Push Iran toward nuclear compliance....

Iran Forum

Push Iran toward nuclear compliance

U.S., EUROPE SHOULD LAY OUT CONSEQUENCES OF FAILURE

hen the governing board of the International Atomic Energy Agency convenes in Vienna next Monday, the United States and its European allies should act in concert to diminish the threat of Iran's nuclear program. The IAEA should lay out a clear set of demands for Iran, specific incentives for cooperation and tough consequences should Iran continue to engage in deceptions. The agency must make clear that it will not tolerate further nuclear proliferation.

Defuse the threat

Iran's recent wafflings were made possible by the lack of vigilant scrutiny. U.S. and European leaders have failed to clearly demarcate the consequences of Iran's transgressions, and the situation has become a crisis. A nuclear Iran (even one capable of producing nuclear weapons) would be a grave risk to its neighbors and the world. Our government should work to defuse the threat.

Iran is still a few years from producing nuclear weapons, and starting Monday, U.S. diplomacy could preclude that possibility. Iran violated the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty for 18 years by hiding its uranium-enrichment program. This year, Iran announced its intention to cease enrichment efforts. Instead of fulfilling that promise, it has stalled, deceived and played semantic games. This must stop.

The United States and Europe can change this pattern by laying out clear demands, including insisting that Iran renounce efforts to achieve enrichment capability and that it cooperate with a stringent inspection regime. Iran forfeited the right to enrich uranium for civilian energy purposes by lying to the international community for nearly two decades.

The IAEA should pressure Iran to accept these terms by raising the stakes. The consequences of noncompliance -- and the benefits of cooperation -- must be high: If Iran fails to provide evidence that it has dismantled all enrichment research and development, the U.N. Security Council will immediately begin debate on sanctions. The burden of proof must be on Iran, the offending nation. The Iranian government may be loath to accept economic sanctions or political isolation, either of which would foster major internal discontent.

Modernize infrastructure

There also must be favorable consequences if Iran cooperates. It should be allowed to keep its nuclear plant and the right to purchase low-grade uranium from Russia. The United States can promise not to push for economic sanctions at the Security Council. European nations can commit to helping Iran modernize its oil infrastructure and maintain the trade that is essential to Iran's economy.

Source: http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/

NATO should be doing something about this. But they won't as usual. They're too busy skimming off of 'oil for food' programs. Thank God we have the almighty NATO running the world.

Everyone wants nuclear weapons. Iran is going to try and get them. That's just obvious.

When powers sit round a table to negotiate on whatever it might be everyone wants to do it from a position of real power where the others will actually take notice of what they say. Watch any free-trade/climate etc summit - the rich west ignores or only pretends to listen to the poorer nations because in the big scheme of things - only the rich and powerful actually matter. You get the bomb - you get noticed. That's human nature.

Honestly I believe it’s too late. Iran probably possesses the weapon already. We’ve been so pre-occupied with Iraq.

NATO is for defense. I doubt if they would get involved. The UN would be the route to go if anything, however there are credibility issues there.

Somehow, it’s rather hypocritical to demand other nations disarm while we possess such large stockpiles of nukes ourselves. It’s a two edged sword. On one hand it very well may be hypocritical but on the other, certain nations cannot be trusted to be in possession of such a weapon.

Many here in the states have gotten a false impression. The US will not bomb any other nation anytime soon. Iraq has made it harder for so many reasons, one being economics. Despite all the rhetoric from our leaders about we still did the right thing, I’m sure they’ve learned a great deal from this experience. If not, the I don’t believe incompetence is strong enough to describe it.

Heres a list of some countries with weapons. Interestingly, it would be foolish for anyone to claim that with all of these countries having weapons, that Iraq actually doesn't.

http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/wmd_state.htm

Hey wait I thought all you anti-bush people were all pro UN. This is REALLY BREAKING NEWS.

This link shows what the big 3 in Europe have done for Irans nuke program.
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle....59§ion=news

What WILL it take?

What can we do? We lost so much credibility around the world by invading Iraq for their WMD's when there were none. Now that Iran is enriching, many countries will not support us with any actions that we take or suggest. taking

I say let's just let Iran create their nukes. Oh and let's let Korea make theirs. After all they are over there and we are over here. They won't bother us.

