Thread: Iran News and Editorials

oh god, deliver us from tedium

oh god, deliver us from tedium

Thought you did not believe in God.

Fars News Agency :: Growth in Iran's Crude Exports Proves Ineffectiveness of Oil Embargos



"The latest data shows that Iran has increased its oil exports in the first month of 2012 despite the embargos imposed by the western states against the country's oil sector. Recent data released by the Joint Organization Data Initiative (JODI) showed that Iranian crude export has increased in January despite sanctions.

Iran, the second-biggest producer of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), exported 2.265 million barrels a day in January, its highest monthly figure since December 2008, Bloomberg reported on Monday.

Earlier media reports said that Iran's crude exports to India have increased to 550,000 barrels a day in January which shows a 37.5% growth compared with the same period last year.

India has increased oil imports from Iran to become the Islamic Republic's largest customer in January, ignoring recent sanctions imposed by US and EU on importing Iran's oil. "

^ Yep, easy to shift the stuff when you're knocking it out cheap.

Very interesting, but that has what to do with Iran exactly?

Should have been in the Iran thread, too many windows open.

I wonder who's agreed to take 500,000bpd off their hands at a whopping discount come July 1st?

Hmmmm. Tough one that.

^ (Technically I should say "Will agree" but I doubt there's much difference )

Originally Posted by OhOh

Lets turn the whole country into another Gaza strip eh. Starve the them into submission. You wonder why the rest of the worlds thinks of the crusader coalition as heathens.

An interesting perspective. But you don't believe they are trying to develop nukes, do you?

Let's say for the sake of argument you did, and you believed they would be a real threat to the world, would you prefer the "let's bomb the shit out them" approach, or the "let's try and force them to change their mind or get overthrown" approach?

Given the mess in Syria, to which they themselves are contributing quite well thank you, it's a complex question, don't you think?

I do agree it's very complex. When the rest of the nuclear states disarm, demolish their reprocessing plants, destroy their own stocks of plutonium or whatever the high % uranium is called, then there would be no reason for them to have a nuclear weapon. As it stands there are many nuclear armed countries threatening them on a daily basis.

To deny one country the right to defend itself is wrong. Whether the Iranians are any better in their intention to invade or otherwise threaten another country I would look at history and deduce that they have less "history" than the publicly acknowledged warmongering crusader coalition and the PGCC states who demand that they remain in the middle ages.

As for a danger to the world, you are jesting I presume.

A little clarity on the recent Iran/IAEA discussions.



"VIENNA - The first detailed account of negotiations between the International Atomic Energy Agency and Iran last month belies earlier statements by unnamed Western officials portraying Iran as refusing to cooperate with the IAEA in allaying concerns about alleged nuclear weaponization work. The account given by Iran's permanent representative to the IAEA, Ali Asghar Soltanieh, shows that the talks in February came close to a final agreement but were hung up primarily over the IAEA insistence on being able to reopen issues even after Iran had answered questions about them to the organizations's satisfaction. It also indicates that that the IAEA demand to visit Parchin military base during that trip to Tehran reversed a previous agreement that the visit would come later in the process, and that IAEA Director General Yukia Amano ordered his negotiators to break off the talks and return to Vienna rather than accept Iran's invitation to stay for a third day.

Soltanieh took the unprecedented step of revealing the details of the incomplete negotiations with the IAEA in an interview with IPS in Vienna last week and in a presentation to a closed session of the IAEA's Board of Governors on March 8, which the Iranian mission has now made public. The Iranian envoy went public with his account of the talks after a series of anonymous statements to the press by the IAEA Secretariat and member states had portrayed Iran as being uncooperative on Parchin as well as in the negotiations on an agreement on cooperation with the agency. Those statements now appear to have been aimed at building a case for a resolution by the Board condemning Iran's intransigence in order to increase diplomatic pressure on Iran in advance of talks between the P5+1 (the United States, Britain, France, Russia, the People's Republic of China and Germany) and Iran.

