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

[quadraphonics]

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.

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.

 

[mheslep]

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.

 

[lunarmansion]

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.

 

[quadraphonics]

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.

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.

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.

 

[lunarmansion]

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.

 

[Gokul43201]

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...

On the contrary, we wound up with Ahmadinejan only in 2005, after an entire term of the Bush Administration, after it was known that he would stay for another 4 years, and more importantly, after the Iraq War got started. If it were not for the surge of anti-US sentiment in the ME following the War and the Abu Ghraib scandal in late 2004, we may have had the moderate Rafsanjani in Iran, instead of the hardline Ahmadinejad.

 

[vociferous]

On the contrary, we wound up with Ahmadinejan only in 2005, after an entire term of the Bush Administration, after it was known that he would stay for another 4 years, and more importantly, after the Iraq War got started. If it were not for the surge of anti-US sentiment in the ME following the War and the Abu Ghraib scandal in late 2004, we may have had the moderate Rafsanjani in Iran, instead of the hardline Ahmadinejad.

I doubt it, since Iran is a "democracy" in the same sense that China and the Soviet Union are "Republics". Iranian public opinion and votes do not really matter, because Iran is a theocratic dictatorship and the Ayatollah's Supreme Religious Council can disqualify any canidate or law that they do not like.

If the United States had the same system of government as Iran, we could still vote for congressmen and the President, but the Supreme Court (which would be appointed by Jerry Falwell) would decide who and who cannot run for President, overturn any law passed by congress, and pass any law into effect without any debate or oversight.

 

[vociferous]

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?

Yes, in Iraq. Iran is usually involved in terrorism through intermediaries. They provide funding and support for terrorist groups, but they rarely carry out the actual acts of terrorism directly anymore, although they have in the past.

 

[Gokul43201]

I doubt it, since Iran is a "democracy" in the same sense that China and the Soviet Union are "Republics". Iranian public opinion and votes do not really matter, because Iran is a theocratic dictatorship and the Ayatollah's Supreme Religious Council can disqualify any canidate or law that they do not like.

Not only was Rafsanjani cleared by the Guardian Council, he actually won the first round of elections by a narrow margin, but lost the run-off. Also, since you don't seem to be aware of this, Rafsanjani has previously been elected (twice) and served as a very popular President for two consecutive terms.

 

[vociferous]

You may doubt it, but it appears your opinion is based only on ignorance. Not only was Rafsanjani cleared by the Guardian Council, he actually won the first round of elections by a narrow margin, but lost the run-off. Also, since you don't seem to be aware of this, Rafsanjani has previously been elected (twice) and served as a very popular President for two consecutive terms.

Ad hominem attacks do not bolster your argument. They only serve to make them appear weak.

You might have had a point, if Iran had free and open elections where all its citizens were free to vote without intimidation, all qualified candidates were free to run, and freedom of the press were allowed.

Since that is not the case, there is no way to reliably ascertain what the populace really wants. The Iranian theocratic dictatorship routinely interferes in Iran's "democratic" elections and refuses to allow independent observers to monitor their "elections".

Without free, fair, transparent, and democratic elections in Iran, there is no way to know whether Rafsanjani's loss was due to an actual change in popular opinion or due to interference by Iran's theocratic dictatorship.

Here are a couple of short sources to read:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4086944.stm"

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/03/13/opinion/edtakeyh.php"

 

[Gokul43201]

Nothing new in that snippet, or the op-ed.

Your original claim that the Guardian Council (I assume you meant them, since there is no such thing as the "Supreme Religious Council" that controls elections in Iran) would have rejected Rafsanjani is still completely baseless.

And if it wasn't the war that most did Rafsanjani in, it was probably that people had gotten jaded with his high stakes corruption game. But it certainly wasn't the Guardian Council that was going to disqualify him (though, they may even have had a Constitutionally mandated reason to do so).

PS: That wasn't an ad hominem. It was a reasonable reading based on your assertion. But I admit it was uncalled for. I apologize.

