VIENNA, Austria - Iran threatened the United States with "harm and pain" Wednesday for its role in hauling Tehran before the U.N. Security Council over its nuclear program.
But the United States and its European allies said Iran's nuclear intransigence left the world no choice but to seek Security Council action. The council could impose economic and political sanctions on Iran.
The statements were delivered to the 35-member board of the International Atomic Energy Agency, which is meeting to focus on Tehran's refusal to freeze uranium enrichment.
The White House dismissed the rhetoric out of Tehran.
"I think that provocative statements and actions only further isolate Iran from the rest of the world," White House press secretary Scott McClellan told reporters traveling with President Bush to hurricane-affected states in the Gulf Coast. "And the international community has spelled out to Iran what it needs to do."
John Bolton, America's ambassador to the United Nations, said Iran's comments showed how much of a menace it was.
"Their threats show why leaving a country like that with a nuclear weapon is so dangerous," he told The Associated Press in a phone call from Washington.
Bolton classified the Iranian comments as "reflecting their determination to acquire weapons."
Wednesday's meeting is in effect the last step before the Security Council begins considering Iran's nuclear activities and international fears they could be misused to make weapons. It began with both Iran and the nations opposing its enrichment plans sticking to their positions.
"The United States has the power to cause harm and pain," said Ali Asghar Soltanieh, a senior Iranian delegate to the IAEA. "But the United States is also susceptible to harm and pain. So if that is the path that the U.S. wishes to choose, let the ball roll."
He did not elaborate but suggested Iran was awaiting additional American moves.
But diplomats accredited to the meeting and in contact with the Iranians said the statement could be a veiled threat to use oil as an economic weapon.
Iran is the second-largest producer within the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, and a boycott could target Europe, China or India.
At an OPEC meeting in Vienna, Iran petroleum minister Sayed Kazem Vaziri Hamaneh deflected questions about Iran's threat, saying: "Ask the one who said that."
He later sought to ease worries about Iran's oil plans, telling reporters: "So far there's no reason to reduce exports. Iran has no intention whatsoever of reducing its oil exports."
Oil supplies are tight worldwide and prices already are high. Although the United States does not buy oil directly from Iran, any Iranian effort to tighten world supplies would effect oil prices in the United States.
Iran also has leverage with extremists in Iraq, the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah and the Islamic militant group Hamas, which won Palestinian elections in January. Both groups are classified by the U.S. State Department as terrorist organizations.
On Tuesday, U.S. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld accused Iran of dispatching elements of its Revolutionary Guard to stir trouble inside Iraq.
Iran's statement was unusually harsh, reflecting Tehran's frustration at failing to deflect the threat of Security Council action against it in the coming weeks. Tehran maintains its nuclear program is for generating electricity.
"Our nation has made its decision to fully use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes and all have to give in to this decision made by the Iranian nation," Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said in Iran. "We have made our choice."
Iran also attacked "warmongers in Washington" for what it said was an unjust accusation that Tehran's nuclear intentions were mainly for military use. It also suggested America was vulnerable, despite its strength.
"Surely we are not naive about the United States' ... intention to flex muscles," the statement said. "But we also see the bone fractures underneath."
It also threatened broader retaliation, without being specific, saying Iran "will adapt our policy and adjust our approach to conform with the new exigencies."
Earlier, U.S. delegate Gregory Schulte insisted in comments to the board that "the time has now come for the Security Council to act." He said the 85 tons of feedstock uranium gas already produced by Iran could produce enough material for about 10 nuclear weapons if enriched.
He ticked off Iran's decision to curtail agency inspections, its expanding uranium enrichment program and worrying conclusions by IAEA inspectors that suggest at least past interest in nuclear arms as contributing to "mounting international concerns" about Tehran's nuclear intentions.
Schulte listed Tehran's possession of plans that could only be used to make nuclear warheads, links between its nuclear programs and the military, and its determination to develop a large-scale enrichment program that could be misused to make nuclear arms.
"IAEA inspectors have no doubt this information was expressly intended for the fabrication of nuclear weapons components," Schulte said of documents showing how to form fissile material into warheads.
Separately, France, Germany and Britain, which spearheaded the Feb. 4 IAEA resolution clearing the path for Security Council action, warned that what is known about Iran's enrichment program could represent only "the tip of the iceberg."
"We believe that the time has ... come for the U.N. Security Council to reinforce the authority" of the IAEA and its board, the European statement said.
Russia and China, which have Security Council vetoes, may use them to foil any resolution in that chamber that would meaningfully increase pressure on Iran, their political and economic ally. Chinese Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing appealed Tuesday for more negotiations and suggested Security Council involvement was not needed.
The Chinese and Russian statements to the board were relatively moderate, said delegates inside the closed meeting. China urged "more time for diplomacy" before any Security Council action, one delegate said on condition of anonymity, quoting from the Chinese statement.
-------
Right up until the bomb drops on this knucklehead, he will continue just as Saddam did. Defy the world with threats.
It's OK to believe Iran will start a conflict. It's also very dangerous to think they won't.
I truely believe that nothing will happen with this and that they will continue to build whatever it is they are building. Time will tell if it is a bomb or not.
It doesn't really matter what he says. It what they do and don't do that counts.
Frankly, I don't care if they have a bomb or not. Chances are it won't reach the US anyway. It's Europe and israel who have to worry. The US should jsut stay out of this and let those who are at risk handle it.
