Ahmadinejad is a political opportunist. He has to get re-elected (or at least appear to get re-elected) in Iran, not the US or Canada. I take his comments in that context.
Middle East War - Iran- Syria -Lebanon - Israel - US
- Thread starter Goober
- Start date
Ahmadinejad is a political opportunist. He has to get re-elected (or at least appear to get re-elected) in Iran, not the US or Canada. I take his comments in that context.
I'd say that Pakistan falling into the hands of Islamic extremists is a far more likely scenario which would lead to Israel being threatened by nuclear weapons.
So far Iran has indicated they aren't interested in acquiring nukes and they've cooperated with the IAEA, despite sanctions imposed on Iran. Personally I think Iran seeks a break out capability. That is come as close as they can to having nuclear weapons and still remain compliant with the NPT. In the event that Iran is threatened or attacked with nuclear weapons, they could start building nukes within a relatively short period of time.
Currently Iran has enrichment capability, but the centrifuges are configured to produce LEU, suitable for power generation, but not nuclear weapons. LEU can be refined into HEU, suitable for nuclear weapon components, by reconfiguring their centrifuges, which isn't easy. It means taking them apart and reassmbling them in a different configuration and probably a few adjustments and fine tuning. That reconfiguration would take a few weeks and would be noticed by IAEA inspectors.
So far Iran has indicated they aren't interested in acquiring nukes and they've cooperated with the IAEA, despite sanctions imposed on Iran. Personally I think Iran seeks a break out capability. That is come as close as they can to having nuclear weapons and still remain compliant with the NPT. In the event that Iran is threatened or attacked with nuclear weapons, they could start building nukes within a relatively short period of time.
Currently Iran has enrichment capability, but the centrifuges are configured to produce LEU, suitable for power generation, but not nuclear weapons. LEU can be refined into HEU, suitable for nuclear weapon components, by reconfiguring their centrifuges, which isn't easy. It means taking them apart and reassmbling them in a different configuration and probably a few adjustments and fine tuning. That reconfiguration would take a few weeks and would be noticed by IAEA inspectors.
I'd say that an extreme directional shift in the topic of the conversation wouldn't hide the errors in judgment and manipulation of facts that you just expressed.
Which kinda makes allowing a loon like Ahmadinejad have any nuclear material a little dangerous non?
You're not helping your case.
And I'm all for Iran having nuclear energy. lol...
Just curious, how hard would it be to expel them? How long are they going to be there? Are they bullet proof?
EAO
"Today I'm handing out lollipops and ass-whoopins and right now, I'm all out of lollipops.”
EAO
"Today I'm handing out lollipops and ass-whoopins and right now, I'm all out of lollipops.”
Iran is acting in Defiance of the UN Security Council's Resolutions - Continued defiance and failure to comply can result in any and all measures up to and including War. And No - The US does not need the UN to approve it - Any country has the right to protect itself from threats. And yes that also includes Iran.
The Associated Press: IAEA: Iran activates enrichment equipment
VIENNA — Iran has activated equipment to enrich uranium more efficiently in a move that defies the U.N. Security Council, the International Atomic Energy Agency said Monday.
The Vienna-based nuclear watchdog said Iran has started using a second set of 164 centrifuges linked in a cascade, or string of machines, to enrich uranium to up to 20 percent at its Natanz pilot fuel enrichment plant. Another cascade there has been producing uranium enriched to near 20 percent since February.
If enriched to around 95 percent, uranium can be used in building a nuclear bomb. At 20 percent, it can be turned into weapons-grade material much more quickly than less-enriched uranium.
Tehran denies it has such aims and says its nuclear activities are for peaceful purposes only. But some in the international community — the United States and its allies — aren't convinced.
IAEA spokeswoman Gill Tudor said that when agency inspectors visited the facility on July 17, "Iran was feeding nuclear material to the two interconnected 164-machine centrifuge cascades."
This, she added, was "contrary to U.N. Security Council resolutions affirming that Iran should suspend all enrichment related activities."
The U.N. Security Council imposed a fourth round of sanctions on Iran in June because of its refusal to halt uranium enrichment. Tougher unilateral U.S. and European Union sanctions followed in July.
Iran had informed the IAEA in March of its intentions to link the two cascades, Tudor said.
The move upgrades the efficiency of production by recycling the waste now being left by the first cascade to squeeze out more enriched uranium at near 20-percent levels, diplomats said in May when they disclosed to The Associated Press that Iranian technicians had assembled the second 164-centrifuge cascade and appeared ready to activate it.
Iran bars two U.N. inspectors in nuclear dispute | Reuters
Reuters) - Iran has barred two U.N. nuclear inspectors from entering the Islamic Republic, increasing tension less than two weeks after Tehran was hit by new U.N. sanctions over its disputed atomic program.
Ties between Iran and the IAEA have become more strained since Yukiya Amano took over as head of the agency in December.
The Japanese diplomat has taken a tougher approach on Iran than his predecessor Mohamed ElBaradei, with the IAEA saying in a February report that Iran could be trying to develop a nuclear-armed missile now, and not just in the past.