Soltanieh's account suggests that Amano may have switched signals to the IAEA delegation after consultations with the United States and other powerful member states which wanted to be able to cite the Parchin access issue to condemn Iran for its alleged failure to cooperate with the IAEA. Parchin had been cited in the November 2011 IAEA report as the location of an alleged explosive containment cylinder, said by one or more IAEA member states to have been used for hydrodynamic testing of nuclear weapons designs. The detailed Iranian account shows that the IAEA delegation requested a visit to Parchin in the first round of the negotiations in Tehran January 29-31 and that it asked again at the beginning of the three "intercessional" meetings in Vienna for such a visit to take place at a second negotiating round in Tehran on February 20-21.

Soltanieh recalled, however, that during three "intercessional" meetings in February with IAEA Deputy Director General for Safeguards Herman Nackaerts, and Assistant Director General for Political Affairs Rafael Grossi, the two sides had reached agreement that the IAEA request for access to Parchin would be postponed until after the Board of Governors meeting in March.
But when the IAEA delegation arrived on February 20, it renewed the demand to visit Parchin, according to Soltanieh's account.

"At the beginning of the meeting the first day, they said the director general had instructed them to give a message to us that they wanted to go to Parchin today or tomorrow, despite what we had clearly agreed two weeks earlier," Soltanieh told IPS.

Soltanieh told the Board of Governors that the negotiating text on which the two sides were working at the February 20-21 meeting provided specifically for a visit to Parchin as well as other sites in conjunction with Iran's actions to clear up the issue of "hydrodynamic experiments" - the allegation by an unnamed member government published in the November 2011 IAEA report.
In response to the renewed request for a visit to Parchin, Soltanieh offered to let the delegation visit the Marivan site, where the same November report said the agency had "credible" evidence Iranian engineers worked on high-explosives testing for a nuclear device.

"We offered Marivan because it was the next priority," Soltanieh told IPS, referring to the list of priority issues on which Iran was expected to take actions to be specified by the IAEA under the provision of the negotiating text.

But the IAEA delegation rejected the offer, claiming that it had been given too little time.

Soltanieh's account reveals that the IAEA also turned down a request to stay one additional day to complete the negotiations of the new action plan. "At lunch hour the second day, we wanted them to stay another day," he told IPS, and the delegation told them it might be possible. But after consulting with Amano, the IAEA delegation said it could not stay. Amano's change of signals on Parchin and refusal to stay for a third day of negotiations were followed by condemnation of Iran as uncooperative by a "senior Western official" shortly before the IAEA Board of Governors meeting.

The official was quoted by Reuters on March 2 as saying, "We think there needs to be a resolution that makes clear that Iran needs to do more, a lot more, to comply with the agency's requests." The official called Iran's stance during the talks a "gigantic slap in the face of the IAEA". In the end, no resolution was passed by the Board. Instead, the P5+1 issued a joint statement urging Iran to allow access to Parchin but not blaming Iran for the failure to reach agreement. negotiating text as it stood at the end of the February round of talks, which Soltanieh showed IPS, had relatively few handwritten deletions and additions.

A key provision in the draft text, which IPS was allowed to quote, says, "Iran agrees to cooperate with the Agency to facilitate a conclusive technical assessment of all issues of concern to the Agency. This cooperation will include inspections by the Agency, additional meetings, including technical meetings and visits, and access to relevant information, documentation and sites, material and personnel." The primary issue standing in the way of final agreement, according to Soltanieh, was whether the IAEA could reopen issues once they had been resolved. The text shown to IPS includes a provision that IAEA "may adjust the order" in which issues were to be resolved and "return" to issues even after they had been resolved. The Iranians accepted the right of the IAEA to adjust the order but did not agree that it could reopen issues once they were completed satisfactorily, Soltanieh recalled, because Iran feared that giving the IAEA that power would lead to "an endless process".

The other major issue, according to Soltanieh, was Iran's demand that the IAEA "deliver" all the intelligence documents alleging that it had carried covert weaponization activities to Iran before asking it for definitive answers to the allegation. The IAEA delegation said they couldn't produce all the documents at once, he told IPS. Iran then agreed that the agency could provide only those documents relevant to each issue when it comes up, the Iranian diplomat recalled. It is not clear, however, whether the IAEA has agreed to that compromise. The United States has refused in the past to agree to turn over the "alleged studies" documents to Iran - a policy that Amano's predecessor, Mohamed ElBaradei, had argued made it impossible to demand that Iran be held accountable for explaining those documents.

