Iran- Maybe Not Such a Threat?

Did any of you consider the following?

a) Iran's uranium enrichment project is for civilian purposes, this because their regime understands (like others seem not to) that oil is not infinite. Of course uranium is not infinite either but it's the best option avaible at the present (part from solar, wind and water-power but this does not seem to be interresting for most nations, don't ask me why).

b) It would take about 15 to 20 years for Iran to produce a small number of tactical nukes (and by then they would surely be out of oil and all the uranium they've enriched would be part of their military arsenal and no fuel left for the power-plants = bad investment).

c) Iran has the right to develop nuclear power and of course they don't give a crap about what the rest of the world says since they have their own country and are allowed to do whatever. Besides no-one whined when both India and Pakistan obtained their nuclear weapons even though it was a crime against the treaty of no more nukes.

d) US, UK, China, Russia (and other CIS-states), India, Pakistan, Israel and France are allowed to have nukes because...? Would it not be the absolute safest exit if all nukes were to be removed?

e) Creating a nuclear arsenal is not done overnight, it's a very long and expensive process. No proof has been given that their research is for military purposes but proofs exist that it is for civilian ones. Why the rush to stop it? Are they not allowed to have nuclear power-plants either?

f) Isn't North Korea more of a real threat? Or is it because they are not located in the middle-east and have lots of oil?

g) Iran is fully aware of the fury of the US war-machine. By looking at neighboring Iraq they know what is coming if they mess around so why would they even consider getting an arsenal in a distant future when they know what to expect?

h) What does Iran have to do to prove it is not a military program?


Just wondering what the fuzz is all about. Most people who fear Iran as a WMD-threat don't seem to know much about nuclear weapons.

Originally posted by Raud
a) Iran's uranium enrichment project is for civilian purposes, this because their regime understands (like others seem not to) that oil is not infinite. Of course uranium is not infinite either but it's the best option avaible at the present (part from solar, wind and water-power but this does not seem to be interresting for most nations, don't ask me why).

plausible.. but then why go through extremely devious means(clandestine entworks involving Pakistan and North Korea) to procure nuclear know-how and equipment?
Surely they knew that if they were found out, then it would be more difficult for them to build a sustainable civilian nuclear energy industry.
Moreover, I'm sure they knew that they would be found out eventually:too many countries were keeping an eye on this clandestine network.

b) It would take about 15 to 20 years for Iran to produce a small number of tactical nukes (and by then they would surely be out of oil and all the uranium they've enriched would be part of their military arsenal and no fuel left for the power-plants = bad investment).

More like 5 years to develop a detonatable self-sufficient device, and antoher 5 to build a deliverable compact warhead..
but yes they presumably wouldn't get it immediately(like in the next two years)

c) Iran has the right to develop nuclear power and of course they don't give a crap about what the rest of the world says since they have their own country and are allowed to do whatever. Besides no-one whined when both India and Pakistan obtained their nuclear weapons even though it was a crime against the treaty of no more nukes.

Again loads of people don't know this:
Iran voluntarily signed on to the NPT(non proliferation treaty) which BANS its signatories the procurement or dipensing of nuclear know-how and equipment for military purposes or even dual(civilian and military) purposes.
India and Pakistan are NOT signatories of the NPT, NEVER have been and I doubt they ever will be either. At least in India's case this is not because it wants N-proliferation or is against dis-armament, but because it feels that certain clauses of this treaty restrict a country's ability to shield N-technology(civilian in this case) from curious foreign eyes and hands.

Again in India's case, even though it is NOT a member of the NPT, it has practised the strictest non-proliferation doctrines for the better part of its nuclear existence. Infact except for the dual use of its first reactor(CIRUS) procured from Canada , I don't think India has acquired N-tech for military purposes from foreign sources. Moreover the CIRUS reactor was procured much before ANY proliferation treaties and the likes were even created. So here India gets a 'clean-chit' in every possible way.Hence it has been given the unique status of a 'recognised N-weapons state' without actually signing the pre-requisite treaties. An indication of this is the recent law passed by US Congress on N-tech sharing with India. No comparision can be drawn to Iran here.. absolutely none.

