Ahmadinejad wants Security Council appearance

Originally posted by zurvan

Originally posted by benevolent tyrant
Among the activities that places Iran in major violation of the IAEA treaties are:

- The failure to report Uranium Imports from China (Iran has acknowledged this)

- Iran did not inform the IAEA of it's program of Uranium Conversion (Iran acknowledged this).

-Iran did not report it's program of Uranium enrichment to the IAEA

-Iran did not report the presence of enrichment facilities or labs at several of their nuclear development sites.

-Iran did not report Laser Isotope Enrichment experiments, again an IAEA requirement

-Iran did not report the development of uranium dioxide and other Plutonium Experiments

Summary of Iran's IAEA violations

Good points. but they are all now declared aren't they? so can you show some present and acitve violations of NPT?

You don't seem to understand....

THESE ARE active and present violations of the NPT. Keep in mind that these violations, though acknowledged by Iran, were not something that they did acknowledge until the Iranians were confronted with the evidence. The Iranians did not go out and volunteer the information that they were not in compliance with NPT. It's akin to admitting a crime after you were caught in the act -- red handed.

Iran continues to do their non-compliant research and development. Just because they have acknowledged, in some cases, their violations does not mean that they have stopped. Iran continues to be in violation of the NPT on a number of issues the most notable being the Iranian's reluctance to allow inspections.

Originally posted by Mdv2

Europe, Israel and the US have no right to forbid Iran from enriching uranium; as for Israel, they don't even obey the UN themselves and Europe and the US allowed South Korea, Saudi Arabia and others to freely enrich uranium so saying Iran can't because we don't like them is no legit reason.

Actually Europe and the US do have a right to forbid Iran from enriching uranium. The signatories to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty do, indeed, have the right to raise objections and levy sanctions against those countries who violate the agreement.

Israel, on the other hand, is another case altogether. Israel, first of all is only suspected of possessing nuclear weapons. There has never been any confirmation of this. These days, it would seem, suspicion is all that is needed to enact regime change and, well, who knows? Nevertheless, Israel was never a signatory to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and, thus, is not bound by international inspections of any kind. As for Israel having a right to "forbid" Iran from developing nuclear capability, I would have to say that it does. I say this because Israel was clearly threatened in statements that the President of Iran has made. In fact, if we are dealing with legalities, Israel might be the only country that might be justified in any hostilities against Iran's nuclear development facilities. Whereas the rest of the world can only protest violations of an NPT, Israel can take the stance that it was threatened and had to act in reply to that threat.

Originally posted by benevolent tyrant
[
Israel, on the other hand, is another case altogether. Israel, first of all is only suspected of possessing nuclear weapons. There has never been any confirmation of this. These days, it would seem, suspicion is all that is needed to enact regime change and, well, who knows? Nevertheless, Israel was never a signatory to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and, thus, is not bound by international inspections of any kind. As for Israel having a right to "forbid" Iran from developing nuclear capability, I would have to say that it does. I say this because Israel was clearly threatened in statements that the President of Iran has made. In fact, if we are dealing with legalities, Israel might be the only country that might be justified in any hostilities against Iran's nuclear development facilities. Whereas the rest of the world can only protest violations of an NPT, Israel can take the stance that it was threatened and had to act in reply to that threat.

Fare enough but yet again.

The stupid President of iran said if translated corretly:
the Zionist Regime should be wiped of earth. as someone on this forum pointed out how is this different to US wanting regime change in Iran? Should the idea of regime change be taken as the will to kill all Iranians? or destroy Iran?

The regime in Iran since its inception has been under indirenct attack from US and under threat of regime change! so why can't they do the same thing?


So therefore Iran could say the same thing and attack America? no I am just following your logic.

Originally posted by zurvan

The stupid President of iran said if translated corretly:
the Zionist Regime should be wiped of earth. as someone on this forum pointed out how is this different to US wanting regime change in Iran? Should the idea of regime change be taken as the will to kill all Iranians? or destroy Iran?

The regime in Iran since its inception has been under indirenct attack from US and under threat of regime change! so why can't they do the same thing?


So therefore Iran could say the same thing and attack America? no I am just following your logic.

Considering that I have read Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's statement threatening Israels' annihilation several times through various media outlets (not all Western), I can only accept that the translation is quite accurate. As far as calling a threat to destroy the "Zionist regime" in Israel, I wonder how this can be done without destroying Israel at the same time.

