US - no 'deadlines' for Iran nuclear

2012-09-10 22:43

Washington - The United States is not imposing a deadline on Iran as it seeks to persuade the Islamic republic to rein in its suspect nuclear program, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said.

"I think we've maintained a steady course of our two-pronged policy," Clinton told Bloomberg radio on Sunday at the end of a trip to Asia.

"We have always said every option was on the table, but we believe in the negotiation, the diplomatic effort through the P5+1, but also pressure," she added in the remarks released on Monday.

Washington and Western nations accuse Iran of seeking a nuclear weapons capability under the guise of a civilian programme. Tehran denies the charges.

Clinton said tight sanctions imposed on Iran were having an effect, and that the group of nations leading negotiations, known as the P5+1, will keep working on the dossier even though negotiations with Tehran have ground to a halt.

The group comprised of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council - Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States as well as Germany - will meet in New York in the coming weeks on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly, she said.

"We're not setting deadlines. We're watching very carefully about what they do, because it's always been more about their actions and their words," Clinton said in the interview in the Vladivostok where she was attending an Asia-Pacific talks.

"It's a very challenging effort to get them to move in a way that complies with their international obligations, but we believe that is still, by far, the best approach to take at this time," she added.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has meanwhile told Canada's CBC that his country is talking with Washington about laying down "clear red lines" for Iran over its nuclear programme.

"Iran will not stop unless it sees clear determination by the democratic countries of the world and a clear red line," Netanyahu told CBC.

"The sooner we establish one, the greater the chances that there won't be a need for other types of action," he said.

Israel, the Middle East's sole, if undeclared, nuclear power, says a nuclear Iran would constitute an existential threat for the Jewish state and has refused to rule out a military strike to prevent it from gaining any such capability.

  • diana.gill.18 - 2012-09-11 00:13

    Are US experiencing a nappy shortage or the mighty yanks prefer to behave while they are not at home? What is an exact reason for the talk change?

      fred.fraser.12 - 2012-09-11 00:45

      What a silly comment.

  • fidel.mgoqi - 2012-09-11 04:06

    The Persians naturally don't appreciate being told what to do by foreigners!

      fred.fraser.12 - 2012-09-11 05:10

      South Africans don't appreciate that you call Nelson Mandela a phony, a lackey of the West, a modern-day Uncle Tom.

      fred.fraser.12 - 2012-09-11 21:33

      Again Patrick, making things up doesn't make them true. You're being silly. That's not an insult.

  • kingKanete - 2012-09-11 04:42

    america and israel will start things they can't finish... Its not a good look accusing oil rich countries just so you have a reason to attack them.

      fred.fraser.12 - 2012-09-11 05:12

      You're confusing the Iranian regime with the Iranian people. Two different things. Like the Apartheid regime and South Africans. Two different things.

      rick.kabose - 2012-09-11 07:52

      You presuming an invasion to get their hands on the oil. It will be a strike on all irans nuclear facilities. All should be successful as irans military is a joke technologically compared to Israeli or US weaponry. irans oil will still be theirs.They should drink it.

  • ft.burhaak - 2012-09-11 06:22

    Because u knw that if u made a dead line,u wud being created a dead line of catastrophic proportions!This wud b as good as lighting up the whole middle east,not to mention the tsumami it wud create for the whole world!

      fred.fraser.12 - 2012-09-11 07:10

      Wrong. The US and freer world knows it's just a matter of time before Iranians decide to take back their government. Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Syria and Iran.

      ft.burhaak - 2012-09-11 07:39

      Dnt bet on assumptions,and it wud b short sighted of any1 to imply instability in Iran,being inspired by upheavel in the surrounding regions.Hopefully people can start stating the facts,and avoid rediculous desires.

      fred.fraser.12 - 2012-09-11 07:52

      People used to say it was "a ridiculous desire" that SOuth Africans had to take back their government from the Apartheid regime.

      rick.kabose - 2012-09-11 07:56

      What upheavel. arabs do not want to see a nuclear iran,period. hamas and hizbolla will perhaps attack Israel,but will be in for a hiding like they never had before.hamas can be removed from gaza and hizbolla can be crushed into nothingness so Lebanon can have their country back. I doubt any arab nations will lose sleep over hamas or hizbol,they are a pain in everyones rear in the mid-east

      ft.burhaak - 2012-09-11 08:25

      @Rick Kabose.easier said then done.

