It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Iran Defies U.N. Deadline

page: 1

log in


posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 05:28 PM
August 31st marks the official deadline given by the United Nations security council for Iran to halt its uranium enrichment program and cease its development of nuclear weapons. In a previously issued 23-page statement, the Tehran regime firmly asserted its right to continue developing its nuclear program. As this deadline passes without Iranian compliance, it is clear to Western observers and U.N. officials that the Iranians mean to press on in spite of the threat of future economic sanctions.
TEHRAN, Iran (AP) -- Iran defied a U.N. deadline Thursday to stop enriching uranium, opening the door for sanctions, but U.S. and other officials said no action would be sought before a key European diplomat meets with Tehran's atomic chief next week to seek a compromise.

Iran's hard-line president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, lashed out at the United States, calling it "tyrannical" and insisting Tehran would not be "bullied" into giving up the right to use nuclear technology. Other Iranian officials said the country could withstand any punishment.

President Bush called for "consequences to Iran's defiance," saying the "world now faces a grave threat from the radical regime in Iran."

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

The Iranians have snubbed the U.N. once more by ignoring the August 31st deadline to halt their uranium enrichment program. This should leave no doubt in anyone's mind that they intend to press on with their nuclear research efforts. The recent opening of a heavy-water reactor in their country makes it clear that they don't fear the impact of U.N.-mandated economic sanctions.

The implications are quite severe. If the permanent members of the U.N. security council can't draft and implement a meaningful program of trade restrictions to force Iranian compliance, it will appear once more that the U.N. itself is weak and irrelevant to the Middle Eastern peace process.

If the U.N. can't put enough sanctions in place to intimidate the Iranians, we should expect to see support for the Lebanese peacekeeping mission dry up. Long-term, this could mean that the U.N. will lose much of its diplomatic clout. If that happens, we should expect the Iranians to become even bolder as they pursue their quest for nuclear power, and the threat of city-busting WMD's.

Related News Links:

Related Discussion Threads:
Iran Continues Defiant Posturing

[edit on 31/8/2006 by Mirthful Me]

posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 01:19 AM
As i watch these events play out, I am reminded of what happened in September of 1938 when British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain went to that fateful conference in Munich.

The attitude of today's Iranian leadership doesn't seem that much different than the stance taken by Adolf Hitler at Munich. At that time, the Nazi leaderhip knew that they were sitting down to confab with a weak coalition. I can't help thinking that Ahmadinejad feels the same way right about now.

As you may know, former Inranian leader Khatami is here in the United States starting Tuesday to begin a charm offensive that bears a striking resemblance to the visit made by Lenny Reifenstahl in 1936, when that famous filmaker toured the country. Along the way, she held screenings of that now infamous film, "Triumph of the Will." Khatami is here to placate our political elites. He wants our politicians to feel at ease. He is slated to meet with former U.S. President Jummy Carter, and he made get his wish.

[edit on 1-9-2006 by Justin Oldham]

posted on Sep, 2 2006 @ 04:28 PM
Good points concerning the u.n.'s credibility.We will see just how usefull this obsolete body handles this one.Why does iran need a heavy water reactor when that type is far better suited 4 nuclear weapons?Why do the iranians continue 2 block u.n.inspectors from their"PEACEFUL"Nuclear program?If the u.n.cant or wont address this situation then ip doesnt deserve respect or

posted on Sep, 3 2006 @ 03:38 AM
As a 1938-ist, I'm enclined to bet against the U.N. at this point. We've already seen Kofi Annen tour the Middle East to trade away U.N. options and rules of engagement in exchange for vague promises that sound good on camera but don't mean anything on paper.

Word on the street is that the Iranian "observers" in North Korea are watching and waiting for that bomb test with considerable interest. Remember that a test like this is mostly all about the trigger. If the Iranian-designed trigger works, you'll see celebrations in TEhran. Expect the first Iranian inter-mediate ranged missile to be armed with a nuke by Christmas of 2008.

posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 10:35 PM
So, here we are and the deadline for Iranian compliance to U.N. Resolutions has...passed...again. The French have asserted theri right be be forcefully benevolent non-participatory obligatnion-less co-administrative peacekeepers without a mandate. The Italians have stoically dusted off their aircraft carrier to come along for the ride, wich they assume will be Fantastico.

