TV Schedule

Iran given two-week deadline to end nuclear impasse


  1. pigmonkey
  2. related topics
Iran was given a fortnight to agree to freeze its uranium enrichment programme yesterday or face further international isolation.

After a day of inconclusive talks in Geneva, a six-nation negotiating team warned the Iranian delegation that it had run out of patience and demanded a 'yes or no' answer to a proposal it put forward five weeks ago.

Under that offer, sponsored jointly by the US, Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China, Iran would not expand its uranium enrichment programme, while the international community refrained from imposing further sanctions. This phase would last six weeks, possibly paving the way for suspension of enrichment and more comprehensive talks.

The failure to reach agreement appeared likely to trigger new European and UN sanctions and to raise tensions in the Gulf. An Iranian rejection would also represent a rebuff to conciliatory moves from Washington, including the dispatch of a senior diplomat to Geneva to attend high-level talks with the Iranians for the first time in nearly three decades. The diplomat, William Burns, left Geneva without making any public comments.

Javier Solana, the European Union foreign policy chief leading the international negotiating team, said the talks were 'constructive', but admitted: 'We didn't get the answer we were hoping for. I hope very much we will get an answer to our question presented five weeks ago and we hope we will get it in two weeks.'

Solana would not specify what the consequences would be if there was no positive response from Iran in the next fortnight, but Western officials at the talks said there was consensus among the six nations, including Russia and China, that it would be interpreted as a rejection and trigger a new round of UN Security Council sanctions.

'They have been told this is your last meeting. We are not doing this again. Go back to Tehran and you have a week or two at most to give a yes or no,' one official said.

Another Western source involved in the talks said: 'There was some impatience voiced by a number of people at the meeting that we want a clear answer.'

Asked at a press conference, the chief nuclear negotiator for Iran and head of its delegation, Saeed Jalili, ducked a direct opinion on the freeze proposal. 'We have been talking about that for many hours,' Jalili said. 'What is more important is for us to have a constructive approach and bring that approach to the table, so that we can later deal with our shared worries and concerns.'

A negotiating document presented at the meeting by Jalili and seen by The Observer also talked vaguely about future co-operation but did not directly mention Iran's nuclear activities. In the next few days the European Union is due to approve new financial sanctions aimed at Tehran's banking system. Those are likely to be followed by a fresh round of Security Council talks in September on stepping up international sanctions, although both Russia and China oppose radical measures.

The US and Britain have also raised the possibility of pursuing an embargo of Iran's oil industry, including a block on imports of petrol and diesel. And the breakdown of talks is likely to strengthen the urgings of hawks in Israel for pre-emptive military action to halt Iran's nuclear programme.

Western officials in Geneva said that they were encouraged that all six nations represented in the Solana delegation, including Russia and China, presented a common front and made repeated efforts to urge Jalili to focus on the 'freeze for freeze' proposal.

The meeting took place in Geneva's 16th-century town hall, in the same room that the Red Cross was founded and the first Geneva convention on the treatment of war wounded was signed in 1864.
pigmonkey

28 responses // Iran given two-week deadline to end nuclear impasse

  • END OF ARTICLE THAT WOULDN'T FIT ABOVE:
    What happens now?
    Is this the end for negotiations?

    Not exactly. The Iranian negotiator was told Iran had another two weeks to accept or reject an interim deal, freezing uranium enrichment and sanctions. It was made clear to the Iranians that only a 'yes' would avert more sanctions and isolation.

    What happens if Iran says yes?

    Iran would stop expanding uranium enrichment, meaning it would not add to the roughly 3,000 centrifuges it has spinning at the Natanz facility, enriching uranium gas to make nuclear fuel.

    What if Iran says no or fails to respond?

    Then there will almost certainly be more sanctions, aimed at banks and travel and the leadership's financial assets. It is unclear what Russia and China would agree to at the UN, but they have said they will not go along with the sort of robust sanctions, targeting Iran's dependence on foreign refineries for its petrol and diesel, favoured by the US and Britain.

    Is war now more likely?

    Yes, but it is generally thought there is a long way to go before any hostilities. It will strengthen the hand of hawks like Dick Cheney in Washington and give added impetus to Israeli leaders who believe only military action will stop Iran. But, for now, US moderates are in the ascendant.
    pigmonkey
  • I say iran should go for it and say "no".
    But say it nicely, so as not to make everyone angry.
    I as an american do not feel threatened by them having nuclear technologies. I feel threatened that the high governments that have nuclear energy are stopping countries from having it. Seriously... We're asking for something to happen ,but we're asking rudely.
    Qualles
  • Wow, the UN will impose sanctions... I bet nobody has ever heard that line before.
  • Iran having nuclear weapons would do nothing, but bring more instability and hostility to the region. They would not be able to reach US soil, but they could reach major US bases as will as Saudi Arabia and Israel, which if they attacked either, the US would be dragged into.

    I think the only reason, the US is not taking a harder approach on Iran right now is because leaders know they are already stretched too thin to deal with another large conflict. We don't have the money or troops.

