[ Attachment content not displayed ]
--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, Derek Jensen <derekj72@g...>
wrote:
Iran announces further resumption of atomic work
Tue Jan 3, 2006 8:17 AM ETBy Paul Hughes
TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran announced on Tuesday it would resume
nuclear fuel
research, a move sure to anger Washington and the European Union
which fear
the Islamic state wants to make atomic fuel to build bombs.
Mohammad Saeedi, deputy head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization,
said
Tehran had informed the U.N. nuclear watchdog in writing that the
nuclear
work would resume shortly.
"Within the next few days we will start researching that field in
cooperation and coordination with the IAEA (International Atomic
Energy
Agency)," he told state television.
The news coincided with strong hints from Iran's Foreign Ministry
that
Tehran planned to reject a Russian compromise proposal aimed at
defusing
Iran's nuclear row with the West.
The two developments were likely to spark renewed calls in the
West for the
case to be referred to the U.N. Security Council, where Iran could
face
political or economic sanctions.
A referral vote could be held at the next meeting of the IEA's 35-
nation
governing board, scheduled for March 6. At its last session in
November, the
board opted to put off any vote to give time for Russia's proposal
to bear
fruit.
"The latest moves by Iran may strengthen the hands of those who
want to
report this matter to the Security Council at the March board,"
said a
senior diplomat close to the IAEA, referring to the European Union
and
United States.
But he said the IAEA would probably seek clarification from Iran
on the sort
of research it had in mind. He said the U.N. nuclear watchdog
agency would
in theory have no problem if Iran subjected fuel cycle research to
the
IAEA's safeguards regime.
"This is more a political than technical issue now."
Research on nuclear fuel may include some small-scale testing of
sensitive
atomic processes, including uranium enrichment, an activity Iran
has said it
is keen to master.
The IAEA discovered in 2003 that Iran had conducted considerable
clandestine
atomic research, including enrichment tests, since the mid-1980s.
But it has
not detected any clear proof that Tehran wants to build atomic
weapons.
SUSPENSION ROLLBACK
Iran, which says its nuclear program will only be used for peaceful
purposes, suspended atomic fuel research as well as all uranium
processing
and enrichment under negotiations with the EU trio of Britain,
Germany and
France that began in 2003.
Tehran began to roll back its suspension of nuclear work in August
by
restarting its uranium-conversion plant at Isfahan, prompting
the "EU3" to
freeze its talks with Iran. The talks resumed in December and the
sides are
to meet again this month.
"Iran's decision will probably raise the temperature around the
talks," said
the diplomat close to the IAEA.
Saeedi stressed that the actual enrichment of uranium, through
injecting gas
into centrifuges at Iran's unfinished Natanz facility, would not
be resumed
for now. "That will be a separate issue on which no decision has
yet been
made," he said.
Earlier on Tuesday, Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi
poured cold
water on a Russian proposal aimed at easing Western concerns that
Iran could
get its hands on bomb-grade, highly enriched uranium.
Asefi said a proposed joint venture to enrich uranium in Russia
was only
acceptable if it was in addition to enrichment facilities in Iran.
"The Russian proposal is ambiguous," Asefi told a weekly news
conference.
"If they want to propose enrichment (only) in Russia we have said
it is not
acceptable. But if it is a complementary or parallel plan, we will
study
that."
A Russian delegation, headed by a senior Foreign Ministry official
is due in
Tehran on January 7 to hold further talks on the proposal.
"We are waiting for the Russians to come to Iran before deciding
whether to
reject it or not, or to accept something in between. Let them
bring their
No, from the only two powers that have the will to stop such gathering
threats - the US and Israel.
For Israel, I cannot speak.
And for the US, I suspect there is no such will, anymore.
Again, I see the image of a brutal maniac, destroying the poisonous
threat of a vial of mercury by throwing it against a wall.
Allen Rice
--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, Derek Jensen <derekj72@g...>
wrote:
No, from the only two powers that have the will to stop such
gathering
threats - the US and Israel.
> --- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, Derek Jensen <derekj72@g...>
> wrote:
> >
> > Iran announces further resumption of atomic work
> > Tue Jan 3, 2006 8:17 AM ET
> >
> > By Paul Hughes
> >
> > TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran announced on Tuesday it would resume
> nuclear fuel
> > research, a move sure to anger Washington and the European
Union
> which fear
> > the Islamic state wants to make atomic fuel to build bombs.
> >
> > Mohammad Saeedi, deputy head of Iran's Atomic Energy
Organization,
> said
> > Tehran had informed the U.N. nuclear watchdog in writing that
the
> nuclear
> > work would resume shortly.
> >
> > "Within the next few days we will start researching that field
in
> > cooperation and coordination with the IAEA (International
Atomic
> Energy
> > Agency)," he told state television.
> >
> > The news coincided with strong hints from Iran's Foreign
Ministry
> that
> > Tehran planned to reject a Russian compromise proposal aimed at
> defusing
> > Iran's nuclear row with the West.
> >
> > The two developments were likely to spark renewed calls in the
> West for the
> > case to be referred to the U.N. Security Council, where Iran
could
> face
> > political or economic sanctions.
> >
> > A referral vote could be held at the next meeting of the IEA's
35-
> nation
> > governing board, scheduled for March 6. At its last session in
> November, the
> > board opted to put off any vote to give time for Russia's
proposal
> to bear
> > fruit.
> >
> > "The latest moves by Iran may strengthen the hands of those who
> want to
> > report this matter to the Security Council at the March board,"
> said a
> > senior diplomat close to the IAEA, referring to the European
Union
> and
> > United States.
