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 pulls back from deal on uranium enrichment

page: 1
14
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Iran pulls back from deal on uranium enrichment


www.telegraph.co.uk< br />

Iran's negotiators have toughened their stance on the nuclear programme, signalling that Tehran will refuse to go ahead with an agreement to hand over 75 per cent of its enriched uranium.

The move came as Iranian officials held talks with representatives of America, France and Russia in Vienna. An earlier meeting in Geneva on Oct 1 had yielded an agreement which some saw as a possible breakthrough.

(visit the link for the full news article)



Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
Top Iranian commanders assassinated




posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 01:32 PM
link   
I wonder why the sudden turn around? Does this have anything to do with the fact that their Religious leader is in a coma or possibly dead and some of their old Revolutionary guard leaders were killed recently?



In Vienna, Major nuclear powers are holding talks with Iran on how to supply its reactor with enriched uranium.

It could involve sending Iran's nuclear materials to France and Russia.

The French Foreign Minister said that if one tonne of uranium leaves Iran - concerns that it could make a nuclear bomb would be groundless. [/x]

www.telegraph.co.uk< br /> (visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 19-10-2009 by SLAYER69]



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 01:50 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Of course Iran will pull back on this my friend, they staged a little blowing up of some of there mid-level (non hurting military leaders) blame on the Great Satan and then say to hell with you were going to do what we want.... I expect nothing less from Tehran, and for anyone else who thinks there nuke program is peaceful, "pass dat stuff you be smoking"



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by poedxsoldiervet
 


Iran threatens revenge against Britain over bombing

In an escalation of tensions, the head of the Revolutionary Guard, General Mohammad Ali Jafari, said his security officials had documents linking Britain and America to Jundullah, the militant group which claimed responsibility for the suicide bombing on Sunday.

Seven senior Guard officers were among at least 42 officials, bystanders and tribal leaders to have been killed.

"Behind this scene are the American and British intelligence apparatus, and there will have to be retaliatory measures to punish them,"



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69

I wonder why the sudden turn around? Does this have anything to do with the fact that their Religious leader is in a coma or possibly dead and some of their old Revolutionary guard leaders were killed recently?


Or could it just be that they never had any such intention in the first place


Large bridge for sale in New York, PM me.



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 02:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Retseh
 



Sorry I hav already sold that particular bridge, but if you wish I can donate some beach fron property in Ohio for you.


Edit-for staying o topic purpose, they will do what they want because they know Obama will not do anything to stop them.

[edit on 19-10-2009 by poedxsoldiervet]



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 02:33 PM
link   
edit

It's working now.

[edit on 19-10-2009 by jam321]


My bet is that Iran is stalling for time. They back off on this. Set up another meeting later. Make promises, break promises..and so on.

I'm sure they have seen how successful N Korea tactics have paid off.

In reality it's boiling down to two options. Let them build nukes or hit them hard. Seems like most folks aren't in favor of hitting them hard.

[edit on 19-10-2009 by jam321]



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by jam321
Slayer, can't get the link to work for the article.

Wants me to log in or register.

Any alternate source.


Anbody else having this issue?
It works fine for me.
Hmmmm?



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 02:37 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


The deal was never made, it was a false promise made by an iranian diplomat who had no authority to make that deal. The nuclear chief in Iran said this deal will never happen right after the west proclaimed a new deal had been made. Iran doesn't send real diplomats, they send puppets like Ahmadi to negotiate with the west. They will find any excuse to cancel any partially signed deal, such as blaming recent bombings by Sunni's on western powers. The regime can now blame it on western powers rather than their lack of willingness to cooperate!

Only really gullible people expected this deal to happen, and yes western media are gullible sods indeed, and they never learn!

The Russian's also stated 2 weeks ago that the deal still has to be finalised, and lo-behold it still hasn't!

[edit on 19-10-2009 by john124]



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


This does really make me wonder about the timing of the Revolutionary Guard Bombing.

Possible scenarios:

1. Iran orchestrated the attack as an excuse to pull out of disarmament talks.

2. The CIA/MI6 funded Jundallah without broader government consent to cause Iran to pull out of talks because it's more advantageous to stoke conflict in the region instead of allowing some progress of diplomacy to occur, and the Pentagon and its contractors need to be able to test their shiny toys.

3. The West funded Jundallah because they really do want Iran to go nuclear and eventually draw the whole region into war, and afterwards pick up the pieces and have a convenient stranglehold on oil supplies.

Anyway, more to the subject.

Doesn't Iran fund Hamas and Hezbollah? So, it's fair for them to fund foreign insurgents in order to undermine a government but it's foul when someone does it to them.

Guess they don't like the taste of their own medicine!


ETA:

Link is working fine for me. Might want to put up an alternative source, just in case.

[edit on 19-10-2009 by Avenginggecko]



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 02:50 PM
link   
Iran Issues Threat as Talks Begin

The threats, broadcast on Iranian television and in statements from the country’s atomic energy organization, may have simply been negotiating tactics ahead of negotiations that started in Vienna, the city that saw so many Cold War nuclear talks between the United States and the Soviet Union.


