Iran's response not up to US expectations

Well here it is; the day after yet another armageddon. The US gives its first response to the Iran return of the proposal issued them by the UN. The response doesnt look favorable for diplomacy.

CNN.com has the story...

Iran's proposal on nuclear program 'falls short,' U.S. says

Wednesday, August 23, 2006; Posted: 2:46 p.m. EDT (18:46 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The United States on Wednesday said Iran's proposal to the United Nations about its nuclear program "falls short of the conditions set by the Security Council."

It was the first U.S. response to Iran's announcement this week about a proposed package of incentives, offered by the U.N. Security Council's permanent members and Germany, to get the Islamic republic to halt its uranium enrichment program.

The United States and other nation's suspect Tehran is interested in developing nuclear weapons. Iranian officials have insisted that their nuclear program is solely for generation of power and that they have no ambitions to build nuclear weapons.

rest of story here

It seems as if there is no backing down at this point from Iran. They are determined to pursue this endeavor to its conclussion. How far are they willing to play this chess game? Both sides seem poised to play it out, which may not be good for any of us. "The plot thickens", as they say.

thank you for your time,
Tone.

I am not suprised. As Rich23 said before, the US has a habit of "pushing" no matter what the other country says. This is to acheive a goal, ultimately.

If Iran completely backs down and plays meek, the US has won. If Iran stands up for its rights, the US will eventually win too. It's bullying, and there's a history of it.

[edit on 23/8/06 by SteveR]

Originally posted by SteveR
I am not suprised. As Rich23 said before, the US has a habit of "pushing" no matter what the other country says. This is to acheive a goal, ultimately.

If Iran completely backs down and plays meek, the US has won. If Iran stands up for its rights, the US will eventually win too. It's bullying, and there's a history of it.

I find myself agreeing with Rich23 many more times than not.

Back to topic

found this today...
IHT.com has an article today that talks of the voice of Moderation winning the internal debate in Iran. It also addresses matters that Iran wants "garaunteed".

Nuclear talks: Saving face with Iran
Abbas Maleki and Kaveh L. Afrasiabi AgenceGlobal

Published: August 25, 2006


After months of delay in responding to the package of incentives offered by the UN Security Council's permanent five members plus Germany, Iran has submitted a detailed and comprehensive response that puts the diplomatic ball squarely back in the court of the the Security Council coalition.

While rejecting the United Nations' demand for an immediate halt to its uranium-enrichment activities, Iran's response still leaves the door open for serious negotiations, and perhaps an acceptable resolution of the nuclear showdown for all parties.

By agreeing to put the issue of suspension of enrichment activities on the table and to commence the talks immediately, Iran has sent a strong signal that the internal debate between power centers in Iran has ended in favor of voices of moderation seeking a mutually satisfactory resolution of the nuclear standoff with the West. It would be a pity if Washington overlooks this opportunity for fair negotiations with Iran, especially considering the details of Iran's response.

Rest of story here

This is such a tricky issue, to me, since Iran does have the right to develope nuclear power. On the other hand The west has every reason to be skeptical of Irnas inentions. But given what I am understanding in this response, it does seem as if Iran is still trying to have negotiations in the matter.
And from what this article is saying maybe some of the more rational people in the game in Iran have made their voices heard.

The problem though comes back to Irans intentions. If they are honest in what they claim then this reply can be taken at face value. But if they are using this whole thing as a shield to develope nuclear weapons; then this is little more than "buying time". My jury is still out on Irans intentions.

thank you for your time,
TONE23

Update

Well, its another day in the life of....Iran. Today a story out of CNN greeted me with the headline that Iran has now Completed its Arak Facility; a Heavy-Water Production plant.

CNN.com

Iran: Atomic project is peaceful

Saturday, August 26, 2006; Posted: 7:57 a.m. EDT (11:57 GMT)

TEHRAN, Iran (CNN) -- Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said his country's nuclear program is for peaceful purposes and the new heavy-water production plant he inaugurated Saturday would serve medical, agricultural and scientific needs.

