Obama, Sarkozy discuss Iran nuclear 'compliance'

[tocqueville]

Source: AFP

WASHINGTON (AFP) – US President Barack Obama and his French counterpart discussed Tuesday ways to bring Iran "into compliance" with UN resolutions on its nuclear program ahead of diplomatic talks, the White House said.

"The two leaders discussed the status of diplomatic efforts to bring Iran into compliance with its international obligations on its nuclear program," a statement said after Obama spoke by telephone with French President Nicolas Sarkozy.

......

The upcoming meeting represents a "fulfillment" of Obama's pledge to engage with the Islamic Republic despite three decades of hostility between Washington and Tehran, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said.

"We have made clear to the Iranians that any talks we participate in must address the nuclear issue head on. It cannot be ignored," even though Tehran has so far ignored such appeals, she added.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090916/pl_afp/irannuclear...

---

France steps up nuclear rhetoric against Iran
Wed, 16 Sep 2009 05:24:37 GMT

French President Nicolas Sarkozy claims Iran is secretly working on nuclear arms.

As major world powers voice readiness to hold talks with Iran about concerns over the country's nuclear work, France moves to raise new allegations against the Islamic Republic.

"It is a certainty to all of our secret services. Iran is working today on a nuclear program," French President Nicolas Sarkozy told lawmakers from his conservative UMP party on Tuesday.
.....

"The two leaders discussed the status of diplomatic efforts to bring Iran into compliance with its international obligations on its nuclear program," a statement said after a telephone conversation between Obama and Sarkozy.

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=106320§ionid=3...

[Old Hob]

1. Keep talking. I'm sure Iran will be responsive to more talk.

[Ghost Dog]

2. "It is a certainty to all of our secret services."

Could we, the people, (and of course the IAEA) see some actual reliable evidence of that, then, please?

S'il vous plait monsieur?

[tocqueville]

3. there is one thing that is sure...

to justify your own enrichment, one has to have a plan to have or possess already at least 12 modern reactors. Or else the costs of producing the fuel are not economically sustainable compared to the gains you make in power production. Even a country like Sweden with 12 reactors doesn't enrich its own fuel, but buys the whole cycle (production, transfer and plutonium/waste separation) from the big specialist countries (USA, France, UK, Russia etc...). Iran has so far refused to enter the IAEA proposed fuel management cycle (which guarantees transparency and the non-diversion of fuel to military means) and cannot justify it credibly either politically (they even refused a Russian offering) or economically. That's why the whole Iranian story is so fishy.

[Ghost Dog]

4. Good point. But

(present circumstances notwithstanding) I'm not sure, long-term, any Iranian government would have any more reason to trust Russia's than any other "Great Power's" offer to provide such an essential service.

Who would France trust? Who would Britain? (Ok, Ok, don't answer that last). Edit: A truly international authority, organisation and undertaking would be a different story.

The present Iranian government, I would have thought, must be planning more nuclear power stations, as you say (is there really no record of that?), assuming the long-term strategy of providing itself with a long-term independent energy source coupled with conservation of petrochemical industry raw material reserves (which will almost inevitably become much more valuable in the future) is their real aim.

As regards military options, since that's what we say the fuss is about, of course it would have been much better if nobody had started threatening anybody in this way in the region in the first place... But, come on, we all know which of us carry the really big sticks around here (and there). The issue there, it seems to me, is that we're saying, well, neither the US nor the Soviet Union were MAD enough to step over that line (although, in the US's case, history tells...); however, when it comes to Islamic governments (in our ignorance or deliberate denial, perhaps) we suspect insanity.

Meanwhile, of course, Western Powers and their corporate interests have in no way, on their side, ever threatened nor been seen to employ aggressive covert nor overt means, as opposed to normal diplomatic and commercial means, in order to grab natural resources out of the lands of others. Oh, wait.

I don't know. Convince me. I just don't see the credible threat from 'their' side. I do see much threatening behaviour (and accompanying propaganda) on 'our' side. We are all aware of the alignment of powerful interests, and of their history, on 'our' side.

[tocqueville]

5. I think that previous experiences....

Iraq (aborted), India, Pakistan, North Korea have all started in "innocent" civil nuclear projects and ended up in military ones. I think that in the ME case (and powder keg) and due to Israels special role, the West doesn't take any chances. In the case of Iran it would result in a nuclearization of the region which is at the same time one the West's main energy supplier. Besides the Russians are playing a dirty role in that story : they oppose sanctions and at the same time more or less "push" Israel to attack : that would be a win-win situation for them since an Israeli attack would postopone a nuclearisation of Iran (if it works) and the Russians are not intrested in a nuclear power at their southern border, highly embarass the US (which is unlikely to stop an Israeli violation of Iraqi airspace), result in an Irani retaliation in the Hormuz strait sending oil prices sky rocketing while supplies are crippled and permit Russia to sell its oil and gas at the new "market price". That's why the West is trying to circumvent that likely chain of events by increasing the pressure on Iran to avert an Israeli strike. Of course everything could be defused by overtly threatening Israel that any attempt will be denied, by force if necessary, but nobody has the guts. We are going towards a "Cuba crisis" because everybody "misinterprets" the other's intentions.

[Ghost Dog]

6. Yes. Because of the conventional energy industries,

and because of the "special role" of Israel (and, I would add, of Saudi Arabia, which I also see pushing for a confrontation/resolution of this situation) the rest of the "Powers" can only look hard and see how best to play the cards in their hands.

Even though Iran is very probably only seeking to defend itself.

I think we are looking at a situation that will be much more difficult to resolve than was the "Cuba crisis", because this time the trump cards are in the hands of the relatively "minor" (although most immediately concerned) players, not in those of the big powers.

I guess it's going to blow, then.

Interesting game of chess.