Iran's nuclear program

What do you think of this?!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yahoo

TEHRAN, Iran - Iran told the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog agency Monday of its decision to resume some nuclear activities, the spokesman of Iran's top security decision-making body said.

Iran has asked the International Atomic Energy Agency to instruct its inspectors in Iran to break the seals on central Iran's Isfahan Nuclear Conversion Facility so technicians can restart uranium reprocessing, Ali Agha Mohammadi, spokesman for Iran's Supreme National Security Council, told state-run radio.

The European Union head office warned Iran on Monday that progress in EU-Iran trade talks were unlikely if Tehran resumes its nuclear program.

"We expect Iran to live up to the commitment" made at nuclear talks in Paris, said European Commission spokesman Stefaan De Rynck. "Progress in such an agreement is unlikely unless the Paris agreement has a successful follow-up."

Reprocessing uranium is a step below uranium enrichment, which is to remain suspended, said Mohammadi.

The work is to resume at the Isfahan plant, which converts uranium ore concentrate, known as yellowcake, into uranium gas, the feedstock for enrichment. Uranium enriched to high levels can be used for nuclear bombs; at low levels it is used as fuel for nuclear energy plants.

---

They are still doing it....

It will probably end in tears...

Wow, what a shock. Who woulda figured the diplomatic route wouldn't work with these people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Proletariat

Wow, what a shock. Who woulda figured the diplomatic route wouldn't work with these people.

---

These people?

I take it this is a case of do as I say not do?

As expected. Quite frankly this is one of the reasons why I was against invasion of Iraq. Both Iran and North Korea are far more dangerous than Iraq ever was, and both should have been before Iraq on the 'nasty regimes to remove' list.

I say we bomb their reactors out before they can produce bombs...

Then the Iranians will mount up and drive into Iraq, and that will be ugly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Radier

I say we bomb their reactors out before they can produce bombs...

---

I'm sure Israel will beat all of us to doing this.

Is Israel not planning an attack soon on the Bushehr reactor?

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...an-strikes.htm

Quote:

---

The annual intelligence assessment presented to Israel's Knesset on 21 July 2004 noted that Iran's nuclear program is the biggest threat facing Israel, "Maariv" and "Yediot Aharonot" reported on 22 July 2004. Some Likud and Labor Knesset members subsequently called for a preemptive strike against the Iranian nuclear facility. Former Deputy Defense Minister Ephraim Sneh (Labor) said, "If the international community's helplessness in the face of the Iranian threat persists, Israel will have to weigh its steps -- and soon." Ehud Yatom (Likud) said, "The Iranian nuclear facilities must be destroyed, just as we did the Iraqi reactor. We must strive to attain the ability to damage and destroy any nuclear capability that might be directed against Israel." On 08 September 2004 Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said the international community has not done enough to stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon and warns that Israel will take its own measures to defend itself. He also said Iranian officials have made it clear they seek the destruction of the Jewish state. Israeli Air Force pilots have been practicing attacks on a scale model of the Bushehr reactor in the Negev Desert.

---

It is the job of the General Staff of any army to create plans for all possible conflicts.

Why? The Osiraq bombing is precedent.

Edit: This made sense before GF's edit.

Sorry about that, I generally tend to edit all my posts, sometimes heavily, as in this case. Character fault I guess.

Boy these guys sure are hardheaded aren't they :dizzy2:

Here is a real threat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Radier

I say we bomb their reactors out before they can produce bombs...

---

I concur.

I've never understood why the permanent members of the security council allow the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Surely peace and stability in the world are not served by letting states like North-Korea and Iran become nuclear powers.

Well, Louis, no offense, but there's no way your President would ever allow the Security Council to get tough with Iran. None. It will either be the US acting alone again (and I wouldn't count on that, as we don't have the manpower to open a 2nd theater of operations with Iran) or nobody. My vote is nobody.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Well, Louis, no offense, but there's no way your President would ever allow the Security Council to get tough with Iran. None. It will either be the US acting alone again (and I wouldn't count on that, as we don't have the manpower to open a 2nd theater of operations with Iran) or nobody. My vote is nobody.