> >
> > But he said the IAEA would probably seek clarification from
Iran
> on the sort
> > of research it had in mind. He said the U.N. nuclear watchdog
> agency would
> > in theory have no problem if Iran subjected fuel cycle
research to
> the
> > IAEA's safeguards regime.
> >
> > "This is more a political than technical issue now."
> >
> > Research on nuclear fuel may include some small-scale testing
of
> sensitive
> > atomic processes, including uranium enrichment, an activity
Iran
> has said it
> > is keen to master.
> >
> > The IAEA discovered in 2003 that Iran had conducted
considerable
> clandestine
> > atomic research, including enrichment tests, since the mid-
1980s.
> But it has
> > not detected any clear proof that Tehran wants to build atomic
> weapons.
> >
> > SUSPENSION ROLLBACK
> >
> > Iran, which says its nuclear program will only be used for
peaceful
> > purposes, suspended atomic fuel research as well as all uranium
> processing
> > and enrichment under negotiations with the EU trio of Britain,
> Germany and
> > France that began in 2003.
> >
> > Tehran began to roll back its suspension of nuclear work in
August
> by
> > restarting its uranium-conversion plant at Isfahan, prompting
> the "EU3" to
> > freeze its talks with Iran. The talks resumed in December and
the
> sides are
> > to meet again this month.
> >
> > "Iran's decision will probably raise the temperature around the
> talks," said
> > the diplomat close to the IAEA.
> >
> > Saeedi stressed that the actual enrichment of uranium, through
> injecting gas
> > into centrifuges at Iran's unfinished Natanz facility, would
not
> be resumed
> > for now. "That will be a separate issue on which no decision
has
> yet been
> > made," he said.
> >
> > Earlier on Tuesday, Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi
> poured cold
> > water on a Russian proposal aimed at easing Western concerns
that
> Iran could
> > get its hands on bomb-grade, highly enriched uranium.
> >
> > Asefi said a proposed joint venture to enrich uranium in Russia
> was only
> > acceptable if it was in addition to enrichment facilities in
Iran.
> >
> > "The Russian proposal is ambiguous," Asefi told a weekly news
> conference.
> > "If they want to propose enrichment (only) in Russia we have
said
> it is not
> > acceptable. But if it is a complementary or parallel plan, we
will
> study
> > that."
> >
> > A Russian delegation, headed by a senior Foreign Ministry
official
> is due in
> > Tehran on January 7 to hold further talks on the proposal.
> >
> > "We are waiting for the Russians to come to Iran before
deciding
> whether to
> > reject it or not, or to accept something in between. Let them
> bring their
> > proposal and later we'll see if it is acceptable or not," he
said.
My coworker is Israeli and was a Major in the IDF. He does not think
Israel will attack.
Derek, The Iranians are
Shites, and to the best of my
knowledge do not have a sect as
backward as the the Saudi Shiite
Wahabis who bred the mindset of
Osama. The Iranians being well
civilized and in fact saving much of
Greco Roman culture in thier libraries
during the thousand years of the
Christian Dark ages, are notas likelyto
go over the brink in service of God as
many of the evangelical right in the
administration if god forbid a perfect
red heifer should be engineered in the
promised land to bring back the temple
and engineer the Second Coming, I
mean our President reads and believes
this stuff and longs for it. So the point
of this rant is that Iran hasn't bothered
anybody in a long time, and has been
majorily messed with by the CIA who
overtru thier government and installed
the Shah, and they did finally let the
hostages go. Reagan knew how to
work with them, which I assume means
Schultz, who is still kinkin I think.
Mutually assured destraction was the
pokicy of the US for 60 years before
Bushs idiocy of premetive war, MAD
worked fine for the USA vs Krushev,
Breznev, and with a llittle reminder,
even Khadafi. Israel has state of the art
conventional subs in the Mediteranian
and I assume in the Insian Ocean.
Thats probably why they shot up the us
listening ship in the Yom Kipper war so
the us didn't blow thier subs positions.
Anyway MAD should work against the
Iranians, they do not have a Qahabi
problem, and Reagan proved that they
can be negotiated with. Besides, this
whole damb matter is none of our
business, we need to move forward
and listen to the words of our founding
and greatest Presidens under this
Constitution. If not worrying about Iran
is agaist your macho grain, why not
just play a good game of tennis or
raquetball. The US seems to be
learning a real good lesson in Iraq. If
you go looking for trouble trouble will
find you.
[ Attachment content not displayed ]
Just an observation, Phil and Derek, that there seems to be a lot of nationalist language in both of your posts. Identification with the government that claims jurisdiction over the United States (USgov) and identifying the United States as a whole as "us."
For instance, Derek, "Iran" is not a state sponsor of terrorists -- the Iranian *government* is a state sponsor of terrorists. Saying that "Iran" is doing it makes you sound like an enemy of the Iranian people. That's probably exactly how the Iranian government would like the people under its control to see you.
And Phil, you claim as "ours" a president who, according to your post, is a religious zealot. I know you didn't vote for him, and that you see most of the authority he claims over you as illegitimate (as do I). Why speak or write in such a way as to lend legitimacy to the ties that bind you to him? Are you not a sovereign individual, with no kings, lords, or presidents over you except those you take by choice?
I know, most Americans talk and think the language of nationalism, and quite probably many people in other countries tend to similarly identify with the governments that claim jurisdiction over them and with the people living in the areas over which those respective governments claim national sovereignty -- but shouldn't we (libertarians) try to set a less collectivist example?
Yours in liberty,
<<< starchild >>>
Starchild:
I appreciate your observation, and I think you are correct, especially
about the Iranian people.