SHANNON, Ireland, July 20, 2008
Rice: Iran "Not Serious" About Nuke Talks
Secretary Of State Accuses Iran Of Giving Diplomats The Runaround At Six Nation Talks
-
Play CBS Video Video Iran Nuclear Program Freeze? Officials have discussed a freeze on Iran's nuclear development program, which would then lead several Western nations to freeze any new sanctions against Iran. Elizabeth Palmer reports from Geneva.
-
Video Iran Produces Enriched Uranium The U.S. will negotiate with Iran despite the country's production of enriched uranium. The Bush administration previously refused to negotiate unless production was suspended. David Martin reports.
-
Video Bush Shifts Iran Policy For the first time during the Bush administration, the president will send a top diplomat to meet with Iran's chief nuclear negotiator. Bill Plante reports.
-
U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. (AP Photo/Darryl Bush)
-
Timeline Iran Nuclear Chronology Events in development of Iran's nuclear program since it first came to light.
-
Timeline The U.S. And Iran Key events in once friendly, now contentious relationship between Washington and Tehran.
In her first public comments since Saturday's meeting in Switzerland, Rice said Iran had given the run-around to envoys from the U.S. and five other world powers. She said all six nations were serious about a two-week deadline Iran now has to agree to freeze suspect activities and start negotiations or be hit with new penalties.
At the meeting, Iran had been expected to respond to a package of incentives offered in exchange for halting enrichment of uranium, which can be used to fuel atomic weapons. The Bush administration broke with long-standing policy to send a top diplomat to support the offer.
However, Rice said that instead of a coherent answer, Iran's chief nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili delivered a "meandering" monologue full of irrelevant "small talk about culture" that appeared to annoy many of the others present at the table in Geneva.
"We expected to hear an answer from the Iranians but, as has been the case so many times with the Iranians, what came through was not serious," Rice told reporters aboard her plane as she flew to the United Arab Emirates. "It's time for the Iranians to give a serious answer."
"They can't go and stall and make small talk about culture, they have to make a decision," she said. "People are tired of the Iranians and their stalling tactics."
Rice's remarks about the Iranian presentation were much harsher than those of the host of the meeting, European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana, who lamented only that Iran had not provided "all the answers to the questions."
On Sunday, Iranian state radio reported that President Mahmoud Ahmadenijad called the talks a "step ahead" and said country's formal assessment would be issued soon.
On Saturday, one member of the Iranian delegation said there was "no chance" Iran would suspend uranium enrichment, again denying assertions that Iran's nuclear program was for anything other than power production. Jalili avoided the suspension issue entirely.
Unless Iran responds positively in the next two weeks, it can expect more sanctions to be imposed by the United States and the European Union as early as late August or September and may then be hit with a fourth sanctions resolution at the U.N. Security Council, Rice said.
"We will see what Iran does in two weeks, but I think the diplomatic process now has a new kind of energy to it," she said. "If they do not decide to suspend then we will be in a situation where we have to return to the Security Council."
Rice was briefed on the meeting by the State Department's No. 3 diplomat, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs William Burns, who attended the session in a shift from Washington's previous insistence that it would not meet with the Iranians unless the enrichment had stopped.
High-level contact between the United States and Iran is extremely rare and Burns' presence at the talks may have confused the Iranians, Rice said, acknowledging a tactical change to demonstrate U.S. unity with the other five powers: Britain, China, France, Germany and Russia.
"From time to time, it is important to invigorate the diplomacy," she said. "I think that the fact that we went may have been a bit surprising to the Iranians, and they didn't react in a way that gave anyone any confidence."
The offer envisions a six-week commitment from Iran to stop expanding enrichment, during which time no additional sanctions would be imposed. That is intended to create the framework for formal negotiations that, it is hoped, will lead to a permanent halt of enrichment.
Rice was dismissive when asked if Burns or another U.S. diplomat would be present to hear Iran's response in two weeks.
"I think we've done enough to demonstrate that the United States is serious and to assure our partners that we're serious," she said.
© MMVIII The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Michelle Obama tells how her role as the First Lady has changed her perspective.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
... - 13
- next
See all 257 Commentsif any nukes go off we all pay the entire world your children and ther children whenit is all over if ther is anything left that is
Adolf Hitler, 1889-1945
You keep Posting the same old cut-n-paste Russian butt kissing stuff, got anything new?
The Caspian sea area holds one third of the world''s oil and south asian oil markets are their target market. This pipeline was also the reason for the Afghanistan invasion. Cheney''s energy policy is the root of all these middle east wars, a federal court judge sealed all documents associated with it for the administration. More troops are needed in Afghanistan to protect the contractors building the pipeline.
