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 Wants to Defuse Crisis with West

page: 1
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 01:10 PM
link   

As Western nations move towards a showdown with Iran over it's nuclear ambitions, the Islamic Republic has signaled it wants a diplomatic solution to the crisis.

Iran's National Security Adviser Saeed Jalili is proposing the talks as hostilities grew this week when Iran threatened to stifle international oil flows by closing the Strait of Hormoz in response to threats of escalated international sanctions.

With continuing talk of a possible military attack by Israel, and possibly even by the United States, Iran has become increasingly cornered, and isolated.

According to the Iranian Al-Alam TV channel, Jalili put forward the proposal to resume negotiations with the West on Saturday, during a meeting with Iranian ambassadors in Tehran. It was decided Iran's ambassador to Germany would present the proposal to EU foreign-policy chief Catherine Ashton.


Now that's better, civility and decorum utilizing the wonderment of democracy. Not resorting to violence and casualties at the likes the world has never seen.

Perhaps we can "all just get along"...or at least tolerate one another without the use of force.

This is a good sign that level heads may actually be prevailing. That is, until the next dilemma that rears it's head that happens to go against the good of the world (at least "their" version of what is good).

For now though, it seems the worst case scenario is going to be avoided.

Source Article




posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 01:14 PM
link   
Thats Iran saying "we don't want to get obliterated! You win!". Thank heck for that, Syria now



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by UberL33t
 


I feel sorry for the Iranian people. Just as I would for any bullied people. I hope they can talk some sense into their bullies.



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 01:17 PM
link   
reply to post by superman2012
 


Their bullies are men of God............so they will need to be carefull



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by rigel4
reply to post by superman2012
 


Their bullies are men of God............so they will need to be carefull


I am assuming that was sarcasm. I don't think God would care about oil the way the US does.



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Krono
 


i don't think it's that simple. America has an agenda there, and it's not just to "protect" Israel



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 01:19 PM
link   
Or it's Iran buying time.. they have no intention of shutting down their nuclear programs.. this is just them trying to look good by saying they want diplomacy while still continuing to defy the UN.

I look at it this way.. It's like a thief robbing a store and the cops asking them to knock it off.. but instead of stopping, the thief continues robbing the store in front of you all the while saying "look, we can talk this over without you arresting me" as they shove another item in their bag.

Iran is trying to position itself to say "Look, we at least TRIED to talk" ..

I recognize Iran's right to nuclear power, but when you kick out inspectors and act the way they have.. I don't trust them not to also make a weapon.. and a weapon in their hands would be a very bad thing.


edit on 1/1/2012 by miniatus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Krono
 





Thats Iran saying "we don't want to get obliterated! You win!". Thank heck for that, Syria now

Ehm - this is Middle East. Any country (or individual) that will say something like this is not going to last very long.
Iran just had massive military exercise while launching rockets, Iran had declared that it can close the Persian Gulf and Iran got first nuclear rod. So from local point of view they come not as "honorless weaklings" ,actually the otherwise.
I hope that it is genuine and not an attempt to waste time, but in any case - even if it is farce it is still better then war.



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 01:21 PM
link   
Iran is stalling, gives them breathing space and a little time to plan..

Seems they've learned something from North Korea...


edit on 1-1-2012 by LadySkadi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by miniatus
 


How so? What would Iran really do with a nuke? Nuke Israel? And be obliterated? Nuke America? Thats a lol of a thought. Iran couldn't get a nuke here. I see no difference of Iran having a nuke than North Korea having a nuke.



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by UberL33t

As Western nations move towards a showdown with Iran over it's nuclear ambitions, the Islamic Republic has signaled it wants a diplomatic solution to the crisis.

Iran's National Security Adviser Saeed Jalili is proposing the talks as hostilities grew this week when Iran threatened to stifle international oil flows by closing the Strait of Hormoz in response to threats of escalated international sanctions.

With continuing talk of a possible military attack by Israel, and possibly even by the United States, Iran has become increasingly cornered, and isolated.

According to the Iranian Al-Alam TV channel, Jalili put forward the proposal to resume negotiations with the West on Saturday, during a meeting with Iranian ambassadors in Tehran. It was decided Iran's ambassador to Germany would present the proposal to EU foreign-policy chief Catherine Ashton.


Now that's better, civility and decorum utilizing the wonderment of democracy. Not resorting to violence and casualties at the likes the world has never seen.

Perhaps we can "all just get along"...or at least tolerate one another without the use of force.

This is a good sign that level heads may actually be prevailing. That is, until the next dilemma that rears it's head that happens to go against the good of the world (at least "their" version of what is good).

For now though, it seems the worst case scenario is going to be avoided.

Source Article




If tptb want it to happen, it will. Once public sentiment hits the correct level, sorry Iran.



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by UberL33t
 


I appreciate your optimism but the truth is they are taking a page out of N. Korea's play book. It's called...stalling for time. Mark my words.



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by biggmoneyme
reply to post by Krono
 


i don't think it's that simple. America has an agenda there, and it's not just to "protect" Israel


Perhaps.. but Iran has also brought this on itself.. nobody forced them to kick out inspectors, build secret facilities, refine their own uranium .. they have blatantly done this in the face of the UN..

