- Telegraph reported that the IAEA board of governors has voted 27 to three to report Iran to the UN Security Council.
- The IAEA published the text of the resolution.
- Reuters reported that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad issued an order to Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization to restart full-scale uranium enrichment, according to his website. However the Iranian presidential office denies the report.
- The New York Times reported that Donald H. Rumsfeld urged the world to work for a ”diplomatic solution” to halt Iran’s nuclear program, but cut out of his statement an important reference to the Iranian people.
- Reuters reported that U.S. Senator John McCain urged the world to impose economic and other sanctions on Iran, bypassing the United Nations if needed.
- Reuters reported that Richard Perle said on Saturday the West should not make the mistake of waiting too long to use military force if Iran comes close to getting an atomic weapon.
El más moderado: Rumsfeld. Aunque Angela Merkel tampoco le han dolido prendas a la hora de decir lo que piensa:
- Times Online reported that German chancellor, Angela Merkel, compared President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran to Adolf Hitler.
Una noticia traquilizadora:
- The Australian reported that Iran secretly tested a new surface-to-surface missile and it was successful.
- Reuters reported that Iran will press on with a contentious gas pipeline to Pakistan even if India does not meet a May deadline to join the project.
¿La razón? Barcepundit:
The International Atomic Energy Agency says it has evidence that suggests links between Iran’s ostensibly peaceful nuclear program and its military work on high explosives and missiles, according to a confidential agency report provided to member countries today.The four-page report, which officials say was based at least in part on intelligence provided by the United States, refers to a secretive Iranian entity called the “Green Salt Project,” which worked on uranium processing, high explosives and a missile warhead design. The combination suggests a “military-nuclear dimension,” the report said, that if true would undercut Iran’s claims that its nuclear program was solely aimed at producing electrical power.
The report will be debated by the 35 countries that make up the international agency’s board when they meet in emergency session on Thursday to decide whether Iran should be reported to the United Nations Security Council for its nuclear activities.
Lo que cabría esperar teniendo en cuenta que Irán es uno de los países con más petróleo y gas del mundo, como ya he dicho antes en más de una ocasión.
“We ended all the voluntary cooperation we have been extending to the IAEA in the past two-and-a-half to three years, on the basis of the president’s order,” Mottaki said. “We do not have any obligation toward the additional protocol (anymore).”
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad ordered the move Saturday in response to the U.N. agency’s decision to refer Iran to the Security Council, which could impose sanctions.
Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi, however, said Iran was open to negotiations on Moscow’s proposal that Iran shift its plan for large-scale enrichment of uranium to Russian territory. The plan is intended to allay world suspicions that Iran might use the process to develop a nuclear bomb.
His comments came a day after Javad Vaeidi, deputy head of the powerful National Security Council, said there was there was “no adequate reason to pursue the Russian plan.”
Uranium enriched to a low degree is used as fuel for nuclear reactors. But highly enriched uranium is suitable for making atomic bombs.
“The situation has changed. Still, we will attend talks with Russia on February 16,” Asefi said at a press conference.
“The proposal has to conform itself with the new circumstances,” he added. “If the Russian proposal makes itself compatible with the new conditions, it can be negotiated.“
Como me han pillao con el carrito del helao, digo, con las intenciones militares, me enfado y dejo de la colaborar. ¿Nos podemos fiar de Irán? Hmm, a ver. No. Esto es lo que había dicho Ahmadenijad justo antes de anunciarse que se iba a llevar el expediente a la ON (via Atlas Shrugs):
“Who are you to threaten the independent people of Iran? The Iranian people will follow their own path and will under no condition renounce their legitimate right,” he was quoted as saying by the official news agency IRNA.
Ahmadinejad also brushed aside a compromise proposal from Moscow, under which Iran’s uranium would be enriched in Russia in order to ally proliferation concerns but at the same time guarantee Iranian access to nuclear fuel.
“The propose to enrich abroad. They think we are backward. Even if we agreed to this, what would we do if one day they refused to give us fuel? How can we trust you to give us fuel if you don’t even let us buy airplane parts?” he said, referring to longstanding US sanctions.
Be certain that we will not back down,” he was quoted as saying earlier, having branded the Western powers as “resembling old lions with no hair or mane, incapable of doing anything.” “The oppressing powers… say the Iranian people and government want to be isolated, but I tell them that the ones who will be isolated are them.”
Como leo en El Reporter.com:
hoy quiero volver a retomar ese asunto al hilo de un artículo escrito por el periodista de origen iraní Amir Taheri, publicado en GES en el que hace un análisis claro y distinto que titula “La agenda de Irán para el mundo” en el que el presidente iraní Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, alegó en un discurso en el parlamento que la Democracia es indeseable en su país.
El régimen iraní es actualmente un equivalente al de Hitler en 1933: el nacionalsociaismo, que repudiaba la Democracia como indeseable. Por ello, creo que a Iran no sólo hay que pararle los pies. Hay que combatirle. Iran intenta implementar, primero a su sociedad, después a la sociedad islámica, después al mundo, su filosofía de una vida sin Democracia. La Democracia, para el régimen fascita de Iran, es pecado. En su discuros, Mahmoud rechaza airosamente todas las “ideas políticas extranjeras” por incompatibles con el islam.
