When Iran will produce enough U235 to make a nuclear bomb?

In summary, Iran is continuing to violate international treaties, have a bad relationship with the United States, and is unlikely to have a functioning nuclear weapon any time soon.
  • #1
saifadin
21
0
hi
When Iran will produce enough U235 to make a nuclear bomb?
i think they are using a big centrifuges...

Regards
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #3


Who cares when it will have the bomb? Countries like Pakistan that already have it are in the danger of disintegrating and becoming an Afghanistan. Pakistan is more of a threat than Iran will ever be. Why are people not more concerned with how quickly can we cut dependency on oil so that the world stops enriching Mid-East dictatorships buttressed by oil? Without oil revenues they might be forced to turn instead to contributing to civilization and to improving the lot of their people? When were people questioning radical Islam in Saudi Arabia? When it was poor and did not have oil.
Why are people so obsessed with Iran? So what if it does have it. A lot of unstable states already have it. Why not focus attention on that fact?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/07/20/do2001.xml
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #4


lunarmansion said:
Who cares when it will have the bomb. Scarier countries like Pakistan already have it and are in the danger of becoming an Afghanistan.
...
Why are people so obsessed with Iran?
Several reasons. For one thing, Pakistan has had nukes for 3 decades now and hasn't used them yet (thanks, in part, to a MAD-like situation with India). So it's the known evil vs. the unknown evil. Second, Pakistan is an ally (at least on paper) while Iran isn't. And conversely, Israel is a much closer political ally (or better stated, there are much more powerful groups lobbying for Israel in the US Govt) to the US than India is.

Only recently, we heard again from the single person most responsible for nuclear proliferation anywhere in the world: Pakistan's Nuclear Head, A. Q. Khan, now sentenced to house arrest for his crimes. He told the media that shipments of centrifuges to Pyongyang happened under the guidance of the Military (lead by Musharraf). While this has been an obvious truth to most people, it should be something of an embarrassment to the US (but would be only if the press and the people gave a damn). After all, Musharraf has been trying to paint AQK as a renegade bad apple, and has claimed that his Military govt. knew nothing about any proliferation activities. The US has continued to have a good relationship with Musharraf, because it could always assert that he was not involved in the proliferation. Anyway, Khan will not be saying anything more - he has been banned by the Pakistan High Court from talking about any of Pakistan's nuclear proliferation activity. Hooray!

And now, the US is upgrading a handful of F-16s for Pakistan, and that's coming out of the US counter-terrorism budget, but the argument is that it is supposedly to help Pakistan better fight al Qaeda (yes, with better avionics on their F-16s). What a load of hooey! Pakistan almost never resorts to airstrikes!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7490423.stm
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1104ap_pakistan_nuclear_scientist.html
http://www.voanews.com/english/2008-07-24-voa48.cfm
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #5


Gokul43201 said:
Several reasons. For one thing, Pakistan has had nukes for 3 decades now and hasn't used them yet (thanks, in part, to a MAD-like situation with India). So it's the known evil vs. the unknown evil. Second, Pakistan is an ally (at least on paper) while Iran isn't. And conversely, Israel is a much closer political ally (or better stated, there are much more powerful groups lobbying for Israel in the US Govt) to the US than India is.
I'm sorry Gokul, but I don't see any good reason against Iran here. Hasn't Iran respected all legal international treaties it has ratified ?
 
  • #6


humanino said:
I'm sorry Gokul, but I don't see any good reason against Iran here. Hasn't Iran respected all legal international treaties it has ratified ?

No, the IAEA has several times ruled that Iran has violated the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and the UN Security council has imposed sanctions upon Iran for its violations. The United States and the European Union continue to push for stricter sanctions on Iran, which is currently being blocked by the Chinese government, who need Iranian oil to fuel their developing industrial base and maintain their totalitarian government. Russia also continues to be an obstacle in pursuing further action through the UN Security council.

