And while Iran claims they need their enrichment program for the economic benefits nuclear power will provide, the mullahs seem unconcerned about the economic price they pay trying to get the benefit of nuclear power. The latest in a long series of talks between the EU and Iran have failed:
The talks have foundered over Iran's refusal to suspend uranium enrichment, a process that can be used both to make nuclear fuel and weapons. Tehran insists its nuclear drive is peaceful and it has every right to the full fuel cycle.
And the economic price will be exacted:
Following the failure of the EU talks, the six main powers dealing with the crisis met in Paris on Saturday and agreed to start work on a resolution calling for new sanctions against Iran at the UN Security Council.
A French diplomatic source said the new resolution would be a compromise between Western nations and China and Russia, and added that it could perhaps be agreed upon in the coming weeks.
The Russians and Chinese have slowed but not halted the Western drive to pressure Iran into halting their dangerous nuclear programs.
And many in the West insist that we should accept Iran's statements about their nuclear program and intentions at face value. Indeed, Westerners eager to look away focus on the double-standard of opposing even Iranian atomic weapons programs (which these appeasers simultaneously deny is even happening) while ignoring Israel's existing nukes. I just don't care. Where's the nuance of insisting that democratic allies who've never used their nukes must be treated exactly like terror-sponsoring nutballs trying to get nukes?
The Iranians cloak their program and play into this bizarre refusal of Westerners to discern between Iran and other nuclear powers:
Foreign ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini said more UN Security Council sanctions would not deter Iran from pressing ahead with its nuclear drive, which the United States alleges is aimed at making an atomic weapon.
"If these powers are trying to deprive Iran of its rights, then resolutions and sanctions will be fruitless," he told reporters.
And again in the same article, Iran's new hardliner negotiator repeated this line:
After returning to Tehran, Jalili defiantly shrugged off any idea that Iran was to blame for the failure of the talks, saying it was up to the other side to accept Iranian demands.
"If some people have become disappointed because they cannot deprive Iran of its natural rights then this is another matter," he told reporters on Saturday.
Yes, their "rights." In some Western circles, claiming something is a "right" ends any discussion.
But let's recall another occasion where Iranians claimed their "rights" were threatened. This comes from my summary of the Iran-Iraq War that is based on an unpublished manuscript on the war that I hope to return to one day (I did get some interest in it over a decade ago):
In mid 1982, with Iraq largely expelled from Iranian territory, Tehran had a choice to make--end the war by declaring a well deserved victory or pressing on into Iraq to seek vengeance and total victory. In addition to the heady rush of battlefield success, Iran's troops received a material boost by finally cracking the American-designed computer inventory system. By identifying the amounts of spare parts and equipment plus their locations, Iran became the beneficiary of an "American airlift equivalent" to resupply its armed forces. Statements coming out of Tehran reflected the indecision. Iran's speaker of parliament even managed to combine the conflicting objectives in one statement, "We are not going to attack any territory. We only want our rights." He added that one of those 'rights' was the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.
As Iran massed troops northeast of Basra, the Iraqis were reeling after losing a third of their army during the retreat from Khuzestan. In addition, only a third of Iraq's air force was in flying condition. The impact of Iran's victory was also felt amongst Iraq's civilian population. Iraqi Shiites, who Hussein feared were vulnerable to Iranian propaganda, rioted in Baghdad and other Iraqi cities.
On July 13, 1982, the beginning of Operation Ramadan made it clear that Tehran had decided to go for total victory.
For six more years, the Iranians sought to assert their rights by sacrificing hundreds of thousands of Iranians trying to break Iraq's front. One might say they actually did attack territory. But sometimes the Iranians would insist they were just trying to get to Jerusalem to kill those pesky Jews by going through Iraq, so perhaps Tehran in 1982, much like 1914 Berlin viewed Belgium, thought of Iraq as only a road.
So when Iranians speak of their "rights" in regard to nuclear weapons, I'd really like to know how they interpret those rights, notwithstanding their claims that they have no intention of attacking any territory with nuclear weapons.
All I'm saying is that when Iranian officials start prattling on about their "rights," you'd be wise to check your ammo supply and lock and load. The mullahs are pretty militant about exercising their rights.
