Nations Reach Deal on Confronting Iran

UNITED NATIONS - The five veto-wielding members of the U.N. Security Council reached a deal Wednesday on confronting Iran's suspect nuclear program, setting the stage for the first action by the powerful U.N. body over fears that Tehran wants a nuclear weapon.

The 15 members of the council planned to meet later Wednesday to approve the statement, which was expected to demand that Iran abandon uranium enrichment, the process that can lead to a nuclear weapon.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060329/ap_on_re_mi_ea/un_iran_nuclear_4

I wonder what we promised Putin in return.

Seriously, it is more than likely we granted them a free hand to commit genocide in Chechnya. :(

terrorist list? Let others put Democrats on their terrorist watch list?

.
.
.

They didn't, and have done nothing to stop the BushGang from it's illegal and genocidal wars . .

(sigh)

Well, only this administration.


Saudi Arabia moving to create nuclear weapons scares me a helluva lot more than Iran.

for anyone. it's not like they are a good weapon anyway, all they are designed for is to kill people.

Think about it. If Iran did have a nuke, what would be the odds of the US attacking Iran? Pretty damn small.

The bush admin is unlike any admin we have had in my memory, but in general the US does not pose a threat to other counties w/out provocation.

America's Blinders
by Howard Zinn
March 26, 2006

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=72&ItemID=9987

Our rapid transformation to the Amerikan Empire, a subsidiary of BushCo Imperial Family, Inc., is so far along that it is quite naive to use ANY template of thinking which postulates future behavior of THIS country from the 224 1/2 years of behavior from the country that came before it.

Like predicting Nazi activities after 1933 by using Weimar Republic Standards...that does not compute.

Sorry if the truth hurts. Don't blame the messenger.

Also, the first step to solving a problem is recognizing exactly what the problem is.

... we all know what is coming after the 30 days are up. Bush, Cheny, Rummy and co cant wait to launch the next invasion on their list.

but allowing a country like Iran to develop nukes is stupid. For everyone.

nuclear materials from Pakistan in an effort to become a nuclear power? Bush** trading nuclear materials with India and we get mangoes? What the hell is wrong with this picture?

approves a statement that Iran suspend uranium enrichment.

No link yet. Just a banner.

http://www.cnn.com/

SARCASM

but it looks like we are going to attack Iran...eventually..

Did you miss that particular sound bite?

:sarcasm:

PNAC-destroying one country at a time and loving every minute of it.

U.N. Security Council passes nuclear demands for Iran
Statement not binding; Russia, China want IAEA to take lead
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/03/29/UN.iran.ap/index.html
Wednesday, March 29, 2006; Posted: 4:38 p.m. EST (21:38 GMT)


British U.N. Ambassador Emyr Jones-Parry says Iran needs to comply with IAEA demands.

UNITED NATIONS (AP) -- The U.N. Security Council has unanimously approved a statement Wednesday demanding that Iran suspend uranium enrichment.

The five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council agreed earlier on a statement demanding that Iran suspend uranium enrichment, setting the stage for the first action by the powerful body over fears that Tehran wants a nuclear weapon.

The text gives Iran 30 days to cooperate with the IAEA and suspend its uranium enrichment, according to U.S. Ambassador John Bolton.

The council has struggled for three weeks to come up with a written rebuke that would urge Iran to comply with several demands from the board of the U.N. nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, to clear up suspicions about its intentions. Tehran insists its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes.

SNIP

This keeps it out of the UN Security Council. The IAEA can not impose sanctions by itself. This is a symbolic show, but not the sort of resolution that might be used to justify military action.

the US did not get the go ahead for war.

matter altogether, isn't it? What about a blockade of the Straights of Hormuz - is that going to drive the Dow up?

Do you think the NY Banks are going to let Bush crash the U.S. and global economies so the GOP can get reelected?

If the New York banks still had any power, do you think Bush** would
have been allowed to bankrupt the country with these deficits?

That works provided that the currency doesn't crash, devaluing US Dollar denomiated holdings by a like amount.

"...Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?"
-- W.B Yeats

Iran or issue resolutions authorizing force.

Russia and China have already said this is as far as they're going to go. It stops here.

Of course, the US and UK could act unilaterally without a UN figleaf, but that doesn't seem to be in the cards presently laid out on the table.

Change isn't always fast!

but I do know Russia was opposed to this before, and now isn't. I do know that the AmeriKKKan fascists ruling this saggy Empire would love to invade Iran as part of their PNAC ambitions, but the fact is that US forces are so buried in the civil war nightmare that is Iraq that there is no way they could invade a country 3 or 4 times the size of Iraq.

And I think, believe in my heart, that talk of invading Iran militarily would bring out TENS OF MILLIONS of people around the world, and I cannot believe any of the UN Security Council nations has the stomache for this. That said, who in March 2001 could have said that 5 years later the current Orwellian nightmare would be going on?