The only consolation is that Iran is almost sixty years behind the United States and Russia in missile technology, and even if they had enough uranium for a bomb, it is unlikely that they would have the technology to deliver it in the next ten years, and probably a lot longer than that.
 
  • #7


vociferous said:
No, the IAEA has several times ruled that Iran has violated the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and the UN Security council has imposed sanctions upon Iran for its violations.
I am right now on the IAEA web site. I don't find any document supporting your claims. I am specifically referring to violation by Iran of any international treaty it has ratified. Can you please point me out just one ? I'll keep searching in the meantime.
 
  • #8


U.S. likes to ignore clear and present danger (Pakistan) and likes to focus elsewhere (Iran--can it be dangerous? I do not have enough knowledge about politics there to have an opinion).
In the case of Pakistan, I do know it gets propped up by the Arab funds and U.S. aid whenever it is falling apart. But how can people ask the Pakistanis to crack down on their own people who they would otherwise support were they not forced by the international community to address the terrorist issue? This seems to be the question. People can't change their culture that fast and this is why U.S. aid will not help to make the situation any better there in terms of Pakistan cracking down on terror. It is just a situation that is going in circles. This Iran obsession just shows how the real issues get ignored.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #10


The IAEA found that Iran had repeatedly violated its obligations under the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty.

http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2003/gov2003-75.pdf

Refusal to suspend the refinement of weapons-grade Uranium, to allow full access and cooperation to inspectors, and to, in general, comply with the letter and intent of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty led to several security council resolutions against Iran.


UNITED NATIONS — The Security Council on Monday adopted its third resolution imposing sanctions on Iran for its refusal to cease enriching uranium, an activity that the West suspects Iran may be using to create fuel for a nuclear weapon.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/04/w...=1&sq=Iran+security+council+resolution&st=nyt


PARIS — The International Atomic Energy Agency, in an unusually blunt and detailed report, said Monday that Iran’s suspected research into the development of nuclear weapons remained “a matter of serious concern” and that Iran continued to owe the agency “substantial explanations.”

The nine-page report accused the Iranians of a willful lack of cooperation, particularly in answering allegations that its nuclear program may be intended more for military use than for energy generation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/27/world/middleeast/27iran.html?scp=2&sq=Iran+IAEA&st=nyt
 
  • #11


humanino said:
I am right now on the IAEA web site. I don't find any document supporting your claims. I am specifically referring to violation by Iran of any international treaty it has ratified. Can you please point me out just one ? I'll keep searching in the meantime.

Iran has ratified the NPT, and then gone on to violate it. Not that a history of not violating ratified treaties would disqualify Iran as a threat/problem/whatever. They continue to refuse to recognize a certain country in the region, while pumping money and arms into the hands of groups dedicated to the violent destabilization of that country and its neighbors.
 
  • #12


Anything I read sums up to : "the West suspects Iran may be using to create fuel for a nuclear weapon.". That's no violation of any treaty to me. From what I gather of the documents you provide...

"pledge from the six countries to establish full relations and economic cooperation with Iran", "willful lack of cooperation, particularly in answering allegations", those are no accusation of violation of any treaty.

Look, I'm not a native english speaker but here is your own reference :
"Between the indications of weapons work, which would constitute a violation of Iran’s treaty obligations and Iran’s blatant violations of Security Council resolutions, there is strong reason for Iran’s file to remain open both in New York and in Vienna.”

"That means that the country may be producing enriched uranium"

Now, can you tell the difference ? They have nothing, it's as simple...
 
  • #13


humanino said:
Anything I read sums up to : "the West suspects Iran may be using to create fuel for a nuclear weapon.". That's no violation of any treaty to me. From what I gather of the documents you provide...

"pledge from the six countries to establish full relations and economic cooperation with Iran", "willful lack of cooperation, particularly in answering allegations", those are no accusation of violation of any treaty.

Look, I'm not a native english speaker but here is your own reference :
"Between the indications of weapons work, which would constitute a violation of Iran’s treaty obligations and Iran’s blatant violations of Security Council resolutions, there is strong reason for Iran’s file to remain open both in New York and in Vienna.”