After Soltanieh's presentation to the Board of Governors, Amano told reporters that some of Soltanieh's statements had been inaccurate but appeared to confirm the main points of his presentation. "In fact, the February talks initially took place in a constructive spirit," he said. "Differences between Iran and the Agency appeared to have narrowed." On the second day, Amano said, Iran had "sought to re-impose restrictions on our work", which he said "included obliging the Agency to present a definitive list of questions and denying us the right to revisit issues, or to deal with certain issues in parallel, to name just a few." Amano's spokesperson, Gill Tudor, declined to comment on the accuracy of Soltanieh's account for this story, saying "(W)e would prefer to let the director general's words speak for themselves." In response to a request for comment on this story, the US State Department deferred to Amano's account on the talks but said, "(D)espite the IAEA's best efforts, Iran was unwilling to reach such an agreement" and had "failed an initial test of its good faith and willingness to cooperate by refusing an IAEA request to visit Parchin." "

Originally Posted by OhOh

I do agree it's very complex. When the rest of the nuclear states disarm, demolish their reprocessing plants, destroy their own stocks of plutonium or whatever the high % uranium is called, then there would be no reason for them to have a nuclear weapon. As it stands there are many nuclear armed countries threatening them on a daily basis.

To deny one country the right to defend itself is wrong. Whether the Iranians are any better in their intention to invade or otherwise threaten another country I would look at history and deduce that they have less "history" than the publicly acknowledged warmongering crusader coalition and the PGCC states who demand that they remain in the middle ages.

As for a danger to the world, you are jesting I presume.

I jest not, but I will elucidate. There are two dangers I feel worth taking seriously:

(1) The Iranians feed a nuke or dirty bomb to someone to use elsewhere, perhaps in a major Western capital;

or (far more seriously).

(2) They start a regional conflict that sends the oil price over $200 a barrel.

The effect of that on an already creaking economy could lead to global civil unrest on a scale never seen before.

Fair enough?

