Cleric vows Iran will never talk with U.S. on nuclear program
Fri. 30 Jun 2006
The New York Times (The Islamic Whore)
By HELENE COOPER and JOHN O'NEIL
A senior Iranian cleric vowed today that his country would never talk with the United States over Tehran's nuclear program, as an American official underscored the need for Iran to respond next Wednesday to a package of incentives offered by major powers in exchange for a suspension of uranium enrichment. (Gee I'm Shocked)
The pronouncement by the cleric, Ahmad Khatami, at Friday prayers in Tehran today marked a 180-degree shift from a month ago, when Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, wrote to President Bush calling for the opening of a dialogue. (BULLSHIT the only letter we've seen from Imamadjihad was his rambling warning to convert or die, the only opening dialogue he wants is one that buys him time)
In fact, European leaders had pressed for years for the United States to join earlier rounds of talks with Iran, and when the Bush administration decided in late May to offer to join any new discussions, the move was seen as a major concession and a prime inducement for Tehran. (yes we must always bow to the suggestions on policy from the EU, after all they know best)
On Tuesday, however, Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said he saw "no use" in talking with the United States.
And today, Mr. Khatami went further, declaring that "with regards to our nuclear case, we have nothing to do with the U.S. and principally, our officials will have no talks with the U.S.," according to the state-run Islamic Republic News Agency.
"Who is the U.S., that pokes its nose into Iran's nuclear affairs?" he asked. "Should anybody that has power and bullies get to be present on all scenes?"
Mr. Khatami said that Iran was willing to talk with European leaders if they recognized Iran's right to pursue nuclear power. (You gotta love the Iranians they do have balls. They tell the whole world F-U were going to make a bomb no matter if we talk to you or not, and if you even want to talk about us making a bomb we ain't gonna talk. LOL)
"If Europeans really intend to solve the issue, they should recognize our absolute rights," he said. "Then, one can sit down at the table to negotiate the executive methods, the international treaties as well as controls and supervision."
In Brussels today, Undersecretary of State Nicholas R. Burns rejected the idea of giving Tehran any more time, beyond a meeting scheduled for July 5 between Iranian officials and the European Union's foreign minister, Javier Solana.
Diplomats from the world's eight major industrial nations declared at a meeting in Moscow on Thursday that they expected to receive a "clear and substantive" response from Iran by then.
The statement from the foreign ministers of the Group of 8 countries was the first reference to an explicit deadline for Iran to respond formally. "We are disappointed in the absence of an official Iranian response to this positive proposal," their statement said.
It is unclear, however, whether Iran will meet the deadline. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said that his government will not respond until late August, a position underscored by Iran's foreign minister, Manoucher Mottaki, on Thursday. (Whats UnClear they said F-U, and were clear enough about it that a two year old could see it, but then again this is the NY Times)
After receiving Iran's response, foreign ministers from the six major powers that made the nuclear offer — five members of the Group of 8, Russia, Britain, France, Germany and the United States, plus China — will meet on July 12 somewhere in Europe, perhaps in Paris. They are to consider whether the Iranian response can lead to an agreement, and whether to seek economic sanctions against Iran, according to a senior Bush administration official who spoke on the condition of anonymity so as not to interfere with the diplomatic process. (what response they said they weren't giving one until MAYBE August, So what diplomatic process can be affected except the group masterbation by the EU)
A spokesman for the Chinese foreign ministry a issued a statement on Thursday echoing that of the Group of 8 and calling on Iran to respond "as soon as possible," without mentioning a date.
The leaders of the Group of 8 countries — the other three are Canada, Italy and Japan — will meet in St. Petersburg, Russia, on July 15. The group's meetings are usually rather staid, ending with bland communiqués and news conferences where all parties pretend they are one big, happy family. Thursday's session was different. (Yeah ya know these capitalist industrialist nations usually just meet to hang out and drink champaign and toast polluting the earth when they aren't talking about Iran)
Officials forgot to turn off the audio feed from the luncheon meeting, so reporters were able to hear parts of the closed discussion, including bickering between the Russian foreign minister, Sergey V. Lavrov, and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, often over arcane points in the statement. (yes they were just arcane points the ones the Russians were making wanting to put in legal documents and statements that the US can't provide security in Iraq and that the UN should really control Iraq not the Elected Iraqi's that the Iraqi people chose)
At one point, the two squabbled about Russia's desire to include wording about "urgent methods" to "provide security for diplomats" in light of the killing of five Russian Embassy staff members in Iraq.
