Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

"Clinton sees sanctions hindering Iran nuclear plan"

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU
 
Clio the Leo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-09-10 11:09 PM
Original message
"Clinton sees sanctions hindering Iran nuclear plan"
Clinton sees sanctions hindering Iran nuclear plan

(Reuters) - Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on Wednesday newly imposed U.N. sanctions would "interfere with" Iran's nuclear ambitions, and held out hope Turkey and Brazil could play a role in further diplomatic outreach to Tehran.

Clinton, speaking to reporters in Colombia where she was on a visit, said she was gratified by the Security Council vote in which the 15-member body imposed new sanctions on Tehran by a 12-2 vote with one abstention.

"Our goal is not to sanction Iran. Our goal is to end any doubts and questions about the purpose of Iran's nuclear program and to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons and that is a goal that is widely embraced in the international community," Clinton said.

She said the new U.N. sanctions, which set new measures against banks and companies believed to be involved in Iran's nuclear program, would be effective and might ultimately bring Tehran into real negotiations.

"We can, we believe, slow down and certainly interfere with and make much more difficult their continuing nuclear program through these sanctions," Clinton said. "At the same time, we do want them back at the negotiating table.

Clinton said that Brazil and Turkey, two influential non-permanent members of the Security Council which voted against the sanctions resolution after failing to broker a temporary deal between Iran and the western powers, might yet have a role as bridges to Tehran.

"In the ongoing diplomatic outreach to Iran, I think that Turkey and Brazil will continue to play an important role," Clinton said, adding that the two emerging powers may have hoped to "keep the door open" to Iran by voting "no" on the sanctions resolution.

Clinton said there might be ways to influence different elements of Iran's leadership, some of whom she thought were doubtful about what she called the country's drive to achieve nuclear weapons capability.

"There is a diversity of opinion within the leadership," she said.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6585IE20100609?type=politicsNews


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
harun Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-09-10 11:10 PM
Response to Original message
1. Enough with the neo-con foreign policy already.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clio the Leo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-09-10 11:15 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. I wouldn't worry too much...
... part of this deal allowed Russia to sell surface to air missiles to Iran. With that in mind, invasion isn't going to be the preferred option.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
harun Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-10-10 07:22 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. Ah, that is how they got Russia not to veto it. Makes sense now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beacool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-10-10 08:46 AM
Response to Reply #1
5. And what is your solution?
Let's just allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons?

:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
harun Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-10-10 10:31 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. Get back to me when you have proof they are developing nuclear weapons.
Because they aren't. Even if they are, what could they do with them? As much as we do with them, nothing.

If they really wanted to develop them they could just opt-out of the NPT. Israel has nukes and isn't a signer of the NPT. They could simply say they are doing what Israel is doing. It would be completely legal.

We are not the boss of Iran. I don't agree with a lot of the way they govern either but it is none of my business.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beacool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-10-10 12:34 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. You really would trust that the kooks that un Iran won't use them?
You have more faith in them than I do.

;-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
4lbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-10-10 12:50 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. So, let me see, Iran wants to enrich uranium to weapons-grade level when you
Edited on Thu Jun-10-10 12:50 PM by 4lbs
don't need that for nuclear power reactors. There's a reason it's called "weapons-grade".

They also want to do this all by themselves, with no one watching, and without the help of the U.S. or France, two countries with long histories of nuclear power production. Why so secretive?


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
harun Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-10-10 04:16 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. They don't want to enrich to weapons grade. That is way more enriched than
they are doing. If they did they would be in violation of the NPT. They can enrich but not to that level. If they wanted to they would just withdraw from the NPT.

They have to be secretive because they can't trust most countries. Israel, United States and Saudi Arabia all want them destroyed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
4lbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-10-10 10:16 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. If they don't want to enrich to weapons-grade level, then why did the vast majority of the equipment
they purchase or want to purchase be what is required for weapons-grade enrichment? It's not needed for producing uranium rods to go into power reactors.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-10-10 04:21 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. Yes, poor Iran..they only have the best interests of
their citizens in mind..that's why they shot them down during the protests.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rosa Luxemburg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-10-10 08:01 AM
Response to Original message
4. as long as the ordinary people don't suffer
if the US has a problem with the Iranian government then it should sort out the government. They've probably got a spare Shah somewhere around.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue May 07th 2024, 07:05 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC