From France 24 comes the TRUTH about Iran and their refusal to sign on to an incomplete treaty. Our news said they rejected the deal but the truth is far different as you will read in this article.
They would like to negotiate the detail of the agreement before agreeing to it. No big deal and an intelligent thing to do.
How many times have we as people been advised never to sign an incomplete contract? Is it any different between nations?
Iran is the one who suggested this program, as I reported in another post, so there is no reason they will not agree once the details are settled. If there is no agreement it may be because some of the details are not what they thought or not to their liking. That would mean more negotiations.
Our government has no reason to rattle the sword over this minor detail.
"The Islamic republic only announced its positive view to the negotiation and has said it is ready to have negotiations based on its technical and economic considerations regarding how to procure fuel for the Tehran reactor,"
The reaction from our news just enforces what I already knew. We the people are being fed a lot of propaganda. The War Hawks are still flying. Even though the Democrats in Congress were elected on their promise to stop the wars 3 years ago nothing is happening.
Tehran wants more talks on UN nuclear deal
Iran has demanded further talks on how to procure nuclear fuel for its reactor before it delivers a full reply to a UN-drafted plan on nuclear cooperation with world powers.
By News Wires (text)
AFP - Iran wants more talks on how to procure nuclear fuel for a Tehran reactor before giving a final reply to a UN-drafted deal that was initially expected a week ago, the state IRNA news agency said on Friday.
UN atomic watchdog the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said on Thursday it has received an "initial response" from Iran to the deal, but IRNA said it was not Tehran's "answer" to the plan brokered by the agency.
"The Islamic republic only announced its positive view to the negotiation and has said it is ready to have negotiations based on its technical and economic considerations regarding how to procure fuel for the Tehran reactor," IRNA said, quoting an unnamed informed source.
Amid growing French impatience and US warnings that Washington's patience was also running thin, IRNA indicated Tehran's message to the IAEA was "not an answer to the draft agreement."
Iran would state its full position after more negotiations, the agency said.
White House spokesman Robert Gibbs warned that US President Barack Obama will not wait for ever for a formal reply from Iran to the IAEA-drafted deal.
"The president's time is not unlimited, this was not about talking for the sake of talking, this was about reaching an agreement that just a few weeks ago seemed to be something that the Iranians wanted," Gibbs said.
World powers have been waiting for a response from Tehran for the deal which proposes to ship out Iran's low-enriched uranium (LEU) abroad for converting into fuel for a Tehran reactor.
|
But IRNA reported that Iran was expected to insist it will give its LEU at the same time it receives the fuel for the Tehran reactor. The agency did not elaborate.
Western powers are backing the plan for the reactor, an internationally supervised facility.
Another plus for the world powers is that the deal would take out Tehran's LEU which they feel Iran could enrich to higher levels and use to make atomic weapons, a charge which the Islamic republic denies.
Iran had been initially due to give its response to the deal by October 23.
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on Friday the United States was still trying to determine the extent of Iran's initial response to the IAEA.
"We are working to determine exactly what they are willing to do, whether this was an initial response that is an end response or whether it's the beginning of getting to where we expect them to end up," she told CNN.
Clinton said Washington was "seeking clarification" on Iran's response, while France demanded that Iran make a formal written response.
"We call on Iran to give its formal response without delay. The oral Iranian response to the IAEA proposes changes to the agreement," French foreign ministry spokesman Bernard Valero told reporters.
Iranian media report that Tehran is still seeking some changes to the fuel supply proposals.
The plan calls for Iran to export to Russia more than 2,640 pounds (1,200 kilos) of its 3.5 percent low-enriched uranium (LEU) for refining up to 20 percent to fuel a Tehran reactor that makes medical isotopes.
France would then fashion the material into fuel rods for the reactor.
</form>
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 28
Isn't Hamid also the big cheese in the Opium industry in Afghanistan? I read someplace that the Taliban had all but eliminated the poppy industry in that country before we invaded.
* The French are not exactly a neutral party in the questions about Iran's nuclear program because of their Iranian business interests, so I am not willing to quickly accept French media reports as TRUE.
* We don't know who speaks for the Iranians. The President, the mullahs, and the legislature have all issued statements on the proposal to involve Russia and France in the fuel manufacturing process. Many of their statements are in conflict. They could be playing internal political games, or they could be gaming the West. We just don't know.
* The U.N.'s IAEA has proved to be a less than honest broker in the past.
* As Ross Perot said, "Talk is cheap, deeds are precious." Iran has been long on talk and short on deeds since we learned of their nuclear program.