"That means that the country may be producing enriched uranium"

Now, can you tell the difference ? They have nothing, it's as simple...

Iran is producing enriched uranium. This is a known fact. They have a multitude of gas-centrifuges, some of which have been tested to contain weapons-grade uranium.

The issue with the IAEA and the UN Security Council is not simply the matter of Iran producing Uranium (which is a huge concern in and of itself), but that they refuse to meet their obligations to allow IAEA inspectors full access in order to show that their uranium enrichment is not in violation of the the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

The United Nations Security council has already issued sanctions against Iran for violating the Nuclear Non Proliferation, and eventually, if Iran continues its obstinate stonewalling, the IAEA will have no choice but to declare that Iran is in abeyance of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. There are already more serious sanctions being pushed by the US and EU, and if Iran continues to behave as it is, China and Russia will have no choice but to allow those sanctions to be passed.
 
  • #14


vociferous said:
if Iran continues its obstinate stonewalling, the IAEA will have no choice but to declare that Iran is in abeyance of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.
Please note that, I asked you when Iran did that, where I could find the information, and I recevied answers that it's obvious, but there is nothing. Just "may"s and "would"s

Why would IAEA be so nice with Iran, if they had any real proof than they have violated a treaty ? Why would they wait unti whatever ? If there is violation, there is, the violation is officially declared and it's over. Sorry, but you don't convince me a bit.
 
  • #15


Gokul43201 said:
Second, Pakistan is an ally (at least on paper) while Iran isn't.

Yeah that's pretty hilarious. Musharaf took power by force and harbors terrorists and they are our friend.
 
  • #16


humanino said:
Why would IAEA be so nice with Iran, ...

What do you expect the IAEA to do? It's not like it has he capability to do much, except refer the matter to the security council (which it has done) and call on/advise the members of the UN to take notice and act (which it has done, and which THEY have done).

In short the IAEA has done just about everything that it COULD do!

Apparently not only the US, but it's bestest of best friends (yes, read the blatant sarcasm) CHINA!, RUSSIA!,FRANCE! and GERMANY! not to mention the U.K. and the rep from the European Union think that Iran has not fulfilled it's obligations.

The fact that you are *not convinced*, is not surprisingly, not a surprise to me.
 
  • #17


seycyrus said:
In short the IAEA has done just about everything that it COULD do!
Exactly, that's my point : I read here claims that Iran has violated international treaties, but the truth is, there is no proof of this, just suspicions, therefore, the IAEA has not officially declared they found Iran guilty.
 
  • #18


That isn't true. The citations were presented to you and you just choose to ignore them. Like it or not, the IAEA is charged with deciding whether someone violates the NPT and they decided that Iran has. Heck, Iran has admitted many of the facts that are the violations! Ignoring these facts doesn't make them go away.

That's even setting aside Gokul's reasons for the political climate against Iran. You may not agree with them, but they are real enough problems that the western world is reasonably well in agreement about the severity of the problem. Iran has repeatedly threatened neighbors with violence. That makes them a bigger threat than Pakistan.

Quite clearly, you are not willing to be objective here.
 
Last edited:
  • #19


russ_watters said:
That isn't true. The citations were presented to you and you just choose to ignore them.
[...]
Quite clearly, you are not willing to be objective here.
Saying it louder won't make it more sound. I am trying to be objective, as I have read and quoted the references which were pointed to me. You BTW in your first version of your post were pointing me there :
NPT Iran section on wiki
I went there, and tried to download the reference [28]UN Security Council Resolution 1737 with two different browsers. I am not responsible for daccessdds.un.org accepting only microsoft products. Please provide the resolution here so that I can read it. I'm ready to change my mind honestly, and appreciate only slightly when you call for my lack of objectivity. I provided the link to the video which raised this question to me. I'm ready to hear any otherwise argument, but have not seen any so far, except for the reference to wikipedia which you deleted.
Like it or not, the IAEA is charged with deciding whether someone violates the NPT and they decided that Iran has.
Please provide me with the references which will allow me to agree with this statement.
 
