Iran's Nuclear Program

meditraitor

Growler wrote:

I know its currently fashionable to believe the conspiracy that the US is intent on taking over the middle east, but I don't believe that either the UN, EU or the American people would allow another war or invasion like Iraq, ok admittedly they couldn' do much about it should Bush go all Napoleonic on us, but, for all its failings its still a democracy.

I think only by compliance with the well intentioned UN will the world be better off. If the world needs a super power to police it, i'd far rather it be a democratic and largely secular US/Western coalition with all the imperfections of capitalism than say a communist or islamist inspired alternative. I'd also like to see them go into far more conflicts under the appoval of the UN.

I do not believe that the US will invade Iran to seize their oil, it simply isn't a feasible scenario.

What GWB says in his pyjamas is of little interest to me, he's a politician, he'll say he sacrifices goats if he thinks thats what people want to hear, personally I'd question the sanity of anyone who has conversations with imaginary friends, but at least he has a cabinet, a senate, a house of representatives and a functioning (ish) electorate to answer to. Iran has none of these constraints or checks on the infallibel powers of their rulers

Just checked the date on my watch, no its not 1st April!! you cant honestly believe that dude!
As for democracy, it(USA) has spent years portraying such an Ideal but in effect it is a corporation and one not constrained by any international rules...even the UN.
USA inc will not take no for an answer, look at their current Finances, they owe Trillions to Japan,china etc-- will they pay it back, doubtfull, god forbid any country ever gets in debt to The USA(IMF)- they own you, tell you how to live both commercially and religiously... do you really want a moral and ethically bankrupt Government having all the power over this planet?

Iran are only trying to protect themselves from USA control, and why wouldnt they.....

Just as a little footnote, what about the CIA-backed military coup against Mosadegh, the Iranian nationalist democrat(note this word)) leader, some fifty years ago? USA has a lot to answer for in terms of the path Iran has taken since world was 2!

growler

RedPlanet wrote:

Hamas is a political party, not a country. I do not fear them and would treat them as equals. If the Palestians had a state, and pursued nuclear technology, i have no basis in which to complain. Other then the goal of total nuclear disarmament. But the only reason i see countries are interested in nukes is to be treated as equals by the existing nuclear powers.
So nuclear disarmament needs to start with them.

Personally I can't think of any reason to risk the planet (or part thereof) on a vain hope in the inherent goodnes of humanity. If everyone has nukes someone will use them. Nuclear diarmament doesn't start with nuclear armament.

RedPlanet

growler wrote:

...personally I'd question the sanity of anyone who has conversations with imaginary friends, but at least he has a cabinet, a senate, a house of representatives and a functioning (ish) electorate to answer to. Iran has none of these constraints or checks on the infallibel powers of their rulers.

While i'm not saying i'm an expert in Iranian politics, they too have elections and according to wikipedia: "Supreme Leader is elected by a congress-like body called the Assembly of Experts, whose members are elected by direct public vote to eight-year terms. The Supreme Leader is appointed for life once elected; however, the Assembly, which is also in charge of making sure that the Leader complies with his legal duties, has the power to dismiss and replace him at any time."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran/Government

The point is that you seem to harbour some misconceptions about Iran.
Maybe you should be a skeptic, and consider where you may have picked up that misconception from(that the Supreme Leader has infallible powers).

RedPlanet

growler wrote:

Personally I can't think of any reason to risk the planet (or part thereof) on a vain hope in the inherent goodnes of humanity. If everyone has nukes someone will use them. Nuclear diarmament doesn't start with nuclear armament.

Well i guess we disagree then. It'd be with a very heavy heart that i would consider the inherent goodness of humanity to be in vain.
And in fact, if that were the case, then without humanity, what do we have?
War and aggrression and death?

