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.

 

The EU and Iran: Diplomacy was a better option?

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 11:28 AM
link   









cjf

posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
I see a mountain of speculation with no basis in proven fact and it now turns out that the tiny kernal of interest .....
....Those that want to imagine Iranian nuclear weapons will no doubt continue to imagine them but let us be absolutely clear there is not one ounce of evidence that proves they have an actual weapons program at all.


I disagree….



On November 10, 2003, the International Atomic Energy Agency issued a 30-page confidential report on Iran's nuclear activities. The report, which the agency sent to its board of governors and to 20 governments, reveals that for the past 18 years Iran has secretly developed technologies for producing weapon-usable highly enriched uranium and plutonium. During that time, the report says, Iran violated its Nonproliferation Treaty obligations and falsified declarations to the agency regarding safeguards required under the treaty.
Link to article and more reports


Also the...

2003 IAEA board report (pdf)

One page from the November IAEA 2004 report: (page 19)




a. Failure to report:

(i) the import of natural uranium in 1991, and its subsequent transfer for further processing;

(ii) the activities involving the subsequent processing and use of the imported natural uranium, including the production and loss of nuclear material where appropriate, and the production and transfer of waste resulting therefrom;

(iii) the use of imported natural UF6 for the testing of centrifuges at the Kalaye Electric Company workshop in 1999 and 2002, and the consequent production of enriched and depleted uranium;

(iv) the import of natural uranium metal in 1993 and its subsequent transfer for use in laser enrichment experiments, including the production of enriched uranium, the loss of nuclear material during these operations and the production and transfer of resulting waste;

(v) the production of UO2, UO3, UF4, UF6 and ammonium uranyl carbonate (AUC) from imported depleted UO2, depleted U3O8 and natural U3O8, and the production and transfer of resulting wastes; and

(vi) the production of natural and depleted UO2 targets at ENTC and their irradiation in TRR, the subsequent processing of those targets, including the separation of plutonium, the production and transfer of resulting waste, and the storage of unprocessed irradiated targets at TNRC.

b. Failure to declare:

(i) the pilot enrichment facility at the Kalaye Electric Company workshop; and

(ii) the laser enrichment plants at TNRC and the pilot uranium laser enrichment plant at Lashkar Ab’ad.
2004 IAEA board report (pdf)


On and on and on....

That one item which keeps being used as a 'look...see' disproves only one item out of hundreds and it was already in question in 2003 as to validity by the reports own statments! (read item #40 contained in the IAEA 2004 report)

…they’re not working on new and improved recipes for apple pie.


.



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 09:17 AM
link   
Not one of your reputable sources states or claims Iran is making a nuclear weapon.
This is comment about enriching uranium for their civil power program, not a weapons program (for which there is not one jot of evidence).

There is an insinuation in one source you quote regarding 'weapons grade' enriched uranium but you might like to consider what enriched uranium would not be 'weapons grade'; the comment is nonsensical, sheer spin and designed solely to provoke the response it has with you.

Iran is a fully cooperaring member of the IAEA; there is no international law that says she cannot develop uranium enrichment under the auspices of the IAEA.



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 11:36 AM
link   
It's a shame diplomacy hasn't worked, to be honest i didn't think it would though. But before we go in gungho and bombing the bejesus out of another third world country, could we at least wait for some actual evidence as to wether or not the Iranians are planning on making nuclear weapons? I mean wouldn't it be embarrassing if we went in guns blazing for WMD's and couldnt find any? Any how, shouldn't we be dealing with North Korea, who in my opinion have a hell of a less to lose from actually using their nuclear arsenal?

One final thought, doesnt anyone think that maybe it would be better for Iran to have a formidable weapon such as a nuclear bomb? i cant think of any country ever starting a war with another a nation with nuclear capabilities. so perhaps this is just the thing they need to keep the US off their backs and maybe even restore some peace in the middle east by keeping the others in check.


cjf

posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
Not one of your reputable sources states or claims Iran is making a nuclear weapon.
This is comment about enriching uranium for their civil power program, not a weapons program (for which there is not one jot of evidence).


Errr….