Iran accused Amano of issuing a misleading report.
Ali Akbar Salehi, head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization, said Tehran had asked the IAEA to replace the two inspectors, the ISNA news agency reported.
Al Jazeera English - Middle East - IAEA fears Iran working on warhead
The UN's nuclear watchdog group, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), has for the first time expressed fears that Iran may be trying to develop a nuclear warhead.
A report by the group, partially leaked late on Thursday, confirmed that Tehran has produced a small amount of uranium enriched to a higher purity than previously capable, and voiced concern that it may move towards enriching uranium at still higher levels.
The agency said the amount of low-enriched uranium set aside for higher enrichment - the bulk of its stockpile - seemed far in excess of possible civilian needs.
Last but critical point.
Iran's resistance to IAEA investigation efforts "give rise to concerns about possible military dimensions to Iran's nuclear program", the report said.
Iran will not be allowed the capability to make nuclear bombs, but what they produce can be traded for weapons grade uranium, and that is where a war or attack against them will originate from.
Goober, if you have proof that Iran is building a nuke, I suggest you send your evidence to the IAEA, since you obviously know something they don't. I'm sure they'll take you seriously. Just tell them you are an expert in nuclear physics and your links. I'm sure they'll be as impressed as I am.
Iran has some control over the inspections and who comes in their country. If IAEA officials abuse their position, lie or make misleading statements, Iran has every right to ask for a more impartial replacement.
http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edit...eaning-of-irans-20-percent-uranium-enrichment
Requirements for medical isotope producing reactors
http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edit...-potential-dangers-medical-isotope-production
The difference between medical research and nuclear weapon research is quantity and quality. Medical research only requires extremely small amounts of HEU, a tiny fraction of what would be needed to construct a nuclear weapon. From the above links, it sounds like the entire world's supply of medical isotopes and all the accumulated waste products from all the medical isotope producing reactors over 50 years combined could be processed into the components required to produce a single nuclear weapon.
As long as Iran's 20% HEU work remains limited in quality/quantity and remains closely supervised, it remains NPT compliant and a non-threat.
I would be concerned if Iran started stockpiling significant amounts of 20% EU, since it would cut the processing time to produce 90% HEU (bomb quality) in half. But its speculative to write a report which makes this possible purpose sound like a proven fact. Currently Iran has only produced microscopic quantities of 20% EU, not even close to the amount required to run a medical research reactor, let alone be further refined to produce a nuclear weapon. If and when they get their medical isotope producing reactor going, Iran would never have a valid reason to keep enough 20% EU on hand to make a bomb with further enrichment.
Speculation about where this program could lead is just that... speculation. A report which makes speculation sound like fact qualifies at a minimum as misleading if not a deliberate lie.
I see more than one possibility regarding Iran's attempts to refine microscopic amounts of 20% EU.
Sure Iran could be planning to build nukes with it. I'm not an expert in nuclear physics like Goober, so please correct me if I'm wrong Goober. I don't think its possible to build a nuke with 20% EU, let alone using only microscopic quantities of 20% EU. Could you post a link which shows that its possible to build a nuclear bomb using microscopic amounts of 20% EU? Don't forget to cc the IAEA.
Its also possible Iran's enemies have infiltrated the ranks of the IAEA in attempt to turn the it into another UNSCOM.
Remember this news story?
" the UNSCOM spying reported by the papers was accepted as fact by other outlets, and even defended; Experts say it is naive to believe that the United States and other governments would not have used the opportunity presented by the U.N. commission to spy on a country that provoked the Persian Gulf War in 1991 and that has continued to tangle with U.S. and British forces," USA Today reported (3/3/99).
FAIR ACTION ALERT: Spying in Iraq: From Fact to Allegation
A very good chance Iran was justified tossing those two IAEA inspectors out of their country. Meanwhile the other IAEA inspectors in Iran have continued their inspections unimpeded. Or are you saying that these were the only 2 IAEA inspectors in Iran and that they have not yet been replaced. Talk about your cutbacks.
Then again it could be Iran playing games in response to NPT violating sanctions and other activities by their adversaries.
Its also possible that Iran is sending a hint that if their adversaries continue to violate the NPT by attempting to thwart Iran's NPT guaranteed right to possess peaceful nuclear technology that they'll end the inspections. I guess Iran has to judge if allowing the IAEA into Iran continues to serve any purpose... The inspections which have gone on for years now and found nothing except evidence supporting Iran's peaceful nuclear program, have not resulted in lifting of sanctions and other punitive measure. where's Iran's incentive to allow the inspections? If Iran stops the inspections what is the US going to do? Impose economic sanctions???
In other words, the US has no carrot on the end of their stick, all they have is a stick...
Like I said... Show some concrete evidence that Iran is building nukes, because you obviously know something no one else does.
All I see is a dispute, speculation and an allegedly misleading report, not proof of nukes or even an intention to make nukes.