The German, having some experience in these matters, remain pensive yet politley conversational on the subject of a beligerant Iran. While they do not oppose sanctions, they will reserve the right to not support them at this time. The sale of two new Dolphin-class submarines to Isreal are viewed by many Germans as proof that somebody somehwere is doing something that may be looked upon as a good thing by somebody somewhere else.

If that's not enough, the former President Of Iran, Mohammad Khatami is traving in the U.S. under what looks suspiciously like a press black-out. With a North Korean bomb test due to take place in the next six months, one cannot help but wonder what the great minds in Washington D.C. are doing right rabout now, other than having champaign and crackers with Mr. Khatami.

posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 11:49 PM
like i said in the other threads, iran will not be leanned on by the us. the middle east is useing oil to bribe and take in nations on there side to take us down by starving us of oil from other countries. no oil, no transportation, no supplies transferred we starve we have a revolution and they laugh. i think our govt and politicians should stop selling us out. this is messed up. we will go to iran in the comming year, you can bet your bottom oil dollar on that one. all the politicians in the world no matter who they blame are not going to stop it. the middle east has control over alot of our oil, if they unite other nations that supply us we will go to iran. this new oil rig station a big find isnt a drop in the bucket, compared to what we use. oh yes after the fiasco is over your oil prices will skyrocket while our troops go to iran. i may not have to much faith in our system, but i have enough faith that we will win. unfortunately i see another vietnam, but worse.

posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 06:00 AM
I've gotten a few u2's asking for predicitons on this matter, so I think I'll take this opportunity to whip one out.

It's true that there are any number of paralells between Iraq and Vietnam, but that's mostly due to the fact that failed wars have certain things in common. Poor strategy, insufficient troops or supplies. The possibilities are endless.

On a grander scale, the international situation resembles the doomed diplomatic dance that took place in the 1930's be-cause...We're seeing another doomed diplomatic dance. The moves made by the Iranians look so much like what Nazi Germany did because that's what works. You'd hardly expect the Iranians to adopt a strategy that they knew was flawed.

This bring us to the first major bone of contention that we're likely to face if this discussion moves any further. Does the Bush administration now that it's pursuing a flawed policy? The answer is most likely, "yes." It's a matter of historical record that Chamberlain knew what he was doing when he bargained away Czechoslovakia in 1938. It was a bad decision, but it got him what he wanted. With out hindsight, we know that he was very short-sighted.

To that end, I submit for your consideration that the Bush administration does know that it is pursuing a flawed policy. In the short run, it looks like they'll get what they want...if...they...stay the course. It's no accident that we keep hearing this phrase over and over again. That really is their best rationel, and that's how they see it. Like Chamberlain before him, Bush 43 hopes that his gamble will pay off. As laymen, when we look at this, we see it differently because we have no dog in the fight. We're not trying to pay off political favors or line our pockets. For us, it's a simple judgement based on what we see, filtered through our value systems.

Over the next few months, you're going to see the domestic political situation here inthe United States undergo some harsh re-alignments. The Bush administration has nothing to bargain with, and no room to maneuver. they've got no choice but to play the hand they've been dealt. The Iranians know this, and they're willing to be patient. Ahmadeenijad is playing for time. As an experienced politician with an expansionist mindset, he knows that it is best to avoid a fight over what will eventually be given to you. Hitler knew that he didn't need to fight for Czechoslovakia. Uncharacteristically for him, he was willing to wait 'til it was given to him.

The Iranians don't need to fight for control of Iraq. They'll have it given to them. The next U.S. President, whoever that may be, will see withdrawl from Iraq as a shot at greatness. The chance to snarf up huge amounts of political capitol which they can use at home to ensure a second term. Once we're gone, the Shia majority inside Iraq will be buoyed up by massive infusions of resources and captiol, courtesy of their benevolent brothers in Iran.

