International community to resume nuclear talks with Iran

[News_Editor]

International community to resume nuclear talks with Iran

2012-03-07 07:36:07 GMT+7 (ICT)

BRUSSELS, Belgium (BNO NEWS) -- World powers which are dealing with Iran's nuclear program have accepted its offer for a new round of talks, European Union (EU) foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton said on Tuesday. It comes more than a year after negotiations broke off in stalemate.

Ashton said she accepted Iran's offer to resume talks on behalf of China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States. "We hope that Iran will now enter into a sustained process of constructive dialogue which will deliver real progress in resolving the international community's long-standing concerns on its nuclear program," she said.

The dates and venue of the talks were not immediately announced.

International concerns regarding Iran's nuclear activities have been increasing for decades. And while Iran has repeatedly stated that its nuclear program is for the peaceful purpose of providing energy, many countries contend it is seeking to develop nuclear weapons and may be close to obtain them.

Negotiations with Iran broke off in January 2011 after the Iranians refused to discuss the nuclear issue, but Saeed Jalili, secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, offered to resume the talks in a letter to the European Union last month. It gives a new boost to efforts to find a diplomatic solution to the dispute.

"Our overall goal remains a comprehensive negotiated, long-term solution which restores international confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear program, while respecting Iran's right to the peaceful use of nuclear energy consistent with the NTP [Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty]," Ashton wrote in a letter to Jalili on Tuesday.

In January, the Council of the European Union (EU) announced broadened restrictive measures against Iran by banning crude-oil imports and a freeze on Iran's central bank assets. As part of the toughest sanctions yet against Iran, the EU also banned imports of petrochemical products from Iran into the EU as well as the export of key equipment and technology for this sector to Iran.

-- © BNO News All rights reserved 2012-03-07

[Steely Dan]

It was Einstein who said the definition of insanity is to repeat the same behavior and expect different results. The Iranians are stalling for time, yet again. Indeed they have been playing the west for years now.

http://www.debka.com/article/21799/

The Iranians are already stalling about access to Parchin, no doubt to give themselves time to remove any incriminating evidence. This is the view of the IAEA.

[Pakboong]

It was Einstein who said the definition of insanity is to repeat the same behavior and expect different results. The Iranians are stalling for time, yet again. Indeed they have been playing the west for years now.

http://www.debka.com/article/21799/

The Iranians are already stalling about access to Parchin, no doubt to give themselves time to remove any incriminating evidence. This is the view of the IAEA.

I expect that there is very little about Iran and its nuclear sites that the Israelis do not already know. I would not be surprised if an attack would occur before Parchin can be verified.

Netanyahu played Obama like a fiddle and got him to all but guarantee an attack should sanctions fail. Now he just has to figure out a way to insure the sanctions fail. How do you prove a negative?

[Steely Dan]

It was Einstein who said the definition of insanity is to repeat the same behavior and expect different results. The Iranians are stalling for time, yet again. Indeed they have been playing the west for years now.

http://www.debka.com/article/21799/

The Iranians are already stalling about access to Parchin, no doubt to give themselves time to remove any incriminating evidence. This is the view of the IAEA.

I expect that there is very little about Iran and its nuclear sites that the Israelis do not already know. I would not be surprised if an attack would occur before Parchin can be verified.

Netanyahu played Obama like a fiddle and got him to all but guarantee an attack should sanctions fail. Now he just has to figure out a way to insure the sanctions fail. How do you prove a negative?

Indeed, but the results of proving a positive don't bear thinking about.

[Ulysses G.]

Netanyahu played Obama like a fiddle and got him to all but guarantee an attack should sanctions fail. Now he just has to figure out a way to insure the sanctions fail. How do you prove a negative?

They are already failing. Iran has no intent to give up developing nukes. He does not have to do anything other than let history take its course.

[Pakboong]

Netanyahu played Obama like a fiddle and got him to all but guarantee an attack should sanctions fail. Now he just has to figure out a way to insure the sanctions fail. How do you prove a negative?

They are already failing. Iran has no intent to give up developing nukes. He does not have to do anything other than let history take its course.

I am sure that Bibi has this all figured out a couple of moves ahead of Obama. It will all be interesting.

[Credo]

I think a lot of people have it figured out, but having 'it' figured out and doing something about are two different things. The US would have minimal interest in getting into a conflict with Iran. The Iranian government is simply too unpredictable to know what or how they would react.

