Iran's Nuclear Program

[earth_as_one]

Background:

wiki

The controversy over Iran's nuclear programs centers in particular on Iran's failure to declare sensitive enrichment and reprocessing activities to the IAEA.[6] Enrichment can be used to produce uranium for reactor fuel or (at higher enrichment levels) for weapons.[7] Iran says its nuclear program is peaceful,[8] and has enriched uranium to less than 5 percent, consistent with fuel for a civilian nuclear power plant.[9] Iran also claims that it was forced to resort to secrecy after US pressure caused several of its nuclear contracts with foreign governments to fall through.[citation needed]

After the IAEA Board of Governors reported Iran's noncompliance with its safeguards agreement to the UN Security Council, the Council demanded that Iran suspend its nuclear enrichment activities[10] while Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has argued that the sanctions are "illegal," imposed by “arrogant powers,” and that Iran has decided to pursue the monitoring of its self-described peaceful nuclear program through "its appropriate legal path,” the International Atomic Energy Agency.[11]...

Nuclear program of Iran - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The fact is, Iran has never been proven to be in violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). On the contrary, punitive measures against Iran for their peaceful nuclear program violate the NPT.

Iran has failed to observe some voluntary confidence building protocols. Notice voluntary is bolded because it has a completely different meaning from mandatory. Considering the level of NPT violating harassment Iran has experienced, I'm not surprised Iran has chosen not to reveal some activities years in advance as per the voluntary protocols and instead choses to reveal their nuclear activities about a year in advance of carrying them out. Since Iran revealed its nuclear program, all their known nuclear facilities are closely monitored by the IAEA.

Demonizing anti-Iranian propaganda, frequently regurgitated by our news and political leaders fail to make the distinction between voluntary and mandatory parts of the NPT. In fact they deliberately twist the facts to create a misperception that Iran wants nuclear weapons and seeks to give them to terrorist groups.

Obama On Iran And Sanctions

The 5 permanent members of the United Nations Security Council – Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States, along with Germany, are meeting in New York to discuss potential new sanctions on Iran.

..."All of whom believe that it is important for us to send a strong signal to Iran that their consistent violation of United Nations Security Council resolutions, as well as their obligations under the NPT [the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty] have consequences, and that they have a better path to take."

Mr. Obama spoke at the conclusion of the nuclear security summit held in Washington on April 12th and 13th which drew leaders from forty-seven countries intent on safeguarding fissile material and keeping nuclear weapons out of the hands of terrorists.


President Obama said that the international community will respond to Iran's continued defiance of its international obligations and emphasized that the opportunity for a more positive and better future will remain a choice for Iran's leaders:

"What sanctions do accomplish is hopefully to change the calculus of a country like Iran so that they see that there are more costs and fewer benefits to pursuing a nuclear weapons program...

Despite common misperceptions to the contrary, Iran has not violated any mandatory part of the NPT. They have never been proven to have a nuclear weapon program and insinuations that they plan to arm terrorists with nukes is just fear mongering of the same type which war criminals used to promote their illegal war against Iraq which has resulted in a million deaths so far.

As a signatory of the NPT, Iran has a right to peacefully nuclear technology, but not nuclear weapons. A majority of nations support Iran's development of peaceful nuclear technology without interference.

For example the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) has publicly stated they support Iran's peaceful nuclear program:
NAM issues statement in support of Iran nuclear case

Also the UN Security Council is not in agreement regarding Iran's nuclear program:

Brazil, Turkey promote diplomatic solution on Iran

(AFP) – 3 days ago

BRASILIA — Brazil's Foreign Minister Celso Amorim and his Turkish counterpart Ahmet Davutoglo reiterated Friday their nations' opposition to new sanctions against Iran, promoting renewed dialogue instead.

"We will continue to work together to arrive at a diplomatic solution on Iran and we hope that in the course of the coming week we can make some progress on this front," Davutoglo said during a press conference.

Brazil and Turkey, both non-permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, have proven resistant to a recent US push for new sanctions against Iran in response to its nuclear program...
AFP: Brazil, Turkey promote diplomatic solution on Iran

Hypocritically, all permanent members of the UN Security Council (the ones proposing sanctions against Iran) are in violation of the NPT. As per the mandatory terms of the treaty, nuclear weapon possessing states are required to reduce and eliminate their nuclear arsenals. Instead these nations have continued to research and modernize their nuclear arsenals.