Additionally, just in case President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was misquoted, I have to accept Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani , one of Iran's ruling clerics' statement regarding Israel, and I quote;

"If a day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms Israel has in possession, the strategy of colonialism would face a stalemate because application of an atomic bomb would not leave any thing in Israel but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world" Iranian Press Service

While not as explicit as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's statement, Rafsanjani's statement certainly makes a "willingness to destroy Israel" quite clearly. Considering that Iran is, essentially, ruled by clerics, Rafsanjani's statement only serves to underscore a very real threat to Israel.

In politics and diplomacy language, with all of it's subtleties and nuances, means everything. Although there is certainly enough sabre-rattling coming from the United States aimed at Iran, I have not heard any direct threats to destroy Iran. There is a difference.

I can only hope that Iran is simply spewing forth anti-Israeli / anti-zionist rhetoric aimed specifically towards an Arab / Iranian / Islamic audience. Such talk is quite popular in that sphere and it may be meant to play up to that segment in order to garner popularity. Of course, such blatant discussion would be perceived quite differently in the West. I only hope and pray that this is the case. I cannot believe that Iran's leadership would be so quick to simply annihilate millions of Israelis as well as the collateral casualties among Israels' Palestinian, Lebenese and Jordanian neighbors. Nevertheless, viewed as a sincere threat, the West's concern is understandable.



[edit on 3/13/2007 by benevolent tyrant]

Originally posted by benevolent tyrant
Israel, on the other hand, is another case altogether. Israel, first of all is only suspected of possessing nuclear weapons. There has never been any confirmation of this.

There has, a few months ago, by Olmert himself.

Originally posted by benevolent tyrant
Israel was never a signatory to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and, thus, is not bound by international inspections of any kind.

So basically every country that hasn't signed the NPT could freely enrich uranium according to your theory? Oh, my bad, Israel is of course an exception.

Originally posted by benevolent tyrant
As for Israel having a right to "forbid" Iran from developing nuclear capability, I would have to say that it does. I say this because Israel was clearly threatened in statements that the President of Iran has made.

Ahmadinejad threatened the Israeli government and I cannot disagree with him. They are brutal, don't care about human rights and colonize the Palestinian territories.

I might add that Saudi-Arabia and South-Korea are also members of the NPT, but are allowed to enrich uranium, likely for the development of nuclear weapons. The Washington Post wrote an excellent article about the motives the Bush administration had to not bring their cases to the security council.

Originally posted by Mdv2

Originally posted by benevolent tyrant
Israel, on the other hand, is another case altogether. Israel, first of all is only suspected of possessing nuclear weapons. There has never been any confirmation of this.

There has, a few months ago, by Olmert himself.

Originally posted by benevolent tyrant
Israel was never a signatory to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and, thus, is not bound by international inspections of any kind.

So basically every country that hasn't signed the NPT could freely enrich uranium according to your theory? Oh, my bad, Israel is of course an exception.

Originally posted by benevolent tyrant
As for Israel having a right to "forbid" Iran from developing nuclear capability, I would have to say that it does. I say this because Israel was clearly threatened in statements that the President of Iran has made.

Ahmadinejad threatened the Israeli government and I cannot disagree with him. They are brutal, don't care about human rights and colonize the Palestinian territories.

I might add that Saudi-Arabia and South-Korea are also members of the NPT, but are allowed to enrich uranium, likely for the development of nuclear weapons. The Washington Post wrote an excellent article about the motives the Bush administration had to not bring their cases to the security council.

The crux of this discussion seems to be "who is allowed nuclear capabilities and who isn't. The answer is simple...anyone can have nuclear capabilities. You name a country willing to invest the necessary funding for research and development and that country can, in time, a nuclear weapon. It's as simple as that.

The nuclear non-proliferation treaty is an international treaty which was opened for signatures on July 1,1968. The NPT was proposed by Ireland. The first signatory to the agreement was FinlandTo date, 188 different countrys have agreed to the terms of the NPT. The three main aspects or "pillars" of the NPT are; non-proliferation, disarmament and the right to pursue peaceful uses of nuclear technologies.

It is important to note that of the world's eight "recognized" or confirmed nuclear powers -- recognition is confirmed by actual testing -- Pakistan and India are NOT signatories to the agreement. Additionally, Israel, in spite of recent comments by Ehud Olmert, Israel's Prime Minister, maintains an official policy of "nuclear ambiguity". Regardless of whether we believe that Israel has nuclear weapons or not (I personally do believe that they have nuclear capabilities), Olmert's comments to that effect, and subsequent denial, only confirm that policy of ambiguity (such is the case with the language of politics). Either way, Israel is also not bound by the tenets of the NPT.

