Iran's Nuclear Program

[earth_as_one]

All evidence points to Iran preparing to build a nuke weapon.

The evidence supports the conclusion that Iran walked up to the line and didn't cross it. A scientist making doodles on a napkin can mean anything...

Iran probable does have an NPT compliant nuclear break out capability. But their program is monitored and their facilities have purely civilian purposes.

Civilian and military nuclear technology share common technology and research directions to a point. Research/Technology which diverges solely toward a military path violates the NPT. ie> Enrichment limited to 20% prevent Iran from manufacturing nuclear weapon components.Deliberate enrichment beyond 20% has no civilian purpose.

Iran has an NPT right to master the fuel cycle from mining (Iran) to disposal (Russia by agreement).

Likely they also have many empty caves of spare parts....

Recommend this link on Iranian public opinion!

Nuclear Weapons
Both the TFT and WPO polls show the vast majority of Iranians want their country to develop nuclear energy. TFT found that 89 percent of Iranians favor (including 78% who strongly favor) "the Iranian Government developing nuclear energy." [TFT, Q 12a] WPO found that 90 percent of Iranians believe it is important (including 81% very important) for Iran "to have a full fuel cycle nuclear program." [WPO, Q 28]

Both polls also show that the Iranian public's support for the development of nuclear weapons is considerably less than that for nuclear energy, but how much less depends considerably on how the question was posed. TFT asked about Iran's government developing nuclear weapons immediately after its question on nuclear energy and found a slim majority in favor (51% vs. 39% opposed). [TFT, Q 12b] WPO asked several questions about Iran foregoing nuclear weapons in the context of different international proposals that did not limit Iran's nuclear energy program. Each of these questions found a clear majority willing to accept the proposal. For example, 58 percent favor (vs. 26% oppose) the following offer:

"Suppose the U.N. Security Council were to say that it would accept Iran having a full fuel cycle nuclear program limited to the enrichment levels necessary for nuclear energy, if Iran agrees to allow the IAEA permanent and full access throughout Iran to ensure that its nuclear program is limited to energy production." [WPO, Q 34; also see QQ. 27 and 74]

TFT found large majorities of Iranians saying they would be willing to forego developing nuclear weapons in return for "trade and capital investment to create jobs" (70% support vs. 22% oppose) and "technological assistance for developing peaceful nuclear energy" (71% vs. 20%). [TFT, QQ 13a, 13d]
Views of the United States
Relations with the West
Iran's Regional Role
U.S.-Iranian Negotiations
Iranian Public Opinion on Governance, Nuclear Weapons and Relations with the United States - World Public Opinion

 

[Goober]

The evidence supports the conclusion that Iran walked up to the line and didn't cross it. A scientist making doodles on a napkin can mean anything...

Iran probable does have an NPT compliant nuclear break out capability. But their program is monitored and their facilities have purely civilian purposes.

Civilian and military nuclear technology share common technology and research directions to a point. Research/Technology which diverges solely toward a military path violates the NPT. ie> Enrichment limited to 20% prevent Iran from manufacturing nuclear weapon components.Deliberate enrichment beyond 20% has no civilian purpose.

Iran has an NPT right to master the fuel cycle from mining (Iran) to disposal (Russia by agreement).

Likely they also have many empty caves of spare parts....

Recommend this link on Iranian public opinion!

Nuclear Weapons
Both the TFT and WPO polls show the vast majority of Iranians want their country to develop nuclear energy. TFT found that 89 percent of Iranians favor (including 78% who strongly favor) "the Iranian Government developing nuclear energy." [TFT, Q 12a] WPO found that 90 percent of Iranians believe it is important (including 81% very important) for Iran "to have a full fuel cycle nuclear program." [WPO, Q 28]

Both polls also show that the Iranian public's support for the development of nuclear weapons is considerably less than that for nuclear energy, but how much less depends considerably on how the question was posed. TFT asked about Iran's government developing nuclear weapons immediately after its question on nuclear energy and found a slim majority in favor (51% vs. 39% opposed). [TFT, Q 12b] WPO asked several questions about Iran foregoing nuclear weapons in the context of different international proposals that did not limit Iran's nuclear energy program. Each of these questions found a clear majority willing to accept the proposal. For example, 58 percent favor (vs. 26% oppose) the following offer:

"Suppose the U.N. Security Council were to say that it would accept Iran having a full fuel cycle nuclear program limited to the enrichment levels necessary for nuclear energy, if Iran agrees to allow the IAEA permanent and full access throughout Iran to ensure that its nuclear program is limited to energy production." [WPO, Q 34; also see QQ. 27 and 74]

