But do you think that a country such as Iran should even have the right to develop any kind of nuclear capabilities whatsoever?

Thank you for the good reading.

I agree. But the authorities in Iran will think twice before using a nuke inside or outside Iran. They have lot of enemies inside and outside country. Their enemies should also think twice before attacking Iran if the country is protected by nuclear weapons. There are radical countries like North Correa and, simply by possessing nukes, they manage to keep states like US and Russia away from their borders (I don't say this is good or bad). Let's face it: possessing nukes seems to finally bring a little wisdom in diplomacy.

Friends:

An excerpt from the confirmation hearings of Robert Gates to be the Washington regime's latest Secretary of Defense, held before the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee on December 5, 2006 (Congressional Quarterly Transcriptions). -- The questioner is Senator Lindsey Graham (Rep. -S.C.). 

…………

 GRAHAM: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to add my voice to many others who have praised you for your leadership. I've really enjoyed being on this committee and you've made it a real pleasure to serve here.

Dr. Gates, thank you for your willingness to serve. It looks like we're going to be working together for at least a couple more years. Things are going pretty well for you right now.

Iran: Do you believe the Iranians are trying to acquire lethal weapons capability?

GATES: Yes, sir, I do.

GRAHAM: Do you think the president of Iran is laying when he says he's not?

GATES: Yes, sir.

GRAHAM: Do you believe the Iranians would consider using that nuclear weapons capability against the nation of Israel?

GATES: I don't know that they would do that, Senator. I think that the risks for them, obviously, are enormously high. I think that they see value.

GRAHAM: If I may?

GATES: Yes, sir.

GRAHAM: The president of Iran has publicly disavowed the existence of the Holocaust, has publicly stated that he would like to wipe Israel off the map. Do you think he's kidding?

GATES: No, I don't think he's kidding, but I think there are, in fact, higher powers in Iran than he, than the president. And I think that, while they are certainly pressing, in my opinion, for nuclear capability, I think that they would see it in the first instance as a deterrent.

They are surrounded by powers with nuclear weapons: Pakistan to their east, the Russians to the north, the Israelis to the west and us in the Persian Gulf.

GRAHAM: Can you assure the Israelis that they will not attack Israel with a nuclear weapon if they acquire one?

GATES: No, sir, I don't think that anybody can provide that assurance. 
............

The Jerusalem Post greeted Gates's comments with an editorial titled "Gates's shocking thinking on Iran" (Dec. 7, 2006): "Gates's first instinct when asked about Iran's potential nuclear capability is not to explain why he views such a prospect as inimical to US interests but why it might not be such a dangerous thing....Gates has now made the case for tolerating an Iranian nuclear weapon and against taking military action to prevent that eventuality. In doing so he elicited no discernible alarm from his Senatorial inquisitors. We wish one of them had pointed out that an Iranian nuclear weapon would dramatically increase both Teheran's capability to inflict increasing damage against US interests and the likelihood of Iran doing just that. Now it falls to President Bush to reveal whether Gates's thinking reflects his own or whether he is still committed to preventing the world's most dangerous regime from obtaining the world's most dangerous weapons."  The New York Times didn't bother to report Gates's comments until one week later, and then only on account of comments made by the Israeli Prime Minister while in Germany, when he "appeared to acknowledge inadvertently during a TV interview shown Monday that Israel has nuclear weapons, an issue on which the Jewish state has sought to maintain ambiguity for decades."  ("In a Slip, Israel's Leader Seems To Confirm Its Nuclear Arsenal," Greg Myre, Dec. 12, 2006.)

Friends:

On the webpage "Multilateral Approaches to the Nuclear Fuel Cycle," the International Atomic Energy Agency archives some very important material on how best to provide enriched uranium and other nuclear fuels for peaceful purposes, while also preventing any one state or group of states from monopolizing fuel production and denying other states access to it -- the crux of the issue over Iran's uranium-enrichment and reprocessing program, the American position being that no indigenous enrichment program is to be permitted within Iran's territory.