Non signatories are not bound by the NPT. It is obvious, however, that the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons is desireable. We already have enough nukes and we certainly do not need more of them. Like the proverbial "Pandora's Box", once developed, it is impossible to close that box with any certainty. It is likely, therefore, that any non-signatory nation developing nukes would face sanctions. However, once developed, nations like India and Pakistan that have confirmed nuclear weapons, have to be treated differently. Yes, sanctions are one avenue. In their case, however, transfers of civilian nuclear technologies have been made in exchange for the curtailment of further military nuclear development.

As far as Iran's nuclear program goes, we must keep in mind that Iran has placed itself into serious violation of the non-proliferation treaty -- Iran was a signatory to that treaty!

Remember that Iran, under the terms of the NPT, was entirely free to pursue the development of "peaceful uses of nuclear technology". Iran placed itself in direct violation to the NPT by, among other things, the cessation regular inspections. At this point, as far as Iran goes, all we can do is speculate. Nevertheless, Irans' actions in relation to these violations are highly suspect. Add the volitile statements of Iran's President and those of it's leading cleric which apparhently threaten the existance of Israel and you have, in a nutshell, the situation that we have today.

At this point, I would like to point out that I, like most others, am against nuclear weapons. I believe that nukes are a paradoxical weapon -- one which must never be used. No one wins. Furthermore, I do believe that Iran has every right to the peaceful uses of nuclear technology. While I personally do not believe that energy generated by nuclear power is the way to go, I do believe that Iran certainly has that right. After all, Iran did sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and was perfectly within her rights to do so. That is, until now. As a signatory to the NPT, Iran commited herself to those tenets and is bound by that agreement. By violating the agreement, Iran must face any sanctions that the IAEA deems until it complies. It is as simple as that.

Even though Israel probably has nuclear weapons (sic), Israel is not bound by the NPT. Israels' offical policy of "ambiguity" and that any nuclear capability that Israel might have has not been "confirmed", Israel, under the language of political legalese, cannot be officially recognized as having nuclear weapons. That said, under the UN charter, Israel has a right to defend itself especially in the face of threats, especially those that are leveled at Israel by the leadership of another nation.

We can all agree that this is an explosive situation. I hope that this situation can be remedied. One way that this volitile situation can be diffused is for Iran to return to NPT compliance. If Iran allows inspectors to return, if Iran halts any non-compliant activities then, and only then, can this situation return to some degree of normalcy. The anti zionist, anti Israeli rhetoric will probably continue, however, as that is, in itself, normal.

As far as human rights go, Iran pointing out Israel's human rights abuses is like the pot calling the kettle black. Iran's own human rights record is far from unblemished. There is no scale, no tit for tat, when it comes to the abuse of human beings, it is wrong -- period. Both Israel and Iran are culpable, it would seem, of gross, inhumane treatment of the populationis within their control.

Originally posted by benevolent tyrant
According to IAEA, Iran has numerous violations of the treaties that were signed and agreed upon by signatories that, most assuredly, included Iran. In other words, Iran agreed to these IAEA regulations and they were not something that the West "imposed" upon Iran.

Among the activities that places Iran in major violation of the IAEA treaties are:

- The failure to report Uranium Imports from China (Iran has acknowledged this)

- Iran did not inform the IAEA of it's program of Uranium Conversion (Iran acknowledged this).

-Iran did not report it's program of Uranium enrichment to the IAEA

-Iran did not report the presence of enrichment facilities or labs at several of their nuclear development sites.

-Iran did not report Laser Isotope Enrichment experiments, again an IAEA requirement

-Iran did not report the development of uranium dioxide and other Plutonium Experiments

Summary of Iran's IAEA violations

Thanks for the reply in my stead, it sometimes takes me a while to get back to these posts. What about Irans barring of the 38 inspectors a while back, is that a violation? I think the real problem here is pride. As I imagine that Iranians are a proud people, they dont want to be regulated by outsiders, even though they signed an agreement to have their nuclear activities regulated by outsiders. What do you think would happen if Iran were to withdraw formally from the NPT?

Originally posted by ludaChris
[ What do you think would happen if Iran were to withdraw formally from the NPT?

I actually shudder to think about the implications should Iran withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.Doing so would open Iran up to a full level of sanctions that would be designed to bring Iran back to compliance.

