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.

 

Six World powers agree to Diplomacy in IRAN

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 04:15 PM
link   
China, Russia, the UK, France, Germany, and...The U.S have agreed to a package of incentives for Iran including allowing them to continue with a CIVILIAN nuclear program.
 



www.cnn.com
VIENNA, Austria -- Six world powers meeting to discuss the crisis over Iran's nuclear program agreed Thursday on a "significant" package of incentives to convince Tehran to halt uranium enrichment, British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett said.

"I am pleased to say we have agreed a set of far reaching proposals," she said. "We believe they offer Iran the chance to reach a negotiated agreement based on cooperation."

"If Iran agrees not to engage in negotiations, further steps will have to be taken," Beckett said after a meeting between the foreign ministers from France, Britain, Germany, the United States, Russia and China. She said that U.N. Security Council action against Iran would be halted if Tehran agrees to stop uranium enrichment.




Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


This is wonderful...I just saw this on CNN and had to let you all know. I really hope that Iran takes this package. Its a good deal...and it really might help our international credibility.

Hopefully, GW will go along with it along with the rest of PNAC. They havent released any real information about the new package, stating that "We will go with this package to the Iranian people". I trully think that this is our best chance for a peaceful resolution in the Iran...and the thing is The Iranian President is not nessecarily a bad guy...hes just passionate about his country and he wants to make Iran the best it can be. I think by brokering a peace with Iran we will be better able to help guide and advise the new leader. Much better less death more peace.




posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 10:21 PM
link   
It depends what's the package. If it's crap with the stop enrichissment thing, they won't accept and they are right. If they treat them as a real country like never before, they'll accept for sure. If they do not accept, Russia and China will likely veto any decision to strike Iran.

[edit on 1-6-2006 by Vitchilo]



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Posted by Vitchilo It depends what's the package. If it's crap with the stop enrichissment thing, they won't accept and they are right.


You know that is going to be part of the package. When will we ever learn? We could have a thousand and one inspectors at each of the facilities that they would use for electricity, and the United States would still give them the nasty face of distrust. They are members of the non-proliferation treaty, which funny enough, our ally, Isreal, is not. I am not anti-semetic at all, though I think there is something wrong with that picture of my country going after someone that is part of the treaty, while ignoring someone who isn't. Unless, they are allies because they both know what they're doing with threatening others with nuclear weapons is wrong, so they stick together. It's just such an unnecessary mess.



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 10:31 PM
link   
I'm just wondering if Iran is going to shoehorn the nuclear disarmament of Israel into the deal?
Ahdinajad (I know spelt wrong, I think?) from what I know will not want to eliminate the option to gain, what others have, the security blanket of nuclear weapons.

In other words, he is not going to give a deal without a counter deal, fair is fair.

What will it be?



posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 12:39 AM
link   
In purely practical terms, the Iranians do have the upper hand. They can jerk the West around as much as they like. There's enough public source material to suggest that Tehran already has enough bomb-grade stuff to do an underground test. The media is not making enough of the fact that the Iranians have already crossed the threashold.

They've pulled their money from Western banks, and as we speak they are bulking up on supplies. I speculate, but they may jam it to the U.S. later this summer. That means a refusal of any deal and as much public embarassment as they can generate. Don't be surprised in Iran decides to suspend oil shipments...just because they can.

The Western powers snoozed for too long, and now there's only one way for this party to end. Even ifthe Iranians do NOT pull the trigger on Irsrael as promised, they will still be a member of the nuclear club. Unless the Western powers pool their intelligence efforts to de-stabilize Iran in to regime change, they'll be forced to do it the hard way.

This isn't something I want to see. If it happens, it will mean a lot of pain for a long time for all parties involved. The economic consequences alone could be disasterous for decades.



posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 05:10 AM
link   
This is all a smoke screen for the real reason. You will, over the next few weeks, see ever increasing warnings about the nuclear threat by Iran. Of course actual hard evidence will be totally absent. The US will make statements to con the world into thinking it's trying to find a diplomatic solution. It will then build up case something like : we (the US) have evidence that Iran has or will have a bomb in 5-10 years, Iran is not cooperating with the UN, we (the US) are breaking off the diplomatic relations we had started (as the really good guys) because of Iranian intransigence, insurgency into Iraq resulting in US soldiers deaths is based in Iran........booom. Hey they might even go as far as having a fairly high US official visit Iraq but leak the details to the insurgents!

The reality : the Iranian oil bourse. This was going to start in March but due to internal Iranian politics it has been delayed (notice that it was two months ago when the US was shouting as loud as it is now about nuclear Iran). The bourse will start this year and the US administration is panicking. The whole world attempts to balance its books (import/export) over a number of years but the US does not need to since it exports dollars which the world needs to buy oil. Remove the need to purchase dollars and the US economy collapses. the US has to invade Iran within a few months of an oil bourse being started so the con starts now.