---

This is why i dont support war on Iraq.I earlier in the other thread stated that there are lot more dangerous countries then Iraq was.Now US hands are taped around its back in Iraq. Sounds like a smart arse comment but its true.

screw this planet... *climbs into his spaceship and burts of to Alpha Centauri*

...suckers!


but seriusly, the Iranians are taking dangerous steps here, I dont think they are planning on making Nukes... YET... but I dont trust that regim at all. But come to think about it, I dont trust any regime at all... :dizzy2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kagemusha

This is why i dont support war on Iraq.I earlier in the other thread stated that there are lot more dangerous countries then Iraq was.Now US hands are taped around its back in Iraq. Sounds like a smart arse comment but its true.

---

Whether the US had invaded Iraq or not, there is no way the UN Security Council would take real action to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Any attempt by the US to intervene militarily would have been met with the same opposition by France and Germany that our efforts in Iraq were. Somewhere along the line, the World's diplomats decided that Iran was going to be a nuclear power and there's been damn little the US could do to stop it ever since. Every time we ask you, the EU, to join us in sanctions to show the Iranian government we mean business, you castigate us about how the only real solution was diplomacy. Well, in light of this, I submit that if you were correct, then there never was any real solution, because diplomacy has failed miserably. Oh wait, there's gotta be a way to pin this on Bush yet... *think, brain, think*... :sweatdrop:

Lazul, I hate to break it to you, Iran DOES INDEED want a nuclear warhead. What do you think all those Shahabs are there for, show? Fireworks? The Shahab-6 has a range of 8000km. That's London, Paris or Moscow folks. Oh wait, it was the Russians that sold them all of this, okay, London or Paris then. They have an all solid fuel Shahab-7 they've been working on with Pakistan that has a 12,000 km range. That's New York.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Well, Louis, no offense, but there's no way your President would ever allow the Security Council to get tough with Iran. None. It will either be the US acting alone again (and I wouldn't count on that, as we don't have the manpower to open a 2nd theater of operations with Iran) or nobody. My vote is nobody.

---

I know Chirac won't. He will not be president forever though. And until then he's a lame duck.

(I was secretly looking forward to a more sarcastic post like: 'Gosh, Louis, sorry but, like er, we remember France's reaction the last time the US wanted to get tough with a rogue state...' ~;)

My reply would've been straightforward:
Pre-emptive strikes against non-WMD owning rogue states: Louis and Chirac say no.
Pre-emptive strikes against WMD owning rogue states: Louis in favour, Chirac not.)

Anyway, I fear you're right and that nobody will act - until it's too late. Maybe the Israeli's will.

Europe's diplomacy failed. Not a shame, the world community has to try to find a diplomatic solution first. But now that is has proven to be of no avail, we have to be realistic and act. Sanctions are a joke in this sort of situation.

oh, well I didnt know all that much about Iran.... well then let me remake my statement to: *sigh* ah shit.

Quote:

---

Any attempt by the US to intervene militarily would have been met with the same opposition by France and Germany that our efforts in Iraq were.

---

Why do you think that? After all, it`s not as if France and Germany didn`t join the US in some wars recently.
BTW don`t forget there`s a 'regime change' coming about in Germany very soon.

I dont think that EU countries have a permanent negative stand,on everything US does.European countries supported the first gulf war,and committed troops too.If i remember correctly,even the French shared good portion of fighting back then. ~;) But you are correct that Russia and China are going to water avery resolution in UN on this matter.This would be great place for EU,to really make a stand,because we are the first target for these nukes that are under development. :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A.Saturnus

Why do you think that? After all, it`s not as if France and Germany didn`t join the US in some wars recently.
BTW don`t forget there`s a 'regime change' coming about in Germany very soon.

---

I think DC is right. Opposing the war in Iraq didn't hurt either Chirac or Schröder. Our new president (in two years time) and the next chancellor will have taken notice of that...

