U.N. nuclear watchdog agency orders Iran to Halt nukes

[conehead234]

U.N. nuclear watchdog agency adopts resolution calling on Iran to halt nuclear fuel development. Details soon.

Just saw this on CNN. Do you think Iran will abide?

 

[h4ppy]

Of course it won't.

 

[farting bob]

I highly doubt it will, or it will partially, but bend the rules as much as it can get away with.

 

[conehead234]

VIENNA, Austria (CNN) -- The International Atomic Energy Agency board of governors passed a resolution Thursday asking Iran to suspend its nuclear activities, according to a Western diplomat at the meeting in Austria.

The resolution was "somewhat amended from its original form, which expressed "serious concern" about the Islamic Republic's nuclear program. CNN is awaiting a copy of the new resolution to compare it to the old.

The resolution -- written by France, Britain and Germany -- urges Iran to suspend all uranium enrichment activities, including uranium conversion activities at its Isfahan plant.

Those activities were restarted Wednesday after Iran removed IAEA seals on its nuclear equipment there.

Uranium conversion is a first step toward uranium enrichment, which could lead to the manufacture of nuclear weapons.

Under immense international pressure, Iran voluntarily suspended its nuclear program in October 2003. Earlier this week, the Islamic republic rejected a European proposal to end a stalemate over its nuclear aspirations and announced it would resume operations at Isfahan.

Isfahan is not an enrichment plant, and Western intelligence sources have told CNN that even if Iran restarted its entire nuclear program today and intended to build nuclear weapons, it would still be five to 10 years from being able to do so.

The draft resolution brought before the 35-member IAEA board of governors noted that United Nations inspectors cannot definitively conclude that Iran does not have any undeclared nuclear materials.

The resolution "expresses serious concerns about Iran's decision to reactivate the uranium conversion facility in Isfahan," said IAEA spokeswoman Melissa Fleming. "What it also does is call on Iran to reverse its decision -- go back to a full suspension of all uranium enrichment activity."

In addition, it asks Mohammed ElBaradei, IAEA director-general, to report back on Iran's compliance by September 3.

IAEA spokesman Mark Gwozdecky told CNN on Wednesday the nuclear watchdog agency would have preferred that Iran not lift the seals and restart full operation at Isfahan, but the plant "is fully monitored by the IAEA" and does not produce enriched uranium -- which can be used in nuclear power plants or, in higher concentrations, in nuclear weapons.

"Their uranium enrichment plant in Natanz remains frozen, and they have indicated it will remain that way," he said. "This plant (Isfahan) produces feed material that could one day be used in enrichment. It's important to bear that in mind."

Iran says its nuclear program is meant to generate civilian nuclear power, but the United States and other countries have raised concerns that Tehran is concealing a nuclear weapons program. At the U.N. on Wednesday, Secretary-General Kofi Annan urged Iran and three European Union countries to keep talking and avoid "any steps that would lead to further escalation."

Iranian officials sent mixed messages about the talks Wednesday: Its supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, issued a religious decree declaring "production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons" is against the beliefs of Islam and renouncing any desire for nuclear weapons, while an Iranian official at the IAEA's Vienna headquarters warned European powers against coercive steps.

Cyrus Nasseri, Iran's chief delegate to the watchdog agency, dropped a not-so-veiled hint that Iran could push world oil prices higher if the West tries to block its nuclear program, according to a Western diplomat who attended discussions in Vienna.

And the Iranians hinted privately that they could help -- or hinder -- the West's woes in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria.

Nasseri told CNN later that European countries should "think twice" before taking any action that might be considered coercive.

"That would be a course of action that would lead to a situation where everyone would lose," he said.

Despite the concerns over Iran's nuclear program, Gwozdecky told CNN he the larger issue is "Iran's relationship with the rest of the world" and that would "ultimately" require the United States -- which has no diplomatic relations with Iran -- to enter the European-led negotiations.

"I think this is a concern, but ultimately the bigger question for us and the global community is how to normalize a relationship with Iran that's been strained for almost 25 years," Gwozdecky said.

Iran insists its nuclear program is peaceful and intended to provide nuclear energy for domestic use, holding its vast oil reserves for export. The United States initially wanted Iran to give up its entire nuclear program but has since fallen more in line with Germany, France and Britain -- the "EU-3" that is heading negotiations with Iran -- in search of guarantees Iran will not produce weapons.

U.S. President George W. Bush said Tuesday he remains "deeply suspicious" of Iran's motives, but said a statement by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's that Iran was willing to continue negotiations with the Europeans was "a positive sign."

Under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, signatory nations -- which include Iran -- are allowed to develop nuclear power under the watchful eyes of the IAEA. The IAEA says that although it is making progress, Iran's past lack of candor about its program has left some doubt about its current work. The voluntary suspension, Gwozdecky said, had been a welcome confidence-building measure.

Bush once named Iran, along with North Korea and Saddam Hussein's Iraq, part of an "axis of evil." North Korea pulled out of the NPT and restarted its nuclear weapons program. It is now believed to have built some bombs.

