PDA

View Full Version : Iran says it joins nuclear technology club HOT!


iSafa
11 Apr 2006, 05:01 PM
TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran said on Tuesday it had produced low-grade enriched uranium suitable for power stations and wanted to achieve industrial-scale production, setting itself on a collision course with the West.

The United Nations has said Iran must halt uranium enrichment, a process Western nations fear Tehran wants to master so that it can develop nuclear weapons. Tehran insists its aims are entirely peaceful.

The United States, which has been leading the charge against Iran, said Tehran was "moving in the wrong direction" with its nuclear programme and if it persisted, Washington would discuss possible next steps with the U.N. Security Council.

"I am officially announcing that Iran has joined the group of those countries which have nuclear technology. This is the result of the Iranian nation's resistance," Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said in a televised address.

"Based on international regulations, we will continue our path until we achieve production of industrial-scale enrichment," he told officials and some ambassadors from regional states gathered in the northeastern city of Mashhad.
Sanctions threat

So what happens next?

Mr ElBaradei will report back to the Security Council around the end of this month. He will presumably have to say that Iran has failed to suspend its enrichment as called for in the council statement last month.


Iran's announcement was timed to coincide with ElBaradei's visit

The council said that a suspension was necessary to help restore confidence in Iran's intentions, which were severely shaken by the discovery in 2002 of a secret enrichment programme going back some 18 years.

The council will then have to consider its next move. There will be those like the US, the UK and France who will call for the threat of sanctions.

However, Russia and China, which both hold vetoes, are against sanctions, partly because they do not think they will be effective and partly because of their own relations with Iran.

If the council is inactive, the European Union is likely to consider joining the United States, which has imposed trading restrictions on Iran, especially against investment in its oil industry, formalised in an Act of Congress in 1996.

However, the EU is unlikely go that far.

Its foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, has drawn up a list of possible measures, including travel restrictions on Iranian officials involved in the nuclear work, restrictions on dual-use technology that could have military applications, a ban on Iranian students studying certain sciences at EU universities and possibly a ban on export credits for some companies trading with Iran.

All that, though, has yet to be decided.
Protracted confrontation

In the meantime, Iran will presumably carry on with enrichment.

So far it has used only a cascade of 164 centrifuges to produce small amounts of enriched uranium. This is obtained by spinning uranium gas until the key parts have been separated.

The process is stopped at a certain point for nuclear power fuel but goes on if nuclear bomb material is sought.

To make quantities sufficient for any use, Iran would need to master the technology of using thousands of centrifuges, a plant for which is being built next to the pilot project at Nathan.

If it goes ahead with that effort, and that could take many months, if not two or three years, the confrontation will go to an even higher level.

There is already talk of the US planning a military strike against Iran, even if at this stage it appears to be contingency thinking only.

Iran says it is simply carrying out the rights it has under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
link (http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2006-04-11T194252Z_01_OLI128256_RTRUKOC_0_UK-NUCLEAR-IRAN.xml)

link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4901406.stm)

soo, what do you think ?

ForeverRed
11 Apr 2006, 11:42 PM
Good for them....although this direct way of announcing it will surely drive the West mad with suspicion.

Scarecrow
12 Apr 2006, 10:02 AM
Guess the Russians aren't too happy about Iran's mistake with the uranium.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/04/12/iran.nuclear/index.html
CNN) -- Foreign ministers in Russia and Britain on Wednesday joined the United States in expressing concern about Iran's announcement that it has produced low-grade enriched uranium.

"Definitely, this is a step in the wrong direction," said Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Andrei Krivtsov. "It runs counter to the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) Board of Governors resolutions and a statement by the U.N. Security Council president."

Ali_reza
12 Apr 2006, 12:19 PM
Good for Iran !

If only we did'nt have Ahmadinejad for president.

GringoTex
12 Apr 2006, 12:24 PM
Good for them....although this direct way of announcing it will surely drive the West mad with suspicion.

Do you typically cheer on nuclear proliferation?

Ali_reza
12 Apr 2006, 12:28 PM
Do you typically cheer on nuclear proliferation?

The US being armed to their teeth with nukes does'nt seem to bother you.

Scarecrow
12 Apr 2006, 12:32 PM
The US being armed to their teeth with nukes does'nt seem to bother you.

Well the US being armed was a result of WWII and the following Cold War. What is Iran's reason? Aside from maybe trying to actually wipe Israel off the map like he stated should happen? Or maybe to give the terrorists they support better more powerful weapons?

ViscaBarca
12 Apr 2006, 12:52 PM
Well the US being armed was a result of WWII and the following Cold War. What is Iran's reason? Aside from maybe trying to actually wipe Israel off the map like he stated should happen? Or maybe to give the terrorists they support better more powerful weapons?
or maybe to prevent the US from invading? you know, the same reason the US armed itself to the teeth, to prevent anyone from invading?

sebakoole
12 Apr 2006, 12:59 PM
The US being armed to their teeth with nukes does'nt seem to bother you.
It bothers me, but it's not in violation of any international treaty. Iran has made it perfectly clear that they intend to violate the NPT. Can we please quit the charades of "We haven't violated it...yet".

Scarecrow
12 Apr 2006, 02:13 PM
or maybe to prevent the US from invading? you know, the same reason the US armed itself to the teeth, to prevent anyone from invading?