Israel and a few of the other neighbors have a much greater interest in the nuclear threat. The only real and viable option available is to Israel to do the dirty deed of taking out Iran's nuclear capability. The US will, of course, have to provide both military and political cover for Israel. The US may also be able to arrange for a few neighboring countries to not notice Israeli jets in their airspace or alert anyone to their presence.

In the meantime, the diplomatic game continues. Then one day, either someone take the facility out or there will be a nuclear test in Iran and it's game over.

[philw]

Netanyahu played Obama like a fiddle and got him to all but guarantee an attack should sanctions fail. Now he just has to figure out a way to insure the sanctions fail. How do you prove a negative?

They are already failing. Iran has no intent to give up developing nukes. He does not have to do anything other than let history take its course.

As a counterpoint to some of the war mongers on here, why not let Iran have her nukes ???

They could not be used without her total devastation, could they ??

And again, Israel has, so why not the rest ??

[rijb]

All three nations might be trying to play their voters like a fiddle.

I think there might be some truth in this humor... war rhetoric

[nurofiend]

Netanyahu played Obama like a fiddle and got him to all but guarantee an attack should sanctions fail. Now he just has to figure out a way to insure the sanctions fail. How do you prove a negative?

They are already failing. Iran has no intent to give up developing nukes. He does not have to do anything other than let history take its course.

I am sure that Bibi has this all figured out a couple of moves ahead of Obama. It will all be interesting.

interesting??? is that we call it

ye both sound like ye're frothing at the mouth with excitement...

[myfriendu]

i hope russia and the chinese stop the bombing of iran,its all a smoke screen.http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/contrary-widespread-claims-there-no-evidence-iran-building-nuclear-weapon

[up-country_sinclair]

Netanyahu played Obama like a fiddle and got him to all but guarantee an attack should sanctions fail. Now he just has to figure out a way to insure the sanctions fail. How do you prove a negative?

They are already failing. Iran has no intent to give up developing nukes. He does not have to do anything other than let history take its course.

As a counterpoint to some of the war mongers on here, why not let Iran have her nukes ???

They could not be used without her total devastation, could they ??

And again, Israel has, so why not the rest ??

Good points. Additionally, perhaps those so in favor of the US starting another war in the Middle East should consider doing some of the actual fighting.

[necronx99]

Netanyahu played Obama like a fiddle and got him to all but guarantee an attack should sanctions fail. Now he just has to figure out a way to insure the sanctions fail. How do you prove a negative?

They are already failing. Iran has no intent to give up developing nukes. He does not have to do anything other than let history take its course.

As a counterpoint to some of the war mongers on here, why not let Iran have her nukes ???

They could not be used without her total devastation, could they ??

And again, Israel has, so why not the rest ??

On balance, it's probably not a good idea to give fervent belivers of a doomsday cult who beleive that should they die in a war with the infidel they will be granted imeadiate and priviledged access to heaven the means to achieve their goals...

[Scott]

Off-topic posts have been deleted as well as replies to them.

[yummypizza]

We sow the black seem together it seems!

[Pakboong]

Netanyahu played Obama like a fiddle and got him to all but guarantee an attack should sanctions fail. Now he just has to figure out a way to insure the sanctions fail. How do you prove a negative?

They are already failing. Iran has no intent to give up developing nukes. He does not have to do anything other than let history take its course.

As a counterpoint to some of the war mongers on here, why not let Iran have her nukes ???

They could not be used without her total devastation, could they ??

And again, Israel has, so why not the rest ??

Good points. Additionally, perhaps those so in favor of the US starting another war in the Middle East should consider doing some of the actual fighting.

I expect that only the Israelis are interested in the US fighting/starting another middle east war. The point of this latest exercise was to get Obama to commit to an attack without evidence of an actual nuclear weapon. No real proof necessary other than that the sanctions are not working. Obama has been painted into a corner and as an American, I am a bit ashamed.

[OzMick]

If Iran sincerely wishes to have nuclear power generation without nuclear weapons, why have they not proposed a deal similar to N. Korea where the US gave the technology for reactors which don't produce plutonium in return for IAEA inspection?

[up-country_sinclair]

^^ I don't consider myself to be an Obama supporter, but in relation to this topic, I think he did a pretty good job in the last week. He confirmed US support for Israel (unfortunately, a political reality), while at the same time letting them know that he wasn't going to fall for the same line that the previous administration did. And just yesterday he chastised certain Republicans for beating the drums of war as if it were just a game.

I think if Israel felt it could successfully attack Iran it would have already done so. It's too risky for them, so they're trying to suck the US into it to do the fighting for them.

