Thread: Ahmadinejawhackjob Wants To Share Nukes With Middle East

Russia on Monday started nuclear fuel deliveries to Iran's first atomic power station as Tehran defied international pressure by announcing plans to produce still more fuel for its controversial nuclear programme.

Russia's announcement that fuel had been sent to the still-unfinished Bushehr power station marked a huge leap forward for Iran's nuclear ambitions, which Western and Israeli governments fear may mask a secret bomb-making project..........

US-led claims that Iran is secretly building a nuclear weapon have long clouded Moscow's Bushehr project, which began in 1995.

Moscow has always rejected the claims and its position was bolstered earlier this month when the US intelligence community contradicted the White House by reporting that Iran had stopped a nuclear weapons drive in 2003.

The US report gave Russia its "final argument," Fyodor Lukyanov, at the journal Russia in Global Affairs, told AFP............

In addition to rejecting US calls for the suspension of Bushehr, Moscow has also sold Iran anti-aircraft missiles and other high-tech weapons reportedly deployed by Iran's military in defence of nuclear installations....

Meanwhile, the Israeli daily Maariv reported over the weekend that a delegation left Israel for Washington last week "with the goal of proving to the Americans that the Iranian nuclear weapons programme is definitely still in development."

Russia starts nuclear deliveries to Iran - Breaking News - World - Breaking News

I think it's all over now bar the shouting.

^History repeats itself and people never learn. The appeasement continues into the 21st Century. We'll see when Iran is Nuclear armed how comfortable you all are.

No, I don't think there is enough evidence now, but I think they are cleverly constructing the program off of these events. You will see, and it will be too late to say "I told you so." Same as last time in WWII.

First off I feel extremely uncomfortable to hear Euro politicians strongly denying accusations of appeasement, but appeasement has much going for it, not least being the fact that in most cases it is not the appeaser that needs to address the consequences of his/their gutless actions or lack thereof, but successors and future generations.


What constitutes 'enough evidence'? Must it be compelling enough to convict in a court of law before one is morally justified to act, and if so which court, civil or criminal or international, and strong enough to sway on a litter offence or mass murder, and who is the jury? Easy talk by career vocalists, but no answers.

Every part may be as important as any other, but the jury must not be delegated by the NYTimes and supporting nutty left hate organs, which consistently argue that absolute transparency is the path to true democracy, the while abandoning common sense in some dark alley. I would rather place my faith in those we elect to make the difficult decisions regardless of the number or frequency or severity of their blunders. The alternative is to hand those decisions to somebody we did not vote for and which by nature is even less democratic. And yes <sigh> we know there are also unelected decision makers in the corridors of power, but hopefully the second slowest mind on this board is sharp enough not to be drawn into such a diversion.

As a lay person with no access to anything outside the public domain, where a stand must be taken I could happily agree to the working premise that if 'we' know 'they' are active on a project deemed threatening to the free world, or any more active than a wish or routine rabble rousing, then we must assume a host of plausible errors on our part and every shrewdness on theirs to resolution. If this means we step on some innocent toes or infringe their human or inalienable or god given rights, I could live with that more easily than the likely consequences of getting it wrong.

Originally Posted by sabang

...
Now it has been established that Iran was telling the truth, the same old economically viable reasons for them getting nuclear energy that applied all along come to the fore. ...

Not so fast! Intelligence says they probably had a weapons program and probably stopped it in 2003.
This is not proof that they do not have further nuclear ambitions. Iran still cannot be trusted.

Presently they are working on Uranium enrichment, for civil purposes, but can also be adapted for creating weapons grade uranium - any future weapons program would benefit from this, they are still moving closer to nuclear capability.
Russia has a contract for a life-time supply of the uranium required for the power-station. What is the urgency and scale of Iran's enrichment program really about, that they would risk sanctions and further consequences, one wonders?

[quote=stroller;480567]

Originally Posted by sabang

...
Iran still cannot be trusted.

Hi stroller- nice to have you back.
I think, since the overthrow of the Shah at least, that quote sums up the attitude of the west and most of it's people. So whatever proof or evidence to the contrary the same attitude will prevail, at least for some time yet.

Iran was telling the truth- they ceased their nuclear weapons program in 2003. But that will not alter the attitude of the man on the street. Nothing will- he has had a lifetime of Iran being depicted as a bunch of Islamic loonies. Americans in particular remember the hostage crisis. Ask the average person to depict an Iranian, he will probably sketch the Ayatollah.

What did change recently is the emphasis. Right wing claims that Iran was actively and secretly developing nukes- as opposed to nuclear energy- have been defused. Along with this, the UN's ardour to pursue heavy sanctions against Iran has weakened, and Russian reluctance to actively and openly support the project has now flown out the window. That is why Cheney and his ilk wanted this information withheld. Iran will develop nuclear energy, I am fairly confident now.

