BBC

So, the best idea I've managed to come up with for Iran at this point, if they continue to be nonresponsive to sanctions, is to offer them a choice.

On the one hand, our demands are large, but fairly simple:

-We want them to cease enriching uranium until the IAEA and UN are satisfied that their nuclear program is indeed purely peaceful and NPT compliant.

-We want them to cease their support for terrorism, including but not limited to their assistance to Hezbollah and the Iraqi insurgency.

-Ideally, we'd also like to bring them in as a cooperating party to peace negotiations over Israel and as part of the state-building effort in Iraq.

In return, I see no reason we can't offer all of the following:

-Restoration of full diplomatic recognition and relations with the United States.

-As generous a trade agreement as they're willing to take and we have the power to offer, including the lifting of all sanctions, full access to US markets, our backing for membership into the WTO, etc.

-Economic and development assistance from the United States, including technical and financial assistance for creating an Iranian nuclear power infrastructure under the terms of the NPT.

-A full apology from the United States for our abuse of their nation and people in the past. I'm sure we can probably wrangle a similar statement from the British as well.


Now, these kinds of terms are a hell of a lot better than we've been offering in the past, but it's what we should be giving them, they're incredibly beneficial not only for them, but for us as well. We want Iran to be a wealthy nation fully part of the of the international diplomatic and economic community, we just want them to be there as a peaceful nation without nuclear weapons.

Such an offer should be so generous that Tehran would be unlikely to turn us down for anything. But just to be sure, there needs to be a caveat. We have to threaten, and threaten credibly, a military response if they refuse. Diplomacy without power behind it is useless anyway, but we've got to be prepared to fight a war against Iran, to destroy their nuclear program, to embargo all trade with the outside world, etc. if it comes to that.

Iran would not accept that, and indeed they have every right to reject such an offer as it is their right to enrich Uranium under the NPT.

So far, Iran has allowed IAEA inspections (even under the Additional Protocol which Iran signed in December 2003) and the IAEA has found no evidence of a nuclear weapons programme.

Why can't the West accept this?

Greed is undoubtedly involved, amongst other issues.

The real targets of the Bush administration's nuclear
shenanigans are the economies of developing countries. The late 20th
century was an amazing period of growth and human achievement, much of
it fuelled by cheap oil from the Middle East, where it was directly or
indirectly monopolised by the imperial powers. Analysts agree that the
oil will not last forever, indeed, we may already have reached the
point of peak oil. The developing world will bear the brunt of the
imminent energy crunch. European countries already rely on nuclear
power for a third to a half of their electricity needs, and both France
and the US have invested in new enrichment plants. South Korea, China,
Britain and the US have all recently announced plans for dramatic
expansion of their nuclear power industries. Even Rice has conceded
that developing countries will have to turn to nuclear energy (10).

Iran is no exception. Despite its large oil and gas reserves, it
already had a clear case for diversifying its energy resources into
nuclear power by the 1970s. Since then its population has tripled,
while its oil production has almost halved, and it now consumes about
40% of its oil domestically. So when Bush jovially quips "Some of us
are wondering why they need civilian nuclear power anyway. They are
awash with hydrocarbons" (11), he is being disingenuous.

Iran has a legitimate economic case for using nuclear power, and the
means to manufacture the necessary fuel domestically. It also has the
legal right to do so. But the US and the European Union demand that
Iran and other countries abandon any indigenous capabilities and rely
solely on western fuel suppliers to power their economy. This is like
Iran demanding that Britain drop all exploitation of North Sea oil and
rely solely on the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries for
its energy needs. Under the guise of non-proliferation, the EU and the
US are not only undermining the grand bargain between nuclear-armed and
non-nuclear armed states that is the NPT; they also want to create an
underclass of nuclear energy have-nots, concentrating what could become
the world's sole major source of energy in the hands of the few
nations that have granted themselves the right to it.

Iran presents a convenient opportunity to set a precedent to be used
against other aspirants for nuclear power in the developing world. That
is why Ahmadinejad was denounced as an uncompromising hardliner in the
coverage of his UN presentation. But he did in fact suggest a
compromise deal. While defending Iran's sovereign right to produce
nuclear power using indigenously enriched uranium, and enumerating the
reasons why Iran cannot rely on promises of foreign-supplied reactor
fuel to power its economy, he proposed to operate Iran's enrichment
programme as joint ventures with private and public sector firms from
other countries, to ensure that the programme remained transparent and
could not be secretly diverted for military purposes. This was no small
offer. It closely resembled a proposal previously put to the IAEA by a
committee of experts looking into the risk that nuclear technology
developed for peaceful purposes might be diverted to non-peaceful uses
(12).

Instead of discussing this proposal, or looking for any workable
solution, US, Israeli and EU officials continue to insist that the only
acceptable objective guarantee of non-proliferation is to close what
they describe as the loophole in Article IV of the treaty. These
countries want to see the article re-interpreted to deny developing
nations the right to indigenous nuclear enrichment technology. There
has been a flurry of activity by US-based analysts and thinktanks
seeking to legitimise this approach by characterising Article IV as too
vaguely worded to be taken seriously. The EU's foreign affairs
spokesman, Robert Cooper, opts for outright denial: "There is no such
right" (13).