  • Mark - 2012-09-11 07:32

    'The global balance of terror pioneered by the U.S. and the Soviet Union holds hostage all the citizens of the Earth. Each side persistently probes the limits of the other's tolerance like the Cuban missile crisis the testing of anti-satellite weapons the Vietnam and Afghanistan wars. The hostile military establishments are locked in some ghastly mutual embrace. Each needs the other. But the balance of terror is a delicate balance with very little margin for miscalculation. And the world impoverishes itself by spending a trillion dollars a year on preparations for war.'

      fred.fraser.12 - 2012-09-11 07:51

      That's a faulty simplification. The US and Soviet Union did not pioneer war. It's part of our human history, all the way back when. The Warrior archetype is part of our very DNA and personalities.

      Mark - 2012-09-11 08:00

      Sagan's words, not my own. Furthermore, it's from the attached video and it's in the context of the Cold War, the nuclear arms race, and the threat of mutually assured destruction.

      allcoveredinNinjas - 2012-09-11 09:01

      The US and Soviets both feared the use of weapons , mutually assured destructions was a legitimate deterent. We now have some who would see the mushroom crowd over Jerusalem as the best thing ever , the arrival of the end times , of peace and the divine genocide of those you are not of the faith . All the Abrahamic faiths see the arrival of the messiah , jesus's return or the 12th imam as the best thing ever , its arrival is soon and have groups who actively are trying to make this happen but none as vocal about it as the Iranian govt , who have been caught in clandestine nuclear proliferation networks , who have not complied with the AIEA and threatened a member nation of the UN with obliteration. No-one saw a nuclear exchange between the US and Soviets as anything but a nightmare.

      fidel.mgoqi - 2012-09-11 09:59

      Iranian rulers are smart enough to know that giving up nuclear technology will not stop Israel and the US via its proxies to come up with other excuses and threats against Iran. Not as long as there are huge amounts of gas and oil sitting on Iranian subterranean. If you don't understand how important destroying Iran is for both the American and Israeli government, then you know nothing about the subject. History is a good teacher!

      fred.fraser.12 - 2012-09-11 16:26

      Fidel, but to you even Nelson Mandela is "a proxie of the West". Your thoughts expressed in the US/Mandela thread.

  • jaba.kov - 2012-09-11 08:55

    Obama and Clinton should drop the "will not allow" claim. Iran isn't asking permission to develop nuclear weapons; they're just doing it. The correct message is "We will not accept or tolerate nuclear weapons in Iranian hands, and if Iran continues toward such an objective it will pay a high price." Neither Obama nor Clinton are serious students of history or military affairs. Iran is playing Chess - with a clear set of objectives, moving its pieces and developing its positions. The US is playing Poker, not yet realizing its bluff has been called.

      joe.mase.7 - 2012-09-11 10:59

      @Jaba - what is Israel playing... Blackjack or Russian Roulette? Why does Iran need your or anybodies permission to build or develop Nuclear Power. Israel did; did they ask permission to develop Nuclear War heads... am I missing something here or is it a 'colour' thing.... besides I think Iran would be a great balance of power in the region....

      fidel.mgoqi - 2012-09-11 11:10

      The only thing that Iran threatens is the regional nuclear hegemony of Israel and US' proxy, Saudi Arabia.

      fred.fraser.12 - 2012-09-11 18:02

      Another reactionary, immature and completely ineffective response from you, Ziyaad. All the while hundreds of thousands of innocent muslims are being slaughtered by Jihadists and unelected dictators in your midsts, to which you are blind and for which you blame Nato and the US.

  • pages:
  • 1