Actually I don't think the US was ever really worried about the Soviets or anyone else invading the US. Invading Western Europe yes, the US no. The fear with the Soviets was them nuking us out of existence so we set ourselves up to do the same to them. MAD at its finest.

As for Iran, aside from Bush naming them to the axis of evil, and that was for their open support of terrorist groups like Hezbollah, what threat has ever been made against Iran? The suggestion of a use of force against Iran has come over their nuclear program which has not been without suspicion.

Iran has now chosen a path that will most likely lead to war, even Russia does not agree with them over the enrichment they are doing.

ForeverRed
12 Apr 2006, 02:29 PM
Do you typically cheer on nuclear proliferation?

No, but where is the proof that this is succesfull high grade enrichment?

Let the IAEA get in there and do their job and conclude if they are a threat because now it is just paranoid speculation.

And before you criticise me, I do think Ahmadinejad is nuts but this goes beyond that.

ForeverRed
12 Apr 2006, 02:31 PM
Well the US being armed was a result of WWII and the following Cold War. What is Iran's reason? Aside from maybe trying to actually wipe Israel off the map like he stated should happen? Or maybe to give the terrorists they support better more powerful weapons?

Iran has plenty of reasons actually, if they were actually aiming for nuclear capabilities.

They are surrounded by all sides by states with such capabilities, plus, an unfriendly US in Iraq and Israel not too far off. You have to look at this situation from their perspective as well.

Plus, they do have the right to nuclear energy, they are not in violation of any treaty.

Ali_reza
12 Apr 2006, 03:12 PM
Actually I don't think the US was ever really worried about the Soviets or anyone else invading the US. Invading Western Europe yes, the US no. The fear with the Soviets was them nuking us out of existence so we set ourselves up to do the same to them. MAD at its finest.

As for Iran, aside from Bush naming them to the axis of evil, and that was for their open support of terrorist groups like Hezbollah, what threat has ever been made against Iran? The suggestion of a use of force against Iran has come over their nuclear program which has not been without suspicion.

Well thats a lot ! Specially when you know what happened in Iraq.


Iran has now chosen a path that will most likely lead to war, even Russia does not agree with them over the enrichment they are doing.

Most people agree now that Iran wo'nt have a nuclear bomb before at least 3 years, if they could continue the reaserch non stop. Unfortunatley, Ahmadinejad is throwing a lot of flames as if he wanted a US attack on Iran. Nothing better to have all Iranians behind him.

The same logic stands for Bush. Attacking some "nuclear" sites in Iran will have all of americas attention.

Both presidents not beeing very popular in their countries.

Scarecrow
12 Apr 2006, 03:55 PM
Well thats a lot ! Specially when you know what happened in Iraq.


Well I would say then that by that same logic that Iran presents itself as quite a threat to Israel considering the continued funding and training and other support for Hezbollah, as well as the remarks about wiping Israel off the map.

So putting these into perspective, I would say Iran has created as much of this problem as the US has in contributing to it.

Iran could have cooled things down considerably had they agreed to Russia's proposals, but they refused.

What is really annoying is that Armanass is making it all too easy for Bush to make an argument for a war. He can point to Iran's comments about their nuclear rights, and they have those rights I do not deny that, but they could have had light water reactors and they refused. Bush can point to the recent arms increase by Iran to show they are building missiles that can be used to specifically have nuclear warheads on them. He can use Iran's own statements here as well.

Right now Bush has 10 times the case for war with Iran then he ever did with Iraq. Not a smart thing for Iran to keep making the case for Bush. Not for Iran, or the US as I really do not want to see us in another war.

Mr. Bee
12 Apr 2006, 03:57 PM
What threat is Israel to Iran?

Jew Jerms is my guess :confused:

jmartin1966
12 Apr 2006, 04:08 PM
I think it's inevitable that Iran will develop the bomb. U.S. bombing would at best delay development. An invasion is beyond the U.S.'s will and means right now. Is there any chance that economic sanctions will be effective? Sanctions may be the most realistic option but by concealing the weaponization program and by using their oil, Iran should be able to minimize their impact. I will not feel too bad until Iran has a missle capable of hitting the U.S., or more specifically Chicago. Before long the Republicans will want more funding for SDI or whatever it is called these days.

ForeverRed
12 Apr 2006, 10:31 PM
What threat is Israel to Iran?

Looking at all the press from both sides and the overall outlook of the situation, Israel wouldn't be too hesitant on a pre emptive strike.

Plus, didn't they attack some of Iran's nuclear facilities in the 80s?

Michael K.
12 Apr 2006, 10:45 PM
Looking at all the press from both sides and the overall outlook of the situation, Israel wouldn't be too hesitant on a pre emptive strike.

Plus, didn't they attack some of Iran's nuclear facilities in the 80s?

Iraq's.

I thought Seymour Hersh's interview on Fresh Air (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5338549) this afternoon was well worth listening to. Haven't read the New Yorker article yet, plan on getting to it this weekend.

King-James
12 Apr 2006, 11:31 PM
Well thats a lot ! Specially when you know what happened in Iraq.


We should all remember how incredibly easy of a country Iraq was to invade. Considering their geography, military, and border with Saudi Arabia. Let's not be fooled into thinking that invading large nations is actually typically feasable.