This is a problematic interpretation of the treaty. If the right to
enrich uranium is either non-existent or too vaguely stated in the NPT,
then by what right do signatory nations such as Japan enrich uranium?
For US pundits, the answer to this is: "Iran is not Japan. Japan
recognises all its neighbours; Iran does not accept the existence of
Israel" (14). Since when was the exercise of an inalienable right
conditional on the recognition of Israel? The suggestion is ironic:
Israel is a nuclear-armed non-signatory to the NPT, and regularly
threatens to bomb Iran's civilian nuclear sites.

Le Monde; Iran needs nuclear energy, not weapons

How can the US ask Iran to cease Iranian support for "terrorism" when Washington supports the Jundallah in their attacks against Iranians?

The hypocrisy of the West is a massively significant factor in this whole fiasco.

Do you think the Iranians will accept the US occupation of Iraq?

That is what they will be legitimising if they aided Washington's rebuilding of Iraq.

On the topic of Israel, I do not think the Zionist neo-Cons would accept any Iranian input in potential peace talks, so such a condition is basically unrealistic.

Pigs will fly before such a thing occurs.

The US and Britain are too arrogant to muster up any form of apology to the Iranian people.

Many (if not all) of the terms you mentioned have been offered before.

For example, the terms of the Paris Agreement included the "active support" of the E3/EU in the "opening of Iranian accession negotiations at the WTO". Of course, the Paris Agreement fell through because the Europeans were demanding what was essentially a complete cessation of Uranium enrichment by Iran.

Maybe you want that, but the folks in Washington sure do not.

They want Iran to conform to their rules.

So you would support an attack on the Iranians simply because the West does not like the fact that they are exercising their right as a sovereign nation to enrich Uranium?

The NPT obligates them to accept that. Article III:

1. Each non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes to accept safeguards, as set forth in an agreement to be negotiated and concluded with the International Atomic Energy Agency in accordance with the Statute of the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Agencys safeguards system, for the exclusive purpose of verification of the fulfillment of its obligations assumed under this Treaty with a view to preventing diversion of nuclear energy from peaceful uses to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices. Procedures for the safeguards required by this article shall be followed with respect to source or special fissionable material whether it is being produced, processed or used in any principal nuclear facility or is outside any such facility. The safeguards required by this article shall be applied to all source or special fissionable material in all peaceful nuclear activities within the territory of such State, under its jurisdiction, or carried out under its control anywhere.

Until they allow verification, they're in violation of the treaty.

Because it isn't true. Iran has signed the Additional Protocol, but is not in compliance with it, as with the rest of the NPT. May I refer you to paragraph G.27 of the IAEA's latest report:

The Agency is able to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran. The Agency remains unable, however, to make further progress in its efforts to verify fully the past development of Iran’s nuclear programme and certain aspects relevant to its scope and nature. Hence, the Agency is unable to verify the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran unless Iran addresses the long outstanding verification issues through the implementation of the Additional Protocol (which it signed on 18 December 2003, but has not yet brought into force) and the required transparency measures.

http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents.../gov2007-08.pdf

Iran continues to stall on allowing verification. If the nuclear program really is entirely peaceful, they need to allow the world to be sure of it, or there will be problems.

Sure, and that needs to stop too. But those actions aren't an excuse for Iran's any more than Iran's are an excuse for us.

US occupation of Iraq is the reality, whether they like it or not, but Iran's cooperation would certainly make it easier for us to leave.

Oh, I think that's about the easiest term in the whole package. We're really not so arrogant and stupid as you'd like to think, in the same way that Iran isn't so evil as many Americans like to think.

In their present manner? Yes.

Yerr, and actually Iran recently decided to suspend some of the key provisions of the treaty:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/03/25/...r.ap/index.html

The Iranians are allowing inspections of all their nuclear facilities.

They even suspended enrichment processes voluntarily during talks with Britain, France and Germany, who agreed to continue negotiations in good faith for the sake of an agreement that "will provide objective guarantees that Iran's nuclear programme is exclusively for peaceful purposes", as well as giving "firm guarantees on nuclear, technological and economic cooperation and firm commitments on security issues."

These negotiations, however, were brought down because the EU3 could not provide Iran with guarantees on security-related issues without also securing US guarantees for the same. Moreover, not only were US guarantees never forthcoming, but Washington (and Israel) escalated their threats against Iran.

The inspections are happening, but Western pressure is obstructing the smooth progress of the verification process. Just like with Iraq, the US is in a rush to attack Iran, instead of allowing the IAEA and Iran to continue the necessary checks.

The Iranians are not in violation of the NPT.

It is their "inalienable right" to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, as long as they are conforming to Articles I and II.

There is no evidence that Iran has violated Articles I and II.

Wrong.

It is very much a fact that there has been no evidence of an Iranian nuclear weapons programme.

Washington's assertion that Iran has a programme intended for the production of nuclear weapons is absolute rubbish.

Back in 1995, Thomas Graham (Washington's chief negotiator for the extension of the NPT) had to admit that the US had seen no evidence of an existing nuclear weapons programme in Iran.

Recently, the UN itself has stated that US data on the Iranian nuclear project is unreliable (Link).

The IAEA, as your excerpt clearly shows, has found no evidence of any diversion of nuclear material into a weapons programme by Iran.

