Ah ha! Iran: Not about the Nukes, its about the Rods!

Fuel or Fear?

The huge uranium business in the United States wields enormous power and influence in American military, business and political circles. In stark contrast, the US Navy has possession of two thirds of America’s nuclear weapons. Since they do not make big campaign contributions the Admirals and Chiefs therefore have no voice in this Doomsday scenario. An interested party must “pay to play.”

However, 104 American reactors and the very profitable associated businesses do make intense campaign contributions and expect real results from temporarily leased or fractionally owned politicians, American Presidents included. The pro-nukers also fully expect the powerful American military to protect their global nuclear related businesses in addition to the politicians handing out lavish cash subsidies.

Iran’s building nuclear weapons is not the pro-nuker businesses concern, though. The making and selling of nuclear fuel rods for reactors world wide with Russia backing them is their worst nightmare.

Ruble or Rubble?

Iran openly held a press conference and announced the manufacture of their first nuclear fuel rod on Jan 2, 2012. On Mar 8, 2008 President Admadinejad announced Iran’s intention to build 50,000 centrifuges for refining Uranium 235 to fuel rod purity (3% to 5% U235) for power reactors. By way of contrast, the US produces all the uranium nuclear fuel it needs with only 3,000 centrifuges.

It appears Iran has every intention of entering the world wide nuclear reactor fuel market and competing with American, English, French, Japanese and/or any other nuclear fuel businesses. With 50,000 centrifuges refining uranium Iran [as the Ruskies client state] can easily supply the uranium fuel needs for all the power and research reactors on the planet at a very competitive price, even a subsidized price if bought with a big reactor from the friendly Russian salesmen and women.

That means it is a multi-trillion Ruble series of transactions. These transactions would change the balance of power in the world; thus, the US opposes the transactions.

You see folks, this is not about IRAN building nukes, its about IRAN providing nuclear energy and becoming a major player in that market. This planned war is about killing off the competition!

I never saw this angle. This is a game changer, because the debate can focus on whats really going on.

We are so focused on OIL, but of course, nobody is planning on occupying IRAN. So it cant be that. IRAN is not IRAQ or LIBYA. Its not about IRAN getting a nuke or two, because all they would use it for is self defense. No evidence whatsoever they would launch an attack on their neighbor just so their neighbor can annihilate them with 10x the nukes. No, this is about potentially killing hundreds of thousands of people, destroying precious infrastructure and culture, because a new competitor is about to hit the market.

That is a direct threat to the continued Super Power status of the US and will not be tolerated. The US has clearly stated it is grounds for a preemptive nuclear strike.

So we can stop all this arguing about if the Iranian Mullahs are insane and dangerous, we now know, why we are about to enter World War 3. Its because of greed. As they say, protecting "US" and "EUROPEAN" interests.

American politicians typically talk in coded phrases about any nation’s nuclear capability since it would be extremely politically incorrect for the nation to clearly interfere in another nation’s business activities. Economic Warfare is a critical speciality of the so-called Department of Defense, or War Department, in all stark reality. These word games are to fool a huge number of unquestioning American Consumers.

One of the leading American Presidential candidates has already promised to strategically bomb Iran’s “nuclear sites.” Iran in return promised an “immediate and overwhelming response.” The currently sitting American President stated, as a matter of fact, that Iran would not be permitted to have “nuclear capabilities.”

Only British Member of Parliament George Galloway points out to anyone, including callers on his radio show, that there are “more than 80 Iranian nuclear sites.” Thank you for that much needed voice of sanity, Mr. Galloway. That is called “war” in my book; not just a so-called simple, strategic and clean “surgical” strike.

www.veteranstoday.com...

reply to post by FoosM


Iran is also manufacturing it's own non-nuclear weaponry through their own defense industries. Does the same apply?

reply to post by FoosM

You could be on to something.
After seeing the Influence TEPCO has about telling all countries NOT to investigate and WRITE about their Nuclear Disaster, and all countries complied.

Fukushima was much bigger disaster than Chernobyl, and is still ongoing, but what have you seen in the news, nothing, total media blackout.