The only states that have declared they have nuclear weapons but have not signed the NPT are India and Pakistan. Israel, which neither confirms nor denies having nuclear weapons but is widely believed to have a significant arsenal, is also not a signatory.

Here is the newsreport

 

[classical_hero]

Linky?????

 

[Duke of Marlbrough]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/08/11/iran.iaea/index.html

 

[Evil Tyrant]

Why should they obey an organization of corrupt foreigners who have no power to enforce their decrees with?

 

[King Alexander]

Maybe the UN hasn't that much military power, but it's decisions could be forced by the Security Council (or even NATO...).

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Do you think Iran will abide?

Nope. Nobody pays any attention to UN resolutions, I dont see why Iran should. As much as I'd hate to see Iran acquire nukes, Ive never understood where we get the balls to tell countries they cant have nukes when we not only invented them, and have thousands of them, we're the only country who ever used them. I dont blame them for telling us to go take a flying leap. As far as the EU goes, why on Earth would Iran pay any attention to them? Its not like the EU can do anything other than plead with them and offer money.

 

[cgannon64]

As much as I'd hate to see Iran acquire nukes, Ive never understood where we get the balls to tell countries they cant have nukes when we not only invented them, and have thousands of them, we're the only country who ever used them.

1. We are not crazy fundamentalists.

There is the only reason needed to explain why we can have nukes and they can't.

 

[luiz]

Actually I think the current iranian crisis will be yet another strong blow to the UN's credibility.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

1. We are not crazy fundamentalists.

There is the only reason needed to explain why we can have nukes and they can't.

Be that as it may, theres little doubt Iran plans to develop nuclear energy and build its own nukes. I dont see how theyre going to be stopped. The US is too busy in Iraq to invade, and my understanding is that their nuclear program is too dispersed to be gotten rid of with an Israeli bombing raid.

Actually I think the current iranian crisis will be yet another strong blow to the UN's credibility.

I dont think it has any credibility left. Its a debating society with no teeth. A UN resolution is barely worth the paper its written on.

 

[Bugfatty300]

The US is too busy in Iraq to invade, and my understanding is that their nuclear program is too dispersed to be gotten rid of with an Israeli bombing raid.

The US is to busy to invade with ground troops.

But we still have a nice big juicy Air Force just sitting around doing nothing currently.

But thats only if it comes to that first. I have feeling there will be a multi-national air/cruise missle campaign such as Iraq in 91 and 98. if it ever comes down to it. You have just about everybody (UN, EU, USA) telling Iran not to develope a nuclear program. Thats a very likely possibility.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Bugfatty, we can start bombing Iran, true. But not only would it fail to stop them, it would cause them to accelerate their program and get the nukes even sooner. Also, if we take that step, we'd better get ready to get the heck out of Iraq, because Iran can make life even more difficult for us there than it has been up till now.

 

[Bugfatty300]

Bugfatty, we can start bombing Iran, true. But not only would it fail to stop them, it would cause them to accelerate their program and get the nukes even sooner. Also, if we take that step, we'd better get ready to get the heck out of Iraq, because Iran can make life even more difficult for us there than it has been up till now.

The Israelis said they are planning a strike if Iran gets close to getting nuclear weapons. The US said that it wouldn't try to stop them if negotations with Iran failed. We might as well help them.

Its not like we won't get 50% of the blame from the Muslim community. Even if the US completely stays neutral, muslims will believe the US to be behind it.

Also, groups in Iran are already making life hell for troops and Iraqis. Something Iran should also have to answer for.

Btw, Bozo, what happened to our discussions in your A-bomb thread? And I was just getting warmed up too.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

The Israelis said they are planning a strike if Iran gets close to getting nuclear weapons. The US said that it wouldn't try to stop them if negotations with Iran failed. We might as well help them.

Its not like we won't get 50% of the blame from the Muslim community. Even if the US completely stays neutral, muslims will believe the US to be behind it.

Also, groups in Iran are already making life hell for troops and Iraqis. Something Iran should also have to answer for.

Btw, Bozo, what happened to our discussions in your A-bomb thread? And I was just getting warmed up too.

Would bombing Iran make the world any safer? IMO, absolutely not.

I was taking a Hiroshima break

 

[stormbind]

This is interesting because Germany is playing a part - it opposed the invasion of Iraq.

Is Germany allowed to invade another country or is it limited in the same way as Japan?

 

[Bugfatty300]

Would bombing Iran make the world any safer? IMO, absolutely not.

On the other hand, would Iran with nuclear weapons make it any safer?

I was taking a Hiroshima break

Breaks are for the weak!

 

[King Alexander]

This is interesting because Germany is playing a part - it opposed the invasion of Iraq.

Is Germany allowed to invade another country or is it limited in the same way as Japan?

This is a question a German could answer: I don't think modern Germany is restricted by anything, though.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

On the other hand, would Iran with nuclear weapons make it any safer?

Dont worry, the Bush administration agrees with you. We'll all be safer after bombing Iran, just like we're safer after invading Iraq. Why learn from mistakes when blowing things up is so much more satisfying?

Breaks are for the weak!

After arguing for 108 pages, I feel like Ive been nuked myself