Iran takes one more BIG step...

[Ramo]

Didnt the euros just offer this a couple of days ago, to be told by Ahmadinajad that they were treating Iran like a 4 year old, to be handed candy and walnuts?

I wasn't aware of the offer, but not exactly. The Euros offered (as Kaak said) light water reactors. Light water reactors do rely on enriched uranium, and they wanted Russia to enrich the uranium. Needless ot say, Putin's goodwill isn't exactly the soundest basis for your energy supply.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ramo

Didnt the euros just offer this a couple of days ago, to be told by Ahmadinajad that they were treating Iran like a 4 year old, to be handed candy and walnuts?

I wasn't aware of the offer, but not exactly. The Euros offered (as Kaak said) light water reactors. Light water reactors do rely on enriched uranium, and they wanted Russia to enrich the uranium. Needless ot say, Putin's goodwill isn't exactly the soundest basis for your energy supply.

IIUC the EU offered to guarantee the supply of enriched Uranium themselves. Iran could choose to buy from Russia, but the EU would insure they were not cut off.

AFAIK no nuclear energy program of the limited size of Irans does its own enrichment. Enrichment has high fixed costs, and is only economically justified by a large number of nuclear plants. Most smaller programs rely on imported enriched uranium. Trade in enriched Uranium is routine, and having own enrichment plants is NOT a normal component of energy security.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap
As a soverign nation Iran can develop any weapon that it has through international agreement surrendered the right to build. Iran has as much a right to have ballistic missiles as any other state does.

Iran probably is aiming to get nuclear weapons. It is using the guise of the NPT to get the technology it needs to speed up the process. But ssimply stated, if Iran wants nukes and wants to do it legally, all it needs to do is leave the NPT.

IIUC, this is not at all clear in legal terms. Its obvious that one could use the NPT to gain tech, and then leave it and build a bomb, so its not universally held that you can just "leave the NPT".

[lord of the mark]

the position of France on withdrawl from the NPT

hat tip to patrick clawson.

"Faced with Iranian leaders’ threat to leave the NPT if the West presses too hard about Iran’s nuclear program, now is the time to have the UN Security Council (UNSC) make clear the serious consequences of withdrawal. The toughest – and cleverest – position has come from France, which has framed the issue in a way well designed to secure support at the Security Council, namely, as simply reaffirming existing international law. France’s exact wording is, "Without prejudice to other measures that the UNSC may decide, a State that withdraws should – in any case – no longer make use of all nuclear materials, facilities, equipment or technologies acquired in a third country before its withdrawal. Such facilities, equipment and nuclear material should be returned to the supplying State, frozen or dismantled under international verification." As a practical matter, this would mean that if Iran withdraws from the NPT, it has to dismantle or freeze the Bushehr power plant – which would be a heavy blow to the Islamic Republic, having invested so much political capital in Bushehr. France has also proposed clarifying, "In accordance with international law, a State that withdraws from the NPT (Article X) remains responsible for violations committed while still a party to the Treaty." These suggestions should be acted upon without delay."

[Kaak]

BOOM BOOM BOOM....hehe they are in trouble

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
This is about how much anyone that matters cares about Iran's supposed "right" to build nukes:

.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Kaak
BOOM BOOM BOOM....hehe they are in trouble

I am amused at the lack of political wisdom of a great number of US convervatives. They make Mr George W Bush look enlightened.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Kaak
BOOM BOOM BOOM....hehe they are in trouble

How sad.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


IIUC, this is not at all clear in legal terms. Its obvious that one could use the NPT to gain tech, and then leave it and build a bomb, so its not universally held that you can just "leave the NPT".

To be fair it wasn't universally held that the US could leave the ABM treaty with Russia either. One could say this action set a sort of precedent or at least prevents the US from objecting when other countries decide to unilaterally withdraw from inconvenient treaties.

Of course in this case I hope someone will be able to explain how the comparison doesn't hold up. I never liked the ABM treaty.

[Thorn]

I heard that Iran is threating Yugoslavia, what idiots they are...... what next?!

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Thorn
I heard that Iran is threating Yugoslavia, what idiots they are...... what next?!

that makes no sense at all. Where did you hear it? radio? TV? friend?

i bet there was a misunderstanding.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


IIUC, this is not at all clear in legal terms. Its obvious that one could use the NPT to gain tech, and then leave it and build a bomb, so its not universally held that you can just "leave the NPT".

You always have the right to leave a treaty. There is nothing in international law theory that would make a state bound to an agreement it no longer wished to be part of. There is no authority above a soverign state unless that state agrees to have someone over them. Nothing.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
the position of France on withdrawl from the NPT

hat tip to patrick clawson.

"Faced with Iranian leaders’ threat to leave the NPT if the West presses too hard about Iran’s nuclear program, now is the time to have the UN Security Council (UNSC) make clear the serious consequences of withdrawal. The toughest – and cleverest – position has come from France, which has framed the issue in a way well designed to secure support at the Security Council, namely, as simply reaffirming existing international law. France’s exact wording is, "Without prejudice to other measures that the UNSC may decide, a State that withdraws should – in any case – no longer make use of all nuclear materials, facilities, equipment or technologies acquired in a third country before its withdrawal. Such facilities, equipment and nuclear material should be returned to the supplying State, frozen or dismantled under international verification." As a practical matter, this would mean that if Iran withdraws from the NPT, it has to dismantle or freeze the Bushehr power plant – which would be a heavy blow to the Islamic Republic, having invested so much political capital in Bushehr. France has also proposed clarifying, "In accordance with international law, a State that withdraws from the NPT (Article X) remains responsible for violations committed while still a party to the Treaty." These suggestions should be acted upon without delay."

France's position is as relevant to the discussion as North Korea's position on leaving the NPT, which they did, no problem. Again, no state can be forced to be part of a treaty. There would be no possible neforcement mechanism.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by GePap


France's position is as relevant to the discussion as North Korea's position on leaving the NPT, which they did, no problem. Again, no state can be forced to be part of a treaty. There would be no possible neforcement mechanism.

isn't the standard enforcment mechanism that other countries then use the treaty abandonment as diplomatic cover for their aggression against the offending treaty renouncer?

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Geronimo
isn't the standard enforcment mechanism that other countries then use the treaty abandonment as diplomatic cover for their aggression against the offending treaty renouncer?

Well, yes, but it seems likely that developing nuclear weapons will eventually be a suitable diplomatic cover, whether or not treaty-breaking is also applicable. The charge of developing biological/chemical weapons proved to be cover enough for the Iraq affair.