Iran rejects UN nuclear demands 30 replies

Please wait...

AzH

I'm too cool to Post

269,650 XP

17th September 2003

0 Uploads

24,050 Posts

0 Threads

#1 14 years ago

Iran has said it will not agree to halt uranium enrichment, despite the UN nuclear watchdog's call for a suspension of all such activities.

It will also block snap sites checks if the issue goes to the Security Council.

"[COLOR=Red]Iran will not accept any obligation regarding the suspension of uranium enrichment[/COLOR]," chief nuclear negotiator Hassan Rohani said.

Uranium enrichment can be used to make nuclear weapons, but Iran says its programme is for peaceful purposes.

"[COLOR=Red]If they want to send Iran to the Security Council, it is not wise, and we will stop implementing the Additional Protocol[/COLOR]," Mr Rohani told a news conference in Tehran.

The Additional Protocol to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty allows snap nuclear checks.

"We are committed to the suspension of actual enrichment, but we have no decision to expand the suspension," Mr Rohani said.

"[COLOR=Red]This demand is illegal and does not put any obligation on Iran. The IAEA board of governors has no right to make such a suspension obligatory for any country[/COLOR]."

Iran suspended enrichment a year ago as a confidence-building measure, but has continued support activities such as building the centrifuges that refine the uranium.

European rift

Iran also accused Britain, France and Germany of breaking an accord reached last year on Iran's co-operation with the IAEA.

"The three Europeans have violated the terms of the accord regarding enrichment because the suspension of enrichment was voluntary," Mr Rohani said.

In its resolution, the IAEA said its board of governors had judged that an Iranian promise made to the three European nations last year to suspend uranium enrichment activities had fallen short of expectations.

Tough resolution

On Saturday, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) passed a resolution calling on Iran to suspend all uranium enrichment activities and asked Iran to grant access to its inspectors.

The resolution imposes an implicit deadline of 25 November, when the IAEA board of governors is next set to meet and review Iran's alleged nuclear weapons programme.

The IAEA keeps open the option of further steps if Iran fails to comply with its demands that could include taking Tehran before the UN Security Council.

It is investigating suspicions that Iran is enriching uranium to make weapons in secret, but Iran says it has a right to enrich uranium as part of its peaceful nuclear programme, including power generation.

story from www.bbc.co.uk

so, is Iran next on the list? they are refusing to allow inspectors into the country, they are going against the U.N. by doing so. Iraq allowed inspectors but were still kicking in by the Coalition. will Iran suffer the same fate? surely, they are commiting a worse crime than Iraq by flat refusing U.N. entry to their facilities. have they got something to hide or is it just bluster?

it is common knowledge that the U.S. is overstretch in Iraq; this is why thousands are being withdrawn from European bases. has Tehran said, "you are spread out too thin, we do not fear you"?

do you think that sanctions should be imposed or that a *gasp* invasion of Iran should be on the agenda? it seems to me that the arab nations are starting to take note of U.S. intervention on the region and have decided to stand their ground against political aggression. will they stand against military threats too?

interesting times we are living in, gentlemen (and the odd lady).




DavetheFo

RogueDevil / Rogue Angel

50 XP

29th May 2003

0 Uploads

8,689 Posts

0 Threads

#2 14 years ago

Hmmmmmmmmn, November 25th. Thats my birthday.

OT - I seriously believe that the Americans will just let this pass. They seem to have a liking for Iran for whatever reason.

Im also fairly sure I read last sunday in the Telegraph that Iran was begining construction of FIVE NUCLEAR WEAPONS.

Theres the posibility though, that that isnt true.




AzH

I'm too cool to Post

269,650 XP

17th September 2003

0 Uploads

24,050 Posts

0 Threads

#3 14 years ago

i don't think it is true, but it is possible as they persist in producing the necessary infrastructure. America cannot afford another Iraq, and i think the Iranians know that. that will give them a degree of confidence in the upcoming months. they are, essentially, pretty safe.




yod@

I'm way cooler than n0e (who isn't though?)

50 XP

14th April 2004

0 Uploads

4,898 Posts

0 Threads

#4 14 years ago

i think the u.s will not attack irn they have a strong millitary and america cannot afford to make anymore enemies in that region. it may impose sanctions though

and despite the rhetoric i think iran will slow the enrichment process




AzH

I'm too cool to Post

269,650 XP

17th September 2003

0 Uploads

24,050 Posts

0 Threads

#5 14 years ago

slow it, perhaps. but stop it altogther? because of the Iraqi situation, there is nothing & no-one to stop the Iranians from doing as they damn well please.

also, the consequences of an attack on Iran, even if 'legal' would be terrible for the region.




yod@

I'm way cooler than n0e (who isn't though?)

50 XP

14th April 2004

0 Uploads

4,898 Posts

0 Threads

#6 14 years ago

yeah the casualities will be far more and u.s cannot afford the bodycount.

it will lose whatever support it has in the middle east,not to mention in the world if it goes for an attack without absolute proof that iran is manufacturing nukes

this may embolden iran though




Nemmerle Forum Mod

Voice of joy and sunshine

298,365 XP

26th May 2003

0 Uploads

28,147 Posts

5 Threads

#7 14 years ago

If Iran does have nukes America wont risk it. If Iran doesn’t have nukes then I doubt America could complete the required operations and wrap up in Iraq in time to move.

As actual weapons though nukes are for the most part useless. “Yes you have nukes, but so do we.” No two nuclear powers will engage in open war; fewer wars has never been a bad thing. It's not like apart from trying to obtain nukes Iran has actually done anything. If it was North Korea then I could understand the concern, but really; what does it matter?




Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#8 14 years ago

I don't think we will be dealing with Iran in a manner such as Iraq anytime soon. We are already suffering from troop shortage, lowering moral, and other factors in Iraq. Iran would be devastating at best.




Master of Reality

I'm lying when I say trust me

50 XP

8th June 2004

0 Uploads

10,166 Posts

0 Threads

#9 14 years ago

americas always been bitches about iran. first in 1979 when they took all those hostages. america actually once tried to attack iran to get them back, but they failed due to some technical problems. then in 1980-1988, during the Iran-Iraq war, america funded Iraq. thats right. The US funded the Saddam Hussein run Iraq with weapons, and Iraq unleashed them on the poor people of Iran, using chemical warfare. in the end, over 2 million people died.




JP(NL)

Flying Dutchman

50 XP

28th April 2003

0 Uploads

8,315 Posts

0 Threads

#10 14 years ago

I hope the iranians get nukes. if anything, that'll keep the yanks away.