March 8, 200620 yr UNITED NATIONS - Russia?s foreign minister suggested Wednesday that Moscow would oppose sanctions against Iran over its nuclear program, a statement that could pit Moscow against Washington on the issue despite concerns on both sides that Tehran may be seeking nuclear weapons. The move comes as increasingly defiant statements by Iran's nationalist president, and high-level warnings from the Bush administration raise the stakes in the stand-off, and hint at a potential military confrontation. The United States, France and Britain have pushed for the United Nations Security Council to take a tough line on Iran, starting with a series of small steps that could lead to sanctions. But any such measures would have to get by Russia and China, which also have veto power in the council. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov told reporters that the International Atomic Energy Agency must stay in the lead on Iran and be allowed to keep working inside the country. It was a clear indication that Russia does not want the U.N. Security Council heavily involved in the Iran issue. Asked if Russia would consider approving sanctions against Iran, Lavrov said: ?I don?t think sanctions as a means to solve a crisis have ever achieved a goal in the recent history, so ... we must rely on the professional advice of the IAEA, the watchdog of the nonproliferation regime.? He also said Russia was ?convinced that there is no military solution to this crisis.? But the United States and its European allies said Iran?s nuclear intransigence left the world no choice but to ask for Security Council action. The council could impose economic and political sanctions on Iran. The statements were delivered to the 35-member board of the International Atomic Energy Agency, which is meeting in Vienna on Tehran?s refusal to freeze uranium enrichment. At the United Nations, Lavrov said the situation reminded him of the council?s consideration of whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction before the U.S.-led 2003 invasion. ?It looks so deja vu, you know,? he said. ?... I don?t believe we should engage in something which might become self-fulfilling prophecy.? The United States and Britain led the invasion of Iraq without Security Council authorization after arguing that Baghdad was concealing weapons of mass destruction, but no nuclear, biological or chemical arms were later found. Russia has been at the forefront of the Iranian nuclear talks over the past few months with a proposal to host Iran?s uranium enrichment program. The United States and the European Union back the idea, but Iran has demanded the right to conduct small-scale uranium enrichment at home. Hours earlier, Iran threatened the United States with ?harm and pain? for its role in hauling Tehran before the Security Council. ?The United States may have the power to cause harm and pain but it is also susceptible to harm and pain. So if the United States wishes to choose that path, let the ball roll,? it said in a statement obtained by Reuters on the sidelines of a U.N. nuclear watchdog board meeting in Vienna. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has remained defiant on the subject: ?Our nation has made its decision to fully use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes and all have to give in to this decision made by the Iranian nation,? he said in Iran. ?We have made our choice.? His comments ? and U.S. and Russian statements the day before rejecting any compromise that would allow Tehran to enrich uranium domestically ? set the stage for Security Council action once the IAEA board meeting hears a report on the latest investigations into Iran?s nuclear program and debates the issue. Iran's collision course with the council looked more likely after Tehran brushed aside what EU diplomats said was a Russian offer to let it do some atomic research if it refrained from enriching uranium on an industrial scale for 7-9 years. The United States and its key European Union allies? Britain, France and Germany ? also rebuffed the idea because they said it would not have prevented Iran perfecting bomb technology via enrichment research. Iran denies Western suspicions it is secretly trying to build atomic bombs, saying it seeks only nuclear-generated electricity. The White House said Iran's latest statements would only serve to isolate Tehran. ?I think that provocative statements and actions only further isolate Iran from the rest of the world,? White House press secretary Scott McClellan told reporters traveling with President Bush to hurricane-affected states in the Gulf Coast. ?And the international community has spelled out to Iran what it needs to do.? America?s ambassador to the United Nations ? and the chief architect of U.S. policy in the Security Council once it takes up the Iran issue ? said Iran?s comments reflected the menace it poses. ?Their threats show why leaving a country like that with a nuclear weapon is so dangerous,? John Bolton told the Associated Press in a phone call from Washington. He classified the Iranian comments as ?reflecting their determination to acquire weapons.? On Tuesday, Vice