I would imagine that the impact of such sanctions would, ultimately, bring economic or even physical hardships to the common citizens of Iran. The reasoning, of course, is that Iran will return to the NPT out of concern for the people. Expecting that the government of Iran will ignore the sanctions in the pursuit of their own nuclear aims, another goal of the sanctions might be to help foment the dissatisfaction of Iranians in the hope that regime change might occur due to a "revolt" of Iran's population led by the increasing number of dissidents groups now in existence.

Of course, a revolt -- hopefully a "quiet one" should it occur -- would probably solve many problems and issues. The probability should, such a regime change occur, would be the installation of a government that would be seeking a cessation of sanctions through the restoration of the NPT. Then tensions would subside and all would be good.

Unfortunately, I am not that optimistic. The reality of the situation, should Iran formally withdraw from the NPT would be an increased level of tension. Iran's current government would, most likely, be even more defiant of the West and of Israels' sovereignty. Naturally, up go the global tensions even more.

The possible result is what makes me shudder. Under this scenario, one that I think is most likely to occur should Iran withdraw from the NPT, the tensions would lead to an even more serious situation -- a shooting war. It might be an error of judgement. It might be "one-up-manship" from one side or the other (Iran and Israel). It could just be that Israel feels threatened enough to attack the Iranian nuclear facilities with conventional weapons and Iran responds in kind or worse. If Iran formally withdrew from the NPT, it would be tantamount to an admission that Iran is developing a nuclear weapons capability. At that point all bets are off.

As a bit of background information, North Korea, once a signatory to the NPT was the first and only signatory to withdraw from the agreement. North Korea and the Non Proliferation Treaty

Originally posted by benevolent tyrant

Considering that I have read Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's statement threatening Israels' annihilation several times through various media outlets (not all Western), I can only accept that the translation is quite accurate. As far as calling a threat to destroy the "Zionist regime" in Israel, I wonder how this can be done without destroying Israel at the same time.

2 things:

first can you please quote one Persian source that says what you are claiming. I do not want translations. The regime in Iran always referes to "The Zionist Regime" when they are talking about their enemy in middle east or the "little satan" as they put it.

second. Us wants regime change in Iran, right? can you see that happening without destroying Iran at the same time?

if you say no then well you see US is guilty of what you are accusing Iran doing as well

if you say yes then maybe according to the Mullahs "the zionist regime" could also hypothetically be replaced by something else withou destroying Isarel?

anyway the point is that the Mullahs are not the only country threatening anohter regime in a different country.

Additionally, just in case President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was misquoted, I have to accept Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani , one of Iran's ruling clerics' statement regarding Israel, and I quote;

"If a day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms Israel has in possession, the strategy of colonialism would face a stalemate because application of an atomic bomb would not leave any thing in Israel but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world" Iranian Press Service

[edit on 3/13/2007 by benevolent tyrant]

Well again it could be said that:

1)Hashemi was talking hypothetically and he also refered to it as a stalemate and not a check mate!
To me if he was actually thinking of a Nuclear war he would say checkmate and not stalemate. Stalemate to me is more like MAD. you know a no winners situation.

I am no supporter of the current regime btw.

Originally posted by benevolent tyrant

The crux of this discussion seems to be "who is allowed nuclear capabilities and who isn't. The answer is simple...anyone can have nuclear capabilities. You name a country willing to invest the necessary funding for research and development and that country can, in time, a nuclear weapon. It's as simple as that.

Name a country that has all the above? Iran.
wait a minute are you saying that Iran is allowed to have nuclear weapons?

The nuclear non-proliferation treaty is an international treaty which was opened for signatures on July 1,1968. The NPT was proposed by Ireland. The first signatory to the agreement was FinlandTo date, 188 different countrys have agreed to the terms of the NPT. The three main aspects or "pillars" of the NPT are; non-proliferation, disarmament and the right to pursue peaceful uses of nuclear technologies.

So what were the pillars again? did I hear disarmament? how does that go with:

Upgrade of Trident by English?
Upgrade of French Nuclear Arsenal
The new research carried out in US on new types of Bombs?

Are these violations or not? just curious.

As far as Iran's nuclear program goes, we must keep in mind that Iran has placed itself into serious violation of the non-proliferation treaty -- Iran was a signatory to that treaty!

Is it only Iran?

Remember that Iran, under the terms of the NPT, was entirely free to pursue the development of "peaceful uses of nuclear technology". As a signatory to the NPT, Iran commited herself to those tenets and is bound by that agreement. By violating the agreement, Iran must face any sanctions that the IAEA deems until it complies. It is as simple as that.