Regarding Iran's ability to hide a nuclear weapon production facility:
Facilities required to enrich enough uranium to the required quality to build nuclear weapon components would be about the size of a paper mill or an oil refinery. It would employ thousands of highly trained people, consume and produce megawatts of energy and leak easily detected by-products into the air and/or water. In other words, it would be pretty difficult to hide, but not impossible. ( Israel did just that in the 1960's, but unlike Iran, Israel had no IAEA inspectors scouring the country with sophisticated monitoring equipment)
The IAEA has been all over Iran and found nothing to support allegations that Iran is building nukes. It appears the best Iran's adversaries have been able to do so far is get a few of their people on the inspection teams to write an allegedly false or misleading report, so the news can spin nothing to sound like something and convince the gullible that "absence of proof" is "proof of existance". That's pathetic. I hope this isn't an indication that the US and other nations will eventually pervert the IAEA like they did with UNSCOM.
Speaking of UNSCOM, how is the search for Iraq's WMD stockpiles going? Remember how Iraq's tossing out the UNSCOM weapon inspectors proved Iran was really accumulating WMD stockpiles. You'll have to remind me again. What happened to the stockpiles our news told us Iraq possessed?
Iran has some control over the inspections and who comes in their country. If IAEA officials abuse their position, lie or make misleading statements, Iran has every right to ask for a more impartial replacement.
Iran has enriched microscopic quantities of 20% enriched uranium. 20% is the NPT legally allowed limit. Their stated purpose for enriching uranium to the 20% NPT limit is medical research and medical isotope production, which is allowed by the NPT.
http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edit...eaning-of-irans-20-percent-uranium-enrichment
Requirements for medical isotope producing reactors
http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edit...-potential-dangers-medical-isotope-production
The difference between medical research and nuclear weapon research is quantity and quality. Medical research only requires extremely small amounts of HEU, a tiny fraction of what would be needed to construct a nuclear weapon. From the above links, it sounds like the entire world's supply of medical isotopes and all the accumulated waste products from all the medical isotope producing reactors over 50 years combined could be processed into the components required to produce a single nuclear weapon.
As long as Iran's 20% HEU work remains limited in quality/quantity and remains closely supervised, it remains NPT compliant and a non-threat.
I would be concerned if Iran started stockpiling significant amounts of 20% EU, since it would cut the processing time to produce 90% HEU (bomb quality) in half. But its speculative to write a report which makes this possible purpose sound like a proven fact. Currently Iran has only produced microscopic quantities of 20% EU, not even close to the amount required to run a medical research reactor, let alone be further refined to produce a nuclear weapon. If and when they get their medical isotope producing reactor going, Iran would never have a valid reason to keep enough 20% EU on hand to make a bomb with further enrichment.
Speculation about where this program could lead is just that... speculation. A report which makes speculation sound like fact qualifies at a minimum as misleading if not a deliberate lie.
I see more than one possibility regarding Iran's attempts to refine microscopic amounts of 20% EU.
Sure Iran could be planning to build nukes with it. I'm not an expert in nuclear physics like Goober, so please correct me if I'm wrong Goober. I don't think its possible to build a nuke with 20% EU, let alone using only microscopic quantities of 20% EU. Could you post a link which shows that its possible to build a nuclear bomb using microscopic amounts of 20% EU? Don't forget to cc the IAEA.
Its also possible Iran's enemies have infiltrated the ranks of the IAEA in attempt to turn the it into another UNSCOM.
Remember this news story?
" the UNSCOM spying reported by the papers was accepted as fact by other outlets, and even defended; Experts say it is naive to believe that the United States and other governments would not have used the opportunity presented by the U.N. commission to spy on a country that provoked the Persian Gulf War in 1991 and that has continued to tangle with U.S. and British forces," USA Today reported (3/3/99).
FAIR ACTION ALERT: Spying in Iraq: From Fact to Allegation
A very good chance Iran was justified tossing those two IAEA inspectors out of their country. Meanwhile the other IAEA inspectors in Iran have continued their inspections unimpeded. Or are you saying that these were the only 2 IAEA inspectors in Iran and that they have not yet been replaced. Talk about your cutbacks.
Then again it could be Iran playing games in response to NPT violating sanctions and other activities by their adversaries.
Its also possible that Iran is sending a hint that if their adversaries continue to violate the NPT by attempting to thwart Iran's NPT guaranteed right to possess peaceful nuclear technology that they'll end the inspections. I guess Iran has to judge if allowing the IAEA into Iran continues to serve any purpose... The inspections which have gone on for years now and found nothing except evidence supporting Iran's peaceful nuclear program, have not resulted in lifting of sanctions and other punitive measure. where's Iran's incentive to allow the inspections? If Iran stops the inspections what is the US going to do? Impose economic sanctions???
In other words, the US has no carrot on the end of their stick, all they have is a stick...
Like I said... Show some concrete evidence that Iran is building nukes, because you obviously know something no one else does.
All I see is a dispute, speculation and an allegedly misleading report, not proof of nukes or even an intention to make nukes.
