February 11, 2009 5:59 PM

Iran President: Our Nukes Are Peaceful

(CBS/AP)  Iran's nuclear activities are "transparent, peaceful and under the watchful eye" of United Nations inspectors, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told the U.N. General Assembly.

In a speech Tuesday, Ahmadinejad accused some permanent members of the U.N. Security Council — an apparent reference to the United States — of using the powerful U.N. body as a tool of "threat and coercion." He reiterated his nation's commitment to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

"All our nuclear activities are transparent, peaceful and under the watchful eyes" of inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. nuclear watchdog, Ahmadinejad said.

His speech was sharply critical of the United States and Britain, and focused in large part on what he said was their abuse of the Security Council, on which they are both permanent members with veto power.

"If they have differences with a nation or state, they drag it to the Security Council and as claimants, arrogate to themselves simultaneously the roes of prosecutor, judge and executioner," Ahmadinejad said. "Is this a just order?"

White House Press Secretary Tony Snow said in a press gaggle today that Bush did not watch Ahmadinejad's speech last night, and would not engage in point-by-point rebuttal of it.

The U.S. and Britain played central roles in helping craft a U.N. Security Council resolution passed in July that gave Iran until Aug. 31 to suspend uranium enrichment and asked the IAEA to report on Tehran's compliance, dangling the threat of sanctions if Iran refused. Tehran made clear even before the deadline expired that it had no intention of suspending uranium enrichment.

"Clearly, Ahmadinejad's speech was an attempt to rally the developing world, not mentioning Iran's role in terror and, on the contrary, scolding the U.S and the U.K, for oppression in Iraq, Palestine, Lebanon and Iran itself," said CBS News foreign affairs analyst Pamela Falk from the U.N. on Tuesday evening.

"Although Ahmadinejad's attacks on the world powers may ring true with the developing world and it may buy Iran some more time with negotiations, the Security Council is likely to continue to press for sanctions if Iran does not return to a suspension of its nuclear programs."

The speech comes a few hours after President Bush used his U.N. platform to try to quell anti-Americanism in the Middle East by assuring Muslims that he is not waging war against Islam, regardless of what "propaganda and conspiracy theories" they hear.

Mr. Bush also pressed Iran to return at once to international talks on its nuclear program and threatened consequences if the Iranians do not.


© 2009 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Add a Comment See all 104 Comments
by ronniehm September 22, 2006 4:55 PM EDT
Why won't you tell me how Bush profits by going to war? Is it such a hard question? And your theory about manipulating oil makes no sense. Iraq would have to take an economically disastrous loss on their oil to result in anything that would seem remotely like a windfall to a country as large as the US. Certainly there wouldn't be enough profit to make a war worthwhile. Iraq isn't going to take the backbone of their entire economy and donate it to America. I mean your accusation sounded like nothing more than a remote possibility when you said it, but now that I think about it, it's not even that.
Reply to this comment
by clestes-2009 September 22, 2006 2:18 PM EDT
Ronnie, don't be dense. I know you aren't but really, think about it.

There are tons of money to be made in war. All the contracts for weapons, food, general supplies. Haven't you heard the joke about the toilet seat that cost the army $79.00 and sold for $7.90 in WestLakes??

I don't think Bush & Co expected the war to last as long as it has. He was thinking more along the lines of what Bush Sr. accomplished. Once the troops had the opposition smothered and people friendly to US interest in place, the Iraq oil industry could be manipulated. In other words, oil sold at rock bottom prices to US refineries and at higher prices to US competitors (China).

The whole thing fell apart when the insurgency proved to be tougher than they expected, although Bush & co had been warned this was a likely outcome by Middle east leaders, former ambassadors and the military.

I heard earlier this week that former Sec of State James Baker was heading a bipartisan group to work out a different strategy for Iraq. There might be some hope yet to get out of this mess.

I have to go.
Reply to this comment
by ronniehm September 22, 2006 1:31 PM EDT
... pumpkin.
Reply to this comment
by ronniehm September 22, 2006 1:30 PM EDT
Regardless of who made it up, troops were everywhere. They didn't run to the oil fields. And regardless of your impression, Bush never said Saddam was involved in 9/11. I don't know what's left of your "proof." Yeah, one of his many business dealings involved oil. He had a baseball team too. They played against the Royals. He met with the Saudi royal family. That can't be a coincidence. Sorry, but your hate doesn't come from your proof. Your proof comes from your hate. Without hate, the oil theory is pretty weak.
Reply to this comment
by clestes-2009 September 22, 2006 12:57 PM EDT
Not true sweetie, I never make stuff up. I read that bit about the troops some years ago on the cbsnews site.

So Bush & co did not actually say the words "Saddam is tied to 9-11" you cannot deny that the impression was given by one and all that there WAS A CONNECTION between the two.

As for hating Bush, I have to admit you are right. Which is pretty rare for me. I don't hate people as a rule, may not agree with them, but don't hate. Terrible waste of emotion. But Bush has manage it.

I did read yesterday that the Roadless Rule was upheld in the appeals court. I realize that it has nothing to do with this blog, but it made made my day.
Reply to this comment
by ronniehm September 21, 2006 10:26 PM EDT
I want to know that last part. How has George Bush profited by going to war for oil? Don't give me any "he's an oil man" garbage. Tell me how.
Reply to this comment
by ronniehm September 21, 2006 10:20 PM EDT
"If he had had worthy reasons for the invasion, he would have come out with them."

He gave many worthy reasons, not just one as you claim. I think there were 13 of them.

"Saddam was tied to 9-11"

He never said Saddam had anything to do with 9/11. He said there was contact between Saddam and al qaeda. There was.

"Christ the first thing the troops did was run to oil fields and refineries to make sure they were safe."

Christ you're just making things up. Troops were everywhere.

I realize you hate Bush, but is it just a political thing with you? You don't have proof that he went to war for oil. You haven't even proven how he's going to benefit from going to war for oil. I dunno -- isn't that piece of the puzzle kind of .. uh .. IMPORTANT?
Reply to this comment
by clestes-2009 September 21, 2006 9:06 PM EDT
What more proof do you require? Bush lied again and again to get the American people behind his grab for middle east oil. If he had had worthy reasons for the invasion, he would have come out with them.

Not so, he made up a lie to scare the American people, made up another lie, Saddam was tied to 9-11, and finally made up the spreading of democracy lie.

Christ the first thing the troops did was run to oil fields and refineries to make sure they were safe.

Ronnie, baby! If you can't see that MONEY was behind the whole affair, I give up on you!
Reply to this comment
by ronniehm September 21, 2006 8:41 PM EDT
I believe what I believe until someone proves otherwise, but all you're giving me are accusations and inuendos. Sorry, I'm not going to alter my ideology (apparently something people aren't supposed to have) based on that.
Reply to this comment
by clestes-2009 September 21, 2006 7:29 PM EDT
Ronnie, you are so filled with idealology! You are the type of person that believes in all the high ideals given for a war.

Not me, kiddo. I know better.
Reply to this comment
See all 104 Comments
.
Scroll Left
Scroll Right More »
CBS News on Facebook