November 29, 2009 8:20 AM

Iran Censured at U.N. Nuclear Meeting

(CBS/AP)  The U.N. nuclear watchdog's board censured Iran on Friday, with 25 nations backing a resolution demanding that Tehran immediately freeze construction of its newly revealed nuclear facility and heed Security Council resolutions to stop uranium enrichment.

Iran remained defiant, with its chief representative to the International Atomic Energy Agency declaring that his country would resist "pressure, resolutions, sanction(s) and threat of military attack."

Delegate Ali Asghar Soltanieh of Iran shrugged off the vote.

"Neither resolutions of the board of governors nor those of the United Nations Security Council ... neither sanctions nor the threat of military attacks can interrupt peaceful nuclear activities in Iran, even a second," he told the closed-door meeting, in remarks made available to reporters.

Iran argues that its nuclear program is aimed at creating a peaceful nuclear energy network to serve its growing population. The United States and other nations believe Iran's nuclear program has the goal of creating nuclear weapons.

The IAEA resolution criticized Iran for defying a U.N. Security Council ban on uranium enrichment — the source of both nuclear fuel and the fissile core of warheads.

It also censured Iran for secretly building a uranium enrichment facility and demanded that it immediately suspend further construction. It noted that IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei cannot confirm that Tehran's nuclear program is exclusively geared toward peaceful uses, and expressed "serious concern" that Iran's stonewalling of an IAEA probe means "the possibility of military dimensions to Iran's nuclear program" cannot be excluded.

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown called the resolution "the strongest and most definitive statement yet made by the countries who are very worried about nuclear ambitions on the part of Iran."

Nations were "absolutely clear that Iran has misled the international community," Brown said at a Commonwealth summit in Trinidad. "(They are) sending the clearest possible signal to Iran that they should desist from their nuclear plans, that the world knows what they are doing and trying to do, and that they should accept the offers that have been made."

The resolution — and the resulting vote of the IAEA's 35-nation decision-making board — were significant on several counts.

The resolution was endorsed by six world powers — the U.S., Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany — reflecting a rare measure of unity on Iran. Previously, Moscow and Beijing have acted as a traditional drag on efforts to punish Iran for its nuclear defiance, either preventing new U.N. Security Council sanctions or watering down their potency.

They did not formally endorse the last IAEA resolution in 2006, which referred Iran to the Security Council, starting the process that has resulted in three sets of sanctions against the Islamic Republic. Their backing for the document at the Vienna meeting thus reflected broad international disenchantment with Tehran.

"Six nations ... for the first time came together ... (and) have put together this resolution we all agreed on," Glyn Davies, the chief U.S. delegate to the IAEA, told reporters. "That's a significant development."

The backing of Moscow and Beijing also appeared to signal possible support for any new push for a fourth set of U.N sanctions, should Tehran continue shunning international overtures meant to reach agreements that reduce concerns about its nuclear ambitions.

Brown said he thought "the next stage will have to be sanctions if Iran doesn't respond to what is a very clear vote from the world community."

German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle said the resolution's passage shows that "the international community still wants dialogue with Iran, but time is pressing."

"Our hand is still held out," he added. "I hope Iran will take it. Iran must know: our patience is not infinite."

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs avoided mentioning sanctions — but indicated harsher measures were possible unless Iran compromised.

"Our patience and that of the international community is limited, and time is running out," he said in a statement. "If Iran refuses to meet its obligations, then it will be responsible for its own growing isolation and the consequences."

Strong support for the resolution at the meeting was also notable. Only three nations — Cuba, Venezuela and Malaysia — voted against the document, with six abstentions and one member absent. Even most nonaligned IAEA board members abandoned Tehran, despite their traditional backing of the Islamic Republic.

The diplomats who reported the vote spoke on condition of anonymity Friday because of the sensitivity of the situation.

A separate resolution — a Russian initiative to establish an international nuclear fuel bank under IAEA oversight — passed with 23 nations for, eight against, three abstentions and one nation absent. The opposed votes came from developing nations that fear such a fuel bank, meant to place uranium enrichment under international control, could impinge on their right to develop indigenous nuclear programs.

In a letter to ElBaradei, Soltanieh suggested Iran could further restrict IAEA access to its nuclear activities, arguing that media leaks of confidential information posed a security threat to Iran's nuclear facilities.

© 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 30 Comments
by Sloughfoot November 27, 2009 6:50 PM EST
Like Kim and N.K, Aukie and Tehran must relish the eposure they receive everytime they twist the civilized world crank.

Would we be facing this situation today had the peanut farmer not played pocket pool for the some 400 plus days that Tehran held America hostage in the 70s.
Reply to this comment
by 50BMS13 November 28, 2009 12:42 AM EST
Sloughfoot
Carter did untold damage to the US. Worst President in US history.
by curiously1 November 27, 2009 6:00 PM EST
For those Palestinians who post here regularly, let me tell you this. This thug regime in Iran is doing more damage to you than to the Israelis. If it wasn't for this Monkey-Man, Ahmed, you would had your peace and prosperity by now. The thugs of Iran don't much care about you. They are more concerned about their own status. You mean nothing to them but a tool.
Reply to this comment
by acupuncturegirl November 27, 2009 5:06 PM EST
Mr. Gibbs said the vote "also underscores a commitment to strengthen the rules of the international system".