Included therein is the IAEA "expert" proposal that Tehran likes to cite -- and indeed has become one of the world's top advocates for -- most recently before UN Security Council (S/PV.5612, pp. 8 - 13) -- but which was dead-on-arrival as far as the American NPT - killers were concerned: See "Expert Group Releases Findings on Multilateral Nuclear Approaches" and the additional weblinks this page provides.

Specifically Multilateral Approaches to the Nuclear Fuel Cycle (INFCIRC/640), Expert Group Report, February 22, 2005.

David Peterson
Chicago, USA

Somehow , i would be more inclined to trust Iran with nukes than the US Rudy, I dont believ Iran was looking for nukes until the US accused Iran of doing so. In my opinion, not looking for nukes at this point of time for is not only a mistake its suicidal for iran infrastructure and security agsints the main agressors in the region. Hopefully, some nation will help provide iran with nukes..

Kelvin:

Although we've seen it countless times in the past, still, it never ceases to amaze me how successful the Americans continue to be at exploiting multilateral institutions such as the Security Council and the IAEA (and beyond) so as to give positive aid to American missions that include blatant violations of the very principles at play.

Imagine that in the neighborhood where you live, you were able on a serial basis to break into the houses of other people, rob them, beat them, and rape them, and the police, if and when they showed up, arrested not you but your victims instead.  (See How America Gets Away With Murder: Illegal Wars, Collateral Damage and Crimes Against Humanity, Michael Mandel (Pluto Press, 2004).) 

In a nutshell, this is how the fabled "International Community" works.  And the invaders of Afghanistan (long ago having sucked NATO into the job) and Iraq (long ago having sucked the United Nations itself into the job -- including the outgoing Secretary-General, whose tenure has proven a boon for American Power) are now threatening Iran, while resorting to still other mulilateral institutions such as the IAEA to keep the furnace hot, while they turn up the heat!

Truly astounding.

David Peterson
Chicago, USA

 

Evidence of Iran's nuclear activities found after a simple Google search. Not only that, Iran seems to be violated a treaty IT SIGNED! But tell me this, why is Iran creating this technology behind closed doors? Why not out in the open for the world to see, especially if it is "peaceful?" "The plutonium experiments have caused concern because Iran is building a nuclear reactor moderated by heavy water. Such reactors can produce weapons-grade plutonium, which is also used as fissile material in nuclear weapons. Although the IAEA has found evidence that Tehran was interested in reprocessing spent reactor fuel, Iran has said that it will not do so. " http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2006_12/IranEnrichment.asp http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=2438 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/15/wiran15.xml http://www.carnegieendowment.org/npp/iransnuclearprogram.cfm

don't let neo-cons antichrists rules the world..

The poooooor Palestinians. You truely have no idea who you're supporting and what goes on in Arab society, do you? http://www.pmw.org.il/ (I suggest you read this in French so you can fully comprehend it.) http://militia-watchdog.org/main_Arab_World/asam_jan_mar_arab_newspapers_2006.htm http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0612260133dec26,0,10098.story?coll=chi-newsopinioncommentary-hed The above links are mere samples of the "education" Arabs recieve about Jews and what their "corporate" media reports. Perhaps it reminds you of a certain European country circa 1932?

btw, it's interesting how little threatened other Asian countries feel about Iran's supposed nuclear weapons program (In Iran's largest neighbor, Pakistan the majority don't mind Iran getting nukes of it's own).

rudy wrote: You're traveling down the road of moral relativism! Iran is not equal to the U.S. or Israel, or any other country you might accuse of being "true aggressors." Iran's history of financing and supporting terrorism, supression and oppression of its own people, and desire to spread a theocracy across the world REGARDLESS of the consequences is enough to say: NO, you can't have nuclear technology. hey rudy, the US seem to have been the leading country at promoting global terrorism, what do you have to say about that? The US (Bush)is currently responsible of countless deaths in Iraq.. and so.. where is the moral realtivism with it? let me guess it is ok to kill arabs because they are just arabs? the other leading Country would be the Occupying and Terrorist Army of the wannabe State of Israel here again being displayed as harrassing palestinians http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061226/ap_on_re_mi_ea/palestinians_roadblock_rage Considering the military might of the Occupying Armies, I cannot hesitate with labelling the leaders of these armies as cowards for targetting helpless people.

