IRAN: Scoffing again at Western incentives

Iran is pondering a Western-made offer for Tehran to drop its nuclear enrichment program. But the state-controlled local media has already scoffed at the package of political and economic incentives presented last week by the EU foreign policy chief, Javier Solana.

According to an Iranian official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, authorities in Tehran have explicitly requested local newspapers to play down the new offer.

In their Monday editions, newspapers close to the hard-line party of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said that the new package presented nothing important. The Persian daily Kayhan wrote on its front page: "After opening the package, it turned out that it was empty again." The newspaper was referring to an older package offered in 2006 by Western powers and rejected then by Iran.

The conservative daily JameJam wrote that the proposed package does not open the way for any solutions. Even the reformist press carried a neutral report on the matter. The Etemad daily titled its front page article: "Diplomacy of packages, Solana: We can be in win-win situation."

At the official level, Iran refrained from giving a response to the package of incentives made by the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council plus Germany (the 5+1 group). Iran's foreign minister, Manouchehr Mottaki, said on Monday that his country would give an answer at the appropriate time after studying the offer.

Talking to reporters in Tehran, Mottaki shrugged off the possibility of a U.S. military attack against it: "Given the failures it has experienced in the decisions it has so far made concerning the region, I don't think the U.S. would harbor any intention of launching a third war in this part and causing another crisis for the American people."

Meanwhile, the United States and Britain warned that Western powers would toughen sanctions against Iran in case it rejected the latest "offers of partnership." 

At a news conference at Downing Street in London, U.S. President Bush said that he wanted to solve the conflict with Iran diplomatically without ruling out the use of force. Speaking after a meeting with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Bush said: "the Iranians must understand that when we come together and speak with one voice, we are serious."

He added that the world would support Iran in implementing a nuclear energy program for civilian purposes but would not tolerate that Tehran continues to enrich uranium: "You bet you have a sovereign right, absolutely, but you don't have the trust of those of us who have watched you carefully when it comes to enriching uranium."

Brown said Britain would urge Europe to impose "further sanctions" on Iran, and Europe would take action to freeze the overseas assets of the country's biggest bank and impose new sanctions on oil and gas.

-- Raed Rafei in Beirut and Ramin Mostaghim in Tehran

Photo: Iranian President Ahmadinejad. Credit: globalsecurity.org

Comments

[Kiumars]

What Europe says and what Europe does are two different things; they know that Bush is a lame duck (both at home and abroad) leaving office in a few months. European leaders are also well aware of vast anti-American feelings amongst the European people (and these are the people who can take them out of office in a jiffy!). European leaders are stuck between a rock and a hard surface; if they bend too much towards Bush their people will sack them (like UK’s Blair and Australia’s Howard). Brown said he will impose more sanctions on Iran but the fact is that Iran has almost no trade with the UK and UK banks! And Brown knows that! Brown and his European colleagues are just saying “Yes Sir” to Bush to keep him happy but they all will be glad to see the back of him like the rest of the world would be.

PS: I personally think that USA is a very dangerous country and every nation must arm themselves with any kind of weapons they can if they do not want to end up to be like Afghanistan and Iraq.

[Kiumars]

To: Alloysius | June 17, 2008 at 12:58 PM
They can do it because they are Zionists and their holly book says that they are entitled to kill all gentiles (i.e. non-Jews)! Read the Talmud and learn the mentality; a copy of the Babylonian Talmud is on www.Come-and-hear.com and I think everybody must read it to understand the current world affairs. Did you know that Bush reads it everyday?
PS: I bet this comment will not be published! But let’s see!

[Saint Michael Traveler]

What is the USA Postion on Iran?

Israel advocates that Iran would be dangerous learning about nuclear technology; what if they use this knowledge sometimes in the future and make nuclear bombs. Israel, whose nuclear arsenals and airplane to deliverer the devices were subsidized mostly by USA, has been assured by both Republican and Democratic candidates that if Iranians would ever develop any nuclear bomb and if she would use the bomb on Israel, we will obliterate Iran to dust. All is fair. But, Iranians are not that stupid to risk their existence to a trigger happy Israel.
They have said multiple times they are not developing nuclear bomb. They even have asked us to join them in an international consortium in their nuclear fuel cycle. Iran submitted a package to the United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon in mid-May 2008 as well as to world powers, including Russia. The proposal suggests "the creation of uranium enrichment consortiums in various countries, including Iran." It also requires that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) step up its supervision of nuclear sites around the world and asserts that more should be done to ensure nuclear programs would not diverted materials for fabrication of nuclear bomb. They want to generate electricity.
Based on GlobalSecuirity.Org, in 1974, the German contractor Siemens began construction of two 1,200-1,300 megawatt electric (MWe) pressurized water nuclear reactors near Bushehr. The German program included 2100 German workers and roughly 7000 Iranian workers. The Shah of Iran intended that this program would provide Iran with the infrastructure essential for industrializing the country.
During the Iran-Iraq War, Iraqi strike aircraft partially damaged both reactors despite reported Iranian efforts to deter such an attack by moving reactor fuel to the site. Iraqi warplanes first struck the Bushehr reactor on 24 March 1984, inflicting light damage. Two more Iraqi air strikes took place in 1985, one in 1986, two in 1987, and a final raid occurred in 1988.
We were responsible for Iranian difficulty to rebuild and fuel their old nuclear reactor. Further Iran had serious difficulty to purchase fuel for their Russian rebuilt nuclear reactor. Iranians learned that their national energy independence demanded home grown nuclear fuel cycle development.
But we have another way to look at this problem:
USA indicates that would ever Iran need nuclear fuel, we will sell them at our price and our time. You know nuclear fuel is the oil of tomorrow. We want to keep our own nuclear fuel cartel. Wait until their oil wells go dry sometimes before 2025, they will come to USA begging for nuclear fuel, i.e. if we would allow them to have any nuclear reactor. Previously, we have not allowed them to purchase simple devices such as Geiger Muller counter. Don't count on it. Nuclear reactor, selling to Iran, you must not be serious.
Israel with the latest war machines and nuclear bombs would not be at risk from Iran. Iran is a developing nation trying hard to feed her people and recover from 200 years of British and Russian colonialism.
Israel and USA are insisting that unless Iran stops their nuclear fuel cycle, jointly they will destroy their country. Be serious. It is all about management of international resources.

[Mehr]

The package offered lacks the security gaurantee and asks Iran to give up its right as an NTP signatory. Do you think Iranian are dumb? You surrond their country from three sides (Persian Gulf, Afganestan and Iraq) and ask them give up the enrichment so that they can be attacked at anytime with any excuse! It is their Ace for any negotiation. When do this handycap adminstration ever realize that the precondition for talks is idiotic? Imagine what would have the case if you started the talks in June 2006 without precondition!!

[Alloysius]

How is it possible that those who make war, drop bombs, make thousands of nuclear arms, torture in their jails, and wiretap—that is to say, the biggest violators of human rights in the world—can try and impose their model on everyone else?