TFT found large majorities of Iranians saying they would be willing to forego developing nuclear weapons in return for "trade and capital investment to create jobs" (70% support vs. 22% oppose) and "technological assistance for developing peaceful nuclear energy" (71% vs. 20%). [TFT, QQ 13a, 13d]
Views of the United States
Relations with the West
Iran's Regional Role
U.S.-Iranian Negotiations
Iranian Public Opinion on Governance, Nuclear Weapons and Relations with the United States - World Public Opinion

Public opinion- Not relevant- Perhaps trying to put together a thread that shows both sides would be proper- It shows impartiality or at least the balls to provide members with a selection of material to peruse. But that is beyond you. Perhaps you should PM the Mods- Close the thread and try to come up with something decent. Or is that to much for your biased and uninformed view.

 

[damngrumpy]

I wonder what would happen if The United States of America was ordered to refrain
from having Nuclear weapons. Get this straight right away I am not in favour of nut
cases like Iran having nukes. At the same time we in the west think we should have
the right to tell other countries what they can and cannot do inside their own boarders.
What they do is their business, when they threaten their neighbours or attack them it
is our business.
The world is in one hell of a mess because a mad man was in charge in Iraq and a
mad man in America went to war with him that cost billions everyday. The real problem
is the madman in America lied about weapons of mass destruction and almost everything
else in order to go to war.
America is almost bankrupt because they have either gone to war or supported some of the
worst people on the planet. From time to time they throw out the worst people at the
moment and replace them with groups that are even worse than before.
All of this in the name of civilization.
It is somewhat like giving a Cannibal and knife and fork and calling it civilized advancement.
If you want to have Iran become a modern nation, supporting the king and picking fights
with people in the region is not the way to go.

 

[Goober]

I wonder what would happen if The United States of America was ordered to refrain
from having Nuclear weapons. Get this straight right away I am not in favour of nut
cases like Iran having nukes. At the same time we in the west think we should have
the right to tell other countries what they can and cannot do inside their own boarders.
What they do is their business, when they threaten their neighbours or attack them it
is our business.
The world is in one hell of a mess because a mad man was in charge in Iraq and a
mad man in America went to war with him that cost billions everyday. The real problem
is the madman in America lied about weapons of mass destruction and almost everything
else in order to go to war.
America is almost bankrupt because they have either gone to war or supported some of the
worst people on the planet. From time to time they throw out the worst people at the
moment and replace them with groups that are even worse than before.
All of this in the name of civilization.
It is somewhat like giving a Cannibal and knife and fork and calling it civilized advancement.
If you want to have Iran become a modern nation, supporting the king and picking fights
with people in the region is not the way to go.

Does that detract from the fact that Iran is according to many developing Nuke weapons. Read the IAEA reports. When they showed Iran was not- everyone that supports Iran was right on that bandwagon- using those reports as a hammer for those that disagreed - Now the reports differ- So then the IAEA is a US stooge. Fuk me- What will they believe.

 

[BaalsTears]

Why can't Obama get along with the Iranians? Obama promised that if elected president he would sit down with the Iranians and work out an agreement to settle the question of alleged nuclear proliferation by Iran. Obama lied. He broke his word. The Iranians called Obama a liar and gave him the cold shoulder. Why can't Obama get along with other countries? He's a liar.

 

[earth_as_one]

Feel free to make your point here where its on topic.

Read the link I posted and you'll see that its only about what Iranians think.

 

[CDNBear]

Read the link I posted and you'll see that its only about what Iranians think.

Honest question...

Why is that important in the grand scheme of things?

 

[earth_as_one]

Does that detract from the fact that Iran is according to many developing Nuke weapons. Read the IAEA reports. When they showed Iran was not- everyone that supports Iran was right on that bandwagon- using those reports as a hammer for those that disagreed - Now the reports differ- So then the IAEA is a US stooge. Fuk me- What will they believe.

The IAEA has been compromised and the proof is in the reports. The reports don't claim to find anything which violates the NPT. The IAEA reports have become highly speculative and now spin nothing into sounding like something. Recent IAEA reports now resemble presentations made by Colin Powell
Colin Powell Says Iraq


Its well known that the US and other western nations put spies and operatives on supposedly neutral weapon inspection teams to illegally gather intel on Iraq.
UN 'spied on Iraq' | World news | The Guardian
That intel was then used to attack Iraq, which is why Iraq stopped cooperating with UNSCOM, not because they were hiding WMD stockpiles. The sanctions against Iraq also remained in place well after UNSCOM was more or less certain Iraq was cooperating with them and not hiding anything. I'm sure Iran noticed how Iraq was treated and the result.

