NEWS: US Wants Harder EU3 Line on Iran if Incentives Fail

If the attempt by the EU3 to promote incentives in Iran fails, the United States is looking for the countries to take a much harder line. The EU3 composed of Britain, France and Germany, are trying to negotiate an end to Iran's nuclear program. The U.S. would like to have the groups support in taking Iran to the U.N. Security Council in the event the talks fail. A U.S. official indicated that at present it would be difficult to get the countries support for such an action.




It makes sense. Bush has wisely decided to let the EU3 take the lead in the talks and has indicated a willingness to help if need be. If Iran fails to come to an agreement, and I for one am not holding my breath, then the U.N. would be the next logical course of action to peruse. The question what kind of effects will sanctions really have? Almost none and China or Russia will no doubt veto such an action anyway.

Europe trades a lot with Iran, so even if UN action is blocked by Russia or China, having Europe on board to put in place trade sanctions if the talks fail would be a great lever against Iran.

.
.
This looks like more manufactured scare-mongering to me - pure Bush
propaganda. Iran's so-called "suspected nuclear weapons program" is a
figment of Bush's imagination.

7 days ago, Russia signed a deal with Iran stipulating that ALL spent nuclear
fuel will be returned to Moscow - Iran won't have any fuel to arm nuclear
weapons. The International Atomic Energy Agency will monitor the
Bushehr plant and the fuel deliveries to and from Moscow. Iran is totally in
agreement and compliant with IAEA inspections. The "world" is satisfied.

So where's the problem? Oh yeah. Bush says, "The guilty party is Iran. ...the
negotiating strategy achieves the objective of pointing out where guilt needs
to be."



I know! Let's not give the deal a chance to work. Let's cry foul, point fingers
and keep everyone all freaked out and dancing. They're all fools and they'll
forget there's an already negotiated and approved arrangement.

Russia, Iran Sign Nuclear Deal

February 27, 2005. Russia will supply nuclear fuel to Iran for its
Bushehr nuclear plant, according to a deal signed today. The deal stipulates
that Iran must return all spent fuel to Moscow.Spent nuclear fuel contains
depleted uranium, which possibly could be used to develop arms. World
leaders hope the contract terms will allay US fears that Iran was planning to
use spent fuel to arm nuclear weapons.

.......

February 28, 2005. Under the deal, Russia will provide nuclear fuel to
Iran, then take back the spent fuel, a step meant as a safeguard to ensure it
cannot be diverted into a weapons program. Iran has also agreed to allow
the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency, the International Atomic Energy Agency,
to monitor Bushehr and the fuel deliveries.

STRAIGHT from the SOURCE: FEMA

...........

February 28, 2005. MR. McCLELLAN: We have always supported the
efforts by our European friends to get Iran to abandon its nuclear weapons
ambitions. We want to see them succeed in those efforts. And we have
seen that over the last several months that Iran is now providing more
information to the International Atomic Energy Agency. They're providing
greater access to the International Atomic Energy Agency.

STRAIGHT from the SOURCE: The White House Press Release

.............

March 3, 2005. BUSH: The guilty party is Iran. They're the ones who are
not living up to international accords. They're the people that the whole
world is saying, don't develop a weapon. And so we are working with our
friends to make sure not only the world hears that, but that the
negotiating strategy achieves the objective of pointing out where guilt needs
to be, as well as achieving the objective of no nuclear weapon.

STRAIGHT from the SOURCE: The President

Wotta guy. Kinda like the other one who kept coming up with reasons for
Germany to attack a new country every so often.


If we really want to "Deny Bias" here at ATS, we're gonna hafta look past the
White House press releases. Or at least think about them critically.

[edit on 7-3-2005 by soficrow]

"Many of the ranges suggested for the yet-to-fly missile systems are based on mathematical models relying on what little data has been made public. Typically, these studies put out by the intelligence community over-estimate the performance of the actual missile systems. These studies do, however, give a range of possibilities as to what to look for once they are flown. In addition, none of the above listed strategic systems achieve true FRICBM capability. They fall far short of that kind of performance. Those strategic systems are based on MRBM & IRBM technology. In order to achieve FRICBM capability, clustering these systems would be required (in a method similar to that used by the Soviets on the R-7/SS-6 ICBM) or an entirely new system design would have to be developed. Clustering these systems very difficult or impossible because of their design characteristics. As of this writing, there is no indication that such new long term development exists, but this does not mean that it will not appear in the future. Only the United States, Russia and China have missiles with this range capability."

www.fas.org...


www.fas.org...

Poor iran is being picked on by big bad GW Bush. Ok Sofi, explain this data. Iran is intent on gaining and USING nukes to attack Israel and the US. Put down your DNC coffie mug, turn over your picture of Howard Dean and think about this.......

Mod edit: replaced image with link to preserve page format


[edit on 7-3-2005 by Spectre]

Originally posted by soficrow
If we really want to "Deny Bias" here at ATS, we're gonna hafta look past the White House press releases. Or at least think about them critically.

Yes indeed and if we are to deny bias, it can get kind of hard spending so much time working an anti Bush rant into every post

At any rate, the EU# and IAEA feel Irans program is a threat as well. So if negotiations between the EU3 fail (No doubt Sofi will say because of Bush), what is your solution to the problem? REminding you now that France, Germany, and the U.K. feel that Iran should abandon its program......

*Fred waits to see if Sofi now has a Chirac/Schrader/Blair rant*

So what is the problem? The US is simply saying that if the carrot don't work we use the stick. Whats the problem?

I don't think sanctions are a good idea. In the past they have done nothing to change the mind of the government in power and have only served to hurt the people ala N. Korea and Iraq. Stopping them from buying weapons or materials needed to build nukes would be a good idea but sanctions designed to ruin their economy would do more harm than good. Well educated, wealthy people are much more likely to question their government and want freedom of speech and trade than people who are too concerned about where their next meal will come from to think about such things.