 

[lunarmansion]

Ad hominem attacks do not bolster your argument. They only serve to make them appear weak.

You might have had a point, if Iran had free and open elections where all its citizens were free to vote without intimidation, all qualified candidates were free to run, and freedom of the press were allowed.

Since that is not the case, there is no way to reliably ascertain what the populace really wants. The Iranian theocratic dictatorship routinely interferes in Iran's "democratic" elections and refuses to allow independent observers to monitor their "elections".

Without free, fair, transparent, and democratic elections in Iran, there is no way to know whether Rafsanjani's loss was due to an actual change in popular opinion or due to interference by Iran's theocratic dictatorship.

Here are a couple of short sources to read:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4086944.stm"

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/03/13/opinion/edtakeyh.php"

Hey do not say we do not know what the majority of the people there want. It is beyond doubt that the majority of the Iranian people hate the Mullahs but cannot do anything because you get killed and tortured if you oppose them. Often Mullahs pay people to put on a show and shout anti-American stuff in front of cameras. The majority of people there are tolerant and want a different government. You should visit there before you make such statements like it is not clear what the "people want". It is clear what the people want, they do not want the Mullahs. You have heard of dictatorships that tolerate no opposition? This is a tragic country. They got rid of an absolute monarch in the hopes of having a better form of government and ended up with something far worse. This is what happens when revolutions go wrong. The way they are portrayed in the American media is as if they are all fanatics and support their government. This is not right. Most people there want change just as people living in other dictatorships like Burma also want change.

 

[vociferous]

Hey do not say that Rafsanjani was no longer there because possibly because of the will of the Iranian people. There is no will of the Iranian people and most of them hate the Mullahs but cannot do anything because you get killed and tortured if you oppose them. Often Mullahs pay people to put on a show and shout anti-American stuff in front of cameras. The majority of people there are tolerant and want a different government. You should visit there before you make such statements like it is not clear what the "people want". It is clear what the people want, they do not want the Mullahs. You have heard of dictatorships that tolerate no opposition? This is a tragic country. They got rid of an absolute monarch who was replaced by something far worse. This is what happens when revolutions go wrong. The way they are portrayed in the American media is as if they are all fanatics and like their government. People there want a change.

Did you even read what I wrote, because the major point I was attempting to drive home was that the results of the Presidential "elections" in Iran are not necessarily indicative of the will of the Iranian people, since the Iranian theocracy has the ability to undermine what little shreds of democracy exist in that country whenever it is convenient for them.

I really hope that the majority of Iranians want democracy, want religious freedom, want equal rights for women, want to get rid of laws that makes homosexuality punishable by death, and want to be seen as a legitimate part of the international community rather than a rogue state which pursues nuclear weapons and which wants to "wipe Israel off the map."

But, de facto, there is no way to be certain what the Iranian people want. It is not as if the Iranian government is about to open the country up to Gallup to do a comprehensive polling of the populace.

 

[lunarmansion]

If you visit there it becomes clear what they want. All visitors there are agreed on this. There is really no mystery about this. They are living under an oppressive government and they want something different. And as to Iran interfering in Iraq, this happened after the war in Iraq. Sunni Shiite tensions were already there and were artificially controlled under Saddam and it has just exploded after the war.
I do not see why people are so reluctant to admit that Iranians are living under an oppressive system, most are young people like you and me under 30 and do not care much for the revolution, they just want a better form of government and more freedoms. You make it sound as if this is a mystery. Is is not. This is the last I have to say on this matter. I do not see how Iran is any more dangerous than some of Americas so-called allies like Saudi Arabia or Pakistan to world peace and stability. America should be more concerned that is is sending 600 billion a year to the region for oil-- perhaps the largest transfer of wealth in history.

 

[mheslep]

Hey do not say we do not know what the majority of the people there want. It is beyond doubt that the majority of the Iranian people hate the Mullahs but cannot do anything because you get killed and tortured if you oppose them...