Don't look for Iraq to become a satellite, or even a puppoet of Iran. As the Suni insurgents are hunted down or driven out, the Iraqi government will slowly begin to resemble the regime in Tehran. This'll take time, so you'll be able to see it coming. The end result that Iran and Iraq will both stand against us at some future point.

As the Shia power bloc grows, you should look for a new boldness on the part of the Syrians. That...that's a story in it's own right, so I'll save that for another post.

posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 07:01 AM
Justin Oldham, great thread but I disagree with a few aspects of your analysis with regards to Iran and her intentions.

I fail to see how you could term President Ahmadinejad as "expansionist", and then compare the Iranian stance over it's right to nuclear technology to Hitler's intention to invade Europe. The only point of symmetry in that comparison that I can see is that Iran's goals run contrary to those of the United States/UK.

Let's refresh our memory as to to what this diplomatic showdown is in regard of. The United States, via the UN Security Council, is trying to prevent Iran from enriching Uranium. There is no provision in the Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty that states signatories cannot enrich uranium, infact the complete opposite is true.

The United States, with limited support of some European allies, accuses Iran of pursuing a nuclear weapons program. The sum of "evidence " cited for this accusation is conjecture and speculation. To this date there has not been a scrap of evidence provided by any of the accusers that points to an Iranian nuclear weapons program.

To this end, the UNSC resolution only called for a suspension of Iran's uranium enrichment. The UNSC (read Russia and China) have not agreed to stop Iran from enriching uranium, just that they agree they should suspend enrichment pending final status negotiations. This accurately reflects the spurious nature of the accusations of an Iranian nuclear weapons program. There are no calls for halting, just suspension. Nothing final, just temporary.

Yet, this call for a suspension is being sold by the media and the relevant governments as being a vindication of their baseless accusations that Iran, indeed, is pursuing nuclear weapons. Much the same way that the agreement Iran accepted earlier last year that asked Iran to voluntarily and temporarily suspend enrichment activities. When Iran resumed it's enrichment, after talks failed, it was painted by the media as Iran was breaking it's agreement. Of course that conclusion is completely without merit and untrue, but it was again used to paint Iran as somehow being guilty of wrong doing.

Let's call a spade a spade here, Iran has not done anything wrong here. All it's actions including enriching uranium are all allowed under the NPT. Up until a fortnight ago the Iranians had provided unfettered access to the IAEA for it's nuclear facilities. The unprecedented Iranian refusal to allow inspections of one of its nuclear sites was in response to the IAEA's overstepping of it's mandate i.e. acquiescing to US demands with no basis in the NPT. As well as the threats of sanctions which would be imposed in regards to no breach of international law.

It should also be noted that the IAEA has also not once accused Iran of following a nuclear weapons program. Up until a fortnight ago it has been given access to every Iranian nuclear facility it has asked for. Iran has played by the rules, it's the US via the UNSC who is not playing by the clear rules outlined in the NPT.

So how does that equate to the actions of Hitler in 1938? Chamberlain wasnt appeasing Hitler's legally allowed actions. These two historic situations are not congruous in my opinion.

posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 06:45 PM
Hello subz, nice to run in to you again. Your observations and your comments aren't out of line, and they're certainly not unusual. I'd like to direct you to another thread which relates to the historical basis for your question.

Is History Repeating Itself?

That thread was started by Speroth, and has several contributors. I wanted to bring that to your attention because it may be comprehensive enough to answer some of your follow-on questions.

The comparisions to Iran in its current rise to power and Nazi Germany are not absolutely precise. No historian can say that and make it stick. The similarities in behavior are significant, and they do merit discussion. The fact of the matter is that we are witnessing the rise of a regional power that will in fact challenge U.S. and Western interests in the very near future.

For the sake of this discussion, I'd like to construct the argument from recent happenings. At the very core of most Western worries is the Iranian nuclear program. that effort has been active for the last 25 years. While the official government's official position has been that it wants enriched uranium for civilian purposes only, the subsidiary facts of the matter seem to contradict that very public assertion.