Pakistan on the other hand HAS acquired N-tech mostly for military purposes(may it be only to offset the Indian capability) and has done so by devious means from China(China was a NPT signatory at the time of the apparent transactions). Not only has Pakistan acquired weapons N-tech in a clandestine manner, but has also proliferated the same to rogue states like Libya, Iran and North Korea. Iran and North Korean nuclear programs would NOT have been where they are today w/o Pakistani assistance.Hence it does not enjoy the same 'clean chit N-status' India currently does enjoy.However since Pakistan has not ever been a signatory of the NPT it has no obligation(besides morality) to abide by the clauses of the NPT or any other related treaty. So Iran can technically cry foul w.r.t. Pakistan, but that would very lame since Iran has got most of its N-tech from Pakistan itself!
The irony!

d) US, UK, China, Russia (and other CIS-states), India, Pakistan, Israel and France are allowed to have nukes because...? Would it not be the absolute safest exit if all nukes were to be removed?

Yes and that is why we have the procedure of incremental disarmament whereby the major nuclear powers(who can destroy the wolrd many times over: Us and Russia) first reduce their arsenal to minimum-deterrent levels. Once that happens all n-weapons states can discuss on gradual global disarmament and bare minimum N-deterence level.
I personally doubt N-weapons will ever be completely removed. That will unfortuantely only happen when a more powerful/advanced weapon is discovered/developed. But we can still hope for a minimum-deterence level with any such WMDs.

e) Creating a nuclear arsenal is not done overnight, it's a very long and expensive process. No proof has been given that their research is for military purposes but proofs exist that it is for civilian ones. Why the rush to stop it? Are they not allowed to have nuclear power-plants either?

There is lots of proof:
1)the ways in which Iran has acquired this nuclear tecnology
2)the questions raised by IAEA inspectors in Iran..
3)the refusal of Iran to use external enriched uranium even for the time-being..

f) Isn't North Korea more of a real threat? Or is it because they are not located in the middle-east and have lots of oil?

Yes, but North Korea has so much conventional(non-nuclear) might that if anyone tries to forcibly disarm them, they'll end up doing more damage than
a nuclear weapon. So one has to tread with caution w.r.t. N Korea. Also North Korea has reached the state where it has 'become' a self-declared nuclear weapons state. Any military threats on North Korea would be very risky especially because of the population density in the Korean peninsula.
Here aggressive economic sanction-oriented diplomacy is the only way.

g) Iran is fully aware of the fury of the US war-machine. By looking at neighboring Iraq they know what is coming if they mess around so why would they even consider getting an arsenal in a distant future when they know what to expect?

Iran is also fully aware that without a nuclear weapons capability they can end up like Iraq(even if they don't pursue N-energy) for some other excuse the US may pick to invade/conduct regime change etc etc..
On the other hand, if Iran possesses N-weapons capability, it knows that everybody(incld the US) will think twice,thrice or even ten times before touching them for whatever excuse; may it be justified or not.

Once you get N-weapons capability your strategic freedom gets a 'longevity vaccine'. After that, if you achieve MAD or even minimum deterent against the nuclear big boys(US etc), then your strategic freedom gets a near immortal status.
Here by strategic freedom I mean:
the ability to say and do whatever you feel is right for your wellbeing without worrying that someone stronger may 'bomb you back to the stone age' for it.
North Korea has almost got that longevity vaccine. It just needs to develop a deliverable bomb for that.
Iran is still at the very beginning and it can be stopped. Notably Libya HAS been successfully stopped via diplomacy.Same with South Africa and Brazil. So its a tried-n-tested approach.

h) What does Iran have to do to prove it is not a military program?