Someone has already used nukes, the USA.
There can be no nuclear disarmament if nobody has nukes to begin with.
It is the great equaliser.
It's almost like your saying a country should just accept it's second class status in the world and not aspire to parity of esteem.
Iran nor Pakistan nor N.Korea started this nuclear non-sense.
Besides, for all we know Iran's nuclear ambitions are 100% domestic and 0% military.
The onus is on the USA to prove it's case, not Iran to disprove anything.
Remember Colin Powell at the UN making the case for WMD's in Iraq?
Why do you trust their intelligence when so recently its been a pie in the face for them?

growler

RedPlanet wrote:

While i'm not saying i'm an expert in Iranian politics, they too have elections and according to wikipedia: "Supreme Leader is elected by a congress-like body called the Assembly of Experts, whose members are elected by direct public vote to eight-year terms. The Supreme Leader is appointed for life once elected; however, the Assembly, which is also in charge of making sure that the Leader complies with his legal duties, has the power to dismiss and replace him at any time."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran/Government

The point is that you seem to harbour some misconceptions about Iran.
Maybe you should be a skeptic, and consider where you may have picked up that misconception from(that the Supreme Leader has infallible powers).

why don't you do a bit of rmore indepth reading up on iran then ?

Have a look at who runs their media. What happens to pro reform candidates, supporters, trade unionists, womens rights supporters etc ?

Iran is a theocracy, it has the trappings of democracy but like everything else in Iran ultimate control rests with the mullahs.

DemonOfTheFall

Whether or not the Iranians have a right to nuke tech, I think all they're doing by pursuing it is making it more likely that their country will be reduced to a glowing pile of molten glass...

RedPlanet

growler wrote:

why don't you do a bit of rmore indepth reading up on iran then ?

Have a look at who runs their media. What happens to pro reform candidates, supporters, trade unionists, womens rights supporters etc ?

Iran is a theocracy, it has the trappings of democracy but like everything else in Iran ultimate control rests with the mullahs.

I guess that's something that i've heard but i take it with a pinch of salt as it sounds like some silly western propaganda.
I've read that there are elections in Iran. I didn't read anything that said ultimate controll rests with the mullahs. In fact i'd argue against that because mullahs themselves would most likely derive their power from the public.
I don't care who runs Iranian media, i'd wish women had more rights but at least they can drive (unlike Saudi Arabia who is NOT on USA's hitlist for some reason). But this is all besides the point. The point is, that you believe USA is a democracy and therefore can be "trusted" i guess, to have nukes. Yet you also believe that Iran is a theocracy whom has a supreme leader that is infallible and therefore cannot be trusted to have nukes. I provided a link to demonsrate that Iran actually does have elections an in reality, is probably more democratic than some of Washington's allies. I don't understand why a Theocracy can't have nukes but a quasi-democracy can.
President Bush (Jnr and Snr) both went to war, or declared war without the authorisation of Congress (which is contrary to the US Constitution) so what is your point again?

RedPlanet

DemonOfTheFall wrote:

Whether or not the Iranians have a right to nuke tech, I think all they're doing by pursuing it is making it more likely that their country will be reduced to a glowing pile of molten glass...

Right so, it's "croppy lie down" from you then huh?

growler

RedPlanet wrote:

. I don't understand why a Theocracy can't have nukes but a quasi-democracy can.

I disagree with your assertion that the US is a quasi democracy.

I'm a bit surprised that you can't see a number of very good reasons why a theocracy shouldn't have the means to make a very big bang.

RedPlanet

growler wrote:

I disagree with your assertion that the US is a quasi democracy.

I disagree with your assertion that the Supreme Leader in Iran is infallible.
Go figure.

