IRAN given dateline to prove it is 'Clean'
-
This time it is the United Nations agency - I.A.E.A that is issuing an ultimatum to Iran to come clean, and stop its efforts to conceal and befuddle the on-going investigations to Iran's actual intent to develop a Nuclear Bomb.
Another potential Islamic Country to defy the United Nations, and follow Iraq's path to self-assured doomsday ?
Saturday September 13, 8:07 PM
Iran reacts with anger, defiance to IAEA nuclear deadline
Iran has angrily hit back at the UN nuclear watchdog for imposing an October 31 deadline on the Islamic republic to prove it is not secretly developing atomic weapons, dismissing the resolution as "political".
Amid warnings that future cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) could be in doubt, Tehran's ambassador to the body, Ali Akbar Salehi told the official news agency IRNA that "Iran cannot take part in a political process".
Salehi walked out of Friday's IAEA meeting in Vienna, after Iran was given until October 31 to prove it is not running a covert nuclear weapons programme.
"The Western group in the (IAEA) board of governors, in line with their political goals, have made illegitimate, illegal and impractical requests from Iran," Salehi complained, labelling the United States, Britain, Germany and France as "extremist countries".
"Even if all the claims on Iran's programme's shortcomings are true, they cannot be resolved within the 45 days given to Iran," he added, accusing some Western states of not wishing "to resolve the issue technically and legally".
IAEA director Mohamed ElBaradei warned Tehran that it could be declared in non-compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) if it failed to answer all the agency's questions.
But the resolution immediately sparked some calls here for the country's clerical leadership to follow the path of North Korea and pull out of the NPT.
State television said in a commentary that the resolution was "political", and "directed by the United States and the Zionist regime (Israel)".
The ultra-hardline Jomhuri Eslami newspaper wrote that Iran "should not pay any attention to the US, the Europeans and international organisations ... and accept that the right path is the one that the North Koreans have chosen."
And the hardline Kayhan newspaper, which also advocated pulling out of the NPT, accused European Union countries and the United States of seeking to "completely disarm Iran and convert it to weak and feeble country like Iraq in order to overrun it."
The paper said ambassadors of Japan, Australia and Canada -- the countries that submitted the resolution during the Vienna meeting -- should be expelled from Tehran and only allowed back when they apologise.
Before the resolution was passed, powerful former president Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani said in a Friday prayer sermon that "what is happening now in Vienna is an unjust, tyrannical and unilateral process."
Rafsanjani, still one of Islamic Iran's most influential players, said that "no regime will accept such a thing, and in fact one of the objectives of our revolution was to struggle against those who want to force us to submit to their will," he said.
His defiant comments were carried on the front page of most newspapers here.
The resolution passed by the IAEA on Friday -- a compromise text submitted by Canada, Australia and Japan -- said it was "essential and urgent" for Tehran to "remedy all failures" in compliance reported by the agency since it began inspections in February, after Iran was revealed to have more nuclear facilities than previously thought.
The resolution also called for Tehran to suspend its uranium enrichment programme and reveal whether it was enriching uranium to weapons-grade level.
But its language was toned down from the original version, "requesting" rather than "calling" for Iran to sign an additional protocol to the NPT that would allow IAEA inspectors to make surprise visits to suspect sites.
France and Germany supported the United States in setting the deadline on Iran, which Washington accuses of developing weapons of mass destruction.
Their backing contrasted sharply with their opposition earlier this year to the US-led invasion of Iraq, which was also alleged to have had weapons of mass destruction.
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/030913/1/3e57m.html -
Sorry to disappoint you Atobe, thats IMO unlikely, pray tell whos army (yours perhaps?) going to barge into Iran and ensure Iran follows Iraq's path to "self-assured" doomsday? Bush? The US miitary is already emaciated from commitments from S Korea to Kosovo to Iraq to Afghanistan, thanks in no small part to Bush's stupidity and arrogance. Even without these commitments the US military will be hard-pressed to take on Iran's military swiftly, because this timeOriginally posted by Atobe:This time it is the United Nations agency - I.A.E.A that is issuing an ultimatum to Iran to come clean, and stop its efforts to conceal and befuddle the on-going investigations to Iran's actual intent to develop a Nuclear Bomb.
Another potential Islamic Country to defy the United Nations, and follow Iraq's path to self-assured doomsday ?
- they do not have the luxury of having 13 years of UN sanctions to emaciate the enemy's military.
- If they thought Iraq was a big country, they ain't seen nothin' yet
- Despite not being exactly popular, support for the mullahs in Iran is stronger than support for Saddam amidst Iraqis. And look at the trouble the Americans are having in Iraq
When is idiot Bush Jr and his equally moronic apologists going to learn that making loud noises and public threats against other countries the most surefire way to ensure backing for despotic regimes among its populace, and make the despots more unlikely to accede to his demands? -
My regrets too, in not being able to agree with your piece posted.Originally posted by Viper52:Sorry to disappoint you Atobe, thats IMO unlikely, pray tell whos army (yours perhaps?) going to barge into Iran and ensure Iran follows Iraq's path to "self-assured" doomsday? Bush? The US miitary is already emaciated from commitments from S Korea to Kosovo to Iraq to Afghanistan, thanks in no small part to Bush's stupidity and arrogance. Even without these commitments the US military will be hard-pressed to take on Iran's military swiftly, because this time
- they do not have the luxury of having 13 years of UN sanctions to emaciate the enemy's military.