As far as I know, Iran's official nuclear policies do not include developing a nuclear weapon capability.

As per the NPT, all nuke weapon possessing nations are supposed to reduce and eliminate their nuclear arsenals. They are prohibited from further research and modernization... yet that is precisely what every one of them has done. Now these nations claim NPT compliant Iran isn't allowed to possess peaceful civilian nuclear technologies. IMO, they'd have more credibility if they were first compliant with the NPT themselves or at least had the intention of becoming NPT compliant in the not so distant future.

Nations which are not signatories to the NPT and possess nuclear weapons should face harsh sanctions related to their clandestine nuclear programs.

I am against punishing Iran for their NPT compliant nuclear program. Pre-emptively punishing Iran for something they haven't done will backfire. Eventually Iran will decide that the sanctions can't get much worse, even if they develop nukes.

 

[CDNBear]

Ok, I guess that question was too hard for you.

Maybe this one will be easier...

Would you hand a loaded rifle to a multiple conviction murderer, just because he said he wanted to go hunting for food?

 

[earth_as_one]

I am against arming someone with a record of using violence to harm others. But which nation do you reference? I'll put Iran's record up against the US and Israel.

As far as I know, Iran has no record of starting unprovoked wars of aggression based on false allegations, misinformation and deliberate lies.

I am unaware of Iran attacking their neighbors without warning and making land grabs.

It would seem that your point is much stronger when applied to the US and Israel.

 

[CDNBear]

I am against arming someone with a record of using violence to harm others. But which nation do you reference?

Iran, as if you didn't know.

I'll put Iran's record up against the US and Israel.

I know you will. You employ moral relativism and distraction, when you don't want to just address the subject of the discussion.

Which is Iran, and their ability to create nuclear weapons.

Not Israel or the US.

As far as I know, Iran has no record of starting unprovoked wars of aggression based on false allegations, misinformation and deliberate lies.

As far as I know, Iran is led by religious zealots. Religious zealots don't always play by the rules. Nor are they prone to being reasonable.

I am unaware of Iran attacking their neighbors without warning and making land grabs.

Which of course has nothing to do with Iran's history of war crimes. Including attacking neutral commercial shipping vessels, laying mines in international waters.

Than there is the proxy war they have funded and waged against Israel over the years.

And I need not mention the difference between Iran's internal policies v. those of your two usual distractions.

It would seem that your point is much stronger when applied to the US and Israel.

Of course you would think that. Anything to draw attention away from the subject of discussion.

Your defense is as always, a weak attack on your usual two distractions, via your usual moral relativism.

 

[PoliticalNick]

Honest question...

Why is that important in the grand scheme of things?

It is far more important what the Iranians think about nuclear technology in Iran than what you, or anyone not from Iran think.

What delusions of grandeur do you share with the rest of the brainwashed westerners that you have a right to determine what goes on inside another sovereign nation?

The sooner western govts, namely the USA, figure out that they are NOT the world govt & police the better the world will become.

 

[CDNBear]

It is far more important what the Iranians think about nuclear technology in Iran than what you, or anyone not from Iran think.

It is?

Does this same opinion apply to your feelings about the US?

What delusions of grandeur do you share with the rest of the brainwashed westerners that you have a right to determine what goes on inside another sovereign nation?

What delusions of superiority gave you the idiotic idea I held that opinion?

(I expect to see a neg rep from EAO on your post and mine, in short order)

The sooner western govts, namely the USA, figure out that they are NOT the world govt & police the better the world will become.

I agree.

The outcome will be interesting.

 

[PoliticalNick]

...address the subject of the discussion.

Which is Iran, and their ability to create nuclear weapons.

OK, I am sure they have the ability. They can fund it and have the technology and resources to make it happen. What the real issue is here is their RIGHT to make nuclear weapons within their own borders of a sovereign nation. I say they have the right and if you or the PM or the Prez don't like it well you can all go f*ck a goat, its not your country and not your decision or your right to tell another nation what to do.

So if you want to address the subject start at the beginning with the rights of sovereign nations because once you realize the west has no right to interfere the rest of the discussion is moot.

Not Israel or the US.