Regarding Iran's ability to hide a nuclear weapon production facility:
Facilities required to enrich enough uranium to the required quality to build nuclear weapon components would be about the size of a paper mill or an oil refinery. It would employ thousands of highly trained people, consume and produce megawatts of energy and leak easily detected by-products into the air and/or water. In other words, it would be pretty difficult to hide, but not impossible. ( Israel did just that in the 1960's, but unlike Iran, Israel had no IAEA inspectors scouring the country with sophisticated monitoring equipment)
The IAEA has been all over Iran and found nothing to support allegations that Iran is building nukes. It appears the best Iran's adversaries have been able to do so far is get a few of their people on the inspection teams to write an allegedly false or misleading report, so the news can spin nothing to sound like something and convince the gullible that "absence of proof" is "proof of existance". That's pathetic. I hope this isn't an indication that the US and other nations will eventually pervert the IAEA like they did with UNSCOM.
Speaking of UNSCOM, how is the search for Iraq's WMD stockpiles going? Remember how Iraq's tossing out the UNSCOM weapon inspectors proved Iran was really accumulating WMD stockpiles. You'll have to remind me again. What happened to the stockpiles our news told us Iraq possessed?
Last edited:
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2010/02/201021972517403800.htmlEAO
Do I have proof - Do not waste space on a dumb question like that.
Prove that the Inspectors Lied or were untruthful - again read the links - Again you condemn what for years you have used to base your posts on - Now they are useless - Really.
Point - The proof is in the pudding as they say - When the IAEA states t as they did below - Do not twist it - Does not work out well. Iran states the reports were untruthfiul - The report is approved by the IAEA - Got that - It was approved for publishing.
You have quoted the IAEA as the Holy Fukin Grail time and again - Now they publish facts that do not agree with your view. What a surprise that is. Now the IAEA is another enemy that is controlled by the US & The Infamous but World Renowned Jewish Cabal.
Read the next 4 paras - Check the full link.
Iran bars two U.N. inspectors in nuclear dispute | Reuters
...Iran has banned two UN inspectors from visiting its nuclear facilities because it claims they filed false information on the country's controversial nuclear programme – a move seen as retaliation for the imposition of new sanctions.Ali Akbar Salehi, head of Iran's atomic energy agency, said the unnamed inspectors had prematurely published a report he described as "untruthful", according to reports in state media today.
Iran has the right to ban UN personnel under the country's "safeguards agreement" with the International Atomic Energy Agency and has done so in the past. Salehi also stressed Iran's commitment to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, which governs nuclear issues.
Yet observers and diplomats said there was no doubt the decision reflected anger over the sanctions imposed by the UN security council and that more retaliatory action was likely. Tehran has called UN resolution 1929 illegal and threatened action to protect its interests.
Iran had complained to the UN about a report issued at the end of last month, which said Tehran was preparing extra equipment to enrich uranium to higher levels and that it had stockpiled nuclear material. The IAEA report also showed that Iran was continuing with higher-level enrichment, failing to answer questions about possible military dimensions to its nuclear work, and failing to address concerns about undisclosed...
Al Jazeera English - Middle East - IAEA fears Iran working on warhead
Next - Excess quantities of 20% enriched - excess for known civilian purposes - Why????????
Fact - to bring Urnaium up to the 90 or 95 % purity - suitable for a bomb - Most of the energy and time is spent enriching it to the 20% level - So why do they need so much at 20% -
What are the quantities that Iran has processed to 20 % - you constanly and repeatedly state - Microscopic - Put a number to it Donkey - Give a number
What quantity to make 2 small nukes - How much 20 % required to build 2 Hiroshima type bombs - or 8 really small ones - Isreal is a very very small country.
And Iraq and WMD - Most of the world believed Saddam had WMD - Christ - even his Generals thought so - Why did he keep giving this impression - Retain power - Scared of Iran - and a really dumb move his constantly hindering the inspectors - All pointed in that direction - and yes they were wrong -
As Gerry H would state - The Iraq MD is a strawman - 2 different situations - When France and other besides the US state that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapons capability - Perhaps Iran should listen - But they have been playing the US- Europe for years -
They are doing the same thing - using the same tactics as Sadamm - yet the proof is increasing -
As I stated in the thread - War is coming - Unless Iran makes a verifiable agreement regarding nuclear enrichment - inspections - completely verifiable Some articles - about Iran and about Israel - and some maps - Bomb Capabilities
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-08-07/iran-sponsors-terrorism-according-to-a-letter-allegedly-written-by-mousavi/
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/05/opinion/05iht-edabdo.html?_r=1
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1969/12/the-point-of-no-return/8186/
US Bunker Busting Bombs & News Reports
YouTube - BLU-109 Penetrator
YouTube - BLU-109 Bunker Buster Test
YouTube - Pentagon Speeds up Bunker Buster Production. 12th Oct.
YouTube - Wilkerson: We can bomb Iran for 70 days around the clock
Map of Iranian Nuclear Sites
http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles_pdfs/Iran/iran_nuclear_sites.pdf
BBC NEWS | Middle East | Iran's key nuclear sites
Ogle Earth: New satellite imagery of Iran's nuclear sites - now on Google Earth
The location of Iran's nuclear sites aren't secrets. Here take a tour of one.