    And there is no possible way for Iran to say "no." It would be an unacceptable answer to all 6 negotiating nations, who are at this point frustrated and inpatient. The real question is how far is the EU willing to go with this if Iran does say no, which I don't think they will.
    a_mo
  • Make the scary Republican go away mommy.
    FallenMorgan
  • in other news.. 6 nation delegation given 2 week deadline to get a clue..

    what arrogance.. what pomp.. what presumptuous pride to suggest a deadline for another country to suspend activities of its own internal affairs..

    it is the great facade that america and the zionists would have everyone believe.. that iran + nuclear enrichment = nuclear attack..

    iran has just as much right to the nuclear cycle as america, israel, russia, haiti, paraguay, you name it.. the "civilized" slogan of innocent until proven guilty appears to be conveniently forgotten in this issue.. when the fact of the matter is that the only entity which has ever been guilty of something so devastating and criminal as using a nuclear bomb is the one and only united states.. TWICE.. the same hypocrites who are seeking to interfere in the affairs of others under the very premise that they themselves are guilty of..

    and their main reasoning comes down to what one man said one time.. "israel should be wiped off the map".. how many times is this one misquote by one individual going to be replayed over and over again as the end-all-be-all justification for killing countless innocent people?

    do not be fooled by the rhetoric.. at the end of the day, iran.. just like every other country and peoples on the face of this earth.. has the right to self-determination.. it has the right to pursue knowledge and development in order to attain a higher standard.. the dependency on oil today should be enough of an example to justify any country's move to search for alternatives to oil.. just because america may be too spoiled, stubborn, or stupid to solve this dependency does not mean that the rest of the world has to follow suit..

    so start up whatever sanctions you have planned.. block whomever you want from flying.. freeze whatever assets you want.. if there is one thing the rest of the world needs to understand is that no country with any self-respect will ever sign away or give up its own god-given rights..

    peace..
    recommended by  Vierotchka
    chapter12
  • watch this comment being used here
    Iran is a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and, as such, it has the right to enrich uranium for nuclear plants. Iran has not broken that treaty. The USA is also a signatory to that treaty, and has broken it several times, so the USA is not really in a position to judge Iran. Israel is not a signatory to that treaty and has refused IAEA inspections, it has an impressive arsenal of nuclear weapons. It too is in no position to criticize Iran. The hypocrisy in this whole business against Iran is gargantuan.
    Vierotchka
  • The whole arguement that Iran should be allowed to do whatever they want, and let their business be their business is fine. But there are consquences to whatever they choose to do. You act like the 6 delegating nations are being unreasonable and demanding they stop all nuclear enrichment, read the article. They are just asking Iran to stop the growth of more enrichment. In addition, these countries have promised help in building better nuclear factories for energy and aide, if Iran just goes with the program.

    If Iran was not trying to make nuclear weapons, and got over their pride and let inspectors in. They would receive lots of benefits from the international community as well as being able to shove the fact in the US and Britain's face. When it comes to it, Iran is just taking the hard road and pushing the buttons of the international community, NOT just the US and Britian. Even China and Russia support sanctions.
    a_mo
  • a_mo, Iran has not hindered inspections.
    Vierotchka
  • I will let Iran get it in the butt...
    petarro
  • Imperialism or international security? You be the judge.
    torybart
  • What on earth for, petarro?
    Vierotchka
  • watch this comment being used here, here, here, here, here, and here
    It'll be interesting to hear how the Bush admin will be spinning this into a reason to attack Iran very soon now... I'm sure that is the reason they sent an envoy for the first time -- they need things to hurry up so they'll have enough reason (ahem) to attack before they leave office. They know darn well that Obama won't be attacking Iran any time soon.
    recommended by  Vierotchka
    shelchak
  • Vierotchka
  • Vierotchka
  • Vierotchka
  • What's a rational American foreign policy?
    Vierotchka
  • Why does US need military bases around the world?
    Vierotchka
  • Is the US 'encircling' China?

    What would a rational American foreign policy look like?

    Americans should question the assumption that the US has to be the most powerful nation on earth.
    Vierotchka
  • How should the US fight international terrorism?
    Vierotchka
  • In the US, we seem to have a tendency to view "sanctions" as an alternative to war, but in my view, the imposition of sanctions against a sovereign nation IS an act of war. It is an age old tactic that was know in the middle ages as "siege warfare", the only difference being, it is now imposed on a global scale. Economically strangling a nation into submission may seem like a more humanitarian alternative to traditional warfare (at least that is how it is generally presented in the American corporate media), but for the ordinary citizen watching their child slowly die due to inadequate nutrition, or lack of lifesaving medications, the consequences are every bit as tragic.

    What would Americans think if "sanctions" were imposed against us because the ruling class of other nations were unhappy with the behavior of our leaders?
    recommended by  Vierotchka
    Bovey
  • If Iran comes close to actually archiving the creation of nuclear weapons Israel will do everything in its power to prevent the creation of such weapons regardless of what the worlds opinion is. I believe this response is so highly probable it is basically a fact. I also believe Iran knows this, these countries and the world are playing a very dangerous game of chicken.
    cire122

Add your response

Login/Registration is required to add a response.