In response to the above hypocrisy, Iran is hosting a conference on nuclear disarmament and argues these points:

Iran's viewpoint as posted in the Tehran Times

Iran is hosting an international conference on nuclear disarmament to show the world that despite claims by a small number of countries that Iran is concealing a weapons program under the cover of its civilian nuclear program, Tehran not only has no intention to produce nuclear weapons but is also making serious efforts for the total destruction of all nuclear weapons.

As a victim of chemical weapons during Saddam Hussein’s war against the country in the 1980s, Iran is and must be a strong opponent of weapons of mass destruction, especially nuclear weapons, which threaten the entire human race.

As a person who carries a knife or gun is dangerous, a country which possesses weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons, is also dangerous.

The claim by nuclear-armed countries that their nuclear arsenals are kept in safe places is not a justification for not dismantling these weapons. The argument by officials of certain nuclear weapons states that they are ruled by stable democratic systems is also not an acceptable excuse because there is no guarantee that something will not go terribly wrong.

In modern times, civilized nations detest every type of weapon of mass destruction, and particularly nuclear weapons. And the Iranians, with their ancient civilization, are no exception.

Moreover, maraja taqlid (Shia clerics who are regarded as sources of emulation) and other ulema regard the production, stockpiling, and use of WMDs as totally haram (forbidden in Islam) and believe such weapons are against the will of God.

According to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty -- a legally binding treaty which came into force on March 5, 1970 -- nuclear weapons states must eventually dismantle all of their nuclear weapons. However, 40 years since the adoption of the treaty, this idealistic call is still being ignored.

Article VI of the NPT states: “Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.”

However, the United States and the Soviet Union, as original signatories of the treaty, regrettably continued to produce and stockpile hundreds of nuclear weapons during the Cold War era.

Even now that the U.S. and Russia have pledged to limit their nuclear stockpiles, the U.S. is continuing to modernize its nuclear arsenal and is producing mini-nuclear weapons.

As a peaceful nation, Iran first proposed the idea of making the Middle East a nuclear weapons-free zone in 1974. At the UN General Assembly meetings in 2005, 2007, and 2009, Iran again put forward a resolution calling for efforts to realize the goals set for global nuclear disarmament at the 1995 and 2000 NPT review conferences in New York.

In the resolution, Iran called on nuclear weapons states to act transparently, to largely reduce their reliance on their nuclear arsenals in their security policies, and to effectively pursue total nuclear disarmament.

Nuclear weapons states still vaguely threaten non-nuclear weapons states with nuclear attack. For example, former British defense secretary Geoff Hoon explicitly invoked the possibility of nuclear attack in response to a non-conventional attack by what he called ""rogue states"".

Also, in the biggest shift in French nuclear doctrine for 40 years, in January 2006 former French president Jacques Chirac threatened a nuclear strike against any state which sponsored a “terrorist assault” on France. He also said France should regard its allies and its sources of strategic supplies -- in other words oil -- as covered by its nuclear umbrella.

In the new Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) issued by the Pentagon on April 8, the U.S. threatened to use nuclear weapons against Iran, even though it is not a nuclear weapons state, a threat in clear violation of the NPT.

Ant then there is the threat of nuclear accidents. For example, Britain’s nuclear submarine HMS Vanguard and France’s Le Triomphant collided deep below the surface of the Atlantic Ocean in February 2009. The collision of the two submarines, both with nuclear weapons onboard, could have unleashed vast amounts of radiation and scattered scores of nuclear warheads across the seabed.

As one of its three main principles, the NPT gives the signatories the right to peacefully use nuclear technology.

Article IV of the NPT clearly states: “Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination…”

However, not only has the NPT’s primary goal of achieving nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation not been realized, NPT signatories are also coming under illegal pressure not to use nuclear technology for peaceful civilian purposes.

The Tehran conference, which gathers representatives from international organizations, nuclear experts, anti-nuclear arms activists, and officials from different countries, including representatives from nuclear armed countries, can help set the goal for a world without nuclear arms.

The Nuclear Energy for All, Nuclear Weapons for No One conference provides an opportunity to allay the international community’s concerns about nuclear weapons by drawing up plans to strengthen the pillars of the NPT in terms of non-proliferation, disarmament, and civilian use of nuclear technology.

The conference can work out a plan to highlight international commitments toward nuclear disarmament and practical approaches to nuclear disarmament, set a date for nuclear disarmament -- since the NPT has a major loophole in that it has set no date for the purpose -- and define a transparent and efficient mechanism to verify claims by nuclear states that they are dismantling part of their nuclear arsenals.

Moreover, the participants should insist on NPT signatories’ inalienable right to nuclear technology without discrimination and facilitate the transfer of nuclear technology and materials for the development of civilian nuclear energy programs in conformity with the NPT members’ obligations toward nuclear safeguards.

tehran times : The Tehran conference, a dream of a nuclear weapons-free world

Seldom in Canada do we hear the Iranian viewpoint. Personally I am against any nation possessing nuclear weapons. I support the right of all nations to peaceful nuclear technology including Iran. I am in favor of imposing sanctions against all nations which have not signed the NPT and developed nuclear weapons:

These nations should face sanctions until they sign and become compliant with the mandatory parts of the NPT:

India
Israel
Pakistan
North Korea
List of states with nuclear weapons - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The other nuclear powers should be harassed until they start reducing and eliminating their nuclear arsenals. These NPT violating nations have no legitimacy in criticizing other nations regarding the NPT:

China
France
Russia
UK
USA

Any nation that researches and develops nuclear weapons or threaten non-nuclear nations with their nuclear weapons should be condemned and face serious diplomatic and economic consequences.

Canada as a country which could have developed nuclear weapons and chose not to, has credibility when it comes to criticizing other nations which violate the NPT.

 

[Johnnny]

i have no problems with iran having nuclear power plants, look at pakistan they have managed to keep there stuff on lock down so far.....

As long as they keep it controlled i have no problem with it, alot of people in remate area could use the power

 

[CDNBear]

Demonizing anti-Iranian propaganda, frequently regurgitated by our news and political leaders fail to make the distinction between voluntary and mandatory parts of the NPT. In fact they deliberately twist the facts to create a misperception that Iran wants nuclear weapons and seeks to give them to terrorist groups.

I couldn't agree more. The MSM has grasped this topic and made the cause celeb. Using any manner of spin to sell air time.

The cost will be in human lives if the general public doesn't educate themselves to reality.

Hypocritically, all permanent members of the UN Security Council (the ones proposing sanctions against Iran) are in violation of the NPT. As per the mandatory terms of the treaty, nuclear weapon possessing states are required to reduce and eliminate their nuclear arsenals. Instead these nations have continued to research and modernize their nuclear arsenals.

How true. This is absolutely hilarious. How can these States think they can be so boldly and openly hypocritical without receiving global contempt, let alone contempt and distrust from Tehran?

My only concern here is, Iran's leader isn't exactly someone playing with a full deck. I am all for the relative cheapness of nuclear power. But without severe regulation, oversight and control. This is a science, that can and will go terribly wrong.

But to deny Iran the ability to progress as a nation, is criminal.

Excellent post eao.

 

[DurkaDurka]

Part of the problem is the blowhard President of Iran constantly making inflammatory statements which usually allude to the destruction of Israel, the Great Satan or any possible foreign invaders.

When you wrap your nuclear program in secrecy, it's bound to attract the attention of the security council. A bit of transparency would go a long way in this situation, you claim you're not building a weapons program, prove it once and for all.

 

[darkbeaver]

Part of the problem is the blowhard President of Iran constantly making inflammatory statements which usually allude to the destruction of Israel, the Great Satan or any possible foreign invaders.

When you wrap your nuclear program in secrecy, it's bound to attract the attention of the security council. A bit of transparency would go a long way in this situation, you claim you're not building a weapons program, prove it once and for all.

How they goin to prove they ain't doing something? The inflamation comes from the Israeli comics we get instead of the word straight from Amidinnerjacket.

 

[DurkaDurka]

How they goin to prove they ain't doing something? The inflamation comes from the Israeli comics we get instead of the word straight from Amidinnerjacket.

Transparency, let the UN nuke inspectors have inspection access to all of their facilities. Then again, I don't really care either way though, if Iran and Israel want to vaporize each other, have at it.

 

[darkbeaver]

That's a good idea DurkaDurka, and as soon as Israel agrees to inspections the sooner we can put this trouble to rest. It isn't the ones that might exist it is the ones that do exist that we should be worried about. There is nothing like a steamer trunk bomb buried in your capital behind an Israeli embassy to compell nations to make nice with the scum of the earth Israelis.

 

[earth_as_one]

DurkaDurka,

You seem like a smart and skeptical person. So let me ask you where you got the perception that Iran's nuclear program is shrouded in secrecy? Is your perception based on what the idiot box told you or have you actually read any IAEA reports?