And secondly, France and Germany were opposed to the war in Iraq because there was no sound and conclusive evidence of Iraq possessing WMP. Even if it turned out that we were right about that, it will be next to impossible to now favour a strike against a country that technically doesn't posses WMD's either.
The subtlety that Iran inevidably will produce them whereas Iraq probably wasn't capable of doing that will undoubtly be lost on the voting masses...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kagemusha

I dont think that EU countries have a permanent negative stand,on everything US does.European countries supported the first gulf war,and committed troops too.If i remember correctly,even the French shared good portion of fighting back then. ~;)

---

Yes. We are in Afghanistan. We are in Kosovo. We were there in the first gulf war. We were there in Korea. We fought on the same side in WW2 and WW1. We even were there in 1776.

And sometimes, as in Algeria or now in Iraq, we fight our own silly little wars without the other.

Why do people think Israel can be stopped from preemptively destroying Bushehr? America won't be able to stop them even if we wanted to. The last thing the Israeli's want is a nuclear arm race in the Middle East, which will be a direct result of Iran gaining this capability.

And why would America need to invade? From the above article:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...an-strikes.htm

Quote:

---

American air strikes on Iran would vastly exceed the scope of the 1981 Israeli attack on the Osiraq nuclear center in Iraq, and would more resemble the opening days of the 2003 air campaign against Iraq. Using the full force of operational B-2 stealth bombers, staging from Diego Garcia or flying direct from the United States, possibly supplemented by F-117 stealth fighters staging from al Udeid in Qatar or some other location in theater, the two-dozen suspect nuclear sites would be targeted.

---

Pretty screwed up situation - but what are the options here?

a) Airstrike by Israel
This would probably mean that we can kiss any hope of peace in the Middle East goodbye for the next decades. In the worst case this could lead to an open war in the region.

b) Airstrike by the US
Best way to cement the power of the current rulers in Iran. Who knows what that might mean for the situation in Iraq (nothing good I would guess).

In both cases a) and b) expect new recruits flocking to AQ.

Also it is very likely that both options only postpone the inevitable. If Iran has the know-how to make nuclear weapons they will continue to pursue them. The next target will be less obvious.
Any airstrikes will also show other countries that you better try to get your hands on nukes (preferrably without anybody noticing before it's to late) - after all North Korea seems to be in a pretty secure position with the threat of possibly existing nukes.

c) Keep on negotiating/do nothing
Most likely this will lead to Iran having nukes in the end. Not a situation I am personally looking forward to. Unfortunately and realistically we will probably have to get used to the idea of states we rather would not like to see having access to nukes getting their hands on them at some point (this djinni was out of the bottle the moment the first nukes were developed :help: )

d) Embargo on Iran
Might help for a while, but in the end if Iran really wants nukes they will get them sooner or later - and an embargo might actually even increase their determination to get nukes.


In the end we will most likels see either an Iran with nukes or an awful lot of people will pay a very high price for preventing Iran from getting nukes.

I would probably go for option d) and hope for the best, but quite frankly, I do not like any of these options...

Well Iran did say that any strike by Israel on their nuclear reactors will be met with an Iranian strike on Israels reactors. The future is orange.

They have an all solid fuel Shahab-7 they've been working on with Pakistan that has a 12,000 km range.
Nooooooo they are our allies , they wouldn't be helping a member of the axis of evil with its weapons programs ~;)

Well, I must be on the right track if Monsieur le Épais seems to agree with me. I'm terribly afraid Ser Clegnane is right. You can do everything you possibly can to try to prevent a country from getting nuclear weapons, but if they possess the know-how, the will and the materials (and the mullahs of Iran possess all 3) there is really very little to be done.

I don't think Israel will launch airstrikes. They cannot, as it would most likely cause a replay of the 6-days war, and most likely one without the favorable conclusion for Israel, namely all of the nations over there simultaneously attacking Israel. It was a small miracle that didn't happen when they bombed Osiraq, and that was about as good as their public image in the Arab world had ever gotten, or has gotten since (having just ceded the Sinai peninsula back to Egypt).

If an embargo was to have any hope of effect, it should have been started years ago. They probably already have all the raw materials they need right now, and frankly, from a trading perspective, the world needs Iran's oil much more than Iran needs anything from anyplace else. What's more, there's no way China & Russia would honor it.

