has tried to hard to "balance out"...



posted on Mar, 23 2005 @ 09:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by ghostsoldier

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
That doesn't even make a bit of sense. If we bomb, how exactly could no WMD's be found? We're talking about hitting a nuclear plant, which is undeniably there. If its destroyed, that's that.


Isn't the whole point of Iran having a Nuclear power-plant merely the first step... Isn't that what the Pentagon is pushing... That its not just nuclear power they are making, but infact their sole purspose of having nuclear technology is to make a nuclear weapon - Thus disrupting the scale of power the US has tried to hard to "balance out"...


No, the Iranian leadership have been actively seeking a nuclear weapon development since the early 1990s. I think the first Gulf War gave the Iranian mullahs a scare from the American-led international coalition forces. Perhaps it was in 1991 they realized they needed a nuclear deterrence against the United States and Israel.



posted on Mar, 23 2005 @ 10:00 PM
link   

Isn't the whole point of Iran having a Nuclear power-plant merely the first step... Isn't that what the Pentagon is pushing... That its not just nuclear power they are making, but infact their sole purspose of having nuclear technology is to make a nuclear weapon - Thus disrupting the scale of power the US has tried to hard to "balance out"...


None of that was relevent. If America bombs, there is never going to be a way for the world to know what Iran's intentions really were. They could never show America was wrong.


No, the Iranian leadership have been actively seeking a nuclear weapon development since the early 1990s. I think the first Gulf War gave the Iranian mullahs a scare from the American-led international coalition forces. Perhaps it was in 1991 they realized they needed a nuclear deterrence against the United States and Israel.


Iran has had plans a lot longer then that. It goes back to the Shah.



posted on Mar, 23 2005 @ 10:23 PM
link   
First this...

Russia 'warned U.S. about Saddam' - June 18, 2004



Russian intelligence services warned Washington several times that Saddam Hussein's regime planned terrorist attacks against the United States, President Vladimir Putin has said.

The warnings were provided after September 11, 2001 and before the start of the Iraqi war, Putin said Friday.
...
...
...
The United States, meanwhile, never mentioned the Russian intelligence in its arguments for going to war.

And now this...

Russia Again Defends Nuclear Cooperation with Iran - March 22, 2005



Moscow has repeated its view that Iran's nuclear program, which is being developed with Russian help, should not be regarded as a security threat.

"I do not see any connection between Iran and the problem of nuclear weapon non-proliferation," said Russian Federal Atomic Energy Agency head Alexander Rumyantsev.

Moscow's stance echoes that of Iran itself, which rejects U.S. suspicions that its nuclear energy programs are a cover for attempts to manufacture atomic bombs.

It's almost like Russia is baiting the US for a second time, but this time by actively providing the help to Iran.

There could end up being a decade of sanctions, like in Iraq, but just look at what happens to places that were sanctioned for an extended period of time (North Korea and Iraq). The people that refuse to comply (the leaders) are never the ones to suffer, it's the "unwashed masses" that pay for it. And their little children.

What makes our part of the world and the people on it so much better than them, that we're willing to let this sort of thing happen, because we're so fearful of them? And if Russia isn't afraid of them, why is the US?

And in other news:

India Oil Chief Says U.S. Would Be `Stupid' to Attack Iran - March 24, 2005



Subir Raha, the government-appointed head of India's biggest oil company, said the U.S. would be ``stupid'' to attack Iran and risk imposing record oil prices on the global economy.

The U.S. invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003 helped send oil to a record $57.60 a barrel on March 17 in New York, Raha, chairman of Oil & Natural Gas Corp., said in an interview on the outlook for oil and the company's revenue in New Delhi yesterday.

``You launch one more attack and you can't even guess where the speculation will go,'' Raha said. ``With the stalemate in Afghanistan, stalemate in Iraq and elsewhere, you already have a price of $55 a barrel.''


War, what is it good for? Absolutely nothing, except profits.

At least that's something both Russia and the United States agree on.



posted on Mar, 23 2005 @ 10:24 PM
link   
Hey people, do you want the US to wage another war based entirely on speculations, jsut as the invasion of Iraq was??? There's close to 1600 American soldiers who fought and died for the wrong reasons as of now... so you want this number to grow to grow up to the tens of thousands... or probably the hundreds of thousands if mroe parties get involved into such conflict???