Video broadcast on Iranian television showed President Ahmadinejad touring the plant in the central Iran city of Arak Saturday morning along with Gholamreza Aghazadeh, the head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization.

Ahmadinajad said scientists, journalists and students should be allowed to visit the facility so they could see that it is for peaceful purposes, Iranian television reported.

rest of story here

The first thing that really stuck out to me was this line

"Iran is not a threat to anybody, not even to the Zionist regime," Ahmadinejad said,

This is probably one of the "nicest" things he has said about Israeil that I have yet heard. Go ahead and say it; "nice?".... well no its not necc nice, but its about as close as it is gonna get. But is it sincere? Or is this just another move in the grand chess game.

Well the deadline has come and gone and Iran has refused to halt their enrichment of Uranium. Yesterday Kofi Annan set off to Iran for a visit to Iran. The EU appears to have backed off, at least temporarily, from levelling snactions on Iran.

The Times September 02, 2006


UN hints at talks, not sanctions, as Iran nuclear deadline passes
By James Bone in New York



KOFI ANNAN, the UN Secretary-General, begins a controversial visit to Iran today as European powers appeared to back away from immediate sanctions against Tehran over its nuclear programme.
On the eve of his two-day trip, Mr Annan suggested that some powers may be ready to start talks with Iran despite its rejection of the UN deadline of Thursday to halt its uranium enrichment work.



“I know that there are attempts being made to organise a meeting between Iran and the other six players,” Mr Annan said on a stop in Jordan. “Even though the deadline has expired I don’t think the [UN Security] Council is going to act tomorrow.”


rest of article at timesonline.co.uk

The UN is cautioned not to impose any sacntions while there are talks still going on.

Another article I found is alittle more disturbing. It shows an agreement between Bush and Olmert. They are on similar timetables for possible action to be taken against Iran. Israel says it is convinced that Iran will have the ability to produce nukes in a year.

Olmert, Bush agree on Iran deadline

Ynet learns that Bush told Olmert US time limit for action to stop Iran's nuclear program fits Israel's own timetable, but American diplomats make it clear diplomacy will be given chance

Yitzhak Benhorin Published: 05.25.06, 08:47


(WASHINGTON) US President George W. Bush agreed that plans for American intervention to halt Iran's nuclear program are congruent with a timetable discussed with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert during talks in Washington.

According to Israeli intelligence assessments Iran will acquire the necessary nuclear technology to build a nuclear weapon within a year, Olmert said during the talks.

rest of article at ynetnews.com

Personally I dont trust Israels assessment. They are not the most unbiased source of information. Especially when it comes to things like this. But the real reason I highlight this article is because it shows a clearly uniform agenda between DC and Israel... as if we needed any more evidence of this. I dont trust our govt. and Israel any farther than I can throw them at this point. I am not saying I trust Iran either. They are enriching Urianium for peaceful purposes no doubt. But thats not the extent of it I am sure. It would only make sense that they were trying to accomplish both goals. Energy AND weapons. But really can you blame them. What if other countries told us we couldnt produce nukes... would we let it stop us... hell no. And we start ALOT more crap around the world then Iran could ever hope to acheive. It is more than hypocritical of us to tell them they cannot produce weapons if they wanted to. Bu thats just my warped opinion, I suppose.

Originally posted by SteveR
I am not suprised. As Rich23 said before, the US has a habit of "pushing" no matter what the other country says. This is to acheive a goal, ultimately.

I cannot claim to have invented this notion - I have to admit that I first read it somewhere around 2000, and it may have been in Chomsky's writings. However, it proved to be a useful predictive tool in the run-ups to the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.

And gentlemen, you're making me blush to my roots...

Rich

"hey boss when your right your right... and you; your always right" -spaceballs

lol...funny but true man your on the ball alot. keep it up.