Were I an EU leader, I would begin negotiating with the Iranians as though Iran already had nuclear strike capability as short of an invasion into Iran, there's next to nothing to be done to stop them from gaining it. The Iraqis never considered that the Israelis would take such a chance as to launch an outright airstrike against them. There's no way Iran, with us right door, hasn't already taken precautions against us or Israel bombing their research facilities. I imagine where they're performing bomb development is impregnable as Cheyene Mountain, out in Colorado. Very little even bunker busters can do against those.

An article I posted on preperations back in March: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...2800_1,00.html

Quote:

---

So in the tradition of Israeli military adventurism — the honour roll includes the destruction of Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor in 1981 and the raid on Entebbe, Uganda, in 1976 — Jerusalem is preparing for another daring strike.

The risk of delaying a military strike, they say, is that once the Bushehr reactors start up, their destruction might cause an environmental catastrophe on a par with the Chernobyl meltdown in 1986.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane

Pretty screwed up situation - but what are the options here?

a) Airstrike by Israel
This would probably mean that we can kiss any hope of peace in the Middle East goodbye for the next decades. In the worst case this could lead to an open war in the region.

b) Airstrike by the US
Best way to cement the power of the current rulers in Iran. Who knows what that might mean for the situation in Iraq (nothing good I would guess).

In both cases a) and b) expect new recruits flocking to AQ.

Also it is very likely that both options only postpone the inevitable. If Iran has the know-how to make nuclear weapons they will continue to pursue them. The next target will be less obvious.
Any airstrikes will also show other countries that you better try to get your hands on nukes (preferrably without anybody noticing before it's to late) - after all North Korea seems to be in a pretty secure position with the threat of possibly existing nukes.

c) Keep on negotiating/do nothing
Most likely this will lead to Iran having nukes in the end. Not a situation I am personally looking forward to. Unfortunately and realistically we will probably have to get used to the idea of states we rather would not like to see having access to nukes getting their hands on them at some point (this djinni was out of the bottle the moment the first nukes were developed :help: )

d) Embargo on Iran
Might help for a while, but in the end if Iran really wants nukes they will get them sooner or later - and an embargo might actually even increase their determination to get nukes.


In the end we will most likels see either an Iran with nukes or an awful lot of people will pay a very high price for preventing Iran from getting nukes.

I would probably go for option d) and hope for the best, but quite frankly, I do not like any of these options...

---

:embarassed: I think you're right. Iran and N Korea with nukes. Great... I wonder if they will keep track of them any better than the Russians have...?

Azi

P.S. +2 points to Ser Clegane for use of the spelling djinni. I've never seen that outside of Golden Sun before. Well done!

Is this true "...Reprocessing uranium is a step below uranium enrichment"

If so, than the move they are making gets my support. Nuclear Energy is a much better source of power, than Oil, Gas, Coal or any other high energy sources.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kiwitt

Is this true "...Reprocessing uranium is a step below uranium enrichment"

If so, than the move they are making gets my support. Nuclear Energy is a much better source of power, than Oil, Gas, Coal or any other high energy sources.

---

At the risk of sounding like Gawain, please allow me to say "Not this again..."

When you reprocess uranium, you get plutonium. They're not doing it to make more efficicient nuclear reactors, they're doing it to make weapons grade material.

French intelligence has confirmed for the Americans that Iran IS attempting to build nuclear weapons. I don't think this is seriously disputed by many.

IMO North Korea and Pakistan are more deserving of our concern than Iran is, regarding the Possession of nuclear weapons. The Pakistani regime and people have shown themselves to be very supportive of Al Qaeda and have harboured the remnants of the Taliban. Iran was assisting the Northern Alliance alongside the US in the War against the Taliban in Afghanistan while Pakistan supported the Taliban. Iran offered to help the US when we were going into Afghanistan. Iran has also arrested Al Qaeda members and disrupted Al Qaeda cells within Iran which is more than most of our so-called allies have done. At least 200 Al Qaeda suspects are in prison and between 500 and 800 more have been deported.

