Ahmadinejad says Iran ready for more sanctions

[incarcerated]

Respect doesn't seem to be working. Watch this one closely as we are distracted by the healthcare debate for the next 30 days:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hHDGKZD6rCn82qlbDkXssmtal-hg

Ahmadinejad says Iran ready for more sanctions

By Hiedeh Farmani and Farhad Pouladi (AFP) – 1 hour ago
TEHRAN — A defiant President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Thursday Iran was ready for more sanctions and would not bow to pressure in meeting any deadline set by world powers over its nuclear programme.

"No one can impose sanctions on Iran anymore. We welcome sanctions. We have given our proposed package," Ahmadinejad said told reporters after parliament strongly backed 18 of the 21 members of his proposed new cabinet.

He was referring to Tehran's package of proposals that would form the basis of fresh talks with world powers which Iran's top nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili said on Tuesday had been updated.

Jalili on Thursday added that the "package will be presented soon," according to the ISNA news agency.

Ahmadinejad's chief of staff, Esfandiar Rahim Mashaie, meanwhile announced that the president will go later this month to the UN General Assembly meeting in New York "to encourage Iranian views in managing the world."

Iran's reaction comes as the United States and five other world powers -- Britain, China, Russia, France and Germany -- pressed the Islamic republic on Wednesday to accept an offer of face-to-face nuclear talks before a key UN meeting in late September.

Senior diplomats from the six world powers, known as P5+1, and the EU, met in Frankfurt on Wednesday urging Iran to accept their offer of direct talks.

Earlier, foreign ministry spokesman Hassan Ghashghavi said Iran will not bow to "threat and pressure" in meeting any deadline set by world powers.

"We are a nation which believes in dialogue and interaction, but if they (six world powers) want to set up a deadline using threat and pressure, it is not acceptable," Ghashghavi was quoted on Thursday as saying by the official IRNA news agency.

....He said Iran's nuclear issue must be dealt by the International Atomic Energy Agency and not by the UN Security Council.

"They must understand that the Iranian nation and government will not surrender to pressures. It will go ahead with its programme based on international regulations," he was quoted as saying by IRNA.

He also dismissed the threat of further sanctions if Iran failed to talk with global powers.

"We have said this many times that sanctions is a rusty sword which has no effect. There is no reason for retreat, but we are committed to our international obligations," he added.

US State Department spokesman Ian Kelly said on Wednesday that world powers had stressed that "a negotiated solution is still open to Iran."

"They expected Iran... to respond to the offer of talks (issued by the six) in April by agreeing to meet before the UN General Assembly meeting," Kelly told reporters.

The General Assembly meets in New York the week of September 21....

[Defender968]

IMO Ahmadinejad is flexing because of the weakness this administration has displayed in his apology tours overseas, they are going to press forward with their nuclear program and I don't think our administration is prepared to do what it takes to stop them, I just hope the Israelis put a stop to the madness as I don't think we will (not that we can't just that it won't be allowed).

It goes without saying a nuclear Iran is a game changer, and IMHO unless something is done they will acquire nukes, which will in turn lead to a nuclear detonation in Israel and/or the continental US in the next 10 years IMHO. Does not bode well for the future. :mad:

[afchic]

IMO Ahmadinejad is flexing because of the weakness this administration has displayed in his apology tours overseas, they are going to press forward with their nuclear program and I don't think our administration is prepared to do what it takes to stop them, I just hope the Israelis put a stop to the madness as I don't think we will (not that we can't just that it won't be allowed).

It goes without saying a nuclear Iran is a game changer, and IMHO unless something is done they will acquire nukes, which will in turn lead to a nuclear detonation in Israel and/or the continental US in the next 10 years IMHO. Does not bode well for the future. :mad:

I am not so sure about a nuclear detonation on US soil, Israel, maybe, but I believe highly doubtful. Their crazy president may want to wipe Isreal off the map, but I think the Ayatollahs are smart enough to realize that a first strike is not an option for them, just as it never really was for us, the russians, or the Chinese. They want a seat at the big boy table, and what that will bring with it.