Maybe all this Israel vs Iran stuff is bollix anyway.
http://jta.org/page_view_breaking_story.asp?intid=2450
The room burst into applause, however, when AJCommittee board member Edith Everett asked Mehlman to “take a message” to President Bush to stop linking Israel and Iran.
“It does not help Israel and it does not help American Jews to appear to be stimulators of any action against Iran,” Everett said.
She added that “it’s easy to understand why Iran is not worried about us” because Iraq is consuming so many U.S. resources.
Mehlman replied by acknowledging that Iraq was a “challenge,” but claimed it’s “less of a challenge than when Saddam Hussein was in power.”
The room filled with boos and hisses.

growler

RedPlanet wrote:

I disagree with your assertion that the Supreme Leader in Iran is infallible.
Go figure.

since you're fond of wikipedia
"Supreme Leader's ideological and politcal authority is, as the title implies, supreme."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Leader_of_Iran

here's a definition of supreme

Mr Khamenei funcitons as the marja for shia's , meaning he is the second highest authority after the prophet. Sadly I don't know enough about Islamic theology to state with certainty whether he (claims he ) is "infallible" in the strictest english interpretation of the word. But as he is both the ultimate source for Shia theology and happens to be the ultimate source of iranian political power, he's pretty damn close.

RedPlanet

growler wrote:

since you're fond of wikipedia
"Supreme Leader's ideological and politcal authority is, as the title implies, supreme."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Leader_of_Iran

here's a definition of supreme

Mr Khamenei funcitons as the marja for shia's , meaning he is the second highest authority after the prophet. Sadly I don't know enough about Islamic theology to state with certainty whether he (claims he ) is "infallible" in the strictest english interpretation of the word. But as he is both the ultimate source for Shia theology and happens to be the ultimate source of iranian political power, he's pretty damn close.

Ya, so close that he can be removed from power at any time by an elected body.

Parsley

growler wrote:

I disagree with your assertion that the US is a quasi democracy.

What is it then? Cos it sure ain't a democracy, either in the proper sense of the word (rule by the people), or in the customary sense.

Why should Iran not be allowed nukes and the US be allowed?

The number of countries against which the US has committed direct or indirect aggression since 1979 is too long for a complete list (i'll try below). The countries against which Iran has committed aggression in that time are: Israel (maybe). That's it. Everyone.

Since 1979 America is responsible for over 1.2eve million Iraqi deaths, 300,000 deaths in Central America (Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras), and hundreds of thousands of poverty-related deaths elsewhere brought about because of US economic policy. Plus assorted other thousands of deaths in Sudan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Grenada, Panama, Haiti etc etc.

Iran's peacefulness and compliance with international law puts the US to shame.

growler

RedPlanet wrote:

Ya, so close that he can be removed from power at any time by an elected body.

you may have missed the bit about it being an appointment for life.

Manic Moran

For anyone who actually wants to read the letter, Le Monde has printed it.

http://www.cnn.com/interactive/world/0605/transcript.lemonde.letter/index.html

It's eight pages long, and appealing to the inherent goodness of humanity to reduce suffering under the auspices of God. (Curiously, many references to Jesus, few to Mohammed). It says absolutely nothing about the current dispute of nuclear enrichment, the only invitation appears on page 7: To "return to the teachings of prophets, monotheism and justice."

Not exactly an impasse-breaker.

Cos it sure ain't a democracy, either in the proper sense of the word (rule by the people), or in the customary sense.

Technically it is categorised as a Representative Republic. True democracy is virtually unworkable in any country.

NTM

RedPlanet

Growler we are running in circles here.

growler wrote:

you may have missed the bit about it being an appointment for life.

So are the Supreme Court Justices in the US.

But whatever, it doesn't matter that the appointment is for life because he can be removed at any time by an elected body.

growler

RedPlanet wrote:

Growler we are running in circles here.

So are the Supreme Court Justices in the US.

But whatever, it doesn't matter that the appointment is for life because he can be removed at any time by an elected body.

Elected from a pool of candidates approved by the Guardian Council which is in turn appointed by him.

I know its currently fashionable to believe the conspiracy that the US is intent on taking over the middle east, but I don't believe that either the UN, EU or the American people would allow another war or invasion like Iraq, ok admittedly they couldn' do much about it should Bush go all Napoleonic on us, but, for all its failings its still a democracy.