- If they thought Iraq was a big country, they ain't seen nothin' yet
- Despite not being exactly popular, support for the mullahs in Iran is stronger than support for Saddam amidst Iraqis. And look at the trouble the Americans are having in Iraq
When is idiot Bush Jr and his equally moronic apologists going to learn that making loud noises and public threats against other countries the most surefire way to ensure backing for despotic regimes among its populace, and make the despots more unlikely to accede to his demands?
This time around, it is the United Nations that will be initiating the move against Iran; and if any military confrontation should be needed, the World Organisation will have more then 100 over countries to draw military strength from.
Even this time around, Russia is joining in the UN effort to get Iran to declare its intention and reveal the full accounting of its nuclear program. This is at the risk of Russia losing the multi-million dollar contract to complete the building of the Nuclear facility in Iran.
Concerning the internal Iranian support for the Mullahs stated in your post, you may wish to visit the following sites, and update yourself to the events that have been occuring in Iran since mid-1990s.
Surprisingly enough, there are internal Iranian support for Bush's speech in including Iran amongst the three named countries in the "Axis of Evil" - with Iraq and North Korea.
There is a revolutionary movement that is gaining momentum agaist the Theocratic Mullahs ruling the daily lives of ordinary Iranians; who no longer tolerate the imposition of Islamic laws on their society, after having lived with it for more then 25 years.
The ground is ripe for the taking, and this time around, the US may play a less then major roll, and perhaps allow the Europeans and Russia to take the Chair.
Most Iranians openly calling for American help in Iran
Posted on 05/01/2003 12:27 AM PDT by DoctorZIn – Iranian Press Service
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/903689/posts
Ordinary Iranians applaud Bush “Axis of Evil” Talk
06 February 2002
http://www.rezapahlavi.org/articles/wsj20602.html
Iran Freedom Foundation Inc., - “What is the so-called Islamic Republic of Iran ? ”
- the bloody usurper, terrorist Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran is neither Islamic nor a Republic. ?”
http://www.iffmrt.org/What.htm
The National Council of Resistance of Iran:
Rajavi Urges Denver Summit ( G - 8 ) Leaders To Adopt Firm Policy Towards Mullahs
19 June 1997
http://www.iran-e-azad.org/english/boi/06810619_97.html -
Atobe,
the UN might say yes, but who but the Americans have the military capability to lead the coalition to topple the Mad Mullahs of Iran? Russia? China? Don't hold your breath. The Americans? Read my first post. They neither have the troops nor balls to go in against Iran, at least till they get Iraq and Afghanistan sorted out first. Factor in the need to rest the troops before the next US military adventure and we're looking at at least 5 years if not more. As it is the US military is running on empty with lots of reserves/National Guard called up and being used in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Unless, you're willing to finance, form, train and lead your own army in...
As for your articles internal support for toppling of Irans regime, replace Iran with Iraq and the articles suddenly seem familiar. Before Op Iraqi Freedom the US propaganda machine was predicting similar widespread support for the "Amerikan liberators". That may have been the significant support initially in Iraq, but even that is wearing pretty thin now. Even the lack of attacks in the Shi'ite areas of Iraq is due to tolerance, not acceptance of the US forces. If things don't improve, and control is not handed back to the Iraqis soon, coupled with Iran hovering in the background ready to agitate, we'll see how long things stay peaceful in Southern Iraq.
Don't get me wrong, I would love to see Iran's, DPRK's and the Cuban regimes dumped out into the ashheap of history where they belong, and am happy to see Saddam go. But I'm against the way the Yanks went charging into Iraq Wild West style, and to be frank, your hope of Iran's mullahs going the same way as Saddam is to me, laughable at best. There is simply neither will, nor capability for that.
And after the US humbling in Iraq (as far as the unilateralism vs multilateralism debate goes), along with their current military capabilties and situation, only reinforces my point -
Hi Viper52, great to see your response at this hour.
Concerning the US present appetite for another bruising round to handle Iran, you maybe right up to a point.
However, with the backing of other contributing nations to form a larger UN sanctioned Coalition Force, you may just find the USA in it - as well as France, Germany, other EU countries, and Russia too (not so sure if China will commit the PLA, as she is one of the 5 members of the UN Security Council).
Obviously, with the military resources and quality material that the USA will provide and far exceeding that from any other UN member countries, the USA will probably take the leadership role.
I believe that when Iran is targetted by the UN, with the support of all its members, the Iraq problem will be resolved and included as part of an overall UN Iran-Iraqi agenda.
This is only logical, as Iraq will be the staging post for any assault into Iran, with Afghanistan-Iran border providing a logical second front that will provide some challenge to the limited Iranian resources.
I will not doubt the resolve of the US citizens when the crunch comes to take on Iran, and they will not give up the opportunity given the participation and sanction of the UN.
It will be payback time to the Mullahs, who humiliated the USA during the late 1970s, when Ayatollah Khomeini brought the Shah of Iran and held the US Embassy Staff hostage.
So far the US has only committed two Division Plus in Iraq, and less then a Brigade in Afghanistan.
The size of the US Armed Forces and its Reserves are large enough to be rotated for duty in Iraq.
The manner in which the wars were fought in Afghanistan and Iraq during the opening phases, have largely been conducted by joint operation of Special Forces and aircrafts from the US Air Force and the US Navy.
The number of troops required in both wars were much less then half of that mobilised during Dessert Shielf and Dessert Storm.
With troop contributions from all UN Member Countries, there will need to be smaller demand for US Ground Troops.
Unfortunately, Singapore Laws do not allow me to have a Private Army, or operate a "Dogs of War" outfit.