If they truly just wanted nuclear power then they would have accepted the proposed idea years ago that they could have uranium sent to them for use in their reactors.. but no, they insisted on producing their own which in turn gives them the ability to produce weapons grade uranium..

There is more to Iran's positioning than some like to believe.. it's not all just big bad west.. they are up to something.



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by miniatus
 


sure the cowards in the whitehouse need to know that iran does not have any weapons to defend themselves
when they come to loot the country.



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by biggmoneyme
reply to post by miniatus
 


How so? What would Iran really do with a nuke? Nuke Israel? And be obliterated? Nuke America? Thats a lol of a thought. Iran couldn't get a nuke here. I see no difference of Iran having a nuke than North Korea having a nuke.



Iran wouldn't nuke the USA but they very well could attack Israel .. iran has the backing of both China AND Russia.. even if they did attack israel i don't think the USA would be so quick to respond with both China and Russia aimed this way.. iran with a nuke puts them in a powerful position.

But there is more to it than that.. iran has apparently sponsored and armed terrorists .. they have aided syria, they have aided the insurgents in iraq .. if they have the capability of producing nuclear weapons then it increases the chance of those weapons also falling into the hands of others that iran is friendly with.. you have to think ahead.

The difference with North Korea is that North Korea already has one .. and now that they do, we have to be extremely careful.. plus, our Allies are directly across the border.. any miss-step would probably get them blown off the map
edit on 1/1/2012 by miniatus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 01:26 PM
link   
This will never be over until the Regime in Iran is gone,Syria will fall first I think, and then
Iran will be isolated. It is only a matter of time.
It's not that I want it this way, just that the politics of the region are spelling this out.

Iran is a troublesome nation for the western powers. They are not going to stop being troublesome.

The long plan is to finish the regime. And so it will be done in time.

Diplomacy won't work, as others have said it simply a stalling tatic for breathing room.



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by tom.farnhill
reply to post by miniatus
 


sure the cowards in the whitehouse need to know that iran does not have any weapons to defend themselves
when they come to loot the country.


That's absurd for the reasons above.. even if iran had nukes they couldn't launch one at the US, they don't have the capability to launch weapons that far.. so it's not that, it's about the reasons I just mentioned.. iran is friendly with syria and other insurgent groups in the region.. iran has already provided weapons and funding to such groups, them having nuclear weapons mean those groups also potentially have nuclear weapons.. this means the ability for portable nukes ( dirty bombs ) .. all sorts of potential chaos could come from it, and nobody wants that.



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by biggmoneyme
 





How so? What would Iran really do with a nuke? Nuke Israel? And be obliterated? Nuke America? Thats a lol of a thought. Iran couldn't get a nuke here. I see no difference of Iran having a nuke than North Korea having a nuke.

Listen ,this is not that easy. Contrary to what lots of people on ATS think, Iran is considered "not one of ours" by most Arab nations. Less then Israel, but still a threat. Add to this Shii vs Sunni thingy.
So Egypt, Saudi Arabia ,Syria (and maybe others) will not sit idly while both evil Zionists and Shiite non-Arabs have those toys of mass destruction while no Arab nation has one. Other countries in unstable region that was/is/will be prone to wars and political upheaval will have nuclear weapons. Turn on your imagination and try to see how it might develop. For example - does anyone know where thousands of Libyan anti-aircraft rockets are?
This is what scares everyone. Iran and Israel will not be the only ones with nukes in very short time. And it can go down the hill pretty fast.
Now, i do not say that strike on Iran will make it any better. Nobody knows what the future holds and i personally think that striking Iran is a big mistake. But as with anything in life,it is not as simple as it looks.



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 01:35 PM
link   
The US has also funded other insurgencies too..
I think if you compared the track record for such a thing between the US and Iran, then the US takes the cake for supplying terrorists with weapons.

And to be honest, If i had someone breathing down my neck constantly trying to invade my country, send drones into my country. Then hell yes, i'de want a nuke too.

I learned that in the 'world theatre' if you do not have nuclear weapons, then you are not listened to, and are constantly under threat. Like iran. I doubt they would ever use them. Its more like insurance, to be left the hell alone before they become a wartorn wasteland.



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by AzureSky
The US has also funded other insurgencies too..
I think if you compared the track record for such a thing between the US and Iran, then the US takes the cake for supplying terrorists with weapons.

And to be honest, If i had someone breathing down my neck constantly trying to invade my country, send drones into my country. Then hell yes, i'de want a nuke too.

I learned that in the 'world theatre' if you do not have nuclear weapons, then you are not listened to, and are constantly under threat. Like iran. I doubt they would ever use them. Its more like insurance, to be left the hell alone before they become a wartorn wasteland.


I don't dispute that.. Russia has done the same.. it's a big game of chess where you arm the insurgencies that will try to sway a regional power in your favor.. it doesn't make it right on any scale... by saying the USA has done it, does not mean we should sit back and let Iran do it .. especially when it comes to something like nuclear weapons..

Russia is friendly with Iran mainly because they get cheap fuel in exchange for weaponry .. plus they get to stay on Iran's good side if Iran ever did become nuclear capable.. I don't think Russia really cares much for Iran other than for those reasons.. Iran isn't a good neighbor to have and I think most countries know this.

If the US really were just in this for cheap oil then we'd probably be playing them the way Russia plays them..
edit on 1/1/2012 by miniatus because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join