On November 10, 2003, the International Atomic Energy Agency issued a 30-page confidential report on Iran's nuclear activities. The report, which the agency sent to its board of governors and to 20 governments, reveals that for the past 18 years Iran has secretly developed technologies for producing weapon-usable highly enriched uranium and plutonium. During that time, the report says, Iran violated its Nonproliferation Treaty obligations and falsified declarations to the agency regarding safeguards required under the treaty.
[…]
NRDC nuclear program director Tom Cochran in an interview with The New York Times. "If that's not evidence, I don't know what is."


I insinuated nothing and non-highy enriched has nothing to do with the known examples:


Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
There is an insinuation in one source you quote regarding 'weapons grade' enriched uranium but you might like to consider what enriched uranium would not be 'weapons grade'; the comment is nonsensical, sheer spin and designed solely to provoke the response it has with you.


Maybe it was something Iran said…..



TEHRAN -- While maintaining their country is not developing nuclear weapons, Iranians argue strenuously and with rare unanimity that they have a right to such weapons, to balance off Israel's arsenal and as a manifestation of national pride.
www.washingtonpost.com...(link)


See above as well as below....


Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
Iran is a fully cooperaring member of the IAEA; there is no international law that says she cannot develop uranium enrichment under the auspices of the IAEA.


Iran has been in extreme ‘known’ violation for more than two decades all the while claiming absolute fidelity….perhaps you should re-read the reports as posted.

Was Plutonium needed to experiment with MOX fuel? Or was it potential or for intended use in a breeder reactor? Get real. Albeit, the jury may still be 'out', but ask any high school or freshman college physics instructor their opinion.

Furthermore, Iran is not going to take the IAEA’s hand and say, “here’s our weapons program, looky!”

But...



In February 2004, it was revealed that HEU traces detected by IAEA inspectors twelve months previously -- in at least two different sites -- were pure enough to produce nuclear weaponry.
(link)


No, the IAEA must investigate the findings, concealment, history etc etc etc to draw careful conclusions based upon evidence (because transparency has never existed concerning Iran!). The IAEA also speaks in a diplomatic language. The current and historical evidence points to a concealed weapons development plan, and that is not just ‘my opinion’ or ‘spin’.

Better yet, let's just take Iran's word a face value, they have a good history.


.



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Orias
I mean wouldn't it be embarrassing if we went in guns blazing for WMD's and couldnt find any?


- It hasn't bothered anyone before.


One final thought, doesnt anyone think that maybe it would be better for Iran to have a formidable weapon such as a nuclear bomb? i cant think of any country ever starting a war with another a nation with nuclear capabilities. so perhaps this is just the thing they need to keep the US off their backs and maybe even restore some peace in the middle east by keeping the others in check.


- Interestingly Iran does apparantly have WMDs in the form of chemical and possibly biological weapons (and has had for years).


according to the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), Iran initiated a chemical weapon development program in 1983 “in response to Iraqi use of riot control and toxic chemical agents” during the war. By 1998, the Iranian government had publicly acknowledged that it began a chemical weapon program during the war. According to the DIA, the program began under the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), with the role of the Ministry of Defense increasing over time. The IRGC, or Pasdaran, is separate from Iran’s regular army. It was established by the revolutionary government to handle internal security functions. U.S. officials credit Iran’s Defense Industries Organization, a part of the Ministry of Defense, with assembling the various elements of Iran’s chemical arms effort.

In April 1984, the Iranian delegate to the United Nations, Rajai Khorassani, admitted at a London news conference that Iran was “capable of manufacturing chemical weapons … [and would] consider using them.” In 1987, according to the U.S. Department of Defense, Iran was able to deploy limited quantities of mustard gas and cyanide against Iraqi troops. The change in Iran’s policy with regard to chemical warfare was publicly announced in December 1987, when Iranian Prime Minister Hussein Musavi was reported to have told parliament that Iran was producing “sophisticated offensive chemical weapons.”

As Iran’s chemical warfare capabilities grew, it became more difficult to determine which side was responsible for chemical attacks during the Iran-Iraq war. In March 1988, the Kurdish town of Halabja in northern Iraq, sandwiched between Iranian and Iraqi forces, was caught in chemical weapon crossfire that left thousands of civilians dead.

www.iranwatch.org...


the U.S. government believes Iran began biological weapon efforts in the early to mid-1980s, and that it continues to pursue an offensive biological weapon program linked to its civilian biotechnology activities. The United States alleges that Iran may have started to develop small quantities of agent, possibly including mycotoxins, ricin, and the smallpox virus. Iran strongly denies acquiring or producing biological weapons.

www.nti.org...


