Iran Demands Protection

[CVX]

By Anton La Guardia
Diplomatic Editor
The Telegraph - UK
8-11-4

Iran has issued an extraordinary list of demands to Britain and other European countries, telling them to provide advanced nuclear technology, conventional weapons and a security guarantee against nuclear attack by Israel.

Teheran's request, said by British officials to have "gone down very badly", sharply raises the stakes in the crisis over Iran's nuclear programme, which Britain and America believe is aimed at making an atomic bomb.

Iran's move came during crisis talks in Paris this month with senior diplomats from Britain, France and Germany.

The "EU-3" were trying to convince Iranian officials to honour an earlier deal to suspend its controversial uranium enrichment programme, which is ostensibly designed to make fuel for nuclear power stations but could also be used to make fissile material for nuclear bombs.

Iranian officials refused point-blank to comply, saying they had every right under international law to pursue "peaceful" nuclear technology.

They then stunned the Europeans by presenting a letter setting out their own demands.

Iran said the EU-3 should support Iran's quest for "advanced (nuclear) technology, including those with dual use" - a reference to equipment that has both civilian and military applications.

The Europeans should "remove impediments" preventing Iran from having such technology, and stick to these commitments even if faced with "legal (or) political . . . limitations", an allusion to American pressure or even future international sanctions against Iran.

More astonishingly, Iran said the EU-3 should agree to meet Iran's requirements for conventional weapons and even "provide security assurances" against a nuclear attack on Iran.

This is a reference to Israel's nuclear arsenal, believed to include some 200 warheads and long-range missiles to deliver them.

The EU-3 are still debating over how to respond, but British officials said the Iranian letter was "extremely surprising, given the delicate state of process". Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, will have to decide whether to adopt a more confrontational policy.

America is demanding that the board of governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which meets next month, refer Iran to the UN Security Council for possible sanctions. US officials are also openly discussing "covert" means of disrupting the Iranian nuclear programme, while Israel has openly threatened military action.

However, there were signs yesterday that the next report of Mohammed ElBaradei, the IAEA director general, may give Iran a boost.

A key mystery for the past year has been the source of traces of highly-enriched uranium (HEU) found by IAEA inspectors at several sites in Iran. Teheran claimed this was "contamination" of equipment imported from other countries, rather than proof that it had secretly made HEU.

According to diplomats, inspectors have confirmed that in at least one case the contamination did come from Pakistan, as Iran claimed.

Other contamination issues remain unresolved, and may never be settled. Moreover there are several other open questions.

© Copyright of Telegraph Group Limited 2004.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;sessionid
=EA02UAQFRWOTLQFIQMGCM54AVCBQUJVC
?xml=/news/2004/08/11/wiran11.xml&sSheet= /news
/2004/08/11/ixworld.html

[Warsai]

Iran said the EU-3 should support Iran's quest for "advanced (nuclear) technology, including those with dual use" - a reference to equipment that has both civilian and military applications.

"Military applications"? When they say this do they mean military nuclear power stations, or nuclear bombs? And if they do mean nuclear bombs what makes them think that the EU would allow follow through on the demands?

[plazul]

Originally Posted by CVX

By Anton La Guardia
Diplomatic Editor
The Telegraph - UK
8-11-4

Iran has issued an extraordinary list of demands to Britain and other European countries, telling them to provide advanced nuclear technology, conventional weapons and a security guarantee against nuclear attack by Israel.

Teheran's request, said by British officials to have "gone down very badly", sharply raises the stakes in the crisis over Iran's nuclear programme, which Britain and America believe is aimed at making an atomic bomb.

Iran's move came during crisis talks in Paris this month with senior diplomats from Britain, France and Germany.

The "EU-3" were trying to convince Iranian officials to honour an earlier deal to suspend its controversial uranium enrichment programme, which is ostensibly designed to make fuel for nuclear power stations but could also be used to make fissile material for nuclear bombs.

Iranian officials refused point-blank to comply, saying they had every right under international law to pursue "peaceful" nuclear technology.

They then stunned the Europeans by presenting a letter setting out their own demands.

Iran said the EU-3 should support Iran's quest for "advanced (nuclear) technology, including those with dual use" - a reference to equipment that has both civilian and military applications.