Throughout this whole fiasco, the US has focused upon Iran's alleged "foot-dragging" on inspections, kind of like what happened with Iraq.

Just like with Iraq, the US-led allegations and inspections regime channelled through the IAEA have focused on Iran's parallel failure to disprove a negative.

Iran, according to the West, must prove that it is not secretly engaging in practices that are prohibited under the NPT and subsequent Safeguards Agreement (May 15th 1974), as well as the Additional Protocols (signed December 18th 2003, though only observed "on a voluntary basis" so far).

Indeed, throughout all of the allegations and inspections to which the IAEA has now subjected Iran, the IAEA has repeatedly (as your excerpt also clearly reflects) adopted phraseology to the effect that the IAEA is "unable to confirm the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities inside Iran".

Such expression is an inherently politicised condition that no state would be capable of meeting, no matter what it agreed to do, and whose application depends on the strength of the political forces (the US) that pressure the IAEA to continue the search.

With enough political pressure, no amount of "transparency measures" on the part of Iran will satisfy Washington, as was evident in the Iraq case. As long as the IAEA continues to report that it is unable to confirm the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities inside Iran, Iran is helpless before the IAEA's negative condition.

If it was not so frighteningly real, this would be hilarious.

Hold on, Washington is the regime which is pressing the allegations and also threatening to attack Iran.

Indeed, whilst the US arms and funds Israel, why is it wrong for Iran to support groups like Hizbullah and Hamas in a similar fashion?

It is my belief that the US will not leave unless they are forced to do so by the Iraqis themselves.

Bush and Blair will not apologise for what they have done to Iraq.

Therefore I doubt very much they would apologise to Iran for the roles played by the US and UK in oppressing the Iranian people.

People like you are a threat to the world.

So, tell me, why does the IAEA--the inspectors themselves--disagree?

Sorry, you can't rationally twist reality that way. What's obstructing the inspections is Iran's obstructionist policies. As the IAEA continues to complain, they are not allowing the inspectors to do their job.

Because they are violating Article III.

You can't pick and choose which parts of a treaty you want to conform to. The NPT does grant them the right the right to peacefully develop nuclear weapons, but requires that peaceful intent to be verifiable by the IAEA and the UN. So long as Iran is not allowing this verification, they are in violation of their treaty obligations and can't claim protection under the same treaty.

Oh? I do believe you said: "So far, Iran has allowed IAEA inspections (even under the Additional Protocol which Iran signed in December 2003) and the IAEA has found no evidence of a nuclear weapons programme."

Which is quite the contrary of the IAEA's contention: "...unless Iran addresses the long outstanding verification issues through the implementation of the Additional Protocol (which it signed on 18 December 2003, but has not yet brought into force) and the required transparency measures."

So, unless you're now going to claim that the IAEA is lying, I have to say that you're the one who is--completely--wrong here.

And it's also very much a fact that Iran is interfering with the investigation that would determine whether such evidence exists. As such, we can't conclude anything from the lack of discovered evidence. Proof of Iranian good intentions requires full cooperation with the IAEA.

And back in 2002 we found out they'd been hiding nuclear facilities from the world, didn't we? That's not the least bit suspicious.

Right, we don't know for sure what they're doing. That's why we've been demanding that they cease and desist and allow IAEA inspections to find out.

And, as the excerpt clearly shows, the IAEA has been unable to make any satisfactory conclusions because, say it with me, Iran is not cooperating with inspections. Let me reiterate that paragraph, but I'll take out the first sentence since it seems to be distracting you:

The Agency remains unable, however, to make further progress in its efforts to verify fully the past development of Iran’s nuclear programme and certain aspects relevant to its scope and nature. Hence, the Agency is unable to verify the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran unless Iran addresses the long outstanding verification issues through the implementation of the Additional Protocol (which it signed on 18 December 2003, but has not yet brought into force) and the required transparency measures.

Oh, and here's paragraph G.29, just in case you didn't get it the first time:

As underscored by the Director General at the meeting of the Board of Governors in November 2006 (GOV/OR. 1174, paras 86–94), given the existence in Iran of activities undeclared to the Agency for 20 years, it is necessary for Iran to enable the Agency, through maximum cooperation and transparency, to fully reconstruct the history of Iran’s nuclear programme. Without such cooperation and transparency, the Agency will not be able to provide assurances about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran or about the exclusively peaceful nature of that programme.

http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents.../gov2007-08.pdf

We're not asking Iran to prove a negative. We're asking them to allow inspections of known suspicious activities, and the IAEA thus to determine the existence or nonexistence of positive proof.

As required by the same NPT, yes.

Which is why I've never claimed that Iran is making nuclear weapons, only that they're violating the Non-Proliferation Treaty in a way that creates a good amount of reasonable suspicion that they might be. I can't say that lack of certainty is comforting.

Nah, they could implement the Additional Protocol and give the IAEA the cooperation and access that it's asking for. It is not Iran, as you're trying to claim, that is being asked to prove compliance; that's the IAEA's job. It is Iran's responsibility to cooperate with that investigative authority, and that is where they're failing.





I'm not going to go off in this thread about irrelevant discussions of who is and who is not a terrorist organization, so we'll leave the rest of your rather weak statements to another time.

Well said.