The damage to the US by having a war in Iran is nothing compared to the damage caused by the world trading its oil in an alternate currency. Bush can't be elected again so he can use that situation to be the fall guy over a war.



posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 10:09 AM
link   
All this talk about diplomacy is nothing more than high priced PR to modify world opinion so it is pre-disposed to support the position of the West. Further, the endless meetings and conferences seem designed to give the Russians and Chinese time to try to persuade Iran to comply with Western demands. Of course the Iranians have already told the world to stuff it--repeatedly and with no uncertain terms either. I fully expect some form of sanctions to be placed on Iran sometimes within the year and after that, who knows.



posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 11:03 AM
link   

I fully expect some form of sanctions to be placed on Iran sometimes within the year and after that, who knows.


The Iraq Sanctions established precedant.

If there is no time limit sanctions stay in effect as long as a veto weilding member wants.

You will not see sanctions because China and Russia will not allow it to happen like that again, and America will not go for a time limit.



posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 12:42 PM
link   


Iran 'rejects Western pressure'
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said Tehran will not abandon its right to nuclear technology under Western pressure, local media say.

His statement comes a day after six world powers agreed proposals in Vienna to persuade Iran to halt its research.


news.bbc.co.uk...

ok. so now what? how do you stop a rampaging bull when shooting at it is just gonna make things worse?..

[edit on 2-6-2006 by karby]

[edit on 2-6-2006 by karby]



posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 04:01 PM
link   
There is no good solution to this problem. If you're looking for a solution that does not invole war, I might suggest the following.

1. Containment and deterrence. If the Western powers make it clear that Iran will cease to exist if they use nukes on anybody at all, they might over time develop a coalition borad enough to make that threat real.

2. Long-term embargo and sanction. Give them the Cuba treatment. Iran may have nukes, but they would be less likely to use them if there were starving and left behind as the rest of the world progressed and prospered.

3. Espionage and destabilization. Ifthe Wstern powers put a few hundred billion dollars in to the mix, they could...over decades...destabilize Iran to the point of total paralysis. Back in its last decade of existence, the old Soviet Union could barely function due to it's own self-inflicted stagnation. If this were done deliberately to Iran, it might (maybe) have the same effect.

My opinion? If you managed a blend of all three, and you had the nerve to stick wit hit...you might put off the inevitable show down by 50 years. The fact is, this is an East vs. West epochal conflict, and it only ends when Iran is vanquished or victorious.



posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 07:21 PM
link   
Well I dont like the way this is going

And I also agree with what Justin said. It does not paint a pretty picture but that is kina how it seems to me.

This reminds me of what happened with N. Korea 30 some years ago or so. Preperations were made to stop the Nuke program. The Man in office did not have the spine to do what would have had to be done. And now hear we are and hear they are. You each can come to your own conclusion if it is better or worse then what could have been. But it is just something to consider with what is hapening now.



posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 07:55 PM
link   
Although I spend most of my time writing about domestic politics, the Iranian problem does catch my interest. America has suffered from a profound lack of foriegn policy leadership for quite some time. I do not mean to offend, but as a qualifed historian, I suggest that the U.S. is not very good at starting fights...but...we are very good at finishing them.

In order for us to play to our strengths, we'll have to let this thing boil over before we can do what we do best.

That's probably going to mean allowing or encouraging the Iranians to become increasingly agressive in their region. Like Germany before them, they will only be taken seriously by the world community when their armies march. Then, the coalition to take them down will form.

The current desire to negotiate with Iran is really just a play for time. Nobody wants this to happen on their watch. If the Iranians decide to believe their own press, they'll see this as a sign of much more weakness than it really is. As his troops crossed the Polish frontier in 1939, Hitler really did think that he'd get away with it. He failed to understand that he'd finally convinced the Western powers that he really was serious about that whole take over the world thing.

If the Iranian leadership gets smart, and they back off just enough...they'll be able to have their cake and eat it, too. If they lull the West in to thinking that they're full of hot, they'll be able to have their nuclear program and get away wit hit. If they moblize just a little too much, or follow through on their promise to pave Israel, they will seal their own fate.



posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 08:04 PM
link   
Justin,
That is a very interesting idea. I had not thought to compare Iranian poltics now to Hitler's Germany. And once again, I do think you are probably right.
Again its not a nice looking pictuer.