Last edited:
  • #20


The wiki article clearly says
The United States and some members of the European Union have accused Iran of using this program to help covertly develop nuclear weapons, which would be in violation of article II of the NPT.
It's the same everywhere. They have nothing but "would"s and "may"s...
 
  • #21


Again :
Iran's nuclear program and the NPT
The Iranian nuclear program has been controversial although the development of a civilian nuclear power program is explicitly allowed under the terms of the NPT, there have been allegations that Iran has been illicitly pursuing a nuclear weapons program, in violation of the NPT.
I'm sorry, you can call me non-objective if you like, and I can claim that I just don't understand english, but I simply don't see anything firm against them.
 
  • #22


Same as previous link
The May 2008 IAEA Report
According to the report, the IAEA has been able to continue to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran, and Iran has provided the Agency with access to declared nuclear material and accountancy reports, as required by its safeguards agreement.

Iran had installed several new centrifuges, including more advanced models, and environmental samples showed the centrifuges "continued to operate as declared", making low-enriched uranium. The report also noted that other elements of Iran's nuclear program continued to be subject to IAEA monitoring and safeguards as well, including the construction of the heavy water facility in Arak, the construction and use of hot cells associated with the Tehran Research Reactor, the uranium conversion efforts, and the Russian nuclear fuel delivered for the Bushehr reactor.

The report stated that the IAEA had requested, as a voluntary "transparency measure", to be allowed access to centrifuge manufacturing sites, but that Iran had refused the request. The IAEA report stated that Iran had also submitted replies to questions regarding "possible military dimensions" to its nuclear program, which include "alleged studies" on a so-called Green Salt Project, high-explosive testing and missile re-entry vehicles. According to the report, Iran's answers were still under review by the IAEA at the time the report was published. However, as part of its earlier "overall assessment" of the allegations, Iran had responded that the documents making the allegations were forged, not authentic, or referred to conventional applications.

The report stated that Iran may have more information on the alleged studies, which "remain a matter of serious concern", but that the IAEA itself had not detected evidence of actual design or manufacture by Iran of nuclear weapons or components. The IAEA also stated that it was not itself in possession of certain documents containing the allegations against Iran, and so was not able to share the documents with Iran.
So, I am still waiting for proof that the IAEA has called Iran's activities illegal. "serious concern" is not the same "illegal" and it does make a big difference.
 
  • #23


Russ, a problem here is that no one seems to be able to point out clearly which regulations of the NPT were violated by Iran, and how and when they were violated.

I think the argument can be sewn up once and for all, as soon as this is done.
 
  • #24
humanino said:
You BTW in your first version of your post were pointing me there :
NPT Iran section on wiki
I posted that before realizing there was a better reference already posted. Post #10, the first link is a report on Iran's violations straight from the horse's mouth.
I went there, and tried to download the reference [28]UN Security Council Resolution 1737 with two different browsers. I am not responsible for daccessdds.un.org accepting only microsoft products.
No (it's a broken link), but a little bit of effort on your part would be nice. It takes five seconds to copy and paste "UN Security Council Resolution 1737" into the search bar of your browser and pull it up: http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/sc8928.doc.htm
I provided the link to the video which raised this question to me. I'm ready to hear any otherwise argument, but have not seen any so far, except for the reference to wikipedia which you deleted.
This is really mind-boggling to me. Your linked source acknowledges the fact of Iran's violations!:
yes, Iran is violating those resolutions.
 
Last edited:
  • #25


Gokul43201 said:
Russ, a problem here is that no one seems to be able to point out clearly which regulations of the NPT were violated by Iran, and how and when they were violated.

