Iran won't retreat from nuclear path

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates - With Iran angrily defiant about a U.N. report accusing it of developing nuclear weapons, Western powers and allies faced complicated questions Wednesday on how to further tighten pressure on the oil giant without shaking the fragile world economy.

The path toward possible new sanctions also quickly confronted a huge roadblock as Iranian ally Russia said it would oppose any new measures in the U.N. Security Council and rejected any military options as risking "grave consequences" to global security.

The sharp push back reflects the increasing difficulties for Western leaders to find ways to rattle Iran. So far, four rounds of U.N. sanctions have apparently failed to stop secret nuclear tests that brought Iran to the brink of mastering the process for atomic weapons, according to a U.N. watchdog agency report released Tuesday.

Iran claims the evidence in the report is baseless and says its nuclear program is only for energy and research.

The two opposing narratives where on vivid display Wednesday.

In a speech broadcast live on Iranian TV, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad vowed that Iran won't retreat "one iota" from its nuclear ambitions, which include the process to enrich uranium.

About the same time in Paris, French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe said the world cannot accept a nuclear-armed Iran and pledged that France would support boosting sanctions to an "unprecedented scale" if Iran stonewalls investigations. Israel, meanwhile, called on the world to stop Iran's nuclear program, but did not repeat its warnings of a military option.

http://www.startribune.com/world/133522368.html

Which proves we went after the wrong target in the Mideast.

This would be an opportune time to sit down and talk with Iran. Maybe we could offer them some technological help with their electrical grid or something. Maybe they would be interested in some green technology from us. There are many peaceful avenues we could peruse.

rofllol Now that is funny.

HEARTLESS wrote: rofllol Now that is funny.

I wasn't trying to be funny. Now really, you've hurt my feelings. Just because your day went bad doesn't mean you have to ruin mine. Say you're sorry.

Maybe Barry can provide a phone number for George Kaiser and he can get them a killer deal on Solyndra stock.

Conservation Voice wrote: Which proves we went after the wrong target in the Mideast.

Oh please! You were willing to actively support a military takeover of Iran?

Personally I am not too worried about Iran using a nuclear bomb. It really is a unwieldy weapon that a user would face massive retaliation for actually using.

Consider all the countries that have nukes, even militant Islamic states like Pakistan, no one has used them since 1945. Countries like the idea of having a nuke as a vanity piece. "See, we are a major power now, we have nuclear weapons". Or use it for blackmail like North Korea.

But the mullahs have to know they don't want to die or have their country destroyed if they use nuclear weapons. If they used atomics against Israel, not only Israel but also the US would retaliate.

And the new members of the nuke club isn't really a partisan issue, neither party has been able to do anything to stop it. Bush, Clinton, Obama, have tried sanctions, e-warfare, industrial sabotage, and the countries continue with their programs.

seems cool heads prevailed......


http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/ne ... n-1.395587

Conservation Voice wrote: Which proves we went after the wrong target in the Mideast.

Which proves we have no business going after anyone. This is not an American problem, it is a global problem that the rest of the world's countries need to address, not just the US.

And what is it that anoints us to decide who can and can not have one thing or another? We hide behind the threat of nuclear war to justify our point of view. It's simply not reality.

SS109 wrote:

Conservation Voice wrote: Which proves we went after the wrong target in the Mideast.

Oh please! You were willing to actively support a military takeover of Iran?

Would it have been any different militarily than what we did in Iraq? At least we'd be in wars in adjoining countries, which might have made logistics easier.

We went after non-existent weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. At least we would have accomplished something if we had gone into Iran instead. I'm still PO'd about the U.S. Embassy takeover and hostages who were held for 444 days.