It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by ocker
Iran has been open in regards to inspections and found to comply of late with the NPT.
Iran has agreed in principle to export most of its enriched uranium for processing .and have been open in all other matters regarding enrichment .
During the time it took to negotiate the deal, Iran accumulated more uranium. According to some analysts, Iran could follow through with the Turkey deal and still have enough uranium for a nuclear warhead.
Iran and has been pushing for the removal of all weapons of mass destruction across the globe:
They are not the Rouge Nation USrael are the ones we should be worried about
Going on the said finding I would speculate that I'f any warheads were on the market in the 1990's USrael would of been the first to get their hands on them.
What about USraels hidden Dimona nuclear weapons factory
That's not true:
If you would have done your homework, you would be aware that they would still have enough uranium left for further enrichment.
Nowhere, I am saying Israel is any better or has more rights than Iran to have nuclear weapons. My reasoning is not based on bias, in contrast to some other people on here.
Originally posted by ocker
The Heritage Foundation is a conservative American think tank.
one sided don't you think since the US hangs off the tail of the rouge dog.
Iran is not co-operating with the UN nuclear watchdog's investigation into the country's nuclear programme, the new head of the agency has said.
Iran's insistence its nuclear programme was peaceful could not be confirmed, Yukiya Amano told the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna.
And I do my homework not that that matters here. Yes they would have more left over and the point is
Never said you did whats with the defensive and sarcasm
I only stated in my post that I would not be too worried about Iran
No Bias intended in contrast
As soon as one dares to question Iran's intentions, people start immediately about Israel and their nuclear weapons and hence it shows their bias. That's why I mentioned that I don't think Israel has any more right or is any better than Iran. However, Israel's nuclear arsenal is irrelevant to the question if Iran does or doesn't have nuclear weapons. You are pretending that Iran is all good
Haha, hypocrisy. The pot calling the kettle black. Israel has nuclear weapons itself but tells Iran that it cannot have them. They tell Palestinians en other neighbors to obey UN resolutions, yet when it comes to a resolution against them, they call it biased and ignore it.
What do these idiots think? They are the last in line with a right to speak about hypocrisy,
There is no formal record of the agreement nor have Israeli nor American governments ever publicly acknowledged it. In 2007, however, the Nixon library declassified a July 19, 1969, memo from national security adviser Henry Kissinger that comes closest to articulating U.S. policy on the issue. That memo says, "While we might ideally like to halt actual Israeli possession, what we really want at a minimum may be just to keep Israeli possession from becoming an established international fact."
Mr. Cohen has said the resulting policy was the equivalent of "don't ask, don't tell."
The Netanyahu government sought to reaffirm the understanding in part out of concern that Iran would seek Israeli disclosures of its nuclear program in negotiations with the United States and other world powers. Iran has frequently accused the U.S. of having a double standard by not objecting to Israel's arsenal.
1. Each Party shall in exercising its national sovereignty have the right to withdraw from the Treaty if it decides that extraordinary events, related to the subject matter of this Treaty, have jeopardized the supreme interests of its country. It shall give notice of such withdrawal to all other Parties to the Treaty and to the United Nations Security Council three months in advance. Such notice shall include a statement of the extraordinary events it regards as having jeopardized its supreme interests.
It takes a fool to believe that Iran would want to go through so much hassle for nuclear peaceful energy. Do you really think that peaceful nuclear energy is worth the consequences that Iran faces? Iran could be a prospering and emerging nation, much alike India and China. Instead they are trapped in isolation and put under sanctions that prevent their economy to flourish. On the contrarily, their economy is suffering badly from these sanctions. Do you really believe that peaceful nuclear energy weighs up against these major drawbacks? It's simply not worth it, making the assumption that they are actually expanding their nuclear arsenal and developing a supportive platform an explanation a way more plausible explanation.
Now I am asking you to provide evidence they are not after nuclear weapons. And don't come up with some Iranian crappy populist statements because I'm not siding with the official Western propaganda standpoint either.