Iran warns of 'consequences' if referred to UN re uranium

isenhand · Post by **isenhand** » 23 Sep 2005, 08:02

grinu wrote:Is Iran preparing for war with US?

Either there is a definite game play here and both sides have a goal they are aiming at, and war could well be that, or the world is run by idiots!

MacG · Post by **MacG** » 23 Sep 2005, 09:19

isenhand wrote:Either there is a definite game play here and both sides have a goal they are aiming at, and war could well be that, or the world is run by idiots!

Everything I see indicate a very high probability for the latter case...

grinu · Post by **grinu** » 24 Sep 2005, 14:13

http://www.tehrantimes.com/Description. ... at=2&Num=5

The head of Iran's powerful Revolutionary Guards warned on Friday that the imposition of sanctions on the Islamic republic over its nuclear program could push the price of oil to 100 dollars a barrel.

"Any sanction against Iran can make the oil price reach 100 dollars a barrel," General Yahya Rahim Safavi said in a speech to worshippers attending Friday prayers in Tehran.

Iran is OPEC's second producer.

"Any economic and political pressure on Iran from any power ... will result in a harsh reaction from Iran," he added. The Islamic republic, the general asserted, "has a solid and unbeatable defense potential (and) can retaliate and attack the interests of the enemies in remote places."

grinu · Post by **grinu** » 25 Sep 2005, 21:59

http://www.swissinfo.org/sen/swissinfo. ... icker=true

Iran threatens to end nuclear spot-checks

By Parisa Hafezi

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran threatened on Sunday to halt spot checks of its nuclear sites after the U.N. watchdog passed a resolution requiring Tehran to be reported to the Security Council over its atomic plans.

Some commentators in the Islamic country expressed surprise over how some countries that had voiced support for its nuclear stance had voted at Saturday's meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

China, Russia and South Africa, which had supported Iran, abstained from the vote, while India surprised all by voting for the resolution against traditional ally Iran and backing fellow nuclear powers, the United States, France and Britain.

Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki rejected as illegal the resolution that called on Iran to suspend uranium enrichment-related activities until it proves they are peaceful and resume talks with France, Britain and Germany.

grinu · Post by **grinu** » 25 Sep 2005, 22:01

http://www.turkishpress.com/news.asp?id=71954

China stands firm on Iran and Security Council
China's hunger for oil will remain the force behind Beijing's opposition to bringing the Iranian nuclear issue to the UN, despite its abstention from an IAEA resolution on Iran, analysts say.

In a vote Saturday at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna, Britain, France and Germany, backed by the United States, opened the way to refer Iran to the Security Council for suspected efforts to develop a nuclear bomb.

China and Russia abstained in the vote after a draft resolution was watered down to allow Iran to negotiate a settlement before a key IAEA report on Tehran's nuclear program is handed over to the UN in November.

Saturday's resolution, introduced by the EU-3, holds Iran in violation of international treaty obligations but omitted an explicit call for immediate UN action.

China, a permanent Security Council member with veto power, made clear this week that the issue must be resolved within the framework of the IAEA.

"China believes that using diplomatic means within the framework of the IAEA to resolve the Iranian nuclear issue is conducive to peace and stability in the region concerned," China's ambassador in Vienna Wu Hailong said.

"It is conducive to safeguarding the international non-proliferation regime, and is in line with the fundamental interests of all parties."

China also encouraged Iran and the EU to keep talking.

"We call upon the EU and Iran to take practical steps, at an earliest possible date, to resume their negotiations," he said.

Russia, China and non-aligned nations back Iran's right to what it says is a peaceful nuclear program and fear that Security Council actions could escalate into calls for trade sanctions, such as a ban on oil sales.

This would likely draw sharp retaliation from the Iranian oil giant, which China fears.

Beijing's stance is partly because it has a policy of not interfering in other countries' internal affairs, driven by the fact that it does not want similar outside interference in its own domestic matters.