1)Give unrestricted access to IAEA inspectors within Iran. Iran has NEVER done this until now and that is the WHOLE problem. They've always behaved weirdly/abruptly et all with the IAEA inspectors by suddenly restricting their movements; suddenly cleaning up places before IAEA visits etc..
The IAEA has found such 'cleaned-up' sites to have traces of uranium enriched much beyond levels required for civilian use.For civlian reactors uranium need only be enriched upto 20% max. Weapons grade uranium is of 80-90%+ enrichment and this HAS been found at suspected locations.
These aren't the actions of a state that is wanting to prove that is does not have any nuclear weaps ambitions.
Since Iran is a member of the NPT, it HAS to allow unrestricted access to IAEA inspectors. These inspectors have had more problems in Iran than they did in Iraq. Infact IAEA never found anything conclusive in Iraq, and incidently neither have the US so far.
So if the IAEA can give Iran a clean chit, then Iran has a reason to protest against any further allegations AFTER that.
Until then, it NEEDS to give IAEA unrestricted access. Afterall if theres nothing to hide then why restrict? Its not like Iran has some technolgical advantage in the civilian nuclear sector that it does not want to share.Iran is only a fledgling nuclear state now and it cannot have any such reasons.

2)Iran does not even want to get pre-enriched uranium(civilian usage only) from foreign sources. Why not? It does not want to do that even for the time-being. Can't it do with this source of uranium for sometime until international confidence is rebuilt? Isn't this a sensible CBM(confidence building measure) that Iran can/should/must undertake for now atleast?

If Iran does these 2 things it will be enough to turn international opinion in their favour IMHO. This it what they need to do:
(Allow unrestricted access to IAEA) +
(use foreign enriched-uranium for a pre-agreed timeframe)
= (clean chit for Iran)

As of now,Iran just expects the international community and the IAEA to 'trust' its intentions without giving any supporting evidence

Just wondering what the fuzz is all about. Most people who fear Iran as a WMD-threat don't seem to know much about nuclear weapons.

I think you may feel otherwise now, esp if you've read whatever I've written with a neutral and logical perspective.
Iran is a classic case of playing the 'nuclear ambiguity' role until it acquires N-weapons capability.

[edit on 9-1-2007 by Daedalus3]

The greatest threat is Israel in that region. They have nukes and they're trying to corner everyone who is trying to oppose them.

Just take up the following question. Who is defending his country and who is trying to corner other countries?
#1. Those ones, whose already dozens of nukes.
#2. Those ones, whose don't have any sort of nukes, but the other country in the neighbor has many.

Even if Iran wants to make nukes, they have every reason to do it. Because from the upper little test, you can learn, that right now, Iran is the one who is cornered by a country, which is not existed app. 60 years ago. But now they're there now and they have nukes, aiming right toward them and others, whose are trying to question their statements and their country. I would call the Iranians acts as self defense. Nothing more. And if they want to build a nuclear power plant, go ahead. We have one nuclear power plant in Hungary. So, they should have one too. Why not?

Its not 'self-defense' IMO..
Israel having nukes is self defense: look and the overwhelming arab majority that opposes Israel!
Iran wants nukes for the same reason all the big boys(big five + India) wanted nukes: to become militarily un-touchable and thus a regional superpower.
The only self-defence Iran may be looking at would be against the US.
Iran doesn't need nukes to make Israel into a wasteland. It has enough military and political resources to do so.

IMHO Pakistan developed nukes also for the same reason Israel did: deterrence
against a possible aggressor that has an overwhelming conventional advantage

[edit on 9-1-2007 by Daedalus3]

Enjoyed reading your post Daedalus and glad your informed and willing to share

Originally posted by Raud
Did any of you consider the following?

a) Iran's uranium enrichment project is for civilian purposes, this because their regime understands (like others seem not to) that oil is not infinite.

In my opinion Iran is not going nuclear because of dwindling oil supplies but because they realise that oil prices will keep rising as it becomes ever more manipulated. There is also no evidence that oil is 'running out' and not much to do with science that suggests it will reach a 'peak' any decade soon.

Of course uranium is not infinite either but it's the best option avaible at the present (part from solar, wind and water-power but this does not seem to be interresting for most nations, don't ask me why).

As i remember nuclear is cheaper than wind and probably competitive with solar in the long term.

f) Isn't North Korea more of a real threat? Or is it because they are not located in the middle-east and have lots of oil?