[nong38]

An israeli strike is not straight forward, look at the route, refueling, fighting your way in and out and thats before an attack. GBU 28 bombs which can penetrate concrete upt to 6m thick if they are dropped from high altitude and hit spot on, there would to be more than one bomb per target and each plane can only carry one. There is no guarantee that the programme would be destroyed, put back and delayed put not likely to be put completely put out of action.

You can expect Hezbollah and Hamass to respond on Iran's behalf, Iran is more likely to mine the Gulf and attack the Saudi fields, oil would rocket and everyone would feel the pain.

This is not a good scenario in any way and that would also give the Iranian's the opportunity to export terror in possibly a nuclear parcel, does not sound good does it?

If Iran is developing a nuclear capablity could we live with it? It might be the best option because if they develop and make it possible to be placed on a delivery vehicle, which would take time it would also give time for defensive measures to be put and place and maybe even another Arab uprising in the country.

If they get a bomb and use it, Iran would be wiped out so would they dare to use it knowing that?

In the meantime expect more scientific deaths and power failures at certain sites in the programme.

I am glad I dont have my finger on the button and have to make the decisions.

[Steely Dan]

^^ I don't consider myself to be an Obama supporter, but in relation to this topic, I think he did a pretty good job in the last week. He confirmed US support for Israel (unfortunately, a political reality), while at the same time letting them know that he wasn't going to fall for the same line that the previous administration did. And just yesterday he chastised certain Republicans for beating the drums of war as if it were just a game.

I think if Israel felt it could successfully attack Iran it would have already done so. It's too risky for them, so they're trying to suck the US into it to do the fighting for them.

You can't have it both ways; Israel was held back by the U.S from attacking the Iranian nuclear installations when it would have been far easier to do so, therefore the U.S has partly contributed to the Iranians getting so close. I'm not aware for sure but wouldn't be surprised if the U.S managed to stall Israel from attacking in exchange for the guarantee that they themselves would deal with Iran if Israel was no longer able.

[Credo]

The Israeli government has a history of not necessarily listening to anyone. Trying to hold the US hostage over some previous restraint is not going to cut it.

If Israel wants to attack; go ahead.

[Steely Dan]

The Israeli government has a history of not necessarily listening to anyone. Trying to hold the US hostage over some previous restraint is not going to cut it.

If Israel wants to attack; go ahead.

Of course you are right, Israel (imho) have no choice and would indeed be unwise to gamble their own survival on a promise from anyone and certainly not based on the timing of their elections. I would also observe that if Israel do indeed attack and are successful they will be publicly condemned by just about everyone, who almost to a man in private will say 'thank God for Israel'.

Edit: But talks with Iran are a farce as everyone knows and they ARE developing military applications, as of now they are stalling for time before talks whilst cleaning up incriminating evidence.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iSYai4zaB33ik1U_CGcYrqCYUDaw?docId=5494d2f65da846329bb46b96a44d45cd

Edited March 8, 2012 by Steely Dan

[Jingthing]

My view is that Israel is focused on survival. So the question is which decision, attacking Iran or not attacking Iran (at this point where it seems inevitable Iran will get the nukes eventually anyway) best furthers the odds of survival. I don't know and I think they don't know either. So while they clearly want Iran to think they might attack any minute, that doesn't mean they actually will.

[GentlemanJim]

My view is that Israel is focused on survival. So the question is which decision, attacking Iran or not attacking Iran (at this point where it seems inevitable Iran will get the nukes eventually anyway) best furthers the odds of survival. I don't know and I think they don't know either. So while they clearly want Iran to think they might attack any minute, that doesn't mean they actually will.

I agree with your assessment to an extent. The thing is Jingthing IF there is any doubt there is no doubt, and an attack on Iran would be an aggressive attack on a sovereign nation, which is not permissible in todays globalized society. IF Iran does acquire a nuke then Israel has an air defence system almost second to none, and no missile would get through its defence system to strike Israel. At that point the world super powers could indeed turn Tehran into a glass bowl and few would oblect, but until there is conclusive proof, there is absolutely no right to attack.

[Jingthing]

My view is that Israel is focused on survival. So the question is which decision, attacking Iran or not attacking Iran (at this point where it seems inevitable Iran will get the nukes eventually anyway) best furthers the odds of survival. I don't know and I think they don't know either. So while they clearly want Iran to think they might attack any minute, that doesn't mean they actually will.