The Europeans should "remove impediments" preventing Iran from having such technology, and stick to these commitments even if faced with "legal (or) political . . . limitations", an allusion to American pressure or even future international sanctions against Iran.

More astonishingly, Iran said the EU-3 should agree to meet Iran's requirements for conventional weapons and even "provide security assurances" against a nuclear attack on Iran.

This is a reference to Israel's nuclear arsenal, believed to include some 200 warheads and long-range missiles to deliver them.

The EU-3 are still debating over how to respond, but British officials said the Iranian letter was "extremely surprising, given the delicate state of process". Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, will have to decide whether to adopt a more confrontational policy.

America is demanding that the board of governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which meets next month, refer Iran to the UN Security Council for possible sanctions. US officials are also openly discussing "covert" means of disrupting the Iranian nuclear programme, while Israel has openly threatened military action.

However, there were signs yesterday that the next report of Mohammed ElBaradei, the IAEA director general, may give Iran a boost.

A key mystery for the past year has been the source of traces of highly-enriched uranium (HEU) found by IAEA inspectors at several sites in Iran. Teheran claimed this was "contamination" of equipment imported from other countries, rather than proof that it had secretly made HEU.

According to diplomats, inspectors have confirmed that in at least one case the contamination did come from Pakistan, as Iran claimed.

Other contamination issues remain unresolved, and may never be settled. Moreover there are several other open questions.

© Copyright of Telegraph Group Limited 2004.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;sessionid
=EA02UAQFRWOTLQFIQMGCM54AVCBQUJVC
?xml=/news/2004/08/11/wiran11.xml&sSheet= /news
/2004/08/11/ixworld.html

In dealing with Iran, I think it would be wise for us to heed the old Arab adage, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." Ironically, as Iran adopts a more moderate form of goverment its old nemesis Iraq is trending towards being a terrorist theocracy in spite of its new constitution.

Currently, the Iranian government is allowing radical elements to enter Iraq through Iran to fuel the jihadist fire started by al-Sadir and his minions. I think Iran would be quite satisfied to get rid of them all just as Fidel was happy to send all his crminals and mentally ill to our shores back in the Seventies.

Iran has the power to replace the radical mullahs in Iraq with more moderate ones who could be politically influential and they have enormous influence throughout the muslim world. If we were willing to make a few compromises with Iran (hear the critics roar) we might be able to make serious progress in the war on terrorism. We need to make a deal with the devil and gradually try to reform him. If we don't, we can count on having a permanent presence in Iraq with little or no help from our allies.

[seekerw]

Originally Posted by plazul

Iran has the power to replace the radical mullahs in Iraq with more moderate ones who could be politically influential and they have enormous influence throughout the muslim world.

Did you mean to say that "Iran" can replace the mullahs in "Iraq"?

Good point about Iran allowing its radical elements to migrate to Iraq.

[double helix]

Originally Posted by seekerw

Did you mean to say that "Iran" can replace the mullahs in "Iraq"?

Good point about Iran allowing its radical elements to migrate to Iraq.

You know, you go and get into bed with the enemy and what do you get. You get royaly .
Now we have these oil rich countries, Iran, Venezuella, China, Kurzakcastan or something, I forget what all the names are. forming an alliance against THE WEST and you two want to climb into bed with the ring leaders. We currently have a fleet of NONE Middle Eastern vessels off the coast of Lebenon obstencibly to keep Hezbolla from rearming. Who do you think is humping the weapons and rearming them? Afganistan, Iraq? Iran is. They are also supplying the terroists currently keeping the killing and fighting going in Iraq and Afganistan. And you want to play footsie with them.

[Scrat]

Iran, Tadjikistan, Khazakistan and the other countries of the area are standing up against what they percieve as western imperialism. In a way they are correct, America wants access to the central asian oil and gas fields ON TERMS FAVORABLE TO WESTERN POWERS.

Now that capitalism is in effect they want favorable terms for themselves. Always bargain from a position of power.

Iran is meddling in various places to gain these ends and position itself to influence the situation. She is supplying the Hizbullah militias and the Shites in Iraq. She stands to gain a lot in Iraq if it ever calms down. Anyone can see that an Iraq in three parts is the best outcome. Iraq would cease to exist as a country.

As for the nukes, if a country as openly racist and hostile as Israel has them then Iran NEEDS them.