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 major countries to discuss Iran this week

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Six major countries to discuss Iran this week


news.xinhuanet.com

Senior officials from the United States, China, Russia, Britain, France and Germany will meet here Friday to discuss the Iran nuclear issue, the State Department announced Tuesday.

The six countries will try to find new way to persuade Iran to halt its sensitive nuclear work, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 07:31 PM
link   
I hope at least Russia, China, Europe and the US can reach an agreement on how to handle Iran and not just devolve into the usual acrimonious arguments.

It probably has to do with recent evidence that was in the IAEA report about Iran presented earlier this week. This article was published today as well:

IAEA shows photos alleging Iran nuclear missile work


The U.N. nuclear watchdog showed documents and photographs on Tuesday suggesting Iran secretly tried to modify a missile cone to fit a nuclear bomb, diplomats said, and Tehran again dismissed the findings as forged.


news.xinhuanet.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 07:36 PM
link   
Russia ? Are they not actively helping Iran construct there nuclear vacillates ?



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 07:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Max_TO
 


They are certainly helping them create a nuclear power industry, but I'm not sure that even they want Ahmadinejad to be sitting on an arsenal of nuclear weapons. As much as Russia balances the west they don't want a chaotic element not directly under their control thrown into the mix.



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 07:47 PM
link   
Wednesday, September 17, 2008

Letter:

Bush could still attack Iran



Despite the main finding in the latest report from the International Atomic Energy Agency that it "has been able to continue to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran", the western media has focused on the issue of Tehran's lack of transparency over the IAEA investigation into recent intelligence allegations (Report, September 12). These involve missile re-entry vehicle projects and have been rejected by the Iranians, who have not even been permitted to see the documents upon which the allegations are founded.

This week the US Congress is debating two non-binding resolutions which, if passed, will greatly increase the likelihood of military intervention against Iran. They call on the US president to "increase economic, political and diplomatic pressure on Iran to verifiably suspend its nuclear enrichment activities", and demand "stringent inspection requirements" of all goods entering or leaving Iran and an embargo of refined petroleum products to Iran. Although both resolutions exclude authorisation for military action, the embargo will require a naval blockade. Such a blockade could result in skirmishes with the Iranian navy which could rapidly escalate.

The US is massing the largest armada of warships in the Gulf since 2003. Two aircraft carrier task forces are already there and a third was dispatched on August 22. French and British warships and carrier groups are also reportedly on their way. This has increased speculation that George Bush might authorise military attacks against Iran before the end of his term in office in January, or before the November elections to boost to the likelihood of a McCain presidency.

Stefan Simanowitz
Westminster Committee on Iran

(UK Guardian)



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 08:24 PM
link   
I find it odd the main party making threats, arming and prepare to strike Iran arent going to be present at this meeting.

this whole sham, is supposidly over the safety of Israel... yet Israel arent there?

I bet you but, oil execs from UK and the US are activley 'pursuading' the representitives attending this party, of the advatages of Irans oil fields.



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 08:28 PM
link   
The thing is if Bush attacks Iran without the tacit agreement of Russia and China they risk a major incident, especially after recent events with Georgia. If anything is to be done about Iran without chancing a much bigger conflict they need to get UN Security council agreement (essentially Russia and China).

I imagine Israel has been left out because when all is said and done, the US pulls their strings (or the US is their puppet, whichever you prefer).



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 08:52 PM
link   
What happened to the news last week about an attack on Iran within 2 days? Im not sure what this "meeting" is going to do. Iran is going full-speed ahead and no one is going to a thing about it. Period.



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 09:29 PM
link   
Iran: Elite Guards to defend Persian Gulf

Country has warned of retaliation for any attack by Israel, U.S.


TEHRAN, Iran - Iran announced Tuesday that it has put the elite Revolutionary Guards in charge of defending the country's territorial Persian Gulf waters in what appeared to be a hardening of its stance in the vital oil route.

U.S. commanders in the Gulf have in the past said they find Guards ships more confrontational than the regular Iranian navy, which until the new order was responsible for Iranian defenses in the Gulf.


Looks like Iran is getting serious in it's response to a potential naval blockade.



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 09:38 PM
link   
An international organization needs to be created that oversees, runs, and monitors all nuclear power plants worldwide.

It could be called the Nuclear World Order.



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 09:49 PM
link   
Yes, I too wonder why Israel isn't going to be there. Are they just too good to do their own dirty work? That must be it. Why should Israel get their hands dirty, after all, they're the "chosen ones," right?

I also wonder why Iran won't be there. When you're dealing with people, and talking about the rights of people, you generally don't map out a plan for punishing them until the accused has had the opportunity to present its case.

These meetings are akin to a jury imposing a sentence before hearing the trial.



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 09:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by logician magician
An international organization needs to be created that oversees, runs, and monitors all nuclear power plants worldwide.

It could be called the Nuclear World Order.

Isn't that the IAEA and the UN?



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 10:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Reddupo

Originally posted by logician magician
An international organization needs to be created that oversees, runs, and monitors all nuclear power plants worldwide.

It could be called the Nuclear World Order.

Isn't that the IAEA and the UN?


They just inspect nuclear facilities. I'm thinking of one that controls and staffs them full time. In other words, the country would pay the UN for energy. If the country screwed up or tried to go to war, they'd just shut off their energy supply.