Iran stands in the way of total control of global oil now with sales of oil to China''s Sinopec Oil,deal signed Dec.10,2007. Months ago China said there would be dire consequences if the US interfered with there direct oil contracts with Iran. Both parties in the Congress should be very concerned with China''s growing war machine and need for oil. They are the real threat & the administration doesn''t care they are in control ! All that matters to them is BIG OIL and their corporate stock portfolios
with Iran. These plants are currently under construction.
Reuters uk January 18, 2008 : " Iran has some awesome colleagues. Russia and China have become guardians of the Iranian economy. They don''t put religion between business and political advantages. The US is sorely lacking in intelligent Foreign Policy. Hitler''s Foreign Policy has been resurrected to serve the needs of an oil agenda and turn the US into the most disrespected and despised world power ".
POSTED: Friday, January 18, 2008
Moscow -- Armed forces will be used if necessary, including preventively and with the use of nuclear weapons, for protection of Russia and its allies, the Russian Armed Forces'' Chief of the General Staff Yuri Baluyevsky said on Saturday.
"We do not intend to attack anybody. But all our partners must realize that for protection of Russia and its allies if necessary armed forces will be used, including preventively, including with the use of nuclear weapons," Baluyevsky was quoted by the Itar-Tass news agency as saying.
Baluyevsky reportedly made the statement at a scientific conference of the Academy of Military Sciences January 19, 2008.
Easy and convenience way to say it. The Arabs are not afraid of Israel, they are afraid of the American Empire.
Before you remind me Israel military is 2nd to none in the middle east, let me remind you that the Most Powerful military in the world USA cannot eliminate the weakest military in the world such as Taliban and Al-Qaeda.
Posted by lovegetpeace at 07:01 PM : Jul 21, 2008,,,
This idea that the U.S. can''t defeat the Taliban or al-Qaeda is nonsense! The U.S. can easily defeat both, the problem is the World will not like the way the U.S. does it, so the U.S. has to play along and fight them both in a politically correct way! Too bad the U.S. can''t tell U.S. Commanders to eliminate the Taliban and al-Qaeda using any methods it wants! Civilized societies have their Laws and Rules to follow when this enemy really needs a "medieval" or even a "barbaric" approach because thats the way they fight!
this is a snippet from associated press (a liberal newsource) stating a fact from a the UN (a liberal organization)..but yet..THESE AMERICAN LIBERALS still try to live in denial...
I dont think they care..the only think they care is iran is anti-american..and that is good enough for them
Posted by lovegetpeace at 07:01 PM : Jul 21, 2008
+ report abuse
*******
and may i remind you that the taliban and al queda or any anit-american terrroist HAS A VERY POWER ALLY..
the american liberals..
honestly, you cry like you want some taliban blood but in reality..WELL CAN WE EVEN SPY ON THEM?? CAN WE EVEN INTERROGATE THEM without your whiney arses going into a hissy fit?
Easy and convenience way to say it. The Arabs are not afraid of Israel, they are afraid of the American Empire.
Before you remind me Israel military is 2nd to none in the middle east, let me remind you that the Most Powerful military in the world USA cannot eliminate the weakest military in the world such as Taliban and Al-Qaeda.
Yes, I agree as one of 3 Top Theories. Hopefully, 1 day before Bush dies of natural cause, he will give us the actual truth. :-)
Israel should be Dismantled as a Badly Flawed and Failed Experiment. How many Americans have died defending Israel''''s Existence. One would be too many.
Posted by vnveteran72 at 02:10 PM : Jul 21, 2008
Playing ''devils advocate'' for a moment, Wouldn''t it be more productive to dismantle Palestine as a failed State? The Arabs own the entire middle east but they cannot stand the thought of Israels existance as a nation. Why are they so scared of a country the size of Rhode Island (USA) that they have to try to make it vanish from the Earth? (just an open question) Kinda reminds me of an Elephants fear of mice....
"I debate and argue my points but I''''''''m not going to hate you or anyone else for having different views, thats silly."
I never said I wish to hate you because you have a different opinion than I. My point is Bush for some Unknown reason wanted to get Saddam and created the WMD story to start accomplishing that wish.
Posted by lovegetpeace at 03:40 PM : Jul 21, 2008,,,
The "other" possible truth and the truth I originally subscribed to, now I''m not so sure is this;
After the first President Bush, H.W. successfully built a multinational coalition and removed Iraq from Saddams illegal invasion of Kuwait, a celebration was given to Pres. H.W. Bush and General Swartzkoff honoring the victory. During that event an assassination attempt was made of Pres. H.W. Bush''s life but it failed. An investigation revealed the assassination attempt was authorized by Iraqi Pres. Saddam Hussein. Many believe, including myself at one point that current Pres. G.W. Bush invaded Iraq and took out Saddam, ignoring Osama bin Laden known to be in Afghanistan, al Qaeda and the perpetrators of 9/11 to get revenge for the attempt on his fathers life! If that were the case then it was "Mission Accomplished!", only it was the wrong mission!