I agree with your assessment to an extent. The thing is Jingthing IF there is any doubt there is no doubt, and an attack on Iran would be an aggressive attack on a sovereign nation, which is not permissible in todays globalized society. IF Iran does acquire a nuke then Israel has an air defence system almost second to none, and no missile would get through its defence system to strike Israel. At that point the world super powers could indeed turn Tehran into a glass bowl and few would oblect, but until there is conclusive proof, there is absolutely no right to attack.

I think it is absurd to conclude that Israel can prevent a nuclear attack from a country determined to launch one. I also think much of the world will understand Israel's attack on nuclear development sites, if that is their decision. It's not as if they haven't done similar before. Edited March 8, 2012 by Jingthing

[GentlemanJim]

My view is that Israel is focused on survival. So the question is which decision, attacking Iran or not attacking Iran (at this point where it seems inevitable Iran will get the nukes eventually anyway) best furthers the odds of survival. I don't know and I think they don't know either. So while they clearly want Iran to think they might attack any minute, that doesn't mean they actually will.

I agree with your assessment to an extent. The thing is Jingthing IF there is any doubt there is no doubt, and an attack on Iran would be an aggressive attack on a sovereign nation, which is not permissible in todays globalized society. IF Iran does acquire a nuke then Israel has an air defence system almost second to none, and no missile would get through its defence system to strike Israel. At that point the world super powers could indeed turn Tehran into a glass bowl and few would oblect, but until there is conclusive proof, there is absolutely no right to attack.

I think it is absurd to conclude that Israel can prevent a nuclear attack from a country determined to launch one. I also think much of the world will understand Israel's attack on nuclear development sites, if that is their decision. It's not as if they haven't done similar before.

Ah well, I tried.

[Jingthing]

My view is that Israel is focused on survival. So the question is which decision, attacking Iran or not attacking Iran (at this point where it seems inevitable Iran will get the nukes eventually anyway) best furthers the odds of survival. I don't know and I think they don't know either. So while they clearly want Iran to think they might attack any minute, that doesn't mean they actually will.

I agree with your assessment to an extent. The thing is Jingthing IF there is any doubt there is no doubt, and an attack on Iran would be an aggressive attack on a sovereign nation, which is not permissible in todays globalized society. IF Iran does acquire a nuke then Israel has an air defence system almost second to none, and no missile would get through its defence system to strike Israel. At that point the world super powers could indeed turn Tehran into a glass bowl and few would oblect, but until there is conclusive proof, there is absolutely no right to attack.

I think it is absurd to conclude that Israel can prevent a nuclear attack from a country determined to launch one. I also think much of the world will understand Israel's attack on nuclear development sites, if that is their decision. It's not as if they haven't done similar before.

Ah well, I tried.

Show us a link demonstrating Israel has the technology to block all incoming nuclear weapons.

[Credo]

Talking probably isn't worth much, but it's what has to be done before any type of military action.

I doubt they are getting rid of any incriminating evidence....I think they are moving it to more secure locations.

And yes, everyone will speak badly about Israel, but, hey that's pretty much what happens no matter what Israel does.

If I were an Israeli, I would be more than happy to be alive to counter the bad-mouthing. In the end, a lot of people will be happy if they disable the Iranian nuclear aspirations.

[Jingthing]

Right. It's not a popularity contest for Israel. There are much more important considerations. That said, I have no idea what they should do now. Most countries are worried about gas prices, who wins American idol, etc.. Israel is worried about existence crises. Iran is being squeezed now, yes, but no country is threatening their existence as a state/country for their majority ethic population. Also, yes of course Israel's current military is stronger than Iran's (or its closer neighbors). If it wasn't, there would be no Israel. I know many people will deny that obvious fact, but generally, they are people who have drunk the anti-Zionist Koolaid.

Edited March 8, 2012 by Jingthing

[GentlemanJim]

Show us a link demonstrating Israel has the technology to block all incoming nuclear weapons.

Although a little personal research would diminish your daily post count it would be really beneficial to you, it's easy, it just takes time.

Israel, amongst other things has

1. MIM-23 Hawk, a medium range radar guided surface-to-air missile and longest serving system, it is also the network's most victorious.

2. MIM-104 Patriot , a High to Medium Air Defense (HIMAD) medium tactical air defense platform capable of downing ballistic missiles

3. Arrow Missile system, an Israeli developed Theatre Missile Defence (TMD) system meant to stop ballistic missiles in the Stratosphere.

You can do your own research, but basically Patriot would stop anything. Patriot AND Arrow would not let anything through. Both missile systems are extensively deployed and manned 365/24/7