My biggest fear is not Iran so much, but the fact that if they get one, then the Saudi's are going to want one, and if the Saudis have one, then who knows who else is going to feel the need to get one. There has been a lot of talk within the nuclear community about the "Shia" bomb. An interesting topic to research.

There has also been a lot of talk within the nuclear community that letting them all have a bomb may have a calming effect, rather than a detrimental effect on the region. Some very renowed scientists in the community believe that having one will make a nation more circumspect in their actions with the world community. Sort of MADD at a global level.

This is a very interesting topic, unfortunately the things that need to to be talked about, can't be, in an open forum.

[Defender968]

I am not so sure about a nuclear detonation on US soil, Israel, maybe, but I believe highly doubtful. Their crazy president may want to wipe Isreal off the map, but I think the Ayatollahs are smart enough to realize that a first strike is not an option for them, just as it never really was for us, the russians, or the Chinese. They want a seat at the big boy table, and what that will bring with it.

I would agree that they won't use a nuke in a first strike mode via conventional military means i.e. ICBM, cruise missile or other normal military delivery method, I do however think they will pass the technology if not a weapon itself off to a third party who will then walk, ride, float, or fly it into Israel and or the continental US. Do I think they want a seat at the big boy table, well Iran wants to be THE power in the middle east, but the reality is they are also ideological zealots who believe in spreading Islam across the globe, eventually that will lead them to try to do so by force IMO, if they’ve got nuclear weapons at their disposal I don’t want them to have the option personally, just my .02.

Even if Iran doesn't get a nuke and pass it off, Al Qaeda among others have been trying to acquire nukes for years, as the global economy continues to decline, and IMO it will, those runaway stans i.e. former USSR states, will feel even more economic strain than the West, it's simply a matter of time before a general or someone else with access sells one of the many nukes which they have IMO.

There has also been a lot of talk within the nuclear community that letting them all have a bomb may have a calming effect, rather than a detrimental effect on the region. Some very renowed scientists in the community believe that having one will make a nation more circumspect in their actions with the world community. Sort of MADD at a global level.

That’s about the worst idea I've heard in a while, right up there with nationalized health care. Allowing Iran to have nuclear weapons under that logic is like giving a group of 10 year olds a bunch of loaded AK-47s with the idea that they'll act more grown up and not fire them because they'll understand the power they have.

[incarcerated]

I have heard very good argument made (don't agree with it) that nuclear weapons enjoy a certain impracticality and irrelevance, as they have not been used since 1945. Certainly, their possession elevates the tension in any international conflict in which they are a factor. The Cuban Missile crisis, Cold War Europe's NATO vs USSR posture, and the current situation in Pakistan all provide examples of this. Having known a few scientists (not of renown) and enjoyed their input, I am glad that they do not make security policy.

The possession of nuclear weapons is supposed to give a third world nation a certain immunity to invasion by the U.S. This may be true, but it is also a challenge and a limitation that the U.S.may someday feel the desire to overcome.

Obama has hung his future Iran policy on the upcoming talks and their deadline, with a threat of severe sanctions and potential military action as the sticks (I am not sure that we have heard what the carrots will be). He has inherited a ME situation that has nearly all of the players leaning towards a very influential Saudi Arabia, with Iran essentially alone on the other side of the equation (Iranian influence in Lebanon, Iraq and Syria not withstanding). Should Iran attain nuclear weapons or influence over Iraq, the Arabian Peninsula is threatened.

According to Israeli Ambassador Dore Gold (who is selling a book), Iran is the primary state sponsor of global Islamic terror. Not that long ago, many saw Sadam Hussein as holding that distinction, or at least giving Iran a run for its money.

I think we can safely accept that a nuclear Iran is an existential threat to Israel. That does not mean that Iran will necessarily use its weapons on Israel; it means that Israel will have to live with a level of threat that it finds unacceptable.

