IAEA chief: Iran nuclear talks 'off to a good start'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushehr#Nuclear_development

"Iran has no nuclear power plant". Their intentions are clearly to build atomic bombs.

Iran should be "encouraged" to give up it's nuclear weapons project. The carrot is to help Iran develop petroleum, natural gas, wind,and solar power as well as to help develop infrastructure. Continental Europe and Russia could help with this. The stick is to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities. Britain and the US will have to do the job. That prevents Arab indignation against Israel. I don't believe that Obama would allow the bombing unfortunately. Britain would not act without the US. Nuclear power is a an iranian euphemism for nuclear weapons. If Iran gave a terrorist an iranian nuke and blew up part of Israel then there would be a horrible war. Let's hope Iran decides against nuclear power.

Mr. El Baradei is biased strongly against a few in the world who have embarrassed, humiliated, or thwarted his efforts to administer the IAEA efficiently and faithfully, particularly Iran. His position is one of a diplomat. He has to pursue diplomacy, especially when those nations who could help him in this matter, America and Israel refuse repeatedly to do so. The IAEA has been most exhausting in it's pursuit of the Iranians, and does not trust them beyond it's ability to inspect and safeguard. If El Baradei and the IAEA wished to wave a magic wand and help Iran get the bomb it would have been easy. He has remained dogged as have those in the IAEA to count every atom (literally) and peruse every document. The have a list of people they want to interview and papers they want to see. The goal of the IAEA is very simple. It must ensure EVERY signatory to the NPT observe that treaty and to bring EVERY signatory of the NPT under the Additional Protocols.

The ONLY way to stop Iran from building bombs if it wants to are: 1. Conquer and occupy it. 2. Get it back into the Additional Protocols to the NPT. You have a better answer than the impossible #1, or #2 which would give Iran the right to enrich uranium for reactor fuel? When you figure out how to accomplish #1, you have an argument for preventing #2. Until then your raving at the moon.

Folks, despite the hype, this story is not as important as all that. What's basically happening is that Iran is trying to negotiate a way out from under the present sanctions, and seeing what the cost is. If it finds the costs too high, all that will happen is that the status quo (sanctions, and the ever present threats (with slight risk) of an attack from Israel (and that last part isn't likely to change even if a deal is reached) Now, the US might try to impose new sanctions, but its options are the UN (and good luck trying to get a Security Council resolution through. Maybe with a deal to not veto Goldstone, the US could persuade Russia and China not to veto, but even then, the gang of 3 will need to find 6 more votes. It could try and swing an agreement amongst its friends, but then again, how many of them do all that much trading with Iran. Relations either thaw, or they won't, and the world will keep turning and changing.

Good for whome??????

It's the American Jews' fault for electing Obama. Bush was a great friend to Israel. He knew what Iran was doing and would not negotiate with terrorists. It's time the majority of Jewish people to stop being naive liberals.

Sure nuclear power stations can be fuelled with un-enriched uranium. Not the most widespread design (pressurised water reactors), but it is quite possible. The first generation British designs (Magnox) were designed for it, like the Canadian design (CANDU). For those who want to develop nuclear weapons, these have the advantage of producing more plutonium, as well. Just a technical detail, and just one more indication of the low technical level on which this debate is conducted. In fact, a really natural reactor of this type seems to have started up without human help http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_nuclear_fission_reactor

It seems the UN and IAEA are interested in helping Iran to "wipe Israel off the Map". Glad to hear El Baradi thinks things are going swimmingly!

