Ahmadinejad to respond to UNSC in person

March 16, 2007 at 12:42 am | Posted in Ahmadinejad, Imperialism, Nuclear, UN, USA | Leave a comment

The draft resolution of sanctions against Iran agreed by the five permanent members of the UNSC and Germany, that has been submitted to the non-permanent members for consideration, will no doubt be approved. To say the additional sanctions are weak is an understatement. The resolution ammounts to little more that an unenforceable restriction on Iran exporting arms yet no ban on the sale of arms to Iran; an asset freeze on Bank Sepah, which will have little impact; an utterly meaningless call on nations to end all financial assistance and loans to Iran, save “for humanitarian and developmental purposes”, which will be promptly ignored; and in the event that Iran refused to forgo its legal right to rich uranium (which of course Iran will) the matter will be returned to the UNSC for possible further “non-military” sanctions.

Yet as weak as this document is, there is every sign that Iran will reciprocate robustly, President Ahmadinejad responded thus:

“They have created a body named the Security Council and they say that it is responsible for defending world security. But thanks God, the curtains of lie were unveiled and everyone saw this council has no role but trampling upon nations’ rights and voicing support for the crimes and policies of certain arrogant powers, and all nations have now found out that this council is just a tool.”

“They say that they want to impose sanctions on us. But when have we asked them for anything. Have you ever rendered any help to us that you want to take it back? You must know that we will never seek your help and assistance. You boycotted us and we gained nuclear technology, now if you impose sanctions on us, you will see the Iranian nation taking the next steps of progress.”

“You must know that every resolution you pass, you create more problems for yourselves and move away from the settlement of the issue.”

“What Iran is doing is 100 percent legal. The Iranian people will continue their path with much power and might and no one can backtrack from this path even for an inch.”

Furthermore, President Ahmadinejad has submitted a formal request to be heard in person at the UNSC meeting when the resolution is passed. There is no doubt that his intent is to respond to the resolution; such a response is likely to be significant. It is certainly not inconceivable that he plans to announce Iran’s intent to withdraw from the NPT and thus hasten the inevitable. It would be advantageous to do so, when the likely consequence is an escalation in economic and political sanctions; not the use of military force.

Coming to Terms with Iran’s Nuclear Programme

March 4, 2007 at 1:06 am | Posted in Britain, EU, Germany, Iran, Israel, Nuclear, USA, Zionism | Leave a comment

Iran has no interest in developing nuclear weapons and less still of using them
Michel Rocard, the former prime minister of France, leader of the Socialist Party and member of the European Parliament writing in Haaretz contemplating military action on Iran, states:

“First, resorting to force is simply not realistic. A nuclear strike would have incalculable consequences, and the Muslim world would in this case stand together. Nor is a conventional attack possible, as Israel has no common border with Iran and most of the American army is tied up in Afghanistan and Iraq.”

He further opines:

“The only possible framework for negotiations is the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), concluded in 1968. Iran was one of the first countries to sign and it cooperated with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) for more than 30 years – a relationship that deteriorated only in the last three years. But the current climate of mutual wariness between Iran and the self-proclaimed triad of Germany, Great Britain and France (with sporadic U.S. support) is not propitious to effective negotiations.

The West’s aim, announced by the U.S. and adhered to by the triad, is to force Iran to give up uranium enrichment. Yet the NPT is clear: Any signatory that gives up nuclear weapons and accepts the IAEA’s absolute and unconditional control is entitled to produce electric energy from civil nuclear sources, and to receive technical and financial support from the international community, if necessary. Iran’s oil resources are not infinite and it wants to have complete control over the civil nuclear field – a basic right as an NPT signatory.

I cannot see how a negotiation aimed at getting Iran to unilaterally renounce a right recognized for all NPT signatories simply in order to build confidence in the West could be successful. Uranium enrichment is certainly the first condition for making bombs, but the level of enrichment must reach about 95 percent, compared to the 3.5 percent needed for energy production.”

The solution to the current nuclear dispute is remarkably simple: the United States, Great Britain, France and Germany need to put aside their Zionist foreign policy agendas and look at the situation logically: Iran has no interest in developing nuclear weapons and less still of using them. Iran does however have a legitimate need and desire to produce its own nuclear energy. Thus the U.S. and the European troika could end this crisis, which is entirely manufactured, by simpling accepting Iran’s nuclear energy programme. To do so would no doubt involve some loss of face, however there is no appetite in the United States or Europe for a war with Iran, therefore any deal that ends the crisis and averts this possibility would be widely welcomed as a victory for diplomacy.

Iran and nuclear proliferation

February 14, 2007 at 2:04 am | Posted in Ahmadinejad, Iran, Media, Nuclear, Propaganda, USA | Leave a comment

George Carty:

How would you respond to those who oppose a nuclear Iran because it might lead to further nuclear proliferation?

There is no evidence that Iran has a nuclear weapon programme and even were Iran to develop one in the future, Iran still would be a long way off from being able to produce a nuclear warhead and even further away from reaching nuclear polarity with the Pakistanis and Israelis, let alone the United States. Hence Iran does not present a nuclear threat to regional enemies.

Were Iran to develop several nuclear reactors, Iran would be in a position to realise Ahmadinejad’s stated aim of supplying domestic energy consumption whilst significantly reducing petroleum and gas production. Moreover, it is also Iran’s stated intention to share nuclear knowledge with other NAM countries. Iran is not alone in it assessment that the possession of a nuclear energy programme will be a strategic necessity in the future. None of theese indicates an intent to acquire a nuclear arsenal.

Furthermore, Turkey and Saudi Arabia are de facto US military outposts, which would be transformed into launch pads for US nuclear missiles in the event of an Iranian nuclear attack; in fact, Israel already has a nuclear arsenal. Moreover, neither Turkey nor Saudi Arabia would acquire nuclear weapons without the express consent of the United States.

Therefore, I view the argument as based on three false premises: namely, that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons programme; that US vassals are without a considerable nuclear deterrent; and that the United States would permit these vassals to acquire an independent nuclear arsenal in any event.

UN Passes Diluted Sanctions Against Iran

December 23, 2006 at 6:09 pm | Posted in Iran, Nuclear, UN, USA | 4 Comments

The United Nations Security Council voted to impose sanctions on Iran and as largely suspected the draft resolution presented by the European Troika (Britain, France and Germany) was heavily diluted.

The resolution demands that Iran halt uranium enrichment and heavy-water projects. A demand that has no legal basis under the NPT. This is reflected in the weakness of the sanctions it imposes.

It freezes the financial assets of twelve named individuals and eleven groups, including the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, although it not clear if any such assets are held abroad. Instead of a travel ban, it call for member states to “exercise vigilance” regarding the international travel of the twelve Iranian officials and sets up a monitoring committee that will report in sixty days. The IAEA is also required to present a report in sixty days on Iran’s compliance with the illegal order to halt all uranium enrichment and heavy-water projects.

Thus the resolution is in effect a deferment of the case for sixty days. There is no expectation that this resolution will have any effect, it is designed to buy the United States and the European Troika some political breathing space, without eliciting too much of response from Iran – although that remains to be seen.

U.S. Acting Ambassador Alejandro Wolff said, “we are sending Iran an unambiguous message”. Indeed there are: one of utter impotence.

Blog at WordPress.com.
Entries and comments feeds.