It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

U.S. Behind Original Iranian Nuclear Program?

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 3 2005 @ 07:51 PM
link   
I've just got an interesting article in my inbox, and maybe you doubt - but it isn't propaganda, just real facts.


"In 1975, as secretary of state, Kissinger signed and circulated National
Security Decision Memorandum 292, titled 'U.S.-Iran Nuclear Cooperation,'
which laid out the administration's negotiating strategy for the sale of nuclear energy equipment projected to bring U.S. corporations more than $6 billion...[Even then] Cheney, Rumsfeld and outgoing Deputy Secretary
Paul Wolfowitz held key national security posts."


A part of the keypoints of that publication:


...After balking initially, President Gerald R. Ford signed a directive in 1976 offering Tehran the chance to buy and operate a U.S.-built reprocessing facility for extracting plutonium from nuclear reactor fuel. The deal was for a complete "nuclear fuel cycle" -- reactors powered by and regenerating fissile materials on a self-sustaining basis. That is precisely the ability the current administration is trying to prevent Iran from acquiring today.


The U.S.-Iran deal was shelved when the shah was toppled in the 1979 revolution that led to the taking of American hostages and severing of diplomatic relations.

U.S. involvement with Iran's nuclear program until 1979, which accompanied large-scale intelligence-sharing and conventional weapons sales, highlights the boomerang in U.S. foreign policy. Even with many key players in common, the U.S. government has taken opposite positions on questions of fact as its perception of U.S. interests has changed.

Please read the whole story to understand WHY this was happening. My personal point is, and what i want to discuss is, why is the US getting involved in those "boomerang effects" ?

Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan etc, or, otherwise formulated, why is the US supporting "future enemys" when they now that they can potentionally be a threat?

source



Sep

posted on Apr, 4 2005 @ 07:47 AM
link   
I am suprised no one has anything to say about this.


xu

posted on Apr, 4 2005 @ 08:40 AM
link   
one of the obvious reasons is;

to sell arms you need war
to have a war you need an enemy
to have an enemy, well...
you create one

costofwar.com...

here it says the cost of war in iraq is about $160.000.000.000
it is a lot of money, and when I say to sell arms, US is not buying arms from another country, infact US sells arms to the world. (US Corporation)

and for the public, the governments (any of them) can make the public hate a specific nation easily, if legality is needed. as it was the case recently.



posted on Apr, 4 2005 @ 08:57 AM
link   
The French were heavily involved with iran's nuke program in the 70's not the US.



posted on Apr, 4 2005 @ 09:39 AM
link   
You guys forget, prior to the Hostage situation relations between the US and Iran were decent.

Part of that deal was 70 or so F14's as well. The US sold them to Iran and they actually have those still (they cant be flown due to ill repair and lack of support)

I dont know why this story is so suprising to anybody.

Kind of an unrelated/related story from my youth:

When I was real young, prior to the hostage situation, I lived in a condo type community with a very high Iranian population in Tennasee. Well, these guys were the greatest people I had ever met. I remember to this day how they used to teach me how to play soccer and stuff. The "big kids" would even stop thier games to let me get in and play a bit. They would slow down and make sure I was ok and not getting hurt and having fun. It was a nice enough experience for me to remember it even now after 25 years. Anyways, one day they were all gone. Just up and left. Maybe 20 families just gone. Of course, this happened right after the hostages were taken. I was to young to understand what was going on of course.

I guess up till that point our governments shared favors to make pesonal interest gains. Iran wanted fighters and Nukes, the US wanted middle east pull and maybe a base or two. Its not suprising at all that the US shared some nuclear tech with them.



posted on Apr, 4 2005 @ 09:52 AM
link   
Bulgarian is actually 100% correct. I remember posting this information in reply to someone else here some time ago myself.

But then where is the surprise that the last thing this administration wants are Americans are reminded or encouraged to consider where we have come from and how we got here, hmm?

(and the Dr's comment - oh look everybody, France was involved too! - is as telling as it is a laughable attempt to distract.)



posted on Apr, 4 2005 @ 10:15 AM
link   
There is no denying that the US played an important role.

What needs to be understood is that 1) the US was not the only nation to help Iran's Nuclear Program, 2) some here need to seriously understand how Foreign Policy and polices are adopted and followed and who they apply to and when. Perhaps then you, as others, will realize the difference between foreign policy [with the Shah] then and now and "future enemy" [the ruling Mullahs].