Hey, please 'do not say' 'It is beyond doubt' in this forum without a source.

 

[vociferous]

If you visit there it becomes clear what they want. All visitors there are agreed on this. There is really no mystery about this. They are living under an oppressive government and they want something different.

My guess would be that most of the young people want more freedom (because a lot of the experts on the country seem to think so), but meeting a few Iranians hardly gives anyone a "clear" picture of what the situation is. That is why, in this country, we rely on scientific polls of public opinion rather than our anecdotal impressions of how the people we know feel.

And as to Iran interfering in Iraq, this happened after the war in Iraq. Sunni Shiite tensions were already there and were artificially controlled under Saddam and it has just exploded after the war.

And that is not an excuse for Iran to interfere with the sovereign Iraqi Democracy by sending in agents and weapons.

I do not see why people are so reluctant to admit that Iranians are living under an oppressive system, most are young people like you and me under 30 and do not care much for the revolution, they just want a better form of government and more freedoms. You make it sound as if this is a mystery. Is is not. This is the last I have to say on this matter.

I do not believe that anyone here has attempted to dispute the notion that the Iranian people are living under an oppressive theocratic dictatorship.

I do not see how Iran is any more dangerous than some of Americas so-called allies like Saudi Arabia or Pakistan to world peace and stability. America should be more concerned that is is sending 600 billion a year to the region for oil-- perhaps the largest transfer of wealth in history.

Saudi Arabia treats its own people very poorly, by western standards, but it is generally a peaceful and respected member of the international community. It does not illegally pursue nuclear weapons. It does not fund international terrorism. It does not fund groups like Hezbollah. It does not hold Holocaust-denial conferences and invite white supremacists and neoNazis.

Is Saudi Arabia an oppressive Islamic theocratic dictatorship, like Iran? Yes. Is Saudi Arabia a rogue state? No, it is generally a well-behaved member of the international community.

 

[lunarmansion]

I cannot go on replying becaue it would involve saying some things that would not be appropriate on this forum. America does not benefit from engaging in the region at all--these events just show that people need to stop dependency on oil and stop transfering wealth to dictatorships in the Mid-East. It has greater concerns like its own falling economy and the rise of BRIC economies. Israel already has nuclear weapons--pandora's box is already open--you think the other states there are going to be content with this considering the history of the area? Goodbye.

 

[vanesch]

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 actually not true. Even a small country like Belgium had reprocessing facilities (which were later closed down) http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf94.html
Belgium never had the intention of having a military nuclear program. The Japanese have a complete nuclear fuel cycle, and never intended to have nuclear weapons (they know what they talk about). Germany had a full fuel cycle (except for the reprocessing at the back end) and also never intended to have nuclear weapons.

So one cannot say that anybody interested in a nuclear fuel cycle is automatically having military applications in mind, although of course one cannot know.

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.

I do think however that if Iran were serious about civilian nuclear power, that they would first set up a series of reactors, and have the fuel from abroad. Once they have a serious reactor infrastructure, it might then be justified for them (or they could use the excuse at least) that, given their need and dependence on nuclear fuel, they want to invest more in an own fuel cycle infrastructure. You don't START with the fuel cycle if you're serious about peaceful nuclear power. You start by building power plants.

So indeed their insistence on absolutely wanting to have their own enrichment factory, even before they have a few tens of reactors, is suspicious to say the least.

 

[vanesch]

And that is not an excuse for Iran to interfere with the sovereign Iraqi Democracy by sending in agents and weapons.

Mmwahahaha !

 

[russ_watters]

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".

As I said before, the requirement for transparency is a continuous requirement. You'll note in that report that the IAEA is not calling for total suspension of nuclear activities. Iran is allowed to have nuclear power if they comply with the IAEA. But due to Iran's past transgressions and current aggressive posture, vigilance and skepticism is what Iran has earned from the IAEA. That's why the situation remains (and for a long time will remain) "a matter of serious concern".