So what about the other nations in violation should they face sacntions too? or is it that the rules that apply to Iran don't apply to bigger powers?

How is it that some other countries are openly discussin their next generation nuclear weapons while others are not even allowed to think about it?

Bush pretty much cemented his hypocrisy about his commitment to the NPT regime when he struck a deal with India in which the U.S. would transfer nuclear fuel, technology and parts to India in exchange for India spending billions of dollars on American defense industries. The hypocrisy began with the fact that India is not a member of the NPT and therefore is outside of the inspection and control regime of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). In negotiating the treaty, the U.S. ignored virtually every single proliferation constraint allowing India to process weapons grade material at eight of their reactors without the required IAEA inspections. By transferring nuclear fuel, the U.S. is in violation of Article I of the NPT which states that “Each nuclear-weapons State Party to the treaty undertakes not to transfer to any recipient whatsoever nuclear-weapons or other nuclear explosive devices…” and Article VI which states that “Each of the parties to the treaty undertakes to pursuit negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to the cessation of the nuclear arms race.”

if we go to war with iran, it will be a war of words.


we are both civilized nations and there are many innocent civilians in both countries who do not want to go to war that includes bombing and military use.

Originally posted by zurvan
wait a minute are you saying that Iran is allowed to have nuclear weapons?

No. I am not saying that Iran is allowed to have nuclear powers. Iran is
a signatory to the NPT. Iran has agreed -- promised, if you will -- not to develop nuclear weapons. Furthermore, Iran has agreed to allow her nuclear laboratories and facilities to be inspected.

What I did say was that, for all intents and purposes, non signatories to the NPT are allowed to have nuclear weapons. After all, such countries
are not promising to develop or possess such nuclear capabilities.

So what were the pillars again? did I hear disarmament? how does that go with:

Upgrade of Trident by English?
Upgrade of French Nuclear Arsenal
The new research carried out in US on new types of Bombs?

Are these violations or not? just curious.

Although upgrading the weapons that you have mentioned might seem contradictory, in actuality they are in compliance with the treaty. These
are technological upgrades, primarily to delivery and guidance systems.
All the while, actual numbers of nuclear weapons have decreased.

Over the last several decades, there have been numerous treaties -- primarily between the U.S. and the former Soviet Union and the present state of Russia -- to reduce actual numbers of nuclear warheads within their arsenals. This IS disarmament. It may not be as fast as any of us
would like but at least it is in the right direction. Actual numbers of nuclear
weapons have been decreased!

So what about the other nations in violation should they face sanctions too? or is it that the rules that apply to Iran don't apply to bigger powers?

Other countries that are in violation? Oh, you mean North Korea. Well North Korea certainly has been under serious scrutiny by the members
of the NPT. After all, like Iran, North Korea has and continues to be in violation of the NPT -- a treaty that North Korea is a signatory.

Just like Iran, North Korea faces sanctions from the world community. Sanctions, however, are rather difficult to impose upon a country of such
tremendous poverty and deprivation. For humanitarian reasons, food supplies continue to enter North Korea. After all, we cannot allow innocent
people to starve, can we? Yet, ironically, sanctioning food shipments is the
one piece of leverage that the NPT treaties might exert with success against the North Korean regime. At the point of starvation, the people might actually rise up to overthrow their dictatorship.

How is it that some other countries are openly discussing their next generation nuclear weapons while others are not even allowed to think about it?

Countries that have nuclear weapons can certainly capable, within the confines of the NPT, to research, test and "improve" their nuclear capabilities. But as stated earlier, these "typically" mean improvements to the delivery and guidance systems. If you don't have nuclear weapons, there is no reason to even think about them IF you had agreed not to do so.

I can understand your confusion on this issue. In essence, the NPT is legalese -- or the language of diplomacy. While on the surface it might seem like "double-speak", it really is very logical. The primary goal of the NPT is simple. The NPT recognizes, in essence, that nuclear weapons are a threat to mankind. It also recognizes that technology, once developed, is all but impossible to "un-invent". Furthermore, recognizing and accepting the world situation as it is, it might not be feasible or realistic to expect that all nations will voluntarily lay down all of their nuclear arms. What is reasonable is that the numbers of nuclear weapons might be limited. The NPT brought together countries throughout the world to agree NOT to develop nuclear weapons in a mutually verifiable way. Hopefully, in time, the numbers of such weapons might be decreased to such levels that they might not pose such a devastating threat to all mankind as they do now.