Be a Supporter!

Iran's nuclear program

  • 2,988 Views
  • 102 Replies
New Topic Respond to this Topic
adrshepard
adrshepard
  • Member since: Jun. 18, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Blank Slate
Response to Iran's nuclear program Sep. 21st, 2012 @ 10:48 AM Reply

At 9/18/12 02:12 PM, Feoric wrote:
At 9/18/12 01:16 PM, adrshepard wrote: That's one interpretation. You write about it as if it's settled fact when there's actually historical debate about it.
I think it's as objective as it possibly could be. If you want to read more about it, read this.

I'm not going to get into a historian's argument with you. I remember hearing about the Soviet fears, and this mentioned it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat #U.S._motives. If you want to get into a pissing contest about who knows more about the Iranian Revolution, great news, you've won.

Even so, the side your argument resembles makes it clear that the CIA didn't involve itself simply to do the British a favor, which is what I found implausible.
Huh? What? How did you figure this? Operation Ajax was conducted by CIA and MI6 cooperation. [1] [2]

I figured it because we obviously didn't help the British merely because they asked us to and for no other reason. Whatever the justification, it was meant to advance our interests in some way, that goes without saying.

Again, Iran never ratified an Additional Protocol.

So now you're splitting hairs over ratification? Iran's government said it would abide by it. That's not something to be said lightly; it's not as if Ahmedinijad and Khomeni really want to abide by it but whatever general assembly Iran has just refuses to ratify it and the hands of Iran's leadership are tied. The Ayatollah and his council run the show. If Iran says it will abide by the additional protocol, it's because they said so. If Iran decides to back out of it, it's because they said so.
The only other possibility is that they deliberately put off formal ratification just so they could back out of it later, which is even worse because it displays a greater level of Iranian intransigence and deceit.

In actuality, Iran was complying with the Special Rules voluntarily up until 2011. You've yet to make any convincing argument why Iran should comply with the Additional Protocol other than the fact that you think the IAEA is cool.

I have no idea what these "Special Rules" are and I can't find any information on them.
I think Iran should comply with the Additional Protocol because its the best way to defuse the conflict. Do you not see how the justification for an armed strike becomes greater every time the IAEA issues a report saying that Iran isn't cooperating and it can't reasonably say if it isn't trying to outmanuever the inspections?

While they have not been cooperating as fully as possible with the IAEA (though frankly any resistance is a lot less relevant since the IAEA director was replaced with a pro-American instead of a non-partisan like El Baradei),

Of course its still relevant! Even if you're right in saying he's an American partisan, that's even more of a reason for Iran to be more cooperative, because our interests would be supposedly disguised by international legitimacy.

But this has not happened in a vacuum. It is a direct result of Iran's past compliance only leading to sanctions and resolutions and unreasonable demands. It is impossible that Iran should ever resolve every outstanding issue with the IAEA even if they wanted to, because the US could always pressure the UNSC or the IAEA to come up with new issues. You'll never see IAEA assurance because it's not insulated from the pressures of US interests.

I was going to do a point by point look at each round of sanctions, but this site lays it out already, along with this: http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Iran_Nuclear_Proposals
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctions_against_Iran
The first sanctions came after Iran refused to halt enrichment in summer 2006. In this case they were inevitable because a security council resolution specifically forbade them from doing so.
There doesn't seem to be any progress in 2007 or early 2008, when the next rounds of sanctions were passed.
In June 2008, Iran gave no clear response to a proposal with economic assistance and promises of ended sanctions in exchange for not expanding its enrichment program further. Instead it offered a proposal that about regional cooperation that had made no commitments on its nuclear program. Sanctions were passed in September.
When Obama was elected, he indicated a willingness to accept Iran's right to nuclear enrichment, explicitly granting a key Iranian demand. In return, Iran offered another meaningless proposal with no details on its nuclear program.
The final round of sanctions came after Iran agreed to a proposal with Brazil and Turkey that included fuel swaps, but did nothing to address expanded uranium enrichment and LEU stockpiling.

So, no, I'm not seeing any evidence of Iranian compliance leading to further sanctions. What I see is a country dragging its feet, delaying, and wasting time with endless negotiations while it continues with actions that led to the conflict in the first place.

Feoric
Feoric
  • Member since: Mar. 20, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to Iran's nuclear program Sep. 22nd, 2012 @ 05:14 AM Reply

At 9/21/12 10:48 AM, adrshepard wrote: I'm not going to get into a historian's argument with you. I remember hearing about the Soviet fears, and this mentioned it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat #U.S._motives. If you want to get into a pissing contest about who knows more about the Iranian Revolution, great news, you've won.

If you want to boil it down to a pissing contest that's okay, but that post wasn't even about the Iranian revolution, it was the historical role of the USSR and Western powers against Iran and how it helped shaped the current geopolitical situation in that region. You can't just hand wave extremely important variables out of the discussion just because you don't know a lot about it.

So now you're splitting hairs over ratification? Iran's government said it would abide by it. That's not something to be said lightly; it's not as if Ahmedinijad and Khomeni really want to abide by it but whatever general assembly Iran has just refuses to ratify it and the hands of Iran's leadership are tied. The Ayatollah and his council run the show. If Iran says it will abide by the additional protocol, it's because they said so. If Iran decides to back out of it, it's because they said so.

It's not splitting hairs because there is no legal requirement for them to abide by it. "But they said so!" isn't grounds for anything except discussion unless the AP was signed (not to mention they were abiding by the AP voluntarily but they soon realized it did nothing to change the attitude Israel/US has w/r/t their nuclear program nor did it stop the sanctions). Would you be okay with the United States enacting and enforcing a treaty which was signed but never ratified? I would hope not, so why extend that to any country?

The only other possibility is that they deliberately put off formal ratification just so they could back out of it later, which is even worse because it displays a greater level of Iranian intransigence and deceit.

I would agree with that but I disagree with your conclusion, The point is that the US doesn't find it acceptable at all for Iran to have a domestic nuclear energy program since the assumption is that they will pursue nuclear weapons. With this premise as a starting point, there are no concessions Iran can offer at all that will appease the US other than scrapping their program. Why should Iran adhere to the Additional Protocol when they stand to gain nothing from it? We should offer Iran incentives not to develop nuclear weapons, but so far our stonewalled position has done anything but that. Hell, part of the whole point of the NPT was to provide an incentive not to develop nuclear weapons not only as part of a global non-proliferation effort, but to affirm the legitimacy of nuclear energy for peaceful uses.

I have no idea what these "Special Rules" are and I can't find any information on them.

It's another name for the Additional Protocols to avoid repetition.

I think Iran should comply with the Additional Protocol because its the best way to defuse the conflict.

They did! They became ornery in 2011 when they realized nothing they would do or say would appease American paranoia as long as they had a nuclear program. That is, literally, the only way we will be satisfied.

Do you not see how the justification for an armed strike becomes greater every time the IAEA issues a report saying that Iran isn't cooperating and it can't reasonably say if it isn't trying to outmanuever the inspections?

Fuck no, I do not see any 'justification' for an airstrike on their nuclear facilities which they have every right to have under the NPT just because Iran doesn't want to play a game they know they will lose. Again, that Iran isn't complying with the Additional Protocol now is hardly indicative of a hidden nuclear weapons program, and you've yet to show me any sort of solid evidence that shows a strong possibility of a nuclear program.

Of course its still relevant! Even if you're right in saying he's an American partisan, that's even more of a reason for Iran to be more cooperative, because our interests would be supposedly disguised by international legitimacy.

How on earth do you figure this after all that was discussed? Read this if you're skeptical. "Amano reminded [the] ambassador on several occasions that he would need to make concessions to the G-77 [the developing countries group], which correctly required him to be fair-minded and independent, but that he was solidly in the U.S. court on every key strategic decision, from high-level personnel appointments to the handling of Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program."

The first sanctions came after Iran refused to halt enrichment in summer 2006. In this case they were inevitable because a security council resolution specifically forbade them from doing so.

Why should they have halted enrichment? They were right, the resolution would have been a direct contradiction of the NPT.

[...]

So, no, I'm not seeing any evidence of Iranian compliance leading to further sanctions. What I see is a country dragging its feet, delaying, and wasting time with endless negotiations while it continues with actions that led to the conflict in the first place.

If I had an enumerated right and the neighborhood bully threatened me for exercising it I'd drag my feet in too. I mean, that is why the last round of negotiations went nowhere. Iran refining uranium is a hard line for the US. Not being allowed to refine uranium, or have a neutral nation like Brazil refine it for them, is a hard line for Iran. They're not going to let the US have any more ability to turn off their lights than we already have. We've had Iran under sanctions for the last 30 years, and they're just not giving up like they're supposed to. We kicked them out of our diplomatic sphere, they built their own. We embargoed anything high-tech from entering the country, they built up a very high level of domestic technology and manufacturing. Now we're trying to get a new edge on them, hence the unprecedented blacklisting of Iran from the SWIFT financial clearinghouse, embargoes on Iranian oil, and what seems to me a clear attempt to keep a leash on Iran's energy. The point of the sanctions is to prevent them from having nuclear weapons, but nobody thinks they have them or even the capability to make them, and I've demonstrated exactly why the talking heads on TV are sprouting nonsensical bullshit about dirty bombs or what have you. So what exactly are we accomplishing here? It's pure insanity. We're doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Not to mention we're also reopening fears of another Iraqi yellowcake situation.

ph0ne
ph0ne
  • Member since: Nov. 25, 2007
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 05
Blank Slate
Response to Iran's nuclear program Sep. 23rd, 2012 @ 12:17 AM Reply

there's no evidence that iran is using its nuclear program to develop weapons. the entire western world bitches at them for seeking peaceful uses of nuclear technology, but nobody criticizes israel for sitting on their pile of jew nukes as they lie to america in order to meet their agenda.

adrshepard
adrshepard
  • Member since: Jun. 18, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Blank Slate
Response to Iran's nuclear program Sep. 24th, 2012 @ 02:14 PM Reply

At 9/22/12 05:14 AM, Feoric wrote:
If you want to boil it down to a pissing contest that's okay, but that post wasn't even about the Iranian revolution, it was the historical role of the USSR and Western powers against Iran and how it helped shaped the current geopolitical situation in that region. You can't just hand wave extremely important variables out of the discussion just because you don't know a lot about it.

The geopolitical situation is irrelevant. You only think its important because you don't accept that there are any legitimate concerns over the Iranian nuclear program.

So now you're splitting hairs over ratification? Iran's government said it would abide by it. That's not something to be said lightly; it's not as if Ahmedinijad and Khomeni really want to abide by it but whatever general assembly Iran has just refuses to ratify it and the hands of Iran's leadership are tied. The Ayatollah and his council run the show. If Iran says it will abide by the additional protocol, it's because they said so. If Iran decides to back out of it, it's because they said so.
It's not splitting hairs because there is no legal requirement for them to abide by it. "But they said so!" isn't grounds for anything except discussion unless the AP was signed (not to mention they were abiding by the AP voluntarily but they soon realized it did nothing to change the attitude Israel/US has w/r/t their nuclear program nor did it stop the sanctions).

They abided by the AP for two years, from 2003-2005. It didn't stop the negotiations, but no sanctions were enacted against it. An end to US sanctions was discussed, but they were never supposed to end simply because Iran agreed to the AP.

The only other possibility is that they deliberately put off formal ratification just so they could back out of it later, which is even worse because it displays a greater level of Iranian intransigence and deceit.
I would agree with that but I disagree with your conclusion, The point is that the US doesn't find it acceptable at all for Iran to have a domestic nuclear energy program since the assumption is that they will pursue nuclear weapons.

Not true; when Obama announced the US was willing to abandon demands to halt enrichment in 2009, Iran rebuffed the offer and responded, nine months later, with a proposal that didn't even mention the controversy over its nuclear program.

They did! They became ornery in 2011 when they realized nothing they would do or say would appease American paranoia as long as they had a nuclear program. That is, literally, the only way we will be satisfied.

No, in 2011 the IAEA issued a report saying that Iran had likely continued with weaponization research beyond 2003. Before that, Iran demanded that all UN sanctions be lifted as a precondition to negotiations, which of course would never be accepted.

Fuck no, I do not see any 'justification' for an airstrike on their nuclear facilities which they have every right to have under the NPT just because Iran doesn't want to play a game they know they will lose.

I didn't ask you if you agreed with the justification, only that you agreed that the chances for conflict increase with each unsatisfactory IAEA report.

Again, that Iran isn't complying with the Additional Protocol now is hardly indicative of a hidden nuclear weapons program, and you've yet to show me any sort of solid evidence that shows a strong possibility of a nuclear program.

It's not about indicative evidence, it's about risk. The West doesn't trust Iran, with good reason, (and vice versa, with less of a good reason) and simply an absence of direct evidence isn't enough. Its doubts have to be put to rest.

Of course its still relevant! Even if you're right in saying he's an American partisan, that's even more of a reason for Iran to be more cooperative, because our interests would be supposedly disguised by international legitimacy.
How on earth do you figure this after all that was discussed? Read this if you're skeptical. "Amano reminded [the] ambassador on several occasions that he would need to make concessions to the G-77 [the developing countries group], which correctly required him to be fair-minded and independent, but that he was solidly in the U.S. court on every key strategic decision, from high-level personnel appointments to the handling of Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program."
Why should they have halted enrichment? They were right, the resolution would have been a direct contradiction of the NPT.

Because they violated the NPT to begin with! This what the IAEA said in 2004, "Many aspects of IranâEUTMs nuclear fuel cycle activities and experiments, particularly in the areas of uranium enrichment, uranium conversion and plutonium separation, were not declared to the Agency in accordance with IranâEUTMs obligations under its Safeguards Agreement. IranâEUTMs policy of concealment continued until October 2003, and has resulted in many breaches of its obligation to comply with that Agreement."
You can't use the NPT as a justification for Iran's continued enrichment and yet claim that all of its breaches of the agreement somehow don't matter.

So, no, I'm not seeing any evidence of Iranian compliance leading to further sanctions. What I see is a country dragging its feet, delaying, and wasting time with endless negotiations while it continues with actions that led to the conflict in the
If I had an enumerated right and the neighborhood bully threatened me for exercising it I'd drag my feet in too.

Lol, as if Iran is the victim here. Iran's only conceivably legitimate complaint against the US happened over 50 years ago. Iran is more like a weasel confronted by a bear.

Saen
Saen
  • Member since: Feb. 22, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 18
Reader
Response to Iran's nuclear program Sep. 25th, 2012 @ 10:09 AM Reply

At 9/24/12 02:14 PM, adrshepard wrote:
It's not about indicative evidence, it's about risk. The West doesn't trust Iran, with good reason...

That just about sums up your entire argument.

Feoric
Feoric
  • Member since: Mar. 20, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to Iran's nuclear program Sep. 25th, 2012 @ 05:34 PM Reply

At 9/24/12 02:14 PM, adrshepard wrote: The geopolitical situation is irrelevant. You only think its important because you don't accept that there are any legitimate concerns over the Iranian nuclear program.

No, it's not, it's actually the centerpiece of their nuclear program, and I've done my best to demonstrate that to you. The only reason why you would say that is because you don't accept that all the concerns over the Iranian nuclear program are largely illegitimate, and so far you haven't done much to convince me that they're working on a nuke.

No, in 2011 the IAEA issued a report saying that Iran had likely continued with weaponization research beyond 2003. Before that, Iran demanded that all UN sanctions be lifted as a precondition to negotiations, which of course would never be accepted.

Let's look at the report, shall we?

"The information indicates that Iran has carried out activities relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device. The information also indicates that prior to the end of 2003, these activities took place under a structured programme, and that some activities may still be ongoing."

That's a pretty convoluted way of saying "they were no longer working on the development of a nuclear weapon after 2003, but they do some things that might be useful for weapons" which is absolutely useless as evidence of a nuclear program. There's nothing in the report that says its "likely" that they were continuing their program. Find the relevant text if I'm wrong.

I didn't ask you if you agreed with the justification, only that you agreed that the chances for conflict increase with each unsatisfactory IAEA report.

The IAEA reports are fodder for rhetoric for warharks, so there's a degree of separation there.

It's not about indicative evidence, it's about risk.

I hope this was a freudian slip and not an actual position you would publicly state. We're now in Iraqi yellowcake territory, along with the mysterious CURVEBALL laptop, the September Dossier, the BushâEU"Blair memo, etc. Hows that for mitigating risk?

Because they violated the NPT to begin with! This what the IAEA said in 2004 [...]

This was in reference to 2003. Here is the report you're talking about, and let's show the relevant text:

"As indicated in those reports, Iran has made substantial efforts over the past two decades to master an independent nuclear fuel cycle, and, to that end, has conducted experiments to acquire the know-how for almost every aspect of the fuel cycle. Many aspects of Iran's nuclear fuel cycle activities and experiments, particularly in the areas of uranium enrichment, uranium conversion and plutonium research, had not been declared to the Agency in accordance with Iran's obligations under its Safeguards Agreement. Iran's policy of concealment continued until October 2003, and resulted in many breaches of its obligation to comply with that Agreement, as summarized in the Director General's report of September 2005."

Lol, as if Iran is the victim here. Iran's only conceivably legitimate complaint against the US happened over 50 years ago. Iran is more like a weasel confronted by a bear.

I don't have to like the regime in Iran to know they're being treated poorly on this topic. It's really not surprising given the West's past with the nation. And after all the talk about sanctions and it's effects on the country I don't know how you can still think Iran shouldn't have any beef with the US, it's like you're not even reading my posts or something.

adrshepard
adrshepard
  • Member since: Jun. 18, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Blank Slate
Response to Iran's nuclear program Sep. 25th, 2012 @ 08:21 PM Reply

At 9/25/12 05:34 PM, Feoric wrote: No, it's not, it's actually the centerpiece of their nuclear program, and I've done my best to demonstrate that to you. The only reason why you would say that is because you don't accept that all the concerns over the Iranian nuclear program are largely illegitimate, and so far you haven't done much to convince me that they're working on a nuke.

Then how do you explain the fact that France and Britain and at times Russia and China have gone along with the sanctions? Why did the security council unanimously (except Qatar) support the resolution for Iran to halt enrichment? Do we have France, Russia, and China in our pocket now, not to mention the other non-permanent members who were part of the council at the time? In fact, every UN resolution that either added sanctions or demanded an end to enrichment was passed with nearly unanimous support. It seems to me that the concern over Iran's nuclear program is shared by many nations who weren't involved in the Iranian coup and don't have unilateral sanctions in place against it.

Let's look at the report, shall we?
That's a pretty convoluted way of saying "they were no longer working on the development of a nuclear weapon after 2003, but they do some things that might be useful for weapons" which is absolutely useless as evidence of a nuclear program. There's nothing in the report that says its "likely" that they were continuing their program. Find the relevant text if I'm wrong.

I don't understand; you seem to think that there is no way Iran could carry out any weapon research without the IAEA discovering incontrovertible proof that it had happened, and that the organization decided to say that some aspects may be ongoing without any justification. Do you not believe it's possible that Iran could be conducting a secret nuclear weapons program and that they're doing it so well that there couldn't be any definitive evidence of it before they accomplished their goal? (Hint: the IAEA says that it is, otherwise they wouldn't say that they can't verify the peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear program)

I didn't ask you if you agreed with the justification, only that you agreed that the chances for conflict increase with each unsatisfactory IAEA report.
The IAEA reports are fodder for rhetoric for warharks, so there's a degree of separation there.

Direct quotes lifted from the reports are not "fodder for rhetoric," it's what the IAEA actually said.

I hope this was a freudian slip and not an actual position you would publicly state. We're now in Iraqi yellowcake territory, along with the mysterious CURVEBALL laptop, the September Dossier, the BushâEU"Blair memo, etc. Hows that for mitigating risk?

No, it's exactly the point I'm trying to make. Your demand for incontroverible evidence is just absurd because there will never BE incontrovertible evidence in these types of situations. I've read the US senate intelligence committee reports on the Iraq pre-war intelligence. With the exception of a few claims that were products of inefficient agency cooperation and filtering, the majority of the claims (like Saddam's chemical weapons program) were supported by intelligence. The only criticism anyone could make was that the intelligence reports didn't constantly hedge every assessment with "or we could be wrong." Nothing is ever certain, but that doesn't mean that the conclusions will always be wrong, neither does it mean we should always ignore what we don't know for certain.

Because they violated the NPT to begin with! This what the IAEA said in 2004 [...]
This was in reference to 2003. Here is the report you're talking about, and let's show the relevant text:
"As indicated in those reports, Iran has made substantial efforts..."

Yeah, that's exactly what I said. Iran violated its agreements under the NPT. I'm not aware of any sections that say "any country that violates the NPT gets a reprieve so long as they don't do it again for a certain number of years," which is what I can only guess you're implying.

Feoric
Feoric
  • Member since: Mar. 20, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to Iran's nuclear program Sep. 25th, 2012 @ 11:17 PM Reply

At 9/25/12 08:21 PM, adrshepard wrote: Then how do you explain the fact that France and Britain and at times Russia and China have gone along with the sanctions? Why did the security council unanimously (except Qatar) support the resolution for Iran to halt enrichment? Do we have France, Russia, and China in our pocket now, not to mention the other non-permanent members who were part of the council at the time? In fact, every UN resolution that either added sanctions or demanded an end to enrichment was passed with nearly unanimous support. It seems to me that the concern over Iran's nuclear program is shared by many nations who weren't involved in the Iranian coup and don't have unilateral sanctions in place against it.

It's true that the UN Security Council has ordered Iran to cease its nuclear program and the construction of the Iran Nuclear Research Reactor, which Iran says is necessary top produce medical isotopes (which Iran does not have access to due to sanctions). And I'll give you that Iran's claims are are controversial to say the least, given the fact the reactor will operate on fuel more highly enriched than that for power generation (albeit far less than for nuclear weapons). So yes, Iran is violating international law here. Iran's perspective is that they aren't violating the NPT, and that in fact the UNSC resolution contravenes the NPT by effectively depriving Iran of the right to pursue peaceful uses of nuclear technology. Either way, it isn't as though the Security Council resolution is the result of some objective assessment of Iranian compliance or non-compliance with the actual internationally agreed-upon non-proliferation regime rather than U.S. demands.

I don't understand; you seem to think that there is no way Iran could carry out any weapon research without the IAEA discovering incontrovertible proof that it had happened, and that the organization decided to say that some aspects may be ongoing without any justification. Do you not believe it's possible that Iran could be conducting a secret nuclear weapons program and that they're doing it so well that there couldn't be any definitive evidence of it before they accomplished their goal? (Hint: the IAEA says that it is, otherwise they wouldn't say that they can't verify the peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear program)

A meaningful weapon program? Not really, no. Like I said, a real threat would be plutonium-based implosion devices, and like you said, they aren't at that level yet. If IAEA inspectors start seeing undeclared plutonium then yes, there is some very fishy going on and something would need to be done about it. Uranium nukes? I'd like to think I've made it clear it isn't feasible/intelligent/useful.

No, it's exactly the point I'm trying to make. Your demand for incontroverible evidence is just absurd because there will never BE incontrovertible evidence in these types of situations.

Of course there would be, why do you think this? Building a nuke/R&D for one isn't just some 2 scientists spinning centrifuges, it is a massive multi-billion dollar endeavor that employs tens of thousands of people. If you're going to make the claim that the military is on the hunt for one and wants to use one, then that number becomes tenfold. It is a massive logistical operation and you can't hide it, no matter how deep you build your research laboratories underground. A bird doesn't shit in the ME without the US knowing about it. Preparations for the deployment of a nuke would be extremely obvious to intelligence officials. Right now the "evidence" for a purported weapons program is "dual use technology" and "they won't follow these specials rules!" and "HEZBOLLAH!!!!!!!" which isn't enough, at all, to justify crippling their country with sanctions that don't do a god damn thing.

Here's my position. Did Iran have a nuclear weapons program prior to 2003? Yes, it seems so. Should Iran cooperate more fully with the IAEA? Yes, I think they should, because non-proliferation is important, but it's a two way street: there is no reason to cooperate if they aren't going to get anything out of it, and there is no indication that international pressure for Iran to stop operating a domestic nuclear program would cease regardless of Iran's degree of compliance. Could Iran be pursuing nuclear weapons still, or the possibility of acquiring them, or perhaps a sort of near-nuclear readiness like Japan? It is possible, and from a Realist political perspective it seems quite rational. Nuclear proliferation is a bad thing, but it is difficult to stop sovereign states from pursuing nuclear weapons. Assuming Iran is pursuing nukes, the U.S. and Israel are doing a really bad job at stopping them, and barring an airstrike campaign against their facilities, it doesn't seem like anything we have done or realistically will do will stop them in the long run.

The whole idea of the NPT is to create an international incentive NOT to have nukes, and to help countries develop nuclear power for peaceful purposes, while promising non-proliferation and eventual disarmament among other countries. Well, we're certainly failing there. And attempting to ostracize Iran and turn them into a pariah state, on top of literally invading two countries that border them is not exactly a great way to convince them that pursuing nukes will make them worse off. In a certain sense, it's almost as though the U.S. has been doing everything in its power to convince Iran to get nukes despite Khamenei foolishly issuing a fatwa against them.