Hey Glibbs, what "international system" are you talking about? This is America. We do not engineer "international systems". And what will your newly strengthened "international system" do? Will it censor those countries that have already committed international acts of terror, as a STATE, such as Israel and the U.S.? Will it send our young men and women to die for this "international system". You can BET they will be the first ones to be thrown under your "international system" busride.

And since HOPEYCHANGE has no intention of following the "rules of the road" for himself, even though the American people want him to, he will continue to blow up women and children and pay brother to turn brother into torture chambers, and kidnap, like a spook, renditioned innocents and unaware citizens of other countries.

And, Bloatbag, you had better listen to what I say. If you read the blogs today you will see the overwhelming language of criticism being used against HOPEYDINK is very similar to Hamas, Iran, Venezuela and all the other perceived "enemies" of the American empirical squatters. What do you think about that, you warpig talkingpiece? Gonna get us all?

Go ahead and taunt Iran. I'm grabbing the popcorn. NO WONDER ISRAEL IS NERVOUS... CARE TO TAKE A GUESS ON WHO WOULD WIN IF CHICKENISRAEL HAS TO FIGHT ITS OWN BATTLES? You're on a train to HOPELESSLAND.
Reply to this comment
by Omni-Present101 November 27, 2009 4:08 PM EST
The AIPAC crowd is going to have a hard time with this. Israel's uber-hawk Defense Minister (and the most highly decorated soldier in its history), Ehud Barak, says that an Iranian nuclear weapon would not pose an existential threat to Israel.

Today's New York Times reports that Barak told Israel's largest paper Yedioth Ahronoth that "Iran does not constitute an existential threat against Israel." Asked specifically about a nuclear armed Iran, Barak said, "I am not among those who believe Iran is an existential issue for Israel."

Barak concluded: "Israel is strong, I don't see anyone who could pose an existential threat,"

The threat, of course, is not to Israel's existence but to Israel's status as the region's only superpower, able to do whatever it wants whenever it wants to.

But don't expect this to mean that the "Bomb Iran" crowd here -- which is the lobby and its cutouts -- is going to shut up.

Contrary to what many believe, the lobby does not always follow the Israel line.
Reply to this comment
by YoureSoWrong10 December 1, 2009 10:21 PM EST
There's an omni-present toilet in every restaurant. It doesn't mean that's why people visit the place.
by Omni-Present101 November 27, 2009 2:17 PM EST
The AIPAC crowd is going to have a hard time with this. Israel's uber-hawk Defense Minister (and the most highly decorated soldier in its history), Ehud Barak, says that an Iranian nuclear weapon would not pose an existential threat to Israel.
_____________


Today's New York Times reports that Barak told Israel's largest paper [[Yedioth Ahronoth]] that..

"Iran does not constitute an existential threat against Israel."

Asked specifically about a nuclear armed Iran, Barak said,

"I am not among those who believe Iran is an existential issue for Israel."

Barak concluded: "Israel is strong, I don't see anyone who could pose an existential threat,"

The threat, of course, is not to Israel's existence but to Israel's status as the region's only superpower, able to do whatever it wants whenever it wants to.

But don't expect this to mean that the "Bomb Iran" crowd here -- which is the lobby and its cutouts -- is going to shut up.

Contrary to what many believe, the lobby does not always follow the Israel line.
Reply to this comment
by YoureSoWrong10 December 1, 2009 10:22 PM EST
See response above.
by Omni-Present101 November 27, 2009 2:16 PM EST
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

Main article: Nuclear weapons and Israel

Although no official statistics exist, it has been estimated that Israel possesses between 60 to 400 thermonuclear weapons, believed to be of Teller-Ulam design, including strategic warheads in the megaton-range.

Delivery mechanisms include intercontinental ballistic missiles. The Israeli government maintains a policy of deliberate ambiguity on whether it has nuclear weapons, saying only that it would not be the first to "introduce nuclear weapons in the Middle East".

The International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Mohamed ElBaradei regards Israel as a state possessing nuclear weapons
Reply to this comment
by YoureSoWrong10 December 1, 2009 10:22 PM EST
My, what a relentless agit-prop artist you are.
by Omni-Present101 November 27, 2009 2:12 PM EST
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/rep-david-obey-warns-president-obama-afghanistan-war/story?id=9126805


The powerful chairman of the House Appropriations Committee has a stark message for President Obama about Afghanistan -- sending more troops would be a mistake that could "wipe out every initiative we have to rebuild our own economy."

Rep. David Obey, D-Wisc., talks exit strategy, compares Afghanistan to Vietnam.