[The Reaper]

I have heard very good argument made (don't agree with it) that nuclear weapons enjoy a certain impracticality and irrelevance, as they have not been used since 1945. Certainly, their possession elevates the tension in any international conflict in which they are a factor. The Cuban Missile crisis, Cold War Europe's NATO vs USSR posture, and the current situation in Pakistan all provide examples of this. Having known a few scientists (not of renown) and enjoyed their input, I am glad that they do not make security policy.

The possession of nuclear weapons is supposed to give a third world nation a certain immunity to invasion by the U.S. This may be true, but it is also a challenge and a limitation that the U.S.may someday feel the desire to overcome.

Obama has hung his future Iran policy on the upcoming talks and their deadline, with a threat of severe sanctions and potential military action as the sticks (I am not sure that we have heard what the carrots will be). He has inherited a ME situation that has nearly all of the players leaning towards a very influential Saudi Arabia, with Iran essentially alone on the other side of the equation (Iranian influence in Lebanon, Iraq and Syria not withstanding). Should Iran attain nuclear weapons or influence over Iraq, the Arabian Peninsula is threatened.

According to Israeli Ambassador Dore Gold (who is selling a book), Iran is the primary state sponsor of global Islamic terror. Not that long ago, many saw Sadam Hussein as holding that distinction, or at least giving Iran a run for its money.

I think we can safely accept that a nuclear Iran is an existential threat to Israel. That does not mean that Iran will necessarily use its weapons on Israel; it means that Israel will have to live with a level of threat that it finds unacceptable.

I do not think that the other members of the nuke club share the hatred and ideology of the Iranian leadership. Expectations of rational behavior may be disappointing, or in this case, fatal.

TR

[incarcerated]

I do not think that the other members of the nuke club share the hatred and ideology of the Iranian leadership. Expectations of rational behavior may be disappointing, or in this case, fatal.

TR

Agreed. We are talking about a head of state who hosts conferences on "A World Without Zionism."

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1129540603434

http://www.iranfocus.com/en/terrorism/transcript-iran-president-s-speech-threatening-israel-04164.html

[incarcerated]

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSL064710820090907

Iran rules out talks on its nuclear "rights"

Mon Sep 7, 2009 4:23am EDT
TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran will continue its disputed nuclear work and will never negotiate on its "obvious" rights, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Monday, in comments that are likely to disappoint Western powers.

U.S. President Barack Obama has given the Islamic Republic until later in September to take up a six powers' offer of talks on trade benefits if it shelves nuclear enrichment, or face harsher sanctions.

"From our view point our nuclear issue is finished," Ahmadinejad told a news conference.

"We will continue our work in the framework of global regulations and in close cooperation with the (U.N.) International Atomic Energy Agency. We will never negotiate on the Iranian nation's obvious rights," he added.

He said Iran, which plans to present its own "package" of proposals to world powers, was ready to negotiate and cooperate on making "peaceful use of clean nuclear energy" available for all countries and in preventing the spread of nuclear arms.

Last Wednesday world powers pressed Iran to meet them for talks on the nuclear program before a United Nations General Assembly meeting later this month.

The West suspects Iran of trying to build nuclear bombs while Iran says its program is for peaceful power generation. It has repeatedly rejected demands to halt its nuclear work.

"We are prepared to sit down to hold talks," Ahmadinejad told the news conference. "We have always been and always will be ready for negotiations and for hearing opinions."

"We haven't heard anyone set a deadline for talks. Cooperation based on respect and justice is contradictory to setting a deadline," he said.

He also said he was prepared to hold a public debate with Obama, who offered a new U.S. approach to Iran when he took office if the Islamic Republic would "unclench it fist" .

"We believe this is the best way for solving global issues," Ahmadinejad said.

Iran has often said nuclear arms have no place in its defense doctrine and called on the United States and other countries with such weapons to dismantle them....

The United Nations Security Council has imposed three sets of sanctions on Iran since 2006, targeting Iranian companies and individuals linked to the nuclear program.

[incarcerated]

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSL064710820090907

Iran rules out talks on its nuclear "rights"
.