That's probably why the U.S is trying to control all of the oil anyway....



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 10:29 PM
link   
Beacuse if these 6 nations are going to try to work out an agreement with/over Iran, how constructive would it be if Israel were involved when Iran doesnt even recognize them? Come on...think for a minute. Israel cannot be involved in any type of agreement or negotiation where Iran is to be involved.


Originally posted by mattifikation
Yes, I too wonder why Israel isn't going to be there. Are they just too good to do their own dirty work? That must be it. Why should Israel get their hands dirty, after all, they're the "chosen ones," right?

I also wonder why Iran won't be there. When you're dealing with people, and talking about the rights of people, you generally don't map out a plan for punishing them until the accused has had the opportunity to present its case.

These meetings are akin to a jury imposing a sentence before hearing the trial.



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 10:33 PM
link   
Ummmm...how you gonna make that happen and enforce it? The IAEA is the best we have....i mean do you want to go to war every time a nation does not want to compromise their sovereignty by letting some organization come in and monitor what they are doing?

Thats why we have the IAEA now because its the best we can get without countries completely shutting the world out and not knowing what they are doing behind closed doors. Even with the IAEA we dont know everyting but we sure know more than if we didnt have them.




Originally posted by logician magician

Originally posted by Reddupo

Originally posted by logician magician
An international organization needs to be created that oversees, runs, and monitors all nuclear power plants worldwide.

It could be called the Nuclear World Order.

Isn't that the IAEA and the UN?


They just inspect nuclear facilities. I'm thinking of one that controls and staffs them full time. In other words, the country would pay the UN for energy. If the country screwed up or tried to go to war, they'd just shut off their energy supply.

That's probably why the U.S is trying to control all of the oil anyway....



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 10:50 PM
link   
The UN and it's agencies and commissions aren't always effective, but they are the closest thing we have to global unity or consensus.

There's an interesting motion in process at the moment to expand the UN security council.

U.N. assembly opens door to enlarged Security Council


UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - The U.N. General Assembly opened the door on Monday to expanding the Security Council by calling for full-scale negotiations on adding new members to the United Nations' most powerful body.

After hours of talks that several diplomats involved in said nearly collapsed, the assembly unanimously passed a resolution approving "inter-governmental negotiations" on expanding the council to begin by February 28, 2009.

Several U.N. diplomats described the breakthrough as "historic", saying it greatly increased the likelihood that the council will become larger and more representative of the world of the 21st century.



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 10:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by mattifikation
Yes, I too wonder why Israel isn't going to be there. Are they just too good to do their own dirty work? That must be it. Why should Israel get their hands dirty, after all, they're the "chosen ones," right?

I also wonder why Iran won't be there. When you're dealing with people, and talking about the rights of people, you generally don't map out a plan for punishing them until the accused has had the opportunity to present its case.

These meetings are akin to a jury imposing a sentence before hearing the trial.


Israel is there...basically represented by the U.S...I have found it astounding that the U.S. has been rejecting Israeli arms deals lately though. I'm surprised...and impressed in that regard. I still don't trust this administration...or a McCain administration near any red buttons or triggers.



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 12:28 AM
link   
Don't be so sure.
Background...
It's because we won't keep our big noise out of their politics that they are angry. The West just wants a government like Yeltsin's that will allow their resources to be sold of chiefly (not the reverse that is currently happening) until this happens Russia will always be "a bad democracy" (unlike places such as China) (it happens to execute more people than the rest of the world combined news.bbc.co.uk... ).
2. Stop provoking them with the cold war idea of an (uncapped) missile shield (which is returning us to the cold war)

Results...
Then we will enter a new cold war, and this war is a war of War by Proxy and which the West can only loose. Here's how it goes...
1. Russia will ensure that whatever safety we get from a shield will be more than lost by their “trade” agreements with other countries like Iran.
2. Simultaneously that whatever economic gain we intend to get from a more "liberalised" Russia will be lost through their destabilization of the world.
3. Russia will look East and South to diversify their economy.

The West will ensure...
1. Trade with Russia is severely restricted
2. Russian criminals seeking refuge may continue to have it.
3. Europe will look East and South to diversify their economy

Reasoning...
Russia has nothing to loose from a nuclear Iran. It would only loose if there was a nuclear war with Iran due to the damage it would do to the world economy, but even then the damage is substantially limited (more so if the West economically isolates it) and nuclear war is itself another (and very hypothetical) scenario.
Russia’s help towards building Iran’s bomb capable reactor is a cheap project (in comparison to Russia’s total GDP). It’s being solely to aggravate the West for aggravating Russian affairs.
Basically expect more bomb-weapons proliferation in the next decades should the West insist on the new cold war to keep its defence industries busy.

But...
Out of basic economic interests Russia would rather peace, and out of the common Muslim threat they would rather co-operation.
But should the West insists on labelling Russia as a rogue democracy, and treating it as a threat, then the Western leadership has itself a self fulfilling prophecy. Something that can be welcomed by those in our leadership since the same people who own shares in media networks like News Corporation also own shares in defence capabilities.
Basically if the world looks like it's getting too peaceful just provoke someone to destabilize it.

[edit on 090705 by Liberal1984]




top topics



 
1

log in

join