UN tells Israel to let in nuclear inspectors As nuclear peace talks are cancelled, overwhelming vote by general assembly calls for Israel to join nonproliferation treaty [image: A vote by the United Nations has called on Israel to open its nuclear programme to inspectors] A vote by the United Nations general assembly has called on Israel to open its nuclear programme to weapons inspectors. Photograph: Chip East/Reuters The UN general assembly has overwhelmingly approved a resolution calling on Israel <http://www.theguardian.com/world/israel> to open its nuclear programme for inspection.
The resolution, approved by a vote of 174 to six with six abstentions, calls on Israel to join the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) "without further delay" and open its nuclear facilities to inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Those voting against were Israel, the US, Canada, Marshall Islands, Micronesia and Palau. Resolutions adopted by the 193-member general assembly are not legally binding but they do reflect world opinion and carry moral and political weight. And the resolution adds to pressure on Israel as it faces criticism over plans to increase settlement in the West Bank <http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/dec/03/israel-defiant-settlement-expansion-europe>, a move seen as retaliation for the assembly recognising Palestinian statehood. Israel refuses to confirm or deny possessing nuclear bombs though it is widely believed to have them. It has refused to join the non-proliferation treaty along with three nuclear weapon states: India, Pakistan and North Korea. Israel insists there must first be a Middle East peace agreement before the establishment of a proposed regional zone free of weapons of mass destruction. Its rivals in the region argue that Israel's undeclared nuclear arsenal presents the greatest threat to peace in the region. While the US voted against the resolution, it voted in favour of two paragraphs in it that were put to separate votes. Both support universal adherence to the NPT and call on those countries that aren't parties to ratify it "at the earliest date". The only no votes on those paragraphs were Israel and India. The vote came as a sequel to the cancellation of a high-level conference aimed at banning nuclear weapons <http://www.theguardian.com/world/nuclear-weapons> from the Middle East. All the Arab nations and Iran had planned to attend the summit in mid-December in Helsinki, Finland, but the US announced on 23 November that it would not take place, citing political turmoil in the region and Iran's defiant stance on non-proliferation. Iran and some Arab nations countered that the real reason for the cancellation was Israel's refusal to attend. Just before Monday's vote, the Iranian diplomat Khodadad Seifi told the assembly "the truth is that the Israeli regime is the only party which rejected to conditions for a conference". He called for "strong pressure on that regime to participate in the conference without any preconditions". Israeli diplomat Isi Yanouka told the general assembly his country had continuously pointed to the danger of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, singling out Iran and Syria by name. "All these cases challenge Israel's security and cast a dark shadow at the prospect of embarking on a meaningful regional security process," he said. "The fact that the sponsors include in this anti-Israeli resolution language referring to the 2012 conference proves above all the ill intent of the Arab states with regard to this conference." The Syrian diplomat Abdullah Hallak told the assembly his government was angry the conference was not going to take place because of "the whim of just one party, a party with nuclear warheads". "We call on the international community to put pressure on Israel to accept the NPT, get rid of its arsenal and delivery systems, in order to allow for peace and stability in our region," he said. The conference's main sponsors are the US, Russia and Britain. The British foreign office minister Alistair Burt has said it is being postponed, not cancelled. On Thursday, October 9, 2014 10:34:50 AM UTC-5, Travis wrote: > > > > > > > > > *Obama Secretly Giving In to Iran’s Nuke Demands* > > Posted By *Majid Rafizadeh* On October 9, 2014 > > For several reasons, President Obama appears to be desperate to seal a > final nuclear deal with the Islamic Republic, even if the comprehensive > nuclear pact would leave the Iranian leaders with the nuclear > infrastructure and required centrifuges to build an atomic bomb. Based on > the latest developments, it is clear the Obama administration has steadily > become much more lenient and compromising, giving unprecedented concessions > to the Islamic Republic, some of which have been kept clandestine > <http://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-white-house-iran-20140920-story.html> > . > > As the nuclear talks continue between Iranian leaders and representatives > from the P5+1 (China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the > United States), the nuclear negotiations have turned primarily into a show > between the United States and the Islamic Republic. Increasingly, Iranian > and American politicians from both sides have been holding bilateral talks > in order to strike a nuclear deal by the extended deadline of November 24. > > The US and Iran appear to be the two major players in the nuclear talks, > as the White House began reshaping the nuclear negotiations which fall > right into the interests of Iranian politicians. > > First of all, the main demand of the United States and other world powers > was that the Islamic Republic had to dismantle its nuclear infrastructure > for the United Nations Security Council to remove the four rounds of > economic and political sanctions on Iran. Dismantlement of the major > nuclear facilities would give the international community a considerable > amount of relief from Iran’s potential to develop an atomic bomb anytime > soon. > > In the past months, the nuclear talks became stagnant due to the fact that > Iranian leaders, particularly Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and the > senior cadre