A Public Tour of a Secret Iranian Nuclear Site - The New York Times > Science > Slide Show > Slide 1 of 15
Until Iran violates the NPT, they remain compliant. So far, they have respected ithe NPT's limitations as far as what's known publicly. If the US or anyone else ever has proof Iran violated the NPT, we would know about it pretty quick.
We can both speculate about Iran's intentions. I suspect Iran seeks breakout capability only. As close as possible to acquiring nukes without violating the NPT. Which is legal.
I suspect that if Iran ever did decide to illegally cross that threshold, it'd be a reaction to a hostile event.
A Public Tour of a Secret Iranian Nuclear Site - The New York Times > Science > Slide Show > Slide 1 of 15
Until Iran violates the NPT, they remain compliant. So far, they have respected ithe NPT's limitations as far as what's known publicly. If the US or anyone else ever has proof Iran violated the NPT, we would know about it pretty quick.
We can both speculate about Iran's intentions. I suspect Iran seeks breakout capability only. As close as possible to acquiring nukes without violating the NPT. Which is legal.
I suspect that if Iran ever did decide to illegally cross that threshold, it'd be a reaction to a hostile event.
Last edited:
The position of the US and the IAEA agents who wrote the allegedly biased report is that having the potential to do something is the same as doing it.
An analogy would be like arresting people for speeding because they own cars which could exceed the speed limit. Continuing with the analogy, IAEA inspections would be like having a traffic cop sitting in the passenger seat. Iran has the technology and resources to exceed NPT limitations, but not without being noticed by the IAEA.
The fact remains, Iran has only enriched microscopic quantities of uranium to 20% in full compliance with the requirements of the NPT and under the supervision of the IAEA. The fact that they have a lot of material which could be enriched to 20%, doesn't mean that it will be enriched to 20%.
I'll be concerned when Iran actually violates the NPT or kicks the IAEA inspectors out of the country. Until then I'm confident that the IAEA is watching Iran and that their program is peaceful.
That's why I think imposing stiff sanctions to punish Iran for their legal NPT compliant enrichment activities is a bad idea. The US and other nations can refuse to trade with Iran without giving any justification. But punishing Iran for their NPT compliant enrichment activities gives Iran a good reason to end the IAEA inspections and unsign themselves from the voluntary NPT protocols. Then we would find ourselves in a situation where we have no idea what the Iranians are doing, and unable to prove whether or not Iran has violated the required parts of the NPT until they test a nuke.
As it is right now, Iranian scientists can't even scratch their arses, without the IAEA noticing. After seven years of enrichment activity, Iran still appears to be completely compliant with the terms and the spirit of the NPT. I am also skeptical about Iran's motives for acquiring peaceful nuclear technology. But until they actually violate the NPT or interferes with IAEA inspections, the IAEA should maintain a neutral cooperative relationship with Iran. Tossing two inspectors out of Iran because they wrote a report Iran didn't like, could be interference. But what from I've read about it, it sounds like Iran's actions were justified and required. I wouldn't want the IAEA to become a front for US and Western spy operations. The IAEA must play the role of impartial referee. Iran must challenge any attempt by the US and other nations to infiltrate the IAEA inspection teams with spies, otherwise the system collapses and Iran would have no choice but to toss the IAEA inspectors out for national security reasons.
BTW, that's the same reason why Iraq tossed out UNSCOM. By 1998, UNSCOM more or less knew Iraq did not possess a WMD capability, but because they were working for the US and other nations hostile to Iraq, they refused to admit it. Iraq was not cooperative with UNSCOM initially, but by 1996, UNSCOM had more or less found everything Iraq was attempting to hide and destroyed it. By 1996, Iraq had nothing left to hide, so they gave UNSCOM their full cooperation. From 1996 until 1998, UNSCOM, searched Iraq with Iraq's full cooperation and found nothing. Sure a scientist here or their tried to hide their research notes (in violation of Iraqi laws to reveal everything to UNSCOM). Inspectors would occasionally show up at a facility unannounced and encounter locked doors, because the place was closed for holidays. I am aware of all the attempts by the US to portray these minor issues as proof Iraq was not cooperating or hiding something. By the end of 1998, UNSCOM had effectively stopped looking for Iraqi WMDs, because they knew they didn't exist. Instead they began abusing their inspection rights to harass Iraq's leaders, spy on Iraq's legal conventional defense systems and identify Iraq's Command, Communication and Control systems. When Iraq reacted to these abuse by stopping their cooperation with UNSCOM, the US and the UK claimed this as proof Iraq was hiding something. Very soon afterward, the US and UK used the information illegally collected by their UNSCOM spies to bomb Iran in Operation Desert Fox.
I doubt Iran would continue to cooperate with the IAEA if they became just like UNSCOM. They'd toss them out, as is their right. Then we'd have a serious problem and the bulk of the blame would be on the US and other nations for corrupting the IAEA.
An analogy would be like arresting people for speeding because they own cars which could exceed the speed limit. Continuing with the analogy, IAEA inspections would be like having a traffic cop sitting in the passenger seat. Iran has the technology and resources to exceed NPT limitations, but not without being noticed by the IAEA.