North Korea has no oil for the US and allies to bomb out of the world's markets. Empires needs enemies and if you kill them off too soon your in real trouble as Bush junior clearly knows. If his dad kept that war going for a few more years we might never have had a Clinton.

g) Iran is fully aware of the fury of the US war-machine. By looking at neighboring Iraq they know what is coming if they mess around so why would they even consider getting an arsenal in a distant future when they know what to expect?

Iraq is not Iran and i think the US will probably take it's time about the Iran issue...

h) What does Iran have to do to prove it is not a military program?

It's pretty hard ( some say impossible) to prove a negative hence the delight of the warmongers.

Just wondering what the fuzz is all about. Most people who fear Iran as a WMD-threat don't seem to know much about nuclear weapons.

Most people have to be propagandized daily to encourage them to be afraid as that is not the natural human state. Persistent feelings of being in danger will get you into a very early grave as our body don't cope well with the chemicals realised under such conditions.

Stellar

Originally posted by Raud
Did any of you consider the following?

a) Iran's uranium enrichment project is for civilian purposes, this because their regime understands (like others seem not to) that oil is not infinite.

They have one of the largest reserves of oil on the planet. They do not need nuclear generated power. Certainly not bad enough that its worth risking invasion and war.

Of course uranium is not infinite either but it's the best option avaible at the present (part from solar, wind and water-power but this does not seem to be interresting for most nations, don't ask me why).

Solar water and wind power are absolutely horrible options, compared to burning fossil fuels. Fossil Fuels are quite simply the most effective and effecient fuels that we have out there.

b) It would take about 15 to 20 years for Iran to produce a small number of tactical nukes

Says who? The russians are giving them technology, material, and expertise. Why would it take the iranians 15 years to make weapons?

(and by then they would surely be out of oil

No. Oil reserves aren't going to run out in 15-20 years.

c) Iran has the right to develop nuclear power

No, they don't. They gave up the right to have their own nuke programme decades ago. They chose to join a programme by which countries would sign a treaty, swearing to never, EVER, develop nuclear weapons, and to ALLWAYS have their nuclear programme subject to international scrutiny. In exchange, they were given nuclear technology.

The idea was that we could have a peaceful spread of nuclear technology, prevent weaponization, prevent future wars, and give cheap, reliable, electrical energy to countries that need it.

The result has been a radical religious fanatic cabal getting the type of technology that can make weapons that wipe out cities, while sititng on top of of a gigantic fossil fuel supply.

since they have their own country and are allowed to do whatever.

They are specifically, by their own treaties, forbiden from 'doing whatever'.

Besides no-one whined when both India and Pakistan obtained their nuclear weapons

Both countries were sanctioned for it.

d) US, UK, China, Russia (and other CIS-states), India, Pakistan, Israel and France are allowed to have nukes because...?

NONE of those countries signed any treaties by which they were given nuke tech in exchange for not having weapons and being open to inspections.

Why the rush to stop it? Are they not allowed to have nuclear power-plants either?

No, they are not. They are not permited to have ANY nuclear technology if they are not being give a 'green light' by international atomic energy regulatory agencies, as per the agreement that they themselves signed, agreed to, and accepted nuclear technology and expertise through.

f) Isn't North Korea more of a real threat?

Indeed, they are also a threat.

Or is it because they are not located in the middle-east and have lots of oil?

IS what because they aren't oil rich? We have a gigantic army stationed right on the border of North Korea, guns facing straight at it. Our own nuclear arsenal is pre-programmed to hit north korean military sites and cities, and we have various embargos and diplomatic censures on them.

We haven't invaded them. We haven't invaded iran. So whats the problem here? Iran is CLEARLY building nuclear weapons. THey don't have an real need for nuclear electrical energy. They are one of the world's biggest suppliers of fossil fuels. They don't have anywhere near the physical demand for electrical energy that would even justify a nuclear programme, let alone one that has resulted in them violating their international treaty obligations and bringing the cloud of war and destruction over them.
If you think that they are risking becoming like iraq over electrical energy, well, then to say the least, you are flat out wrong.

g) Iran is fully aware of the fury of the US war-machine. By looking at neighboring Iraq they know what is coming if they mess around so why would they even consider getting an arsenal in a distant future when they know what to expect?

