Rice criticises Britian over stance on Iran

Condoleezza Rice issued a thinly veiled rebuke to Britain and other European allies yesterday for failing to lay down the law to Iran over nuclear weapons.

Her remarks cast a chilly air over a whirlwind European tour that has otherwise been dominated by swooning coverage of the new US secretary of state, from her expensively-tailored suits to her life story as the first black woman to reach such high rank in American history.

In an interview that was aimed at domestic American television viewers, Miss Rice told Fox News that Iran should be warned it faces United Nations sanctions unless it accepts a last-minute European Union diplomatic deal on scaling back its nuclear activities.

"[The] Iranians need to hear that if they are unwilling to take the deal, really, that the Europeans are giving … then the Security Council looms," she said.

"I don't know that anyone has said that as clearly as they should to the Iranians," she added.

The remarks put pressure not only on Iran, but also on the trio of EU nations - Britain, France and Germany - behind the attempted diplomatic settlement.

Speaking later after a meeting with European commissioners in Brussels, Miss Rice struck a more emollient tone.

She preferred to stress what she called a "unity of purpose" shared by Europe and America over the need to promote a peaceful "positive" future for Iran, and for China - another source of tension - with the EU planning to lift an arms embargo on Beijing imposed after the 1989 Tiananmen massacre. But in Teheran, President Mohammed Khatami said that no Iranian government would ever give up what he insisted was a "peaceful" nuclear programme.

The president defended what he said was Iran's "clear right" to pursue uranium enrichment. He warned the EU that if Iran felt that the promises made to it were being broken, then it would walk away from the EU deal, and might adopt an unspecified "new policy", which would have "massive consequences".
Can't help agreeing with the Yanks on this one.

Question: Why does a country with an abundance of fossil fuels (most of which it exports!) need nuclear power? Answer?

For my money, there is only one answer. They want nuclear weapons. Now, call me racist, but the idea of an anti-western, anti-christian nation possessing nukes is not one I find particularly comforting! Not so sure there is too much we can do about it though. Which is even less comforting!

I'm getting the feeling we really, and I mean REALLY need to start finding either a - alternate sources of fossil fuel (Antartica anyone?) or b - develop non-fossill fuels ASAP. I think that if the US govt made a deadlilne, as they did for landing on the Moon, it can be done. (And yes, I got that from George Clooney).

The longer we rely on those jokers in the Middle East for fuel, the more they can dictate to us. And that is seeming less and less of a good thing! :(
I agree with you on the fact that they will most likely use them to bully their neighbours and cajole the yanks but one of the pinkos in my work came up with a reasonable point today.

If we are all to try and stick to the kyoto plan (re emissions and fossil fuels) then surely we all need a proven method of produing energy, hence the nuclear power station. Therefore can we legitimatley stop them from developing nuke power plants?

And yes i did tell him to grow up and that not everybody is honest enough not to make a nuke from the waste :D

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads