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.

 

Nuclear Threat in Iran Started as a Gift From U.S.

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 06:30 AM
link   
The United States has a major part to play in the nuclear scene being played out within Iran today as we cannot forget where some of the pieces of the nuclear puzzle came from, one being a dome shaped building in the heart of Tehran which was outfitted by the U.S.
 



www.freep.com
CHICAGO -- In the heart of Tehran sits one of Iran's most important nuclear facilities, a dome-shaped building where scientists have conducted secret experiments that could help the country build atomic bombs. It was outfitted by the United States.

The Tehran Research Reactor represents a little-known aspect of the international uproar over the country's alleged weapons program. Not only did the United States provide the reactor in the 1960s as part of a Cold War strategy, it supplied the weapons-grade uranium needed to power the facility -- fuel that remains in Iran.

As the United States and other nations wrestle with Iran's refusal to curb its nuclear capabilities, an examination of the Tehran facility sheds light on the degree to which the United States was complicit in Iran developing those capabilities.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Among other problems in Iran's program some of which include carelessness, sloppy bookkeeping and a staff so poorly trained that workers had a weak understanding of "the most basic and simple principles of physics and mathematics" according to a study presented at the international nuclear conference in France in 2004.

Couple these problems with the ten pounds of highly enriched uranium given to Iran by the U.S. in the 1960s and you begin to see a recipe for disaster brewing.

Related News Links:
www.news.com.au
www.iht.com
euronews.net

[edit on 11/9/2006 by Mirthful Me]




posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 02:05 PM
link   
As started the non-threat from Iraq. It's just OBVIOUS. And people will still believe Bush Co. that Iran is dangerous when the dangerous people are the one in the White House, giving weapons of mass destructions to dictators when the dictatorship can give them cheap oil.

Advise for the next US government:

First, clean out the US government from the bastards and traitors to the constitution.
Second, stop profiling nuclear weapons, biological weapons, chemicals weapons to anyone.
Third, stop putting the US nose everywhere where it's doesn't belong.
Fourth, make threats at Israël to stop bullying palestinians and consider it as a state or they will cut financial aid.
Fifth, do something good in Afghanistan and clear those tribals war lords and make a real country. Clean opium gradually.
Sixth. Put Ann Coulter, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rockefeller,Rize,Libby and a few others in jail.
Seven. Get out of the FTAA.
Eight. Get out of the NAFTA.
Nine. Cut military spending by 50%.
Ten. Stay in Iraq but do something better.
Eleven. Close Guantanamo.
Twelve. Destroy Patriot Act 1&2
Thirteen. Stop Wiretapping.
Fourteen. Put 10% of the military budget in alternative energies.
Fifthteen. Stop illegal immigration and all mexicans already in the country become US citizens.

A lot of others things to do, so little time...

Thanks.

[edit on 11-9-2006 by Vitchilo]



posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 08:27 PM
link   
*smacks forehead*

Ok this is just embarressing. First the stinger missiles in Afganistan, then chemical weapons in Iraq, now this. Next we're going to find out we gave a death ray to Syria.



posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 08:54 PM
link   
Excellent find and post, Sentinal! Disconcerting, scary but somewhat comforting at the same time.
Permit me to offer the following link as some background and to help answer the question why a nuclear reactor in a land of oil.
www.truthout.org...



posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 09:54 PM
link   
Thanks for the post Desert, this was the part I thought was really Ironic .........


Naas said Cheney, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld all were in positions to play significant roles in Iran policy then, "but in those days, you have to view Kissinger as the main figure." Requests for comment from the offices of Cheney, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld went unanswered.
"It is absolutely incredible that the very same players who made those statements then are making completely the opposite ones now," said Joseph Cirincione, a nonproliferation expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. "Do they remember that they said this? Because the Iranians sure remember that they said it," said Cirincione, who just returned from a nuclear conference in Tehran -- a rare trip for US citizens now.


Humm, requests for comments went unanswered I wonder why??? maybe because they realize how completely foolish they look in the light of current events, granted there is a different leader in Iran now.

But they should have seen the possibilities of a radical leader taking over in the future and should have known it was bound to happen, just plain careless.



posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 10:47 PM
link   
humm... According to the following site, these are the facts.