Why would the even consider having a nuclear programme and not working with the IAEA in the first place, knowing what will happen?

What does Iran have to do to prove it is not a military program?

Be in permanent compliance with the IAEA inspections, as per their own agreement.

Just wondering what the fuzz is all about. Most people who fear Iran as a WMD-threat don't seem to know much about nuclear weapons.

All you need to know is that they are far too dangerous to allow a country that is run by religoius radicals who think that they apocalypse is nigh and that talk to 'the mahdi' on a regular basis to have. AT LEAST not without inspections.

Add to that that iran constantly threatens to destroy other countries around it in nuclear-eqsue talk, and you'd have to be blind to think that they want it just to make light bulbs in the suburbs of Yazd on.

The greatest threat is Israel in that region. They have nukes and they're trying to corner everyone who is trying to oppose them.

Israel has nad nukes for years now, and still, haven't used them. Isreal has been repeatedly attacked by the arab states around it. Those same states, after being defeated in war, started up terror organizations to continue butchering israeli citizens, while not having to take on the real dangers of war. ANd they even manage to site the fact that the israelis beat them so thoroughly in those wars that they are now 'humiliated', and that THAT is a justification for targeting and killing isreali civilians.

If the arab world wanted the occupation of the west bank to stop, ALL they'd have to do is agree to PEACE. THey constantly, consistently, and absolutely refuse it. ANd to this day, Iran, a country that doesn't even border the area of the occupation, threatens to 'wipe israel off the map' and destroy it by fire, while tinkering with nuclear tech.

Who's the threat?
Iran's the threat.

If israel was the threat, if they actually WERE the monsters people make them out to be, then there wouldn't be talk about a them occupying one bank of one river, they'd be occupying Tehran and Islamabad. They're not. Why? Because they're not the threat. Iran is the threat. The international jihadis are the threat. THey are the ones calling for more war. They are the ones targeting civilians. THey are the ones who only haven't used nuke weapons yet because they haven't obtained them yet.

I think evaluating the Iran situation is important in light of the Iraq supposedly
having WMD's screw up. Getting involved in Iran would be a mistake if it turns into Iraq number 2.

The whole arguement that Iran has this right or that right over nuclear power and or defense is for the birds.
Not because of treaties or such, simply put--life isn't fair.
There is no Iran can have nukes because the US, UK, India, Pakistan does.

It's because Iraq didn't have nukes that they got attacked.
It's because N Korea has nukes that they won't get attacked.

Iran knows this.

"Fairness" has nothing to do with anything.

likewise StellarX.. touche!



Nygdan,
Just some of my thoughts on what you said:

Originally posted by Nygdan
They have one of the largest reserves of oil on the planet. They do not need nuclear generated power. Certainly not bad enough that its worth risking invasion and war.

This alone does not negate their right to nuclear energy. There's no crime in investing in future energy acquisition means and the earlier the oil states start, the better off they'll be when the oil ends(100-200 years?).
But Iran's immediate method of going about it is a little suspicious to say the
least..

Solar water and wind power are absolutely horrible options, compared to burning fossil fuels. Fossil Fuels are quite simply the most effective and effecient fuels that we have out there.

True but then again alternate fuels is the way of the future; and by alternate I also mean radical ways of extracting and processing fossil fuels as well.
If we were to just glance at the investments the energy bigwigs (Shell, BP etc.) are making in alternate fuels research, we would be a little alarmed; are these guys onto something in fossil fuel dept that we commoners have overlooked? Is the end nearer than we think?
'British Petroleum' renamed 'Beyond Petroleum' .. pretty much speaks for itself!

Says who? The russians are giving them technology, material, and expertise. Why would it take the iranians 15 years to make weapons?