Yet on another note, you might have picked up on how long centerfuges have to spin the nuclear core material for high-grade weaponry. Recent estimates on news media suggests they may have enough fuges up and running to have enough for 1 nuclear warhead. Earlier estimates from online sources (will need to re-research links) indicated they had enough for 4 to 5 at best.

If you think of the expense to enrich the material enough, how much Uranium ore they'll have to go through.. as well as the energy, maintenance, manpower and know-how... you'll probably figure out that Iran could probably manage to buy "black" or "grey" market nuclear warheads a heck of a lot cheaper. Which would be to my guess not very likely since Iran won't support any pure terroristic organizations for which they'd have no control over.

Yes, Iran should look to allowing inspections. Heck, they can even throw out the NPT if they want, they are a sovereign nation and if enduring pressure from around the world is their preference, so be it. Halfway allowing the inspection process to occur only makes their efforts seem all the more sinister. But you also have to realize that there should be some understanding that a U.N. inspection team shouldn't have total carte-blanche.

That is kind of like the power game wardens/rangers have in the U.S. They do not need search-and-seizure warrants to enter your home or take away your weapons or any vehicles in which they are carried. They just need probably cause. Which is not something any nation would want to happen from a national security standpoint. Heck, we don't exactly want a U.N. inspection team to enter any of our private, high-security facilities unless it is a "guided" tour and time is given to secret away and pertinent documents related or unrelated to the field of nuclear development programmes.

No one thinks they've got a bomb yet, nor that they are really capable of producing one for another few years at least. The problem is that they shouldn't be on a path to building a bomb at all, ever, but there are unresolved fears that they are.

I've also always been rather suspicious of the suggestions that it would take any nation several years to produce a bomb. The United States built an atomic bomb in under 6 years, in secret, and with significantly less industrial resources and scientific and technical knowledge than is available to most "third world" nations today.

There wouldn't be any point to it. The goal of the NPT and the IAEA is to stop the further proliferation of nuclear weapons. We've already got them, as do several other nations, most of whom are also permitted them by the NPT. Where the IAEA does engage with us and the other big-5 nations, it's to make sure we aren't breaking our own treaty obligations by assisting other nations in developing nukes. This is why the IAEA has been, quite rightfully, pissed at the United States for our nuclear cooperation with India.

If the US were to disarm and destroy its nuclear stockpile, then there would be good reason for more detailed inspection of the US nuclear program, and I would absolutely support such inspections.


National sovereignty is not a good excuse for noncooperation with international safeguards against the proliferation of nuclear weapons, not in any circumstance, and not by any nation.

While a nation's policy of not jumping aboard with NPT treatise is about as popular as a model citizen supporting a drug cartel, national sovereignty is the right to make their own decisions. And choosing to sign onto the existing global agreements is purely up to them. Whatever is chosen, the adherence to it's terms can be seen as a "yes" or "no".

If Iran is part of the NPT, I'm not arguing they shouldn't abide by it. Yet it is like an ultimatum. If you are going to try to force them to adhere or at least revoke the treaty, you have to be prepared to do the "... or else" that typically follows one. And if it is a global treaty, that means world-wide action... not unilaterally or a U.S.-U.K. (or NATO) initiative.

And I'm not so absolutely certain that many other nations are adhering perfectly to the entire obligatory terms.

They are.

(I apologise for the late reply. I am busy with my coursework and studying for upcoming exams.)

The IAEA are not denying the fact that inspections are being allowed.

They are simply asking for some more "transparency", which is a result of pressure from the US who are alleging that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons capabilities (as for example, John Bolton has done) without any evidence whatsoever to back that up, as we have seen already.

Indeed, Iran has been punished for enriching Uranium, which is their inalienable right.

Nobody has found a shred of evidence to suggest that Iran is building nuclear weapons, which happens to be the purpose of the NPT it has signed, yet the "international community" finds a way to put sanctions on Iran.

Since when has international law been able to measure the intentions of countries and react to them, if the US says Iran intends to produce nuclear weapons? With this in mind, how come the same UN Security Council turns a blind eye to Israel, India and Pakistan, whom everyone knew had the intention of making WMD?

Indeed, none of those three countries have signed the NPT, yet their defiance is rewarded by the West. Maybe Iran should leave the NPT too, as they have understandably threatened to do.

If there are minor complaints about "transparency", then let the Iranians and the IAEA get on with the necessary checks, instead of punishing Iran for exercising their rights as a sovereign nation. It should not be surprising that a "20-year hidden nuclear programme" (I will deal with this issue later in my post) will bring up such an "unverifiable" situation.

The fact is, however, that Iran has not done anything wrong by enriching Uranium.

It is their right to do so, and the West has no right to punish them for it.

It is this kind of glaring hypocrisy that really pisses me off.

One day the US will put pressure on the IAEA in order to stop Iran from exercising their rights as a signatory of the NPT, the next they will put pressure on Iran to prove to the IAEA that they have no secret nuclear weapons programme.

Iranian intentions to obtain the full nuclear cycle date back to the 1970s, when (as you know) their nuclear energy programme was set up with the assistance of the US and other European governments.

Of course, back then the great democratic leader, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi (please note the sarcasm), was in charge of Iran when this came to fruition.

After the revolution in 1979, the Iranians decided in 1981, that they would continue the nuclear energy project. So, the following year, they announced to the world that they were planning to build a reactor powered by their own Uranium at the Isfahan nuclear technology centre.