The fact remains, Iran has only enriched microscopic quantities of uranium to 20% in full compliance with the requirements of the NPT and under the supervision of the IAEA. The fact that they have a lot of material which could be enriched to 20%, doesn't mean that it will be enriched to 20%.
I'll be concerned when Iran actually violates the NPT or kicks the IAEA inspectors out of the country. Until then I'm confident that the IAEA is watching Iran and that their program is peaceful.
That's why I think imposing stiff sanctions to punish Iran for their legal NPT compliant enrichment activities is a bad idea. The US and other nations can refuse to trade with Iran without giving any justification. But punishing Iran for their NPT compliant enrichment activities gives Iran a good reason to end the IAEA inspections and unsign themselves from the voluntary NPT protocols. Then we would find ourselves in a situation where we have no idea what the Iranians are doing, and unable to prove whether or not Iran has violated the required parts of the NPT until they test a nuke.
As it is right now, Iranian scientists can't even scratch their arses, without the IAEA noticing. After seven years of enrichment activity, Iran still appears to be completely compliant with the terms and the spirit of the NPT. I am also skeptical about Iran's motives for acquiring peaceful nuclear technology. But until they actually violate the NPT or interferes with IAEA inspections, the IAEA should maintain a neutral cooperative relationship with Iran. Tossing two inspectors out of Iran because they wrote a report Iran didn't like, could be interference. But what from I've read about it, it sounds like Iran's actions were justified and required. I wouldn't want the IAEA to become a front for US and Western spy operations. The IAEA must play the role of impartial referee. Iran must challenge any attempt by the US and other nations to infiltrate the IAEA inspection teams with spies, otherwise the system collapses and Iran would have no choice but to toss the IAEA inspectors out for national security reasons.
BTW, that's the same reason why Iraq tossed out UNSCOM. By 1998, UNSCOM more or less knew Iraq did not possess a WMD capability, but because they were working for the US and other nations hostile to Iraq, they refused to admit it. Iraq was not cooperative with UNSCOM initially, but by 1996, UNSCOM had more or less found everything Iraq was attempting to hide and destroyed it. By 1996, Iraq had nothing left to hide, so they gave UNSCOM their full cooperation. From 1996 until 1998, UNSCOM, searched Iraq with Iraq's full cooperation and found nothing. Sure a scientist here or their tried to hide their research notes (in violation of Iraqi laws to reveal everything to UNSCOM). Inspectors would occasionally show up at a facility unannounced and encounter locked doors, because the place was closed for holidays. I am aware of all the attempts by the US to portray these minor issues as proof Iraq was not cooperating or hiding something. By the end of 1998, UNSCOM had effectively stopped looking for Iraqi WMDs, because they knew they didn't exist. Instead they began abusing their inspection rights to harass Iraq's leaders, spy on Iraq's legal conventional defense systems and identify Iraq's Command, Communication and Control systems. When Iraq reacted to these abuse by stopping their cooperation with UNSCOM, the US and the UK claimed this as proof Iraq was hiding something. Very soon afterward, the US and UK used the information illegally collected by their UNSCOM spies to bomb Iran in Operation Desert Fox.
I doubt Iran would continue to cooperate with the IAEA if they became just like UNSCOM. They'd toss them out, as is their right. Then we'd have a serious problem and the bulk of the blame would be on the US and other nations for corrupting the IAEA.
Last edited:
EAO -
I certainly do not know where you get your analogies - But they need to be a tad more creative, relevant and based upon factual events, reports, past polices as in cooperation with Inspections or not. To say they are simplistic would be an off handed compliment to you and I do not fell in the complmentary mood today
So Guess what - You do not get to go to Rocket School.
The IAEA Inspectors went thru a massive evolution in your small minds ability to comprehend and literaly read what is clearly hidden from everyone else- You have now determined that not only are they Agents - They are working for the US and the IAEA -
Is is because you again have no freaking Idea???? That is why I gave you some idea - Do not waste it - Iran also has no reason to enrich uranium to the 20 % level -
Still waiting for what as you state - Microscopic Quantities - of Uranium they have enriched. Terhan stated in Jun they had 17 Lbs & the ability to enrich 5 lbs per month That is if you trust the Iranians - Microscopic you say. Really close on that one.
Is is because you again have no freaking Idea???? That is why I gave you some idea - Do not waste it -
Is it because you make statements that you cannot support????? Yes is the correct answer
As to whether the Iranians can or cannot scratch their respective collective asses is again in error - The IAEA does not have as much leeway as you seem to think - That is a massive mistake that again is the norm for you -
The US has a history of infiltrating UN weapon inspection teams with their agents:
U.S. Spied on Iraq Via U.N.
By Barton Gellman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, March 2, 1999
Washingtonpost.com: U.S. Spied on Iraq Via U.N.
UN 'kept in dark' about US spying in Iraq
* By Julian Borger in Washington
* guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 3 March 1999
UN 'kept in dark' about US spying in Iraq | World news | guardian.co.uk
I have no doubt that the US is capable of doing to the same thing regarding the IAEA.