These showed up in Iran as Al Qaeda and Taliban members fleeing the Afghan conflict. Other groups such as Ansar al-Islam from the territory of America's Kurdish allies were also arrested when they fled from Iraq. Iran took this action because "because they intended to use Iranian territory to launch terrorist strikes on other countries." The Iranians held a candlelight vigils on 9/11 to condemn the terrorist attacks on the US. The Palestinians and Pakistani's danced and celebrated in the streets after the attack. About a week after the attack, a picture appeared of some people in Pakistan holding a large banner that read "America think! why you are hated all over the world." But remember Iran is our enemy while Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are our friends!

The Governing Council in Iraq decided in January of 2004 to expel the People's Mujahadeen (MKO) AKA Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MeK) from Iraq with American support though U.S. forces and the Mujahadeen militias have cooperated in the past. MeK was added to the U.S. State Department’s list of foreign terrorist groups in 1997. MEK members were among those in 1979 who invaded the U. S. Embassy in Tehran, kidnapping 52 Americans who were held hostage for 444 days.

After the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan the Iranian government banned the Communist MeK and they fled to neighboring Iraq. President Bush did order the group disarmed but this doesn't seem to have been done with much diligence. Twenty years ago, the MeK was responsible for a suicide bombing that killed most of Iran's cabinet and many members of parliament. The MeK broadcasts are beamed into Iran from studios in plain sight of American forces and Pentagon officials attend MeK press conferences in Baghdad. The group’s political arm, the National Council of Resistance of Iran, maintains offices in several capitals, including Washington, D.C. The United States found itself in the bizarre position of being semi-allied to some of the Iranian hostage takers AGAINST the Iranian government hunting down and arresting Al Qaeda terrorist cells! Some intermediaries have suggested a prisoner exchange, MeK for the Al Qaeda members in Iranian prisons but the Iranian foreign ministry refused saying "We do not do deals when it comes to terrorists." Now who said life wasn't stranger than fiction?

Iranian Intelligence Minister Ali Younessi has stated that "Some of these groups are used by intelligence services of countries in the region or by the United States and Israel." The United States accuses Iran of supporting Al Qaeda. The Bush administration claims Al Qaeda operatives are acting from their prison cells to orchestrate terrorist activities. This seems a little odd as the Iranians despise Al Qaeda as much as the Americans do. Al Qaeda is a violent anti-Shiite movement who have conducted acts of terror against Iran as well. The Imam Reza shrine in Mashad for example was bombed by Al Qaeda and they also beheaded some Iranian diplomats in Mazaar-e-Sharif.

Iran's governing council may be fanatical, but they're certainly not stupid.

The United States has repeatedly threatened to invade Iran, list them as part of the axis of evil, invaded their next door neighbour, and have huge military forces deployed in Iraq and Saudi Arabia. Condoleezza Rice has given assurances that a military attack by the United States on Iran "is simply not on the agenda at this point. This is less than reassuring as it suggests a scheduling problem that has still to be worked out. Pakistan, Israel, India, and the US have nuclear weapons and the Central Asian Republics are said to have some loose nukes running around as well. A failure of the Iranians to react to all of this is not a realistic expectation.

Iran is surrounded by nuclear powers. The Iranian government believes that one of the reasons that the US went to war in Iraq was to complete the encirclement of Iran by American forces, some of which are present in the Central Asian Republics, in Afghanistan and in Pakistan, in the Gulf states, and in Iraq. From 1980 until 1988, Iran fought a war against Iraq, with the Iraqi's using chemical weapons largely developed with aid from the west and assistance via the American proxies of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. For obvious reasons the europeans and Americans now waxing poetic about the evils of possessing weapons of mass destruction rings hollow in their ears.

Military intervention in Iran would be a disaster of epic proportions. The Iranians used mass infantry assaults against Iraq with a tremendous cost in lives. Iran is a nation of close to 70 million people and it would require a huge army to occupy that nation. The mention of American threats to Iran is a negative factor as it changes the internal issue from one of opposition to the government, to loyalty to one's nation and people. Despite the democratic aspirations of young iranians they are loyal to their nation. Such threats are welcomed by the radical clerics as they help to bolster the image they have of a belligerent America hostile to Iran and helps to short circuit the reformers programs. A war against Iran is a war against the people of Iran and they will respond accordingly. The question is, do we actually want to accomplish something useful here?