- A perfectly foreseeable consequence of aiding and allowing Iraq to develop them by the way.
It is well known that Iran also has missile systems to deliver these weapons.

Isn't it funny how these WMDs are utterly ignored in all of this wrangling, hmmmm?

(ditto Israel's actual nuclear weapons, as opposed to these mere claims about an Iranian program - and even this is now qualified by an 'if true' series of recent US estimates of them being at least 10yrs off of an actual weapon!)



By Dafna Linzer
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, August 2, 2005; Page A01

A major U.S. intelligence review has projected that Iran is about a decade away from manufacturing the key ingredient for a nuclear weapon, roughly doubling the previous estimate of five years, according to government sources with firsthand knowledge of the new analysis.

The carefully hedged assessments, which represent consensus among U.S. intelligence agencies, contrast with forceful public statements by the White House. Administration officials have asserted, but have not offered proof, that Tehran is moving determinedly toward a nuclear arsenal.

www.washingtonpost.com...

Even the traces of enriched uranium are acknowledged to be mere contaminents by US sources -



By Dafna Linzer
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, August 23, 2005; Page A01

Traces of bomb-grade uranium found two years ago in Iran came from contaminated Pakistani equipment and are not evidence of a clandestine nuclear weapons program, a group of U.S. government experts and other international scientists has determined.

"The biggest smoking gun that everyone was waving is now eliminated with these conclusions," said a senior official who discussed the still-confidential findings on the condition of anonymity.

www.washingtonpost.com...

- Like I said not a shred of actual evidence; not that that will stop those determined to have this war anyway regardless of any actual proofs beyond their imaginations etc etc.



[edit on 5-9-2005 by sminkeypinkey]


cjf

posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 11:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey

- Like I said not a shred of actual evidence; not that that will stop those determined to have this war anyway regardless of any actual proofs beyond their imaginations etc etc.


Just out of curiosity, how do you suppose one would find the evidence in the 'nature' you require to be considered proof?

.



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 11:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by cjf

Just out of curiosity, how do you suppose one would find the evidence in the 'nature' you require to be considered proof?

.



Well for starters, don't listen to the French, the Germans, the Americans, The Dutch, the Russians, the Kuwaitis, The Saudis, the Iraqis, the British, the Aussies, the Pakistanis, the Chinese and many more.


What you must do is listen to Cuba, Venezuela, Syria, and last but not least Howard Dean....if these folks say they are doing it for peaceful purposes then let it go because surly that is all they are doing.


Or you could just ask them nicely if you could look anywhere you want.


cjf

posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 11:36 PM
link   
Hind sight being 20/20 and all.....


Originally posted by cjf
Better yet, let's just take Iran's word a face value, they have a good history.


I started to post only the above portion in the prior lengthy post, I should have 'left it at that'.


.



posted on Sep, 6 2005 @ 04:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by cjf
Just out of curiosity, how do you suppose one would find the evidence in the 'nature' you require to be considered proof?


- I'd suggest the usual, you know engagement, observation, inspection over long periods of time. That usually does it.

But what is this? Is this how nuts things now are in sections of the US?

Demand that they 'prove a negative' (an impossibility)?
Act (come hell or high water) on mere suspicion or the word of emigrés repeatedly proven to be just about the most unreliable surce going?
Once again refuse the authorities expert in these matters the opportunity to continue their work in anything like a potentially productive climate?

The world went with that kind of nonsense once it won't IMO again.

You can make all the petty little digs about Europe you like but the fact is that you will end up totally friendless if you fabricate another war in Iran.

As said before you may want to ponder just how come a civillian nuclear program is supposed to be such a threat when their chemical and biological weapons (along with the missiles to deliver them) - which they have had for years - are not even 'on the radar'.

It's a put up job.

Unless the US has evidence (of any kind) as opposed to mere rhetoric and suspicions then I suggest they shut up and let the IAEA carry on monitoring the Iranian program (which by the way they are still doing) and the Europeans continue to engage with and talk to the Iranians about what they are doing and what they need and where we might meet that need as opposed to them going it alone.