Since 1968, the Tehran Nuclear Research Center [located in suburban Amirabad] has included a research reactor with a nominal capacity of 5 megawatts provided by the United States under IAEA safeguards. The reactor core was due to be upgraded and replaced with Argentine assistance in the late 1980s. Construction of an installation for producing radioisotopes is complete, and there are unconfirmed reports that this facility can produce plutonium from spent nuclear fuel. The Center also includes an installation for producing "yellow cake," which has not operated recently due to unsatisfactory technical condition. The Ebn-e Qasem laser technology research laboratory entered service in October 1992, although the laboratory has no lasers suitable for separating uranium isotopes.

www.globalsecurity.org...

There are a few things that most of the people who have responded here have not addressed at all.

1. The research reactor which was given to Iran in the 60s, was done by another U.S. administration.

2. Back then the Iranian regime was not claiming and yelling every chance they got that they would destroy Israel and the United States...

3. The Iranian regime, after the Iranian revolution, had for almost 20 years a nuclear weapons program, which they claimed for all those years to the whole world they did not have. At the end and after Iranian defectors kept giving specific information on those nuclear programs, the Iranian regime had to come clean and concede that they had a secret nuclear weapons program, but again, we never learnt the exact extend of the research they were able to perform in almost 20 years, or if they told us everything and whether or not we know of all the facilities they had, many of which are still underground and can't be inspected.

Now, obviously anyone with some common sense can see that this thread is a red herring, again trying to blame the United States for something which is the fault of the present regime in Iran....

[edit on 11-9-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 11:02 PM
link   
To be fare, I dont think the US put this there as a deliberate attempt to ensure a future attack.

Like Iraq and Afghan I think it goes to show when ever the US attempts to intervene internationally ' specifically ME region ' they complete mis calculate the enviroment, the economic factors, the people and the politics of the region.

It should be know now, looking back at all this.. that another attempt to engage action toward another ME country should be re-considered.

War isnt always the answer.

If Iran is such a threat to Israel, I dont understand why America should suffer.



posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 11:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
.............

War isnt always the answer.


But many times war has been the only way to finish a conflict in the past.


Originally posted by Agit8dChop
If Iran is such a threat to Israel, I dont understand why America should suffer.



First of all, the Iranian regime, including the present Iranian president, has made statements about the destrcution of the United States, not only Israel. Second, it is well known that in Iran there are government sponsored rallies, banners and billboards which call for the destruction of Israel and the United States.

Should the United States and Israel be concerned?...yes, wouldn't you be concerned if someone, who has the capability to act upon their statements, kept telling you they are going to kill you and your family?



posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 11:50 PM
link   
War is always the last resort to a conflict, it is not meant to be a tool to promote peace.

Didn't the Iranian president call for the destruction of the regimes of Israel and the US? That's probably not a good thing, but I'm just curious what people think was said.



posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 11:53 PM
link   
Yes but IRAN hasnt the capability to hit the USA.
They arent a threat.
They are a threat to Israel, and if nukes are develouped it will be Israel that is hit .

A war is the only way to finish a conflict, once war has started.
If someone in my backyard threatened me with a gun, id act.
If someone in my neighbours backyard threatend him with a gun, i wouldnt intervene unless the situation was dire.
If someone threatend me with a gun from Mauritius, I wouldnt go running over there to disarm him.

[edit on 12-9-2006 by Agit8dChop]



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 12:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib


Now, obviously anyone with some common sense can see that this thread is a red herring, again trying to blame the United States for something which is the fault of the present regime in Iran....

[edit on 11-9-2006 by Muaddib]


Not exactly a red herring when some of the same players have been shown to be involved back then, sure it was a diffrent regime but anyone with a little common sense could have seen that the potential for a radical leader coming into power was huge given their Islamic history. Ayatollah Ruhallah Khomeini was exiled from Iran in 1964 for instigating religious and political uprisings against the shah from 1964 to 1978

anyone with half a brain (not meaning you Muaddib) could see that the potential for a regime change was a real threat in the face of such unrest and political insurgencies that were trying to take place at the time. do I fault the U.S. for this meddling??? yes, we should have kept out of Iran.





[edit on 12-9-2006 by the_sentinal]

[edit on 12-9-2006 by the_sentinal]

[edit on 12-9-2006 by the_sentinal]



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 01:21 AM
link   
Israel will not allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons. If that means a pre-emptive strike they will do it. its that simple folks.



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 01:46 AM
link   
Yes Xphilesphan we will see a war out of this situation, just look at the words of our leader today during 9/11 speeches................




The war against this enemy is more than a military conflict," the president said. "It is the decisive ideological struggle of the 21st century and the calling of our generation.