I think the argument can be sewn up once and for all, as soon as this is done.
First of all, you guys have the burden of proof issue backwards here. Here's the text of the NPT: http://disarmament.un.org/wmd/npt/npttext.html Article 3, sect 1 says:
1. Each non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes to accept safeguards, as set forth in an agreement to be negotiated and concluded with the International Atomic Energy Agency in accordance with the Statute of the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Agency’s safeguards system, for the exclusive purpose of verification of the fulfilment of its obligations assumed under this Treaty with a view to preventing diversion of nuclear energy from peaceful uses to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.
In other words, the treaty requires cooperation with the IAEA in order to verify compliance. Lack of cooperation is itself a violation.

Even setting that aside, the first link in post 10 is the relevant IAEA report. It's pretty technical, but here are a few snippets:
23. On 9 October 2003, Iran further acknowledged that, contrary to its previous statements, practically all of the materials important to uranium conversion had been produced in laboratory and bench scale experiments (in kilogram quantities) between 1981 and 1993 without having been
reported to the Agency. These activities were carried out at TNRC and ENTC.
Here, Iran was caught red-handed violating it's obligations and had no choice but to acknowledge their previous lie/violation.
43. During their visit in July 2003, Agency inspectors were provided with drawings of the IR-40. Contrary to what would have been expected given the declared radioisotope production purpose of the facility, the drawings contained no references to hot cells. The Agency raised this issue during that visit, particularly in light of open source reports of recent efforts by Iran to acquire from abroad heavy manipulators and leaded windows designed for hot cell applications. The Agency indicated to the Iranian authorities that, given the specifications of the manipulators and windows which were the subject of those reports, a design for hot cells should have existed already and that therefore the hot cell, or cells, should already have been declared, at least on a preliminary basis, as part of the facility or as a separate installation.

44. In its letter of 21 October 2003, Iran acknowledged that two hot cells had been foreseen for this project. However, according to the information provided in that letter, neither the design nor detailed information about the dimensions or the actual layout of the hot cells was available yet, since they did not know the characteristics of the manipulators and shielded windows which they could procure. On 1 November 2003, Iran confirmed that it had tentative plans to construct at the Arak site yet another building with hot cells for the production of radioisotopes. Iran has agreed to submit the relevant preliminary design information with respect to that building in due course.
Here's the summary of all the findings:
D. Findings
45. Iran’s nuclear programme, as the Agency currently understands it, consists of a practically complete front end of a nuclear fuel cycle, including uranium mining and milling, conversion, enrichment, fuel fabrication, heavy water production, a light water reactor, a heavy water research reactor and associated research and development facilities.
46. Iran has now acknowledged that it has been developing, for 18 years, a uranium centrifuge enrichment programme, and, for 12 years, a laser enrichment programme. In that context, Iran has admitted that it produced small amounts of LEU using both centrifuge and laser enrichment processes, and that it had failed to report a large number of conversion, fabrication and irradiation activities involving nuclear material, including the separation of a small amount of plutonium.
47. Based on all information currently available to the Agency, it is clear that Iran has failed in a number of instances over an extended period of time to meet its obligations under its Safeguards Agreement with respect to the reporting of nuclear material and its processing and use, as well as the declaration of facilities where such material has been processed and stored. In his June and August 2003 reports to the Board of Governors (GOV/2003/40 and GOV/2003/63), the Director General identified a number of instances of such failures and the corrective actions that were being, or needed to be, taken with respect thereto by Iran.
48. Since the issuance of the Director General’s last report, a number of additional failures have been identified. These failures can be summarized as follows:
(a) Failure to report:
(i) the use of imported natural UF6 for the testing of centrifuges at the Kalaye Electric
Company in 1999 and 2002, and the consequent production of enriched and
depleted uranium;
(ii) the import of natural uranium metal in 1994 and its subsequent transfer for use in
laser enrichment experiments, including the production of enriched uranium, the
loss of nuclear material during these operations, and the production and transfer of
resulting waste;
(iii) the production of UO2, UO3, UF4, UF6 and AUC from imported depleted UO2,
depleted U3O8 and natural U3O8, and the production and transfer of resulting
wastes;
(iv) the production of UO2 targets at ENTC and their irradiation in TRR, the
subsequent processing of those targets, including the separation of plutonium, the
production and transfer of resulting waste, and the storage of unprocessed
irradiated targets at TNRC;
(b) Failure to provide design information for:
(i) the centrifuge testing facility at the Kalaye Electric Company;
(ii) the laser laboratories at TNRC and Lashkar Ab’ad, and locations where resulting
wastes were processed and stored, including the waste storage facility at Karaj;
(iii) the facilities at ENTC and TNRC involved in the production of UO2, UO3, UF4,
UF6 and AUC;
(iv) TRR, with respect to the irradiation of uranium targets, and the hot cell facility
where the plutonium separation took place, as well as the waste handling facility
at TNRC; and
(c) Failure on many occasions to co-operate to facilitate the implementation of
safeguards, through concealment.
For a scientific process where the peaceful and non-peaceful applications overlap, it is prudent for the NPT to be structured with a burden-of-proof on the state wishing to develop nuclear power. Logic dictates that if the nuclear research is peaceful, then there is no reason to keep it secret and violate the requirement for oversight.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #26