Ms. Rice balked, saying that such wording would imply that urgent measures were not already being taken to protect Iraqis and American soldiers.
"You know, on a fairly daily basis we lose soldiers, and I think it would be offensive to suggest that these efforts are not being made," she said.
Mr. Lavrov replied that the sentence was not intended as criticism. "I don't believe security is fine in Iraq, and I don't believe in particular that security at foreign missions is O.K.," he said. "If you feel uncomfortable about it, maybe we should make it shorter."
Eventually they agreed that the text would simply condemn the killing of the Russians and add that "this tragic event underlines the importance of improving security for all in Iraq." (in other words she Won the Argument, but we cain't say that can we now)
No sooner was that compromise (oh now it's a compromise) reached, than Ms. Rice and Mr. Lavrov were at odds again, this time over Mr. Lavrov's proposal that the statement include something about the need for the rest of the world to be more involved in the Iraqi political process. Ms. Rice immediately took exception.
"To say the international community is to be more involved in the political process seems to me rather odd, given that they have a democratic elective process," she said.
"I did not suggest this," Mr. Lavrov replied. "What I did say was not involvement in the political process but the involvement of the international community in support of the political process."
"What does that mean?" Ms. Rice asked.
There was a long pause. Then, from Mr. Lavrov: "I think you understand."
Ms. Rice: "No, I don't."
(once again Ms Rice slams the Russians, but you can't tell that by the way this story is being written)
The sparring continued after the lunch and into a news conference. "Condoleezza Rice said that she first came to the Soviet Union in 1979 and she has noticed — seen a change in the country," Mr. Lavrov piped up, in answer to an unrelated question from a journalist. "I also first visited the U.S.A. in 1979, and I have been taking note of changes, many of which we strive to discuss with our American counterparts."
Ms. Rice fumed (ooh did she huff and puff and stamp her foot?) for a few minutes while the discussion went on to other matters. The next time she was asked a question — about whether she thought Russia had resorted to energy blackmail against Europe, she detoured. (so after she "fumed" she couldn't answer a question) "Sergey, when did you go and where did you go in the United States in 1979, that you saw so much change?" she asked.
"New York," Mr. Lavrov replied.
"Oh, New York," Ms. Rice repeated, smirking. "Now I understand." (was it an Evil smirk or an F-U smirk, tell us more of the thoughts you can see in her head)
Since Iran received the nuclear proposal, Iranian officials have continued to say that Iran will never give up its right to pursue nuclear enrichment, but they have also described the proposal as "positive." (It's called STALLING)
What happens after the Iranians do respond remains unclear. (They're never going to respond ya git, not until they have completed their BOMB. Idiot) Russia and China have resisted the idea of hauling Iran before the United Nations Security Council for sanctions, a position pushed by the United States and Britain, with France and Germany somewhere in between.
In order to get Moscow on board, the United States agreed to not include mention of economic sanctions in the written part of the incentives package offered to Iran.
Bush officials continue to express optimism that if Iran turns down the package, Russia will sign on to sanctions, but the Russians continue to send mixed signals. (what mixed signals, they're selling the Iranians the Reactor parts. I think thats a pretty good signal in how they're going to vote)
Speaking to foreign diplomats on Tuesday, President Vladimir V. Putin said, "I repeat once again that we have no intention of joining in any kinds of ultimatums that only drive the situation into a dead end and deal a blow to the U.N. Security Council's authority." (translation "were making Billions selling them this shit we're not going to jeapordize that")
At the meeting on Thursday, Russian officials pointedly put copies of the text of that speech on the table for journalists. (gee that must mean the Russians have the upper hand in this meeting)
(Now when you read this article you didn't see any bias against the administration, I mean I didn't)
Helene Cooper reported from Moscow for this article, and John O'Neil reported from New York.
Terror
No comments:
Post a Comment