of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps, suggested that they will > not give an inch or dismantle their nuclear infrastructure. > > How did President Obama respond to Iranian leaders’ zero sum political > game and uncompromising standpoint? Intriguingly, President Obama made a > decision to secretly lower the international community’s demands to satisfy > the Iranian nuclear team’s demands. It is key to point out that the > decision he made highlights a significant shift in nuclear negotiations. > The White House proposed that the Islamic Republic disconnect rather than > dismantle its centrifuges, which can be used to enrich uranium and obtain a > nuclear bomb. This is a critical shift in the American position towards > Iran’s nuclear defiance. > > President Obama’s proposal to the Islamic Republic would in fact leave > Iranian leaders with all their nuclear infrastructure they have so far > developed. Iranian leaders would also be capable of secretly continuing to > enrich uranium through bypassing the International Atomic Energy Agency > (IAEA)’s rules. In addition, since the nuclear infrastructure and > centrifuges would remain almost intact, the Islamic Republic would be > capable of resuming its nuclear activities anytime they desire in the > future; this can occur potentially after economic sanctions were removed > and Iran’s objective achieved. > > President Obama’s offer to the Iranian leaders was kept secret from the > public and US Congress as well. The proposal was disclosed by the Iranian > Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif who held private conversations with > U.S. experts in New York. > > After President Obama’s proposal was revealed, Congress understandably > raised a series of concerns. Senator Mark Steven Kirk (R-Ill.) initiated a > letter, which included thirty other Senators, to Secretary of State John > Kerry, pointing out > <http://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-white-house-iran-20140920-story.html> > > that the Obama administration “may now be offering troubling nuclear > concessions to Iran in the hopes of rapidly concluding negotiations for a > ‘deal.’” > > President Obama will be in office for a few more years, but if the final > nuclear deal is signed based on President Obama’s proposal, it will pose an > unprecedented danger and an irresolvable global issue with regard to the > Islamic Republic’s nuclear threat as well as Tehran’s ideological and > hegemonic ambitions. > > Numerous reasons may be behind President Obama’s leniency, priority > changes and determination to strike a final nuclear deal with Iran. First > of all, Obama cannot run for reelection. As a result, a flimsy nuclear deal > — which would leave the Islamic Republic with a path to develop a nuclear > bomb — would not affect his political career. Secondly, President Obama can > add another achievement to his political career and history for being the > first US President to seal a final nuclear deal with the Islamic Republic > of Iran. > > Third, President Obama’s leadership has always been weak when it comes to > dealing with Iran’s Supreme Leader and Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps. > Iranian leaders have masterfully taken advantage of his leaderless > personality. The Islamic Republic is even attempting to get more > concessions from the White House by linking its fight against the Islamic > State with the nuclear negations as a trade off. Apparently, all odds are > in favor of the Iranian leaders so far as they are cognizant of that fact > that they are facing a lenient and weak US President and as they are > increasingly and steadily increasing their leverage over the US. > > President Obama’s proposal and leniency would grant Ayatollah Khamenei > what he desires: removal of economic sanctions as well as maintaining the > right the enrich uranium; build an atomic bomb. > > *Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: **Click here* > <http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&field-keywords=david+horowitz&rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&qid=1316459840&rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&sort=daterank>*. > > * > > *Subscribe* > <http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&id=c761755bdf>* > > to Frontpage’s TV show, The Glazov Gang, and **LIKE* > <https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang>* it on **Facebook.* > <https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang> > ------------------------------ > > Article printed from FrontPage Magazine: *http://www.frontpagemag.com > <http://www.frontpagemag.com>* > > URL to article: > *http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/majid-rafizadeh/obama-secretly-giving-in-to-irans-nuke-demands/ > > <http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/majid-rafizadeh/obama-secretly-giving-in-to-irans-nuke-demands/>* > > > > > __._,_.___ > ------------------------------ > Posted by: "Beowulf" <[email protected] <javascript:>> > ------------------------------ > > > Visit Your Group > <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/grendelreport/info;_ylc=X3oDMTJmajE3MW04BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIwMTk0ODA2BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTMyMzY2NwRzZWMDdnRsBHNsawN2Z2hwBHN0aW1lAzE0MTI4NjY4MjQ-> > > > - New Members > > <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/grendelreport/members/all;_ylc=X3oDMTJnODk3cmlpBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIwMTk0ODA2BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTMyMzY2NwRzZWMDdnRsBHNsawN2bWJycwRzdGltZQMxNDEyODY2ODI0> > > 1 > > [image: Yahoo! Groups] > <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo;_ylc=X3oDMTJlajNkYnM3BF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzIwMTk0ODA2BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTMyMzY2NwRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNnZnAEc3RpbWUDMTQxMjg2NjgyNA--> > > • Privacy <https://info.yahoo.com/privacy/us/yahoo/groups/details.html> • > Unsubscribe <javascript:> • Terms of Use > <https://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/> > > __,_._,___ > > > -- -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
