EU-Iran Nuke deal tottering...

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-11-12 01:00pm

Linka

By GEORGE JAHN, Associated Press Writer

VIENNA, Austria - A deal committing Iran to suspend activities that Washington says are part of a nuclear arms program was close to collapse Friday, with diplomats suggesting that Tehran had reneged on an agreement reached with European negotiators just days ago.

As envoys for both sides tried to salvage the deal, the International Atomic Energy Agency delayed a report on Iran's nuclear activities that had been scheduled for limited circulation Friday.

A diplomat familiar with the IAEA said the delay was meant to give the two sides a chance to resolve the dispute and allow agency head Mohamed ElBaradei to include in his report an Iranian commitment to full suspension of uranium enrichment and related activities.

The IAEA overview on nearly two decades of clandestine activities that the United States asserts is a secret weapons program is being prepared for review by the agency's 35-nation board of governors when it meets Nov. 25. Based on the report, they will decide on possible referral of Iran to the U.N. Security Council, which could call for sanctions.

After ending talks in Paris with Iranian envoys last weekend, European diplomats said there was tentative agreement on the part of Tehran to suspend uranium enrichment — which can be used to make nuclear arms — and all related activities.

The deal leaves open the exact length of the suspension but says it will be in effect at least as long as it takes for the two sides to negotiate a deal on European technical and financial aid, including help in the development of Iranian nuclear energy for power generation.

But on Friday the diplomats told The Associated Press that Iranian officials had presented British, French and German envoys in Tehran with a version of the agreement that was unacceptable to the three European powers.

The key dispute was over conversion of uranium into gas, which when spun in centrifuges can be enriched to lower levels for producing electricity or processed into high-level, weapons-grade uranium, said the diplomats, speaking on condition of anonymity.

"The processing of what is to be enriched is the main problem," said the diplomat.

The diplomats — all of them briefed on the dispute and based in Vienna or other European capitals — said Iran was insisting that the deal allowed it to process uranium into a precursor of uranium hexafluoride, the gas introduced into centrifuges for enrichment. The diplomats said that was not allowed under the tentative deal reached in Paris.

Tehran already had drafted a letter for the U.N. agency, saying it was committed to voluntary suspension that was less than what was agreed on in Paris and would "ask for the next step, which is IAEA inspections" to shore up support before the board meeting, one of the diplomats said.

Iran suspended uranium enrichment last year but has repeatedly refused to stop other related activities such as reprocessing uranium or building centrifuges, insisting its program is intended purely for the production of fuel for nuclear power generation.

But even if Iran agrees to full suspension of nuclear activities — as demanded by the Europeans — the deal would be short of U.S. calls for an indefinite suspension.

The IAEA unanimously passed a resolution in September demanding Iran freeze all work on uranium enrichment and related activities, and the U.N. nuclear watchdog is to judge Iran's compliance Nov. 25.

Tehran has defied the agency by continuing to build centrifuges and by already converting a few tons of raw uranium into hexafluoride gas.

Iran is not breaching its Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty obligations by seeking to enrich uranium but is under international pressure to drop such plans as a good faith gesture.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-11-12 01:04pm

VIENNA, Austria - A deal committing Iran to suspend activities that Washington says are part of a nuclear arms program was close to collapse Friday, with diplomats suggesting that Tehran had reneged on an agreement reached with European negotiators just days ago.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-11-12 01:11pm

But, But, Joe, the Iranians can be trusted to use this for peaceful purposes! You evil Bushitler warmongerer!

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2004-11-12 01:16pm

Isn't it funny that Iran hasn't invaded anyone, yet it's the United States who keeps going on about how dangerous it is?

Lord Poe · Post by **Lord Poe** » 2004-11-12 01:34pm

BoredShirtless wrote:Isn't it funny that Iran hasn't invaded anyone, yet it's the United States who keeps going on about how dangerous it is?

Yeah, because we all know a country has to invade someone before they're considered dangerous...

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-11-12 01:42pm

BoredShirtless wrote:Isn't it funny that Iran hasn't invaded anyone, yet it's the United States who keeps going on about how dangerous it is?

Yeah, and that peaceful Iranian assembly approved the bill to begin nuke enrichment to shouts of "Death to America!" Such NICE people we
got here, Bored Shitless.

aerius · Post by **aerius** » 2004-11-12 01:58pm

BoredShirtless wrote:Isn't it funny that Iran hasn't invaded anyone, yet it's the United States who keeps going on about how dangerous it is?

Because technically we could nuke your country, because that's not invading it and therefore isn't considered dangerous.

CJvR · Post by **CJvR** » 2004-11-12 02:09pm

BoredShirtless wrote:Isn't it funny that Iran hasn't invaded anyone, yet it's the United States who keeps going on about how dangerous it is?

How do you maintain a credible deterence when the other guy want to die? The Ayatollahs might not be as mad as they pretend, or they might. That the best friend of the Shia terroists get nukes is cause for concern even if they don't use them directly they might think their pals can. The behavior the the Ayatollahs during the Iran-Iraq war is cause for concern, buther's bills in the six figures isn't enough to deter them. Finaly while the EU might be content to live under the threat of Iranian IRBMs I seriously doubt the far more likely targets in Israel will.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2004-11-12 04:00pm

CJvR wrote: How do you maintain a credible deterence when the other guy want to die? The Ayatollahs might not be as mad as they pretend, or they might. That the best friend of the Shia terroists get nukes is cause for concern even if they don't use them directly they might think their pals can. The behavior the the Ayatollahs during the Iran-Iraq war is cause for concern, buther's bills in the six figures isn't enough to deter them. Finaly while the EU might be content to live under the threat of Iranian IRBMs I seriously doubt the far more likely targets in Israel will.

Israel's options are kinda limited. An aistrike on the reactors is possible but they'd need a tanker to get there and if they are engaged by Iranian aircraft they'd have to drop their bombs to defend themselves. Ergo mission failure.

Their subs might be able to hit the sites from the Gulf using their new Popeye Turbos. Not sure what kind of warhead they have though. Might not be effective against a reactor's concrete dome.

Bob the Gunslinger · Post by **Bob the Gunslinger** » 2004-11-12 04:02pm

BoredShirtless wrote:Isn't it funny that Iran hasn't invaded anyone, yet it's the United States who keeps going on about how dangerous it is?

Where the hell do you get your info, BS? First you say that Arafat was never a terrorist, but rather a peacenik, now you don't see any danger in a fundamentalist state that openly promotes terror. Do you read anything printed outside of Saudi Arabia?

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2004-11-12 04:29pm

Bob the Gunslinger wrote: Where the hell do you get your info, BS? First you say that Arafat was never a terrorist, but rather a peacenik, now you don't see any danger in a fundamentalist state that openly promotes terror. Do you read anything printed outside of Saudi Arabia?

I'd say that it's pretty obvious that BS's claims have no basis in reality. The Jimmy Carter Praises Araft thread demonstrated that quite conclusively.

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2004-11-13 08:06am

Bob the Gunslinger wrote:
BoredShirtless wrote:Isn't it funny that Iran hasn't invaded anyone, yet it's the United States who keeps going on about how dangerous it is?
Where the hell do you get your info, BS? First you say that Arafat was never a terrorist,

Liar, I never said that.

but rather a peacenik,

Liar, I never said that.

now you don't see any danger in a fundamentalist state that openly promotes terror.

Liar, I never said that.

Do you read anything printed outside of Saudi Arabia?

Yes. By the way, I can read, unlike you.

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2004-11-13 08:15am

MKSheppard wrote:
BoredShirtless wrote:Isn't it funny that Iran hasn't invaded anyone, yet it's the United States who keeps going on about how dangerous it is?
Yeah, and that peaceful Iranian assembly approved the bill to begin nuke enrichment to shouts of "Death to America!" Such NICE people we
got here, Bored Shitless.

Can you blame them? CIA plots...supporting the Shah...supporting Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war....then invading Iraq to get rid of of non-existent WMD's and terrorists which didn't exist until now....can you blame them that rhetoric? Your country hasn't been very nice to them, lies to the world; your country is a threat to them, so they are afraid.
But, the point is this; they know the United States can beat them silly. It is not in their interests to invade or attack other countries.

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2004-11-13 08:18am

CJvR wrote:How do you maintain a credible deterence when the other guy want to die?

You've watched too many Hollywood movies. I suggest you become friends with some Iranians before passing judgement based on watching TV.

The Ayatollahs might not be as mad as they pretend, or they might. That the best friend of the Shia terroists get nukes is cause for concern even if they don't use them directly they might think their pals can. The behavior the the Ayatollahs during the Iran-Iraq war is cause for concern, buther's bills in the six figures isn't enough to deter them. Finaly while the EU might be content to live under the threat of Iranian IRBMs I seriously doubt the far more likely targets in Israel will.

Thanks for your opinion. I'll file it under "Irrational and Unfounded Fear".

CJvR · Post by **CJvR** » 2004-11-13 08:30am

BoredShirtless wrote:You've watched too many Hollywood movies. I suggest you become friends with some Iranians before passing judgement based on watching TV.

The average Iranian is probably as sane as the average US or EU citizen, the problem is that they are not running Iran.

BoredShirtless wrote:Thanks for your opinion. I'll file it under "Irrational and Unfounded Fear".

Yeah, conveniently ignoring the pioneering work the Shia clerics did in suicide bombing and suicide frontal charges against a prepared and dug in enemy...

Xon · Post by **Xon** » 2004-11-13 10:20am

Cpl Kendall wrote: Their subs might be able to hit the sites from the Gulf using their new Popeye Turbos. Not sure what kind of warhead they have though. Might not be effective against a reactor's concrete dome.

And hitting it with a nuke kinda defeats the point