Major Powers Agree on Security Council Referral of Iran




 
--
Major Powers Agree on Security Council Referral of Iran
 
January 31st, 2006  
phoenix80
 
 

Topic: Major Powers Agree on Security Council Referral of Iran


Major Powers Agree on Security Council Referral of Iran
By David Gollust
London
31 January 2006

The United States and other permanent member countries of the U.N. Security Council, including Russia and China, agreed early Monday to refer the issue of Iran's nuclear program to the council. The referral will come later this week but any action in the council would not occur until March at the earliest.

The agreement, which U.S. officials describe as a major advance, came at the end of a four-hour ministerial-level dinner meeting of the major powers at the official London residence of British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw.
A joint statement said the five Security Council member countries, and Germany which also took part in the session, agreed that this week's meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency governing board should report the issue of Iran's nuclear program to the council.

http://www.voanews.com/english/2006-01-31-voa3.cfm

-----------------------------------

Oh well, finally the major powers agreed on referring Iran to the UN Security Council

The referral to the security council is different from the vote once it's there and we do not know if the major powers (Britain, China, France, Russia, USA) would be able to press Iranian regime with the sanctions needed to halt their nuclear programme.

But this is one important step closer to what I predicted earlier! I am also waiting to hear President Bush's speech tomorrow night.

It is also interesting to read parts of Bush's interview with CBS talking about greater freedoms for the Iranian people.

Regime's downfall is in sight.
January 31st, 2006  
Rabs
 
 
Oh jesus lets just bomb the hell out of em already this isnt going to end any other way.


Every second we wait the more of a chance Israel is going to end up being an extension of the mederteranian (sp) sea.
January 31st, 2006  
mmarsh
 
 
[quote=Rabs]Oh jesus lets just bomb the hell out of em already this isnt going to end any other way.


Thats exactly the arguement Bush used about Iraq and look how that turned out. Im not saying we shouldnt use force if there is no other solution, but rash actions can have disasterous consequences (like Iraq).
--
Major Powers Agree on Security Council Referral of Iran
January 31st, 2006  
Forrest_Gump
 
Quote:
Thats exactly the arguement Bush used about Iraq and look how that turned out. Im not saying we shouldnt use force if there is no other solution, but rash actions can have disasterous consequences (like Iraq).
Even though I'm getting tired of going down this road, I'll do it again just for the game.

Exactly what "consequences" are you speaking of?

Be sure to bring citations to the table please.
January 31st, 2006  
phoenix80
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Forrest_Gump
Even though I'm getting tired of going down this road, I'll do it again just for the game.

Exactly what "consequences" are you speaking of?

Be sure to bring citations to the table please.
I smelled a little bit of Cindy Sheehan here

LoL

January 31st, 2006  
mmarsh
 
 
Well for example

1. Getting involved in another quagmire war with no getting out.
2. Further annoying the Muslim world and driving thousands more into the recruiting offices of Al Qaeda.
3. Further alienating our friends and encouraging our enemies.
4. Putting a further strain on our budget due a 3rd major military adventure in less than 5 years.

Im not going to lookup sources because A) its late and B) I'm not going to argue for common sense. Unless one is a die-hard Bush apologist (and even they are running out of excuses) the war in Iraq was very poorly planned.

If military force were authorized I would sincerely hope the operations would be concieved at 10 Downing Street because I have absolutly ZERO faith in the military abilities of Donald Rumsfeld.
January 31st, 2006  
Morten
 
 
Quote:
Iran 'must face Security Council'

LONDON, England (AP) -- The five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council reached a surprising agreement Tuesday that Iran should be hauled before the powerful body over its disputed nuclear program.

