| Submit your comments on this article |
| Syria-Lebanon-Iran |
| Iran warns IAEA of confrontation over referral |
| 2005-09-26 |
| Iran has warned that it would view the UN atomic watchdog's adopting European proposals to bring it before the Security Council as a "confrontation," in comments by a senior Iranian official. The European Union has two draft proposals being circulated at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) which is to meet later Friday. If either is adopted: "We consider them a confrontation because in both texts there is a reference and room for the Security Council," Iranian National Security Council deputy chief Javad Vaidi told reporters on Friday. But Vaidi said the EU, and the United States, are have a "serious difficulty" winning a consensus for either measure at the IAEA's 35-nation board of governors which is meeting in Vienna this week. "It is the issue going out of the IAEA that we will consider the track of confrontation," Vaidi said, adding that Iran wants "peaceful resolution of this issue and dialogue and of course negotiation." The Security Council could at first urge cooperation and then impose sanctions to get Iran to stop work on the first steps of making nuclear fuel that has raised fears it might be secretly developing atomic weapons. Iran insists its nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes only but has said it will react to Security Council referral by limiting cooperation with IAEA inspections and carry out the final steps in making nuclear fuel. In Tehran, the head of Iran's powerful Revolutionary Guards warned Friday that the imposition of sanctions on the Islamic republic over its nuclear programme 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 largest 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 defence potential (and) can retaliate and attack the interests of the enemies in remote places." |
| Posted by:Dan Darling |
| #5 Basically the mullahs have responded, "I fart in your general direction." |
| Posted by: doc 2005-09-26 09:51 |
| #4 As transparent as glass, as belligerent as it is possible to be, pre-attack, anyway, and "apparently" supremely confident that they will prevail. Are they insane? No, they're making a rational assessment. Immediately after 9/11, the US was attacked with anthrax. The obvious source of the anthrax particularly since they freaking bragged about it was Saddam's Iraq. Yet we still waited for two years to do anything about it and let the press and a pack of incompetents at the FBI ruin the life of an innocent man rather than admit the obvious. Our previously announced policy was "if we're hit by WMD, we retaliate with WMD -- nukes". We were hit. We didn't retaliate. The mullahs saw Saddam call our bluff. They know we won't do squat, regardless of what happens. They also know they can count on the press and Democrats to play the perfect useful idiots and block any attempt to defend ourselves -- or even retaliate -- against the mullahs. They've seen what a clear and obvious case for war has turned into -- remember, the Democrat base is against Afghanistan, too -- and they know we haven't the will to fight them. They also know our "allies" are nothing of the sort, and they have nothing to fear from them no matter what happens. Mark my words -- a mullah could give a speech at this Friday's prayers, announcing a "new sun rising for Islam against the tyrant Crusaders", followed in an hour by a nuke going off in a US city, and we'd spend the next four years trying (and failing) to get a UN resolution considering an investigation into who might have been behind it. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2005-09-26 07:57 |
| #3 The Iran(t)ian is no different than the two bit thug, Saddam, when he used to go off pre-Gulf War I. Same ole threats, same outcome? |
| Posted by: Captain America 2005-09-26 06:10 |
| #2 I find them morbidly fascinating. As transparent as glass, as belligerent as it is possible to be, pre-attack, anyway, and "apparently" supremely confident that they will prevail. Are they insane? I think it's pretty clear they are - they "apparently" believe their own incessant bluff, bluster, and bullshit. Is this the most dangerous moment freedom has ever faced? Yes, I believe so. Imagine the world with the MM's sitting atop most of the world's oil supply with deliverable nukes - and endless hard currency to buy any and all other forms of terror, with willing ChiComs plus Puttyputz & His Puppet Masters holding triangulation auctions. We're in a race. Not just with preparing ourselves with high-probability action plans and accumulating and positioning the resources needed to execute them, but with our own failure of will from a thousand subversive cuts - before that moment of truth arrives. |
| Posted by: .com 2005-09-26 03:32 |
| #1 The Islamic republic, the general asserted, "has a solid and unbeatable defence potential (and) can retaliate and attack the interests of the enemies in remote places." I look forward to the upcoming DOD issue playing cards--Mad Mullah edition. This clown will surely rate a spot. |
| Posted by: Classical_Liberal 2005-09-26 01:36 |