Iran's nuclear rights are defined by the NPT, not the US. Hypocritically, every permanent member of the UNSC is in violation their NPT obligation to reduce and eliminate their nuclear arsenals and end their research into new nuke weapon designs.
Iran has an NPT right to produce medical isotopes using 20% EU.
UN Sanctions Hit Hospitals: Iran Running Out of Life-Saving Isotopes - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International
I suggest you read Article IV of the NPT:
Article IV
1. 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 and in conformity with Articles I and II of this Treaty.
2. All the Parties to the Treaty undertake to facilitate, and have the right to participate in, the fullest possible exchange of equipment, materials and scientific and technological information for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Parties to the Treaty in a position to do so shall also co-operate in contributing alone or together with other States or international organizations to the further development of the applications of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, especially in the territories of non-nuclear-weapon States Party to the Treaty, with due consideration for the needs of the developing areas of the world.
Also if the US and other nations maintain sanctions against Iran for their legal NPT compliant activities, Iran can exercise this option:
1. Each Party shall in exercising its national sovereignty have the right to withdraw from the Treaty if it decides that extraordinary events, related to the subject matter of this Treaty, have jeopardized the supreme interests of its country. It shall give notice of such withdrawal to all other Parties to the Treaty and to the United Nations Security Council three months in advance. Such notice shall include a statement of the extraordinary events it regards as having jeopardized its supreme interests.
U.S. Spied on Iraq Via U.N.
By Barton Gellman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, March 2, 1999
Washingtonpost.com: U.S. Spied on Iraq Via U.N.
UN 'kept in dark' about US spying in Iraq
* By Julian Borger in Washington
* guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 3 March 1999
UN 'kept in dark' about US spying in Iraq | World news | guardian.co.uk
http://www.fair.org/activism/unscom-history.html
I have no doubt that the US is capable of doing to the same thing regarding the IAEA.
Iran's nuclear rights are defined by the NPT, not the US. Hypocritically, every permanent member of the UNSC is in violation their NPT obligation to reduce and eliminate their nuclear arsenals and end their research into new nuke weapon designs.
Iran has an NPT right to produce medical isotopes using 20% EU.
UN Sanctions Hit Hospitals: Iran Running Out of Life-Saving Isotopes - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International
I suggest you read Article IV of the NPT:
Article IV
1. 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 and in conformity with Articles I and II of this Treaty.
2. All the Parties to the Treaty undertake to facilitate, and have the right to participate in, the fullest possible exchange of equipment, materials and scientific and technological information for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Parties to the Treaty in a position to do so shall also co-operate in contributing alone or together with other States or international organizations to the further development of the applications of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, especially in the territories of non-nuclear-weapon States Party to the Treaty, with due consideration for the needs of the developing areas of the world.
Also if the US and other nations maintain sanctions against Iran for their legal NPT compliant activities, Iran can exercise this option:
1. Each Party shall in exercising its national sovereignty have the right to withdraw from the Treaty if it decides that extraordinary events, related to the subject matter of this Treaty, have jeopardized the supreme interests of its country. It shall give notice of such withdrawal to all other Parties to the Treaty and to the United Nations Security Council three months in advance. Such notice shall include a statement of the extraordinary events it regards as having jeopardized its supreme interests.
EAO
As I have mentioned on earlier posts - You have used the IAEA as the Holy Grail - Now the are Agents of Imperialism when they report what you disagree with - I am sure that they are no longer considered in any way even handed since they had the audacity, Pure Unadulterated Audacity to write a report that was critical of your heroes in Iran.
So you take the opinion now that these 2 inspectors are US Agents - How many more please - do you have a list - I am sure the whole IAEA is infiltrated with US Agents - You will shortly provide names and monies paid - Sorry - Just a little parody on a sad piece of US History
You speculate and call it fact - You use something in the past and take that, project into pure speculation, no facts to base it upon and now they are US Agents.
What a sad little man you are.
If Iran unsigned themselves from the NPT because of extraordinary reasons as is allowed, that would put Iran in the same situation as India, Israel, North Korea and Pakistan, who do possess nukes and are not NPT signatories.
I don't know enough about the inner workings of the IAEA to say if they have been infiltrated by US agents or not. Iran only claims these agents wrote a misleading report which made speculative statements sound like facts. If true, then their actions were justified. If false, then their actions weren't justified. I never saw the report, just what each side claims the report said.
Unlike you, I am not so certain who is doing what to whom. I have my suspicions, based on a past history. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Iran has no history of breaking treaties, starting unprovoked wars or infiltrating UN agencies with spies, unlike the US and other Iranian adversaries.
I'm not saying the IAEA has been compromised, only that it is possible for US spies to infiltrate the IAEA just like they did with UNSCOM. In which case the IAEA would cease to be an impartial body and no longer able to fulfill its mission.
What are you saying, that its not possible for the US to pervert the IAEA like they did to UNSCOM?
