Iran Threatens to Quit Nuclear Treaty

Let me get this straight: if Iran isn’t allowed to enrich uranium, it will withdraw from a treaty in which it agreed not to enrich uranium. Got it. 1938 Alert from AP, with thanks to JE:

TEHRAN, Iran – The Iranian parliament threatened Sunday to force the government to withdraw from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty if the United States continues pressuring Tehran to suspend uranium enrichment.

In a letter to U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan read on state-run radio, the lawmakers said they would consider forcing the withdrawal if “the U.N. Secretary General and other members of the U.N. Security Council fail in their crucial responsibility to resolve differences peacefully.”

The legislators said they would have no choice but to “review Article 10 of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.” The article allows signatories to pull out of the treaty if they decide that extraordinary events have jeopardized the supreme interests of its country. A withdrawing nation must give fellow treaty signers and the U.N. three months notice and detail the events that have forced the decision to pullout of the agreement.

FacebookTwitterLinkedInDiggBlogger PostDeliciousEmailPinterestRedditStumbleUponPrint


  1. says

    I wonder why no one has thought about the possibility that Iran is methodically making threats to increase the oil prices because they have figured out how to use threats to manipulate the oil market. In the end they will have both nuclear weapons and high income from high oil prices.

  2. says

    iranian threats bring oil prices up is part of their stragedy, also risks the fall elections for control in the House and maybe Senate, that way they can get rid of Bush, as the demcRATS will start the process of impeachement of Bush. Iranians and other terrorist hate Bush as much as the DemocRATS, who will do anything to get their power back. anything!

  3. says

    I think it’s time to give these people some push back to their harsh statements of nuclear exchange with quiting the Nuclear Treaty, nuking Israel and how the United States will lose any war with them and how we can not stop them from making nukes.

    I recommend the following ideas or potential statements on post war Iran for reciprocity:

    “After we intervene militarily to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons we plan to divide the Persian Empire into 3 or 5 smaller nations.”


    “After we intervene militarily to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons we plan to remove territory such as the Arab populated southwest and Kurdish populated northwest into Iraq to maximize Middle Eastern freedom. We also, intend to move the Azeri’s into Azerbaijan to be with their ethic brothers and sisters and we may also do something with Baluchistan. Remaining will be a smaller Persian rump state containing very little oil”

    This method could have many positive effects to include:

    Unnerving the Farsi speaking people of Iran to put pressure on their government to stop the nukes or over through it all together to prevent territorial dismantling. Of course at worst it could mobilize Farsi speaking people (Persians) around their government but that could also start a civil war with their minority populations –either way it really stirs the $hit storm.

    Sticks more oil under a democracy –Iraq. I know, I know, but right now it’s better than in iran.

    Sticks it to our so-called friends the Turks by strengthening a largely autonomous Kurdish state in Iraq, same is true for our enemies the Syrians.

    Sticks it to our so-called friends the Pakis that could have to contend with its Baluchi minority wanting to join a Baluchi nation created out of Iran’s southeastern provinces.

    Same principle of divide and conquer (for freedom) could apply to Sudan (divided into a Christian south, Arab north (Sudan rump state) and Darfur to the west).

    In fact, the same principle could apply to Mexico who is exporting its unwanted poor to America at a high cost of social services and potential new technologies; don’t they owe us the Baja Peninsula by now?

  4. says

    Here is the best solution. Carpet bomb the nucleur facilities and the political leaders. And don’t send any ground troops. Our boys are not jihad fodder

  5. says

    An Iranian threat a day keeps the UN tied in knots and the US away.

    We’ve again made a huge mistake by deferring a problem, especially of this nature, to the brain-trust of the quote-unquote international community, ie., the Un, for resolution. Their opportunity to seek a diplomatic solution should have come to an abrupt end, on January 10, when the Mullah’s popped the UN seals.

  6. says

    So the Iranians are going to withdraw from a treaty that they refuse to live up to in the first place and then blame the United States for its withdraw from the treaty. Nice strawman arguement. Should convince only the most liberal or moronic…….. oh, wait that’s the UN. I tend to agree with the person above and think the U.S. should take out their reactors and and any other uranium producing facilities that are known about.

  7. says

    As if treaties have ever meant anything to Muslims.

    “Yes, we will uphold this treaty until such time as it is in our best interests to break it. Where do we sign?”

  8. says

    Its very clear that the Iranians will stall, promise to negotiate, then pull back, promise again, maybe sit down, then withdraw, over and over. Anyone who puts any faith in negotiations with this crew is a fool.

    Putting any faith in the possibility of any effective “diplomatic solution” dreamed up by the malevolent and venal clowns at the UN is also a waste of time.

    Both these approaches, by dangling the hope of a “peaceful” settlement of this issue in front of our eyes, serve to draw attention away from the very clear menacing statements of the Iranian leadership and the rapid pace of Iranian nuclear weapons development. Yes, a military strike on/war with Iran may be regrettable but it is a necessity if Europe and the U.S. are to avoid an inevitable attempt at a nuclear strike against our countries and Isreal is to avoid its destruction.

  9. says

    It doesn’t appear to be necessary to provide President Bush with an excuse for three more months’ dithering. He could have made that up, himself.

  10. says

    We must not dither with these people. When Winston Churchill warned the world about Hitler no one took him seriously, in fact he was laughed at. We are seeing history repeated here, iran must be brought into line NOW. No negotiation.

  11. says

    Three-card Monty, Mahmoud and the mad mullahs-style.

    These guys are like bad magicians, while the U.N. and U.S. leadership play along with each lame ‘bit’.

    Every uranium centrifuge white rabbit pulled from their sleeve and each phony bunch of red roses and inspection agreements yanked from Kofi Anan’s baggy drawers.

    We need Special Forces/Iranian exile Teams to be ready to pluck these theocratic Fleurs du Mal, from Mahmoud on down, before their apocalyptic fingers reach critical Mass.

    And a Black one it will be.

  12. says

    “Iranian threats bring oil prices up is part of their stragedy…..”

    Posted by Lulu May 7, 2006 10:13 AM

    I totally agree. Sun Tzu said that the best war is one that emplores dividing enemy forces without the use of physical altercation.

    Know the Enemy. Know yourself.

  13. says

    The president of Iran is a tool for the mullahs who are about as popular in Iran as Bush is here.

    Clearly, the Iranian theocrats are pushing this issue as a means of diverting attention from their own mounting domestic discontent by uniting the country against the “great satan”.

    And we are falling for it all the way.

    That is not to say that we should not ignore the threat, but lets not jump the gun so to speak.

    Iraq is a mess as is Afghanistan. If we open up a three front war right now we are putting ourselves in a very difficult predicament

  14. says

    and jesus knew their thoughts and said unto them every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation,and every city or house didided against itself shall not stand….if president bush waits too long he not be able to act.just look at the talk in washingtong…i pray he does something before november…or we could be in a world of hurt.

  15. says

    This is my first time signing on so forgive me my tress passes.
    If Iran leaves the treaty can’t we just stop letting them interact with the rest of the world by rejecting their passports.

  16. says

    Elad, this is a good idea, however the governments would never allow it. All that would happen is that the governments would be accused of racism by the muslims who live in our countries and the government would run with its tail between its legs as they always do. You must remember that our leaders (certainly in Britain) are cowards and thieves who will do anything to stay in power irrespective of what happens to their people.

  17. says

    DaveMate, perhaps we could target the passport denial to key countries. The most important of which would be Saudi Arabia. It is a requirement for all Muslims to make a pilgrimage to Mecca. I think that being denied the right to travel to Mecca by a Muslim country would shakeup the Irannian people more than economic sanctions would.