Iranian President makes clear why Iran would be a responsible nuclear power

[Odin]

dp

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by GePap


Given Bush is dangerously close to being a lame duck, the answer is certainly NO.

Nothing to do with Bush - military options are on the table whether Bush is in power or not. Go and have a look at what happened to Iraq's reactor. WOOSHKA!

[DinoDoc]

[Alexander's Horse]

Here's an article which clearly sets out what's at stake.

http://www.slate.com/id/2118236/#ContinueArticle

The Iranian situation could make Iraq look like child's play.

The Bush administration is insisting—and rightly so—that any accord with Iran must, at minimum, prohibit the enrichment of uranium. Yes, enrichment is allowed by the NPT; yes, other nations do it for their commercial power plants (France, Japan, the U.S.). But too bad for the Iranians. The Iranians kept Natanz a secret; the rest of the world found out about it, in August 2002, only after an Iranian-resistance group revealed its existence. That alone puts the Iranians in violation of the NPT. When international inspectors went to look inside the plant, they found traces of highly enriched uranium on the centrifuges. The Iranians, plainly, cannot be trusted to abide by the spirit of the treaty.

The Iranians say they want enrichment strictly for energy—implausible, given all their oil, which they could extract much more cheaply. Why do they want nuclear weapons? The usual reasons: to deter an attack (from, to name a few, Israel, the United States, perhaps a resurgent Iraq); to provide a cover for their own expansionist aims (if Saddam Hussein had built a few nukes before he invaded Kuwait in 1991, the U.S. and its coalition might have been more reticent in pushing him back); or simply to gain prestige. The presently reigning mullahs aren't unique in this regard. Our great ally the Shah of Iran wanted nuclear bombs (Nixon promised to sell him any weapon short of nukes to keep his ambitions at bay).

But the mullahs make the situation worse. Israel's intelligence service has declared an Iranian A-bomb to be the greatest threat the nation has ever faced. Israel's defense minister has said, "Under no circumstances would Israel be able to tolerate nuclear weapons in Iranian possession." In the past few years, the Israeli air force has equipped its attack planes with external fuel tanks; its modified F-15 and F-16 aircraft now have the range to reach Iran. They have rehearsed bombing-raids on replicas of Iranian reactors, which have been erected in the Negev desert for that purpose.

Seymour Hersh has famously reported in The New Yorker that high-level Pentagon officials have drawn up plans to attack Iranian facilities. A year ago, the U.S. House of Representatives approved, 376-3, a resolution "to use all appropriate means to deter, dissuade, and prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons."

In short, if Iran goes through with its plans, all hell could break loose. Last fall, the American Conservative published a nightmare scenario: Israel strikes the Iranian facilities; huge protests erupt; embassies are ransacked worldwide; Iran instructs Hezbollah forces in Lebanon to cross the Israeli border; fundamentalists demand that Saudi Arabia declare war on Israel; al-Qaida sympathizers in Pakistan overthrow Musharraf, place nuclear weapons onboard passenger planes, and order suicide-bombers to crash them into cities in Israel, the United States, or both.

There's one point which is not clear in the above. The NPT article 4 rights to peaceful use of nuclear energy are not unconditional as the Iranians claim and the US and others have the right to take Iran to the Security Council now because Iran is already in breach of its inspection obligations.

[Colon™]

In short, if Iran goes through with its plans, all hell could break loose. Last fall, the American Conservative published a nightmare scenario: Israel strikes the Iranian facilities; huge protests erupt; embassies are ransacked worldwide; Iran instructs Hezbollah forces in Lebanon to cross the Israeli border; fundamentalists demand that Saudi Arabia declare war on Israel; al-Qaida sympathizers in Pakistan overthrow Musharraf, place nuclear weapons onboard passenger planes, and order suicide-bombers to crash them into cities in Israel, the United States, or both.

Crap.

It's fair to worry about a backlash, especially wrt Iraq, but that is just baseless scaremongering.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
There's one point which is not clear in the above. The NPT article 4 rights to peaceful use of nuclear energy are not unconditional as the Iranians claim and the US and others have the right to take Iran to the Security Council now because Iran is already in breach of its inspection obligations.

I have never said anything about Iran not being taken to the UNSC. They probably will be taken there and should for violating the NPT. Of course, 1> they will not be sanctioned in any meaningful way due to the Russians and Chinese if the Iranians play their cards right, and no state can be prevented form getting nuclear energy as long as they meet the inspections regime.