The IAEA inspected that and other facilities in Iran in 1983, and planned to assist Iran in converting yellowcake into reactor fuel. The IAEA report stated clearly that its aim was to "contribute to the formation of local expertise and manpower needed to sustain an ambitious programme in the field of nuclear power reactor technology and fuel cycle technology".

Of course, the good ol' US of A would object and put pressure on the IAEA, so that their assistance programme would be terminated.

Ironic isn't it?

In 1984, however, Iranian radio announced that negotiations with Niger on the purchase of Uranium were nearing conclusion, and the following year another broadcast openly discussed the discovery of Uranium deposits in Iran with the director of Iran's atomic energy organisation.

Indeed, an IAEA spokesperson, Melissa Flemming, confirmed that in 1992 inspectors had visited the mines and Iran had announced plans to develop the full nuclear fuel cycle.

In fact, Iran had talked with several nations (including Russia, India and Germany) about the procurement of nuclear energy facilities and components.

Almost all of these deals fell through due to US pressure, as was the case with the Chinese in 1996, who had told the IAEA of plans to build a Uranium enrichment facility in Iran. Despite the illegal US pressure, Iran informed the IAEA that they would continue the project anyway.

So, let us be honest, Iran's nuclear programme was not as "secret" as you would have us all believe, and the reason Iran kept it as undercover as possible was due to US obstructionism.

The fact is, the USA has been obstructing (in violation of the NPT Article IV Part 2, which is not anything new as Washington is a chronic violator of the NPT) the Iranian nuclear energy programme, as well as obstructing the IAEA's efforts in making sure the Iranians have no plans to build a nuclear weapon.

Like I have already stated, if the US was really concerned with Iran's nuclear energy programme, they would not be putting unnecessary pressure on the Iranians as they try to cooperate with the IAEA. Indeed, as history shows, the US has a habit of pressuring the IAEA (eg. Iraq) so that they can build a case for war.

Everything that has occurred with regard to this issue, leads to the conclusion that Washington is only trying to soften up public opinion on a future attack against Iran.

That is for the IAEA to decide.

Of course, we know that the US has a habit of coercing nations into voting their way.

Evidence of US coercion of IAEA members against Iran revealed

So the very legitimacy of the Governors' Board of the IAEA decision to condemn Iran for apparently not meeting NPT obligations, and the very legitimacy of their decision to report Iran's file to the UN Security Council, and the subsequent passing of Resolutions 1696 and 1737, must be called into serious question.

Why doesn't the US practise what she preaches?

Washington is a chronic violator of the NPT, and you know it.

New nuclear warhead design for US

Of course, Washington argues that "replacing" existing weapons is not in violation of a treaty which explicitly calls for the disarmament of nuclear weapons (Article VI).

Added to that is the whole Trident issue here in the UK.

The West has no leg to stand on when it comes to accusing nations of violating the NPT.

If this is an issue, then let the IAEA and Iran negotiate the necessary steps required for a verification of the absence of a nuclear weapons programme.

Instead the US coerces nations into voting to condemn and report Iran to the UN Security Council so that they can pass resolutions that have a veneer of legitimacy.

The Additional Protocol that Iran signed in 2003 was never ratified. The cooperation since December 2003 with the IAEA had been of a voluntary nature, and in fact, after they were referred to the UN Security Council last year, Iran withdrew from the voluntary enforcement of the Additional Protocol, so you cannot use that (in terms of "violating the NPT") as a pretext to punish Iran.

No.

My statement goes back to the fact that you are wrong in your assumption that since the IAEA cannot verify that they have no evidence of an Iranian nuclear weapons programme the West can punish Iran.

Again, there has been no evidence whatsoever of an Iranian nuclear weapons programme, yet the Iranians are being punished.

Unlike Israel and the US, Iran has abided by the rules of the NPT, and has also allowed routine and intrusive inspections under its legal obligations - until gratuitous, punitive measures were added at the behest of Washington.

This is the issue.

How can the West punish Iran even though there has been not a single IAEA report that accuses Iran of diverting its civilian nuclear programme to some kind of military use?

It's a joke.

Maybe so, but what you also cannot do is punish Iran for Washington's so-called "worry" that Iran may (although they state that they do, without evidence to validate such a position) have the intention of building a nuclear weapon.

I have dealt with this issue at a previous point in this post.

The Iranians never truly made a secret of the fact that they were pursuing the nuclear ambitions which initially came about when the Shah was ruling the country. As I have mentioned already, the IAEA even had inspectors in Iran during the 90s.

When accusing Iran of "hiding" their nuclear project, one must (unlike what you have done) put it into the context of the US pressure that forced them to act as they did.

In fact, as I have already stated, in trying to prevent the Iranian nuclear project from progressing, the US has violated Article IV Part 2 of the NPT, which states:

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. Parties to the Treaty in a position to do so shall also cooperate in contributing alone or together with other States or international organizations to the further development of the applications of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, especially in the territories of non-nuclear-weapon States Party to the Treaty, with due consideration for the needs of the developing areas of the world.

Link

We have not seen the US being punished.

You admit that you don't know what they are doing, yet Washington has consistently accused Iran of trying to build nuclear weapons, without (as you have admitted) any evidence - whatsoever - from their very own intelligence services, let alone the IAEA.