"I debate and argue my points but I''''m not going to hate you or anyone else for having different views, thats silly."
I never said I wish to hate you because you have a different opinion than I. My point is Bush for some Unknown reason wanted to get Saddam and created the WMD story to start accomplishing that wish.
The decision to invade Iraq probably was in progress prior to 9/11, the U.S. had many issues outstanding with Iraq that are well documented and there is no need to re-Post them here again. I never agreed with invading Iraq, there were other ways to remove Saddam. In addition the U.N. weapons inspection team never finished their work prior to the invasion of Iraq and up to that point reported Iraq was not in violation so there was no need to invade Iraq when the U.S. invaded. However the U.S. is like a large tractor trailer rolling down the highway, not easy to stop, not easy to turn around like a small car, so once things are set in motion it takes a lot to stop them, I think that simple explanation had more to do with going forward with the Iraq invasion and not putting on the brakes and deploying to Afghanistan instead. You can hate who you please, I debate and argue my points but I''m not going to hate you or anyone else for having different views, thats silly.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by tbweb at 02:23 PM : Jul 21, 2008
+ report abuse
I think the decision to Unilaterally Invade and Occupy was a Galactically Bad Idea, as did Poppy, Powell, and the Military Leadership of the Day.
The reasons given were Known Lies, perpetuated by the Neocons. At the very least, Foreign Policy decisions requiring War should be Honest. If the Bush/Cheney Crime Cartel had simply stated that their Purpose for Invasion were linked to Massive Monetary Gain through War Profiteering and Oil Resources in Iraq, they would have been Arrested and Imprisoned on the Spot.
When any war going to cost 4121 lives and countring and over 3 Trillions over the long run when you find no MWD, any reasonable and logical explanation is not acceptable. The decision was simply wrong. There are numerous documented reports the decision was made before 9/11.
For me, finding a reason to hate you is easy if that is my wish. For the Bush Administration, finding a reason to invade Iraq was easy for that was their wish before 9/11.
In my opinion, eliminating the State of Israel today is not PRUDENT. All Arabs, including Iran, have signed an agreement to accept the State of Israel existance if:
1) Israel returns to pre-1967 war territories.
2) Israel eliminate all Jew Settlements in the West Bank and Gaza. They were built to provoke.
3) Israel eliminate that Berlin wall east of Jerusalem.
4) Israel let East Jerusalem to be the Capital of Palestine.
5) Israel return the Golan Height to Syria.
and I concur with all the Arab''''s wishes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by lovegetpeace at 02:16 PM : Jul 21, 2008
+ report abuse
I''ll never believe Israel is capable of living Peacefully with it''s Muslim Neighbors. They have a vastly superior Military Capability with their Nukes, and their History of Land Grabbing is not helpful in convincing these Neighbors of their Good Intent.
After all, the United States is still to this day, Arresting Israeli Mossad and Special Forces Agents inside the United States, Spying and Attempting to gain access to Nuclear and other Strategic Installations. ***???.....Our supposed "Friends", who we send $Billions$ every single year in Cash, not to mention Military Assistance and Weaponry.
It''s time to cut the Apron Strings and let them fend for themselves.
Had the Bush administration been successful in Iraq all of the rancor and complaints would be irrelevant! In typical American fashion, failure gets blasted and those responsible for failing get trashed. The point is had the Bush administration been successful, the complaints would have been muted. Our culture is about winning and when we win all is forgiven! Its the American way! :) Hindsight is always 20/20 and Monday morning quarterbacks like yourself are infamous for jumping on the losers bandwagon and singing in its choir when things go wrong! Life goes on, pick up the pieces! The dogs bark but the caravan moves on ...
In my opinion, eliminating the State of Israel today is not PRUDENT. All Arabs, including Iran, have signed an agreement to accept the State of Israel existance if:
1) Israel returns to pre-1967 war territories.
2) Israel eliminate all Jew Settlements in the West Bank and Gaza. They were built to provoke.
3) Israel eliminate that Berlin wall east of Jerusalem.
4) Israel let East Jerusalem to be the Capital of Palestine.
5) Israel return the Golan Height to Syria.
and I concur with all the Arab''s wishes.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
... - 13
- next
See all 257 Comments