"There ain't going to be no money for nothing if we pour it all into Afghanistan,"

House Appropriations Chairman David Obey told ABC News in an exclusive interview. "If they ask for an increased troop commitment in Afghanistan, I am going to ask them to pay for it."

Watch ABC News' exclusive interview with Rep. Obey here.

Obey, a Democrat from Wisconsin, made it clear that he is absolutely opposed to sending any more U.S. troops to Afghanistan and says if Obama decides to do that, he'll demand a new tax -- what he calls a "war surtax" -- to pay for it.

"On the merits, I think it is a mistake to deepen our involvement,"

Obey said. "But if we are going to do that, then at least we ought to pay for it. Because if we don't, if we don't pay for it, the cost of the Afghan war will wipe out every initiative we have to rebuild our own economy."
Reply to this comment
by mav547166 November 27, 2009 2:22 PM EST
He is a democrat from Wisconsin and will do what Obama tells him to do despite his whining. The President will give him a 100 billion to bailout the uninonized dairy cows as a reward for his support.
by tjl456 November 27, 2009 1:27 PM EST
I Obama doesn't start dealing with Iran correctly, we will be watching a radioactive cloud drift across somewhere in the world - hopefully not the USA.
Reply to this comment
by enwr77 November 27, 2009 1:52 PM EST
First, I think they should wait until the Viet-Con stop bombing us, taking us over and destroying our democracy. Oops, they never did. May be it was the Soviet Union. I keep remembering the bullet in Bowling for Columbine, scary.
by Omni-Present101 November 27, 2009 1:58 PM EST
Borderline Bull-Spit.

What would you have the USA do ?

Start another Multi-Trillion Dollar War ?

Stop Playing "Call To Duty"

Or Watching "The Dirty Dozen"

Instead of Playing "Call To Duty" Enlist in the US Military.

Better Still, I Hope President Obama Implements the Damn [[DRAFT]]

Everybody Serve the Nation and Pay for the Trillions of Dollars of Debt, we've Incurred, based on 8 Years of Occupation.

This is Real Life.
________________

The International Atomic Energy Agency's board of governors voted 25-3 to censure Iran in a decision that gained rare backing from Russia and China, which have in the past blocked attempts to isolate Iran, a trade partner for both.

"Our patience and that of the international community is limited, and time is running out," Gibbs said in a statement.

"If Iran refuses to meet its obligations, then it will be responsible for its own growing isolation and the consequences."

U.S. officials emphasized the IAEA's vote showed a broad consensus among global powers.

"The fact that 25 countries from all parts of the world cast their votes in favor shows the urgent need for Iran to address the growing international deficit of confidence in its intentions," Gibbs said.

One U.S. official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, stressed that a "package of consequences" would result if Iran did not prove to be a serious partner in talks with world powers about its nuclear program.

Western governments fear the program is aimed at producing nuclear weapons but Iran denies the charge.
by enwr77 November 27, 2009 10:59 AM EST
If Iran gives in it will be like Iraq since 911 or Wounded Knee in the 1970's.

Iran tested the fork tongue. The country of the fork tongue failed the test. If the intent was sincere, it would be no problem to have the processed fuel ready at the time of exchange. Iran asked that if their nuclear product was taken to be exchanged for the finished product, that both products be present for the exchange. If this was the real reason the exchange was being made, the answer would have been yes. It was not. This proved the real intent, to disarm Iran and leave is vulnerable for occupation for the theft of their oil. The tongue is very forked.

The UN resolutions are no more than the peace treaties signed with the Native Americans. The treaties were not honored or kept by the government. The Native Americans were destroyed if they did not keep their part of the treaties. The same will happen here.

Mr. Almedinejad is their Malcolm. He has met the enemy in their land and knows their true motives. The Prussian is being taken out of the Iranians as the Native American was taken out of the Native American. It is done by changing the youth. They are being sold a bag of tricks called ?freedom.? The oppressor should not be the one deciding what freedom is especially when it destroys the native culture.

We will never be free of the horrible acts of the Bush administration.
Reply to this comment
by 50BMS13 November 27, 2009 12:52 PM EST
YrAlwaysWrong
ROFL! good one!
by YoureSoWrong10 December 1, 2009 10:24 PM EST
Yeah, when YrAlwaysWrong gets to post. The rest of this board seems to be run by the American Communist Party.
by curiously1 November 27, 2009 10:36 AM EST
Let's hope that China & Russia are aboard with the sanction measures. If so, I think the thugs of Iran should start feeling worried.
It's time to deal with these thugs appropriately !
Reply to this comment
by kcits November 27, 2009 2:09 PM EST
Yes, lets deal with them, they ...... what is it that they did again? O ya, they dared to make fuel for a reactor. Those no good so and so's cant do that they..... O ya the treaty they signed does give them the right to do it. It was called the nuclear non proliferation treaty.
So exactly why are we doing this? Thats right to safeguard everyone. Just like those Weapons of Mass Destruction that Iraq had...... We found how many..... 0.
See all 30 Comments
.
Scroll Left
Scroll Right More »
CBS News on Facebook