I was unaware that the Russians were working outside the framework of the non proliferation treaties they have signed. Any links on the weaponisation transfer?

c) Iran has the right to develop nuclear power

No, they don't. They gave up the right to have their own nuke programme decades ago. They chose to join a programme by which countries would sign a treaty, swearing to never, EVER, develop nuclear weapons, and to ALLWAYS have their nuclear programme subject to international scrutiny. In exchange, they were given nuclear technology.

That still means that they have the right to develop indigenous nuclear generation technology. The NPT fully allows that, but Iran is playing hide-n-seek with the IAEA and that's the problem.

The idea was that we could have a peaceful spread of nuclear technology, prevent weaponization, prevent future wars, and give cheap, reliable, electrical energy to countries that need it.

Well said..

Besides no-one whined when both India and Pakistan obtained their nuclear weapons

Both countries were sanctioned for it.

His point is that these countries weren't threatened with invasion and regime change, esp when one is a military dictatorship.
Actually the point is India was too big to even think of any reprimand other than economic ones, and Pakistan was an important geo-strategic ally(for the US).
If you analyse the cases of Iran and Pakistan, the only thing that is saving Pakistan from the legality point of view is the fact that they did not sign onto the NPT. Otherwise they have been every bit as dastardly as Iran in the acquisition(and proliferation) of N weapons if not more.

And the key issue is if Iran withdraws from the NPT then it has the EXACT same legal binding as Pakistan does with respect to nuclear technology. Any action against Iran(Or N Korea for that matter) if and when they are NOT NPT signatories can be(and hence should be) justifiable for Pakistan as well.

d) US, UK, China, Russia (and other CIS-states), India, Pakistan, Israel and France are allowed to have nukes because...?

NONE of those countries signed any treaties by which they were given nuke tech in exchange for not having weapons and being open to inspections.

Actually the NPT has clauses specific to non-nuclear weapons state members
and other clauses specific to already weaponised nuclear weapons states.
Essentially there is a separate set of rules for both and the IAEA safeguards apply mostly to the non-nuclear weapons states.

The NPT
Articles I through V have the main jist of it all.
Iran joined the NPT as a non-nuclear weaopns state and hence has to abide by the relevant clauses was long as it is a signatory. I think they're actively considering to 'end all co-operation' with the IAEA. I don't know if that means that they want out of the NPT or something less drastic than that..

Interesting reading.
Iran's going to get their balls jumped on, probably by Israeli Forces, with/without the United States Okie-Dokie. Seems to me it's just a matter of when.

Dallas

They have one of the largest reserves of oil on the planet. They do not need nuclear generated power. Certainly not bad enough that its worth risking invasion and war.

Actually they don't actually have as much oil as people assume. They are planning for the long run---sort of. They do have lots of natural gas which could be used for civilian power, except for greenhouse gas emissions.

Nevertheless their persistent and aggressive desire for enrichment technology, as opposed to just power generation technology, is very suggestive of a nuclear weapons program, or at least the conceivable threatning probability thereof.

That's actually what Saddam Hussein did: he wanted people to believe he had robust WMD (and even the scientists lied to him and said they had great stuff when they didn't), even if the truth was otherwise.

My feeling is that Iran wants nuclear weaponry or the plausible threat thereof in order to give Hezbollah wide freedom of action against Israel and other, more moderate Arab states, starting with Lebanon.

They think that they can radicalize the Mideast and terrorize Israel once they have nukes because then Israel wouldn't dare to attack Iran directly over Hebzollah's acting out. It's probably a correct assumption.


Similarly it will give them great leverage against Saudi Arabia/Jordan w.r.t. developments in in Iraq. I expect in a few years Hezbollah Of Iraq will be the next major terror/militia group.

Thank you all for these interresting oppinions!

Anyhow, I doubt that Iran will stand any 'pushing-around'. They will continue their attempts to aquire nuclear technology, military or civilian without accepting any interferance by any other country. They have been and are still one of the major countries in the region with a strong nationalistic feeling. The last thing they will accept is some foregin power or union bossing them around, especially the western ones.

This is quite sad and somewhat immature, but on the other hand by studying culutral and other aspects of their recent history it makes sense.


"All I want is peace in the middle east.......and a blow-job"