Again, bear in mind that though you directly and only address the US involvement, their were also other "allies" that helped along Iran's Nuclear Program, correct bulgarian? Afterall, if your going to name one, why not name them all, eh?


Here's a pretty good link and overview on the History of Iran's Nuclear Program. It is Part One of a multi-part series on this. Please, I invite you, as with others, to read it.
Iran's Nuclear Program. Part I: Its History


About the author:
Mohammad Sahimi is Professor & Chairman of Chemical and Petroleum Engineering at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles. Since 1986, he has been a member of the Union of Concerned Scientists, an organization devoted to preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction, and a member of the Union's Partners for Earth Program. In addition to his scientific research that has resulted in over 200 papers, published in scientific journals, and six books, his political articles have also appeared as book chapters, on various web sites, and in the Los Angeles Times.






seekerof

[edit on 4-4-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Apr, 4 2005 @ 10:23 AM
link   
Is not Iran's nuke program perfectly legal? Insofar as its origins? The purpose of the IAEA is to spread nuclear technology. The US was a prime mover in this cause, and the US is one of the big architects of the spread of peaceful use of atomic power. The idea was to give power generation technology in exchange for the ability to monitor its usage to prevent it from being used to make weapons. It was a global program.



posted on Apr, 4 2005 @ 10:49 AM
link   
Wasn't the Iraninan revolution helped by the U.S as well?



posted on Apr, 4 2005 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by sal88
Wasn't the Iraninan revolution helped by the U.S as well?


- I hadn't heard that one before sal.....

....other than that the USA 'helped' as a byproduct of helping the Shah maintain his repressive and corrupt regime.

Please tell us more.



posted on Apr, 4 2005 @ 11:01 AM
link   
Some have suggested that the US 'supported' the mullahs (before the revolution, up until they moved for revolution) so as to use them as part of the 'control system' in the region, possibly with the hopes of getting the motivational powers of the mullahs to work for the state rather than against it.

However, I have never seen any evidence for this and have only heard the idea in passing.



posted on Apr, 4 2005 @ 11:40 AM
link   
It was my understanding that the Shah was getting too much power, and wanted to do things lije nationalise the country's oil, the U.S didn't like the idea of this so they helped the revolution. I should be able to get more information for you.

[edit on 4-4-2005 by sal88]


Sep

posted on Apr, 4 2005 @ 09:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by sal88
It was my understanding that the Shah was getting too much power, and wanted to do things lije nationalise the country's oil, the U.S didn't like the idea of this so they helped the revolution. I should be able to get more information for you.



You thinking of Mosadegh brother, and yes the US didnt want it to happen so the performed operation Ajax.

The reason I found this article intresting was because many of the people in other threads about Iran said that this country which sits on alot of oil and gas does not need and nuclear plant. When Presedent Ford offered Iran the nuclear reactor Irans oil out put was higher than it is now. So that kind of ruins the argument. And another funny thing is that the people who are now saying that Iran doesnt need nuclear energy and are trying to close Bushehr (Germany) are the ones that started building it.



posted on Apr, 4 2005 @ 09:32 PM
link   
This is not new.
I've posted documents on this before.

Here's a couple from the Ford Library:


www.ford.utexas.edu...
www.ford.utexas.edu...



posted on Apr, 5 2005 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof

Again, bear in mind that though you directly and only address the US involvement, their were also other "allies" that helped along Iran's Nuclear Program, correct bulgarian? Afterall, if your going to name one, why not name them all, eh?



Sure, I understood your analogy, yes Bulgaria and the former Sojvet Union where also involved (and now Russia is more involved than the US in this Atomic Program, no question about this). It started with the US, now its ending with Russia.

I think xu is very right in his statement.






[edit on 5-4-2005 by bulgarian]



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 06:15 AM
link   
You are on the right track. It goes back farther though. Back some several decades more. Here here is a good chrono on the whole silly fiasco. Not very detailed. But sufficient enough.

washington-report.or g/comparing-israels-and-irans-nuclear-programs.html


"a look back from the future into the past"
"...is the language of atomic warfare."

Eisenhower - "Atoms for Peace" Speech (December 8, 1953)



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join