Getting Nukes Cannot Be Stopped

March 21, 2012: Israel and the U.S. keep feeding the media stories about an air strike on Iran's nuclear weapons facilities. Iran would welcome such an attack, as it would cripple growing opposition to the religious dictatorship that runs Iran and only delay the nuclear weapons program. There is little the rest of the world can do to half the Iranian effort to develop nuclear weapons, mainly because having nukes is very popular with most Iranians, even those who want a more democratic government. Such a government would be more persuaded by sanctions to halt weapons development but the current religious dictatorship shows no signs of disappearing anytime soon. And once Iran has nukes, getting rid of them would be very unpopular with most Iranians. Iran's oil customers are cutting their orders. The new sanctions make it more difficult for Iran to sell its oil and most nations want to avoid dealing with Iran. It gets worse. In a major blow to the Iranian economy, and Iranian clandestine operations (smuggling and Quds Force terrorism), the UAE (United Arab Emirates) is halting use of the Iranian currency in the UAE. This is for very practical reasons, mainly that the Iranian currency (the rial) has lost half its value in the past few weeks because of all the new sanctions. There will still be illegal trading of the rial in the UAE but these will be much more expensive. Iranians can no longer use UAE banks to deposit large amounts of rials. Quds Force will now have to establish and run safe houses for storing large quantities of rials and other cash.
Iran's Quds Force has been caught carrying out anti-Israeli terror attacks in India, Georgia, Azerbaijan, and Thailand recently. Iran has denied any involvement, but this ambitious series of attacks last month (that didn't kill anyone) led to over a dozen arrests and lots of other evidence linking the perpetrators to Iran. While Quds has been active in many places (Gaza, Yemen, Lebanon, Syria, South America, Arabian Peninsula, and so on) its operatives are often amateurish and ineffective. When operatives are caught overseas Iran demands its citizens back and just denies any terrorist activity. But the recent offensive against Israelis living outside Israel has apparently stretched Quds beyond the breaking point. Iran believes that Israeli agents are behind several murders of Iranian nuclear scientists and they want revenge. But Quds has not been able to deliver when it came to retribution. This is not surprising, as religious fanaticism is more prized among Quds Force recruits than other talents. Many Quds operatives are sharp but all of them are Islamic radicals.
March 18, 2012: Under pressure from the United States, Iraq has told Iran that weapons could no longer be flown from Iran to Syria via Iraq.
March 17, 2012: Because of increased sanctions over 30 Iranian banks have been cut off from using SWIFT, the world's largest international electronic funds transfer system. Iran can get around this but it will be more expensive and more of a hassle.
March 15, 2012: Hackers got the email of senior Syrian officials and turned it over to mass media for publication . This revealed how deeply Iran has been involved in advising ally Syria on how to deal with a year long popular rebellion. The Iranians suggested that Syria hunt down and kill as many of the most active rebels as possible. This will demoralize the large number of Syrians who oppose the Assad dictatorship and convince people to submit to a government they oppose. Iranian advisors have pointed out how well this worked in Iran, where a large urban population, that opposed the religious dictatorship in Iraq, have been brutalized and terrorized into submission. Iran also advised that much be made of largely imaginary foreign agents (from Israel and the West, of course) being responsible for stirring up the people. This gives rebellious Syrians a suitable excuse to accept a future amnesty and behave. Iran pointed out that no proof of this non-existent foreign involvement was needed because decades of anti-West and anti-Israel propaganda in Islamic countries have convinced most Moslems that the lies are true. Iran practices what it preaches and continues to arrest and imprison (and, increasingly, execute) outspoken critics of the government.
March 14, 2012: In neighboring Azerbaijan police arrested 22 suspected Iranian agents and accused them of planning terror attacks on American and Israeli targets. Azerbaijan has been chasing down and arresting Iran-backed terrorists for years.
March 8, 2012: The UN accused Iran of not being open about its nuclear energy program. UN nuclear inspectors suspect Iran is developing nuclear weapons.

