How many people knew this was going to happen?
GENEVA - A U.S. decision to bend policy and sit down with Iran at nuclear talks fizzled Saturday, with Iran stonewalling Washington and five other world powers on their call to freeze uranium enrichment.
In response, the six gave Iran two weeks to respond to their demand, setting the stage for a new round of U.N. sanctions.
Iran's refusal to consider suspending enrichment was an indirect slap at the United States, which had sent Undersecretary of State William Burns to the talks in hopes the first-time American presence would encourage Tehran into making concessions.
Officials and diplomats refused to characterize the timeframe as an ultimatum, but it appeared clear that Iran now has a de-facto deadline to show flexibility.
EU envoy Javier Solana said that Iran still has to answer a request made on behalf of the five permanent U.N. Security Council members plus Germany to "refrain from any new nuclear activity."
"We have not gotten all the answers to the questions," Solana told reporters. He said the two-week timeframe was meant to give Iran the space to come up with "the answers that will allow us to continue."
In Washington, a U.S. official was blunter.
"We hope the Iranian people understand that their leaders need to make a choice between cooperation, which would bring benefits to all, and confrontation, which can only led to further isolation," said State Department spokesman Sean McCormack.
In diplomatic terms, "further isolation" is shorthand for economic and political sanctions.
Keyvan Imani, a member of the Iranian delegation cast doubt over the value of talks less then an hour after they started. "Suspension — there is no chance for that," he told reporters.
Imani also downplayed the presence of Burns — even though the Americans had previously said they would not talk with the Iranians on nuclear issues unless they were ready to stop all enrichment.
"He is (just) a member of the delegation," Imani said.
Chief Iranian negotiator Saeed Jalili evaded the issue of suspension, demanded as part of the six-power proposal that carries a commitment of no new U.N. sanctions in exchange for an Iranian pledge to stop expanding its enrichment program.
"Iran is calling on the Western powers to resume the dialogue," he said.
Iran already is under three sets of U.N. sanctions for its refusal to suspend enrichment, which can generate both nuclear fuel and the fissile material at the core of nuclear warheads. While Tehran says it has a right to enrich for peaceful purposes, the sanctions reflect international concern that it might use its program to make weapons.
The offer delivered to Iranian officials last month by Solana envisions a six-week commitment from Iran to stop expanding enrichment and from their interlocutors to agree to a moratorium on new sanctions for up to six weeks.
That is meant to create the framework for formal negotiations which the six nations hope would secure Iran's commitment to an indefinite ban on enrichment.
Recent Iranian statements had suggested the country is looking to improve ties with the United States, with officials speaking positively of deliberations by the Bush administration to open an interests section — an informal diplomatic presence — in Tehran after closing its embassy decades ago.
Iran and the United States broke off diplomatic relations after the 1979 Islamic Revolution and the hostage crisis at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran. Official contacts between the two countries are extremely rare.
Burns' decision to attend the Geneva talks showed that Washington was willing to accept something less than fully dismantling the program as it had always demanded — at least as a first step.
U.S officials had insisted Burns was at the table to listen only, describing his presence as a one-time occasion. But State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said otherwise.
Burns delivered "a clear simple message" when it was his turn to speak, McCormack told reporters in Washington.
He cited Burns as telling the his Tehran counterpart: "Iran must suspend uranium enrichment to have negotiations involving the United States."
Iran needed now to "make a choice between cooperation, which would bring benefits to all, and confrontation, which can only led to further isolation," McCormack said.
John Bolton, who has served as Washington's former ambassador to the U.N and as undersecretary of state in charge of the Iran file, the outcome proved that Tehran never had "serious intntions to give up its nuclear program."
Alluding to the possibility of harsher EU sanctions, he told the AP: "I think maybe this will convince the Europeans to take stronger steps."
___
In response, the six gave Iran two weeks to respond to their demand, setting the stage for a new round of U.N. sanctions.
Iran's refusal to consider suspending enrichment was an indirect slap at the United States, which had sent Undersecretary of State William Burns to the talks in hopes the first-time American presence would encourage Tehran into making concessions.
Officials and diplomats refused to characterize the timeframe as an ultimatum, but it appeared clear that Iran now has a de-facto deadline to show flexibility.
EU envoy Javier Solana said that Iran still has to answer a request made on behalf of the five permanent U.N. Security Council members plus Germany to "refrain from any new nuclear activity."
"We have not gotten all the answers to the questions," Solana told reporters. He said the two-week timeframe was meant to give Iran the space to come up with "the answers that will allow us to continue."
In Washington, a U.S. official was blunter.
"We hope the Iranian people understand that their leaders need to make a choice between cooperation, which would bring benefits to all, and confrontation, which can only led to further isolation," said State Department spokesman Sean McCormack.
In diplomatic terms, "further isolation" is shorthand for economic and political sanctions.
Keyvan Imani, a member of the Iranian delegation cast doubt over the value of talks less then an hour after they started. "Suspension — there is no chance for that," he told reporters.
Imani also downplayed the presence of Burns — even though the Americans had previously said they would not talk with the Iranians on nuclear issues unless they were ready to stop all enrichment.
"He is (just) a member of the delegation," Imani said.
Chief Iranian negotiator Saeed Jalili evaded the issue of suspension, demanded as part of the six-power proposal that carries a commitment of no new U.N. sanctions in exchange for an Iranian pledge to stop expanding its enrichment program.
"Iran is calling on the Western powers to resume the dialogue," he said.
