No details yet, but an "ambiguous" answer is expected. From the Hizballah News Agency, aka Reuters:
TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran on Tuesday handed over its reply to an incentives package by world powers aimed at allaying Western fears that Tehran seeks to build atomic bombs, Iran's state-run Arabic-language Al-Alam television reported.Ali Larijani, Iran's chief nuclear negotiator, gave the response to foreign envoys representing the six co-sponsors of the package in Tehran.
Al-Alam gave no details of the reply which Iranian officials have already indicated is unlikely to address a key demand by the U.N. Security Council that it suspend uranium enrichment work by an Aug. 31 deadline or face the threat of sanctions.
"I expect a very ambiguous answer," said one Western diplomat.
The world's fourth largest oil exporter insists it will not abandon what it calls its right to enrich uranium for use in nuclear power stations.
Refusing to suspend the work, which Iran says is aimed only at generating electricity but which the West sees as a disguised bid for atom bombs, would be tantamount to rejecting the package of incentives offered in return, Western diplomats say.
A rebuff would not yet trigger immediate action by the U.N. Security Council, which passed a resolution on July 31 giving Iran a month to halt enrichment or risk sanctions.
"We are not treating (Tuesday) as a deadline because it is not the Security Council deadline," one Western diplomat said. "If Iran flatly refuses to suspend enrichment, then there will, fairly soon, be more talks in the Security Council."
TWO-WAY ROAD
Security Council permanent members Britain, France, China, Russia and the United States plus Germany have offered Iran a range of economic, political and security incentives if it suspends atomic work that could be used to make nuclear bombs.
Iran has said its reply to the offer will be "multi-dimensional", suggesting no simple 'yes' or 'no'. Officials have also said Iran wants more talks to resolve the dispute.
"Confidence building is a two-way road, trust is always a two-way road," Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said in response to questions after a lecture in Pretoria, South Africa.
"Based on negotiations, there is a possibility for a comprehensive solution to this matter," he said.
A "multi-dimensional" reply, say diplomats, could lay bare divisions in the Security Council where the United States, France and Britain back sanctions but Russia and China, the other two veto-wielding members and both key trade partners of Iran, oppose them.
Anyone else SICK of all this talk with the monkey? Seems all these 'diplomats' can only arrange meetings and negotiations and talks and delay dealing with Iran.
They ALL look like a giant joke to the Muslim world - anyone can see that they haven't the stomach to crush Iran.
Can't trust the muslims.
Negotiate with Iran the way the police negotiate with an armed hostage holder. Keep talking until someone in SWAT has a clear shot. I can dream can't I?
Who froze the news????
Refusing to suspend the work, which Iran says is aimed only at generating electricity ??????
The Iranian moonbat in charge, has openly said he intends to have nuclear weapons.
Just what has the Hizballah News Agency been smoking???
I appreciate the information on this site, but it's the little comments like "Hizballah News Agency, aka Reuters" that make it difficult to take some of your analysis seriously. Do you honestly believe that Reuters is the Hizballah News Agency? Come on. They are doing their best to remain impartial and objective in their stories. They referenced points from both sides of the argument and even brought up problems with keeping Iran in line with their nuclear program. It was not a one sided "hizballah" news release.
You don't need to turn into a Sean Hannity or a Rush Limbaugh to make your point.
Jeff D
You missed the stories about Adnan Hajj, the Reuters photographer who doctored the photos about the extent of bombings in Beirut. Granted, Reuters fired him, but I'll submit to you that skeptics can be forgiven for assuming that it's because he got caught doing it, not because he did it in the first place.
Also, both Hannity and Rush have their credibility, despite being partisan shills blindly supporting the continuation of the mission in Iraq. They do deserve to be taken to task for not recognizing Islam as the #1 threat to the US, but not for the reason you apparantly outline.