Hi,

Rice warns Iran of UN sanctions


US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has warned Iran it faces possible UN sanctions unless it accepts a European deal on its nuclear programme.

If Iran is "unwilling to take the deal... then the Security Council looms," Ms Rice told Fox News.

Britain, France and Germany have offered Iran trade concessions if it gives up its nuclear programme.

Ms Rice was speaking as she and Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld were due in talks with European allies.

Ms Rice is meeting EU and Nato officials in Brussels, and Mr Rumsfeld is meeting Nato defence ministers in Nice.

The Secretary of State is nearing the end of an eight-day tour of Europe and the Middle East, during which she has sought to bury differences with Europe over Iraq, says the BBC's Europe correspondent Tim Franks in Brussels.

Sanctions

Iran has agreed to temporarily suspend its uranium enrichment activities during the negotiations process with Europe.

Iran says its nuclear programme is peaceful, but the US claims Iran is on the path to developing nuclear weapons.

"They [Iran] need to hear that the discussions they are in with the Europeans are not going to be a kind of way-station, where they are allowed to continue their activities," Ms Rice said in an interview with the US television network.

"I don't know that anyone has said that as clearly as they should to the Iranians," she said.

Iran has signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which prohibits the development of atomic weapons.

The UN's Security Council has the power to impose stringent sanctions on Iran if it is found to be in breach of the treaty.

Iraq

In Nice, Mr Rumsfeld is expected to call on Nato colleagues to do more for the military effort in Iraq.

Nato said it would contribute 300 personnel for a training mission, but so far there are fewer than 100 on the ground.

The US-led invasion of Iraq during US President George Bush's first term badly strained ties with Europe.

Some countries, notably France and Germany, said they would have nothing to do with operations in Iraq. Spain initially sent troops but then decided to pull them out.

Ms Rice's meeting with EU officials is expected to touch on Iran, and EU plan to lift an embargo on arms sales to China - a plan which the US deplores, our correspondent says.

Source

UN Responce

UN probe backs Iran nuclear claim



Iran has not diverted nuclear materials it declared to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to make weapons, the UN watchdog has concluded.

But the IAEA said it could not rule out the existence of nuclear materials that had not been declared.

Iran has agreed to suspend its uranium enrichment activities by 22 November, following talks with the European Union, officials in Tehran say.

Iran is facing a 25 November deadline to comply with an IAEA resolution.

In a confidential report, the UN nuclear watchdog said: "All the declared nuclear material in Iran has been accounted for, and therefore such material is not diverted to prohibited activities."

A senior diplomat close to the IAEA said "prohibited activities" included possible work on weapons, Reuters news agency quoted him as saying.

But the report went on to say that doubt remained over Iran's nuclear programme.

"The Agency is, however, not in a position to conclude that there are no undeclared nuclear materials or activities in Iran," it added.

Sanctions threat

Iran agreed to suspend its uranium enrichment activities on Sunday, after talks with three European Union countries.

The EU offered Iran increased co-operation on trade and energy in exchange for the freeze.

Chief Iranian negotiator Hassan Rohani said Tehran would suspend "almost all" its enrichment activities until a long-term agreement on Iran's nuclear programme is reached.

Iran insists its nuclear activities are peaceful, but the US says they are part of a secret weapons programme.

Successful uranium enrichment could be seen as a key stage in the development of weapons-grade nuclear material.

The Vienna-based IAEA passed a resolution in September calling on Iran to stop enriching uranium.

The findings of the report are due to be reviewed by the IAEA's board of governors on 25 November - three days after the freeze is set to begin.

Correspondents say this new deal makes it unlikely that the US will refer Iran to the UN Security Council for possible sanctions.
Source

Iran Resopnce

Iran hails UN nuclear 'victory'



A top Iranian official has claimed a "great victory" over the US after the UN said it would not punish Iran's nuclear activities with sanctions.

Hassan Rohani said Iran would never give up its right to nuclear power.

He stressed during talks with European countries Iran's freeze on uranium enrichment was only temporary.

The UN atomic agency IAEA welcomed Iran's offer to freeze enrichment in a statement on Monday that did not mention any threat of future sanctions.

US President George W Bush has acknowledged Iran's latest move, but says the US wants the enrichment programme terminated, not just suspended.

At a press conference in Canada where he is on an official visit, Mr Bush described the freeze as "a positive step, but it is certainly not the final step".

Washington has accused Iran of going back on numerous promises over its nuclear activities, and had been pushing for UN sanctions.

For his part, Mr Rohani said the "whole world had turned down America's calls".

