EU says Iran should be referred to the UN
- Thread starter DRB
- Start date
Oh my... Sen. Kerry has spoken!
Kerry says Iran making "dangerous" nuclear choice
Thu Jan 12, 2006 8:38 AM ET
HYDERABAD, India (Reuters) - U.S. Senator and former Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry said on Thursday that Iran was making a dangerous choice in pushing ahead with its nuclear ambitions.
"Iran has made a dangerous and silly decision of confronting not just the U.S. government but the entire international community," Kerry told reporters in the southern Indian technology hub of Hyderabad during a visit to India.
Kerry's statement came as officials from Britain, France and Germany plan to meet their counterparts from China, Russia and the United States in London next week to discuss Iran's decision to restart sensitive nuclear work.
Kerry said Iran could be referred to the U.N. Security Council if the crisis continued.
"If all diplomatic channels fail, we have no choice but to take the issue before the international body," Kerry, a strong proponent of nuclear non-proliferation, said.
Separately in London, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said he thought it highly probable that Iran would be referred to the Security Council over its decision to restart sensitive nuclear work.
Kerry says Iran making "dangerous" nuclear choice
Thu Jan 12, 2006 8:38 AM ET
HYDERABAD, India (Reuters) - U.S. Senator and former Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry said on Thursday that Iran was making a dangerous choice in pushing ahead with its nuclear ambitions.
"Iran has made a dangerous and silly decision of confronting not just the U.S. government but the entire international community," Kerry told reporters in the southern Indian technology hub of Hyderabad during a visit to India.
Kerry's statement came as officials from Britain, France and Germany plan to meet their counterparts from China, Russia and the United States in London next week to discuss Iran's decision to restart sensitive nuclear work.
Kerry said Iran could be referred to the U.N. Security Council if the crisis continued.
"If all diplomatic channels fail, we have no choice but to take the issue before the international body," Kerry, a strong proponent of nuclear non-proliferation, said.
Separately in London, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said he thought it highly probable that Iran would be referred to the Security Council over its decision to restart sensitive nuclear work.
Oh, if only.ohio said:
Changleen said:
I'm getting the feeling they may get a dose of "Israeli" Sanctions before too long if they keep this nonsense up..
I see that Russia and the US have come to an agreement on how to proceed with Iran. That just leaves China. If they get on board hopefully the diplomatic pressure will get overwhelming. It seems the US is going about this the right way, get the ducks in a row and go from there. A lesson learned perhaps?
What makes you think that Iran will relent to diplomatic pressure when to this point they have pretty much done whatever they please?valve bouncer said:
Obviously there's a chance it won't work. But if everybody is on the same page the chances of success are far greater. Even the US has to buckle to diplomatic pressure on ocassions.DRB said:
If the international community is seen to have done everything it can diplomatically then, politically, other courses of action are possibly more palatable. It's classic carrot and stick if done properly. If not done properly you get Iraq.
Iran have apparantly already approached Mr. ElBD and said they are possibly willing to return to negotiation in the face of all this. I think it's all going to hinge on China's stance. India is almost definitely going to come out against sanctions and China may well do too. We'll see.
I support the Iranian people's right to Nuclear power. However I don't support their theocratic leadership and I don't trust them to have nuke as far as I could spit them.
If there was ever a job for movie quality tactical strikes and special forces coup-de-gras, this is it. I recognise that in reality this is nigh on impossible though. American special forces might be good, but they're no SAS.
Edit: Why can I not spell definitely?
I support the Iranian people's right to Nuclear power. However I don't support their theocratic leadership and I don't trust them to have nuke as far as I could spit them.
If there was ever a job for movie quality tactical strikes and special forces coup-de-gras, this is it. I recognise that in reality this is nigh on impossible though. American special forces might be good, but they're no SAS.
Edit: Why can I not spell definitely?
Just because Iraq was a badly planned cluster**** doesn't mean Iran will bow to any diplomatic pressure whatsoever. It will require force to get them separated from their plutonium, or at least the credible threat, which is really the same thing...although if they give in to a threat, it leaves me wondering what they're hiding.valve bouncer said:
To the Iranian gov't, anything less than an attack is simply an opportunity to keep stringing the world along until it has the Bomb to make the consequences of attacking even worse. (although I'd honestly worry about easy-to-make weapons like chemicals before the Bomb anyhow...) And our actions in Iraq have, IMHO, really been an encouragement to them; the US is discredited and will be more cautious in use of force, plus it's in a much weaker position financially, politically, and even militarily.
I agree that there's a continuum of force and you just don't go in guns blazing on first impulse. But you don't need to exhaust every possible option, however weak, yourself before you recognize you're being bull****ted. This has already gone on for a long time, and time is all Iran wants and needs.
I sure hope Iran rolls over when faced with a credible threat, but I doubt it will. Then again, maybe the example of Iraq will work on them...I'm sure they love having a neighboring country in which to put a jihad on us, but the Iranian theocrats probably also don't want to end up martyrs themselves. That's for other, poorer Muslims to do for them.
MD
If you get to the stick portion of this its going to be exactly like Iraq.valve bouncer said:
Edit:
Personally, I think that we shouldn't give a crap if they develop nuclear weapons. Let them dump the money into that big ass hole for as long as they want. How is that any skin off our back? Seriously, what type of threat is Iran? How likely are they to actually use the weapons they developed? Its not like they wouldn't know what happened next. They would be flicked out of existance in the blink of an eye. Let them live with that hanging over them if they want them that badly.