SEOUL (Reuters) - South Korea cut imports of Iranian crude in the first two months of 2012 and Taiwan plans to halt its purchases from July as the two join the growing list of countries reducing imports under pressure from the United States.
The quartet of South Korea, China, India and Japan are the four biggest buyers of Iranian crude in Asia and have either made a cut in imports or pledged to do so. Iran sells most of its 2.6 million barrels per day (bpd) of exports in Asia.
The U.S. on Tuesday exempted Japan and 10 EU nations from financial sanctions because they have significantly cut purchases of Iranian crude, but left out ally South Korea and Iran's top customers China and India.
South Korea's refiners were cutting imports to ensure the government could petition the U.S. for a sanctions waiver, a source at South Korea's economy ministry said on Thursday.
"South Korea is cooperating at a fundamental level with the U.S. regarding Iranian crude oil imports," the source said. "I think refiners are making efforts to help South Korea receive an exemption from the United States."
The world's fifth-largest oil importer, South Korea bought 15 percent less Iranian crude in the first two months of the year compared with the same period in 2011, even though overall crude imports increased by 3.4 percent on the year.
Iranian crude imports fell to 12.9 million barrels, or 215,483 barrels per day (bpd), in January and February from 15.04 million barrels, or 254,831 bpd, a year earlier, state-run Korea National Oil Corp (KNOC) said on Thursday.
Buyers of Iranian crude will face U.S. sanctions if they fail to cut purchases significantly. The U.S. is using sanctions to put pressure on Iran to halt its nuclear programme, which Washington says Tehran is using to develop weapons. Iran says it needs nuclear-generated power.
EU sanctions have also made buying Iranian crude more difficult as they penalise insurers for indemnifying Iranian crude cargoes anywhere in the world.
Japan's imports in February could fall by as much 70 percent on average for 2011 due to difficulty in getting insurance, the Nikkei daily said on Thursday.
A delegation from Seoul will meet U.S. officials soon to discuss the depth of the cut in Iranian crude imports that Washington would like to see South Korea make. Officials from both sides have declined to comment on the depth of the cut under discussion.
If Japan is any measure, the cut would need to be 15-22 percent.
Carlos Pascual, U.S. State Department Special Envoy and Coordinator for International energy Affairs, held up Japan's cut as an example for other nations but equally declined to set a benchmark that countries could follow to secure an exemption.
With the reduction in January and February, South Korea has reversed what was a trend toward increasing Iranian oil purchases. In 2011, its Iran imports rose 20 percent.
Taiwan will halt its imports from July, a source at state-run refinery CPC said on Thursday.
Taiwan is a small buyer of Iranian crude, purchasing between 19,000 and 22,000 bpd. It was on a list of Iranian crude buyers potentially subject to sanctions, a U.S. State Department official said on Wednesday.
FEW PROBLEMS; COST BURDENS
South Korea has had no problems finding oil to substitute for Iranian imports, the country's finance minister Bahk Jae-wan told reporters on Thursday.
"We already have secured enough alternative oil," Bahk said after an industry event.
Taiwan had no plans to ask for the U.S. waiver to sanctions, as it would simply buy crude from other countries, CPC President Lin Mao-wen told Reuters on Thursday.
Top oil exporter Saudi Arabia said this week it would plug any shortage in supplies to the market and was ready to raise output to full capacity of 12.5 million bpd if needed.
South Korea sourced 87 percent of its total crude imports in the first two months of this year from the Middle East -- mainly Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Iran -- up from 85 percent a year earlier, KNOC data shows.
Cutting imports from Iran might drive up the country's overall import costs, said Son Young-joo, energy analyst at Kyobo Securities Co Ltd.
"I don't think the shortage of Iran crude oil supply itself will do much harm to South Korea," he said. "The only problem I see is the cost, as Iran crude oil was about $2 to $3 a barrel discounted compared to other countries' products."
KNOC data also showed crude imports by South Korea jumped 14.2 percent in February from a year earlier to 80.82 million barrels. From Iran, Seoul imported 5.90 million barrels last month, up 3.8 percent from a year earlier, the data showed.
The rise in both figures last month could be attributed to the extra day in February this year.
(Reporting by Meeyoung Cho; Additional reporting by Eunhye Shin and Shinhyung Lee; Writing by Simon Webb; Editing by Neil Fullick)

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

(2) They start a regional conflict that sends the oil price over $200 a barrel.

The effect of that on an already creaking economy could lead to global civil unrest on a scale never seen before.

The price of oil is determined by the "value" the ME tyrants can purchase with US$ paid to them in exchange for their black gold. Whilst ever the "western" political leaders devalue their currency by inflation the price of oil will increase. That is what is causing the cost of a barrel of oil to increase, nothing to do with Iran.

The Libyans have increased their output, the Saudis spout their ability to increase production at will. There is no oil shortage in the world just currency inflation.

Recent statements from Russia and China indicating there views on the attempted war by Israel and The US with Iran

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/usa/wor...t_14878787.htm

"MOSCOW - Strikes on Iran's nuclear sites may force it to develop nuclear weapons and trigger more risks to the non-proliferation regime, Russia's Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Tuesday. "Scientists in nearly all countries....are convinced that strikes may slow down the Iranian nuclear program. But they will never cancel it, close it down or eliminate it," Lavrov said in an interview with the radio Kommersant FM.

He warned that Iran may have no option but to develop nuclear weapons in response to the strikes. "Even the CIA and other US agencies admit now there is no information to confirm the political decision of the Iranian administration to produce nuclear weapons. I am almost confident that such a decision will be made after strikes on Iran," Lavrov said. "Actually, this aggressiveness creates more risks to the non-proliferation regime than strengthens it," he said.

Russia has called for the resumption of negotiations between Iran and major mediators including Russia, US, France, Britain, China and Germany."

China legally imports Iranian oil: FM - People's Daily Online

"BEIJING, March 21 (Xinhua) -- China legally imports oil from Iran through normal channels in a reasonable and fair manner, a Foreign Ministry spokesman said on Wednesday. Spokesman Hong Lei said China imports oil based on its economic development needs without violating relevant resolutions of the UN Security Council and undermining the third party's and international community's interests.

