Iran strong warning to the US against attacking it
Iran-USA, Politics, 2/11/2005

Iranian President Mohammad Khatami has called for a Middle East free of weapons of mass destruction and to put an end to Israel's nuclear arsenal.

During a meeting with members of the diplomatic missions and representatives of international organizations in Iran on the occasion of 26th anniversary of the Islamic Revolution, Khatami said that "Israel had not signed the Nuclear Arms Non -proliferation Treaty and receives all forms of support in its aggression on the Palestinian people," criticizing the "double standards" policy of some countries regarding the weapons of mass destruction.

Meantime, IRNA reported that "President Mohammad Khatami Thursday warned that Iran would unleash hell if it were attacked as international concerns bout another probable US adventurism is rising. If, God forbids, any aggressor puts its foot on this land, Iran will turn into a burning hell for them," he told thousands of demonstrators who had gathered at a famous square to mark the 26th anniversary of the Islamic Revolution. 'The Iranian nation is not after a war, violence or clashes, but the world must know that the Iranians will not tolerate any invasion,' Khatami said, to the chants of 'Death to America' and Death to 'Israel'. Khatami branded US threats as part of a 'psychological warfare', being waged in accordance with the 'expansionist policies of the American conservatives'."

Regarding Iraq, Khatami said that the presence of the occupation troops in Iraq has consolidated terrorism and has encouraged instability in the region.

Meantime, here is part of what the US Department of State with Adam Ereli, Deputy Spokesman, said regarding Iran:

Question: Can I just ask about a seeming difference in attitude towards North Korea, which as a nuclear weapon, and Iran, which may be or may not be trying to pursue having a nuclear weapon?Ê I mean, you're engaged -- or you want to get engaged in talks with North Korea.Ê No sign that you're going to take part in talks with Iran.

ERELI:Ê I'll make a couple of points.Ê Number one, the two cases are different.Ê To state the obvious, in one case there is a -- they have reached a level of nuclear capability quite distinct, quite different, from the other.Ê There are also international mechanisms and international institutions and procedures that apply to one that don't apply to the other.Ê There are different regional dynamics at play.

So I would just caution -- as we say in dealing with a lot of different issues in foreign affairs, I would caution you from -- we certainly don't -- taking a cookie-cutter approach.Ê At the same time, clearly, there's a common concern here, and that is the concern of development and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the danger that presents to the international community, and -- I think it's important to say -- the ill effects of those programs on the people of those countries.

So for a variety of reasons -- our own national security, regional stability and I think human -- humanitarian concern -- it is our goal, it is the goal of the United States, to work with the international community to help these countries take advantage of opportunities presented to them to take a different path, one away from confrontation, one away from conflict, and one away from the senseless diversion of resources away from the needs of the people and into capabilities that do not serve a productive and useful purpose.

And the example that we use of how such decisions can be made, how such paths can be taken is Libya, which looked at the situation, looked what they had, looked what they wanted, looked what it was costing them and made the strategic decision that it's not worth it, we're not getting where we want to go, and once we get there it's not going to get us what we want, and therefore -- and what we're losing is more than what we're gaining, and what we could gain if we took another path is greater than what we would ever get if we kept going the way we're going.

So what did they do?Ê They said, hey, you know, we're going to work to join the international community, we're going to play by the rules, and we're going to try to go down a different path and reintegrate ourselves into the economic and political and other networks that comprise the international community.Ê And so that's how I would say the two issues of Iran and North Korea relate more directly, and that's the way to look at it in a broader context.

QUESTION:Ê So the bottom line is you think it's easier to persuade North Korea to give up its nuclear weapons than Iran?

ERELI:Ê I didn't say that.Ê We are working in both cases to offer a wiser, more responsible alternative that we believe it's in the interests of everybody to choose.

QUESTION:Ê Well, Adam, I have two questions.Ê One is, I mean, but why are you willing to come to the table as part of the process with North Korea when you're not willing to come to the table with Iran as part of the EU-3 process?

ERELI:Ê As I said, there are two different circumstances, there are two different countries, there are two different dynamics at work.Ê The six-party process --

QUESTION:Ê Well, Adam, with Libya, it had some incentive to come to -- it had some incentive to come to this decision because it knew the U.S. was invested in the process.

ERELI:Ê Right.Ê But with Libya, it was a completely different approach than we took with Iran, it was a completely different approach which we took with North Korea, which is the point I'm making:Ê Each case is different; you cannot -- you know, you cannot do the same thing with every country and achieve the same result.

I don't -- in North Korea's case, you've got the neighbors of North Korea, which are concerned.Ê You've got us as concerned.Ê There's a logic to working together on this.Ê And I think that logic is sui generis.Ê In Iran, it's a different dynamic at work and I don't -- we don't see that that kind of comparison is useful.

