Rice: Iran must halt nuclear program

gldstwmn · #1 02-09-2005, 05:33 PM

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/02/09/rice/
Secretary of state says Iran could be referred to Security Council
Wednesday, February 9, 2005 Posted: 1611 GMT (0011 HKT)

BRUSSELS, Belgium (CNN) -- U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said on Wednesday that Iran must live up to its international obligations to halt its nuclear program or "the next steps are in the offing."

"And I think everybody understands what the 'next steps' mean," Rice told reporters after a meeting with NATO foreign ministers and European Union officials.

"It's obvious that if Iran cannot be brought to live up to its international obligations that, in fact, the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) statutes would suggest that Iran has to be referred to the U.N. Security Council," she said.

Iran has refused to halt its nuclear program, saying it is only intended for peaceful energy production.

In recent months, negotiators from France, Britain and Germany have been trying to coax Iran to fully disclose the parameters of its nuclear program and abandon efforts to produce nuclear fuel in exchange for economic and political incentives.

"The message is there, the Iranians need to get that message, and we can certainly always remind them that there are other steps that the international community has at its disposal should they not be prepared to live up to these obligations," the secretary of state said.

She said that no timetable had been set.

"We continue to be in completely close consultation with the Europeans about how it is going, about whether progress is being made, about whether the Iranians seem to be moving toward living up to those obligations, and we'll just monitor and continue those discussions," she said.

In his state of the union address last week, President Bush singled out Iran as "the world's primary state sponsor of terror -- pursuing nuclear weapons," while depriving its people of freedom.

The administration made similar statements and threats in the run-up to its invasion of Iraq.

But Rice on Friday said that the question of using military force against the Tehran regime "is simply not on the agenda at this point in time."

'Time for diplomacy'
"We believe this is a time for diplomacy," the secretary said Wednesday, adding that human rights in Iran and Tehran's sponsoring of terror groups are also causes for concern.

"The message that we are giving to Iran: We do have diplomatic means at our disposal, we are doing this bilaterally as well as multilaterally, and I believe that a diplomatic solution is in our grasp, if we can have unity of purpose, unity of message with the Iranians and if the Iranians understand that the international community is quite serious about it living up to its obligations."

The IAEA has the authority to refer Iran to the Security Council, but the group's board of governors has refrained from doing so in seven meetings on the topic in the past two years.

Mark Gwozkecky, a spokesman for the IAEA, said the governors have reaffirmed their support for the inspection process at each meeting "as long as inspectors are making progress and not being obstructed, and as long as Iran appears to be cooperating."

The board next meets February 28, Gwozkecky said.

I see a bad moon arising.
I see trouble on the way.
I see earthquakes and lightnin'.
I see bad times today.

Don't go around tonight,
Well, it's bound to take your life,
There's a bad moon on the rise.

I hear hurricanes a blowing.
I know the end is coming soon.
I fear rivers over flowing.
I hear the voice of rage and ruin.

Don't go around tonight,
Well, it's bound to take your life,
There's a bad moon on the rise.

Hope you got your things together.
Hope you are quite prepared to die.
Looks like we're in for nasty weather.
One eye is taken for an eye.

Don't go around tonight,
Well, it's bound to take your life,
There's a bad moon on the rise.

Don't go around tonight,
Well, it's bound to take your life,
There's a bad moon on the rise.

ontheEdgeof17 · #2 02-09-2005, 05:35 PM

They will plan the attack around the next election to keep the Presidency in their corner.

gldstwmn · #3 02-09-2005, 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ontheEdgeof17

They will plan the attack around the next election to keep the Presidency in their corner.

Do you think? I think this is going to happen much sooner.

ontheEdgeof17 · #4 02-09-2005, 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

Do you think? I think this is going to happen much sooner.

Possible.

March '06 is my prediction.

gldstwmn · #5 02-09-2005, 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ontheEdgeof17

Possible.

March '06 is my prediction.

Oh, you're talking about the mid terms. Quite possible.

strandinthewind · #6 02-09-2005, 05:47 PM

Iran must not have nukes - I think everyone agrees with that.

The problem is how we, the US, will handle this is tough because we have so little credibility on this. I think that is why Iran is dealing with Europe right now.

But, yes, all sources clearly indicate Iran will be invaded by us if they do not comply.

ontheEdgeof17 · #7 02-09-2005, 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

Oh, you're talking about the mid terms. Quite possible.

Yes, sorry.

gldstwmn · #8 02-09-2005, 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

But, yes, all sources clearly indicate Iran will be invaded by us if they do not comply.

It doesn't matter if they comply or not.

Serrart · #9 02-09-2005, 06:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

Do you think? I think this is going to happen much sooner.

If it's gonna happen US and Europe relationships would reach the higher grade of tension. There are a lot of Iranian intellectuals who are very respected and work constantly here (for instance the most famous Iranian director Abbas Kiarostami has just directed a movie with Ermanno Olmi and Ken Loach, that will be shown during Berlin Film Festival). Many European Countries are working to make Iran dismantle the nuclear program and at the same time are collaborating with Khatami on humanitarian projects. I don't think an attack is very likely to happen, at least if US doesn't want to cause the hugest diplomatic crisis of the last 50 years.

Romy

strandinthewind · #10 02-09-2005, 06:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

It doesn't matter if they comply or not.

Well, it could. Iran is negotiating with Europe, which is diff than Iraq. Also, Iran's politicfal climate and their younger population are diff. than Iraq. The US has no credibility on an international scale. Finally, we did not invade Syria or N. Korea - so we may not Iran. Only time will tell and I do not trust W and his anti-christian principled war mongering and murdering ways. So, we shall see.

gldstwmn · #11 02-09-2005, 06:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Serrart

If it's gonna happen US and Europe relationships would reach the higher grade of tension. There are a lot of Iranian intellectuals who are very respected and work constantly here (for instance the most famous Iranian director Abbas Kiarostami has just directed a movie with Ermanno Olmi and Ken Loach, that will be shown during Berlin Film Festival). Many European Countries are working to make Iran dismantle the nuclear program and at the same time are collaborating with Khatami on humanitarian projects.
Romy

Your point is logical. But the Bush administration is not. They are going. All the signs are there.

ShangriLaTroubl · #12 02-09-2005, 08:39 PM

I would venture to say that one of the only reasons the USA hasn't attacked anyone else yet is because of how bogged down we are and will continue to be in Iraq...which doesn't seem to be looking better, even after the elections...

Of course Bush's plan is to "spread democracy" around the world...so who knows??

Chris

strandinthewind · #13 02-09-2005, 09:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

Your point is logical. But the Bush administration is not. They are going. All the signs are there.

and there it is in a nutshell