U.N. watchdog says nuclear talks with Iran failed

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by Trader666, Feb 21, 2012.

  1. U.N. watchdog says nuclear talks with Iran failed
    By Fredrik Dahl
    Reuters – 1 hr 6 mins ago

    VIENNA (Reuters) - The U.N. nuclear watchdog said on Wednesday it had failed to secure an agreement with Iran during two days of talks over disputed atomic activities and that the Islamic Republic had rejected a request to visit a key military site.

    In the second such trip in less than a month, a senior team from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) had travelled to Tehran to press Iranian officials to start addressing mounting concerns that the Islamic Republic may be seeking to develop nuclear weapons.

    The outcome seems likely to add to already soaring tension between Iran and Western powers, which have ratcheted up sanctions on the major oil producer in recent months.

    "During both the first and second round of discussions, the agency team requested access to the military site at Parchin. Iran did not grant permission for this visit to take place," the Vienna-based IAEA said in a statement after the Feb 20-21 talks.

    The IAEA named Parchin in a detailed report in November that lent independent weight to Western fears that Iran was working to develop an atomic bomb, an allegation Iranian officials reject.

    "It is disappointing that Iran did not accept our request to visit Parchin. We engaged in a constructive spirit, but no agreement was reached," said IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano.

    Earlier, Iran's envoy to the IAEA, Ali Asghar Soltanieh, told the country's ISNA news agency that Tehran expected to hold more talks with the U.N. agency, whose task it is to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons in the world.

    But Amano's spokeswoman, Gill Tudor, made clear no further meetings were planned: "At this point in time there is no agreement on further discussions," she said.

    Iran rejects accusations that its nuclear program is a covert bid to develop a nuclear weapons capability, saying it is seeking to produce only electricity.

    But its refusal to curb sensitive atomic activities which can have both civilian and military purposes, and its track record of years of nuclear secrecy has drawn increasingly tough U.N. and separate U.S. and European punitive measures.

    The United States and Israel have not ruled out using force against Iran if they conclude diplomacy and sanctions will not stop it from developing a nuclear bomb.

    The five-member IAEA team led by Deputy Director General Herman Nackaerts was seeking answers from Iran about intelligence suggesting its declared civilian program is a facade for a weapons program.


    Last year's IAEA report suggesting Iran had pursued military nuclear technology helped precipitate the latest rounds of European Union and U.S. sanctions, which are causing economic hardship in Iran ahead of a parliamentary election in March.

    One key finding was information that Iran had built a large containment chamber at Parchin southeast of Tehran in which to conduct high-explosives tests, which the U.N. agency said were "strong indicators of possible weapon development."

    The IAEA said intensive efforts were made to reach agreement in the talks on a document "facilitating the clarification of unresolved issues" in connection with Iran's nuclear program, particularly those relating to possible military dimensions.

    "Unfortunately, agreement was not reached on this document," it said in an unusually blunt statement.

    The IAEA mission's lack of progress may also have an impact on the chances of any resumption of wider nuclear negotiations between Iran and the six world powers, the five permanent members of the Security Council plus Germany.

    The West last week expressed some optimism at the prospect of new talks, particularly after Iran sent a letter to EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton promising to bring "new initiatives," without stating preconditions.

    But the United States and its allies may become more reluctant if they feel that the Islamic state is unlikely to engage in substantive discussions about its nuclear activities.

    The deputy head of Iran's armed forces was quoted on Tuesday as saying Iran would take pre-emptive action against its enemies if it felt its national interests were endangered.

    "Our strategy now is that if we feel our enemies want to endanger Iran's national interests, and want to decide to do that, we will act without waiting for their actions," Mohammad Hejazi told the Fars news agency.

    In retaliation for oil sanctions, Iran, the world's fifth-largest crude exporter, has threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz, conduit for a third of the world's seaborne oil, while the United States signalled it would use force to keep it open.

    The White House said there was still time for diplomacy.

    "Israel and the United States share the same objective, which is to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon," White House spokesman Jay Carney said when asked about a weekend visit to Israel by National Security Advisor Tom Donilon.

    "There is time and space for diplomacy to work, for the effect of sanctions to result in a change of Iranian behavior."

  2. pspr


    Same game - different President.

    There are only two choices.

    1) Iran gets the bomb and so does everyone else in the middle east unless they are used sooner.

    2) Iran is bombed back to the nuclear stone age every time they get close.

    It's obvious that Obama prefers solution #1.
  3. 377OHMS


    There might be a third choice.

    3) Regime change. Put Iran back into secular governance.

    Obama can't vote present on this. Israel isn't going to sit around with the Iranians threatening to destroy their country. It isn't like the USA-USSR situation where there is 19-20 minutes of early warning as the missiles cross over the North Pole. Iran could put a missile onto Tel Aviv in a few short minutes, not enough time to retaliate and the Israelis don't have a viable submarine launched ballistic missile inventory.

    Its true that they are buying german diesel-electric submarines and likely fitting some kind of launcher for cruise-missiles but I think they have less than 10 subs altogether and a cruise-missile can only deliver one payload.

    I say Iran is going to unleash Hezbollah and Hamas on Israel soon and that means thousands of small rockets shot into Israel from Gaza and southern Lebanon.
  4. You beat me to it. But I wouldn't count on Obama to make any hard choices. He did nothing to take advantage of the aftermath of the 2009 "elections" in Iran. That twerp Ahmadinejad and the rest of those sick fucks would have looked great hanging from lamp posts.

  5. BSAM


    tick tick tick tick tick

  6. 377OHMS


    That is a real possibility.

    We interfered with Persia in 1953 and we can't go back and undo that. Carter betrayed the Shaw of Iran in 1979 and we can't go back and undo that.

    Ousting the theocracy and getting Iran into some kind of constitutional secular government might stick. Then we could simply leave them alone for all time but we should try to fix what we broke 60 years ago.

    There is no possibility for the US to stand aside while Israel attacks Iran. The likely retaliation scenarios all have Iran attacking American interests and attempting to disrupt the entire world economy.

    We are in a war with Islam whether we like it or not. Electing a pro-Islamic President does not get us off the hook. We're going to have to fix Iran.

    Egypt is going Islamist as well but they are not a strategic concern and certainly do not have the assets needed to develop a nuclear program. A country like Iran would likely export nuclear weapons to Egypt and similar countries if they aren't stopped.

    Obama is going to hem and haw and say that Iran isn't near to having nuclear weapons because he simply doesn't want to take action as all he cares about is his reelection. A real leader would do what is right for the world and put his own interests last.