President Dick Cheney warned Tehran that Iran would face consequences if it persisted in defying the international community. Raising a new complaint about Iran, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on Tuesday accused Tehran of dispatching elements of its Revolutionary Guard to stir trouble inside Iraq. Rumsfeld offered few details concerning his allegation of interference by Iran, which fought an eight-year war with Saddam Hussein?s Iraq in the 1980s and shares a largely unguarded border. ?They are currently putting people into Iraq to do things that are harmful to the future of Iraq,? he told a Pentagon news conference. ?And it is something that they, I think, will look back on as having been an error in judgment.? He did not elaborate except to say the infiltrators were members of the Al Quds Division of Iran?s Revolutionary Guards, the network of soldiers and vigilantes whose mandate is to defeat threats to the 1979 Islamic revolution. The Al Quds Division is responsible for operations outside Iranian territory. Tehran also said Wednesday it would have to review its oil export policy if world pressure mounted over its disputed atomic work. Asked whether Iran would use an ?oil weapon? as the world?s fourth largest crude oil exporter, Javad Vaeedi, deputy secretary of Iran?s Supreme National Security Council, told Reuters: ?We will not (do so now), but if the situation changes, we will have to review our oil policies.? Iran?s chief nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, had said on Sunday that Tehran was not keen to use oil as a weapon in its escalating row with the West ?but if conditions change it could affect our decision.? He did not specify what he meant by a change in conditions. Iran is the fourth biggest oil exporter in the world and the second largest in the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries. There is broad international concern that isolating Iran could drive up already high oil prices. I was afraid that Russia wouldn't go for sanctions, not with all the business they have with Iran.
March 9, 200620 yr eh... Iran is something to worry about too... hopefully, the brightside to Iran jacking up oil prices or cutting off oil period would be mass production of hybrid automobiles...
March 9, 200620 yr eh... Iran is something to worry about too... hopefully, the brightside to Iran jacking up oil prices or cutting off oil period would be mass production of hybrid automobiles... ...hybrids use gas too...... The answer to the oil problem is nuclear energy in the US and Ethanol.
March 9, 200620 yr eh... Iran is something to worry about too... hopefully, the brightside to Iran jacking up oil prices or cutting off oil period would be mass production of hybrid automobiles... ...hybrids use gas too...... The answer to the oil problem is nuclear energy in the US and Ethanol. so what happens when the nuclear reactors have the meltdown. The acutal best answer is renewable energy. Ethanol is a great idea, but Ethanol fuels also use gasoline.
March 9, 200620 yr eh... Iran is something to worry about too... hopefully, the brightside to Iran jacking up oil prices or cutting off oil period would be mass production of hybrid automobiles... ...hybrids use gas too...... The answer to the oil problem is nuclear energy in the US and Ethanol. so what happens when the nuclear reactors have the meltdown. The acutal best answer is renewable energy. Ethanol is a great idea, but Ethanol fuels also use gasoline. Call me crazy but having nuclear energy does not mean automatic meltdowns...... I have'nt heard of any recent meltdowns in France or South Florida. Have you? I think nuclear technology is safer than ever. And yes E85 uses 15% gasoline... a whole 15% which is better than our current 100%. Add that drop in gas use to the oil savings with nuclear energy, solar power, and wind power. That pretty much cuts our oil dependency.
March 9, 200620 yr eh... Iran is something to worry about too... hopefully, the brightside to Iran jacking up oil prices or cutting off oil period would be mass production of hybrid automobiles... ...hybrids use gas too...... The answer to the oil problem is nuclear energy in the US and Ethanol. so what happens when the nuclear reactors have the meltdown. The acutal best answer is renewable energy. Ethanol is a great idea, but Ethanol fuels also use gasoline. Call me crazy but having nuclear energy does not mean automatic meltdowns...... I have'nt heard of any recent meltdowns in France or South Florida. Have you? I think nuclear technology is safer than ever. And yes E85 uses 15% gasoline... a whole 15% which is better than our current 100%. Add that drop in gas use to the oil savings with nuclear energy, solar power, and wind power. That pretty much cuts our oil dependency. whats the relation though in terms of actual gas used per mile in an E85 vehicle and a hybrid vehicle. I assume the studies have been done. Regarding nuclear energy no it doesnt mean automatic meltdowns, just call me silly if i want one of those anywhere near me where a meltdown (which you never know, can happen) and will mean death to me in a very painful way. I'll pass on that.