Excellent post.

Makes it worth the while to filter through the compost for well-thought posts like this one.

S&F for you sir/madam.

Edit: the reason TEPCO hasn't been researched is because the head of the IAEA is a Japanese business man with ties to the company.

Wow, never saw it like that before... Really opened my eyes!

When it comes to money it seems people are capable of everything and anything

Iran ready to export nuclear services

Head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran Fereidoon Abbasi said the Islamic republic is ready to export services related to nuclear energy to other countries, the local satellite Press TV reported on Sunday.

Abbasi made the remarks on the sidelines of the inauguration ceremony of an exhibition of the country's nuclear achievements in the southern port city of Bandar Abbas in Hormozgan province on Saturday.

Iran can now produce heavy water (deuterium oxide), which is very useful for medical applications, Abbasi was quoted as saying.

Abbasi also said that with the recently unveiled third- generation centrifuges, which perform much faster than the previous models and can considerably accelerate the enrichment process, the country can enrich uranium at the level of 20 percent.

Abbasi said Saturday that the subterranean Fordo enrichment facilities will start operating in the near future.

"The Fordo facilities will be launched soon and will be able to produce 20 percent, 3.5 percent and 4 percent enriched uranium," Abbasi said.

www.china.org.cn...

Originally posted by eyespying
reply to post by FoosM

 

Iran is also manufacturing it's own non-nuclear weaponry through their own defense industries. Does the same apply?

Please elaborate, Im not following what you are asking or suggesting.

reply to post by FoosM


This makes more sense than anything else I've come up with... It is at least equally as plausible as the usual war for profit. Who would have the most to lose from that competition? GE... Haliburton..

I know a guy who was getting bad ratings on a website (It's a liquor store... who gives bad ratings to a liquor store) anyway he found out it they originated from his competition from across the street..

It's like someone is doing this to Iran on a world media scale

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by eyespying
reply to post by FoosM

 

Iran is also manufacturing it's own non-nuclear weaponry through their own defense industries. Does the same apply?

Please elaborate, Im not following what you are asking or suggesting.

You see folks, this is not about IRAN building nukes, its about IRAN providing nuclear energy and becoming a major player in that market. This planned war is about killing off the competition!

Wouldn't there also be a concern that defense industries could become competition in the global market for arms? Slightly off-topic.

Thanks for bringing this out ...Now it becomes easier to avoid the other 2 stories that goes on and on and on and never gets to a clear point in the discussion ...S&F for saving me much waisted time in the furure ,too bad we didnt see this earlier ....peace

Originally posted by eyespying

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by eyespying
reply to post by FoosM

 

Iran is also manufacturing it's own non-nuclear weaponry through their own defense industries. Does the same apply?

Please elaborate, Im not following what you are asking or suggesting.

You see folks, this is not about IRAN building nukes, its about IRAN providing nuclear energy and becoming a major player in that market. This planned war is about killing off the competition!

Wouldn't there also be a concern that defense industries could become competition in the global market for arms? Slightly off-topic.

Well you bring up a good point. If IRAN was not being pressured with military strikes, they probably would not be spending their resources on advancing their military capabilities. But because they feel threatened, they are making their own missiles, subs, artillery, etc. They might not be as advanced as some other countries, but IRANIANS are well educated, (I would say overly educated in some respects, because there isn't much for them to do as young adults. So many stay in school, to escape the pressures of starting a family. I might be generalizing, but thats what I have been told first hand.) so eventually their military hardware might be at a quality that they can sell cheaply. Which would make them attractive for buyers.

Best thing to do, is work with IRAN. Working with them will bring down their guard and focus their energy on positive construction. Dont forget, this country is still recovering from its last war with IRAQ, and a couple of revolutions.

OP,do you work in Iran's Propaganda Dept, to come with this piece to distract others from the real issues?

1. If it iranian enrichment was solely for economic reasons, why the refusal for IAEA safety inspections on site freely and regularly? Iran hiding something else other than 'economic reasons' you portray?


2. You are purely attempting to mislead.
Nuclear fuel rods for engery needs only 3.5% enrichment grade. So why the 20% grade? The medical market is relatively small, almost to insignificance for such 20% 'medical grade' enrichment.

At 20% grade, those rods poses a danger to mankind for they can be use to create 'dirty bombs' capable of widespread damage. And you dare claim that Iran is exporting it? Further cause of alarm!


3. The Iranian regime are well knowned to be funding and supporting the Hizbollah terrorist group. This is a Jihadist group that is hell-bent on extinction of mankind. It cares not regardless if muslims or non-muslims innocents get blown to bits in order to help Iran's leader's ambitions. You dare trust the iranian regime with this?


4. It's about nuke proliferation. Much of the fuel rods are of only energy grade levels, and manufactured by existing nuke companies around the world that complied with IAEA regulations. As they already had long been build, before the voice of the world grew more strident with nuke proliferation, those companies instead sold energy grade rods, and not anything higher.

For medical grade, existing hospitals that produces nuke have the devices for the world to use, which is only one aircraft or a short ride away.

Therefore, desist from fanciful theories that will only harm or distract the REAL issues our world from further nuke proliferation and armed confrontation to end such proliferation, more so nukes that are against IAEA inspections and deceptively created.

Originally posted by HiHoAZaway
reply to post by FoosM

 

This makes more sense than anything else I've come up with... It is at least equally as plausible as the usual war for profit. Who would have the most to lose from that competition? GE... Haliburton..

I know a guy who was getting bad ratings on a website (It's a liquor store... who gives bad ratings to a liquor store) anyway he found out it they originated from his competition from across the street..

It's like someone is doing this to Iran on a world media scale

Yes. From what I can tell, very few countries actually enrich uranium.
WIKI is down, but I did find this:

Large commercial enrichment plants are in operation in France, Germany, Netherlands, UK, USA, and Russia, with smaller plants elsewhere. New centrifuge plants are being built in France and USA. Several plants are adding capacity.

world-nuclear.org...

So companies to research:
Urenco, Global Laser Enrichment, Areva, USEC, JNFL

We do know, based on the FUKASHIMA cover-up, that the Nuclear Power lobby is very powerful.

Companies are racing to provide radioactive fuel for America's nuclear renaissance, and are powering debate along the way. Even as the government continues to oppose Iran's efforts to enrich uranium for power plants, projects to do just that are under way in the United States. General Electric Co. and USEC Inc., along with European rivals Urenco Ltd. and Areva Inc., are pushing billions worth of new US enrichment plants or technology so they don't miss the new uranium boom.

Opponents, including the Union of Concerned Scientists, fear that sends the wrong message to countries like Iran. The group argues it's unclear the US really needs new facilities, when it could just import nuclear fuel from elsewhere. Still, shipments from Russia, which now supplies about 40 percent of enriched uranium for US commercial reactors, are due to be cut roughly in half by 2013. And an aging US enrichment facility in Paducah, Kentucky, is due to be shuttered. That means power plants here will have to fill the vacuum, including from new domestic suppliers. "Even if the nuclear renaissance didn't happen, the US will need more enrichment services to respond to their existing domestic needs," said Laurence Pernot, a spokeswoman for Areva in Bethesda, Maryland. Promoters tout nuclear power as an antidote to coal-fired plants that contribute to global warming.

www.jpost.com...

Wow, Russia was supplying 40% of the US's nuclear fuel needs?

Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101
OP,do you work in Iran's Propaganda Dept, to come with this piece to distract others from the real issues?

1. If it iranian enrichment was solely for economic reasons, why the refusal for IAEA safety inspections on site freely and regularly? Iran hiding something else other than 'economic reasons' you portray?

I dont want to see my planet turned to glass, if thats OK with you. And I dont see Iran as a global threat to anyone,. which means, to start WW3 over their nuclear ambitions is simply not worth it. Better to work with them, and solve their energy crisis. Because they actually do have one.

