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.

 

Iran referred to UN council for vote to move forward with sanctions

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 08:57 PM
link   


The United States and other permanent members of the U.N. Security Council agreed Tuesday that Iran should be hauled before that powerful body over its disputed nuclear program.

www.breitbart.com...
China and Russia have also signed off on sending Iran to the UN security council. This could mean strong sanctions against Iran that would most likely cause more tension in the region along with a increase in gas prices in the West. A dinner attended by Condi Rice and other leaders at the home of Britan Jack Straw.




The group agreed that the IAEA "should report to the Security Council its decision on the steps required of Iran, and should also report to the Security Council all IAEA reports as resolutions as adopted relating to this issue," a statement from the group said.


The IAEA will bring their findings to a meeting later in the week. It is still unclear if Russia and China would vote for sanctions against Iran if it progresses to that point. With the latest elections in Palestine, and Irans threats of reprisal, the stakes have jsut gone one step higher.

Will Iran act before sanctions can be imposed?

[edit on 30-1-2006 by esdad71]

Mod Edit: Posting work written by others. – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 30-1-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]

[edit on 30-1-2006 by esdad71]




posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 09:01 PM
link   
I don't think it's happened yet, they said it should happen. This Iran saga has been going on so long, I wouldn't depend on anything not written in stone, but this does appear to be a step in the right direction.



posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 09:27 PM
link   
Yeah, what the hell is this thread? What are you quoting from?

I got all exited for nothing.



posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 09:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dronetek
Yeah, what the hell is this thread? What are you quoting from?

I got all exited for nothing.


Well, the title is misleading as Iran haven't, of course, been referred yet...

However, it is significant that the countries involved (including China and Russia) have agreed on this and actually come out and said it. It's definitely an important moment in this whole issue.



posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 09:47 PM
link   
www.breitbart.com...

Sorry guys, totally forgot. I sent a U2U to have the link inserted. My humblest apologies.



posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 06:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe
Some links:
www.nytimes.com...
www.haaretzdaily.com...
www.cbsnews.com...
uk.news.yahoo.com...


None of these links confirm tis story.....



posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 06:53 AM
link   
Here is yet another Article supporting this Topic:


Iran says U.N. referral will be ‘end of diplomacy’

Any move to report or refer Iran to the U.N. Security Council over its nuclear standoff with the West would spell the end of diplomatic efforts to resolve the issue, Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator said Tuesday.

“Referring or reporting Iran’s dossier to the U.N. Security Council will be unconstructive and the end of diplomacy,” state television quoted Ali Larijani as saying.

Tehran's response came less than a day after the United States and other permanent members of the Security Council reached surprising accord that Iran should be taken before that powerful body. But it is not clear that Tehran would face punishment.

End of Diplomacy?

What's Next on the list - right After Diplomacy? extra DIV



posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 07:06 AM
link   

Any move to report or refer Iran to the U.N. Security Council over its nuclear standoff with the West would spell the end of diplomatic efforts to resolve the issue, Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator said Tuesday.


Seriously, why does Iran persist on shooting itself in the foot over and over? First they threaten to wipe Israel of the map, cut off oil, threaten to attack our troops, and now threaten to end diplomatic negotiations. Someone needs a new foreign policy advisor


Also, I am somewhat skeptical that the Council would impose significant sanctions on Iran, but nonetheless this is good news.


JAK

posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 07:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23

Seriously, why does Iran persist on shooting itself in the foot over and over?


This is a good point and one I have asked for some time now, Iran appears to be playing straight into the hands of it percieved enemies. That is of course if what we hear in the media is to be believed.

Jak



posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 07:15 AM
link   

That is of course if what we hear in the media is to be believed.


Well, it would take a tremendous effort to regulate the entire world media, as they seem to be publishing the same news.


JAK

posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 07:19 AM
link   
Well I have heard it said that things have been interpreted in a way which might cast a political slant on them. Despite any thruth or not in that statement though it's only one possible answer to the question, why does Iran seem to be playing straight into the hands of it's enemies?