The only tangible controversy that remains is their internal enrichment of uranium. This is required for nuclear power, but as you correctly point out also brings them closer to being able to build their own nukes some years down the track. Iran however can credibly point out that if they remain dependent on foreign enriched uranium for their power generation, they remain hostage to foreigners as that nuclear fuel can be cut off at any time.

Meanwhile, back at the Ranch.

Washington says Iran has no need to continue its own nuclear programme now that Russia has started delivering fuel to the Bushehr power plant.


But Tehran says it will not stop the uranium enrichment process despite the threat of further UN sanctions. It is the first time Iran has received a fuel delivery from Russia, which is building the Bushehr plant....

While the UN continues to demand that Iran halt uranium enrichment, it has approved the Russian deliveries....

Enriched uranium is used as fuel in nuclear power stations. When it is more highly enriched, it can be used to make nuclear weapons.

BBC NEWS | Middle East | US warns Iran after fuel shipment

As I said, the game has changed. It is no longer about Iran developing nuclear energy. It is about Iran enriching uranium.

Originally Posted by sabang

Originally Posted by stroller

...
Iran still cannot be trusted.

Hi stroller- nice to have you back.
I think, since the overthrow of the Shah at least, that quote sums up the attitude of the west and most of it's people. So whatever proof or evidence to the contrary the same attitude will prevail, at least for some time yet.

Iran was telling the truth- they ceased their nuclear weapons program in 2003. But that will not alter the attitude of the man on the street. Nothing will- he has had a lifetime of Iran being depicted as a bunch of Islamic loonies. Americans in particular remember the hostage crisis. Ask the average person to depict an Iranian, he will probably sketch the Ayatollah.

Nice try, but no cigar...
Associating my statement with a general attitude of "the West" or "the man in the street" doesn't refute it, specially since my arguments were much more specific and do not rely on general sentiments towards Iran.
First lets quickly resume why the focus is on Iran: not only because of the expressed 'animosities' (which have been discussed to some extent already), but they are at a crucial stage of development of nuclear technology. Concern about this is not the exclusive domain of "right-wingers", but shared across the political spectrum on the world stage.

As said already, the NIE does not prove anything, it deals in probabilities - it does not show that Iran was or is "telling the truth".
If they really did have a program and stopped it, the logic conclusion is that Iran did indeed lie about the nature of its nuclear ambitions before, which included an actual weapons program, contrary to what what claimed.

The report indicates that the program was halted due to 'international pressure' - US marines humping about in neighbouring countries might have had something to do with it, as well as diplomatic efforts by the UN and EU.

As for any present weapons programs, there is a notable absence of hard evidence for any such enterprise, nor can the non-existence be conclusively confirmed - Iran does not co-operate fully with ongoing inspections.

What did change recently is the emphasis. Right wing claims that Iran was actively and secretly developing nukes- as opposed to nuclear energy- have been defused. Along with this, the UN's ardour to pursue heavy sanctions against Iran has weakened, and Russian reluctance to actively and openly support the project has now flown out the window. That is why Cheney and his ilk wanted this information withheld. Iran will develop nuclear energy, I am fairly confident now.

Yes, Bush/Cheney were found with their pants down, specially important since the lies show striking parallels to the warm-up to the Iraq invasion.

Which leaves us with the enrichment program for now:

The only tangible controversy that remains is their internal enrichment of uranium. This is required for nuclear power, but as you correctly point out also brings them closer to being able to build their own nukes some years down the track. Iran however can credibly point out that if they remain dependent on foreign enriched uranium for their power generation, they remain hostage to foreigners as that nuclear fuel can be cut off at any time.

"If they remain dependent" - that's dodging the size and time-scale of the program.
The "Bush-ehr" (someone had a sense of humour in coming up with this name) is still at the stage of being built.

Given Iran lied about its nuclear ambitions before, which explanations are there for insisting to pursue such a large scale project at this stage, inspite of international pressure? It's not that the program is essential for anything planned in the foreseeable future, but it is a necessary stepping stone for nuclear weapons.

Why are they not fully co-operating with inspections?

I do not have the answers, what I am saying is that there is more than enough ground to continue to scrutinise and be distrustful.

National pride, the Iranian tendency to go for grandes schemes etc. do not sufficiently dispell the suspicion of continued nuclear ambitions.

Whether anyone has the right to interfere with any such ambitions(which I think we have), or how come Israel with its 'secret' nuclear arsenal is not subjected to even more pressure, are different questions.

Originally Posted by stroller

Why are they not fully co-operating with inspections?

They are playing their own game of brinkmanship in response to UN sanctions and western sabre rattling. Iran has offered repeatedly to fully co-operate with the IAEA, but the US and several other nations are pressing for further sanctions and deliberately not ruling out military action. It was quite telling that when the agency returned to Iraq about six months ago (from memory) to do a series of inspections, the Bush administration did not like it- they wanted to exploit the uncertainty presumably.