So, at this point, we are in the same position with Iran as we are with North Korea. Both parties are willing to talk, but offer no action to indicate the credibility of their negotiations. We have to assume their talk is a delaying tactic until they change their behavior as a token of good faith.
I would continue the talks, continue to remind Iran that Israel's fuse is getting shorter, and continue to update plans to protect our national interests in the event of an Israeli or Iranian attack.
That's what I would do. I haven't a clue as to what this inexperienced White House has in mind because our President has given us no clear statement of our national goals with respect to Iran (or anything else for that matter).
I agree the offer is worth looking into, but based on Iran's actions to date, we have to negotiate in good faith for a little while, and then assume that they are just talking to buy time.
On your other point, I thought it was the job of the Commander in Chief to either give the generals the resources needed for the mission or to give the order the get the H out of there. I understand that all the generals in the field can do is resign if the C in C is not supporting their agreed upon mission and putting their troops in a "no win" situation.
Yes the general officer has that option and some of that rank did resign and take their retirement back in the Bush adm. One admiral and a general if I remember right. That was when Cheney was trying to give them orders.
You got it right that is the job of the C in C but Obama is such an amiture that he does not know. Right now our army has a confused little boy in charge. Every General Officer should go to DC enmass and tell Obama to S*** or get off the pot.
I tend to agree with this one because the idea of refining the material outside of Iran was actually Iran's idea as I posted in another article. (again from France 24 and AFP)
Also if someone asked me to agree to a contract of any kind without having the details ironed out I would not agree either.
Yes it's hard to tell what this novice White House will do. So far nothing in the way of foreign relations is about it. France 24 had a short article the other day that Obama said he will do nothing about more troops in Afghanistan until after their election. I'm beginning to think that was right.
In the mean time an under manned army is getting shot. He needs to trust his general or get the H out of there ASAP. Get a cease fire from the Taliban and leave.
There could still be a problem between India and Pakistan but that could likely be resolved. The Pashtun People are the strongest group that is a part of the Taliban.. Pashtun's were a majortiy in what is now India, Pakistan and Afghanistan when the British conquered the Indus River Valley. The British created the three countries India, Pakistan and Afghanistan as a device to keep the Pashtun's under control.
From their point of view the U.S. is just another imperialist power whose purpose will benefit no one in the area except for the people who are being paid to work for the Americans.
The Pashtuns are also a semi large minority in Iran but not a significant part of the Iranian government in fact they are likely suspect because of the ties between the Taliban and Saudi Arabia as the the Taliban version of Islam is a branch of The Wahabi versiion of Islam in Saudi Arabia.
Most Americans seem to think this is about the United States it isn't. It's about the middle east and the mess the British and French left behind with the breakup of the Ottoman Turkish Empire at the end of the 1st world war.
If Pakistan and India were no longer a Nuclear threat to one another Iran would likely no longer be so worried and would be less interested in having a bomb of their own.
Ra
This is the way the UN Operates, as does the IAEA, so that says how much we can trust anything they say.
THe Question as I see it, is "Why were those components stored in weapons bunkers?" THen that brings us to today, of "What is the truth of this story?", in both cases, we have information pointing to the UN or groups in the UN lying, and the Media unable to sort out the data, and politicians unwilling to give us the truth.
Which is why I have never been sold on the no WMD Story, it lacks too many answers. So this will be another one, that until we get answers, I will not buy either way.
If in truth Iran is going to build a nuclear arsenal it would be better to have them as a friend than an enemy. The pompus attitude of "I'm boss" will only create enemies.
We blew the chance when we refused to back the opposition under Clinton to the controling government, the groups that wanted democracy, a Democratic Iran. Now under Bush, many of them were whiped out under this regime, and a few of my sources on what was going on politically there are silenced.
You are right, we have to deal open mindedly, and with an open hand, and imply what we mean without the threatening words used.
I don't think from what we are hearing, that Obama is going to do much better, as being to friendly with a viper, is neveer a good stand.
That fact that it was left up to Ross Perot to rescue his people is a shame on this nation.
But you are correct. It should have been an over whelming vote for action, instead of partisan bickering while our people were under the barrle of an enemy's gun.
I think Perot got as far as he did when he ran for SCOTUS because of that adventure.
If Congress had worked in favore of the people, then in that one case, all the crap that happened, would not have in the first place.
Perot's effort was impressive in a number of ways, not only how far he got, but that it was all his show. Not many would have invested the time, money, and effort this guy did, on any stunt if it was strickly a political action. And I agree, it was one of many good points he had that people liked and supported.
I liked a few points thazt Perot said when he ran, on education, running the Country like a business (the first I remember hearing say this), and health care, where he actually focused on real issues.