You think the US might bring back the balistic missle sub program as a way to counter this?



posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 09:36 PM
link   
Justin Oldham, recent history suggests that despite their miltary prowess, the US and its allies are better at starting fights, not finishing them. They can bomb cities to dust but they cannot control entire populations.

The US will eventually gain the diplomatic upper hand and use the UN, either to impose sanctions on Iran and issue resolutions threatening 'serious consequences', or argue once again that the UN has past it's use by date. In fact it will probably seek to do both. But the US of today will be more inclined to pre-empt Iranian aggression with massive air strikes, not wait for a possible attack on Israel, even after a change of US administration. Iran may be full of rhetoric about destroying Israel, but it knows it will be blown off the map if it tries. Rhetoric pleases ones own, more than it threatens the enemy.

What's fascinating is the part China will play. The US and China have a huge trade relationship. The US buys Chinese exports, the Chinese in return invest hundreds of billions in the US, though the Chinese recently announced they are reducing the amount they pour into the US each year. It also has considerable oil interests in Iran. With its oil demand growing, it does not want Iran turned into a war zone, especially as the Iranians have a much bigger army than Iraq. Yet the US is concerned about the competition for oil coming from China and India and is as fundamentalist as any Arab nation, so it sees a pressing religio-economic imperative for regime change in Iran.

The US has to finish the job in Iraq, which it can't, appease the Chinese, who can pull the greenback from under it's feet, and find the money to fund a possible war against Iran when it's debt levels are at record highs and the majority of Americans, whose flag waving fervour has drowned in the blood of their loved ones, are fed up with mass suffering for their freedom.

The scenario reminds me of The Boy Who Cried Wolf. Western populations were fearmongered into fear of Iraqi WMD and turned away when it didn't appear. Now if Iran gets a weapon, even for self defence, and the West cries 'Wolf, Wolf' and everybody says, ah get outta here, heard it all before!.......BOOM!

History says the present is madness. Down with oil and long live public transport.



[edit on 3-6-2006 by Soulstice]

[edit on 3-6-2006 by Soulstice]

[edit on 3-6-2006 by Soulstice]



posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 11:33 PM
link   
I suppose I should make one small point to claify my thinking. When the United States starts a fight, it has a hard time devloping an exit strategy. Historically, wne we enter a fight on one side or another, we are quite good at winning the day and assisting with the wrap up.

In the end, we will defeat the Iraqi insurgents if we have the political will to wear them down. China is...as you point out...most likely going to be appeased until there is no room left to diplomatically maneuver.



posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 11:53 PM
link   
Idiots.
Didn't we try the exact same thing with N Korea?
All it did was buy them enough time to finish building a bomb.
Anyone who thinks the iranians really want a civillian Nuclear program is drinking way to much Kool Aid.
We should bomb them from the air, sieze thier oil fields, and place them under sanctions untill the people throw the Mullahs out on thier ass.
Because if Iran does ever get nukes, its WW3



posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 11:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by niteboy82

Posted by Vitchilo It depends what's the package. If it's crap with the stop enrichissment thing, they won't accept and they are right.


You know that is going to be part of the package. When will we ever learn? We could have a thousand and one inspectors at each of the facilities that they would use for electricity, and the United States would still give them the nasty face of distrust. They are members of the non-proliferation treaty, which funny enough, our ally, Isreal, is not. I am not anti-semetic at all, though I think there is something wrong with that picture of my country going after someone that is part of the treaty, while ignoring someone who isn't. Unless, they are allies because they both know what they're doing with threatening others with nuclear weapons is wrong, so they stick together. It's just such an unnecessary mess.



Or it could just be that as signatories, the Iranians are bound by the treaty,and isreal isn't.
How do you enforce a contact on someone who never signed it?



posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 12:01 AM
link   
I think the idea is that the signatories are supposed to feel like they have the moral high ground. The treaty itelf and the implied consequences are supposed to sign enough intent to be s-s-scary.



posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 12:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Elsenorpompom
I trully think that this is our best chance for a peaceful resolution in the Iran...and the thing is The Iranian President is not nessecarily a bad guy


Not a bad guy?
His ambition according to his own words is to "wipe isreal off the map" In what way does wanting to murder or forcefully relocate 20 odd million people or so not make someone a "bad guy"?



posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 12:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShazamsChampion

Originally posted by Elsenorpompom
I trully think that this is our best chance for a peaceful resolution in the Iran...and the thing is The Iranian President is not nessecarily a bad guy


Not a bad guy?
His ambition according to his own words is to "wipe isreal off the map" In what way does wanting to murder or forcefully relocate 20 odd million people or so not make someone a "bad guy"?


Please, use your facts properly. According to this site Israels population is 6.2 million. Not that that makes it any better but this is the News Network, let's go with real facts here.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join