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 To Reward Iran With Nuclear Technology

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 10:40 AM
link   
In what is billed as a major concession by Washington, the US is to provide Iran with nuclear technology in return for Tehran's halting of its nuclear enrichment program. The offer is part of a large package of rewards offered to Iran in exchange for their forgoing of some NPT expressed rights. The deal is hoped to end Iran's standoff with the West over its nuclear program.
 



news. yahoo.com
VIENNA, Austria - A package of incentives presented Tuesday to Iran includes a provision for the United States to supply Tehran with some nuclear technology if it stops enriching uranium — a major concession by Washington, diplomats said.

The offer was part of a series of rewards offered to Tehran by European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana, according to the diplomats, who were familiar with the proposals and spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because they were disclosing confidential details of the offer.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


For those familiar with the North Korean nuclear showdown of the early 90's, this package is very similar to that offered Pyongyang by the Clinton administration.

The program of providing Pyongyang with US nuclear technology - in the form of a nuclear reactor - was actively shunned and eventually destroyed by the incoming Bush administration.

That a similar proposal would be sanctioned by the same Bush administration that destroyed the North Korean version is very surprising.

Can we expect this latest nuclear carrot from the US and the EU to be dragged out, debated, questioned and eventually abandoned just as the North Korean version was? I would say "yes". Will it mean that Iran will continue to pursue nuclear weapons in a clandestine manner? Well if they currently are pursuing nuclear weapons, this wont stop them.

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 6/6/06 by subz]




posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 12:23 PM
link   
I must admit, this scares the crap out of me. Iran cannot be trusted with nuclear technology, no matter who the supplier is. This is a dangerous road we now walk down, and I wonder if there isn't a better way.



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 12:33 PM
link   
See, this is what I can't understand. We (the US) didn't want Iran playing with anything that could possibly be "nucular." Now we are going to help them play with their nuclear toys by giving some to them, as long as they don't enrich uranium. Then they have to give up some rights from the NPT? Funny, there are countries that are not a part of this, and they develop their own. I have a feeling this is all going to turn into a mess eventually, possibly a mess that makes Iraq look like basic training, if we don't walk carefully.



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 12:58 PM
link   
It sort of sounds like we are mortaging the future just to make it through the present.



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 01:08 PM
link   
I dont think a nuclear armed Iran is automatically a bad thing. When you burn through all the propaganda thats churned out day and night you get to see that Iran's President Ahmadinejad is nothing but an outspoken pragmatist.

Israel needs a counter balance as currently its riding roughshod over anyone and anything in its way. Maybe a nuclear armed Iran will nullify Israel's nuclear option, thus reducing the likelyhood of nuclear warfare.

Does anyone think nuclear weapons would not of been used by the United States or the USSR if the other side was not nuclear equiped? Look at the United States use of nukes against non-nuclear Japan. If the goal is a reduction of the likelyhood of nuclear war than it cannot be denied that MAD is the only proven strategy when atleast one side is already nuclear armed.

[edit on 6/6/06 by subz]



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 01:19 PM
link   
how about someone congratulating the u.s? for crying out loud, they are doing something quite out of the ordinary to avoid war, they are going to give them uranium far from bomb enrichment, and in return for more stringent inspections i assume. this is a pretty peaceful solution for a "war mongering" country. give them some respect when they deserve, it all everyone can do these days is bash the u.s no one ever gives them credit for the positive stuff.



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by acura_el2000
how about someone congratulating the u.s? for crying out loud, they are doing something quite out of the ordinary to avoid war, they are going to give them uranium far from bomb enrichment, and in return for more stringent inspections i assume. this is a pretty peaceful solution for a "war mongering" country. give them some respect when they deserve, it all everyone can do these days is bash the u.s no one ever gives them credit for the positive stuff.

Who's bashing "the US"?

Im rather reluctant to start singing the praises of this latest nuclear carrot. You would do well to spend some time reading up on how the Bush administration destroyed a very similar plan to this regarding the North Koreans.

Instead of carrying on with the Clinton administrations plan of offering North Korea a light water nuclear reactor and energy assistance, they chose to label North Korea as part of the Axis of Evil (along with Iran may I add) and refused to "reward" enemies of the United States. They then proceeded to dismantle every single effort to coax North Korea into dropping their OVERT nuclear weapons program until the very last scrap of lingering support from Japan and South Korea died off last month.

Now we have North Korea nuclear armed precisely because the Bush administration would not negotiate with North Korea or ratify "anything to do with Clinton". Now they suddenly about-face and try the same plan with Iran are we to congratulate them?!

If a complete moron admits he's been a complete moron it doesnt mean he should be congratulated. Especially when they're meant to be running the most powerful nation on Earth.

[edit on 6/6/06 by subz]



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 03:38 PM
link   
Whoa, whoa, I'm not bashing the US, I'm just wondering at the thinking behind this strategy. Just because I disagree with ONE decision the administration makes (or ten, or twenty) doesn't mean I'm bashing the entire country. I'm part of the country, so why would I bash it?

Dissent and disagreement is part of Democracy. Not liking something that those in power do is a natural part of freedom. That's the definition of freedom. Please don't get those two things confused. I love my country, but as Al Franken says, I love my country the way and adult loves another adult. I see the things it does and speak out when I disagree. That's how love works, it's a lifelong committment to get the best out of something, not blind loyalty to a status quo.

We are all in this together, and I'd rather see us speaking out when we don't agree and having open debate. I don't mean to demonize the other side because I disagree, and I don't want to be demonized for speaking out. Let's discuss, and let's argue, and let's posture, but we should never leave each other behind.



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by RockerDom
Whoa, whoa, I'm not bashing the US, I'm just wondering at the thinking behind this strategy.


... Let's discuss, and let's argue, and let's posture, but we should never leave each other behind.


i'm thinking, that the administration is thinking..."we need more time to get a handle on this and manage a temporary resolution"..
i'm thinking that the administration sees the financial grip it has on the world getting weaker.
i'm thinking this is ultimately a 'delay tactic' (didn't subz say that already)
i'm thinking the Iran proposal is so laced with conditions that Iran will be characterized as inflexible & confrontational for dismissing the proposal outright...
which is the world opinion the USA is anticipating.



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by subz
I dont think a nuclear armed Iran is automatically a bad thing. When you burn through all the propaganda thats churned out day and night you get to see that Iran's President Ahmadinejad is nothing but an outspoken pragmatist.

Israel needs a counter balance as currently its riding roughshod over anyone and anything in its way. Maybe a nuclear armed Iran will nullify Israel's nuclear option, thus reducing the likelyhood of nuclear warfare.

Does anyone think nuclear weapons would not of been used by the United States or the USSR if the other side was not nuclear equiped? Look at the United States use of nukes against non-nuclear Japan. If the goal is a reduction of the likelyhood of nuclear war than it cannot be denied that MAD is the only proven strategy when atleast one side is already nuclear armed.

[edit on 6/6/06 by subz]


Subz,
Yes MAD worked for the US and USSR for the duration of the cold war. Now we are dealing with a different cultcher of people with WMD. Now we are dealing with people whome are willing to detenont explosives killing them self and many other people in a place of worship just because it is not of the clan or the cultcher that they happen to like.
So, do you really think MAD is going to work in this case?



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by RedGolem
Subz,
Yes MAD worked for the US and USSR for the duration of the cold war. Now we are dealing with a different cultcher of people with WMD. Now we are dealing with people whome are willing to detenont explosives killing them self and many other people in a place of worship just because it is not of the clan or the cultcher that they happen to like.
So, do you really think MAD is going to work in this case?

Ok im going to take that comment as indicating a lack of understanding, rather than a racial slur.

Iran is a modern nation, not a terrorist entity. You are comparing apples and oranges when you apply the mindset of suicide bombers to entire governments.

The Iranian government is a legitimate and democratically elected entity. The theocratic side are fundamentalists but not extremists. Did you know that Ayatollah Khamenei issued a religious edict (fatwah) banning Iran from pursuing nuclear weapons. This not only demonstrates that the US assertions about Iran's nuclear intentions are wrong, but that Irans theocratic leaders are not bloody thirsty terrorists itching to see mushroom clouds over Israel.

It must be also added that Iran's theocratic leaders, if equiped with nuclear weapons, would not launch them against Israel for a multitude of reasons. One, Israel has threatend repeatedly that they are aiming their illegal nuclear weapons at Mecca and Medina. Two, the theocrats know they would be annihilated before they even got to see the effects of their nuclear weapons. Three, they would not dare destroy the Temple Mount which is located in Jerusalem.

The culture of Islam, and Iran, is a peaceful one. Iran has not launched a war against a nation for thousands of years. It has only fought defensive wars. That is more than can be said about so-called Christian nations such as Britain and the United States.

Your sweeping generalization of Iranian/Islamic culture is widely off the mark and fatally flawed due to its basis in propaganda.



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 07:07 PM
link   
Perhaps the whole reason behind this new approach to Iran is due to pressure from other countries against the US. . .

After the fiasco in Iraq I guess it will be for the best interest of US and the rest of the nations to make Iran an ally not an enemy.



new topics

top topics



 
4

log in

join