What's new

'We will never use force on Muslim neighbours' :Iran

Devil Soul

ELITE MEMBER
Joined
Jun 28, 2010
Messages
22,931
Reaction score
45
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
'We will never use force on Muslim neighbours'
Meera Ravi
5 December 2010, 6:42 AM
Iran has the potential to become very powerful but the Islamic Republic shall never use force against its Muslim neighbours, said Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki.
Repeatedly calling for indigenous innovation and the need for Arab countries to rely on their own ability to resolve issues instead of depending on foreign powers, Minister Mottaki told the 7th IISS Manama Dialogue here that the Muslim world had nothing to fear from Iran’s nuclear potential, and that his government viewed the scientific achievement of nuclear power as a benefit for the entire Muslim world.

“The reality is that Iran has more or less the same potential of other countries to become very powerful, but we will not use that potential to hurt our neighbours… especially because our neighbours are Muslims. Our power is your power, and your power is ours,” he told the gathering.

Speaking on Day 2 of the regional security summit after what was widely perceived to be a “reaching out” statement by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton the previous evening that Washington remained committed to negotiations with Teheran, Mottaki said his government wouldn’t back down from its policy of enriching nuclear fuel on its own territory.

That sets up a diplomatic showdown in Geneva for the upcoming P5+1 talks, set to start on Monday, which US officials see as another step in US President Barack Obama’s policy of diplomatic outreach to the Islamic Republic.

“We hope that you will come to it, as we will, in good faith and prepared to engage constructively on your nuclear programme,” Clinton said on Friday.

Mottaki described Clinton’s comments on Iran’s right to a peaceful nuclear energy programme as a “step forward”. Emphatically stating Iran believed that the era of nuclear weapons was over, Mottaki said: “Iran does not believe in producing a nuclear weapon, nor does this issue exist in its doctrine. We strongly believe that the era of nuclear weapons is over. If nuclear weapons were capable of solving problems, they would have done so, especially in the past 10 to 15 years, in problematic regions where most of the time one of the parties involved was in possession a nuclear weapon.”

According to Mottaki, Iran has said it will need at least 20,000 megawatts of nuclear-fuelled energy for the country’s growth. This, he said, would mean building at least 15 nuclear power plants for electricity and this, in turn, needs enriched uranium as fuel.

He added that providing clean energy was vital for the stability and security of the world and it was very sensitive how this energy was produced and transmitted. “We understand the need to guarantee this security and Iran has resolved to guarantee international security in the region in this context,” he said.

Bahrain’s Foreign Minister Shaikh Khalid bin Ahmed bin Mohammed Al Khalifa proposed in his speech that the world should consider the development of the US-proposed international civilian nuclear-fuel bank as a solution to the development of peaceful nuclear energy while restricting a nuclear arms race.

Shaikh Khalid said: “There are diametrically differing views on the issue that uranium enrichment capability can be adapted to develop nuclear weapon material. An idea worth considering is the development of an international civilian nuclear-fuel bank, proposed by the United States, that is supervised by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) could be an important step forward in negotiating a solution. It can also address Iran’s concerns about security of fuel supply, serve as a first step towards efforts to prevent the abuse of nuclear-fuel-cycle technology, and could help realise a nuclear-weapon-free Middle East.”

However, Mottaki responded that since Iran was producing nuclear fuel, the idea of a nuclear-fuel bank would be acceptable only if it were located in Iran, which would contribute to the fuel supplies and that this was not a signal that Iran would give up what he said was Iran’s sovereign right to enrich its own uranium.

“We are [in] agreement in creation of a fuel bank, and since we are a fuel producer and we have the technology for that, then presumably a branch of the bank will be built in Iran,” he said.

He also said that to prevent Iran from producing its own enriched nuclear fuel was tantamount to scientific apartheid.