Even diehard opponents of the Iranian regime would become our enemy.

" As far as the Islamic Republic of Iran is concerned, people have 25 years experience of this most brutal oppression in Iran and for them, the regime must go. But not through US intervention."
Hamid Taqvaee, is the leader of the Worker-Communist Party of Iran

Needless to say that Communists and Fundamentalist clerics are not real friendly.

Furthermore any such attack would run into problems on the ground with Iraq's growing ties with the government of Iran. Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim Jaafari made a trip to Iran, where he laid a wreath at the tomb of the Ayatollah Khomeini, signed an economic cooperation pact involving Iraq's oil fields and Iranian refining facilities. Ayatollah Sistani of Iraq has met with the Iranian foreign minister in may of 2005, but he hasn't bothered to meet with the Americans. Not a good sign.

Iraq's new defense minister, Saadoun Dulaimi also visited Iran in July 2005, for talks regarding the border and said in a joint press conference with Iranian Defence Minister Adm Ali Shamkhani“Nobody can dictate to Iraq its relations with other countries”. Also under discussion was an “Iran- Iraq military Cooperation agreement” which would involve provision of Iranian military training assistance and Iranian military assistance for upgrading Iraq’s armed forces. The failure of the United States to make any effort in this regard has not helped matters. There is no Iraqi Air Force worthy of the name, the former Iraqi tank holdings captured during the war were destroyed for no good reason and charity donations from Hungary and the UAE have exceeded American help in this regard. AFAIK there is not a single American tank in the Iraqi inventory. The story is the same for fighter jets. The Iraqis have no military equipment to speak of so how exactly are they ever going to be ready to defend themselves?

Gulf newspapers quoting sources close to the Iraqi Prime Minister claimed that the Iraqi Prime Minister and Iraqi Defence Minister would be offering pledges to Iran, that Iraqi soil would not be allowed to be used for any United States attacks on Iran. The US has deposed the Sunni minority government from power and replaced them with the Shia's. It is Iran that holds the political and religious allegiance of the Shia leadership and the loyalty of the Shia majority.

To be blunt the US has no real military options for attacking Iran. Iran would strike back hard if attacked and they have most of the advantages in such a confrontation. The Iranian army would not be any real problem in the short term. However, American ground forces are tied down in Iraq and Iranian influence with the Shia groups in Iraq would probably mean that those forces would need to be increased in the event of an attack. A limited US attack against just the reactors would leave Iran the option of supplying the insurgents with equipment and supplies. They could also move "volunteers" into Iraq and Afghanistan as well and begin extensive support for worldwide terror groups. Realistically, American options at this point are somewhat limited.

IMO we suffer from seeing Iran as they were 20 years ago rather than what they are. This is the sort of mistake that we can ill afford to make. I don't think we can stop them and if we cannot we need to consider what is in our best interests!

Sharrukin, just because they don't like Al Queda and want to rat them out, doesn't mean that Iran doesn't see a use for terrorism. They just prefer their own breed of terrorists. Or did you think Hizbollah has been acting on their own for the past 25 years?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Sharrukin, just because they don't like Al Queda and want to rat them out, doesn't mean that Iran doesn't see a use for terrorism. They just prefer their own breed of terrorists. Or did you think Hizbollah has been acting on their own for the past 25 years?

---

I am not suggesting they don't support terror groups! We do the same and 911 hasn't changed that. Their interests and ours are closer than most nations in the regions including many we call allies. We should act accordingly!

I still think Nuclear Energy is a good direction.

Also, it would appear from this article, enriching Uranium to produce more U-235 instead of U-238 is a good step in producing uranium fuel. It would appear, spent fuel is used for "plutonium" production, i.e. nuclear weapons. If this next step can be monitored, what it wrong with this. Iran is a different country that it was when in setup the "hizbollah" initially. Does it still support them ? Is there recent proof of this ?