The CIA has also stated that the Iranians are at least 10 years away from acquiring any capacity for a nuclear weapon.

The only thing that the US has done is put unnecessary pressure on the inspection process by politicising the issue. Such pressure only makes the inspection process harder.

Yes they have.

The only problem is, as the IAEA state, that since US pressure forced Iran to "hide" their nuclear programme, some things are unsurprisingly "unverifiable", for now.

US pressure on this issue is not only counter-productive, but hypocritical.

Just a sincere question:

Would you be alright with Iran if they withdrew from the NPT and then built a nuclear weapon, as Israel, India and Pakistan have all done (with no repercussions)?

The US, through the sexed-up "exposure" of the Iranian nuclear programme, has transferred the burden of proof. Tehran is being forced to refute the charge of secretly building nuclear weapons.

Iran has tried to meet the challenge by voluntarily implementing the Additional Protocol (which is no longer in force), allowing expanded inspections and even suspending Uranium enrichment.

As far back as 2003, Iran also offered negotiations - on all outstanding issues - with the US, including their nuclear project, Israel-Palestine and Hizbullah. The US, however, rejected this.

The problem is, at each stage in this showdown, the charges were simply changed, no matter how hard Iran tried to cooperate with the West.

Now the Iranians must prove the impossible:

That they do not have secret nuclear weapons facilities magically immune to years of IAEA inspections, and that they could not use legitimate nuclear technology to make weapons in the indefinite future.

This charge has been accompanied by the strong-arm tactics that the Bush administration has employed against members of the IAEA Board of Governors to have Iran referred to the UN Security Council, which eventually passed an unjustified resolution against Tehran.

If Iran cannot prove the impossible, the US will not hesitate to attack the country’s civilian nuclear sites.

You may not have, but the US has, contrary to the IAEA and their very own intelligence services, claimed that Iran is making nuclear weapons.

They have voluntarily done so already, and during those years not a shred of evidence was found to link Iran to a nuclear weapons programme.

Due to Western pressure, however, Iran chose not to apply the Additional Protocol, which has not been signed by the US, interestingly enough.

They have a right to choose not to sign and ratify the Additional Protocol, just as the US has so far chosen not to do.

The issue here has nothing to do with "concern" over Iranian intentions.

The issue is that Iran cannot and will not be allowed (contrary to their rights as a sovereign nation and signatory of the NPT) to develop a nuclear energy capability because as far as the West is concerned, such nations must remain dependent on West for their energy demands.

For the US, the primary issue in the Middle East has forever been, and remains, effective control of its substantial energy resources.

The political nature of the IAEA's treatment of Iran is apparent when compared with the contrasting treatment that was applied to South Korea and Egypt, who happen to be two allies of the US.

Both were caught red-handed conducting secret nuclear experiments over several years, yet they got no more than a slap on the wrist from the IAEA. Speculation that either country could one day build bombs or had hidden intentions did not strip them of their NPT rights.

No, they're just being hindered:

23. On 17 January 2007, the Agency received from Iran a letter informing the Agency that Iran was not in a position to approve the designation of 10 inspectors proposed as replacements for inspectors who had left the Agency and objecting to the continued designation of an additional 38 inspectors previously designated for Iran. In a Note Verbale dated 23 January 2007, the Agency expressed its regret over Iran’s decision and requested Iran to reconsider it. The Agency informed Iran that its decision would lead to diminished operational flexibility and less efficient use of resources. The Agency has received no reply from Iran in this regard.

Furthermore, as has been repeatedly pointed out, the only inspections that Iran is allowing is at "declared" nuclear facilities, which do seem benign. But Iran is not cooperating with IAEA requests to document the full extent and history of their nuclear programs, whcih would enable the inspectors to verify the existence or nonexistence of other nuclear facilities.

Nope. It's a treaty right, and then only if they meet certain other treaty obligations, which they are not.

Lack of evidence is not an indication of the lack of a program when Iran is not cooperating with the investigation. It's entirely possible that Iran is just hiding that evidence, and their continued refusal to cooperate with the IAEA only makes them seem all the more suspicious.

The simple answer is that we have veto power and they're our friends. This thread is not about other proliferators, other proliferators do not excuse Iranian proliferation. You want to go make a thread about the bad crap that other people are doing, I'll probably be on your side.

It would be viewed as an attempt by Iran to escape the NPT safeguards against nuclear weapons proliferation, since it's those safeguards which Iran is falling afoul of now while they're a member.

The dispute is hardly "minor", since the existence of a covert nuclear weapons program is at issue. The IAEA cannot do its job, which is to verify the peaceful nature of nuclear programs, so long as Iran is refusing to cooperate.

It absolutely was.

http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents.../gov2003-75.pdf

50. The recent disclosures by Iran about its nuclear programme clearly show that, in the past, Iran had concealed many aspects of its nuclear activities, with resultant breaches of its obligation to comply with the provisions of the Safeguards Agreement. Iran’s policy of concealment continued until last month, with co-operation being limited and reactive, and information being slow in coming, changing and contradictory. While most of the breaches identified to date have involved limited quantities of nuclear material, they have dealt with the most sensitive aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle, including enrichment and reprocessing. And although the materials would require further processing before being suitable for weapons purposes, the number of failures by Iran to report in a timely manner the material, facilities and activities in question as it is obliged to do pursuant to its Safeguards Agreement has given rise to serious concerns.