You are right, none of their business what goes on internally in Iran.

As far as I know, Iran is led by religious zealots. Religious zealots don't always play by the rules. Nor are they prone to being reasonable.

Analagous to the 'conservative Christian' base that won the republicans the white house under W. That worked out well!

Which of course has nothing to do with Iran's history of war crimes. Including attacking neutral commercial shipping vessels, laying mines in international waters.

Blah, Blah, Blah.....what about all the war crimes the US and other western nations have committed?

Than there is the proxy war they have funded and waged against Israel over the years.

You mean their support for their neighbors in trying to reclaim their homeland that was stolen from them in 1949? If the US moved in and took the next town to you I would think you would help your neighbor resist it.

 

[CDNBear]

OK, I am sure they have the ability. They can fund it and have the technology and resources to make it happen. What the real issue is here is their RIGHT to make nuclear weapons within their own borders of a sovereign nation. I say they have the right and if you or the PM or the Prez don't like it well you can all go f*ck a goat, its not your country and not your decision or your right to tell another nation what to do.

I feel the same way about gun ownership.

So if you want to address the subject start at the beginning with the rights of sovereign nations because once you realize the west has no right to interfere the rest of the discussion is moot.

If you say so.

Analagous to the 'conservative Christian' base that won the republicans the white house under W.

Which does nothing to refute what I said.

That worked out well!

Moot. You don't believe you have the right to commnet on what happens in a sovereign nation.

Blah, Blah, Blah.....what about all the war crimes the US and other western nations have committed?

LOL, SQUIRREL>>>

You mean their support for their neighbors in trying to reclaim their homeland that was stolen from them in 1949?

That's moral relativism.

But at least you admit they are a threat. Thank you for that honesty.

If the US moved in and took the next town to you I would think you would help your neighbor resist it.

I would think that with your feelings of indignation at the expropriation of land in the middle east, you would have a far different opinion of the First Nation here. The ones that experienced the same oppression and injustices today, almost as they did, 400 years ago.

 

[petros]

In the poll the following was an option.....

Most Iranians hate Americans

The opposite is the reality. They overwhelmingly like America. Far out huh?

 

[gore0bsessed]

Why wouldn't Iran want nukes when every country surrounding them has nukes?

 

[CDNBear]

Why wouldn't Iran want nukes when every country surrounding them has nukes?

Every country?

 

[earth_as_one]

PN phrased his post awkwardly. Try not to interpret it as meaning you personally, but popular western thought. His point is that we in the west assume we have a moral, god given, civilized superiority and can dictate to others. I agree with PN, if his point is that many westerners have condescending attitudes toward other nations and peoples.

 

[earth_as_one]

Ok, I guess that question was too hard for you.

Maybe this one will be easier...

Would you hand a loaded rifle to a multiple conviction murderer, just because he said he wanted to go hunting for food?

I'll follow your analogy regarding murder convictions. Who do you think is behind all the Iranian nuclear scientist murders? I know who the Iranians suspect:

Iran Scientist Assasinations: Confessions In Murder Of Nuclear Scientists Aired On State TV ...closed circuit cameras in a Tehran street recorded one of the operations, providing clues for Iran's intelligence agencies to identify and arrest the suspects.

One of the suspects, Behzad Abdoli, claimed that he received training in Israel, along with several others.

"I entered Turkey and then was taken to Cyprus by ship. From there, I entered Israel and (then) Tel Aviv ... They (Israelis) said that this group is being supported financially by the U.S. and Israel," he said.

Another suspect, Arash Kheradkish, said he received training in attaching magnetic bombs to moving cars.

"There was a motorcycle racing complex (in Tel Aviv) where we received training. We were told we needed to improve our skills so that we would be able to attach magnetized bombs to moving cars ... We were given time bombs that we had to push the start button when we attached it," he said. "At the end of the training course, members (of the group) were given money. They arranged our return (to Iran)."

The broadcast said Jamali Fashi and Arash Kheradkish got the highest grades during training in Tel Aviv and were chosen to lead the operations.

Maziar Ebrahimi, another suspect, said there were three groups involved in the bombings: Two on a motorbike, a car driving in front to slow the target car and a third support team waiting nearby to help if necessary.

"The assassination control room was in Tel Aviv, but it was receiving the orders from Washington and London," the TV report said.
Iran Scientist Assasinations: Confessions In Murder Of Nuclear Scientists Aired On State TV

Would you care to make an on topic comment regarding Iran's nuclear program?