"China opposes any country implementing unilateral sanctions on the other country according to its domestic law," the spokesman said, adding that China will not accept the practice of saddling unilateral sanctions on the third country. Hong made the remark at a daily press briefing when asked to comment on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's announcement on Iran sanctions.

Clinton issued a statement on Tuesday saying that the U.S. will initially exempt Japan and 10 European nations from its new tough sanctions on Iran, saying these countries have "significantly" reduced their oil imports from the Islamic republic, according to reports. Clinton said she would report to Congress that sanctions will not apply to the financial institutions in these countries for a renewable period of 180 days. The 10 European beneficiaries are Belgium, Britain, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland and Spain.

Twelve countries including China, India and the Republic of Korea should reduce oil imports from Iran before the end of July or face sanctions, according to reports."

Originally Posted by OhOh

The price of oil is determined by the "value" the ME tyrants can purchase with US$ paid to them in exchange for their black gold. Whilst ever the "western" political leaders devalue their currency by inflation the price of oil will increase. That is what is causing the cost of a barrel of oil to increase, nothing to do with Iran.

I'm not exactly sure what this nonsense is supposed to mean, but clearly you know fuck all about the oil industry.

CTV News | Shell scrambles to pay $1-billion tab for Iranian oil

Shell scrambles to pay $1-billion tab for Iranian oil

"RICHARD MABLY AND PEG MACKEY - The Globe and Mail

Royal Dutch Shell PLC is struggling to pay off $1-billion (U.S.) that it owes Iran for crude oil because European Union and U.S. financial sanctions now make it almost impossible to process payments, industry sources said.

Four sources said the oil major owes a large sum to the National Iranian Oil Co. (NIOC) for deliveries of crude, with one putting the figure at close to $1-billion. A debt of that size would equate to roughly four large tanker loads of Iranian crude or about 8 million barrels.

“Shell is working hard to figure out a way to pay NIOC,” said an industry source, who requested anonymity. “It’s very sensitive and very difficult. They want to stay on good terms with Iran, while abiding by sanctions.”"

Continues....

Originally Posted by OhOh

CTV News | Shell scrambles to pay $1-billion tab for Iranian oil

Shell scrambles to pay $1-billion tab for Iranian oil

"RICHARD MABLY AND PEG MACKEY - The Globe and Mail

Royal Dutch Shell PLC is struggling to pay off $1-billion (U.S.) that it owes Iran for crude oil because European Union and U.S. financial sanctions now make it almost impossible to process payments, industry sources said.

Four sources said the oil major owes a large sum to the National Iranian Oil Co. (NIOC) for deliveries of crude, with one putting the figure at close to $1-billion. A debt of that size would equate to roughly four large tanker loads of Iranian crude or about 8 million barrels.

“Shell is working hard to figure out a way to pay NIOC,” said an industry source, who requested anonymity. “It’s very sensitive and very difficult. They want to stay on good terms with Iran, while abiding by sanctions.”"

Continues....

Excellent news. Proof that sanctions are working.

http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=9012153813

" Uruguayan Agriculture Minister Tabaré Agerre announced his country's readiness to supply rice to Iran in exchange for oil.

"If Iran is willing to barter oil for rice we will do it and we will take out currency from (the operation)," said Agriculture Minister Tabare Aguerre.

Uruguay is a key exporter of rice in Latin America and the seventh largest supplier in the world.

Before the US sanctions against Iran were put in place Iran was the largest consumer of rice from Uruguay. The United States has warned that it could slap sanctions on countries that buy crude from Iran.

Uruguay's enthusiasm and readiness for new forms of oil deals with Iran in defiance of the United States' extraterritorial laws is more interesting when remembering that the country is viewed as a US ally in Latin America.

Uruguay exported 90,000 tons of rice to Iran in 2011.

Since taking office in 2005, President Ahmadinejad has expanded Iran's cooperation with many Latin American states, including Venezuela, Bolivia, Cuba, Ecuador and Brazil.