He said Islamic radicals are trying to build an empire "where women are prisoners in their homes, men are beaten for missing prayer meetings and terrorists have a safe haven to plan and launch attacks on America and other civilized nations."



statements like these lead one to believe that were not far from a move by ethier side in this war on terror.

[edit on 12-9-2006 by the_sentinal]



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 08:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
Yes but IRAN hasnt the capability to hit the USA.
They arent a threat.


i guess terrorists from Iran can't take a plane with the blessings of the Iranian regime and come to the United States?....


Originally posted by Agit8dChop
They are a threat to Israel, and if nukes are develouped it will be Israel that is hit .


and you think that's good?... Some people should inform themselves as what being allies means.


Originally posted by Agit8dChop
A war is the only way to finish a conflict, once war has started.
If someone in my backyard threatened me with a gun, id act.
If someone in my neighbours backyard threatend him with a gun, i wouldnt intervene unless the situation was dire.


Then you wouldn't have any friends since you wouldn't lift a finger if you saw a good neighbor of yours being threatened...


Originally posted by Agit8dChop
If someone threatend me with a gun from Mauritius, I wouldnt go running over there to disarm him.


I guess if you knew, directly from the horses mouth, that they had 29 targets acquired in your family, without you knowing who the hired aggresors are, and they are just waiting for the go ahead you would still sit back relaxed and not do anything about it?...

i guess that if you knew that that someone threatening you from the other side of an ocean has funded and instigated groups to attack you and attack friends of yours and family members you would still sit back and relax , hey who needs friends and family right?...



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 08:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by the_sentinal




The war against this enemy is more than a military conflict," the president said. "It is the decisive ideological struggle of the 21st century and the calling of our generation.



He said Islamic radicals are trying to build an empire "where women are prisoners in their homes, men are beaten for missing prayer meetings and terrorists have a safe haven to plan and launch attacks on America and other civilized nations."



statements like these lead one to believe that were not far from a move by ethier side in this war on terror.

[edit on 12-9-2006 by the_sentinal]


And tell us, is any of what the president said above not true?... i can show you hundreds of instances around the world where that is exactly what is happening.



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by the_sentinal

Not exactly a red herring when some of the same players have been shown to be involved back then, sure it was a diffrent regime but anyone with a little common sense could have seen that the potential for a radical leader coming into power was huge given their Islamic history. Ayatollah Ruhallah Khomeini was exiled from Iran in 1964 for instigating religious and political uprisings against the shah from 1964 to 1978

anyone with half a brain (not meaning you Muaddib) could see that the potential for a regime change was a real threat in the face of such unrest and political insurgencies that were trying to take place at the time. do I fault the U.S. for this meddling??? yes, we should have kept out of Iran.


Noone, not even the best generals would know for definetly the outcome of what is going to happen in a country in the next generation, no matter how much someone would like to try.

You can guess and you might be able to predict some of the changes, but mostly you would be "guessing"... Anyone with 1/4 of a brain would see that.



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 08:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by the_sentinal
... they should have seen the possibilities of a radical leader taking over in the future and should have known it was bound to happen, just plain careless.


Yes, very. Here we were in Iran listening to our enemy then (Soviet Union), and yet we couldn't hear the voices outside the embassy gates. Other cultures elude many Americans. Leaders need to understand the cultural context of foreign policy.
Back then, as long as the Shah was buying from our military industry, everything was copacetic.



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 08:53 AM
link   
Keeping a country in fear by their own leaders while claiming that they are in power to keep the people safe is nothing more than an attempt to maintain the people in oppression and their freedoms on standby.

Historically our nation has done many deeds toward other countries and then claim foul play when other nations turn against us.

Supporting regimes over other regimes helps keep nations unstable for future agendas.

Iran was an enemy then a friend now an enemy again and nobody cares about what the people is called in between because is not about the people at all.

Shame, shame and more shame.



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 09:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
You can guess and you might be able to predict some of the changes, but mostly you would be "guessing"...


Very true, Muaddib. Scenarios are run, and hopefully leaders will be wise enough to choose the best one.



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 09:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by XphilesPhan
Israel will not allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons. If that means a pre-emptive strike they will do it. its that simple folks.


I disagree.

Beyond all the tough talk, it's unlikely Israel has the capability to stop Iran's nuclear program with airstrikes - it's spread all over a very large country for one thing. And Iran is unlikely to let Israel attack without a major response.

Even the US would have difficulty pulling it off - we would certainly be able to slow down the program and set it back a few years, but to decisively end Iran's nuclear program would require a full scale invasion and occupation - something that's simply not in the cards.




top topics



 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join