Iran already is under three sets of U.N. sanctions for its refusal to suspend enrichment, which can generate both nuclear fuel and the fissile material at the core of nuclear warheads. While Tehran says it has a right to enrich for peaceful purposes, the sanctions reflect international concern that it might use its program to make weapons.
The offer delivered to Iranian officials last month by Solana envisions a six-week commitment from Iran to stop expanding enrichment and from their interlocutors to agree to a moratorium on new sanctions for up to six weeks.
That is meant to create the framework for formal negotiations which the six nations hope would secure Iran's commitment to an indefinite ban on enrichment.
Recent Iranian statements had suggested the country is looking to improve ties with the United States, with officials speaking positively of deliberations by the Bush administration to open an interests section — an informal diplomatic presence — in Tehran after closing its embassy decades ago.
Iran and the United States broke off diplomatic relations after the 1979 Islamic Revolution and the hostage crisis at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran. Official contacts between the two countries are extremely rare.
Burns' decision to attend the Geneva talks showed that Washington was willing to accept something less than fully dismantling the program as it had always demanded — at least as a first step.
U.S officials had insisted Burns was at the table to listen only, describing his presence as a one-time occasion. But State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said otherwise.
Burns delivered "a clear simple message" when it was his turn to speak, McCormack told reporters in Washington.
He cited Burns as telling the his Tehran counterpart: "Iran must suspend uranium enrichment to have negotiations involving the United States."
Iran needed now to "make a choice between cooperation, which would bring benefits to all, and confrontation, which can only led to further isolation," McCormack said.
John Bolton, who has served as Washington's former ambassador to the U.N and as undersecretary of state in charge of the Iran file, the outcome proved that Tehran never had "serious intntions to give up its nuclear program."
Alluding to the possibility of harsher EU sanctions, he told the AP: "I think maybe this will convince the Europeans to take stronger steps."
___
Comments
Sort By:
Raves
|
Date
-
raves +1 posted Jul 21, 2008 02:25PM GMT
reply
In war,.... sometimes waiting to see what the other guy does... only means that you get to count your dead first. -
raves +2 posted Jul 21, 2008 02:01PM GMTYes. I am aware of the talks and as of yet have not heard anything that would indicate a move on either side to back away from their positions. Its a stand off. Speculation leads to actions, so perhaps this is a subject the media should follow and report but keep opinions out of the discuss as it may cause escalation.
-
raves +1 posted Jul 21, 2008 01:40AM GMTNeed to take 'em out. I think Israel may act soon, then they'll see what's up.
-
raves +2 posted Jul 21, 2008 01:29AM GMToh lord, what fun have we americans gotten ourselves into now?
-
raves +2 posted Jul 20, 2008 08:36PM GMTLooks like more war.....oh yes oh yes oh oh yes.....We keep getting ourselves into these messes
-
raves +3 posted Jul 20, 2008 07:35PM GMTI just heard them taking about this on the news this morning.
-
raves +1 posted Jul 20, 2008 05:04PM GMTIran has always played games with us unless it was the time that we were supplying armor to them. I have the simplist solution to the Iran thing and it's like just nuke them, or better yet covert action and blow their nuke enrichment plants and let them be of their own destruction.
-
raves +4 posted Jul 20, 2008 06:55AM GMT (edited)As I set back in my chair, pondering the motive of Iran. What truly is their end game, what do they get for all this hassle? They have as examples of pride, Saddam and George Bush. Surely they don't what that.
Do they want a counter to Israel? Far cheaper to strap some C4 on a youngster and drive to the nearest shopping center.
No, this is being driven by the Shiite belief in a messiah. They believe they can summon the days of peace and Paradise via destruction.
They make it a desert and call it peace. Publius Cornelius Tacitus
On a closely related topic, we all should know by now that this Country is no longer being run under a Constitutional form of government. There are groups in this Country who want us of the great unwashed to live or die by their word.
Please, before you say it; if there is no such thing as a conspiracy, then where'd the word come from? -
raves +1 Jul 21, 2008 01:04PM GMTA thousand raves!
-
raves +1 Jul 21, 2008 01:51PM GMTThank you Nina. My thoughts are only now starting to gel, as it were. I knew there was something wrong years ago. It's only now starting to come in focus.
-
raves +3 posted Jul 20, 2008 03:38AM GMTLooks like they wanted to move on it before Obama shows how easy it could be done!
-
raves +4 Jul 20, 2008 03:40AM GMTAt first they were calling him crazy for wanting to talk with them. I think Iran is just playing a game with us anyway.
-
raves +2 posted Jul 20, 2008 03:32AM GMTGood info.
-
raves +2 Jul 20, 2008 03:39AM GMTSomehow when they announced we would be talking to Iran, I figured it would not go through as planned. Now a deadline has been given and we are playing the waiting game.
-
raves +4 Jul 20, 2008 04:05AM GMTSo many thing can go wrong in today's world. We only thought we had trouble with the old USSR. Never though I would think of them as part of the good old days. And when it comes to us making a bargain we aways come up with the short end of things.
-
raves +2 Jul 20, 2008 04:18AM GMT
-
raves +1 Aug 03, 2008 11:58PM GMTI just wonder if the 4,200 plus American Service men appreciate us talking about how much fun are we about to get ourselves into. That is not to mention their wives, children and families.
-
raves Aug 04, 2008 12:52AM GMTRight, I do not think the government thinks about these things. I feel bad for the family of our service men. They are getting the short end of the stick.