Firstly the US doesn't have the capabilities to occupy the Middle East. That isn't going to happen. However this glorious christian cause to bring freedom and equality to the M.East, that we've seen so far is what worries me.

Afghanistan was "liberated" from AQ with massive promises of how life would be better for the general population. And we've seen that the only real improvement is more demand for the drug trade because the US troops have increased demand. So a soverign nation was invaded for what? Empty promises & retribution for an action thats increasingly becoming subjective due to constant probes into the Sept 11 attack.

Iraq. In no way related to AQ. No involvement in Sept 11. Suddenly a threat to American Assets. A threat to Europe. Suddenly Iraq desired the destruction of the west, and apparently was actually capable of doing so. Then came the reasons of toppling a dictator, and bringing freedom & prosperity to its population. Instead we have seen 3+ years of war, worsening conditions for the population, and an increased desire by America to wipe their hands of the whole thing.

No. My problem isn't with the US taking over the M.East. My problem is the US generating massive support for terrorist action against the west. Increasing the desire by Oil producing countries to arm to the teeth to prevent losing their resources. And the forceful indocrination of people into freedom & democracy.

Haven't you noticed that the only times Bush's ratings go up is when a disaster strikes US soil, and they go to a conventional war? After all, we've seen that the Bush administration don't shy away from taking their troops to foreign soil.

I think only by compliance with the well intentioned UN will the world be better off. If the world needs a super power to police it, i'd far rather it be a democratic and largely secular US / Western coalition with all the imperfections of capitalism than say a communist or islamist inspired alternative. I'd also like to see them go into far more conflicts under the appoval of the UN.

Ditto. I'd love it if the UN could actually live up to its promises, but it can't. It was a great idea, and should remain as a world forum, but its basically toothless. The only thing left in its arsenal are sanctions, and all they do is make life harder for the general population, hardly affecting the ruling government.

We need to start generating trust amongst countries. The time has come to stop thinking purely with the missile, and start using true diplomacy.

I do not believe that the US will invade Iran to seize their oil, it simply isn't a feasible scenario.

Iraq has more oil than Iran, and the US isn't getting too much out of them at the moment. Personally I don't think this is about Oil any more. Iraq sure, but Iran? I'd suggest that Bush is looking for a target to generate fear in the American people. If the US have an enemy that could possibly harm them, they'll be less likely to resist his rule. A frightened people are easily controlled.

What GWB says in his pyjamas is of little interest to me, he's a politician, he'll say he sacrifices goats if he thinks thats what people want to hear, personally I'd question the sanity of anyone who has conversations with imaginary friends, but at least he has a cabinet, a senate, a house of representatives and a functioning (ish) electorate to answer to. Iran has none of these constraints or checks on the infallibel powers of their rulers.

And should another event like Sept 11 occur on US soil, how long do you think it would take him to gain support for a military strike, if he could prove a connection? Perhaps a biological weapon going off on US soil, that could be tied to Iran? The one thing I've learnt from watching politics all my life is that the general population doesn't have that much control over what is going on, and that politicians are a breed apart. They'll support what benefits them. The few that would resist such a notion would be pushed aside by the patriotic frenzy.

Street Byte

Firstly an attack on Iran may not happen. Iraq would implode for a start, reversing all Americas efforts to date. But more importantly America has a good understanding of Iranian politics and would not marginalise Iranian reformists. The ruling Clerics of Iran are not without their internal critics - the most fervent of which are based in Qom, Irans most sacred city, and are themselves high ranking Clerics. There is stronger potential for change in Iran then there is anywhere else in the Arab world and America knows it.

Popularist politics being what it is got the current civilian president elected. But he was not elected on an anti-American or anti-Isreali platform, rather a promise of better employment and living conditions for the wider populace. His failure to deliver on these key promises has alot to do with his willingness to act as a mouth piece for the ruling Clerics - he has NO control over the nuclear program or any armed faction in Iran. Those ministries (the ones controlling this project) are in the firm grasp of the Clerics.