 

[Gokul43201]

Mmwahahaha !

vanesch, you may not have noticed that vociferous said "sovereign Iraqi Democracy". The relevance of the "democracy" part can be debated, but Iraq certainly wasn't much of a democracy before the war. So, given that, there is no irony in the statement, as written.

 

[vanesch]

vanesch, you may not have noticed that vociferous said "sovereign Iraqi Democracy". The relevance of the "democracy" part can be debated, but Iraq certainly wasn't much of a democracy before the war. So, given that, there is no irony in the statement, as written.

so the only kind of sovereignty that must be respected is that where there's a kind of approved "democracy" ?? If it isn't a democracy according to certain criteria (defined by democracies), the sovereignty doesn't count, and one does have a reason to send in arms and agents ? And what if others apply a similar criterion, only, this time, it is not "democracy" but "Islamic republic" ?

 

[mheslep]

so the only kind of sovereignty that must be respected is that where there's a kind of approved "democracy" ?? If it isn't a democracy according to certain criteria (defined by democracies), the sovereignty doesn't count, and one does have a reason to send in arms and agents ? And what if others apply a similar criterion, only, this time, it is not "democracy" but "Islamic republic" ?

Chiming in: I'd like to see more international diplomatic organizations that favoured only democratic states - something like a UN for democracies only, in addition too, not in place of, the current one. Of/By/For the people, not the Mugabes. Borders still respected with respect to force, but not for agents or NGOs reaching out to folks therein.

 

[russ_watters]

I'll go for that - the current UN is basically a democracy of dictatorships.

 

[Mental Gridlock]

I'll go for that - the current UN is basically a democracy of dictatorships.

It's not a democracy at all. It's a few arbitrarily selected "elite" nations which were granted authority and control over all the other nations.

 

[Mental Gridlock]

I really hope that the majority of Iranians want democracy, want religious freedom, want equal rights for women, want to get rid of laws that makes homosexuality punishable by death, and want to be seen as a legitimate part of the international community rather than a rogue state which pursues nuclear weapons and which wants to "wipe Israel off the map."

1) Still there is ZERO proof that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons yet the claim that they are is constantly repeated.

2) Iran NEVER claimed that they wanted to "wipe Israel off the map" and is yet another anti-Iranian lie which is constantly claimed.

 

[Mental Gridlock]

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.

The reason is because Iran needs their oil to SELL.. As you said it's the backbone of their economy. Naturally they would want another form of self produced fuel to power their own people, so that they have their oil to sell, especially more important with the high oil prices. If they have to use their oil for their own power then they won't have as much to sell and that would negatively impact their profits/economy.

 

[russ_watters]

It's not a democracy at all. It's a few arbitrarily selected "elite" nations which were granted authority and control over all the other nations.

That's not right at all. Those 3rd world dictatorships get resolutions passed blasting their richer rivals all the time.

 

[russ_watters]

1) Still there is ZERO proof that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons yet the claim that they are is constantly repeated.

You misread. That claim was not made in the quote you responded to.

Regardless, there is circumstantial evidence that they are. You have been provided with the IAEA reports on the subject.

2) Iran NEVER claimed that they wanted to "wipe Israel off the map" and is yet another anti-Iranian lie which is constantly claimed.

You really need to stop saying such nonsense. I don't believe that you even believe what you are saying. Iran's president says it on a regular basis. Once every few weeks.

 

[seycyrus]

1) Still there is ZERO proof that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons yet the claim that they are is constantly repeated.

There is plenty of proof however that they are not in compliance with their obligations.

Among other things, they won't let reps of the IAEA investigate and verify certain things.

2) Iran NEVER claimed that they wanted to "wipe Israel off the map" and is yet another anti-Iranian lie which is constantly claimed.

Uhm, yeah... we're going to have to run the gambit on the semantics game on this one again? Define "Zionist regime" and show how it can be separated from the state of Israel.

Iran's continual support of Hizbollah and other organizations which directly have the destruction of Israel in their charter certainly is enough of an indication of their thoughts on the matter.