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.

 

US rejects Iran nuclear offer

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 09:19 AM
link   

US rejects Iran nuclear offer


english.aljazeera.net

The US has dismissed an Iranian offer to exchange nuclear fuel, saying it was inconsistent with a deal that would allow Iran to avoid further sanctions.

"Iran's proposal does not appear to be consistent with the fair and balanced draft agreement proposed by the International Atomic Energy Agency [IAEA], the UN nuclear watchdog, a US official said on Saturday.
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.presstv.ir




posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 09:19 AM
link   
What was the Iranian offer?


Iran's Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki on Saturday said the country is ready "to take 400 Kg of 3.5 percent enriched uranium to the Island of Kish and exchange it with an amount equivalent to 20 percent of the original batch."

Mottaki added that the process would begin "right away" if the P5+1, the United States, Britain, France, China, Russia and Germany, agree to the offer.


and this is US proposal

The US official, who declined to be named, said Iran's offer contained "nothing new" and urged the country to take up the existing IAEA proposal, which calls on Iran to send 2,645 pounds (1,200 kilogrammes) of its low enriched uranium to Russia "in one batch."


Previously Iran has stated clearly:
·Iran would accept a nuclear fuel exchange deal if conditions are built to earn Iran's trust.
·Iran said it has no trust in the West because their attitude and behavior in the past.
·Iran rejected the deal presented by the UN nuclear watchdog IAEA.


In layman's words Iran is stating it will give it's LEU in exchange for already processed fuel but USA (actually Israel) want's Iran to send it's fuel in 1 batch to Russia (through shipping most probably)

And here the Iranians say;

"We never said we will not do this (fuel exchange)," he said, adding that the problem was Iran has no trust in the West because their attitude and behavior in the past.

"They have lost trust and have never kept their promises," he added, "we can not listen to them easily."

Source: news.xinhuanet.com...

How exactly has US/Allies never kept their promises in past?
(I hope people are already aware pre-revolution of US agreements with Iran for nuclear technology so I am not including that)

1. Post Revolution, 1979-1989
After the 1979 Revolution, Iran informed the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) of its plans to restart its nuclear program using indigenously-made nuclear fuel. Iran paid the U.S. to deliver new fuel and upgrade its power in accordance with a contract signed before the revolution. The U.S. delivered neither the fuel nor returned the billions of dollars payment it had received.

2. In January 1978, Kraftwerk Union stopped working at the Bushehr nuclear project with one reactor 50% complete, and the other reactor 85% complete, and fully withdrew from the project in July 1979 (see below, European reactions 1979-89). Iran paid Germany in full, totaling billions of dollars, for the two nuclear facilities in Bushehr.[41] By July 1979, Iran had paid Kraftwerk Union $2.5 billion of the total contract.

3. When France after 1979 refused to give any enriched uranium to Iran and also Eurodif didn’t return Iran’s investments (see European reactions 1979-89), Iran's government suspended its payments and tried to get refunded the loan by making pressure on France by handling militant groups, including the Hezbollah who took French citizens hostage in the 1980s.

4. According to a report by the Argentine justice in 2006, Iran in 1987–88 signed three agreements with Argentina's National Atomic Energy Commission. The first Iranian-Argentine agreement involved help in converting the U.S. supplied Tehran Nuclear Research Center (TNRC) research reactor from highly enriched uranium fuel to 19.75% low-enriched uranium, and to supply the low-enriched uranium to Iran. The uranium was delivered in 1993.[43] The second and third agreements were for technical assistance, including components, for the building of pilot plants for uranium-dioxide conversion and fuel fabrication. Under US pressure, assistance under second and third agreements was reduced.

6. In 1996, the U.S. convinced the People's Republic of China to pull out of a contract to construct a uranium conversion plant.

7. 2002-2006 : European actions
Around 2005, Germany refused to export any more nuclear equipment or refund money paid by Iran for such equipment in the 1980s.[41] (See European reactions 1979-89.)

Source: en.wikipedia.org...

After considering all this who in their right mind would would ship much of its nuclear material out of the country? Either the ship will have an accident and "sink" or will be held by US/Allies with no return. What can Iran do if it loses much of it's fuel..nothing.

IMO it's fair of Iran to ask for exchange in enriched fuel equivalent to the raw fuel in same go. Keeping history in mind I do not blame Iranians a bit for their demand. Heck! as part of NPT under IAEA they have full right to enrich fuel in their own country like all other members of NPT.

english.aljazeera.net
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 09:54 AM
link   
The Islamic regime are on their own now, well except for their friends who get some cheap oil from them - like Chavez, Erdogan and now the Bolivian govt, and maybe a few friends of their on ats.


I wonder which country the remaining clerics and revolutionary guards will end up fleeing to over the coming months when student protests overwhelm them.


[edit on 13-12-2009 by john124]



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 10:07 AM
link   
reply to post by john124
 


They will probably all end up as asylum seekers in the UK and fermenting unrest, secure in the knowledge that they won't be thrown out.

