Iranian offer of a two-year moratorium on uranium enrichment

[G_j]

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HB07Ak01.html

Middle East
Feb 7, 2006

Sideshows on Iran's frogmarch to the UN
By Kaveh L Afrasiabi

Early last week, Europe instantly rejected, without pause for breath, an Iranian offer of a two-year moratorium on uranium enrichment, thus setting its seal on a major international crisis.

Iran's "six-point" proposal was submitted by the Iranian delegation headed by Javad Veidi to the EU-3 (Germany, France and Britain) in Brussels on January 30. Instead of giving it careful consideration, the EU-3 diplomats rejected it as old news, devoid of anything new, and then, rather disingenuously, went on to blame Iran for "lack of progress".

<snip>
Yet, incredibly, no one in the European or US media even examined the nature and content of the six-point Iranian proposal, confining themselves to the official pronouncements of the EU-3 diplomats who are more keen on satisfying the US's march toward the Security Council than in breaking the nuclear stalemate on their own.

These diplomats, so adept at "leaking" their own highly-publicized proposal to Iran last summer, kept a tight lid on Iran's proposal and, what is more, there is no evidence that any respected member of the Western media made any attempt to get their hands on Iran's proposal.

That aside, the following is the nub of Iran's six-point proposal:

Iran pledges that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes, not nuclear bombs.

Iran pledges that it will get the legislative approval in its majlis (parliament) of the Additional Protocol to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and will continue with IAEA inspections.

Iran pledges to stay within the NPT.

Iran pledges that it will not resume enrichment prior to the next IAEA meeting.

Iran pledges that its nuclear research will be under monitoring by the IAEA.

Iran will continue negotiating with the EU-3 regarding enrichment issues for two years, and after two years, if the negotiations fail, will resume enrichment activities.

..more..

[havocmom]

1. Ah, so it is about the oil

brouse and currancy... March schedule.

[magellan]

2. This needs to be saved for future reference in the Research Forum

...under IRAN WAR. They're marching us right into it just like they did the Iraq War.

[HereSince1628]

3. Another indication the decision has been made.

We may just waiting for the various Russian contractors and their equipment to be evacuated from the target sites.

I hope Cheney/Runsfeld don't choose to test low yield nukes.

[TheFarseer]

4. I heard a proposal by Chuck Hagel

the Russians would enrich the uranium for Iran and then they could use it for nuclear power. That's what the Iranians claim they want it for. They might go for that.

[endarkenment]

5. That fell apart as well.

We need to get our War On, don't you know? We don't have time for ne-go-she-a-shuns.

[MadHound]

6. And all the while, the MSM both here and abroad

Continue to paint Iran as a fanatical Islamic state bent on nuclear war with the US, Israel, or both. This is just utterly ridiculous, and only goes to show that we're no longer interested in resolving matters with Iran peacefully, but instead want to invade and conquer Iran, all for their oil.

And people in this country wonder why we're so hated abroad:eyes:

[G_j]

7. the 'east-west ' divide

is growing by the day

not looking good for the future

[G_j]

8. kick

[G_j]

9. kick

[G_j]

10. kick

:shrug:

[G_j]

11. am I crazy

for thinking this is a signifigant story?

[EFerrari]

13. No, you're not crazy. And this is not good news

because it indicates the level of the threat.

[G_j]

14. I feel like I am watching a trainwreck coming in slow motion

like a nightmare repeating.

:argh:

[EFerrari]

15. I know. And, that is what we are watching as far as I can tell. nt

[CJCRANE]

12. What I want to know -

is the Iran attack gonna be this year or next year?

[EFerrari]

16. If it happens, it will be this year because this is an election year.

Isn't that just gross?

[Karenina]

17. DUCK AND COVER!!!

:hide:

[EFerrari]

18. Utilize that protective layer of old gum.

:yoiks:

[Karenina]

21. BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[CJCRANE]

19. I'm justrying to figure out

how, militarily/practically, they're going to do it?

Do they use "surgical strikes" on Iran and invade using coalition troops from Iraq?

Or carpet bombing and a proxy war using Iranian internal opposition?

It just doesn't seem feasible...

on edit: it just seems like madness to start another war that seems unwinnable and based on lies and/or ill-defined objectives.

[G_j]

20. well there is no shortage of madness

I imagine it would start with "surgical strikes" but the sites are all over the country and some of them quite hardened.

Another question is what would the new Iraqi government do, since they are now allies by religious affiliation?

[Avalux]

26. It'll be air strikes -

There won't be significant ground troops - we don't have them. They'll bomb the shit out of the country.

[G_j]

22. ``

[EFerrari]

23. kick

[G_j]

24. ~~

[Katherine Brengle]

25. we're not interested in a compromise and a peaceful solution----

we're only interested in blowing shit up.

Does no one remember years ago when the Soviets offered complete nuclear disarmament, if the US would participate, and we refused? We had an opportunity to end all of this a long time ago--we fucking blew it.

Where the hell does everyone think these weapons came from?

[SoCalDem]

27. Sounds like they are willing to "ride out" the rest of Chimpy's term

and hope to see a sane president of the US.. I do too:)