| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iran |
| Atomic Board Favors Giving Iran Deadline |
| 2003-09-12 |
| VIENNA, Austria (AP) - After days of intense lobbying by the United States, diplomats appeared likely to set an October Ahead of Friday’s meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency’s But diplomats said that by late Thursday, more than 20 members of the 35-nation board had indicated they would vote in favor of the resolution, with an unknown number "Do we have to make a decision? Euuh, gross!" Russia, whose vote carries substantial political weight, had initially opposed the concept of a deadline but now was leaning toward abstaining instead of opposing, said the diplomats. China was also expected to abstain, though a member of the Chinese delegation said it was still awaiting instructions from Beijing on how to vote. A meeting of the board resumed Friday after being suspended Wednesday to allow the 35 member nations to meet informally. They were expected to vote on a U.S.-backed resolution urging Iran to essentially disprove by October that it is running a covert nuclear weapons program. The United States and its allies have used the two-day suspension to lobby other countries for support. While not outlining consequences, the resolution sets up the possibility of U.N. Security Council involvement. That would happen if the board rules at its next meeting in November that Iran ignored IAEA demands and was not complying with part of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Diplomats said the document might be weakened slightly, with sentiment growing to strike a key word. The resolution originally called on the board to arrive at ``definitive’’ conclusions about Iran’s program at its November meeting. Now, the diplomats said, most board members were leaning toward dropping that word over U.S. objections. My, the French have been busy beavers, haven’t they? The U.S.-backed push for a deadline got a boost after the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency came out in support of it earlier in the week, saying he favored ``an immediate disclosure of all nuclear activities’’ on the part of Iran. Reflecting the concerns driving America and its allies, IAEA Director General Mohammed ElBaradei, in separate comments, warned that he and his agency might soon be unable to verify whether Tehran was diverting nuclear material into a weapons program unless Iran quickly agreed to fully cooperate. Those fears, expressed at a closed session of the board meeting, were relayed by diplomats present. |
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #9 "Russia, whose vote carries substantial political weight, had initially opposed the concept of a deadline but now was leaning toward abstaining instead of opposing, said the diplomats. China was also expected to abstain, though a member of the Chinese delegation said it was still awaiting instructions from Beijing on how to vote. Well, duh. They both want to see: 1) If the US can support another major operation without the UN. (Who will, as pointed out earlier, be setting "Final" deadlines into the year 3999.) 2) Russia's blood bath in Chechnya will continue to be page 31 news. 3) China will wait until it knows for sure the US is at it's operational limit before launching on Taiwan. (I wonder why it hasn't happened already.) 4) Neither of them will send troops to support any actions anyways. Solution: As previously stated. Don't sweat them silly Iranians. The world will know when they've gone to far, before the Israeli jets land back at their home base. Israel...you gotta love'em. They're like (in bad Mexican/Jewish accent) UN? We don't need no stinkin' UN. ...and them the problem is solved. (No Frogs required.) |
| Posted by: Paul 2003-9-12 10:48:37 PM |
| #8 As a US taxpayer, I want to see a UNSC resolution to assign a rotating intimidator who has to mass 200,000 troops on the border of prospective nuclear poliferator in the middle of the desert summer to convince the perpetrator to accept inspections. Can Canada be assigned the next poliferator, please? ... Anybody listening? Russia would like the deadline to be two years out or so. They still have quite a bit of construction to accomplish. None of these three month push-push deals. They can't have this weapons program up and running in less than 8 months. Stop pushing. They need more time. |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2003-9-12 9:05:44 PM |
| #7 I think Iran would play the Saddam game of bait and switch and Israel will bomb the sites anyway. The real hope is that with enough international noise the student movement in Iran might gain some traction, overthrow the Mullahs, and end the problem for good. Oh, and the question is what people will vote for in the UN, not what Iran will actually do. The UN has had many votes that were not based on reality. They might want to set up an Oil for food program with Iran and everyone get get rich while the Mullahs hide their WMD. |
| Posted by: Yank 2003-9-12 5:49:28 PM |
| #6 Ooooooooo...a deadline! Is this a deadline for when they will be extending the deadline or the first deadline in a series of deadlines they'll need when the Iranians tell them to go fuck themselves and they won't want to look like the useless saps they are? |
| Posted by: tu3031 2003-9-12 4:58:25 PM |
| #5 After all these kind of things have been so effective in N Korea... oh.. wait... The UN wont do anything no matter what. Tell them if they dont behave they will have to take...france... |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2003-9-12 2:31:29 PM |
| #4 Yank - In your wildest dreams you don't believe the Black Hats will voluntarily dismantle, do you? I'll wager on "Not a Chance" - and give you 10-1 odds for the UN horse. UN. Pfeh. It only works when the UNSC is united (rarer than verified Elvis sightings), the US agrees to foot the bill, and ... Aw fuck it. It doesn't work - and hasn't worked in forever. What works is following our own foreign policy. Everything else is just fluffing the limp lolly. |
| Posted by: .com (Abu This RoP™ Asshats) 2003-9-12 12:43:17 PM |
| #3 While not outlining consequences, the resolution sets up the possibility of U.N. Security Council involvement. Then this doesn't mean diddly-squat. Iran ain't gonna give a shriveled turd anyway, but a demand made without a clearly defined consequence for not meeting that demand isn't going to carry any weight. At least, not where it counts. And then there's another largely ineffective element, the UN Security Council..... |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2003-9-12 12:34:18 PM |
| #2 Simple equation. What is worse: (1) UN does nothing and Israel destroys nuclear sites creating fallout.(2) UN puts pressure on Iran to dismantle program. I guess it depends on if you live downwind or not. |
| Posted by: Yank 2003-9-12 12:27:25 PM |
| #1 tick tock... |
| Posted by: .com (Abu This RoP™ Asshats) 2003-9-12 12:02:48 PM |