Any claim of US pressure to deter an Iranian nuclear program is irrelevant, it does not change Iranian treaty obligations, it does not free them to flout the verification terms of the NPT with impunity.

Oh, now Iran is trying to cooperate with the IAEA now, but the evil US isn't letting them? That's rich. Nothing the US is doing, or even anything you're claiming they've done, prevents or would have prevented Iranian cooperation and fulfillment of their obligations under the NPT.

Yeah, they already did that back in 2003:

http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents.../gov2003-75.pdf

47. Based on all information currently available to the Agency, it is clear that Iran has failed in anumber of instances over an extended period of time to meet its obligations under its Safeguards Agreement...

Oh noes! You mean we actually tried to get people to agree with us? How awful. Deal with reality, man, the IAEA is an arm of the United Nations, it is governed by a conference of nations with their own interests and biases; it is impossible for that body to be completely neutral or immune to international politics. Problem is, this is all irrelevant, it doesn't change any of Iran's obligations or the authority of the NPT and the IAEA.

You want to take that perspective, none of the Big 5 are in compliance with the NPT. I think your interpretation of Article VI is stretching it a little. I'm amused because you don't really even need to try that hard to find US violations of the NPT. We've been in gross violation of both Articles I and III since our recent agreement to assist the Indian nuclear program.

None of that, however, changes the fact of Iran's own violations.

I'm impressed by the kind of delusions to which you're giving yourself. Iran has been flouting IAEA regulations. The IAEA has told them what they must do to return to full cooperation. Iran has ignored them.

The Additional Protocols came up when you tried to use Iran's acceptance of them as proof of their cooperation. I damn well will use the fact that Iran has never abided by its terms as proof of their non-cooperation and lack of good faith in compliance measures. Their violation of Article III and outright refusal to abide by attempts to verify the supposedly peaceful nature of their nuclear program is what warrants punishment.

Oh the West can punish them whenever they please and they don't need an excuse to do it.

But Iran's tendency to ignore their obligations to provide assurances of non-proliferation is certainly a good excuse to do just that.

Again, Iran has to allow a search for that evidence before it means anything.

Spouting utter falsehoods really isn't going to get you anywhere. The IAEA, which as you've acknowledged is the judge of NPT compliance, has stated in no uncertain terms that Iran is not living up to the treaty.

Because that's not the only way a nation can violate the NPT, and as yet we're not even sure that Iran hasn't done exactly that.

Sure we can. The burden is on Iran to cooperate, they're not living up to it.

No, what they kept secret (and are still hiding) was the full extent of their program.

Nope, it's entirely irrelevant to Iran's obligations.

The US's suspicions are justified by Iranian noncompliance. But they are also not the heart of this argument. Even if Iran is not trying to build nukes, which we can't be certain of either way, they are in violation of the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty. That's a massive problem.

IAEA says the haven't. They're the authorities and you're just being wilfullly blind.

Hiding is not cooperating.

No.

Just like I am not "alright" with those three nations' allowance to proliferate more or less unchecked.

No, we're demanding that they cooperate with investigators looking for evidence of such a secret program. Iran doesn't have to prove anything itself, it does have to allow a search for proof.

They never did the first or the second, nor did they follow through with the third for any meaningful length of time.

Oh I'm perfectly willing to acknowledge that US charges are exaggerated and premature. That does not change the fact that Iran is still in very real and grave violation of the international non-proliferation regime.

It was never brought into force, they have never acceded to IAEA requests for documentation and to allow a proper investigation.

"The devil made me do it!"

Not an acceptable excuse.

They don't have the right to break their Safeguards Agreement.




There are more problems with NPT enforcement than Iran, yes. These do not, however, excuse Iran's own behavior, and it is irresponsible and unacceptable to try to do so.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070510/wl_mi...cs_070510191719

The problem will continue to boil down to the fact that producing nuclear energy also means that there is the capability to produce nuclear-based warheads.

It is rather silly to name a treat "Non Proliferation" and then to make the focus about the ability to produce nuclear weapons or W.M.D.'s (Weapons of Mass Destruction). So the fact that internal inspections are required of a U.N. agency to verify if any plants are enriching the uranium too much doesn't jibe well with me in deciding if the resulting ore is being distributed or used in weapons which are then proliferated out to other nations or factions.

Working backwards on the issues now, will point out certain aspects which some may not fully consider. The United States had in the past supplied weaponry to various governments or factions throughout the world and especially in the Middle East. To sit on a "security council" of any kind on a permanent basis and to say "No, no other countries should do this" is NOT leading by example or even close to setting good precedents. We have pretty solid, irrefutable proof that Iran supplied arms to rebels within Iraq, Syria and other nations. Meaning they've pretty well canceled each other out. Total Score: U.S. - 0 and Iran - 0.

The United States is very concerned with the development phase more than they should be because of a couple of events - Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. That is two of the foremost authorities on nuclear energy and we STILL had accidents. While someone from this forum had stated something to the effect that it's "not rocket science", we've proven that for it to be safe and effective that it does require a great degree of accuracy and even careful observation/maintenance. So yes, the United States does want everyone to agree that releasing harmful radioactives into the atmosphere is bad for everyone on the planet. Iran is more internally focused than externally concerned. Total Score: U.S. - 1 and Iran - 0.