Btw:
humanino said:
I provided the link to the video which raised this question to me.
I let that go before because it isn't necessary to debunk the video (the guy acknowledges the violations himself), but I really hope you can see why that guy's opinions are not reliable. He isn't claiming that Iran didn't violate the NPT or UNSC resolutions (he acknowleges they did), he's challenging the legitimacy of the organizations and treaties themselves. Obviously, that's a crackpot idea and a complete non-starter: Iran ratified the treaty and the UN charter. It is bound by them by it's own choice.
 
  • #27


Russ, thank you very much for your patience and help. I much appreciate.

Let me try to clarify my position : assume that you are the leader of a proudly independent country, who genuinely only want nuclear electricity. You comply with the rules of the game you have accepted, only to find that people don't trust you, and refuse the rights you have because they claim you did not respect your obligations. I honestly would find the situation pretty unfair. I'm not saying this is what is happening, I'm saying I'm afraid this might be what is happening. I just don't know, and I'm trying to find out, seriously. I was put in this position by the video I posted earlier. I'll be more careful with this site from now on.

The reading of the 2003 document required attention for me, and your clarification helped a lot. As far as I understand, Iran was found guilty and forced to admit it in 2003. Now, what is the situation today ? The May 2008 IAEA Report says it "remains a matter of serious concern".
 
  • #28


humanino said:
Let me try to clarify my position : assume that you are the leader of a proudly independent country, who genuinely only want nuclear electricity.
If I am the leader of a country that wants nuclear capability only for power generation, I would do my darndest to be as transparent as possible with my operations, I would make sure I didn't make any statements that would make the world wary of my intentions and I would not engage in ridiculously idiotic military one-upmanship like the affair with the Royal Navy.
 
  • #29


There's also the question of why a country with one of the largest proven oil reserves on the planet would so desperately want nuclear power generation. And then there's the point that one does not need to have a complete nuclear fuel cycle in order to generate nuclear power; one can easily import fuel enriched elsewhere, and this is in fact what most countries do, as it is easier, cheaper, and does not arouse any suspicion whatsoever. In fact, the United States and various European countries have already offered to guarantee Iran a supply a nuclear fuel, if they will give up internal enrichment. This, then, raises the question of why Iran would pursue a confrontational, expensive policy instead of the various cheaper, better options open to it (invest in oil infrastructure and build gas-fired plants, or just import nuclear fuel). The only answer seems to be that they view internal enrichment as valuable in its own right, above and beyond concerns about power generation. The reason for this seems to be that defying the West is a fundamental plank of the political platform of the hard-right government currently controlling Iran. I.e, they score nationalist points by pursuing policies over complaints from the West, and also end up in a position where they can transition to weaponization relatively quickly if they so desire. Which, of course, is exactly why the West dislikes the prospect of internal Iranian enrichment.
 