The mainstream perception over the last four years has been of Iran to date is of a country that is actively seeking to become a nuclear power in both civilian and military aspects. In today's world, this is virtually considered a sinister motive by itself.

[Ajazeera]"On August 14, 2002, an associate of Mujahedin-e-Khalq and critic of Tehran, Alireza Jafarzadeh, revealed the existence of two secret nuclear sites, a uranium enrichment facility in Natanz and a heavy water facility in Arak. In response, the U.S. has since late 2003 claimed that Tehran is seeking to build nuclear arms in violation of its agreements under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and also that Iran is seeking to develop nuclear missiles. However, no direct evidence has ever been produced that Iran is pursuing a covert nuclear weapons program."

It's understandable that Iran would want to become a major player in its region. the nature of its politics and its long-range goals are worrisom to the West because of the religiously motivate goals they espouse. The fact that they have publicly stated so many time that they are going to activley oppose U.S. and Western interests enhances the perceived agression in their stance.

By 1936, Nazi Germany was generally regarded as an agressive regime with expansionist desire that went beyond their borders. In their case, that analogy was literal. As it stands right now, Iran has not yet expressed an interest in running up their flag in other countries...except for...whatever military efforts might be necessary to destroy the Great Satan. The official position of the Iranian government to export Islam is tantamount to the desire for military expansion in today's world.

Nazi Germany espoised pro-Arian anti-Jewish doctrines that resulted in some very bloody policies. Many of these ere put in to effect before the formal shooting war got stated. The social crack-down inside Iran bears some resemblance to the pograms instituted by the Germans in the period 1933-1939.


As an academic matter, you can easily make the case that any country that so desires can enrish uranium. It is their right under the terms of international law. the tickler in this case is the threat of future applications. We are, after all, talkingabout a national leadership that has espoused Jewish genocide and the need for the destruction of more than just one soveriegn country. No matter what you believe, and no matter who you are, that's pretty militant stuff.

Another simple fact of life is that Civilian nuclear power is only a few add-ons away from military nuclear capability. Just as the Nazis stated their goals for militarism and ethnic cleansing, today's radical regime in Tehram is preaching militarism for the sake of religious goals, and some of that ethnic cleaning "stuff." It wouldn't mater which nation they wanted to rid the wold of, the fact of the matter is the Nazis before they...they are advocating force of arms to achieve goals which they believe will bring them ascendancy in the world community.

The bottom line here is "intention." To that extent, and for that reason, today's Iran acts in some ways like Nazi Germany. Any nation that harbored those kinds of intentions would act like Nazi Germany. You will find other posters on this web site who make the claim that America is the 21st century equivelant of Nazy Germany because of its perceived intents. times may change, but the nuts and bolts of agression remain the same.


If the Iranians had no official policy in place that stated goals which were hostile to Western interests, we would not be having this conversation. When Hitler ranted about Liebensraum and the restoration of Greater Germany, he wasn't believed until after it was too late to take precautions. With that lesson so painfully learned, we need to take seriously the threats of any nation whatsoever that declares its intention to purge the world of people or countries which offend them.

posted on Sep, 9 2006 @ 06:14 AM
Thanks Justin. I understand the comparison when viewed through the prism of the Western propaganda deluge. But to be frank, I dont believe a word of it.

I've illustrated why I dont believe Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons. No proof or evidence has been given to show they are. As your quoted al-Jazeera article states.

Also I've been very active in showing how false the "wipe off the map" propaganda has been. The fact of the matter here is that President Ahmadinejad was quoting the late Ayatollah Khomeini, who was talking about the need to remove the Zionist regime from Quds (Jerusalem). The accurate translation for that infamous Ahmadinejad speech was given by Professor Juan Cole:

Informed Comment

"the regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time"

You might have noticed that not a single newspaper article includes the word "Israel" when quoting the erroneous "wiped off the map" quote. That strikes at the very propaganda goal of the deliberate misquotation. It's to conflate Iran's desire to remove the Zionist regime with another jewish genocide. It's completely fabricated by the Zionist spin masters, and it's worked.