But mostly it is down to economic interests, in particular oil which China needs to keep firing its remarkable economic transformation, experts said.

In 1997 China negotiated a 1.3 billion dollar contract with Saddam Hussein to develop the al-Ahdab oil field in central Iraq, and in 2001 it was in talks develop the much larger Halfayah field.

"Between them, the two fields might have accounted for almost 400,000 barrels per day, or 13 percent of China's oil consumption in 2003," said Michael Schwartz, professor of sociology at the State University of New York who specialises in Iraq and Iran.

"However, like Iraq's other oil customers (including Russia), China was prevented from activating these deals by the UN sanctions then in place ..."

When the US invaded and set up the Coalition Provisional Authority all pre-existing contracts and promises were null and void, wiping out China's stake in Iraqi oil fields.

So it turned to Iran, and sealed a 70 billion dollar contract to import Iranian oil.

Ehsan Ahrari, an independent strategic analyst based in Virginia who regularly writes on Iran, said that for these reasons, China would never agree to the issue being taken to the Security Council.

"China has been strengthening its ties in Iran, most importantly, in the energy field. It also has been doing business with Iran in the transfer of missile, and even nuclear technology," he said on his website www.ehsanahrari.com.

"China's voracious energy appetite is in dire need of Iran's considerable oil and gas reserves. As long as Iran needs China's missile and nuclear technologies, Beijing expects its oil purchase bills to become eminently manageable.

"Consequently, the Iranians are feeling comfortable that they have reasons to count on China's support."

China has a voracious appetite for oil to feed an economy ticking along at 9.5 percent annual growth, and has been searching for supplies in all parts of the globe.

The world's most populous country expects to import 130 million tonnes of crude in 2005, up from last year's record high of 122 million tonnes, making it the second largest importer in the world after the United States.

grinu · Post by **grinu** » 25 Sep 2005, 22:05

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/co ... 03,00.html

Iran faces Security Council on nukes
Correspondents in Vienna
September 26, 2005
IRAN'S showdown with the West over its nuclear ambitions has taken a dramatic turn as the board of the International Atomic Energy Agency voted to report the country to the United Nations Security Council for violating its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

The UN nuclear watchdog passed a resolution at the weekend requiring Iran to be reported to the Security Council at an unspecified date for failing to convince the agency its nuclear program was entirely peaceful.

We may soon find out how serious Iran is about withholding oil from those states who refer it to UN, which could well be the catylyst for things to start happening. Whether the US (and UK lapdog) dare to risk souring relationships with China and Russia I'm not sure.[/quote]

fishertrop · Post by **fishertrop** » 17 Oct 2005, 13:36

Ahmadinejad says UK suspected of Ahvaz bombing

http://www.iranmania.com/News/ArticleVi ... %20Affairs

LONDON, October 17 (IranMania) -Iran's hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Sunday that he suspected British involvement in a double bomb attack in the ethnic-Arab dominated city of Ahvaz.

fishertrop · Post by **fishertrop** » 18 Oct 2005, 12:56

Stirrings near Iran's oil fields in Khuzestan

http://www.iht.com/getina/files/283042.html

While Tehran denies any role in Iraq, Iranian officials privately confess that they are deeply involved in Iraq and that their western neighbor must neither be allowed to fully stabilize, nor fall apart. They point to Western collusion in the sudden spike this year in ethnic unrest in the strategic, oil-producing province of Khuzestan and describe it as proof of a shadowy war that is receiving far less coverage in the international press than events in Iraq. Since the beginning of 2005, riots and a bombing campaign timed to coincide with the June presidential elections rocked Khuzestan's major cities. Iranian Kurdistan has also seen violent protests and clashes with the central government.

fishertrop · Post by **fishertrop** » 18 Oct 2005, 14:05

Are we going to war with Iran?
By Dan Plesch

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/comment/ ... 76,00.html

... the US ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, expressed his regret that any failure by the UN security council to deal with Iran would damage the security council's relevance, implying that the US would solve the problem on its own

Totally_Baffled · Post by **Totally_Baffled** » 18 Oct 2005, 14:16

Two issues the article did not mention was that of oil/gas and China.