I don't know enough about the inner workings of the IAEA to say if they have been infiltrated by US agents or not. Iran only claims these agents wrote a misleading report which made speculative statements sound like facts. If true, then their actions were justified. If false, then their actions weren't justified. I never saw the report, just what each side claims the report said.
Unlike you, I am not so certain who is doing what to whom. I have my suspicions, based on a past history. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Iran has no history of breaking treaties, starting unprovoked wars or infiltrating UN agencies with spies, unlike the US and other Iranian adversaries.
I'm not saying the IAEA has been compromised, only that it is possible for US spies to infiltrate the IAEA just like they did with UNSCOM. In which case the IAEA would cease to be an impartial body and no longer able to fulfill its mission.
What are you saying, that its not possible for the US to pervert the IAEA like they did to UNSCOM?
Last edited:
EAO
N Korea - Controlled by China - If China even had a hint that N Korea was going to War the Govt would change within days.
Pakistan - Yes another country that could become a threat - I would gather that if their was a reasonable chance that nukes - full civil war - with extremists coming to power the Us would have those facilities under lock, key, remove materials and destroy those facilities - And yes China, Russia and india would either assist or sit back. As an extremist regime with Nukes would be a threat to them all.
Isreal - I have no problem with Isreal having nukes - If Iran gets Nukes the rest of the Mid East will start the same thing - Countries will allie themselves with the new Power broker on the block - self preservation -
Iran with nukes - No way - No one trust iran not to use them. It would initiate a nuclear Arms Race in an area that is already a tinderbox. And you want to add more nukes to the fire.
EAO - How about we raise the level of the discussion from where we STOP the name calling, condescending remarks that seems to have become a pattern of our posts - Over to you. No blaming you or i in this - But as I stated - Over to you.
Nothing would please me more. I promise to try to remain civil and I apologize for my behavior.
Its a sunny day, I plan to enjoy the rest of it. Have a nice day!
I have a problem with any nation possessing nukes including both Iran and Israel. Pakistan and North Korea are the greatest concern at the moment. Both are unstable and proliferation risks. An Iran with nuclear breakout capability is not a serious or immediate proliferation risk. Its not in our best interest to try to destabilize Iran as we would not be able to control the outcome. If Iran descended into a state of anarchy, the end result would most likely be a hostile military dictatorship intent on acquiring a nuke arsenal. I'd rather have the Mullahs run Iran as a Theocracy for now. No I don't believe in Theocracies, but a Theocratic Iran is relatively stable and they appear not interested in acquiring nukes right now. We should not be hostile to their plans to acquire peaceful nuclear technology. As long as they respect NPT thresholds and allow unfettered IAEA inspections, we should not interfere. If we are patient, Iranians will eventually transition their government toward a Secular Democracy on their own.
But assuming Iran did acquire nukes. The threat to Israel isn't that they'll use them (Mutual Assured Destruction), so much as it eliminates Israel's ability to use them against Iran (MAD) or any of its allies in the event they were loosing a conventional war.
Iran is a threat to Israel, but not because of their nuclear program. Iran is developing sophisticated weapon systems and giving them to Israel's adversaries in Syria, Lebanon, Gaza and elsewhere. Eventually this activity will level the conventional battle field and Israel's adversaries will be able to give Israel the same as they get. Sooner or later, Israel will loose a conventional war. When this happens, I would support Canada absorbing as many Israeli refugees as possible and processing them the same way as the Tamils. When these people enter Canada, they can claim refugee status. We isolate and identify each one. Everyone would be treated with dignity and respect. The sick would get medical attention. All civilians would be welcome to stay and eventually get Canadian citizenship. Israelis guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity would have to be judged according to the severity of their crimes, just like the Tamils.
But assuming Iran did acquire nukes. The threat to Israel isn't that they'll use them (Mutual Assured Destruction), so much as it eliminates Israel's ability to use them against Iran (MAD) or any of its allies in the event they were loosing a conventional war.
Iran is a threat to Israel, but not because of their nuclear program. Iran is developing sophisticated weapon systems and giving them to Israel's adversaries in Syria, Lebanon, Gaza and elsewhere. Eventually this activity will level the conventional battle field and Israel's adversaries will be able to give Israel the same as they get. Sooner or later, Israel will loose a conventional war. When this happens, I would support Canada absorbing as many Israeli refugees as possible and processing them the same way as the Tamils. When these people enter Canada, they can claim refugee status. We isolate and identify each one. Everyone would be treated with dignity and respect. The sick would get medical attention. All civilians would be welcome to stay and eventually get Canadian citizenship. Israelis guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity would have to be judged according to the severity of their crimes, just like the Tamils.
Last edited:
Why are Pakistan and North Korea a risk, and Iran isn't?
I actually agree, but aren't you pinning a lot of your opinion on hopes and wishes?
You say that like Israel WOULD use them, while saying Iran WOULDN"T, unless Israel did. Putting the negative on Israel. You don't read Tom Clancy by any chance do you?
On the bright side, at least you just conceded that Israel's Arab neighbours would make refugees out of Israeli's.
It's about time you admitted they have no intentions of coinciding in peace.