An invasion of Iraq would in the US require a draft, maybe even the imposition of martial law. From what I have gleaned from various sources, this whole UN gesture may be so much smoke anyway. But I don't know. :(

And which the vast majority of Iranians are eager to have & proud of their country for persuing.

We live in "interesting" times.

you know like oil or something

"Today, oil experts say Iran is now near peak extraction."
http://www.energybulletin.net/4928.html
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/020606A.shtml

Iranian oil and energy analyst and expert Ali Bakhtiari predicts that peak oil will arrive around 2006, 2007...
http://energybulletin.net/2347.html
http://www.countercurrents.org/peakoil-porter031004.htm

Scott Ritter; sure was right about Iraq, where bush was 100% wrong. And what does he say about Iran? Iran wants a nuclear energy program, and not nuclear weapons.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11812.htm

“IAEA inspectors have been admitted to every nuclear site in the country to which they have sought access and have found no hard evidence, to date, that bombs exist or that Iran has made a decision to build them. The latest IAEA report can be downloaded at: http://www.GlobalSecurity.org ”

The NPT gives every state the inalienable right to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes…..No state has successfully constructed a nuclear weapon in secret while subjected to an NPT inspection regime.

"Iran's president...stands on the solid ground of international law"
http://www.theconservativevoice.com/articles/article.html?id=11600

Sleepwalking to Disaster in Iran; Scott Ritter
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0330-31.htm

There is No Iranian 'Crisis'
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0226-21.htm

IAEA: Iran Not Seeking to Produce Nukes
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=1669447

or maybe you can "educate" me about where all that Iranian oil profit went? They have no oil to spare for domestic energy production? Why is that? Maybe it would cut into someone's profits?

And as to educating you, it's "you're".

As in you're missing the point(s); Iran's oil is near peak extraction; Iran has a legal right to nuclear energy.

And I'll go with Scott Ritter's opinion, thanks! :hi:

why Iran could not use some of their oil for domestic energy production. Personally as a liberal I don't support expanding nuclear energy development, I don't care whether countries have the right or not.

What kind of crap is that? Liberals wouldn't favor increased use of oil over nuclear power - perhaps 20 years ago, they would. I call B.S. on this.

there is no nuclear waste. You have heard of catalysts right? By using catalysts, coal and oil can be burned very cleanly. What do you think Iran would do with their nuclear waste? You really think they would dispose of it properly? (if there even is such a thing)

Gee how very..."liberal".

:eyes:

"Ritter also predicted the military strategy for war with Iran. First, American forces will bomb Iran. If Iranians don't overthrow the current government, as Bush hopes they will, Iran will probably attack Israel. Then, Ritter said, the United States will drop a nuclear bomb on Iran."

I think this quote speaks for itself.

:rofl:

or maybe tinfoil makes people laugh at things that are not funny.

Nuclear power is one of the few somewhat clean (aside from the waste) energy sources of which we have an abundance. It's not about profit. It's about the fact that oil supplies are dwindling and people who bother to educate themselves understand that.

Aside from the question of energy, let's go back to weapons. If (and I mean, "if") Iran intended to build nuclear weapons, it would likely be in response to the imminent threat from both the United States and Israel, both of which have massive stockpiles of nuclear and chem/bio weapons.

Of course, this administration put up even less phony and inconclusive evidence of Husseins supposed WMD activities than they are now with Iran. Fool me twice... can't get fooled again.

Oil and coal can be burned SO cleanly that you could breath the exhaust coming out the "smoke stack".

:)

UNITED NATIONS - The U.N. Security Council gave Iran 30 days to clear up suspicions that it is seeking nuclear weapons, and key members turned their focus on what to do if Iran refuses to suspend uranium enrichment and allow more intrusive inspections.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice arrived in Berlin on Thursday for discussions between the five permanent council members — the United States, Russia, China Britain and France — plus Germany, on how much and what kind of pressure to exert on Iran if it refuses to comply.

After three weeks of intense negotiations, the 15-member Security Council approved a statement Wednesday asking the U.N. nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, to report back in 30 days on Iran's compliance with demands to stop enriching uranium.

The statement, made available to The Associated Press, takes into account Russian and Chinese reservations about too much toughness, while meeting U.S., French and British calls for keeping the pressure on Tehran.

It "notes with serious concern Iran's decision to resume enrichment-related activities ... and to suspend cooperation with the IAEA under the additional protocol" — an agreement allowing agency inspectors wide access on short notice to Iran's nuclear program.

The statement also calls on Iran to return to "full and sustained suspension of all enrichment-related ... activities."

....

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060330/ap_on_re_mi_ea/un_iran_nuclear

*sigh*

in 30 days and minute. I can't believe the UNSC signed off on starting WWIII in the ME.

I guess this will cause more unrest in the middle east...