It is all very well planning an invasion or air strike, but it would lead to $100+ oil. Which would be the end of the US economy.(hyperinflation and high interest rates = uber recession!)

Also, Iran is a key energy supplier to China, who happen to be sitting on something like $750 billion of US treasury bonds. If they cashed those in for other currencies, then the dollar would crash. The US import bill would spiral out of control and domestic US inflation would explode leading to guess what?, yep higher interest rates (15-20%). Bye bye US economy.

This has stalemate written all over it.

If the US attacks Iran , I wouldn't be suprised, but extremely alarmed since it would mean the US either doesnt understand the consequences, or simply doesnt give a stuff!

grinu · Post by **grinu** » 18 Oct 2005, 18:38

Is Iran still planning to shift to the Euro bourse? Presumably that would mean many countries would dispose of their dollar holdings - which would lead to devaluation of the dollar anyway. The US economy is buggered no matter what.

Totally_Baffled · Post by **Totally_Baffled** » 18 Oct 2005, 18:57

grinu wrote:Is Iran still planning to shift to the Euro bourse? Presumably that would mean many countries would dispose of their dollar holdings - which would lead to devaluation of the dollar anyway. The US economy is buggered no matter what.

Yeah , I read it is next march ?

Presumably it will take a bit more time for the rest of OPEC to jump on the Euro bandwagon (most OPEC oil is sold to Europe).

Talk about lose lose situaion , if America goes down, so does the world

fishertrop · Post by **fishertrop** » 18 Oct 2005, 20:14

Totally_Baffled wrote: If the US attacks Iran , I wouldn't be suprised, but extremely alarmed since it would mean the
US either doesnt understand the consequences, or simply doesnt give a stuff!

As mentioned in earlier posts, I think that the consequences - terrible for everyone as they are - are one of the key reasons to actually go ahead with conflict.

Skirmish -> escallation -> world crisis = easy to blame iran/china for the world meltdown and easy to up the ante with them, and institute the draft.....

There are many things the US cannot do right now, that a world crisis of the likes would surely come from conflict with Iran, would allow.

It's all about how you can sell the story to the US public and then the mandate they'll then give you to go further.

Totally_Baffled · Post by **Totally_Baffled** » 18 Oct 2005, 20:45

As mentioned in earlier posts, I think that the consequences - terrible for everyone as they are - are one of the key reasons to actually go ahead with conflict.

Skirmish -> escallation -> world crisis = easy to blame iran/china for the world meltdown and easy to up the ante with them, and institute the draft.....

There are many things the US cannot do right now, that a world crisis of the likes would surely come from conflict with Iran, would allow.

It's all about how you can sell the story to the US public and then the mandate they'll then give you to go further.

Hmm that maybe delving into conspiracy type stuff.

The last thing the US wants is a conflict with China.

Bush and republican approval ratings are rock bottom.

Another conflict + the resulting $5-$7 gas + economic recession + eventual mass unemployment = Republicans voted out in 2008 for a long time (unless you believe in all that "Bush will change the voting rules " conspiracy).

I also think that a draft in the US would more like cause a civil war/revolution in the US than an increase in the US military capability!

Besides, if the US economy is totally wrecked how will they fund all the stuff they import for their newly expanded army?, how will they fund the new conflict? I tell one thing is for sure , nobody will want dollars , because they will be worth no more than toilet paper!

IMO, the US is in stalemate. The US will just have to live with a nuclear Iran like she lives with a nuclear north korea.

I could be wrong of course !

grinu · Post by **grinu** » 18 Oct 2005, 22:26

The US will use UK like a pawn. Have you noticed that the UK seems to be 'leading' the whole Iran thing?