NEWS: Iran Will Reopen Nuclear Facility

Officials in Tehran have delivered a letter to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) explaining plans to restart uranium conversion. Iran halted uranium processing in 2004 after continued pressure from the EU but have decided to restart their program after the EU failed to respond to an Iranian deadline to reopen talks.



After the EU failed in talks with Iran will the US step in???

Maybe they should, Europe tried and failed to persuade them to peacefully give up their program so maybe the US will have to do something!

Im also sure Israel wont be too happy at the moment!

[edit on 1/8/2005 by MickeyDee]

[edit on 1-8-2005 by John bull 1]

They will be taken to the UN security council now i think. Couple of Experts yesterday were stating this on BBC24

On what grounds would they be taken to the UN Security Council?

I think they were in a voluntary agreement with the IAEA and they seem to be using the right protocol to withdraw from it.

America is still pushing for Iran to be taken to the UN security council i believe, i haven't heard anything about the EU wanting to involve the UN, but America and Israel will probably start pushing now.

infinite, i think BushCo will start pushing soon.

Bush Appoints Bolton As U.N. Ambassador.

WASHINGTON - President Bush sidestepped the Senate and installed embattled nominee John Bolton as ambassador to the United Nations on Monday, ending a five-month impasse with Democrats who accused Bolton of abusing subordinates and twisting intelligence to fit his conservative ideology.

"This post is too important to leave vacant any longer, especially during a war and a vital debate about UN reform," Bush said. He said Bolton had his complete confidence.

Bush put Bolton on the job in a recess appointment — an avenue available to the president when the Congress is in recess. Under the Constitution, a recess appointment during the lawmakers' August break would last until the next session of Congress, which begins in January 2007.

Bolton joined Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice at the announcement ceremony and said he was honored and humbled by the president's appointment. "It will be a distinct privilege to be an advocate for America's values and interests at the U.N. and, in the words of the U.N. charter, to help maintain international peace and security," he said.

Full Article

Sanc'.

Any moves in the Security Council are likely to be blocked by Russia & China. Both do a lot of business with the Iranian regime, and are looking to undercut the US already. If we do something beyond diplomatic pressure about Iran's nucler program, we'll likely have to do it alone.

Well, im only in favour of taking them to th UN when they show signs of trying to build a nuclear weapons. At the moment, they are showing no clear sign.

Iran will never listen to anyone on this matter!

It will take force from either the US or Israel to persuade them to stop.....

On what grounds would they be taken to the UN Security Council?

Their actions have potentially large rammifications for global security, its perfectly within the ambit of the Security Council to deal with any nation that advances their Nuke Tech.

I think they were in a voluntary agreement with the IAEA and they seem to be using the right protocol to withdraw from it.

The IAEA is a program bywhich nations get nuke tech in exchange for using it for peaceful purposes. You don't get to enter it, get tech, and then leave it. Its a permanent agreement. You enter into the agreement, and then the IAEA will allways be there to verify that you are using it for peaceful purposes. If the IAEA can't function like this, then it should simply be dismantled.

infinite
At the moment, they are showing no clear sign.

Going against the strong recomendations of the IAEA and not cooperating with it are themselves signs of agression. Iran agreed that the IAEA can inspect their sites. Now they're saying they can't. Its an independant international organization with the backing of the global community and the United Nations, they can't make a legitimate claim of bias or giving up state secrets, if the IAEA wants to inspect, you have to let it inspect or else you're in breach of some serious treaties and the rest of the world would be quite rational to think that you do infact have a secret weapons programme.

The US government is not going to permit a militant islamist republic that has openly declared direct opposition to the west and United States that funds terrorist organizations internationally and has even gone so far as to refer to the US itself as unholy satan himself, to gain nuclear weapons. North Korea broke its treaties and deals with the US regarding nukes and look at the massive geo-political and military problem that it is. Iran with nuke tech would be unthinkable really and any US administration that permited it to happen would be horribly negligent.

I think the world must come to terms with a nuclear Iran..
But hey.. then again thats just me!!

Originally posted by Nygdan
Going against the strong recomendations of the IAEA and not cooperating with it are themselves signs of agression. Iran agreed that the IAEA can inspect their sites. Now they're saying they can't. Its an independant international organization with the backing of the global community and the United Nations, they can't make a legitimate claim of bias or giving up state secrets, if the IAEA wants to inspect, you have to let it inspect or else you're in breach of some serious treaties and the rest of the world would be quite rational to think that you do infact have a secret weapons programme.

They are allowing the IAEA to inpect the sites and supervise the enrichment process.
It even says so in the article:

"In this letter, we say to the IAEA that we are resuming our activities at Isfahan starting from today under its supervision," Mr Mohammadi told state television.

IAEA inspectors are already in the city, Mr Mohammadi said, and will be able to supervise activities.

Right now, they aren't in violation of anything.
They only agreed to suspend enrichment while the EU talks were going on.
They are allowed by the IAEA to resume enrichment. There is nothing in the NPT which prohibits it.

North Korea broke its treaties and deals with the US regarding nukes and look at the massive geo-political and military problem that it is.