So all the Iranians have to do is take thier medicine form the SC and allow for inspections, and then continue their process.

As for air attacks on Iranian facilities- air attacks would be a failure- beyond the unlikelyhood of doing any permanent damage to the Iranian program (at best a delay of a few years), it would strengthen the hand of the hard liners in Iran. Negative PR effects would be greater if done by Israel, of course.

The simple fact is this- If Iran wants nukes (and they probably due) the only thing than can stop them is the installation of a regime that does not want them (and no one is going to invade Iran and try regime change from the outside) or nuclear annahilation, whihc is not in the cards.

That is what it boils down to- no state that wants nukes can really be stopped from getting them unless you can make sure they can't get any Uranium, and I believe the Iranians may have their own mines. Otherwise, the technology is out there. Given that the three states that refused to sign on to the NPT became nuclear and have suffered no negative consequences, I fail to see why any revisionist state in the system would not make the rational choice of seeking a nuclear deterrent.

[Colon™]

Originally posted by Colon


Crap.

It's fair to worry about a backlash, especially wrt Iraq, but that is just baseless scaremongering.

Especially this assumed-as-fact Al Quada-Iran link. I thought we had established by now that Iran has little to nothing to do with AQ nor with other SA-type fundies. You're falling for propaganda crap horsey.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by GePap


I have never said anything about Iran not being taken to the UNSC.

My post wasn't addressed to you.

The simple fact is this- If Iran wants nukes (and they probably due) the only thing than can stop them is the installation of a regime that does not want them (and no one is going to invade Iran and try regime change from the outside) or nuclear annahilation, whihc is not in the cards.

That isn't fact, its your opinion. There are many scenarios in between the two poles you describe as the only alternatives.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Odin

The West = Western Civilization = Europe (including Russia), Israel, the Americas, Austraslia, and New Zealand. That doesn't seem to hard to define.

I can take any group of countries and give them a name.

In order to be worthwhile a term like "Western Civilization" has to have more content than "Countries that are currently run by white people doing what I like".

Israel is in no way part of Western Civilization, or if it is, so are the Muslims.

Too often "Western Civilization" is just the new, politically correct, term for Christendom. Even that is stupid. In most modern European countries religion plays such a marginal role in public life that the idea of Christendom has lost all meaning.

When people like George Bush appeal to Western Civilzation, he's trying to assert a fundamental commonality with people who don't really like him or the mediaeval worldview he stands for.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
Here's an article which clearly sets out what's at stake.

http://www.slate.com/id/2118236/#ContinueArticle

The Iranian situation could make Iraq look like child's play.

There's one point which is not clear in the above. The NPT article 4 rights to peaceful use of nuclear energy are not unconditional as the Iranians claim and the US and others have the right to take Iran to the Security Council now because Iran is already in breach of its inspection obligations.

Who cares? The rules are bent anyway. All that horse**** about eventually giving them up.

If the Iranians want nuclear weapons they have as much right to them as everyone else: that is, no right at all. If they do nuke Israel and Israel retailates, then that kills two birds with one stone: we get rid of two nuisance countries that no-one particularly likes.

But it's hypocrisy for countries like Britain to get up in arms about this. Britain has a nuclear arsenal that serves absolutely no purpose other than to suck up public funds. Britain is a formerly relevant paper tiger, a joke country that is full of silly people. I happen to be a Brit (dual citizen) and I don't think anyone should listen to the UK any more than they listen to the government of Malawi.

And for the record Horsie, Australia's defence policy is a joke. We snicker about it all the time across the Tasman: about how your country doesn't have the gumption to tell the Americans to get ****ed.

[Drake Tungsten]

Ah, Aggie.

[Az]

Israel is in no way part of Western Civilization, or if it is, so are the Muslims.

[Zevico]

Israel is in no way part of Western Civilization, or if it is, so are the Muslims.

Score Breakdown:
-3 for "The Muslims"
-3 for "Hilarity"
-1 --Marker's Tilt
Total: 3/10. You Can Do Better Than This.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Colon


You're falling for propaganda crap horsey.

Where did I say I agreed with it?

And Aggie you'll be pleased to know your government's new Foreign Minister Winston Peters wants to revive the US Alliance. Have a nice day.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Agathon


I can take any group of countries and give them a name.

In order to be worthwhile a term like "Western Civilization" has to have more content than "Countries that are currently run by white people doing what I like".

They all have a distintive worldview given by the Rennesaince, the Scientific Revolution, and the Enlightenment. Most good history books I have read refer to Western Civilization as a distintive historical entity.