This leads me to believe that the current situation has a built in fail sae on the Iranian side - if Iran does compromise, the President, not the Clerics, loose face.

We should also not loose sight of American and Iranian history. Anyone remember Oliver North? The Americans and the Iranians have alot in interests in common and have been doing business for years. Public posturing should not be taken as factual stance, rather its just playing to the galleries. Irans needs America to suceed in Iraq as much as Bush needs it, the same can be siad of Afghanistan.

The Mullahs do not want to be dragged into an Iraqi civil war which would polarise the Muslim world, with the opposing Sunni's being an 80% majority over the Iranian led Shia.

Iran chose what it saw as an opportune time to break cover and drive forward its nuclear program. Recent diplomatic developments indicate that they have run out of room to manuvre sooner than they thought, cheifly because they failed to secure diplomatic alternatives offered by Russia and thought China might be relied upon (as a future oil market) to back them up on the United Nations security council.

Iran has manipulated the West on many occasions and always won (Salman Rushdi etc). This time they have something to loose and nothing to fight with. Any perspective strike against Iranian facilities might destabilise Iraq, but America can pull out, Iran cant - therefore cannot retaliate effectivly. Iran also requires American influence in Afghanistan to protect that coutries Shia minority, which by the way Iran failed to protect by aborting an invasion of Afghanistan prior to 9/11. An action that it may well be paying for now after looseing so much face.

On the issue of the actual program itself, Irans nuclear program is not like Pakistans, it is in fact more akin to india. Pakistan begged, stole, bought and borrowed its technology, therefore its program is in terminal decline after massive investment. India, like Iran has build it program from the ground up giving far greater scope for development and potential export. Therefore it must be transparant and limited.

Irans attempt to win popular support by condemning Isreal have isolated it from the international community who cannot stand by and watch them threaten a member of the Untied Nations. Its one thing to threaten to wipe out someone, its quite another to then go on to aquire that very capability.

By submitting itself to rigerous IAEA inspection and abandoning any weapons grade enrichment I believe Iran will gain Nuclear power. As we watch, their current stance is untennable and they have to compromise. I hope they do.

Squaddy

Parsley wrote:

What is it then? Cos it sure ain't a democracy, either in the proper sense of the word (rule by the people), or in the customary sense.

Why should Iran not be allowed nukes and the US be allowed?

The number of countries against which the US has committed direct or indirect aggression since 1979 is too long for a complete list (i'll try below). The countries against which Iran has committed aggression in that time are: Israel (maybe). That's it. Everyone.

Since 1979 America is responsible for over 1.2eve million Iraqi deaths, 300,000 deaths in Central America (Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras), and hundreds of thousands of poverty-related deaths elsewhere brought about because of US economic policy. Plus assorted other thousands of deaths in Sudan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Grenada, Panama, Haiti etc etc.

Iran's peacefulness and compliance with international law puts the US to shame.

Spot on. Its gone back 100 years before 1979. The millions killed in the Vietnam war and the thousands killed in the 911 attacks.

Hobbes

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/US_military_seen_ready_for_Iran_0511.html

intresting read. Haven't researched whats mentioned yet so take it with a pinch of salt.

Seems to suggest that the US is already moving military assets towards Iran in preperation for a strike.

Squaddy

Hobbes wrote:

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/US_military_seen_ready_for_Iran_0511.html

intresting read. Haven't researched whats mentioned yet so take it with a pinch of salt.

Seems to suggest that the US is already moving military assets towards Iran in preperation for a strike.

I'm not surprised. Do you think Bush even cares about the letter. Sure he doesnt believe in God.

Frederico

Hobbes wrote:

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/US_military_seen_ready_for_Iran_0511.html

intresting read. Haven't researched whats mentioned yet so take it with a pinch of salt.

Seems to suggest that the US is already moving military assets towards Iran in preperation for a strike.