But while you are here, maybe you can comment on the following:

Most countries side with Iran over nuclear program, oppose Amano and his IAEA report

Remember how Developing Countries were not happy about how Israel was pressuring former IAEA head Elbaradei to condemn Iran's nuclear program? Well, now it appears that the 118-members of the Non Aligned Movement were also not at all happy with Amano's IAEA reports on Iran, though this bit of news that was simply not reported in the Western media at all:

Distancing itself from IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano’s report on Iran and its pursuit of a nuclear programme, India today associated itself with a statement by the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) which criticised the language used in the IAEA chief’s report.

“NAM notes with concern the possible implications of the continued departure from standard verification language in the summary of the report of the Director General,” said the statement which was read during the IAEA Board of Governors meeting on behalf of over 100 NAM member states, including India.

Besides raising the issue of Israel’s nuclear activities and the IAEA investigation of Syria’s alleged nuclear site that was bombed by Israel in 2007, the NAM statement is sharply critical of Amano for accepting at face value Western intelligence information on Iran’s nuclear activities.

While India has been part of all NAM statements in the past, this time it is quite strongly-worded and has raised concerns on procedures followed by the IAEA. New Delhi has maintained that Tehran has an “inalienable right” to use of atomic energy for peaceful purposes but needs to abide by “international rules and obligations”.

www.indianexpress.com...

In addition to slamming Amano's report, the signficance of this is in showing that the vast majority of the countries of the world actually support Iran, contrary to claims by the US of representing the "international community". Remember, the Non-Aligned Movement represents 118 countries. The IAEA had 151 members as of March 2010, while the NPT has 190 States Parties as of October 2010. Also add Russia and China to the number of countries that have criticized the recent IAEA report, and you're seeing where the "international community" actually stands.

Article VI of the NonProliferation Treaty states:

Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with articles I and II of this Treaty.

All the Parties to the Treaty undertake to facilitate, and have the right to participate in, the fullest possible exchange of equipment, materials and scientific and technological information for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy...

No proof that IRAN is seeking to use its research for nuclear weapons.

However, this is an old story that predates the dispute over Iran's nuclear program. Ever since the NPT came into existence, the US has been trying to place additional restrictions and limits on the nuclear rights of developing countries, using the issue of nuclear weapons proliferation as an excuse to monopolize technology. For example the US almost immediately formed the Nuclear Suppliers Group, which is an informal assocation (aka cartel) of nuclear-capable countries, and which created a list of "sensitive items" they would not export to non-nuclear countries under the guise of non-proliferation. Developing countries have not been happy about that. (Naturally, exceptions to the NSG trade restrictions were made for the friends of the US even if they hadn't signed the NPT and had nuclear weapons - as long as they did things like vote against Iran at the IAEA Board.)

www.iranaffairs.com...

reply to post by FoosM


1. You can qoute a wall of text to twist the truths or embellish lies with half truths, but the fact remained - IAEA had not be allowed free access to inspect the nuke activities of Iran, while other nations had complied with each NEW facility built.


2. Regardless if it was Divine intervention, or natural event, Chernobyl and Fukishima plants disaster had proven the dangers of nuke energy and was a warning to mankind. Hundreds of precious lives had been sacrificed to tame those failed reactors.

Is mankind to continue with nuke energy? Many countries in our world had stop such ideas. Germany is already in the porcess of stopping and shuting down more nuke plants. And these are countries that had been responsible with our world through IAEA inspections and stringent checks.

Iran? Does not the world needs better assurance, more so after numerous belligerant and deceptive games they had played worldwide in its attempt to procure nuke, for whatever the purposes it had in its crazed leadership's mind?


3. Before Fukishima accident, there were those whom supported Iran's bid for nuke ENERGY. But are they singing the same time today, when Iran had deceived them, and had produce 20% grade nuke which is far more than required for supposed 'nuke energy needs'?


4. If the despicable iranian regime is as economically wise as you allude, to create nuke energy for export, then why go into a competitive market, when it could CORNER the world by producing THORIUM - which is a far safer energy source instead?

Even India had embarked on setting up thorium reactors, and would be ready by end of this decade.


No. No more lame excuses necessary for the Iranian regimes bid for nuke proliferation. It had NEVER been for economic reasons. Talk is cheap. Actions are far more rewarding in the search for truth. And today, it is all plain for the world to see, what that horrific regime is up to.

Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101
reply to post by FoosM

 

1. You can qoute a wall of text to twist the truths or embellish lies with half truths, but the fact remained - IAEA had not be allowed free access to inspect the nuke activities of Iran, while other nations had complied with each NEW facility built.

You know what, why hasn't the IAEA investigated Israel?
They have nukes, and they have actually threatened to attack IRAN.
They are the ones who are dangerous.

You didnt even address the post I made, and the rest of your post sounds like it comes from someone crazed and filled with fear. Very difficult to have a meaningful discussion with that type of mindset. No offense, but I think its best if you find a way to clear your mind of the brainwashing the mainstream media has subjected you to.

reply to post by FoosM


"pro-nukers" it amazes me and boggles the mind that people still believe you can control an "uncontrollable" chain reaction, lol. Even after fukashima, 3 mile island, Chernobyl etc...

There is no such thing as a safe nuclear fission reactor, period. They are litterally death waiting to happen machines.

reply to post by FoosM


You are the threadstarter, formed your opinions and is only right for me as a contributor to your original post to ask logical and reasonable questions from you, but yet you had not answer them, only to evade and ridicule me. It goes to show only how 'open' you are to supposed 'discussions' you seek.

It is never discussions that you sought, but an imposition of your misleading views to others that you want. If that is your agenda here on ATS, then there is no point furthering my attempts in discussions with you.

May the gullible trust you and follow you the way the pied piper of Hamlien led children to their doom.

Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101
reply to post by FoosM

 

You are the threadstarter, formed your opinions and is only right for me as a contributor to your original post to ask logical and reasonable questions from you, but yet you had not answer them,

Its kind of hard to answer statements:

No. No more lame excuses necessary for the Iranian regimes bid for nuke proliferation. It had NEVER been for economic reasons. Talk is cheap. Actions are far more rewarding in the search for truth. And today, it is all plain for the world to see, what that horrific regime is up to.

About the only question you brought up, was something about thorium reactors.
Yet you didnt account for the fact there have been sanctions placed on IRAN.

Im not sure what you expect this country to do. They have to look out for their own welfare.
Are you against the advancement of nations? Or is that only exclusive to Europe, North America and the Japan? The rest of the world should stay in their economic apartheid, right?

NYT Caught Lying about Iran & IAEA Report on Civilian Nuclear Program

The Media

Another industry that profits off war.
Lets be honest about this.

the Iraq War in 2003 gave cable news overall a big boost. "War was good for cable," said the PEJ report. "It was especially good for Fox News . . . The big winner was Fox News, which managed to increase its lead over CNN."

How can we trust the MEDIA if they are businesses trying to increase their ratings ie profts?

"Arabs and Muslims are getting a dramatically different narrative from their American counterparts," says Fawaz Gerges, who holds a chair in Middle Eastern studies and international affairs at Sarah Lawrence College and is an ABC news consultant on the Middle East. The U.S. networks have focused "on the technologically advanced nature of the American military armada," he says. "The Arab and Muslim press tend to focus on the destruction and suffering visited on Iraq by this military armada."

Although these alternative media saw an increased interest in their programming, tens of millions of viewers tuned to war coverage on the major networks, according to Nielsen Media Research. Cable, with its 24/7 coverage, was a big ratings winner. A Los Angeles Times national poll in early April showed that nearly 70 percent of Americans were getting most of their news about the war from cable. The Nielsen data showed that the number of average daily viewers for MSNBC and CNN increased more than 300 percent, while those for Fox rose more than 288 percent during the first two weeks of the war. Fox was the most-viewed cable news channel, averaging 3.3 million viewers per day. The highest-rated news program was "NBC Nightly News," with more than 11.3 million viewers.

The fact that so many Americans depended on television for news about the war is a major reason why TV is widely considered the most influential of the news media that covered the conflict. The pervasiveness of the medium was another. Businesses around the country had TV sets tuned to cable news networks day and night.

Sorry to say, but thats a lot of "programming".


www.turnoffyourtv.com...
www.ajr.org...