The controversy over Iran's nuclear programs centers in particular on Iran's failure to declare sensitive enrichment and reprocessing activities to the IAEA.[6] Enrichment can be used to produce uranium for reactor fuel or (at higher enrichment levels) for weapons.[7] Iran says its nuclear program is peaceful,[8] and has enriched uranium to less than 5 percent, consistent with fuel for a civilian nuclear power plant.[9] Iran also claims that it was forced to resort to secrecy after US pressure caused several of its nuclear contracts with foreign governments to fall through.[citation needed] After the IAEA Board of Governors reported Iran's noncompliance with its safeguards agreement to the UN Security Council, the Council demanded that Iran suspend its nuclear enrichment activities[10] while Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has argued that the sanctions are "illegal," imposed by “arrogant powers,” and that Iran has decided to pursue the monitoring of its self-described peaceful nuclear program through "its appropriate legal path,” the International Atomic Energy Agency.[11]

After public allegations about Iran's previously undeclared nuclear activities, the IAEA launched an investigation that concluded in November 2003 that Iran had systematically failed to meet its obligations under its NPT safeguards agreement to report those activities to the IAEA, although it also reported no evidence of links to a nuclear weapons program. The IAEA Board of Governors delayed a formal finding of non-compliance until September 2005, and (in a rare non-consensus decision) reported that non-compliance to the UN Security Council in February 2006. After the IAEA Board of Governors reported Iran's noncompliance with its safeguards agreement to the United Nations Security Council, the Council demanded that Iran suspend its enrichment programs. The Council imposed sanctions after Iran refused to do so. A May 2009 U.S. Congressional Report suggested "the United States, and later the Europeans, argued that Iran's deception meant it should forfeit its right to enrich, a position likely to be up for negotiation in talks with Iran."[12]

In exchange for suspending its enrichment program, Iran has been offered "a long-term comprehensive arrangement which would allow for the development of relations and cooperation with Iran based on mutual respect and the establishment of international confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear program."[13] However, Iran has consistently refused to give up its enrichment program, arguing that the program is necessary for its energy security, that such "long term arrangements" are inherently unreliable, and would deprive it of its inalienable right to peaceful nuclear technology. Currently, thirteen states possess operational enrichment or reprocessing facilities,[14] and several others have expressed an interest in developing indigenous enrichment programs.[15] Iran's position was endorsed by the Non-Aligned Movement, which expressed concern about the potential monopolization of nuclear fuel production.[16]

To address concerns that its enrichment program may be diverted to non-peaceful uses,[17] Iran has offered to place additional restrictions on its enrichment program including, for example, ratifying the Additional Protocol to allow more stringent inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency, operating the uranium enrichment facility at Natanz as a multinational fuel center with the participation of foreign representatives, renouncing plutonium reprocessing and immediately fabricating all enriched uranium into reactor fuel rods.[18] Iran's offer to open its uranium enrichment program to foreign private and public participation mirrors suggestions of an IAEA expert committee which was formed to investigate the methods to reduce the risk that sensitive fuel cycle activities could contribute to national nuclear weapons capabilities..[19] Some non-governmental U.S. experts have endorsed this approach.[20][21] The United States has insisted that Iran must meet the demands of the UN Security Council to suspend its enrichment program.

wiki

Yes Iran kept its small scale enrichment experiments a secret. But they declared their activities to the IAEA in 2003 when they planned to go industrial scale. The IAEA monitored the completion of their enrichment facility, installed cameras and can inspect this facility without warning.

As per the voluntary NPT protocols, Iran is required to notify the IAEA during the planning stages of nuclear facilities and allow IAEA inspections before installing any equipment. Last year Iran notified the IAEA about a new facility after the planning stages, but a year before any equipment was installed. Yes that violates the voluntary protocols, but its hardly shrouded in secrecy. If you want secrecy, try finding out the details of any of the known NPT violator's nuclear weapon programs.

USA
China
Russia
France
UK
Pakistan
Israel
India

None of the above countries is completely transparent regarding their nuclear activities and none allow the IAEA to inspect all their facilities. Israel doesn't even admit they have nuclear weapons, let alone allow the IAEA to inspect any of their facilities, yet somehow, their activities have not been noticed by the UNSC. Sounds like a double standard to me.

FYI: I am in favor of serious diplomatic and economic consequences for any nation which shrouds its nuclear program in secrecy. But I'm not in favor of holding different nations to different standards. If Iran is to be punished for their relatively minor violations of additional voluntary NPT protocols, then other major violators should also face similar or more severe consequences.

