| Author | Message | | Alpha | | Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2006 7:38 pm Post subject: Silence the War Drums |
| Silence the War Drums
by Ron Paul
Before the US House of Representatives, February 16, 2006
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this very dangerous legislation. My colleagues would do well to understand that this legislation is leading us toward war against Iran.
Those reading this bill may find themselves feeling a sense of déjà vu. In many cases one can just substitute "Iraq" for "Iran" in this bill and we could be back in the pre-2003 run up to war with Iraq. And the logic of this current push for war is much the same as was the logic used in the argument for war on Iraq. As earlier with Iraq, this resolution demands that Iran perform the impossible task of proving a negative – in this case that Iran does not have plans to build a nuclear weapon.
There are a few things we need to remember when thinking about Iran and this legislation. First, Iran has never been ruled in violation of its international nuclear non-proliferation obligations.
Second, Iran concluded a Safeguards Agreement more than 30 years ago that provides for the verification of Iran's fulfillment of its obligation to not divert nuclear energy programs to nuclear weapons development. Since this agreement was reached, the International Atomic Energy Agency has never found any indication that Iran has diverted or attempted to divert source or special nuclear materials from a peaceful purpose to a military purpose.
But, this does not stop those eager for conflict with Iran from stating otherwise. As the Washington Post reported last year, "U.S. officials, eager to move the Iran issue to the U.N. Security Council – which has the authority to impose sanctions – have begun a new round of briefings for allies designed to convince them that Iran's real intention is to use its energy program as a cover for bomb building. The briefings will focus on the White House's belief that a country with as much oil as Iran would not need an energy program on the scale it is planning, according to two officials."
This reminds us of the quick move to justify the invasion of Iraq by citing Iraq's "intentions" when actual weapons of mass destruction could not be found.
The resolution's second resolved clause is a real misrepresentation of the Iran/EU3 talks. The "efforts of France, Germany, and the United Kingdom" were not "to seek...suspension of enrichment and reprocessing related activities..." As the EU3-Iran Paris Agreement makes very clear, the suspension of enrichment is a purely voluntary measure taken by Iran and is "not a legal obligation."
This is similar to the situation with Iran's voluntarily observation of the Additional Protocols (allowing unannounced inspections) without legally being bound to do so. Suspending voluntary observance of the Additional Protocols is not a violation of the NPT. But, those seeking to push us toward war with Iran are purposely trying to connect the two – to confuse voluntary "confidence building" measures taken by Iran with the legally-binding Treaty itself.
Resolved clause four of this legislation is the most inflammatory and objectionable part of the legislation. It lowers the bar to initiating war on Iran. This clause anticipates that the US may not be successful in getting the Security Council to pass a Resolution because of the potential of a Russian or Chinese veto, so it "calls upon" Russia and China to "take action" in response to "any report" of "Iran's noncompliance. That is right: any report.
Mr. Speaker, this resolution is a drumbeat for war with Iran. Its logic is faulty, its premises are flawed, and its conclusions are dangerous. I urge my colleagues to stop for a moment and ponder the wisdom of starting yet another war in the Middle East.
February 20, 2006
Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.
Ron Paul Archives
Find this article at:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul304.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iran in Neo-Con Crosshairs:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2006/02/20/iran-in-neo-con-crosshairs.php
http://nomorewarforisrael.blogspot.com | |  | | Alpha | | Posted: Tue Feb 21, 2006 10:33 am Post subject: Iran spurns Russian demand for enrichment freeze |
| Iran spurns Russian demand for enrichment freeze
By Oleg Shchedrov
5 minutes ago
Iran showed few signs on Tuesday that it was ready to strike a deal with Russia that could allay fears it wants nuclear arms and avert possible U.N. sanctions.
After two days of talks in Moscow, Russian and Iranian negotiators said they planned more discussions this week on a Russian proposal to enrich uranium for Iran, seen as a way to ensure Tehran cannot divert nuclear fuel into bomb-making.
But the two sides appeared far apart, with Iran's foreign minister ruling out any return to a moratorium on uranium enrichment, which Russia has repeatedly demanded.
"We discussed a joint formula and we will continue talks," said Ali Hosseinitash, deputy secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security, who led his country's delegation in Moscow.
"Our assessment of this offer is positive," he added.
The Russians were more circumspect, with Foreign Ministry spokesman Mikhail Kamynin saying only that Moscow's proposal had been examined in detail and that more talks were planned.
Sergei Kiriyenko, head of Russia's atomic energy agency Roastom, is due to travel to Iran on Thursday.
Kamynin, quoted by Itar-Tass news agency, said Moscow had again stressed that Iran must restore the enrichment moratorium.
However, Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said this was out of the question and Tehran would press ahead with its nuclear work with or without the Russian plan.
"Returning to the suspension of our nuclear activities is not on our agenda," Mottaki said on his return to Tehran after talks on the nuclear issue with EU officials in Brussels.
U.S. officials suggest Iran is discussing the Russian plan merely to gain time, a view shared by many Russian commentators.
"Their aim is to haggle, to put off as long as possible the hour when sanctions from the international community become unavoidable," wrote the daily Izvestia.
Tehran has said it will consider a joint venture with Russia and possibly others to enrich uranium for power stations, but reserves the right to pursue enrichment at home as well. It says it wants nuclear fuel only to produce electricity, not bombs.
POSSIBLE SANCTIONS
Iran may face action by the U.N. Security Council after Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, formally reports on Tehran's nuclear program at a March 6 meeting of the U.N. watchdog's governing board.
He is expected to circulate his report to members of the 35-nation board on February 27 so they can digest its conclusions.
Diplomats say they doubt the Security Council will rush into sanctions, which Russia, China and other countries oppose.
It may first reiterate IAEA demands for Iran to answer questions still outstanding after three years of investigations and then consider expanding the agency's inspection powers.
German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier urged Iran to change tack to stave off punitive measures. "We do not rule out the possibility of economic sanctions completely," he said.
Germany and other European countries have hardened their stance on the Iran nuclear issue after repeated calls by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for the destruction of Israel.
Russia and China, which could veto any move by the United States and its European allies to impose sanctions on Tehran, share concern about Iran's nuclear ambitions, but do not want to sacrifice their commercial interests in the Islamic Republic.
A Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman again urged Iran to restore a freeze on uranium enrichment activities to create the conditions for a negotiated solution.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has said it might be hard for Moscow to resist calls for U.N. sanctions unless Iran resumes the moratorium it abandoned in January.
Analysts and European diplomats in Tehran said Iran's tough line was a ploy to draw Washington into the nuclear talks.
"They know that the only way to address the issues they really want addressed, such as security concerns, is to talk to the Americans," said a European diplomat who said he had been told of the gambit by a senior Iranian official.
Iran's leaders, who want guarantees against any U.S. attack on a country listed by President George W. Bush as part of an "axis of evil," may believe the time to force the issue is now.
"They know that the Americans were not going to give up until they had sent Iran to the Security Council," said an Iranian political analyst, who asked not to be named.
"So they figured it was better to go to the council now, with America still struggling in Iraq and oil prices high, than say in two years when America may be in a stronger position."
(Additional reporting by Chris Buckley in Beijing, Teruaki Ueno in Tokyo, Meg Clothier in Moscow, Parisa Hafezi and Paul Huges in Tehran and Mark Heinrich in Vienna) | | | | Alpha | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