To topic... The Iranians should just get the hint that the world just does not trust them with nuclear. I agree. I fear for the future when tin-pot regimes like Iran start making atomic bombs and nothing I have seen, heard or read has persuaded me that the Iranians just "want a nuclear power station"!

Regards



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 11:02 AM
link   
Israel WILL strike Iran in the next few months in my opinion.



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 11:12 AM
link   
reply to post by paraphi
 


The majority of the world support Iran in seeking nuclear power. In any case, i think a long strung out political process will happen but not hinder Iran's progress. No military action, just sanctions and political posturing.



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 11:28 AM
link   
You don't need to go through all this garbage.
Iran will do what Iran wants to do. They've shown their true nature, which is deception.

They are Deceptocons...



It's just the same ol shell game with them, and the gulible as usual United States and the rest of the world that believes in fairness and justice just keeps learning the hard way...

The same as Iraq and all the other Second World contries over in the middle east. There is a different standard there and the laws and politics are different, those countries will not ever abide by western laws and western thinking, that's just never going to happen. Not in a million more years unless you completely assimilate the culture over there to a western culture, it's just never going to work.

They will never DO what the United States wants them to do. This problem is between Israel and Iran and who ever else has a problem with it, it's not the United States business, until there is a threat to the United States directly...

We are seen as Imperialists and we are. We've conquered and controlled what we could up until the point when resistance was no longer a futile attempt...
Then we become continent with what we have, because we can't take anymore without a truely big problem...



Just wait until the day when China grows tired of being constrained, and wants Taiwan back or something else...



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Brainiac
 


The "deceptocons" my friend are in the UN. As proof, they have involved themselves in every major war since they were formed after WWll. They create false flags over and over again and the gullible are people that think the UN stands for a good purpose.

The way the United States operates and most of its allies as well; if it doesn't involve them, they create a problem, wait for a reaction, then offer their solution which usually makes the world more unstable. The USA will make it their problem to involve themselves. Don't deceive yourself, the US will find a way to involve themselves, they always do whether its directly or indirectly.



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by john124
The Islamic regime are on their own now, well except for their friends who get some cheap oil from them - like Chavez, Erdogan and now the Bolivian govt, and maybe a few friends of their on ats.


I wonder which country the remaining clerics and revolutionary guards will end up fleeing to over the coming months when student protests overwhelm them.
[edit on 13-12-2009 by john124]


You couldn't have been further away from truth. Let me first clear the ATS part yes I completely support Iran's position on nuclear deal because under the NPT which Iran is member of they have complete rights to establish and run nuclear power stations in their country and even enrich the LEU. Keeping in mind the it's neighboring hostile country Israel which has nuclear capability Iran should also attain nuclear weapons. If Iran is not allowed to have nuclear weapon ability then IAEA should impose similar sanctions against Israel black marketing of nuclear weapon. Make the whole area nuke free, simple as that.

Secondly not 2-3 countries support Iran's nuclear program as you suggested but 118 countries support Iran's right to nuclear program.



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 01:18 PM
link   
Historically Iran has right and reason on their side. You can say what you like about their so called "inflamatory rhetoric" but we now approve the use of a nuclear first strike option, and pre-emptive war. Doesnt get any more belligerent than that!

Further, the US and others have failed to honor ALL their contracts with Iran, and never returned their money. How can we possible justify this? and expect them to trust us? "fool me once, shame on me....".

Further Iran has not attacked another nation in 200 years. We are currently engaged in war in 3 different countries, over our right to steal their natural resources (except for pakistan).

Not to mention that we overthrew mossedegh, and installed a dictator over iran for almost 2 decades. And we kept them under sanctions and embargo for decades, ACTS OF WAR.

Seriously, who is the victim here and who the brutal aggressor?

It is only serious ethnocentrism and nationalism that says that the US has the right to run rampant over the world stealing its resources and trampling its people, but Iran lacks the right to atomic energy, or at the worst case, to defend themselves.

We state this right after the US has refused to allow weapon inspectors to monitor OUR nuclear and chemical weapons (which is exactly what we are accusing iran of), and as we are CURRENTLY using radioactive weapons in iraq (depleted uranium shells) which are already causing rampant birth defects and cancer in the locals (and in our own soldiers) and will continue to affect iraq for decades, at the least, centuries at the worst.

Perhaps it is time to remove the beam from our own eye, rather than belaboring the speck in others.



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 01:20 PM
link   
Really?

Are we all so surprised?

Come on, even IF Iran had agreed to the original agreement, the US would be up in arms about something else.

Propaganda campaign, pure and simple.

Prepare for the occupation of Iran, somewhere in 2011 I would think.

This nonsense is never ending.

~Keeper



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by paraphi
reply to post by john124
 


They will probably all end up as asylum seekers in the UK and fermenting unrest, secure in the knowledge that they won't be thrown out.

To topic... The Iranians should just get the hint that the world just does not trust them with nuclear. I agree. I fear for the future when tin-pot regimes like Iran start making atomic bombs and nothing I have seen, heard or read has persuaded me that the Iranians just "want a nuclear power station"!