Don't you realize that we're right on the border of a WW 3? Russia and China will never accept any other invasion of US and Israel in the Middle-East, and China is beginning to have huge economic reasons to strike the US. While I do not defend them, and neither defend the (fake) diplomatic efforts of the EU with Iran, it's clear that we are not in a situation where America should play with its toys in Iran... Man, it's not jsut about the lives of a bunch of Marine cannon fodders in the Middle-East... it's also about my life, your life, and the future or freedom here!

Wake up!



posted on Mar, 23 2005 @ 11:01 PM
link   

What makes our part of the world and the people on it so much better than them, that we're willing to let this sort of thing happen, because we're so fearful of them? And if Russia isn't afraid of them, why is the US?


Iran is Russia's ally, and Russia does not want to see a Middle East all friendly to America. If Iran falls, the entire region is basically America's.


Don't you realize that we're right on the border of a WW 3? Russia and China will never accept any other invasion of US and Israel in the Middle-East, and China is beginning to have huge economic reasons to strike the US. While I do not defend them, and neither defend the (fake) diplomatic efforts of the EU with Iran, it's clear that we are not in a situation where America should play with its toys in Iran... Man, it's not jsut about the lives of a bunch of Marine cannon fodders in the Middle-East... it's also about my life, your life, and the future or freedom here!


China and Russia would not go to war with America over Iran. Neither could. Both lack the force deployment capabilities. Neither can do any economic harm to America without dooming themselves.

Besides, its easy to keep both content by allowing them to keep their oil contracts with Iran.



posted on Mar, 23 2005 @ 11:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
[Iran is Russia's ally, and Russia does not want to see a Middle East all friendly to America. If Iran falls, the entire region is basically America's.


Hmmm, I do not think so, Russia is simply after the U.S. in terms of who to dislike. Do not forget the brutal war in Chechnya that is affecting Muslims. Given the absence of the U.S. Russia would be next. Russian concern for regional dominace is a valid one, but Russia has other worries like China etc.

As such they are allies of convince because each has something the other needs beyond that ..........


Sep

posted on Mar, 24 2005 @ 12:54 AM
link   
I dont get it, the link says at the start the talks have broken down, but a little down it says:

"Iranian negotiators, who insist Iran has the right to a civilian nuclear programme, said all sides have agreed to meet again in the coming weeks."

If the talks have broken down why are they meeting again?

And the BBC site is the only one who is reporting that this meeting was negetive.

Here is what ABC said:

"European officials reported a "positive climate" Wednesday in talks with Iran over its nuclear program amid U.S. concerns that Tehran is masking plans to build atomic bombs.

"There was a constructive and positive climate," said French Foreign Ministry spokesman Jean-Baptiste Mattei, after the talks ended in Paris. The talks were to continue at a later date."

abcnews.go.com...

Unless this is about some other talks which I am not aware of.

[edit on 24-3-2005 by Sep]



posted on Mar, 24 2005 @ 09:02 AM
link   


Neither can do any economic harm to America without dooming themselves.


Pffft! American has a debt of over 400 billions to China... and many countries like, recenlty, South Korean, have begun dealing in Euro rather than US dollars, while the dollar is constantly crumbling in comparison to the ever-rising Euro, so I frankly don't see how dangerous it would be for nations like China and Russia to make economic presssures on the US, And for the military aspect, as far as I know Russia and China, taken together, have military potential which is a few times bigger than all countries of the EU reunited, and largely matchable to the American troops actually in Middle-East. Moreover Russia still has a huge nuclear potential and China does have long-range ballistic missiles too. If they surely don't have the capability to strike the US overseas with conventional weaponry, they can do terrible damage to the already weakened US/British troops in the Middle-East, while, differently than the US, they both are on the same continent, while the US needs weeks to mobilize additional troops and carriers across the Atlantic of Pacific to bring some new troops. And even if Russia and China get their assses kicked back, how many troops will the US loose into such a conflict? And all that for oil and to quell Muslim resistance to the US empire? Crazy...



posted on Mar, 24 2005 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Pffft! American has a debt of over 400 billions to China... and many countries like, recenlty, South Korean, have begun dealing in Euro rather than US dollars, while the dollar is constantly crumbling in comparison to the ever-rising Euro, so I frankly don't see how dangerous it would be for nations like China and Russia to make economic presssures on the US,


If China, or any other Asian country tried to crash the dollar, they'd be destroying their own economy at the same time. America is their biggest invester. It is American companies driving the Chinese economy.


for the military aspect, as far as I know Russia and China, taken together, have military potential which is a few times bigger than all countries of the EU reunited, and largely matchable to the American troops actually in Middle-East.