Iran will likely do the same, and get away with it.
Just like North Korea did.

The potential costs of any unilateral US attempt to stop them (retaliation against US forces in Iraq is high on the list) outwieghs anything to be gained by trying to stop them. The US is not omnipotent. If Iran wants nukes bad enough, they'll get them.

The US "could not tolerate" a nuclear North Korea either, they got them regardless. Welcome to the real world.

[edit on 8/1/05 by xmotex]

I believe, whether we like it or not, America or Israel, will strike against Iran, sometime, in the not too distant future, most likely, like i've stated before, sep/oct time.

There is no way that the US or Israel, will tolerate a nuclear Iran.
And also remember, that Iran have publicly stated that their goal is the total destruction of Israel.

And in reference to China and Russia's close ties with Iran, this will obviously be an important factor with the US. But there is no way that these countries would risk all out war over the situation!

Israel has already publicly ruled it out.
They already have 200-300 nukes, they don't really have much to worry about. If Iran attacks them, they can hit back ten times as hard, and the Iranians know this.

The UK, our closest ally, has also publicly declared that they will not be participating in any strikes against Iran.

Wiping out Iran's nuclear program isn't something that can be done in a single blow. They've spread installations over the whole country.

I'm sure the US (at least the current administration) would like to take out Iran's nuclear program. I just don't think it's that simple to do.

We let the nuclear genie out of the bottle in the first place. That doesn't mean we can put it back in.

They may have both, PUBLICLY, ruled out a strike, but that does not mean, that it will not occur!

And there is no way that Israel, will let Iran hit them first with a nuke, so that they can retaliate with say, 2-300 of theirs!!!

Remember Israel is a small country, which is densely populated.
1 nuke would kind of destroy Israel!

Thanks for clearing that up AceOfBase. You saved me from doing it

The Iranians have never once prevented the IAEA from inspecting their nuclear sites. Who ever says otherwise is lying and it is lapping up American propaganda.

Facts of the matter are, the Iranians are adhereing 100% to their obligations under the NPT. They have not once been found to be in breach of the NPT by the IAEA. The United States does not have a legal leg to stand on when it comes to going to War against Iran. The Russians and the Chinese will block any authourisation to invade Iran in the Security Council.

I think that about covers the facts on the matter.

With regards to those saying that Iran will destroy Israel. That is absurd. The Iranians have repeatedly stated that they will not attack Israel first. They will only attack Israel if Israel attacks them.

An Israeli air strike on the Isfahan nuclear plant would constitute an act of War and the Iranians would be well with in their rights to flatten Israel.

When will you people learn that you cannot go around bullying other nations like this. Why do you think countries such as North Korea go nuclear? They have super powers and their sycophants breathing down their neck and dictating what they can and cannot do.

Until they break the law or invade another country LEAVE THEM ALONE. Is that such a hard concept? Pre-emptive wars will be our downfall!

Originally posted by subz

The United States does not have a legal leg to stand on when it comes to going to War against Iran.

Yeah, like that's gonna stop Bush & Co.

Until they break the law or invade another country LEAVE THEM ALONE. Is that such a hard concept? Pre-emptive wars will be our downfall!

Great. So if, say, NK decide to cause trouble in that region at some point down the line we have to have all-out nuclear war? Surely it would be best to stop them now rather than later when it would be 100x more difficult. Don't think NK or Iran would do that? Maybe, maybe not. Personally I don't think sticking my head in the sand and hoping for the best is a great concept.
Nobody wants NK or Iran to have nukes - the chances of them using the nukes recklessly, or starting trouble because having nukes gives them confidence is a lot higher than most countries with nukes. In short they can't be trusted. Not to mention the fact there would be a high chance of those nukes falling into terrorists hands.
But hang on - I'm just falling for the propaganda, right? I hope so.

I'm of the firm belief that the US and Israel will not let Iran get away with the stuff NK did. They learned their lesson the hard way - they won't be as soft on Iran.

I think we're getting WAY ahead of things here. When it comes to using nukes, who said that MAD doesn't apply anymore. I'm sure it does. Anyone using nukes would be in an undefendable position and be dealt with. From a political point of view then, what's the problem?

This smells like war again, I doubt they'll be left alone developing nuclear technology even if its "Peaceful nuclear power" some may see it as too big of a risk to let them go and start up. If they do other "minor" countries may get the same idea. Nuclear technology should be controlled to the fullest extent by the UN, even if maybe that means war.

Vorta

There is nothing to base the assertions that Iran will be reckless with nuclear weapons other than Western bigotry.

I suppose Pakistan can be trusted with nuclear weapons right? A military dictator with no intention of democracy for his country. The US administration has not only condoned their workings outside the NPT, their acquisition of nuclear weapons, their continued conflict with India, their status as a dictatorship and a terrorist hotbed, but has given them American military equipment and financial aid. All because Musharraf espouses his allegiance to the West.

The only reason there is an outcry over Iran allegedly (lets not forget the US has provide no proof they want nukes) wanting nuclear weapons is that they do not like the United States. They dont like the United States because of American interference in propping up the unpopular King of Persia.

[edit on 1/8/05 by subz]