UN watchdog says nuclear talks with Iran failed
By Fredrik Dahl
February 22, 2012


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.

In Washington, no immediate comment was available from the U.S. State Department on the IAEA statement.

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.

STILL TIME FOR DIPLOMACY?

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 signaled 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."

http://news.yahoo.com/u-n-nuclear-watchdog-tehran-talks-disappointing-004927206.html

"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."

I guess they are running out of oil, huh?

Top U.S. General: Israeli stirke on Iran "Not Prudent"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/18/israel-strike-iran-martin-dempsey_n_1286961.html

Netanyahu calls top US general a servant of Iran

http://rt.com/usa/news/netanyahu-dempsey-iran-israel-883/

(In the Election 2012 thread, I mentioned that Newt at the Arizona debate backed Netanyahu over the Chairman of the JCS.)

US military intelligence: ‘Iran won’t start the war’

http://rt.com/usa/news/us-israel-iran-burgess-533/

Maybe I'm wrong but it seems to me that some of those who accuse certain people of being war mongers who are looking to go to war with Iran are people who don't have war as one of several options on the table; if they ever did at all.

In other words, only a madman would want war. I don't believe Netanyahu wants war. I don't believe John Bolton wants war. I think there are people who would resort to war if it came to that. Others immediately take that off the table, no matter what happens, and accuse others who don't of being war mongers.

It often makes me wonder what these people would have done back in the 1930's when Hitler was rising to power.

Like I said: total rerun of Iraq.

(Remember the Hitler comparisons back then too?)

I bring up Hitler because everyone seems to agree that WWII was a "noble war." Notice how there isn't much debate about fighting Hitler. The lefties in Hollywood always give a positive look at that war. But it's the wars after that where their view - and movies - suddenly turns negative.

As much as some may want to believe it, I don't think George Bush, Dick Cheney, or Donald Rumsfeld wanted war. Maybe you can accuse them of being too quick to resort to war but I don't think it's fair to think they wanted it.

My point is, I wonder if there are people who would not consider war no matter what happens. In other words, is there anything Iran or whoever could do that would make these people decide that war was the only option or are they content to drive around with "War is Not the Answer" and "Gore 2000" bumper stickers, living in la la land?

What the Chairman of the JCS was saying is, if say Tel Aviv goes at it alone against our wishes (unlikely, but the possiblity can't be dismissed), then American targets overseas would be part of the retaliation package from Tehran. It's one thing if this comes about because we struck first (inevitable to expect), but if we don't (or worse, we didn't sign off), well that's a completely different thing all together.

I thought everything he said was quite logical. Just surreal how the most supposed "patriotic" flag-waving Americans would believe a foreign government's leader over their own Chairman of the fucking JCS. Just imagine 9 years ago if the political parties were reversed. We would never hear the end of betrayal and treason.

Of course all this is academic, since war is apparently inevitable and worse, only invasion can solve this problem. Just lobbing bombs will bring us the negative consequences without the positive ones.

Tucker Carlson (a dork I usually have no use for) got flack earlier this week for saying we should "annihilate" Iran. He said he was overtaken by emotion and gave his opinion that Obama might go ahead with war regardless if he thinks it's warranted or necessary because not doing so will damage his re-election chances.

Thing is, I might've to agree with him.

God, is that ever true.

Godwin's Law

Criminal Stupidity

Again, I pose the question, what would Iran have to do to make some of you guys (ronnierocket, Lilo) believe war was the only solution left? Launching a nuclear strike against Israel? Supply a nuclear weapon to a terrorist group? Is there anything?

In your opinion, war was rushed into against Iraq. So does that mean the "international community" should drag it's feet in dealing with Iran? And would you be so content if you were living in Israel or one Iran's other neighbors?

First off, calm down. I don't want you to get upset and accuse me or Lilo of being Chamberlain.

Second, why do you assume Israel doesn't have nukes? Why do you assume it's not covered under a nuclear shield? (Obama announced it, but I'm certain Dubya offered privately the same promise.)

Third, what happened to Deterrence? Did it fail us somewhere or something, because it's become unsexy all of a sudden. You know the whole goddamn idea of deterrence was that the risk for going to war against you wouldn't be worth it (i.e. you probably die.) Why would that fail with Iran if it did go nuclear? They may make all their bullshit speeches, but in the end they're just bureaucrats who don't want to die. Which is what would happen if we have invasion.

Fourth, why not ring the alarm bell on Syria? The State Department just today sent out warnings to our allied states in that region about the possible dispersal of WMDs if the Syrian regime falls and that country gets emboiled in civil war. Better yet, why not Pakistan? They've been busted in their collaboration with the Taliban, Al Qaeda, knew where Bin Laden was hiding...and they have nukes for real.

Fifth, what military action do you have in mind for Iran? Do you disagree with my belief that mere throwing bombs won't solve the nuclear problem? Do you instead favor invasion? I mean Iran won't be fucking Libya. Just you can understand that if you believe mere strikes will do the job.

Sixth, just for your joy and benefit: PEACE IN OUR TIME!



War wasn't "rushed," the post-war occupation was poorly planned, and we paid dearly for it. Then there is the idea that maybe we shouldn't have gone to war in the first place. Saddam was contained, quarantined. His only friend was Syria and terrorist groups, but otherwise nobody in that region wanted to help piss on him if he was on fire. (Invading your neighbors tends to do that.)