  • #30


quadraphonics said:
There's also the question of why a country with one of the largest proven oil reserves on the planet would so desperately want nuclear power generation.
Because the reserves won't last forever?

And then there's the point that one does not need to have a complete nuclear fuel cycle in order to generate nuclear power; one can easily import fuel enriched elsewhere, and this is in fact what most countries do, as it is easier, cheaper, and does not arouse any suspicion whatsoever. In fact, the United States and various European countries have already offered to guarantee Iran a supply a nuclear fuel, if they will give up internal enrichment. This, then, raises the question of why Iran would pursue a confrontational, expensive policy instead of the various cheaper, better options open to it (invest in oil infrastructure and build gas-fired plants, or just import nuclear fuel).
Because it is in the interests of any country to reduce dependence of foreign sources when it comes to vital national security interests like energy. That's the current thrust in the US, after all.

But Iran could definitely benefit from accepting this alternative.
 
  • #31


Gokul43201 said:
Because the reserves won't last forever?

Not forever, no, but many, many decades. And that's supposing that they don't find any more deposits. There is certainly no urgency whatsoever for Iran to reduce dependence on oil. Indeed, the money spent on uranium enrichment would be better spent on oil infrastructure, which has been decaying badly, as this is the backbone of Iran's economy.

Gokul43201 said:
Because it is in the interests of any country to reduce dependence of foreign sources when it comes to vital national security interests like energy. That's the current thrust in the US, after all.

Well, it's certainly in the interests of politicians to do so, or at least claim to want to do so. Which is why the "thrust" in the US is a lot of hot air from politicians and pundits, and zero actual action. And, again, Iran has more than enough oil inside its borders to provide energy independence for a long time to come, so I don't see any basis for such an argument. Even if we accept that Iran should be developing alternative energy, that doesn't imply that they need to pursue nuclear energy; they have plenty of solar potential, for example, that they can exploit without causing tensions with other countries. And yet they choose to pursue nuclear fuel infrastructure, at great monetary and political costs. Which would seem to imply that considerations above and beyond energy are driving this effort. This is not surprising; pretty much every nuclear state in the world that has developed a fuel cycle has been motivated as much by security and weapons concerns as by civilian energy provision. That's not to say that Iran is necessarily in a rush to build a bomb; the more likely scenario is that they want to become a "threshold" state, in a position to expell inspectors and produce a weapon in relatively short order should they see fit to (this is the posture of states like Japan and Brazil, for example). Without a fuel cycle, an Iranian bomb is a non-issue. With a fuel-cycle, it's an issue of everyone having to induce, and trust, Iran not to build one. Which is not a comfortable scenario, given their poor relations with various states in the region and beyond.
 
  • #32


More details from the IAEA since 2003:

IAEA Board report 2004 (A.2. Implications)
http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Doc...gov2004-83.pdf
...Iran has failed in a number of instances over an extended period of time to meet its obligations under its [NPT] Safeguards Agreement with respect to the reporting of nuclear material, its processing and its use, as well as the declaration of facilities where such material has been processed and stored...
And this year:
http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Doc...gov2008-15.pdf
... 29. Contrary to the decisions of the Security Council, Iran has not suspended its enrichment related activities, having continued the operation of PFEP and FEP and the installation of both new cascades and of new generation centrifuges for test purposes. Iran has also continued with the construction of the IR–40 reactor...

That is, Iran violated its international NPT agreement and it continues to enrich Uranium in 2008.
 