One thing that is being overlooked is the damage being done to the already-fragile NPT by the U.S.'s treatment of this issue. Again, even if we assumed Iran does have a nuclear weapons program, they could be complying with inspections more than they do now and still probably substantially hide it from the IAEA since the truth of the matter is that (without the Additional Protocol), the IAEA isn't really that powerful, and indeed they are supposed to be an advisory agency that assists with nuclear technology as much as a supervising agency. The crux of the issue is that, while the U.S. obviously doesn't want Iran to have nukes, we aren't willing to work within the NPT to try to achieve this goal. What is the point of the NPT if you can just make new rules for a specific country to follow exclusively? I don't even think it is just about concerns over its effectiveness: it is about taking a unilateral rather than multilateral approach, and it is also about making weakening the Iranian regime a priority. Even if we knew with 100% certainty Iran only wanted nuclear power and not nuclear weapons, we would still try to stop them, since hindering Iran both in terms of energy independence and their ability to control domestic policy would be a win for the U.S. with its anti-Iranian goals. I sincerely believe that if the U.S. had simply taken a different tack, Iran would be more compliant and the NPT and IAEA would have maintained much more credibility than they have.

A-Plain-Name
A-Plain-Name
  • Member since: Mar. 11, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 35
Blank Slate
Response to Iran's nuclear program Sep. 26th, 2012 @ 01:46 AM Reply

here's some facts

- Iran is the only country in the middle east that never attacked any other nation/country.
- Iran never started any war or participated against any other nation war's or domestic war.
- we (US) have a shit load of WMD and all kind of NUKES; btw (we dont know where 150 plus of them are)...
- occupied Palestine or (Israel) have WMD/NUKES and want Iran removed from the map since its the only country that dose not recognize Israel as a country but occupiers of Palestine; which is true.

just because congress/president state this country or any other country as a threat to our Nation or national security, it dose not make it true.


NOTE: PSN Illegal-Product or ILLEGALPRODUCT

BBS Signature
Feoric
Feoric
  • Member since: Mar. 20, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to Iran's nuclear program Sep. 26th, 2012 @ 01:33 PM Reply

At 9/26/12 01:46 AM, Illegal-Product wrote: here's some facts

- Iran is the only country in the middle east that never attacked any other nation/country.
- Iran never started any war or participated against any other nation war's or domestic war.

Not really. Iran was integral to the rise of Hezbollah in Lebanon which kicked the IDF's ass in the 80s occupation and the 2006 war, and they're also a supporter of Hamas as well. They've also been covertly involved in Iraq after the invasion to a certain degree. Iran made repeated offensives into Iraq with the goal of regime change in Baghdad. They failed pretty miserably every time. Iranian special forces took part in the Herat uprising in Afganistan as well. The Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps trained and supplied the Mahdi Army and other insurgent groups. Allegedly, they provided these groups with the knowledge to create EFP IEDs, which ended up being the deadliest sort, though there is a lot of debate on whether or not these were a product of Iran. There's also the hostage crisis in 79, so Iran isn't exactly a perfect little angel.

ClickToPlay
ClickToPlay
  • Member since: Jan. 23, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Iran's nuclear program Sep. 27th, 2012 @ 09:46 AM Reply

At 9/26/12 01:33 PM, Feoric wrote:

What would you do if your country of origin was infiltrated and abused by a dictator installed by a foreign region for over many years of brutal monarchist dictatorship under the conception of liberalism and freedom? Wouldn't you want to rise against the only competent competitor against this foreign backed regime?

Operation 'Blowblack' gentlemen is the Islamic Republic of Iran.


All Eyez On Me.

BBS Signature
ClickToPlay
ClickToPlay
  • Member since: Jan. 23, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Iran's nuclear program Sep. 27th, 2012 @ 09:47 AM Reply

At 9/27/12 09:46 AM, ClickToPlay wrote:

Wouldn't you want to rise against the only competent competitor against this foreign backed regime?


Operation 'Blowblack' gentlemen is the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Sorry, I mean wouldn't you want to rise with*


All Eyez On Me.

BBS Signature
Feoric
Feoric
  • Member since: Mar. 20, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to Iran's nuclear program Oct. 1st, 2012 @ 08:09 PM Reply

At 9/27/12 09:46 AM, ClickToPlay wrote:
At 9/26/12 01:33 PM, Feoric wrote:
What would you do if your country of origin was infiltrated and abused by a dictator installed by a foreign region for over many years of brutal monarchist dictatorship under the conception of liberalism and freedom? Wouldn't you want to rise against the only competent competitor against this foreign backed regime?

That wasn't the point of my post. He made the claim Iran never "participated against any other nation war's or domestic war" and that they are "the only country in the middle east that never attacked any other nation/country" which are flat out wrong. The question of whether or not they were justified in there actions is another question completely.