America fights wars if it's the absolute last option forced upon us. (In theory at least.) Just because we can fight wars (or hell), doesn't mean you go to war. I say give the sanctions time. Notice how the government has taken this entire term to set up sanctions, to get a diplomatic consensus, let Iran possibly hang itself. In the end, if you believe a nuclear Iran is ultimately unacceptable, we will have war.

Thankfully for your sake IvyLeague, you're getting that war. It's going to happen. Why? Because them going nuclear would be the only regime security against invasion. So we're fucked in one regard: why wouldn't they go nuclear? The Supreme Ayatollah don't wanna die and get sodomized on tape by his own people like ole Gaddafi.



Knowing them and the last few decades: they'll plead to us in private, but then outside closed doors spit on our faces. Even the one who respects us the most of those "aliies" in Tel Aviv, they don't publicly respect us. It's remarkable how little they hold us in gratitude. I mean we made that state possible and helped them when everybody in that region wanted to destroy it.

I think it's remarkable how little respect Tel Aviv pays us, and how much we tolerate...no love...being disrespected by a relative piss-ant state. Imagined if Portugal pulled this shit on us. Thankfully Jesus never went there. Or worse, imagined if he lived in France.

Come to think of it, their contempt of their savior really does remind me of the Paris government.

All that tying and you didn't (or couldn't) answer my question. I don't know if I'd compare you guys to Chamberlain but the main difference between yourselves and those you see as warmongers is that war isn't even among the options you guys would have on the table in dealing with Iran. And that's basically my point. Whether we're talking Iran, or Iraq a decade ago, or North Korea, or whoever, I seriously question if there is anything they could do that would make the peacenik crowd finally resort to war.

P.S...

I know Israel has nuclear weapons. But that's a hell of a lot different than Iran getting them. Anyone who says different is either ignorant or in denial.

I'm all for deterrence. My hypothetical question is if that fails.

And I don't know where this idea comes from that Israel is so dependent on the U.S. that it should do whatever the U.S. says. It may have been that way at one time but not anymore. The two countries maintain their relationship out of choice more than necessity. If anything, it's only from dealing with U.S. concerns that Israel hasn't hit Iran already.

Has anyone talked to afsaneh?

I imagine a person has to have their nuts screwed on tight, facing the threat of war everyday in their own backyard.

I'm here. I suppose this is one of the times that I should be thankful I've got no nuts.

Since the time I can remember from my childhood, Iran was at war with Iraq. That bloody war took 8 years. My whole childhood was spent in an atmosphere as if war was something normal. Granted, at that time we were living in a town an hour away from Esfahan, and all I felt from war were the sounds of Iraqi airplanes passing the speed of sound, just getting back from bombing Esfahan. It's like a bomb being dropped down further away. Or I remember orientation classes as to how make gas masks at school, in case of a chemical attack. I remember not one child was scared. I compare the attitude toward such a threat of an American with that of ours and I see a great deal of difference. Not sure why there's not that much frenzy toward the face of doom here.

I suppose if I want to be completely honest, I've not taken the threat of war seriously. Nobody here has. And even if I did, that wouldn't be a very positive feeling for my everyday life.

Still, that had to be unnerving. I heard, quite loudly, the fighter jets scrambled to protect the airspace over New York City after the September 11th attacks. That freaked me out (thinking that my city was a war scene).

Keep safe, afs!!

I'll try. Thanks SC!

Of course it was. All the glasses were trembling like they were going to break down. We'd taped all the windows in X type shapes. I remember my aunt had just had an open heart surgery and they brought her to our house to recover and she was positively frightened when she would hear the sound. But it is different when you are a child and you don't know what's really going on. To hear that sound everyday and think that's normal while you're just realizing what's what in the world is really damaging. And so are we. It's not normal to hear people die everyday. I'm relatively apathetic and that has to be the explanation.

THERE you are. Sorry, a person has to have their tits strapped on tight, i believe would be the more appropriate adage in your case.



Now that is profound as hell, man. Of course, I guess it can also be said that in some ways the fears in a child's mind pales in comparison to the horrors of the adult mind, who understand just how terrible things really are. But tell that to the 95,000 Iranian children killed in the Iraq-Iran war, I guess.

It's no wonder Iranians aren't afraid of conflict anymore. We Americans think we know the horrors of war but we have NO idea compared to some. No idea at all.

Off-topic, but about the region in general. Tell me what you think of this op-ed from the National Review.



http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/291925/why-apologize-afghanistan-andrew-c-mccarthy?pg=1

That's extreme, to say the least, and bigoted, too.

It represents the most dangerous form of bigotry: that which is disguised as patriotism. It also bastardizes our most fundamental immigration value. We have always given highest priority to accepting immigrants fleeing oppressive regimes. For instance we have accepted Cubans with open arms.

This piece states that we should not accept Muslims until their nations embrace democratic change. I find this passage to be the most hypocritical:

"At the very least, our immigration laws should exclude entry from Muslim-majority countries unless and until those countries expressly repeal repressive sharia laws (e.g., the death penalty for apostates) and adopt American standards of non-discrimination against, tolerance of, and protection for religious minorities."

These standards seem to elude the author's values.

Or lack thereof .

Hey Uncle Klyd, how you be ?

I'm hanging in there. About ready to coach a rec league playoff game. A win will put us in the Final Four.

Well, that oughta make up for the Steelers and Phillies this year .

Ouch

War with Iran? How did the Steelers and Phillies get in here?

hey! Be easy about the Steelers.

We don't play that kind of football, this isn't fair.

That's one dance we'd be well advised to sit out.