I would like to see the IAEA back in and fully involved. Given that it is now pretty much a fait accompli that Iran will develop at least one nuclear power station- the recent nuclear fuel deliveries are UN approved- I do not see the upside in further sabre rattling.

Originally Posted by stroller

Given Iran lied about its nuclear ambitions before, which explanations are there for insisting to pursue such a large scale project at this stage, inspite of international pressure? It's not that the program is essential for anything planned in the foreseeable future, but it is a necessary stepping stone for nuclear weapons.

1- Economic- Iran imports much of it's refined oil for energy production currently, but exports crude; 2- Energy self sufficiency as a strategic aim. Iran has a woeful lack of refining capacity, and no access to western technology to get refineries built. It resents this.

A further stage of enrichment is required to get weapons grade uranium, as the BBC article points out. I maintain it is exceedingly difficult to spirit away some enriched uranium for further processing unnoticed if the IAEA is there, rather than being used as a political toy and bargaining chip by both parties.

Seeing as the collective will no longer exists- outside of a few deluded hawks like Cheney and the Israeli Right- to pursue a military option, surely close monitoring and holding them to their promises is our best option.

"Pre-emptive nuclear strike a key option, Nato told"

Heh...appeasment won't get it any more...

Pre-emptive nuclear strike a key option, Nato told | Special reports | Guardian Unlimited

Interesting article, although of limited relevance to Iran.
Would you like to launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike on Iran booner?

It's been said before, but whackjob has got plenty ploblems on the home front -

Humiliation for Ahmadinejad as veto is overruled

The political authority of the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, suffered a serious blow yesterday after the country's most powerful figure, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, sided with MPs by ordering him to supply cheap gas to villages suffering power cuts in an unexpectedly harsh winter.
In a humiliating rebuff, Iran's supreme leader, who has the final say over all state matters, ordered the enactment of a law requiring the government to provide &#163;500m-worth of gas supplies from emergency reserve funds.

Humiliation for Ahmadinejad as veto is overruled | Iran | Guardian Unlimited

Originally Posted by sabang

Interesting article, although of limited relevance to Iran.
Would you like to launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike on Iran booner?

Nope...

Cool Cat Mahmoud "Super Fly" Ahmadinejad Opens Space Center




I haven't seen anything so ridiculous since that Democrat Dukakis drove the tank in a Presidential election bid!

Gateway Pundit: Cool Cat Mahmoud "Super Fly" Ahmadinejad Opens Space Center

^^Booners treating Issues like his own online colouring-in book again

Heh...

'Death to Ahmadinejad,' Iranian crowds cry.

TEHRAN, March 19 (UPI) -- Many Iranian youths rallied in streets across the country, shouting "Death to Ahmadinejad," in celebrations marking the end of the Persian calendar year.

'Death to Ahmadinejad,' Iranian crowds cry

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

EU "experts" are suddenly shocked! shocked! to discover that Iran may have a nuclear weapon by the end of the year!

Do you actually read the articles you link to?

When the US released a new National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) late last year, it seemed as though the danger of a mullah-bomb had passed.
...
The paper also said that it was "very unlikely" that Iran would have enough highly enriched uranium -- the primary ingredient in atomic bombs -- by 2009 to produce such a weapon.
...
It didn't take long for experts to question the report's conclusion that Tehran was no longer interested in building the bomb. And now, a new computer simulation undertaken by European Union experts indicates that the NIE's time estimates might be dangerously inaccurate as well

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

'Death to Ahmadinejad,' Iranian crowds cry.

The 'crowds' may not be as large as you may wish to imagine: "The police in Tehran were out in force and, though they were met with a barrage of firecrackers, the situation didn't escalate beyond what is typical for the Fire Festival, local reports cited in the news report said."

The protests are related to a dispute about wages, and labour union strikes - it's them darn commies again, Booners!

Check this one out!

Iran's First Lady & her Whackjob old man...



What a Lovely couple!

Ýþte Ýran'ýn first lady'si - Hürriyet

That would be funny if it weren't so shockingly perverse. Is it really his wife?

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Gives new meaning to the term "Glory hole" now don't it?

Poor ol' Ahmadinejad is so excited he is rubbing his hands together in anticipation of what is yet to cum.

Originally Posted by Texpat

That would be funny if it weren't so shockingly perverse. Is it really his wife?

Just one of them no doubt...

"It’s confirmed. That really is Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s wife."





Hell! She's even uglier than BO's old lady!

"First Bag Lady"!

lgf: may the cannibals be cursed!

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

I haven't seen anything so ridiculous since that Democrat Dukakis drove the tank in a Presidential election bid!

I have!

^
Heh...gettin' closer to it, eh?