Un muy buen artículo sobre la cuestión en The Brussels Journal:
For some who under-react it is a consideration that on the short run the menace, if it exists, is directed against the USA and Israel. Indeed, since neither can defer its security to another power, both are forced into roles that provoke the Islamists’ fury. The antipathy of the neutralists, leftists and some right-nationalists in Europe to these states precedes Iran’s nuclear projects. The idea is, regardless of contrary evidence, widespread that it is American-Israeli intransigence, such as now in facing Tehran’s moves, that bears responsibility for Ahmadinejad’s radicalism. It is frightening to contemplate the outrage provoked if Israel or Washington would mention Iran’s Ausradieren as a national goal. Coming from Iran (or similar sources) such pronouncements are bagatellized by noting that the phrase is old enough to be seen as folklore, it was not meant, and that it reflects an isolation that is best overcome by patiently ignoring the matter. Tehran’s hostility is said to be a reaction to concrete policies. Islamist revelations that their hostility is general and that they regard the concrete issues they articulate to be part of an over-all clash (of cultures), is ignored. This happens because such circles cannot believe in a collision of cultures, since they see little reason to defend their own. Why should others think otherwise? A contributory role is played by the doctrines of a “third-worldism” that assigns moral superiority to anything claiming to be non-western. There is also an inability to take seriously the message that, being an honest and sincere man, Ahmadinejad sends uncoded. Therefore some states feel that their immunity in the “war” can be guaranteed by putting a lot of light between themselves and the US-Israeli cabal.
Como dice Pastorius, me encanta cuando mis enemigos dicen la verdad. Aunque algunos no se enteran ni cuando se lo gritan en la cara… Pero el artículo sigue:
The negligent mismanagement of the response to Iran’s nuclear projects also includes among its causes a conflict between several highly held values. For one thing, there is the perceived need to atone for the immorality of “colonialism, imperialism” and for the success of the industrialized countries. These blemishes are converted, by a process that has more to do with psychology than with logic, into the moral superiority of the descendants of the victims. The other principle is the tradition of opposing everything that is nuclear – extending from electric stations to bombs. Add a bit of unconditional pacifism made relative by support for “liberation movements.” Spice with the caveat that only industrialized societies are capable of aggression. Finally, resolve the contradictions by closing your eyes and plugging your ears. The casual attitude regarding proliferation is especially surprising in the light of new developments. Nuclear weapons used to be instruments of states and governments. Today we are at the lowered threshold of a new phase of the nuclear age. With the direct or indirect access by terrorists, the mutual assured destruction (MAD) that kept us from nuclear – but not conventional – war since 1945, is ceasing to be operative. Retaliation, with made nuclear weapons of limited use as instruments of war, is of little use as a deterrent.
Terrorist WMDs have no return address on them. More: the goal of
terrorist movements is not the destruction of the instruments of power
of a state to be taken over after victory. A Götterdämmerung has no dissuasive effect in the case of people who, as Ahmedinejad does, expect the “return of the Mahdi.”
Exacto: ahí está la clave: Alguien que espera el retorno del Mahdi -no olvidemos que traerá definitivamente la justicia islámica definitiva- le importa poco la muerte de 3.000 o 150.000 infieles. Al fin y al cabo, ni siquiera son inocentes y encima son idiotas, porque aunque nacieron siendo musulmanes resulta que no se han enterado. Además, las armas de destrucción masiva iraquíes siguen en Siria, según Sada, según ya vimos hace unos días. Y claro, Al-Assad no tiene ningún inconveniente en prestárselas…
A lo que se une que alguien de quien ya hablé antes, Chávez, amenaza con comprar más armas:
Speaking in the capital Caracas, Mr Chavez said 100,000 Kalashnikov assault rifles already on order from Russia were not enough. [qué raro, Rusia vendiendo armas][...]
Wearing his trademark red army beret, Mr Chavez said Washington was considering invading Venezuela.
“I ask for permission … to buy another cargo of arms because the gringos want us unarmed. We have to defend our fatherland,” he said. “Venezuela needs to have one million well-equipped and well-armed men and women.” Last year the US tried to block the sale of 12 Spanish military planes to Venezuela that were made with US technology. But Madrid recently said it would go ahead with the sale using more expensive European parts. [claaaro, que malos son los USA y lo dice la misma televisión que dio por ciertas las caricaturas de Mahoma que eran falsas... ].
Turning to oil, the president said if the Bush administration wished to cut diplomatic ties to Venezuela, he would have no second thoughts about closing all the Venezuelan refineries in the US.
“Let’s see what’ll happen to the price of crude oil then”, Mr Chavez told his audience.
He said the US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had been wrong last week to compare the Venezuelan president with Adolf Hitler:
“The imperialist, genocidal, fascist attitude of the US president has no limits. I think Hitler would be like a suckling baby next to George W Bush.”
Y ¿por qué es interesante Chávez? Porque:
Cuba and Venezuela said they would oppose moves to refer Iran to the UN Security Council over an atomic program the West fears could be hiding weapons development, AFP reported.
“We will vote No,” Venezuelan Ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Gustavo Marquez Marin, told reporters, as the UN nuclear watchdog gathered in Vienna, where it was expected to endorse a European-led resolution demanding referral.
Venezuela was the only country to vote against a previous IAEA resolution in September opening the way for referral. Cuba, a new member of the board of governors, said in a statement it would also vote against referral, saying it would amount to “manipulation by the United States and their allies“