Having the troops and equipment, and being able to deploy them are two different things. First, it requires massive amounts of equipment to move them around. Second, economically, it is terribly expensive to keep forces deployed these days. Neither China or Russia could handle it.


Moreover Russia still has a huge nuclear potential and China does have long-range ballistic missiles too. If they surely don't have the capability to strike the US overseas with conventional weaponry, they can do terrible damage to the already weakened US/British troops in the Middle-East, while, differently than the US, they both are on the same continent, while the US needs weeks to mobilize additional troops and carriers across the Atlantic of Pacific to bring some new troops. And even if Russia and China get their assses kicked back, how many troops will the US loose into such a conflict? And all that for oil and to quell Muslim resistance to the US empire? Crazy...


Ballistic missiles aren't very useful for attacking troops. I think Iraqi scuds did a nice job of showing that. Our troops aren't concentrated, either. They are also defended by the very best air defenses in the world.

And it does not take weeks for America to mobilize. We have rapid reaction forces that can get anywhere in the world within 48 hours. We can also bomb anywhere in the world within a few hours, and we can do it with pretty much impunity. We also have forces stationed right near both China and Russia that can act quickly. We have many allies near them.



posted on Mar, 24 2005 @ 12:43 PM
link   
heh, and here the mighty EU shows it's strength...when everyone was blaming failure of talks on the U.S being opperessive and scaring poor Tehran into being more reluctant to give up their nuclear wet dream.

Now the EU has been rebuffed. Tehran wants the Bomb. Why? To stop "invasions"? Or to prevent them by hitting neighboring nations?

What about that big promise to ship spent fuel rods back from Iranian reactors? Still not good enough. Tehran does not give a damn about power from that reactor, or economic prosperity. It wants the ability to kill a million of it's enemies with a single shot.

Iraq is screwed. If they do not emplace a Shiite theocracy of ayatollahs who are subservient to Iran, Iran will find an excuse to vaporize them, claiming some sort of US/Iraqi conspiracy to invade.

Imagine what one properly placed device, ignited underground, in the richest oil fields could do? Radioactive oil will still be radioactive after refining. Unusable. What's that line from Frank Herbert's novel, Dune? "He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing".



posted on Mar, 24 2005 @ 02:12 PM
link   
Further signs of why the European Union is deteriorating into irrelevance?
Compromise must be obviously sought if an agreement is to be reached, but to compromise to the degree for which was initially sought and demanded is not necessarily a 'compromise' seen as being effective towards the original intended goal and purpose. The new considered 'compromise' amounts to raising the flag and admitting defeat. The EU arguments on this matter do seem plausible and satisfactory, but then the key would be in the monitoring, as with Saddam, etc.


The EU is considering an Iranian proposal to allow the Islamic republic to produce enriched uranium on a small scale, despite the bloc’s demand Tehran must abandon the process to guarantee it will not make atom bombs, officials and diplomats said on Thursday.
--snip--
Experts have told AFP the idea is to have from 500 to 2,000 centrifuges instead of the 54,000 centrifuges Iran has said it wants to build, an industrial-style arrangement which could produce large amounts of fuel for civilian nuclear reactors but also in highly enriched form the explosive core of atom bombs
--snip--
“If the experts find a way to monitor this in an effective way (to guarantee that Iran can not enrich uranium to make nuclear weapons), then why not,” the official said.

The Iranians said they would allow close monitoring of a pilot facility by the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the official said.

EU studying Iranian plan for small-scale uranium enrichment

Of further interest is that India may be aiding Iran's nuclear plans, as well:
As Ties Between India and Iran Rise, U.S. Grows Edgy





seekerof




top topics



 
0

log in

join