The L.A. Times says it defferently:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fgw-iran-ahmadinejad8-2009sep08,0,4968209.story

Ahmadinejad open to talks with the world watching

By Borzou Daragahi
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
September 7, 2009 | 2:20 a.m.
The U.S. has called for direct diplomatic engagement, but the Iranian president says: "The era of secret and clandestine meetings to solve problems has ended."...."The present approach will bring [the West] nothing," he told reporters. "Iranians have learned their lessons well on how to live through crises and go unscathed. All crises will be turned into opportunities. The Iranian nation will never be harmed under any circumstances."....




What I believe Ahmadinejad is saying is that Iran will talk to the IAEA, and not to Obama. As TR said above, "Expectations of rational behavior may be disappointing, or in this case, fatal."

[afchic]

The L.A. Times says it defferently:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fgw-iran-ahmadinejad8-2009sep08,0,4968209.story

Ahmadinejad open to talks with the world watching

By Borzou Daragahi
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
September 7, 2009 | 2:20 a.m.
The U.S. has called for direct diplomatic engagement, but the Iranian president says: "The era of secret and clandestine meetings to solve problems has ended."...."The present approach will bring [the West] nothing," he told reporters. "Iranians have learned their lessons well on how to live through crises and go unscathed. All crises will be turned into opportunities. The Iranian nation will never be harmed under any circumstances."....




What I believe Ahmadinejad is saying is that Iran will talk to the IAEA, and not to Obama. As TR said above, "Expectations of rational behavior may be disappointing, or in this case, fatal."

I guess it depends on what your expectation of rational is. There are plenty of points in time in history in which a foreign leader was branded "irrational" by his American counterparts. The Cuban Missile Crisis strikes a chord with me on this subject. Was the Russian Premier irrational? Or did American's not just understand his rationality? 60 years of hindsight, as well as the release of many of the Russian documents of that time would show he was no more irrational than Kennedy was.

In the words of Sting "Russians love their children too". I never understood those words until I had to do all my courses on nuclear history at NPS. Many believed, at the time, that Russia would have no qualms about a first launch against the US, because they didn't love their children the way we loved ours, and wouldn't mind seeing all of them blown to smithereens as long as the Russia government could prove they were just as strong and dedicated as their enemy, and could defeat them, no matter the cost. We now know that to be completely untrue, and shows how at times we are incapable of crawling out of our American mindset and truly looking at our enemies without our xenophobic viewpoints.

Speaking solely of the Iranian people, achieving a nuclear weapon is a matter of pride for them. Of course they want one. Place yourself in their shoes. You have little to no access outside of a state run media. You are told that you need a weapon to ensure you are safe from your enemies, whether near or far. You get a filtered view of the "power" a nuclear weapon brings to the nations that posses one. You prove that you are still a great society because you are able to achieve something that not a lot of nations are capable of achieving. Do you think their nuclear scientists are any less driven than ours were in the 1940's, and for many of the same reasons?

I personally think one of the things that people tend to forget in this debate is the fact that the President of Iran is not the true leader of that nation. He is simply the face that is put forward to the world by the ayatollahs. He does not have the power to do anything without the approval of the true power players.

I think it would behoove us much more to study more about them than we currently do. Regardless of what the president says about wiping Israel off the map, it isn't going to happen. I agree that Iran passing the technology off to one of their Hezbollah friends is a great risk.

If the United States is not willing to intervene to stop their march towards achievement of a nuclear weapon, they will get one. I am of the opinion that even if we or Israel were to launch a strike against them, it will not stop their program, they are too far along, and have done a good job of dispersing their sites, We can't hit them all, and if we could, short of a nuclear detonation of our own, we couldn't do enough damage to halt their program indefinitely.

I still hold that our greatest means of ensuring they do not achieve a nuclear weapon is through their neighbors putting enough pressure on them to make it unrealistic. I still believe that if Iran does achieve a nuclear weapon, we are in for a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. We then must ask ourselves whether we are willing to help our friends in the region achieve the same goal in the hopes of equalizing the playing field, or do we put pressure on them to either halt, or disband their programs?