I'm also curious how Iran can prove they aren't hiding anything. As far as I know, proving a negative is a logical impossibility. I am aware that sometimes the US bombs countries which can't prove negatives, but that hardly makes it possible, logical or legal.

 

[earth_as_one]

i have no problems with iran having nuclear power plants, look at pakistan they have managed to keep there stuff on lock down so far.....

As long as they keep it controlled i have no problem with it, alot of people in remate area could use the power

IMO, Pakistan is a lot scarier than Iran. They possess nukes and are in the middle of a simmering civil war. They haven't signed the NPT and covertly developed nukes in response to India doing the same thing previously. They've fought several wars with India since they split in 1947.

 

[earth_as_one]

Statements made today at the UN NPT conference
2010 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, 3-28 May 2010

Ahmadinejad's statement
http://www.un.org/en/conf/npt/2010/statements/pdf/iran_en.pdf

 

[earth_as_one]

The majority of the world supports Iran's NPT compliant civilian nuclear program:

Iran Wins Backing From Nonaligned Bloc

September 17, 2006

Acting Cuban President Raul Castro (right) welcomes Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad in Havana (epa)

PRAGUE, September 17, 2006 (RFE/RL) -- A summit of the Nonaligned Movement (NAM) has ended in the Cuban capital, Havana, with Iran winning solid support in its nuclear row with the West. The document also opposes terrorism and urges reform of the United Nations to give poor countries' greater power.

Perhaps most topically, the 92-page final declaration adopted unanimously by leaders from 118 states supports Iran's right to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes....


Iran Wins Backing From Nonaligned Bloc - Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty 2010

Part of the problem is the blowhard President of Iran constantly making inflammatory statements which usually allude to the destruction of Israel, the Great Satan or any possible foreign invaders.

When you wrap your nuclear program in secrecy, it's bound to attract the attention of the security council. A bit of transparency would go a long way in this situation, you claim you're not building a weapons program, prove it once and for all.

How Iran can prove they aren't hiding anything? Proving a negative is a logical impossibility. I am aware that sometimes the US bombs countries which can't prove negatives, but that hardly makes it possible, logical or legal.

Currently IAEA inspectors can inspect any Iranian nuclear facility without advanced notice. I'd like to see the IAEA have the same powers to inspect British, French, Russian, Chinese, American, Indian, Israeli and Pakistani nuclear facilities.

 

[MapleOne]

Can we really impose our views and conditions on sovereign countries?

I don't think we or anyone has the right to tell a sovereign country what they have to or can't do.
Was NATO not formed as a deterrent? You attack one NATO country and all of them attack you. We just need to give NATO some balls and mind our own business.

Just my opinion

 

[earth_as_one]

Recent news:

The Atomic Energy Organization of Iran has embarked upon an experimental study aimed at developing a nuclear fusion reactor.
tehran times : Iran begins nuclear fusion studies

 

[lone wolf]

It doesn't matter what the purpose is. They who summarily judge, guess or otherwise speculate are the yardsticks by which they gauge others.

 

[earth_as_one]

Possible theoretical application toward building thermo-nuke, but if they can crack the "fusion for commercial power" nut, it could be huge for mankind. They have just as much right to throw money at this potential peaceful use of nuclear power or dead end as anyone else.

Hopefully an Iranian will have an inspired good idea. So far every attempt at harnessing fusion as a commercial power source has failed.

 

[Cliffy]

Possible theoretical application toward building thermo-nuke, but if they can crack the "fusion for commercial power" nut, it could be huge for mankind. They have just as much right to throw money at this potential peaceful use of nuclear power or dead end as anyone else.

Hopefully an Iranian will have an inspired good idea. So far every attempt at harnessing fusion as a commercial power source has failed.

Wouldn't that frost the Yankees if an "backward" Iranian beat them to the punch.

 

[earth_as_one]

Its possible that the solution isn't more money but a good idea. In which case, its possible they could be first to harness fusion,

 

[Machjo]

How dare those Iranians develop nuclear power; they should follow the US example and fight for freedom around the world and then the US would give them nukes for free.

 

[petros]

it's not nukes. It's the Iranian space program that they want to blow to bits.

 

[Machjo]

it's not nukes. It's the Iranian space program that they want to blow to bits.

No problem. If Iran vows to fight for freedom aroundthe world, the US will invite Iran to Join USMETO (the US-Middle-Eastern Treaty Organization):lol: