UNITED NATIONS — The nations seeking to halt Iran's nuclear activities are working out a new deadline for the Islamic republic and have authorized the European Union's foreign policy chief to go anywhere at any time to meet Tehran's top nuclear negotiator.
Despite the possible new accommodations, diplomats said they're not willing to wait much longer for Iran to respond more definitively to their package of incentives to stop uranium enrichment.
…
[1]
A dinner meeting Tuesday with Beckett, Secretary of State Condoleezz Rice and the foreign ministers of France, Russia, China, Germany and Italy produced little consensus about the next step, U.S. Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns said. He said the diplomatic effort to counter Iran was in "extra innings."
…
France also is pushing a compromise proposal that would have Iran suspend uranium enrichment at the same time as a Security Council suspension of all threats of sanctions.
…
[2]
The French minister gave no specific date, but a senior French diplomat said the nations involved in nuclear talks with Iran are mulling an early October deadline for Iran to agree to a simultaneous suspension of uranium enrichment and talk of sanctions.
"I'm not going to talk in terms of deadlines," Rice said Wednesday, but added, "This cannot go on for very much longer."
…
Beckett would not discuss a possible new date, either.
"What we are looking for is a clear and sustained and concrete signal that Iran wishes to negotiate," she told reporters. "Our patience, I think, is not unlimited."
"If things just drag on as they have been, then as I say, there are concerns and constraints about how long that can continue," she said.
President Bush and French President Jacques Chirac claimed they were on the same page in dealing with Iran, and insisted there were no differences. But Washington is pushing for sanctions, while [3] Britain and others are much more reluctant and want diplomacy to run its course.
[1] Just in case you were wondering why France, China, Russia and Germany are not so willing to impose sanctions on Iran, I will give you plenty of reasons:
China has around $3.25 billion reasons, France has $2.3 billion reasons, Germany has close to $5.5 billion reasons not to endorse the sanctions and the Russians are gaining quickly at just under $2 billion reasons for not wanting sanctions...
To demonstrate how well the Iranians have tied up these nations in knots, I shall excerpt a few small paragraphs from a recent article in the (print edition) of the W.S.J. (Wall Street Journal for those of you that dislike acronymns):
"One reason the U.S. is having a hard time winning global sanctions on Iran over its nuclear work is evident at a company in Tehran called Iran Khodro Co., a big vehicle manufacturer.
The company is cutting deals in China, France, Germany and Russia - key players in the tussle over what to do about Iran's nuclear ambitions. In February the company, called IKCO, agreed to buy 10,000 trucks from a Chinese maker in a $350 million deal. This month, IKCO said it will start selling to Russia cars that it builds in Iran in cooperation with France's PSA Peugeot-Citroen."
and
"Russia is building Iran's first nuclear power plant, about a $1 billion project that is mostly paid for. In December, Moscow agreed to sell Iran 29 Tor-M1 air-defense missile systems, a $700 million transaction that the U.S. tried to nix.
'It is clear that Moscow will not support any meaningful resolution that would interfere with Russia's trade with Iran,' says Dimitri Simes, president of the Nixon Center think tank in Washington. 'Restrictions on travel and equipment for nuclear technology, yes, but only if narrowly defined to assure that it wouldn't interfere with Russia's existing nuclear contracts.' Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Friday that sanctions should be imposed only 'when international peace and security are really under threat.'"
Excerpted from:
"Nations' Rich Trade With Iran is Hurdle For Sanctions Plan" by Neil King Jr. and Marc Champion
[2]
How have the Mullah's of Iran acted in the past when it came to "agreements" you ask?!?
You don't trust the word of the Mullah's you say?!?
Well let me giving you a couple of examples and show you why they are not trustworthy and never were:
"While Iranian diplomats pledged not to destabilize Afghanistan and, indeed, cooperate in its reconstruction, the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps sent in operatives disguised as school teachers to further instability. As Afghan President Hamid Karzai struggled to wrest control away from warlords, Afghan commanders intercepted a dozen Iranian agents and proxies organizing armed resistance.
...
Prior to the Iraq war, Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi and U.N. Ambassador Mohammad Javad Zarif, pledged Iranian noninterference to British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook and Zalmay Khalilzad, then President George W. Bush's envoy to the free Iraqis. But, Iranian journalists now describe how, days after Saddam's fall, the Iranian leadership dispatched 2,000 Revolutionary Guards replete with radio transmitters, money, and supplies. On Nov. 18, 2003, Mr. Kharrazi again pledged good behavior. He lied outright; his promise coincided with a new deployment of Iranian intelligence across Iraq. The Revolutionary Guard stepped up its training of Muqtada al-Sadr's militia. Hasan Kazemi Qomi, previously Iran's liaison to Hezbollah in southern Lebanon, became Tehran's top diplomat in Baghdad. Mr. Qomi assured diplomats that "Iran will not accept anything that destabilizes Iraq." Four months later, Iraqi forces captured 30 Iranians fighting alongside Sadr's militia."
You are not surprised, I am quite sure, but let us determine why the mullahs give their word one day and a week/month or year later they go back and break it.
In order to know the root of their double dealing we must go all the way back to the year 628 and the "Treaty of Hudaybiyya".
The reasons for the treaty:
"In March of 628 A.D., (6 A.H.), Muhammad attempted to make the lesser pilgrimage to Mecca. Muhammad had had a vision of going to Mecca and venerating at the Kaba. The Arabs in charge of Mecca refused to allow Muhammad to enter Mecca and sent their army out to stop him. They did not want it to appear that they were weak and Muhammad had done something against their will. Instead of entering Mecca, Muhammad and the Meccans made a treaty known as the Treaty of Hudaybiyya. This treaty was humiliating to the Muslims. Both Umar and Abu Bakr complained about the treaty's provisions."
The treaty was to last 10 yrs.
Mohammad breaks his word and the Treaty of Hudaybiyya:
"Later, other Meccans came to Muhammad and according to the Treaty asked Muhammad to return some women. Muhammad refused to honor his word and the Treaty. Instead he had the Muslims return any dowries that were given to the women.
"Umm Kulthum Uqba Muayt migrated to the apostle during this period. Her two brothers Umara and Walid sons of Uqba came and asked the apostle to return her to them in accordance with the agreement between him and Quraysh at Hudaybiyya, but he would not. God forbade it......Sirat page 509."
[3]
My questions is:
How does one determine when "diplomacy has run its course" or is it that diplomacy runs its course" in perpetuity and it will not end until Iran tests its nuke in NYC?!?
Pertinent Links:
1) IRAN'S DUPLICITY - - - THE WEST'S NAIVETE
3) Allies lead a wary US into new negotiations with Iran
4) Door to Iranian dialogue creaks open
5) MUHAMMAD AND THE TREATY OF HUDAYBIYYA
No comments:
Post a Comment