Iran Rejects UN Nuke Demands and Requests "Serious" Negotiations

August 22, Iran rejected the demands of the international community and the Useless Nations (UN) Security Council that they cease uranium enrichment. Instead, Iran is requesting "serious negotiations." Is it now perfectly clear that the previous years of negotiations were not serious? After years of talks which went nowhere, is there any reason to believe that Iran is now "serious" about resolving the issue? And what damage does continued stalling do to the collective security mechanism so prized by our European partners?

Still, the Iranians know that the cadre of the willfully deceived, or as we say: useful idiots, in the West will grasp at this straw and demand we give Iran more time to prove that we haven't already allowed them too much time to develop nuclear weapons.

Nearly six months ago, we posted the news that Iran's chief nuclear negotiator admitted using the process simply as a ruse while they continue their developing nuclear weapons:

In a speech to a closed meeting of leading Islamic clerics and academics, Hassan Rowhani, who headed talks with the so-called EU3 until last year, revealed how Tehran played for time and tried to dupe the West after its secret nuclear program was uncovered by the Iranian opposition in 2002.

He boasted that while talks were taking place in Tehran, Iran was able to complete the installation of equipment for conversion of yellowcake - a key stage in the nuclear fuel process - at its Isfahan plant while convincing European diplomats that nothing was afoot.

'From the outset, the Americans kept telling the Europeans, 'The Iranians are lying and deceiving you and they have not told you everything'. The Europeans used to respond, 'We trust them',' he said."

Now that the matter will be returned to the Useless Nations for consideration of sanctions against Iran's failure to comply with the previous resolution, one question should be uppermost: Do the Russians and Chinese, not to mention the French and the Germans, really want to participate in the self-neutering of the collective security process?

And, can those who claim to advocate peace stand by and watch the primary mechanism for promoting that value be undermined in such an overt and obvious fashion?