Whilst Britain, France and Germany hve expressed concern over this their concern has been at trying to defuse the tensions in this situation. They have been about trying to get the Iranians to accept European supplies of enriched uranium as opposed to them creating their own. Iran not unnaturally has said no (one wonders just how reliant the US would like to be on others if it were them, hmmm?
Especially if an aggressive country with a track record of interferring with and invading countries in their region were doing all it could to create and heighten tensions).
In any event this is not the same as saying that Britain, France and Germany think Iran has a nuclear weapons program.

Again as said a uranium enrichment capability for civillian purposes under IAEA auspices is not an illegal act.

......and let's be clear there is still not the slightest shred of actual evidence the Iranians have a nuclear weapons program at all.
The one tiny sliver of concern that has to date been used to stoke US paranoia about this has been discarded (by US experts) as mere contamination (from the Islamic country the US was happy to see 'go nuclear').


[edit on 6-9-2005 by sminkeypinkey]


cjf

posted on Sep, 6 2005 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
- I'd suggest the usual, you know engagement, observation, inspection over long periods of time. That usually does it.


1) Iran has no history of transparency and has violated to NPT for two
decades by lying.
2) Many, many items listed in the November 2004 IAEA report to the Board
of Governors still remain unanswered.
3) The IAEA's very specific limitations and are based upon a nations
willingness to abide.
(here are a few limitations):

--- The IAEA can only inspect sites that the nation of inspection declares
under the agencies ‘safeguard’
--- Any facility not declared by the nation of inspection is ‘off-limits’
---180 days prior to radiation entering a facility is the ‘window’ for
declaration
--- A few hundred or so inspectors oversee the thousands worldwide
under 'safeguard'.

Example as to what will continue to happen:



Iran also acknowledged for the first time that it had built a pilot plant to enrich uranium using lasers, something the IAEA had suspected for months. The plant had been dismantled, and soil from the site trucked away, by the time IAEA inspectors visited it last summer
(link)


Iran has a very long road ahead to develop international trust. Europe should/needs to continue take the lead role; however I see no solutions ahead, just more continued political waltzing by Iran.


Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
As said before you may want to ponder just how come a civillian nuclear program is supposed to be such a threat when their chemical and biological weapons (along with the missiles to deliver them) - which they have had for years - are not even 'on the radar'.


It is on the ‘radar’. Iran has signed and is party to the CWC and declared thier production sites (at least some of them); however Iran is currently believed to be continuing efforts moving toward full autonomy in production of C&BW.



In the future, as Iran becomes more self-sufficient at producing chemical agents, there is a potential that it will become a supplier to other states trying to develop CW capabilities. Iran supplied Libya with chemical agents in 1987
(link)



Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
......and let's be clear there is still not the slightest shred of actual evidence the Iranians have a nuclear weapons program at all.


Earlier in your discussion you mention the difficulty in proving a negative. Odd how it differnet applications are applied to parties, especially given Iran’s track record and the IAEA limitations. Prejudicial jabs at the United States do not negate Iran’s historical actions, unanswered questions and chronic non-compliance with the IAEA, just cloud the real issues


Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
The one tiny sliver of concern that has to date been used to stoke US paranoia about this has been discarded (by US experts) as mere contamination (from the Islamic country the US was happy to see 'go nuclear').


I'll pass over the latter portion of your comment as irrelevant and your opinion.

The item you are referring to is item number 40 (out of 80 or so) contained in the Nov 2004 IAEA report (in that since it is a tiny sliver0, it was however, being discounted as far back as early 2003 and it was the IAEA that expressed concerns.

Why shouldn’t the IAEA or US for that matter have concerns of Iran’s pursuit of controlling the entire nuclear cycle above and beyond that necessary for ‘peaceful energy production’? Simple prudence would dictate this as a necessity based upon facts and history. Would Iran be disclosing this information if she wasn't under pressure?





.



posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 07:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by cjf
--- The IAEA can only inspect sites that the nation of inspection declares
under the agencies ‘safeguard’
--- Any facility not declared by the nation of inspection is ‘off-limits’
---180 days prior to radiation entering a facility is the ‘window’ for
declaration
--- A few hundred or so inspectors oversee the thousands worldwide
under 'safeguard'.


- This is all well and good, however, the IAEA (as I'm sure you know full well) can make it's concerns public and/or take the matter on from there to other agencies (like the UN security council) if it chooses (which it has not in the case of Iran, at all - irrespective of whether or not you think the UNSC powerful).

Whatever you believe has previously happend the fact remains they are open for inspection and are showing their 'program'.