If they decided to try and follow thru with the destruction of Israel (and bunches of Palestinians as well) using their new found toys, it wouldn't take long before the same happened to them and their country got turned into a glass factory. And the rest of the Arab world would have to sit back and watch because they had wasted as many Palestinians as Jews.
If some of their nuclear material "sneaks out" then its all on them as well.
No mate, it'll be worse than Iraq which is why I reckon you've got to exhaust the diplomatic channels first.DRB said:
MikeyD, largely agree with what you said especially how the Iraq fiasco would have encouraged the Iranians. I've said that for a while now. I still don't think we are that far down the diplomatic road yet though, but expect things to get ramped up a notch if Iran gets referred to the security council. It will be interesting to see which way China goes. They need stability (and oil) perhaps more than anyone which may see them somewhat amenable to the West's aims. It's also possible they may see this as a chance to use their burgeoning clout and throw their weight around a bit.
I'm not sure they care if they are flicked out of existance....if that happens they get the "fast track" to heaven and all those virgins. These people don't care if they die, people in the West on the other hand do care.DRB said:
I think that's a bad generalization to make.Andyman_1970 said:
I think the majority do care very much about living a long life. If they didn't then there wouldn't be any of them left right now as they would all have martyred themselves as soon as they figured out it would lead to better things.
Fighters deploy
www.washtimes.com
Coinciding with increased tensions with Iran over the resumption of illicit uranium enrichment, the U.S. Air Force has dispatched additional warplanes to the region in a not-so-subtle sign, military sources say.
An entire wing of F-16s, the Air National Guard's 122nd Fighter Wing based in Fort Wayne, Ind., left for a base in southwest Asia on Tuesday. A wing is usually about 72 aircraft and several hundred support personnel.
F-16s and support personnel from the 4th Fighter Squadron of the 388th Fighter Wing based at Hill Air Force Base, Utah, also deployed recently to Iraq. The squadron has 12 F-16s.
Both units' F-16s could be used in any military operation to take out Iranian nuclear facilities.
A spokesman for the U.S. Central Command Air Forces, which runs air operations in the region, said the F-16 deployment of about 80 jets is part of a rotation and is not related to Iran's uranium reprocessing.
www.washtimes.com
Coinciding with increased tensions with Iran over the resumption of illicit uranium enrichment, the U.S. Air Force has dispatched additional warplanes to the region in a not-so-subtle sign, military sources say.
An entire wing of F-16s, the Air National Guard's 122nd Fighter Wing based in Fort Wayne, Ind., left for a base in southwest Asia on Tuesday. A wing is usually about 72 aircraft and several hundred support personnel.
F-16s and support personnel from the 4th Fighter Squadron of the 388th Fighter Wing based at Hill Air Force Base, Utah, also deployed recently to Iraq. The squadron has 12 F-16s.
Both units' F-16s could be used in any military operation to take out Iranian nuclear facilities.
A spokesman for the U.S. Central Command Air Forces, which runs air operations in the region, said the F-16 deployment of about 80 jets is part of a rotation and is not related to Iran's uranium reprocessing.
I think you're wrong here, too. Those mullahs and such in charge probably care a lot about their own lives. They just don't care if their followers' lives are snuffed out of existence. It's really easy to get others all hyped up on the 72 virgins, esp. when their own lives are miserable and pointless. So they keep their lives miserable and pointless and exploit it.Andyman_1970 said:
If they were so sure the 72 virgins were so great, why haven't they strapped a bomb on themselves and taken the ticket to easy street? Convincing me they're delaying their own martyrdom for the cause's sake will take a lot of doing.
Plus, in Iran, the leaders and the majority don't really see eye-to-eye anyhow.
MD
I've often wondered what our stance *should* be, and it's never sat right on me that we say "you can't have them" to the rest of the world while sitting on a big nest-egg of 100,000,000 kilotons or whatever. But in any case, the danger isn't, IMHO, of Iran using a nuke directly...it's in providing it to another group, covertly, and then using it on US interests somewhere in the world, or even just sneaking it into Mexico and flying it over San Diego and detonating the whole plane before we can shoot it down. Unlikely, but so was hijacking 3 planes and flying them into buildings.DRB said:
Somewhat of a tangent here, but this made me think of Syriana (for those of you that have seen it). While the storyline was pretty contrive and probably very sensationalized, the story of the young Pakistani boy was really pretty interesting and maybe the most convincing portion of the film. I don't want to give the movie away, but his (fictional) story was an interesting take on where the desire to fight and die comes from...Andyman_1970 said:
That's on them as well and they suffer the dire and immediate consequences of picking a fight with someone that has a more deadly arsenal.MikeD said:
I'm more worried about Pakistan pulling that at the moment. Of course, since they are an ally in our glorious war on terror we don't hear much about that.MikeD said:
Un will refer them to security council. Russia has veto, russia is providing equipment to iran and russia needs money badly.
Nothing will happen, private strike by israel/us special forces will take place.
Nothing will happen, private strike by israel/us special forces will take place.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/01/17/iran.nuclear/index.htmlChangleen said:
I wonder what timeline is acceptable. I suspect that the Russians nor the Chinese really care.
Though I wonder if Russia worries about the Chechens and the Iranians. The Daily Telegraph reported that the Iranians have been training some Chechens in Iran.
http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/11/27/wchech27.xml
However, there are some denials of it.
http://www.jamestown.org/print_friendly.php?volume_id=409&issue_id=3556&article_id=2370578