I think that Iran is a huge concern. Radical Islam raging in the middle east, and now a country that hates us is developing nukes. I am sure Israel is first on their list. Not a good mix, but those are just my thoughts.

How do you know that Iran doesn't ALREADY have nuclear weapons?

Our CIA wouldn't know either way, really.
In fact they really don't know a whole lot.

Man, I hope there is some clandestine agency that knows SOMETHING SOMEWHERE.

If we lost so much credability as you say, why is that 32 countries are with us.
It is the big 3 in Europe that has lost credability. Russia has had a change in stance recently. It is a shame it had to come to that.

What we can do is never back up.

Too bad we never hear what the Iranian people really think about all this and the possiblility of a nuclear strike on their soil. I wonder if they feel they are justified in the creation of nuclear weapons too.

Iran and the U.S. were allies in the up until 1979 when the Shah was overthrown.

That evil Bush, doing something for humanity...How dare him.

To the one who doesn't use logic

Maybe because.................Iran wasn't very good to the US in the late 70's?? You ever hear of the 'Iran taking US hostages'?? That ringing any bells??

Hmmm, here's a thought. If the US stops meddling in other countries political affairs then maybe those countries wouldn't hate them. For some reason, it just seems to be the norm and the right of the US to meddle with other countries? I want you logicman to answer that question. And what is "Iran wasn't very good to the US in the late 70's" . For some reason in your world it is okay for the US to overthrow the democratic leader of a country to put in a puppet that serves their interest. When the Iranians had enough and overthrew their government, Iran somehow was not good to the US? History has shown, no one likes a foreign government to install a puppet government for them.
You and I may not like the result of the government that is in place in Iran but the people of that country rose up and overthrew their government. Just like the Americans rose up and overthrew the British for their independence and just like the North took on the south about slavery. The people of their own country decide when the time is right for them.


How about Iran recently forbidding US soldiers in Iran EVEN WHEN searching for Al-Queda??

Iran and the US are not allies and not exactly friends but in your world they should allow foreign enemy troops into their country.... Right buddy. Riddle me this.... Russia and the US are friends and allies (well sort of). If there were a bunch of Chechnyan terrorists running around in the US and Russia wanted to bring in their troops, say 10000, to stop them, would the US let them? Uhhh, what!! What was that answer, was that a NO!?! The US wouldn't allow allied troops running around their country, do you think they will allow enemy troops in?

All you have to do is flip the script, oh logical one, and you will answer your own questions.

I bet the CIA is there

logicless,

nice try though with the "US meddling in other countries governments" excuse?
First of all there is a big difference between stopping two countries that tried, were in the act of doing, and had the means to conquer all of Europe and parts of Asia and trying to infiltrate and establish coups against governments that does not tow the line with US foreign policy. Shah of Iran in 79, Chavez in Venuezula, Castro in Cuba and so on and so on. So logicless, you need to wake up and smell what you tried to shovel to me.

And you have shown me that a little logic thrown your way will stop the logicman in this tracks. I asked you a simple question:
"If there were a bunch of Chechnyan terrorists running around in the US and Russia wanted to bring in their troops, say 10000, to stop them, would the US let them?"
You wouldn't even answer that question and try to pass of some non-sensical spin answer of "The US has allied troops in many countries around the world." Or maybe you answered a question you thought I asked. I didn't ask you if the US has allied troops in other countries.
Yeah, keep trying......

Let's talk about Iran in the 70's. Up until the Shah was overthrown, we had a good relationship with Iran, maybe not great but at least good. We actually trained Iranian military, I know because I had 3 Iranian students in my class. 2 pro Shah and 1 pro Ayatolah. Up until the point the Shah was overthown they were all friends. When he was overthrown they were suddenly enemys to the point that a fight broke out in my classroom. Rumer has it that the 2 never went back to Iran and when the one returned he was executed for bringing discrace to his country. I know this story doesn't have much to do with anything but thought I would share it.

However up until late1979 the U.S. and Iran were allies.