You might also remember the whole Iranian jew badge fiasco that surfaced before being shot down as completely untrue a few months back. Perhaps buoyed by the success of their "wiped off the map" effort, the same Zionist propagandists sought to conflate the Iranian regime with Nazi Germany by saying the Iranian parliament sought to make religious minorities within Iran wear identifying badges.

The story swept across the corporate media and blogosphere like wildfire. It was'nt until the story was shown to be a complete fabrication and resulted in a retraction that the story eventually died down. The same is true with the "wiped off the map" misquotation. The BBC even stopped using the quote because it's own translating team showed it's inaccuracy.

The inaccurate motive meme strikes at the very Nazi comparison. If you believe all the biased reports coming from the corporate media, of course you are going to see similarities between Iran and Nazi Germany. That's the whole point of the propaganda campaign.

With regards to Iran being active in combating Western interests, you must know what "Western interests" actually are. Western interests, especially American interests, are not a 50/50 split between indigineous interests and Western interets. It is a case of Western economic interets being paramount and local government, economy, environment, security, welfare coming a very, very distant second.

To that end, a 50/50 split between interests is not viewed as fair in the eyes of Western governments. That is seen as being against Western interests. So if Iran tried to emulate Western methods of preserving it's own interests at the expense of those of the West, we can see just how pissed off that makes the West. It's completely unacceptable to the West to have to share resources, let alone have it dictated to by the local inhabitants.

This is the prism I view the Iranian "threat" through. They are not blood thirsty expansionists hellbent on nuclear armageddon and slaughter of jews. The are nationalists who are maintaining their displeasure with the creation of Israel on muslim land. If the roles were reversed and Western land was used to create a muslim country we would be just as indignant as the Iranians and the other muslim countries who have the exact same stance on Israel.

posted on Sep, 9 2006 @ 03:09 PM
In certain respects, I hope you are right. The implications of a nuclear-capable Iran are significant. The current regime that leads that country gives a strong and definite impression that it would use such weapons to further its goals against Israel.


Any national leadership that would make such claims should be viewed as a potential threat. The call to expunge any nation should be taken seriously. In the case of Western worries, we have to contend with the fact that many are founded on what little we know about what is clearly a directred effort to do much more than create a safe and stable power ganeration program based on nuclear technologies.


I understand that you and I will hust have to agree to disagree, but the next two years should tell the tale. Cooperation between North Korea and Iran will result in an operational atomic ICBM just reliable enough to be taken seriously be Western leaders.

As a practical matter, we already know that Western diplomats and politicians have dropped the ball. The very idea of pre-emptive strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities is just not feasible. It sounds good to the folks at home, but it's just not workable to any degree of success. For all intents and purposes, we must now move forward as if Iran does have offensive nuclear capability.


It's quite clear that we are facing a long-standing clash. The West vs. Middle East conflicth as been boiling for quite some time. None of this is actually as simple as we make it here. We may all know how this story ends soon enogh.

posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 06:34 PM
I'll assume that I've made my point.

Now that we've gotten past the fifth anniversary of 9/11, we should continue to be grateful as we remember a few things. The Iranian nuclear program moves forward as you read these words. North Korea is still busy prepping it's first underground atomic bomb test, as official observers from Iran wait and watch.

In spite of the kind words delibered by tye recently visiting ex-President of Iran, we should be left with no illusions. Trouble is going to find us, even if we give in to every terrosit demand. No amount of pulling back will prevent what's coming. The current scandal over ABC's "Path to 9/11" may leave you quibbling over the portrayals of certain people, but you can't deny one thing that makes all the rest of those bickerings irrelevant.

The policy of today's Iranian regime is such that they will come for us now, or later. If the kids from Al Qaeda don't beat 'em to it first.

posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 01:36 AM
One lst thing before I drop this one from my subscription list. As I write this, we're about to see a big brew up at the U.N. as world leaders meet to thrash out what to do with Iran. President Bush will be there with his crew to make his case, the we'll see the Iranians and their best on the floor of the General Assembly to give us the big raspberry. After you've seen that, come back here and read this thread again. The consider your options.

top topics


log in