Regards




118 nations back irans nuke program, meaning they have more trust "in the world" than not.

The US govt acts as though they speak for "the world".. which is laughable considering the illegal wars of aggression that ignore long standing treaties.

Talk about rogue leaders, if anything the bushbama regimes have made the US more of a violent law breaking nation not to be trusted. If the US can make up their own rules and ignore the world, iran can ignore the US... which is the way is should be. Our failed govt has no business telling anyone what to do...the best advice the US can offer is how to torture & launch illegal wars then get away with it: "Wars of aggression for dummies"

..and at the rate obama is spending & wasting resources, the mullahs will be watching US govt so called "leaders" being chased by angry mobs... our economy has failed without one sanction, they keep afloat under many.



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by December_Rain
 


&

reply to post by GovtFlu
 


So who out of those 118 countries will allow Ahmadi & Khamenei to reside in then when the Iranian opposition forces them out? Here's a tip: one of the countries I mentioned earlier. I can imagine Ahmadinejad fleeing or even defecting next time he is abroad.


Don't tell me you still think Russia are still in bed with the Islamic regime? The Russian backed coup has already lost and the Russian's know this. The revolutionary guard commanders even threaten Russia now over non-delivery of S-300! The dog keeps barking, and they even know themselves that the game is over for them!


[edit on 13-12-2009 by john124]



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 02:33 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 



Prepare for the occupation of Iran, somewhere in 2011 I would think.


I doubt even NATO could occupy Iran, the country's too large.



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 02:58 PM
link   
reply to post by john124
 


You mean you are not aware of who are the 118 countries? I thought with your deep knowledge (always without facts/sources though) you would be. Why don't you search on your own for once or ask your intelligence sources.

A hint: a list of all 118 countries has already been posted on of the related ATS threads.

Oops did it had China/India (eventhough India has signed for sanctions but it has clearly stated it supports Iran's peaceful nuclear program in it's draft submitted to IAEA) included in them, hhmmm find out for yourself.



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by December_Rain
 


This is what I originally said, that you responded to:


The Islamic regime are on their own now, well except for their friends who get some cheap oil from them - like Chavez, Erdogan and now the Bolivian govt, and maybe a few friends of their on ats.


I was not referring to a piece of paper that hundred or so countries signed about Iran's nuclear programme, or even just a nuclear energy programme. I'm specifically referring to the countries who actually still stand by them to the present day, and most of the 118 do not.

Your argument is like saying the US & Russia are strong allies and back each other strongly because they signed a document to later reduce nuclear stockpiles.

[edit on 13-12-2009 by john124]



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by john124
 


Ofcourse these countries stand by Iran on nuclear policy. Isn't this thread about nuclear program so why go on including non-nuclear issue in first place? Derailing much...?



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by john124
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 



Prepare for the occupation of Iran, somewhere in 2011 I would think.


I doubt even NATO could occupy Iran, the country's too large.


I will agree that they are already spread thin across 150+ nations in the world but I have no doubt what so ever that they will do what they can to enforce some sort of invasion that will lead to another occupation.



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by john124
reply to post by December_Rain
 


&

reply to post by GovtFlu
 


So who out of those 118 countries will allow Ahmadi & Khamenei to reside in then when the Iranian opposition forces them out? Here's a tip: one of the countries I mentioned earlier. I can imagine Ahmadinejad fleeing or even defecting next time he is abroad.


Don't tell me you still think Russia are still in bed with the Islamic regime? The Russian backed coup has already lost and the Russian's know this. The revolutionary guard commanders even threaten Russia now over non-delivery of S-300! The dog keeps barking, and they even know themselves that the game is over for them!


[edit on 13-12-2009 by john124]


"Russia says it has no plan to restrict its military cooperation with Iran"
www.presstv.com...

"There are no problems with this [S-300] contract," Mehdi Safari, Iran's deputy foreign minister, said after visiting Moscow.

Russia recently received 29 Russian-made Tor-M1 air defense missile systems.. which the russians trained the iranians how to use.

Not sure if said training was done "in bed".

en.rian.ru...

At the very least you have recognized the iran has more world wide support, than not.. which should put the US govts whining in perspective. 118 nations are not scared of iran, probably because they can see how transparently FOS our govt is.. again. The US govt does 3 things well: kills strangers, tortures innocent people denied due process, and lies.

Also I would imagine iranian 'leaders' would be welcome in more nations than bush will be when he tries to evade war crimes justice in the future.



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 04:23 PM
link   
reply to post by December_Rain
 



Ofcourse these countries stand by Iran on nuclear policy. Isn't this thread about nuclear program so why go on including non-nuclear issue in first place? Derailing much...?


Because there's much more to Iran than a nuclear issue???

Internal disputes between the majority of Iranian's in opposition to the coup d'etat regime are the major concerns for the regime, not building nukes. I'm sorry if I find the whole nuclear issue a bit boring because nothing has really changed there over the past few weeks, yet the whole Iranian opposition movement and its progression is fascinating.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join