QUESTION:Ê I have one follow on this.Ê This week, Secretary Rice said, or she indicated that perhaps the Europeans weren't giving a strong enough message to Iran in terms of the need to give up its nuclear program or face Council action.Ê Do you think that in the case of North Korea that your other partners in the six-party process are giving a strong enough message, which is equal to your message, in terms of the need to end its nuclear program, the Chinese, for instance?

ERELI:Ê We believe that there is a close convergence of views among the five partners in the six-party talks about the need for North Korea to dismantle its nuclear programs and about the threat that these programs represent to the region.Ê And I would also note that North Korea itself has accepted the goal of a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula.Ê So, no, I would not subscribe to the notion that somehow there is less than enthusiastic endorsement of what's -- what we're trying to achieve.

QUESTION:Ê I wasn't talking about (inaudible) of views.Ê I know there's a close convergence of views.Ê But is there a close convergence or unity of message in terms of the pressure that's being put on North Korea?

I mean, you're -- the words that are coming out of this podium and of the President, of the White House, are a lot stronger than they are coming from the Chinese or the Russians or the South Koreans.Ê And they --

ERELI:Ê I don't know.Ê I haven't done that kind of comparison and contrasting.Ê I think that we believe that our common purpose and coordination in the six-party process is good, is productive, is effective, and we're, I think, comfortable with the dynamic at work among us.

QUESTION:Ê Just to follow up on that.Ê You have just said that the U.S. has no fight intention towards North Korea and that the U.S. has no intention to invade North Korea.Ê Would you be ready to give the same assurances to the Iranians, no fight intentions and no intentions to invade?

ERELI:Ê We have said that force is not an option at the time, at the moment, and that we are committed to pursuing this solution diplomatically.Ê That is our policy.Ê That is our approach.Ê In no case anywhere in the world, under any circumstances do we unilaterally take an option off the table.Ê And that's -- that is a basic tenet of American policy, and it's no different in Iran or North Korea or any other case.Ê But we are -- we have said very clearly that a peaceful, diplomatic solution is our preferred option, or our preferred course and the one to which we are working with full conviction..

QUESTION:Ê I understand and you have said over and over that you are looking for the peaceful solution on this issue.Ê So it makes sense.Ê But as long as we read the statement of North Korea yesterday, they are not coming to come back to the six-party talk soon.Ê So do you have any idea to set up the deadline of resumption of a six-party talk?

ERELI:Ê We'd like them as soon as possible.

QUESTION:Ê As soon as possible?

ERELI:Ê When that will be, I think, again, depends on North Korea.Ê We and our partners are ready to come back.Ê We believe it's in everybody's interest, and especially North Korea's interest, to come back.Ê Because, again, a peaceful resolution of this issue will ultimately benefit the people of North Korea disproportionately, and for that reason we are going to continue to consult and try to find a way to get these talks restarted.

QUESTION:Ê The United States has been making a lot of effort to make North Korea conduct the six-party talk, you know, since last year.Ê The last session was --

ERELI:Ê June.

QUESTION:Ê Yes, June, or last year, already eight months or so long.Ê So nothing is going on at this period.Ê So we don't know at this point when they come back.Ê At the beginning of this year, we have like a strong hope they might come back to the six-party talks, but yesterday we are very disappointed.Ê So -- I don't know -- also you said, you know, and you look for the peaceful solution.Ê That's a good idea.Ê But and how long could you wait?

ERELI:Ê We are working I think deliberately and consistently to keep this process moving forward.Ê Frankly, you know, I think we've been very clear:Ê the sooner the better.Ê There are realities you have to deal with.Ê I think we all share a common sense that the faster we can make this happen, the better.Ê But there is no deadline.Ê There is no time limit that we've put down on this.Ê I think we have patience, but we also have determination.


Meantime, IRNA reported today that "Chairman of the Expediency Council (EC) Ayatollah Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani here on Friday recommended that White House officials seek peaceful approaches toward the Islamic Republic. Rafsanjani, in a sermon at Tehran weekly Friday prayers, said the policy of coercion toward Iran will never work, and warned US leaders against the consequences of any effort against Iran. 'I explicitly tell the White House that... these threats will bear no fruit. They will not frighten us nor our people. Neither can you implement these threats,' he said."

Previous Stories:
  Iranian Defense Minister for Freeing the Mid East from WMD   (2/8/2005)
  Iran rules out US attack on its land   (2/7/2005)
  Rice: Iran's energy projects can eventually be used for weapons programs   (2/5/2005)
  Rohani, US threats and nuclear file   (2/1/2005)
  Shark: Iranian Defense Minister warns of US trouble making in the region   (1/31/2005)
  Iranian rejects Israeli practices   (1/29/2005)

Please add a link on your webiste pointing to ArabicNews.com and bookmark ArabicNews.com & subscribe to our daily email news bulletin.

Search