Example as to what will continue to happen


- Sorry but this is pure opinion and speculation on your part.


Iran has a very long road ahead to develop international trust.


- No doubt, but it is also clear that there are those - especially in the USA - who are not in the least bit concerned about any actual facts and are screaming 'nuclear weapons, nuclear weapons!' as loudly as they can in an attempt to get large parts of the US public (and beyond) to believe the Iranians actually have such things right now when they certainly do not (and according to authorititve US reports are at least 10yrs off such things even if they were trying).


Europe should/needs to continue take the lead role; however I see no solutions ahead, just more continued political waltzing by Iran.


- Given the 'wests' (especially the USA's history with Iran) in the last couple of decades this should surprise no-one.
Nevertheless relations have been improving - well that is until US hostility started to push the people to rally around a 'harder line' (funny that, huh?).


It is on the ‘radar’. Iran has signed and is party to the CWC and declared thier production sites (at least some of them); however Iran is currently believed to be continuing efforts moving toward full autonomy in production of C&BW.


- Yet there is not the slightest bit of comparable 'noise' about the 'threat' of these WMDs.
Wouldn't you say there is an ever so slight contrast with the Iraq claims - especially as part of this nonsense is supposed to revolve around loopy Iranian leaders giving nuclear weapons to 'terrorists' or firing them around the place at Israel or Europe on their long range missiles.
Funny that.

Do you think it might be because they have had them for decades and threatened no-one with them, thereby making lurid exaggerated claims about how threatening they and these weapons are, patently ridiculous and a non-flyer?
Hmmmm?


Earlier in your discussion you mention the difficulty in proving a negative. Odd how it differnet applications are applied to parties, especially given Iran’s track record and the IAEA limitations.


- What I have said is consistant, you cannot simply demand they prove they do not have a nuclear weapons program (Jayzuss wept, why not just try that one out on everyone huh?); if you are prepared to make the accusation you have to provide the grounds for that.
What you go on is evidence.
There is no credible evidence for an Iranian nuclear weapons program and the one bit of evidence that did cause alarm has now been explained and accepted as completely innocent by experts from the USA.


Prejudicial jabs at the United States do not negate Iran’s historical actions, unanswered questions and chronic non-compliance with the IAEA, just cloud the real issues


- If the USA administration lays itself open to jabs that's their problem; it's not just me a hell of a lot of people the world over see the hypocrisy of this crowd, writ large.

......and if they could but see it, it's exactly their hypocrisy that helps makes the job of gaining trust and compliance such a big problem.

[quoteI'll pass over the latter portion of your comment as irrelevant and your opinion.

- How come? Is there some untruth here? What's just opinion?
Can't you see the contrast and utter lack of concern about the Pakistani nuclear weapon?
Where is the comparable fuss in the USA given that Pakistan is an unstable military dictatorship with a serious Islamic fundamentalist 'problem'.


The item you are referring to is item number 40 (out of 80 or so) contained in the Nov 2004 IAEA report (in that since it is a tiny sliver0, it was however, being discounted as far back as early 2003 and it was the IAEA that expressed concerns.


- Yet it was US expert sources that referred to it as "the smoking gun" that got everyone so excited.

The rest may (or may not) raise concern regarding treaty compliance but it was only this that gave credible suspicion that they were actually persuing nuclear weapons.


Why shouldn’t the IAEA or US for that matter have concerns of Iran’s pursuit of controlling the entire nuclear cycle above and beyond that necessary for ‘peaceful energy production’?


- No reason at all, that is afterall in large part why the the NPT and IAEA exist.

.....and if the IAEA was making the kind of claims the US has been they might have a point.

However the point remains though that no-one but the US administration, the Israelis and emigré Iranians are saying anything about a 'bomb' program.


Simple prudence would dictate this as a necessity based upon facts and history. Would Iran be disclosing this information if she wasn't under pressure?


- Oh come on, history can indicate a lot of things; it depend a lot on what you prefer to see.

Iran has a history where they probably have no great desire to ease the American mind (or British for that matter) yet it has been obvious for some time that reformist elements have been making ground after the disasterous 'revolution' (in large part a consequence of the power games the US played with the Shah previously).

Cranking up tensions and issuing threats does not seem to me to be the most helpful path to follw.

Thank God Europe has the lead in this little episode right now.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join