  • #33


Most Americans are not able to tell the difference between Pakistan, Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan. They have no knowledge of the history or the culture of a peoples. The Mullahs do not represent the majority will in Iran and are hated by the majority. This contrasts with Pakistan which has a highly radicalized Muslim population that even the government cannot control and sometimes even encourages. Pakistan was founded as a religious state and that is their sole identity. Unless they understand who they are as a nation, I doubt things will change there. The fundamentalists in Iran came by force and do not represent majority opinion. This is a huge difference between the two countries. If elections were to be held in Iran, fundamentalists would be voted out of power. As far as radical Islam is concerned, Pakistan is a grave threat due to its culture. Iran has a very educated, tolerant population. You can see this in the ease in with they transition when they move to other countries. Moreover, the Arabs do not trust Iran and Iranians do not get along with or like them. Ahmadinejad does not represent the people there; if there is one Muslim country in which democracy has a hope, this is it. This country should not be pushed in the wrong direction because of what its Mullahs do. Rather, the democratic forces which are fomenting there and have a hope should be encouraged. This is not what is done showing the myopic nature of American Foreign policy. I was shocked when even a Presidential Candidate asserted recently that the borders between Iraq and Pakistan should be strengthened. Did he forget there was another country in between called Iran? I am not surprised if foreign policy might be made here by people who cannot even point to Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan or Iraq on the map, let alone tell the difference between these cultures. This is perhaps where the real problem might lie and why the strategy they are formulating is going in circles.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #34


lunarmansion said:
The fundamentalists in Iran came by force and do not represent majority opinion.

Nevertheless, they control the state and set the policies Iran implements. It's great that the Persians are cosmopolitan and enlightened, but until they actually produce a state that reflects those values, it doesn't count for much in the world of geopolitics. The Nazis were similarly unrepresentative of the true values of German culture, but that didn't make them any less of a threat.

lunarmansion said:
If elections were to be held in Iran, fundamentalists would be voted out of power.

Presumably you meant to say "free and fair elections?" They have elections all the time; it's just that the Mullahs disqualify all candidates that aren't in line with their vision of things. So the choice ends up between fundamentalism and fundamentalism light. And even if fundamentalism light wins, the Mullahs then undermine anything they try to do, and so discredit them.

lunarmansion said:
Rather, the democratic forces which are fomenting there and has a hope should be encouraged. This is not what is done showing the myopic nature of American Foreign policy.

On the contrary, a policy of quiet tolerance and encouragement was pursued by America throughout the 1990's, in the hope of boosting the reform government that was in power at the time. But this went nowhere, and we ended up with Ahmedinejad, a nuclear fuel cycle, and funnelling of arms and weapons to radical groups throughout the Middle East. The failure of this approach is probably due to the controlled nature of Iranian "democracy," which requires candidates to be suitably hardline to even run in the first place, and then guarantees the failure of any meaningful reforms that elected officials might pursue. It's a cynical system that exploits the trappings of democracy to keep the opposition peaceful, while simultaneously exhausting them without allowing them to achieve anything meaningful.

The real problem is that, given the policies that the government of Iran is pursuing, the rest of the world doesn't have time to sit around and wait for them to come around of their own accord. Were they to abandon the nuclear fuel cycle, it might be a different story, but the West (not to mention Russia, China, the Arab states, and many others) are not prepared to accept an Iranian nuclear weapon while waiting for the better lights of Persian culture to reassert themselves in the government.
 
  • #35


I find it odd that the even the Mullahs of Iran who formerly hated Al-Quaeda and such are suddenly changing position? Have you seen a single Iranian involved in terrorist activities outside their country? They are all Arabs or Pakistani. The Mullahs might harm their own people but why are they now suddenly striking deals with nations that even they, for all the harm they do to their own folk, did not formerly trust? Could it be that CERTAIN events have lead them to this? I just wonder. It is not all so simple as the media here makes it out to be. Can CERTAIN events be leading to an escalation in the radicalization of the area?
Perhaps it is high time for the U.S. to follow more of an isolationist policy towards the Mid-East and cut dependency on oil from those countries because the only thing the Mid-East exports is oil and cheap figs--let the Mid East take care of its own problems-- it is time for America to invest in alternate sources of energy and focus on the realities of the rising BRIC powers and its own falling economy.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

Replies
15
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
21
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
124
Views
15K
Back
Top