The strong and rapidly growing ties between Iran and Latin America have raised eyebrows in the US and its western allies since Tehran and Latin nations have forged an alliance against the imperialist and colonialist powers and are striving hard to reinvigorate their relations with the other independent countries which pursue a line of policy independent from the US.

In January, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad went on a four-leg tour of Latin America, where he expressed his pleasure in seeing the common positions of Iran and Latin American states on different international issues.

Addressing a press conference upon his arrival from the tour, Ahmadinejad stated that the Islamic Republic is on the same front with most Latin American countries in the campaign against hegemony and injustice.

He lauded the close ties between the two sides, and noted, "Iran's relations with Latin America are very good, expansive, and strategic, and the country's interactions and transactions with all the countries of this region are increasing and deepening."

The tour of Latin America took the Iranian president to Venezuela, Nicaragua, Cuba and Ecuador, where all the countries' leaders reiterated their support for Iran's right to access peaceful nuclear technology and defended Tehran against the threats and pressures exerted by the US-led West.

Iran has done a raft of deals in Latin America nations ranging from housing construction agreements with Venezuela to financing for Cuba's purchases of Iranian-made train cars.
"

http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=9012153811


Peace Group Condemns Washington's Warmongering Policies on Iran

"TEHRAN (FNA)- An American peace group in a statement condemned Washington's war rhetoric against Iran, and called on the White House to drop its warmongering policies, lift sanctions and opt for diplomacy when dealing with Iran.

Directors of the Baptist Peace Fellowship of North America adopted a statement on March 28 urging "diplomacy over bombs" in the United States' relations with Iran.

"The people of the United States have been living in a state of fear for too long," said the statement in the form an open letter to President Obama signed by BPFNA President Cheryl Dudley. "Far too many policies - bad policies - have been made based on this fear. It is time to turn toward faith and hope and peace."

Baptist leaders said that is "especially true as yet another round of warmongering begins over Iran." They asked the president to commit instead to "waging peace", and called on the US and its allies to use "ethical, humanitarian principles" in responding to the threat posed by the so-called prospect of a nuclear Iran.

"It appears political leaders in the United States and Israel may be seriously calculating the benefits and risks of attacking Iran," the letter said. "If so, they are pushing the world to moral, financial, ecological and diplomatic peril. This we vigorously protest."

The letter recognized that a nuclear-armed Iran "could be disastrous" for Iran, the region, Israel and the US but argued a military attack would only make matters worse.

"Recent history proves war isn't working," the Baptist leaders said. "We urge you to use every means at your disposal to prevent a strike on Iran by Israel and to pursue a diplomatic resolution to the dispute over Iran's nuclear program."

Instead of engaging in "competition in belligerent behavior," the peace group called for "strategies of multilateral diplomacy and other nonviolent initiatives".

"This would include acting in a manner so the behavior of the US enhances Iran's sense of national security, to convince them that they do not need nuclear weapons to protect themselves from the US," the letter said. "In the long term, the US must lead the way in creating a world without nuclear weapons."

The leaders called for lifting sanctions against Iran, which they said have been ineffective.

"We urge you to find ways to keep Iran within the international community, opening more lines of diplomatic communication and reducing the incentives for Iran's leaders to take their nuclear capabilities to the next level," the letter said.

Iran says its nuclear program is a peaceful drive to produce electricity so that the world's fourth-largest crude exporter can sell more of its oil and gas abroad. Tehran also stresses that the country is pursuing a civilian path to provide power to the growing number of Iranian population, whose fossil fuel would eventually run dry.

The US and its western allies allege that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons program while they have never presented corroborative evidence to substantiate their allegations against the Islamic Republic.

Iran is under four rounds of UN Security Council sanctions for turning down West's calls to give up its right of uranium enrichment, saying the demand is politically tainted and illogical.

Iran has so far ruled out halting or limiting its nuclear work in exchange for trade and other incentives, saying that renouncing its rights under the NPT would encourage the world powers to put further pressure on the country and would not lead to a change in the West's hardline stance on Tehran.
"