China and Russia, longtime allies and trading partners of Iran, signed up to a statement that calls on the U.N. nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, to transfer the Iran dossier to the Security Council, which could impose sanctions.
The IAEA meets in Vienna on Thursday.
Though the United States, Britain and France have been pressing to hand Iran's case to the Security Council, it had been unclear whether China and Russia would support such a move.
The foreign ministers from the five nations said, however, that the Security Council should wait until March to take up the Iran case, after a formal report from the IAEA on Tehran's activities.
Iran reacted immediately, said there was no legal basis for hauling them up before the world body.
Vice President Gholamreza Aghazadeh, who is also the head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization, said despite the recommendation of the five nations, it was difficult to predict what would happen at Thursday's IAEA meeting.
"The biggest problem for the West is that they can't find any (legal) justification to refer Iran to the U.N. Security Council," the semi-official Iranian Students News Agency quoted the vice president as saying. (Full story)
U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and her counterparts discussed Iran at a private dinner at the home of British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw.
After the four-hour meeting, which spilled over into the early hours of Tuesday, a joint statement called on the IAEA to report the Iran case at the meeting Thursday.
With support from Germany and the European Union, whose foreign ministers also attended the dinner, the overall agreement amounted to a compromise -- take the case to the Security Council but allow a short breather before the council undertakes what could be a divisive debate.
Any of the five permanent members of the Security Council, all nuclear powers themselves, can veto an action voted by the full council membership.
The group agreed that the IAEA "should report to the Security Council its decision on the steps required of Iran, and should also report to the Security Council all IAEA reports and resolutions as adopted relating to this issue," a statement from the group said. (Full text)
The IAEA has already found Iran in violation of nuclear obligations and issued a stern warning to Tehran in September. Thursday's vote would be the next step, one long sought by the United States.
Iran insists its nuclear program is intended only to produce electricity. The United States and some allies say Iran is hiding ambitions to build a nuclear bomb, but the Security Council members have been divided about how strong a line to take.
A French government official, speaking on the customary condition of anonymity, said the Russian and Chinese ministers had initially been reluctant to agree to refer Iran to the Security Council, but were persuaded of the need for the council members to show a united front.
"This is in the hands of the IAEA," U.N. spokesman Stephane Dujarric said of the agreement. "We're not going to say anything at this point."
On Monday, Rice said the world agreed that Iran should not have the means of developing a nuclear weapon, and she criticized Iran's response to Russian attempts to mediate in the standoff.
Iran broke U.N. seals at a uranium enrichment plant Jan. 10 and said it would resume nuclear fuel research after a two-year freeze. Tehran said the research would involve what it called limited uranium enrichment, but the action raised fears Tehran was using its pursuit of atomic power as a front for a nuclear weapons program.
In Vienna, a diplomat familiar with the Iran probe said IAEA inspectors were allowed access to the Lavizan-Shian site -- believed to be the repository of equipment bought by the Iranian military that could be used in a nuclear weapons program.
Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said in Tehran on Sunday that IAEA inspectors trying to gain access to the site for more than a year had been given the information they sought.
Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/....ap/index.html

Quote:
Permanent members' Iran statement

LONDON (Reuters) -- Following is the full text of a statement issued by British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw concerning an agreement on Iran made by the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, Germany and the European Union on Tuesday.
The Foreign Ministers of China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom, the United States of America and the High Representative of the European Union met this evening, 30 January 2006, and agreed the following:
"Ministers:
  • underlined their commitment to the NPT and their determination to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons;
  • shared serious concerns about Iran's nuclear program, and agreed that an extensive period of confidence-building was required from Iran;
  • called on Iran to restore in full the suspension of enrichment-related activity, including R&D, under the supervision of the IAEA;
  • agreed that this week's Extraordinary IAEA Board meeting should report to the Security Council its decision on the steps required from Iran, and should also report to the Security Council all IAEA reports and resolutions, as adopted, relating to this issue;
  • agreed that the Security Council should await the Director General's report to the March meeting of the IAEA Board, which would include a report on the implementation of the February Board's Resolution, and any Resolution from the March meeting, before deciding to take action to reinforce the authority of the IAEA process;
  • confirmed their resolve to continue to work for a diplomatic solution to the Iran problem."
Copyright 2006 Reuters. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/...eut/index.html




finally its happening!..
January 31st, 2006  
Forrest_Gump
 
No need for you to cite your sources. It's the same tired mantra without basis in reality.




1. Getting involved in another quagmire war with no getting out.




The last time our darlings in the media used “quagmire” was during our Vietnam War. At that time we had nearly 500,000 troops in country with 30,000 dead (1968 http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/vietnam/index-1965.html). At that time we were fighting in a country lead by a dictator that we installed (not America's most shining moment), alongside troops that for the most part could care less if they won or lost (not meant as a slight the few units that actually fought with gallantry and honor, but more as a statement of the general malaise of the SV forces), for a population that saw us as no better than the French.
Now let's look at Iraq. A brutal dictator who happily slaughtered his people was deposed (http://www.state.gov/s/wci/fs/19352.htm), a government was elected by the people, a new, professional army is being trained(http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...d/iraq/nia.htm) and the people on the street want us there until they can stand on their own feet and defend themselves (try reading the hundreds of soldiers blogs). Right now we have about 153,000 troops on the ground (with a little over 2,000 KIA), with forces being reduced as Iraqi Units come up to speed .
“Quagmire”? I wish you guys would give the word a rest.