March 9, 200620 yr There is probably an economic reason that we've not been more aggressively seeking alternative fuels. Most US financial instruments are held offshore. Most of those are used to purchase oil in something similar to a voucher system. We are the only country in the world that enjoys this unique economic status, which has allowed us to sell bonds, and print currency, to cover our debt. If there is no ready market which will accept the enormous supply of US$, the dollar will be sold off all over the world. Until the US becomes fiscally responsible, I doubt we'll ever aggressively seek alternative fuels.
March 9, 200620 yr eh... Iran is something to worry about too... hopefully, the brightside to Iran jacking up oil prices or cutting off oil period would be mass production of hybrid automobiles... ...hybrids use gas too...... The answer to the oil problem is nuclear energy in the US and Ethanol. so what happens when the nuclear reactors have the meltdown. The acutal best answer is renewable energy. Ethanol is a great idea, but Ethanol fuels also use gasoline. Call me crazy but having nuclear energy does not mean automatic meltdowns...... I have'nt heard of any recent meltdowns in France or South Florida. Have you? I think nuclear technology is safer than ever. And yes E85 uses 15% gasoline... a whole 15% which is better than our current 100%. Add that drop in gas use to the oil savings with nuclear energy, solar power, and wind power. That pretty much cuts our oil dependency. whats the relation though in terms of actual gas used per mile in an E85 vehicle and a hybrid vehicle. I assume the studies have been done. Regarding nuclear energy no it doesnt mean automatic meltdowns, just call me silly if i want one of those anywhere near me where a meltdown (which you never know, can happen) and will mean death to me in a very painful way. I'll pass on that. I agree, however it is the ONLY way forward, as power consumption continues to rise. Oil and gas are becoming increasingly expensive, there will come a time in the next few years when most countries make a big move towards nuclear. For the UK that will be in about 2 years (well when the decision is made), the government has slowly but surely let the idea out into the public eye, and people are far more receptive than 5 years ago as the black cloud of chernoble is forgotten. On a personal note I wouldn't want one built next door, but who would, unfortunately someone will have to.
March 9, 200620 yr If Russia does not support Sanctions against Iran then why did it support the resoultion on Iran to the U.N. Security Counsel? Which it did, they were talking about it yesterday with Wolf Blitzer on CNN. As for the "Harm and Pain," we and are allies can cause much more. For all we now their could be an Iranian on this site.
March 9, 200620 yr It's real simple. We use oil/gasoline because there's an existing infrastructure to support it, it's more cost-efficient relative to other fuel sources at this time, and it has a huge economy of scale. If a better, cheaper fuel source arises or oil outprices itself to the point these other fuels are more cost-effective, we will change, period.
March 9, 200620 yr If Russia does not support Sanctions against Iran then why did it support the resoultion on Iran to the U.N. Security Counsel? Which it did, they were talking about it yesterday with Wolf Blitzer on CNN. As for the "Harm and Pain," we and are allies can cause much more. For all we now their could be an Iranian on this site. Samson and Loria are Iranian. :plain
March 9, 200620 yr If Russia does not support Sanctions against Iran then why did it support the resoultion on Iran to the U.N. Security Counsel? Which it did, they were talking about it yesterday with Wolf Blitzer on CNN. As for the "Harm and Pain," we and are allies can cause much more. For all we now their could be an Iranian on this site. Samson and Loria are Iranian. :plain Samson is definitely the Pain in that pair.
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.