Talking about Iran’s role as a regional power, Mottaki said: “Iran has the potential to become very powerful but we shall not turn this power on our Muslim neighbours. Self-sufficiency among our Muslim neighbours encourages our indigenous innovation.”

“The military presence of foreigners, the establishment of military bases in the region and the increase of such forces do not meet regional security needs. The history of the region has proved it,” he said.

The top Iranian diplomat added that security could be established in the Middle East through regional cooperation and mutual trust. He said Iran’s economy has been unaffected by sanctions imposed by the West to curb its nuclear programme. “The sanctions (have) had no effect on the economy,” Mottaki said.

Meanwhile, Iran’s Intelligence Minister Heydar Moslehi accused the IAEA of sending spies from foreign intelligence services to the Islamic state, according to Iranian broadcaster IRIB.

Moslehi repeated allegations that the intelligence services of Britain, the US and Israel were behind the murder of an Iranian nuclear scientist this week, citing confessions from those arrested by Iran over the case.
'We will never use force on Muslim neighbours'
 
. . . . . .
Does anybody remember the Iran-Iraq war? ;)

Such statements are nothing more than political posturing, with no real meaning. When the crunch comes, it is all about selfish national (and personal) interests, and definition of who is a muslim or who is the aggressor are all manipulated by both sides to suit their own needs.
 
.
Does anybody remember the Iran-Iraq war? ;)

Such statements are nothing more than political posturing, with no real meaning. When the crunch comes, it is all about selfish national (and personal) interests, and definition of who is a muslim or who is the aggressor are all manipulated by both sides to suit their own needs.

Exactly my thoughts. I was just about to post it and I saw your comments.

Just about 25 decades ago, Iran was involved in a deadly 8 year old war with Iraq. Where was the notion of Muslim solidarity then? When things go bad and personal interests are at stake, one doesnt remember the other guy's religion.
 
. .
Exactly my thoughts. I was just about to post it and I saw your comments.

Just about 25 decades ago, Iran was involved in a deadly 8 year old war with Iraq. Where was the notion of Muslim solidarity then? When things go bad and personal interests are at stake, one doesnt remember the other guy's religion.

but i think iraq attacked iran.
 
.
Does anybody remember the Iran-Iraq war?

Such statements are nothing more than political posturing, with no real meaning. When the crunch comes, it is all about selfish national (and personal) interests, and definition of who is a muslim or who is the aggressor are all manipulated by both sides to suit their own needs.

I think Iraq was the aggressor. Not Iran.

It involved chemical weapons too.. The most horrible way for a human to die.

And I think it was Iraq who used chemical weapons.
 
.
Does anybody remember the Iran-Iraq war? ;)

Such statements are nothing more than political posturing, with no real meaning. When the crunch comes, it is all about selfish national (and personal) interests, and definition of who is a muslim or who is the aggressor are all manipulated by both sides to suit their own needs.

Please re-read the bolded part and try to understand what it really means.
 
.
This is a political statement from Iran in the light of Saudi verbal attack, who (Iran) were involved in a war with its Muslim neighbour Iraq. And, as if it was not enough, their people did a shoot out at mecca.

Here is what Osama said on this:

In the mid-1980s according to an associate, bin Laden in a private conversation said that "the men who seized the Mosque were true Muslims."
 
.
Iran was not aggressor in Iran - Iraq War and it was Iraq who invaded Iran and Iran just was defending its nation frm Iraq .

however todays Iran is very different than the 80s Iran .

anyways, Iran is India's old friend i guess
 
.
Does anybody remember the Iran-Iraq war? ;)

Such statements are nothing more than political posturing, with no real meaning. When the crunch comes, it is all about selfish national (and personal) interests, and definition of who is a muslim or who is the aggressor are all manipulated by both sides to suit their own needs.

Einstein, Iraq attacked Iran

Iran hasn't attacked another country for more than 300 years. If protecting your country against the arabs and the West is "selfishness" then we are the most selfish people on earth.
 
.

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom