From the Magazine | world New Evidence Against Iran? Bush's diplomatic gambit has helped build consensus on how to deal with Iran, but new findings of uranium enrichment at a military site may really increase the pressure By ELAINE SHANNON SUBSCRIBE TO TIMEPRINTE-MAILMORE BY AUTHORAnalysis: Behind Washington's Turnabout on Talks Posted Saturday, Jun 3, 2006 Chalk up a diplomatic win for the White House. President Bush's surprise offer last week to talk to Tehran yielded breakthroughs that have momentarily quelled fears of U.S. military action against the Iranian regime. During a marathon meeting in Vienna with diplomats from the other four permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, as well as Germany and the E.U., Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice obtained an unprecedented commitment from Moscow and Bejing to support penalties in the Council if Iran refuses a package of political and economic incentives and continues nuclear activities that could enable it to build a bomb. European envoys hope to elicit the regime's answer before July's G-8 summit in St. Petersburg, Russia. The Vienna group agreed that if Iran fails to accede to the world's demands, the matter will return to the Security Council, which would enact unspecified punitive measures. The unity could crumble if the Vienna group differs on whether Tehran is cooperating. But for now the pressure on Iran from all sides is growing. An International Atomic Energy Agency report on Iran's activities is expected next week, and Western diplomats tell Time that it will include "potentially incriminating" details about traces of highly enriched uranium found by inspectors recently on equipment at the Lavisan-Shian military site. The find is significant not because of the residue--it isn't bomb-grade and may have been on the equipment when it was bought from renegade Pakistani nuclear scientist A.Q. Khan--but because Iran hasn't explained why such enrichment tools were found at a military facility. Iranian officials still insist their military is not engaged in nuclear work. — With reporting by Andrew Purvis From the Jun. 12, 2006 issue of TIME magazine http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1200714,00.html?cnn=yes
Creepy, Do you think that it would be wise for the Iranians to continue to enrich uranium? Or, do you think they should engage in discussions with the rest of the world? DD
your 1st question: it's not important what i think, but the npt treaty says that they have the legal and unalienable right to do so your 2nd question: where have u been for the past 4 or 5 years? they've been negotiation with the world, iaea, eu, russia, china, nam nations, etc...it's been the recalcitrant us, which refused to negotiate and talk with iran until very recently thus, they have been doing both (enriching uranium and talking to the world) and will most likely continue to do both...when they conducted a voluntary 2 year suspension of enrichment activites, they were badly burned by the eu and their stalling tactics also in feb. of this year iran, despite being burned by europe before, offered to yet again voluntarily suspend enrichment for 2 years, but the europeans rejected the offer and demanded a ridiculous 10 year suspension: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HB07Ak01.html http://news.ft.com/cms/s/0cfd2c90-1...age=6e6e833c-cbff-11d7-81c6-0820abe49a01.html
Well, in a D & D message board such as this it is important to express your personal feeling towards subjects inside of hiding behind political rhetoric. Answer his question ~ what do you feel personally? Do you think that it would be wise for the Iranians to continue to enrich uranium?
i think iran should exercise it's legal and inalienable rights now you please answer these two questions: are you gonna start following me around like you do tinman? and are you a vernon maxwell hater?
Do you think that it would be wise for the Iranians to continue to enrich uranium? You’re on an anonymous message board and you are afraid to answer a simple question on your personal beliefs. Are you posting from Iran?
people have been calling you out all over this board and you come to take your frustrations out on me....pathetic
Creepy, for the most part I find your posts well thought out and interesting. Just answer the question presented to you, why be obtuse? DD PS. I am crushed about Cat Osterman, and it looks like the UT baseball team will follow suite too....oh wait, I didn't go to UT....guess I just don't really care.
The problem I have with Iran is I don't believe them. I think that, if their allowed to enrich their own uranium, a diverted program and nuclear bombs will be the end result. And, we won't know about it until they declare they have the bombs, the means to deliver the bombs, and then it will be too late to act on it. It doesn't help that the US won't provide any security guarantees as part of any deal. Iran is following North Korea in that they will covertly build the bomb to achieve a level of security against any invasion by the US. So, I think if no military action is taken against Iran in the next decade, then were faced with the prospects of Iran with nuclear weapons. Contrary to what Iran is saying about how nuclear weapons do nothing for them or for the world, I find that laughable because nukes provide a strong measure of deterrence against an attack on a nation that has nukes and a huge vulnerability for a nation without nukes...especially a nation trying to assert their position in the world like Iran is doing. Iran is at a point where they don't feel they need or want a peace agreement with the US. They don't care or want to get along with the US. They would rather build up their own military and arsenal to use as a deterrent. Iran is basically playing a game of brinkmanship. I don't think their trying to gain further concessions before they decide to do away with enriching uranium. This latest deal is 100% going to be rejected. They will pretend to analyze it and take some time before responding to make it seem like their taking it seriously but their really not. So, the US is left with the choice of attacking Iran to prevent them from covertly developing the bomb or doing nothing while Iran becomes even more powerful. Obviously, either choice is not without potentially serious consequences. But, Iran is making it very clear that they cannot be ignored at this point. If the US is to sit idly by for years while Iran continues on their path, then the US government is going to lose any guarantees of security for their future according to how they perceive the world with an Iran having nuke bombs. Iran is hell bent at doing whatever they please at this point. Since China and Russia are in good with Iran on oil and such, their not on board for really anything serious at this point, including sanctions. So, they prevent an international consensus from occurring and give Iran more leverage and power. I don't think one could seriously consider China and Russia US allies at this point. They may be on the surface but, under the covers, their really not. Their still adversaries. I think there is no diplomatic solution to this situation based on Iran already having made it's mind up to enrich uranium. The solution Iran is wanting is to play cat-and-mouse games with the IAEA over inspections. They will never fully satisfy the IAEA in proving their program is civilian-based only. I see an Iran-US conflict as an inevitability at this point. Both sides are too stubborn to arrive at any solution otherwise.
as a 'third world' nation, i think iran should master the entire nuclear cycle as the nation continues to develop...the international community especially the west has proven be too unreliable towards iran (see two articles previously posted in this thread)...iran needs to work towards self-sufficiency to lessen dependence on the outside world in key areas and to ensure the security of their state to the best that it can...iran historically has been denied its sovereignty and has been denied technology as well: http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/05/25/opinion/edamanat.php what do you think?
You want people to answer your question(s), yet you ignored my simple one. Which part of the article is propoganda?
Strange that someone who doesn't use 'other people's opinions' and only deals in 'facts' would post an OP ED piece, lol.
Say what? Calm down and chill man. I hope you aren't like this in real life. This is only an internet forum. When it comes to being called out by others, you have little room to talk. I'm not taking out any frustrations on you. LOL! You should dial down the sensitivity meter a bit. Rest assured, I'll keep commenting on whatever I want to whether you like it or not. Trying to call me out will have zero effect. I've posted ~3000 times the last 3 years and don't plan on slowing down if I have the spare time.
Maybe somebody here can answer this question: If I wanted to move from Austin, TX to Tehran, Iran and become an Iranian citizen -- could I do this?
I would have to honestly say i don't know the laws completly but i'm sure you couldn't become a citizen that easily. But that isn't uncommon, even in Europe or any other country you can't just move there and become a citizen easily or without living there for a long period of time. I know you can be a citizen through marriage in Iran but as far as just moving there im not sure.