2. Further annoying the Muslim world and driving thousands more into the recruiting offices of Al Qaeda.




And by “Muslim World” whom do you mean? Certainly not Iran, Kuwait, or Saudi Arabia, they were all scared to death of Hussein, all having suffered attacks by him. Or the Muslim Nations (here is a list of all members http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030327-10.html) that took part in the War. The war annoys “Militant Muslims”. Their leadership is being dismantled, and their “warriors” are getting killed by the scores. They lost their main piece of ground in Afghanistan, now their getting slapped around in Iraq (a country they were sure that they could go into and drum up the support of the masses).
Anyone who has paid attention to the recent history of Militant Islam would see that there has never been a shortage of recruits to fight the “Infidels”. These people don't care about countries like Iraq one bit, all they care about is their interpretation of the Koran. And that interpretation simply says “Convert or be put to the sword”, and they happily kill Jews, Christians, Muslims who are not Muslim enough to suit them, and anyone else who gets in the way in the name of Allah.
BTW, al-Qaeda has never been a large organization. They have always been very selective about who they let in (for very short primer here is a link: http://cfrterrorism.org/groups/alqaeda.html), most “recruits” are already hardened operatives. Your statement about “driving thousands more into the recruiting offices of Al Qaeda” is rather disingenuous. If you wish to name drop in an attempt to make a point, you should learn something about the organization.




3. Further alienating our friends and encouraging our enemies



Here is a short list of some of our alienated “friends”, and what they lost when the coalition turned turned the money spigot off: http://www.heritage.org/Research/MiddleEast/wm217.cfm
Pretty funny how the ones that screamed the loudest, lost the most when the Saddam money train came to a halt. But of course I'm sure they only had the welfare of the Iraqi children in mind.
Historically, the enemies of the US never have needed encouragement. All they have ever looked for was an opportunity.




4. Putting a further strain on our budget due a 3rd major military adventure in less than 5 years.




Yes these wars have put a strain on the US. But WW2 put a much larger hurt on the average US citizen, and our budget. Anyone want to take a stand on that we should have sat that one out?




the war in Iraq was very poorly planned.





Alright, I'll bite. Which war involving comparable landmass, population, and standing armies was carried out with more speed, less collateral damage, and fewer civilian casualties than this one?
The only poor planning was not taking into account how dilapidated the Iraqi infrastructure would be. The US command also did not plan on our own media spending every foot of tape on every bit of bad news they could find. Come on use your head on this one. If it was like the media portrays it, how do you account for the above authorized retention rates of combat units, soldiers blogs full of pics of smiling Iraqi's and the continual theme of “It's not like you see on the news”, and for those of us with friends, family, and acquaintances in harms way again stating “It's not like you see on the news”.
No matter what the media, select politicians, and other darlings of the left want you to believe, we are winning. Anyone who stops listening to every moron with a mic and an agenda, and actually starts looking for facts on their own sees this.
We are fighting more than the 3 wars you cite, and God help us, and the rest of the world, if the sheeple prevail.




I have absolutly ZERO faith in the military abilities of Donald Rumsfeld.



Hmmm, last time I checked the Secretary of Defense isn't selected for his Military abilities, he is selected for skills involving the management of large departments. Of course if you have a link to information about a military operation planned by a US SECDEF some time in the last 50 years I would be more than happy to expand my knowledge base on this subject.


Oh well enough for now. I'm sure that for the most part this was an exercise in futility. But maybe, just maybe, a lone sheep out there somewhere will bolt from the Shepard and start looking around, stop parroting what they heard from someone else, and begin thinking for themselves. Even a mighty waterfall starts with but a single drop of water.
January 31st, 2006  
Rabs
 
 
I think your talking Invasion mmarsh and i agree thats stupid we cant do it right now.

I was talking more along the lines of air strikes against their nuclear sites.
January 31st, 2006  
Morten
 
 
lol check out how Iran reacts!

Quote:

UN 'confirms' Iran uranium move
The UN's atomic watchdog has confirmed that Iran has started preparations to resume producing enriched uranium, which can be used in nuclear weapons.
The findings come in an International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report made available to the press ahead of an urgent board meeting on Thursday.
The study comes as six key powers said they would report Tehran to the UN Security Council over its programme.
Iran says if that happens it will resume uranium enrichment.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/h...st/4667970.stm

Published: 2006/01/31 19:48:07 GMT

© BBC MMVI
Quote:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/...ear/index.html
CNN) -- Iran has reacted with anger to a move by the world's top five powers to report it to the U.N. Security Council, saying the action would close diplomatic avenues to a solution of its nuclear standoff with the West