if ever there were a reason to justify a nuclear program such as israels it is the history of that region ,namely the events of 48, 67, and 73 second, israel has had these likely for decades and would never and has never used them as anything but a deterrent, and only as an absolute last resort........the same could never be said by any rational human being for the ayatollahs and their state intent for israel and for the middle east as well as by virtue of their zealotry The reasons for america to have them should be well-known if you know your WWII history

on Iran are aggressively premature. Iran is allowed to process uranium for their civil nuclear programme, there's no crime there. Because of conflicting intel reports - no one is going to rely on Israel's word on a serious mater like this - about their possible ability to make a bomb, the first goal is unfettered inspection of their nuclear infrastructure. That's what happens in the real world, nations talk first, then negotiate, if they can't negotiate then they impose harsher sanctions, if the threat remains and becomes real, they reluctantly start up the bomber engines. The only nation wanting immediate air strikes is Israel. The only nation whose nuclear hegemony in the M-E is challenged is Israel. The world will be better-served by the major powers engaging with Iran and going through the process than listening to Israel and engaging in some sort of Cast Lead PR operation.

Is that a joke?

You really don't get it. Uraniaum enrichment is allowed for NPT members. No nuclear power station can be fueled with un-enriched uranium. The question is the grade of enrichment.

desperately been trying to engage Iran to negotiate their nuclear program without any success. Exactly what ground will these diplomats now negotiate over, that they have not in the past several years, given the fancy footwork of Iran's negotiators and the foot-dragging of the West, China & Russia? Only ?fools? have no idea on how/where this crisis will end, having been self-deluded by such dance lessons whose only parallel can be drawn in the years between 1933-1939.

. . ElBaradei is a good friend of Iran so he will cover-up and will conceal any evidence of wrong-doing, or other embarrassing information. He is no longer the man for this job.

I have never understood how a position as important as the head of the IAEA was headed up by an egyptian. Can you say, conflict of interest??? Why not A.Q. Khan as the head of the IAEA for that matter? I for one say, good ridance to baradei..he was an apologist for the islamists anyhow...what a disgrace of a man ....as if he doesnt know what iran is up to....how he can bold face lie to the world like he does is sheer madness.

..Iran has already stated it is unwilling to comply under any and all circumstances? Could ElBareidei have meant the food at the conference was really good and provides an optimistic mindset for those digesting? who the heck knows?

... it's enough to see those triple-kisses that he bestows so enthusiatically on Ahmadenejad, to doubt his complete objectivity... (unless he's just trying to compensate Ahmad for the disparity in height...)

the IAEA or the International Atomic Energy Accomplices are typically very positive

I think we got the message and understood 8+ years back ! The US didn't and the rest of the West are paralysed with fear, ineptitude, slef interest and delusional in the belief that Tehran will be persuaded otherwise

Annon You are 100% correct. Israel should also bear in mind that Iran even without nuclear arms has the capacity to render large parts of Israel uninhabitable. This they will do if Israel attacks them.

So why are Iran's weapons a danger to the world and Isarael's are not? Either everyone has the right to nuclear wepons or no one has!

You seem to have missed the significance of the word "further" - presumably this means beyond the three to five percent required for their power reactor(s).

Iran has been pushed way too far into a corner for it to be able to back down now, even it wanted to. Since the 80's Iran has been threatened with destruction - of its leadership, its infrastructure, its military, and its people. Much has been made of one mans comments about erasing a certain country off the map, however very little has been made about the threats to 'bomb Iran back into the stoneage', or use 'nuclear tipped bunker busters' against a non-nuclear country, or the sending of wave upon wave of aircraft over Iranian facilities, or to destroy Irans infrastructure. Even if Irans nuclear program was always intended for peaceful purposes there surely must now be very loud voices in Tehran calling for 'diversification' of this program and the development of a 'second strike' deterrent. As far as the two main proponents of war on Iran are concerned - you reap what you sow.

Is an moronic sentence since you can not start when you have already started... It seems that the Iranians can not speak and tell the truth at the same time.

when was iran not defiant over its nuclear enrichment and in general, over its nuclear and ballistic missile weapons program. anyone who thinks that iran will give up its nuclear weapons program is dreaming.

Iran is obviously arrogant and a danger to the world. Its time the world takes step to end the fascist regime in Iran and stops Iran from threatening the world.