"We have proved that, in an international institution, we are capable of isolating the US. And that is a great victory," said Mr Rohani, who heads Iran's top security body.

He added that the US representative at the IAEA meeting in Vienna "was enraged and in tears, and everybody said that the Americans had failed and we had won".

It was Iran's first direct comment on the nuclear controversy since the IAEA resolution on Monday.

Short negotiations

According to Mr Rohani, Iran's offer to suspend uranium enrichment would only apply for the duration of talks with the EU.

"We are talking months, not years," the cleric said.

Officials from the UK, Germany and France are trying to get Iran to renounce its nuclear fuel enrichment programme for good.

BBC correspondent Frances Harrison says Iran is hoping to be able to offer Europe objective guarantees to prove it is not diverting nuclear material for a secret weapons programme.

Talks between the Europeans and the Iranians are due to resume on 15 December.

Mr Rohani said "the length of negotiations must be rational and not too long".

But, he added, the talks were a "historical opportunity for Iran and Europe to prove to the world that unilateralism is condemned".

Iran maintains that its nuclear programme is solely for peaceful purposes and rejects accusations that it is working towards technology which could eventually be used for the production of nuclear weapons.

Source

Yeah we all know how good the UN is about this stuff.

Hi,

Well UN has it's limitations .................You can't just go into a Sovergin County Poking your Nose everywhere.

International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Keeps Track and a record of all the Nuclear material produced Out of the NUclear Reactor and other Known Sources in the Countries Signatory to NTPC...............and when it cheak it's Stock pile and equipments it found all the Material that Iran should have is intact and accounted for.

They might have Acuired some Nuclear material and Know how form Khan labs of Pakistan .............but that's a Different Issue it's not under UN contol.

When US has Pardoned Khan and Pakistan ( their Frontline Ally in War on terror ) ......and US refuses to take actio against them........ so what's the point ......case should be dismissed

Peace
-=SF_13=-

UN... oh that big building in Manhattan, you mean? Yeah heard of that.

can i say that this is a bit hypocritical


"you can't have nukes, or chem weapons"


"but you have them"


"ummmm, but we're different"


"how"


*uncomfortable shuffling*


personally i find it hard to trust ANYONE who still has these weapons at their disposal in a post cold war era.
but know one will give them up while the "other" side still has them, so where is the insentive for others (N. Korea, india, pakistan, iran etc) to give them up?

anyone got any good ideas?

Hi,

Thats Brings us to one Fundamental Question .............. Can you stop a Soverign Country form Doing Scientific Research and developing Nuclear or Chemical or Biological Wepons..

North Korea and Iran and Iraq were Signatories to Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) and NPTC so UN can Monitor them and tehir NUclear Recerch Facilites.

But Countries Like India , Isreal never Signed that Biased Trety ............ so they are not Bound to them .

My Question how can you stop a Country form Acquiring Neclear Wepons .............is it really possible?

Peace
-=SF_13=-

Originally Posted by USMC0861

Yeah we all know how good the UN is about this stuff.

They're good when it comes to neuclar issues.

UN = a mere puppet in the hands of you know whom it is..

Originally Posted by Italian Guy

UN... oh that big building in Manhattan, you mean? Yeah heard of that.

Originally Posted by chewie_nz

can i say that this is a bit hypocritical


"you can't have nukes, or chem weapons"


"but you have them"


"ummmm, but we're different"


"how"


*uncomfortable shuffling*


personally i find it hard to trust ANYONE who still has these weapons at their disposal in a post cold war era.
but know one will give them up while the "other" side still has them, so where is the insentive for others (N. Korea, india, pakistan, iran etc) to give them up?

anyone got any good ideas?

Basically the only difference is that no one expects the US, Britain or France to actually use them.
The problem with having nukes in the hands of these "rogue states" if you will, is that the weapons can fall into the hands of some wackos who have nothing to lose. The type that'll walk into a major Western city and be the first to be vaporized taking the city with him.
THAT'S the difference.
Now maybe these "rogue states" will give it to these groups on purpose. MAYBE they'll even lose it to these groups who's activities are far more free in these places.
Those are the risks.
For those reasons, the US even bought the old nuclear weapons off Kazkhstan, who had no confidence in keeping those weapons safe.

Originally Posted by chewie_nz

personally i find it hard to trust ANYONE who still has these weapons at their disposal in a post cold war era.
but know one will give them up while the "other" side still has them, so where is the insentive for others (N. Korea, india, pakistan, iran etc) to give them up?

anyone got any good ideas?