Surely if you and I can see this so can those in power over there.

Jak



posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 07:32 AM
link   
Well, then only thing I can think of at the moment is what I call the “Act Tough Policy”. Perhaps Iran is just throwing threats around to show that its serious about resisting any regulating toward its nuclear project. Of course to me and you this would be foolhardy because the countries that Iran is dealing with don't respect such policies, but who knows, perhaps Iran thinks they do.



posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 09:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Well, it would take a tremendous effort to regulate the entire world media, as they seem to be publishing the same news.

Why Regulate the Entire World Media, when you can Regulate just ONE Man?



I have Asked myself exactly the same question you are asking - why is president of Iran trying so hard to shoot himself in the Foot? Why is it, that with every statement and with every thing that he does, he INCREASES the support to Attack Iran?

Like he would be some kind of Agent ey?


[edit on 31/1/06 by Souljah]



posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 10:25 AM
link   
I too smell some sort of faint move in play! These mid-east thinking types seem to go for the act tough guy bit. But I still think they are trying to test the waters here.



posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 10:31 AM
link   
I think there is a syndrome among Arab states, I will call it The Ghaddafi Syndrome

It happens when a head of state realizes that his throne is shaky, and so he claims to represent religious rigor and "the only" leader who is willing to stand up to the west, thereby giving him the role of "Moral Leader of the Arab world."

I think there is a strong longing in the Arab mind for the Qalifah, and in some ways even for the cultural hegenomy of the Ottomans. A return to a sort of monolithic Arab Superstate that in the old days was called an Empire in the west.

A tinpot dictator can lay claim to that lineage, and garner support from the "religious right" in his state that would otherwise drive him from power. Ghaddafi was often referred to as "the watermelon" by non-Lybians. Green (Muslim) on the outside, covering a red (athiestic communist) core.

Saddam was similar; the only serious assassination attempt was carried out by sunni extremists while he was praying at a mosque. Their hatred stemmed from what they claimed was his secret apostacy, and not from his mismanagement of world affairs.

Now, we can use an adjective, Ghaddafi-esque (from Kafka-esque) to describe actions which, while they make a leader more secure from internal rebellion for being an apostate, cause an inevitable racheting-up of world tensions.

Here are some states that have been Ghaddafiesque:

Saddamian Iraq - claiming vast WMD to make your people think you're quite the international player, when in fact most of your scuds are made from those cardboard tubes that gift wrapping paper comes on, while your bunkers are covered with old tires, so that invading Americans will freak out and think the smoke contains chemweapons. False cell-phone "operas" describing the movement of atomic weapon-material in the desert may impress your own soldiers, but not the French and American Intelligence communities.

Libya - when attacks on passanger airplanes bring the bombs raining down in your presidential suburb, you can switch to an anti-Islmic witchhunt: See, we failed because of insidious western influence within our culture: Tubas! Trombones! Accordians! Neferious instruments of the infidel West!

South Yemen - So what if your people live in the Middle Ages? Attacking Saudi Arabia for its oil reserves will be the first move toward setting up the Qalifa---and getting you some oil to play with. If your army of shepherds is wiped out by Saudi aircraft, well, it just shows that Sa'ud is the arm of the American Devil!

Talibani Afghanistan - the only Muslim state "brave" enough to support Al Qaeda on 9-12, and "brave" enough to believe OBL's statements that the Afghani hill country will deter Americans from invading.

I expect Hamas' rule of the Palestinian territories to last about 2 years, and to be Ghaddafiesque in the extreme.



posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 02:22 PM
link   
I'd love to hear about these "threats" Iran is said to be making.

Would these be like the kind of "threats" where certain other countries are openly talking about attacking Iran?

......and by the way, the discussion to refer Iran to the UN SC has not yet happened; they are supposedly having that on Thursday 02/02/06.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join