The problem is that the United States also wants to strong-arm or bully other nations into falling in line. Iraq is an ideal example. Our superb intelligence gathering/assessment capabilities stated that Iraq was producing weapons of mass destruction (but more of the chemically based types). They were either buying or building rockets which had ranges that were supposedly farther than what was allowed by signed agreements (which were very restrictive but we won that war, right?). Inspectors were denied the right to visit the bunkers underneath Presidential palaces. There were lot of cries of foul while it was effectively like saying we should allow inspectors to visit the rooms and corridors underneath the White House on 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Sure, 36 presidential palaces is a bit much. But even if you were president, would you want someone cooking up deadly chemical or biological recipes under your house with active ingredients?? Then we go to war to ferret out these deadly WMD's and come out of it looking dumb. Total Score: U.S. - 1 and Iran - 1.

On the actual use of nuclear weapons; but hey we are talking proliferation ONLY right??? Total Score: U.S. - 1 and Iran - 2.

The United States wants too much control over other nations developing nuclear power. Just like someone in the Bush administration personally profited from the Haliburton deal, the thinking is the same that ABB Limited should be able to gain riches from our government's foreign policy. Fine, South Korea probably should be our customer. Yet we try to force this upon nations like India, Turkey and Egypt whom aren't die-hard allies and are far from being even potential enemies. In other words, we try to win more from courses of action other than the primary objective of say... a Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Total Score: U.S. - 1 and Iran - 3.

Iran's president didn't actually say "I want to destroy all of Israel" or "Israel shouldn't exist" or "Israel will be punished". But you don't really have to speak the words to communicate a message to the effect of "Israel is our enemy". We've already seen that Iran is trying to expand it's regional influence. Going to war with Iraq in the 80's was from rebellions backfiring. And the U.S. supported a nation that USED chemical weapons on the invaders. To state that it was used just within their boundries might be a reach... but the U.S. is ever choosing the lesser of two evils and happened to say "okay, they used WMD's... but not against us or our allies so we'll look the other way. Total Score: U.S. - 2 and Iran - 4.

So far Iran is winning but....

Not truly allowing inspections (i.e. not cooperating in spirit or acts), Iran doesn't get any points and the U.S. score doubles since it is more weight on the actual ISSUE at hand. To verify if something is being sold to other nations, the IAEA needs to have the ability to calculate production of enriched Uranium and to look at their current stores. If that isn't possible, then it really isn't possible to tell what they don't have versus what they should or DID have.

So the score is tied and we haven't even considered Israel's policy much during this. Israel proactively destroyed an Iranian facility. So if Iran was developing nuclear fuels for weapons and didn't plan to hand it out to dangerous and unmanageable rebellious/terroristic factions... the IAEA inspections wouldn't keep the locations secret, would they? Plus, if the U.S./U.K. or Israel decided that it was a bit out of reach of what they should be allowed to have, wouldn't the secrecy of the location be a primary consideration to them? You don't spend millions of dollars to have it destroyed later, resulting in a huge loss in the financial column.

Plus throw in the fact that China, Russia, Pakistan or India are crazy about another player in the nuclear arms/energy community. Two of those four are a little too close to that nation as far as their weapon's deliver systems are concerned.

So proliferation means to keep the WMD's out of the hands of terrorists or zealots versus trying to keep it out of the reach of nations seeking to develop their own energy or weapons programmes. We could claim that Iran's civil rights are to the point that they shouldn't benefit from the pluses but then China's is a bit worse. We could claim that their regular weapon's proliferation is huge in that part of the world and yet one is supplying Iran with arms or rights-to-build agreements - Russia. The nation that has sold the most weaponry in that region and yet demonstrates the worst prejudices against the Islamic religion - France. And then you have the U.K. which is a staunch ally to Israel (committed even moreso than the United States) during a time when French-supplied weaponry was available to Egypt and Syria.

So don't talk about stability in that region when so many majour players (especially members of the U.N. Security Council) is so responsible for the instability. Don't talk about how it's not about profit when a nation sells them weaponry yet distrusts their peoples. Don't cry foul when they have national interests to protect as well as being distrustful of the U.S.'s reactions to "supposed threats of WMD" or even the U.N.'s integrity after the Food-for-Oil's scandalous corruption. Throw in the fact that the U.S. and European Union use economic sanctions to force other nations/leaders to fall into line with their "current" policies which have been demonstrated to change... especially in the light of spreading democracy and increasing profits. Capitalism is a good economic model but we've seen what kind of results can occur after trying to switch to that system. Yet we expect other nations to follow suit because it's worked for us. So much for learning that what works for some doesn't work for others, even WITH a continued glaring example.

What it does do is try to get the power back into the hands of the non-dictators, non-ministerial, non-elitists so they can decide for themselves what is best for them and their country. Most Iranians probably would like to see more money spent on infrastructure (definitely their religions mosques/temples) and the rights of free trade and travel to their holy cities (which even includes Jerusalem). Yet we talk so much of freedoms while we try to control or regulate. The world hasn't demonstrated anything hugely humanitarian to say that the NPT is a righteous tool to save mankind from itself.