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

[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 ! :rofl: :rofl:

 

[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 ! :rofl: :rofl:

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.

 

[mjolnir80]

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.

hey if america can support israel why can't iran support hezbollah?
they are both the same thing
israeli troops have killed plenty of civilians and no one calls them terrorists

 

[Gokul43201]

Iran's president says it [that Iran wants to "wipe Israel off the map"] on a regular basis. Once every few weeks.

Waiting for references.

 

[russ_watters]

Are you serious, Gokul? After the laundry list of unreferenced crap you spewed about McCain in a recent thread, you're going to ask me for a reference to a common knowledge fact? Wow, that's ballsy. (edit: yes, I see you've started referencing them. Still...)

Here's 3.5 million references: http://www.google.com/search?source...lz=1T4GGLR_enUS213US213&q=Mahmoud+Ahmadinejad

From the first one:

He has called for the dissolution of the state of Israel and its government, which he does not regard as legitimate or representative of the population...

he called for Israel to be "wiped off the map,"

The second link is his personal blog (he has a blog!). Here's one from the third:

His comments that Israel should be "wiped off the map" and that the Holocaust was a "myth" drew widespread condemnation from the West.

If you're just trying to quibble about the "every other week thing", you can have it - it's an exaggeration. But it doesn't change the issue at all.

 

[russ_watters]

hey if america can support israel why can't iran support hezbollah?
they are both the same thing
israeli troops have killed plenty of civilians and no one calls them terrorists

It is important to use an objective definition of the word "terrorism" and not just apply it however you feel like it (otherwise, what you say really has no meaning at all). By the established/accepted international definition, what you say is wrong.

"criminal acts, including against civilians, committed with the intent to cause death or serious bodily injury, or taking of hostages, with the purpose to provoke a state of terror in the general public or in a group of persons or particular persons, intimidate a population or compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1373

 

[Gokul43201]

Are you serious, Gokul?

Are you, russ?

After the laundry list of unreferenced crap you spewed about McCain in a recent thread, you're going to ask me for a reference to a common knowledge fact? Wow, that's ballsy.

Take the bs somewhere else, russ.

I specifically said I'd provide references if asked. When you asked for references I asked you which specific ones you wanted references for, since some of them were common knowledge. AND, despite your not answering, I've been adding references to that list, including 3 more that I put in earlier today. And unlike you, I don't just point to a Google page and say "here's 3 million references". So don't give me this crap about not referencing!

Here's 3.5 million references: http://www.google.com/search?source...lz=1T4GGLR_enUS213US213&q=Mahmoud+Ahmadinejad

More bs.

From the first one: The second link is his personal blog (he has a blog!). Here's one from the third:

They're all about the same translation of the same quote. Nothing in any of them supports your assertion.

If you're just trying to quibble about the "every other week thing", you can have it - it's an exaggeration.

So, it was you, all along, that wasn't serious. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[mheslep]

More bs.

They're all about the same translation of the same quote. Nothing in any of them supports your assertion.

There is a reference to that 2005 'wipe' away/out statement, or however it translates, in there. Other Iranian spokesmen may have attempted to nuance or spin these after the fact, but there is no question Ahmadinejad has indeed made many similar threating statements in the past about Israel and continues to do so more recently. These take little effort to find.

AFP May 2008

"Today the reason for the Zionist regime's existence is questioned, and this regime is on its way to annihilation," he said.

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5ix-viVGAnfS1RHJGzZHSGjnzDIXg

Reuters June 2008

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran's president said on Monday Israel would soon disappear off the map and that the "satanic power" of the United States faced destruction, in his latest verbal attack on the Islamic Republic's arch-foes...

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/reuters/080602/world/international_iran_israel_usa_dc_1

 

[WarPhalange]

Holy crap that guy's a nutbasket.

 

[Art]

Are you serious, Gokul? After the laundry list of unreferenced crap you spewed about McCain in a recent thread, you're going to ask me for a reference to a common knowledge fact? Wow, that's ballsy. (edit: yes, I see you've started referencing them. Still...).

In a thread recently you made the exact same assertion and I asked you then for a reference to support your statement which you ignored. To continually cite this as a fact whilst refusing to provide a valid source is surely in breach of forum guidelines and no, bluster is not a substitute for verifiable facts.

Iran has said the current Israeli regime should be wiped from the pages of history - much the same as the US said about Saddam and his regime. This does not equate to wiping Israel off the map anymore than the US statements meant they intended to wipe Iraq off the map

 

[Gokul43201]

There is a reference to that 2005 'wipe' away/out statement, or however it translates, in there. Other Iranian spokesmen may have attempted to nuance or spin these after the fact, but there is no question Ahmadinejad has indeed made many similar threating statements in the past about Israel and continues to do so more recently. These take little effort to find.

AFP May 2008
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5ix-viVGAnfS1RHJGzZHSGjnzDIXg

Reuters June 2008
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/reuters/080602/world/international_iran_israel_usa_dc_1

Both those statements clearly involve Israel/the "Zionist regime" causing its own destruction, and do not say anything about Iran's desire to wipe Israel off the map.

And even if it did, you'll have to come up with another 20-odd more repetitions of this, all in the last one year, in order to substantiate russ' (now retracted) claim.

 

[OmCheeto]

I find it interesting that everyone references what Ahmadjeblahblah has to say, when Khamenei is the actual leader of the country.

Khamenei seems to find the "State" of Israel, and the "immigrants" to be the primary problem.

Like the great Iranian nation, other Muslim nations also consider Israel as an imposed and fake regime. ...

I had studied Iranian history for about a year before Ahmadjewhatever made his visit to Columbia University, of which I watched for about 15 minutes. Although many of his comments seemed outrageously funny to us, his subordination to Khamenei made his entire show quite unremarkable in my mind. Everything he said, in my opinion, was based on what he thought Khamenei would have wanted him to say.

I haven't seen much history stated in this argument either. Iran has been dealt a lot of crap in the last 100 years, mostly at the hands of Britain and the US. If they strike anyone as paranoid, it is for good reason. We deposed their elected prime minister, Mohammed Mossadegh, in 1953, and imposed the Shah of Iran onto them. And who supported Saddam during the 10 year war between Iraq and Iran? From what I've read, Iraq gassed the Iranians just like they did their Kurdish citizens. I've also read that Iran did not respond in kind. They've been accused of never using weapons of mass destruction. Not only that, they haven't invaded anyone in the last 100 years. How many countries in that region can claim the same thing?

As far as I can tell, Britain is still pissed about Iran nationalizing the oil fields, and we haven't forgiven them for the hostage incident.

I'd say it's about time we get over it, learn some Farsi, and go visit.