But in recent days the Iranians have repeatedly suggested that they may not ship the fuel out of the country at all, and would demand that the West sell it new fuel for its research reactor in Tehran, which is used largely for medical purposes. That would leave the existing fuel in the country, a situation that the United States, Europe and Israel has said is too dangerous, given Iran’s history of hiding nuclear activity from international inspectors.





posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 02:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Avenginggecko
 


It makes me wonder too, except I'm starting to wonder if all of the recent events going down and surrounding Iran are "meant" to distract from something else that's going on... something we're not supposed to be seeing or noticing... Get the world's eyes on Iran and keep 'em there?

/paranoid me.

(or)

Maybe Iran is taking a que from N.Korea and just feels like it needs to make waves for little attention and some focus?

/cynical me.



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by poedxsoldiervet
 





they will do what they want because they know Obama will not do anything to stop them.


Probably true.

No doubt they are a little PO'd, shaken up, paranoid, ready to push to button!

I've never thought shipping large amounts of enriched uranium long distances is a good practice but maybe I read too many Ken Follett novels.

Why would Iran cooperate readily with foreign negotiators? They never have in the past. They will probably do just enough so that they don't end up like Sadam.



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 03:44 PM
link   
This tactic has been used for a good, long time.

A man dips out a big bowl of ice cream, sits it on the table and begins spooning out another, with the person on the other side anticipating getting a bowl.

Then the man takes both bowls with him after dragging out the spooning of ice cream.

The other party is shocked.

But it was never going to happen, and time was purchased.

It can be hinted at again later if the pressure gets too great, only to be withdrawn again, and again, and this will continue until Iran gets the material to make the bomb.

North Korea and North Vietnam used similar tactics for decades.

Did anyone really think the Iranians were going to do that?



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by john124
Only really gullible people expected this deal to happen, and yes western media are gullible sods indeed, and they never learn!

The Russian's also stated 2 weeks ago that the deal still has to be finalised, and lo-behold it still hasn't!



So...

You think it's simply a delaying tactic until we find out that Iran test's a nuke in some deep underground test site in the middle of one of their deserts like N Korea did?



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 04:59 PM
link   
Let's step back and think about this.

Think about what they have told the west.

When Iran was trying to convince the world that it's nuclear ambitions were for peaceful purposes only, they were talking about shipping their enriched uranium out of the country to be made into fuel rods for use in nuclear power generation because they don't have that capability.

Now they are not only not wanting their existing EU to be made useful for nuclear power, but they are wanting other countries to ship to them highly enriched uranium (HEU). The only reason they would want HEU is for nuclear weapons. They DO have the capability to process EU into HEU but it takes a very long time to do.

Are they not overtly saying to the west that their ambitions are really nuclear weapons? The fact that they've thrown the "peaceful nuclear power only" defense out is HUGE in and of itself and is a very definite escalation.

All that said, I suppose they could be doing this as a negotiating chip - but once done, can you go back to saying it's all peaceful? I don't think you can... they're out of the closet now.



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 05:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Iamonlyhuman
 


I agree with you to a point. I've never doubted that Iran wants to make weapons as well as energy.

It's like building an extensive highway system in your country and saying, "Oh no this is just for civilians not for the military," when in reality it serves a dual function.

Question is, what's the best course of action? If Russia and China remain opposed to sanctioning Iran further, what should we do? The US can't afford a war front in Iran while we're in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The conspiracy theorist in me thinks that this is leading up to a green light for Israeli invasion. The US can condemn Israel on one hand but let it do its dirty work since we're strapped for cash and the public doesn't really want to open up another war.

If Iran refuses diplomacy and continues openly developing its nuclear infrastructure, the US can play good cop and say an Israeli attack is wrong but since Iran was unwilling to negotiate at all, its hands are tied. Russia and China enjoy economic ties with Iran, but the two of them would hardly let themselves be drawn into a conflict due to the risk of a snowball effect.



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Avenginggecko
Russia and China enjoy economic ties with Iran, but the two of them would hardly let themselves be drawn into a conflict due to the risk of a snowball effect.


Russia is doing it's best to maintain the Status quo in my opinion to simply keep Iran from selling it's oil to Europe. If there was a Regime change or a reversal of it's stance on the nuclear option then the sanctions come off and Iran would have all of the EU in which to sell their oil.

That comes into a direct conflict with Russia who wants and desperately needs Euros to keep it's economy going.



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 06:13 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


That's true, but I was also just thinking about the missile shield development that happened recently, as well as Israel's recent "secret" meeting with Russia.

Perhaps it wasn't the US simply capitulating to Russia, but Russia, the US, and Israel secretly brokering a deal that Russia would stay out of the picture if there was an Israeli strike on Iran. Russia gets to maintain its influence around its borders and the US and Israeli get to disarm Iran if worse comes to worse.



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 06:22 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 

Iran is using every possible tactic to stall for more time. Agree, then later rescind.

Russia has it's own selfish interests, and a strike on Iran is not detrimental to Russian interests in the least.

A strike on Iran would empower Russia in a number of matters.

Iran is very, very vulnerable to many things. They only have one refinery. If that's gone, and the ports are hit, Iran is going to be left sucking hind tit.

Which is good for Russia.

Russia recently made a deal to purchase a good number of Israeli RPV's. Odd.

Russia cancelled their sale of their third generation SAM's to Iran.

The other ME oil exporters would be pleased with a strike against Iran as well. A nuclear Iran is not in their best interest.

I would assume that deals have been in the making for a while. As long as everyone else wins, and Iran loses, then the only question left is, "why not?"

And just think of the reconstruction business that Iran would need done?



new topics

top topics



 
14
<<   2 >>

log in

join