When Saddam threaten the US and sent his assasins, we dealt with it. Until then, we should stay out of it and let the Europeans handle it.
"Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those who say this are witless." ~Ayatollah Khomeini
Iran’s interest is diametrically opposed to the U.S., so it they certainly have the motivation to thwart us practically in Iraq, their adjoining neighbor. I have heard that Iran is importing its military expertise to Iraq to oppose our effort there on behalf of the Iraqi opposition. There was a TV news report two nights ago showing how the newest type of I.E.D.s are manufactured in Iran. They are much more advanced than the crude pipe bombs that were used when the offensive began.
The Iranian IEDs are manufactured with sophisticated, high production machine tools, and are engineered to be lethal enough to destroy any type of armored vehicle that we have. They discharge a slug of molten copper that can penetrate anything in its path. They said that truckloads of these IEDs coming into Iraq from Iran have been intercepted at the border recently. They said that the devices bear a manufacturing signature that proves they were produced in Iran.
I saw the same news report, but I don't know how that proves Iran is directly involved. Many extremists in the Middle East use the same argument when it comes to attack the US because weapons that kill people in their countries are manufactured in the US. I understand the logic, but it call comes down to whether you accept "what's good for the goose is good for the gander." It may be a sexual idiom, but I think it applies.
I wonder what influence the Kurds in north Iraq have on the Kurds in southern Turkey. I think it's obvious that the Shiite groups in Iran have some influence in Iraq. They definitely did in the past election there. Whatever comes out of Iraq will align itself with Iran.
I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody.
- Bill Cosby
The guy who takes a chance, who walks the line between the known and unknown, who is unafraid of failure, will succeed.
- Gordon Parks
Iran is certainly annoyed with the US however I would be more cautious of fighting Iran that Iraq for two reason 1. nearly all Iranians support the leader and 2. Iran actually has an army and more worringly an air force, when was the last time the RAF and USAF actually were involved in air to air combat?
Pretty sure the US will have to assit in this war unless you want to be branded the biggest hypcrites in recent history, remember waht you said about all these countries that stayed out the Iraq war, I assume Freedom Fries will be off the menu.
As for IED's sophisticated my ass, once you have the parts it's realitivly simple to put together, like most bombs easy to get parts, easy to make and easy to kill people. i would pretty much guarntee that the majority are made with pride in Iraq.
As for IED's sophisticated my ass, once you have the parts it's realitivly simple to put together, like most bombs easy to get parts, easy to make and easy to kill people. i would pretty much guarntee that the majority are made with pride in Iraq.
You are behind the curve on that assertion. The news report showed the IEDs that were said to be coming from Iran by the truckload. It diagramed their construction and explained the technology. They look like impressively machined parts with complex geometry. They will blow a hole right through any tank or armored vehicle they hit. We have no defense against them.
Yes it is true that you can make bombs that have some significant effect with easy to get parts, but they have moved on to a new level of IED that really gets the job done.
You are behind the curve on that assertion. The news report showed the IEDs that were said to be coming from Iran by the truckload. It diagramed their construction and explained the technology. They look like impressively machined parts with complex geometry. They will blow a hole right through any tank or armored vehicle they hit. We have no defense against them.
Yes it is true that you can make bombs that have some significant effect with easy to get parts, but they have moved on to a new level of IED that really gets the job done.
You are correct. Iran is supplying the IEDs and other weapons.
For some reason, this doesn't get a lot of coverage, even by western media. Either, they don't want to hear it or they like the fact that Iran is in involved in attacks against US troops. (That'll show Bush, mentality)
Iran is fringing on an act of war with them and nobody seems to pay any attention to it.
Not supprisingly, the media is on their own witch hunt.
"Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those who say this are witless." ~Ayatollah Khomeini
You are behind the curve on that assertion. The news report showed the IEDs that were said to be coming from Iran by the truckload. It diagramed their construction and explained the technology. They look like impressively machined parts with complex geometry. They will blow a hole right through any tank or armored vehicle they hit. We have no defense against them.
Yes it is true that you can make bombs that have some significant effect with easy to get parts, but they have moved on to a new level of IED that really gets the job done.
Well actually we do have defences against IEDs unforuantly they are very expensive and as such cannot be fitted to all vehicles. My understanding of the device is that it detects the IED and then uses some kind of wave to detsroy the IED's.
If ( and it's a big if) Iran is driving truck loads of weapons into Iraq ask your self a question why is this not being stopped? where are the border controls? I know that the US military and streched but you can't spare 2 choppers and a few ground troops? I would ask the Iraqi army it is becomig clear that lot could not secure an empty room. Like i said you don't need to drive truckloads in for two reason 1. and IED will kill you regardless of how it's made a big enough blast will blow a hole through anything you don't need complex production for that. 2. It would be smarter for the Iranina to educate people on how to make them in Iraq you know you teach 2 people and they teach 2 more people etc etc. Right now that's how it has been done.
If ( and it's a big if) Iran is driving truck loads of weapons into Iraq ask your self a question why is this not being stopped? where are the border controls? I know that the US military and streched but you can't spare 2 choppers and a few ground troops?[/B]
We are stopping them, how do you think we know about them in the first place?
The issue is Iran not why can't we prevent it or are we capable of preventing it? It's not that we can't stop it all, it's why should we have to?
When you turn this into a negative against the coalition instead of finding fault with Iran, it is clear what side you are on here.
"Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those who say this are witless." ~Ayatollah Khomeini
03-08-2006 05:22 PM
Don't mess with Texas.