Well its more of a bluff really, American warplanes have been doing nuke-dropping manoeveurs right in front of the Iranians. They really just want Iran to pull a Libya, but doesn't look like thats going to happen.

Manic Moran

If more reports like this come out, I don't think the US or Israel are likely to wait for the UN.

From AP: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060512/ap_on_re_mi_ea/nuclear_agency_iran;_ylt=ArHLmeNtJNyehVE9YSDAIe6s0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3b3JuZGZhBHNlYwM3MjE-

VIENNA, Austria - The U.N. atomic agency found traces of highly enriched uranium at an Iranian site linked to the country's defense ministry, diplomats said Friday, adding to concerns that Tehran was hiding activities aimed at making nuclear arms.

The diplomats, who demanded anonymity in exchange for revealing the confidential information, said the findings were preliminary and still had to be confirmed through other lab tests. But they said the density of enrichment appeared to be close to or above the level used to make nuclear warheads.

[Story continues on link]

NTM

Hobbes

Sounds a lot like the so called *Nuclear expert* they had on Iraq. I guess he must be moonlighting.

Dirk Gently

Manic Moran wrote:

The diplomats, who demanded anonymity in exchange for revealing the confidential information, said the findings were preliminary and still had to be confirmed through other lab tests. But they said the density of enrichment appeared to be close to or above the level used to make nuclear warheads.[/i]

Why did they demand anonymity?

Who are they and why did they feel the need to leak this information at this time. Smells like propaganda to me.

If the claims are true (and I'm not saying there not) why couldn't they be revealed officially? Until the claims are officially backed up with evidence I'll take them with a pinch of salt. Your right, more reports like this and they might not wait for a U.N. mandate, that’s the problem with reports like this and why they should be open and public backed up with evidence.

A serious war of words recently between Russia and the U.S. regarding both countries Human rights record makes Russian support for a U.S. attack less likely and reports like this will only increase the case for unilateral action. This is why I question the timing and the source of this report.

John_C

Also, there was a very similar report a year or two ago which amounted to nothing except trace contamination from the equipments previous owner.

Manic Moran

Without addressing the concept of whether or not the leaked reports are accurate. (I'm certainly not in a position to judge)

Why did they demand anonymity?

Because it's a leak. Usually governments don't take kindly to leaks, it's the sort of thing that can lose you your job.

Who are they and why did they feel the need to leak this information at this time. Smells like propaganda to me.

Could be. Or it could be someone in the IAEA who is genuinely concerned that Iran is producing nukes, and believes that the UN is going to take too long to react effectually. Either is possible, but certainly there has to be a motivation for a leak. Then again, leaks aren't particularly uncommon either.

If the claims are true (and I'm not saying there not) why couldn't they be revealed officially?

Ever worked with a government bureaucracy? Correct channels take for ever and an age. I don't know what the schedule or level of release is for the next IAEA briefing, it could be that by regular channels, the information would take longer than ideal to surface.

I'm just putting a counterpoint reminder up to the standard 'US is warmongering' refrain. It's possible that on this occasion, the US might actually be justified. Broken clock, and all that.

NTM

Dirk Gently

Manic Moran wrote:

Broken clock, and all that.

NTM

Broken clock theory, I like it.

Could well be it is genuine concern, but just like the whole WMD claims and the dodgy dossiers it not credible until backed up with evidence. These false claims are what gave the "coalition of the willing" just enough credability to strike.
At the moment it has to be viewed as an opinion from unknown sources which fuels the case for military action.

It’s the timing of this report that I have most problem with. With Iran showing signs of wanting to engage in direct talks with the U.S., and U.S./ Russian relations taking a turn for the worse recently, this is a nicely timed shot in the arm for those who argue that military strikes should happen. There doesn’t seem to be strong international support for an attack on Iran at the moment but statements like this could sway those sitting on the fence and justify an attack. This is why the claims must be presented properly with evidence or you risk going to war on at best unreliable information and at worst after being deliberatly mis-lead and lied to.