Bankrupt logic? You're traveling down the road of moral relativism! Iran is not equal to the U.S. or Israel, or any other country you might accuse of being "true aggressors." Iran's history of financing and supporting terrorism, supression and oppression of its own people, and desire to spread a theocracy across the world REGARDLESS of the consequences is enough to say: NO, you can't have nuclear technology. It's as if I make every intent known to murder you but am allowed to buy a gun. It makes no sense.

FYI, interesting historical perspective provided by this essay, written just a few weeks into the nuclear age.

Rudy, will all the threats Iran receive from the US, Iran by the new rules the US has set should be entitled to launch pre-emptive strikes. And then if you compare the source of a greater evil between Zionism and Hezbollah, zionism for its complete evil wins all hands down. Your taxes Rudy supports the massacres of arabs for the profit of a few.

Hezbollah are not Palestinians. Learn of Syria's role in the Hezbollah/Iran/Israel "debate." Your comment of "Let the Iranians get the weapons and then worry about them" is utterly absurd. The idea is to be proactive, not retroactive. Also, Iran burns of more natural gas per day as WASTE from their oil wells than the amount of power the nuclear power plant would create. There is NO NEED for Iran to have the technology other than to pursue weapons.

Even assholes have a right to an opinion - even if it's little more than a fart... ;-)

Friends:

I myself am against banning and similar practices ("For Christ's Sake!").  And Rudy's contributions are welcomed. 

Besides, it is up to each of to decide what passes the sniff test.  And what doesn't.

David Peterson
Chicago, USA

A Christmas surprise: WMDs found in the Middle East! Hallelujah!

Here is a link to the report published in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists in 2003 referred to above: http://www.thebulletin.org/article.php?art_ofn=jf03wheelis Of further interest is the work being done to develop new non-lethal weapons designed to quickly control crowds. Use your imagination as to the danger of such weapons in the hands of a fascist government. To quote from the article:

Police forces would be armed with new riot control agents, based on military non-lethal weapons that are much more effective than tear gas. This would greatly increase government power to control civil unrest--a dangerous tool in totalitarian hands, and one for which democracies have little use.

And further:

The United States is also attracted to all manner of antipersonnel and anti-materiel non-lethal weapons, including acoustics (infrasound and "acoustic impact"), opticals (flashes), directed energy (heat beams), as well as chemical agents for smokescreens, stink bombs, pepper sprays, tear gas, slippery foams--and agents like the gas used in Moscow. Non-lethal weapons, promoted as an alternative to violence and a way to resolve situations casualty-free, are a temptation that's hard to resist.

Apparently the US is moving full ahead on a new biological weapons programme, and has been doing so since 9/11. See guardian link from 2002: http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,821306,00.html#article_continue Also see more recent Truthout article describing "first-strike" objectives of the US programme: http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/122006R.shtml Now I ask....which country is more scary? There are virtually NO media objections to, no world outcry against, a proven programme of mass destruction carried out by the USA and developed with first-strike capabilities in mind, but LOTS of controversy over an immature and unproven Iranian programme to develop nuclear weapons - a programme that is likely a decade away from a real weapon, IF it is being done at all. Why isn't the world up in arms against a PROVEN and mature programme to develop FIRST STRIKE biological weapons carried out by the Dark Empire?

Yawn. Can't somebody ban this retarded "Rudy" troll ?

Regardless of any other country having nuclear weapons, are you two people so delusional that you think it is OK for Iran to pursue nuclear technology? Are you unfamiliar or woefully ignorant of Iran's relationship with Hezbollah? Are you unfamiliar or again, woefully ignorant of the Iranian President calling for the destruction of Israel numerous times? (Please spare me the predictable Zionist entity b.s.) Are you unfamiliar or, for a third time, woefully ignorant of what nuclear technology could do to the Sunni/Shia rift in the region? Hey, I realize it took 100 years for Europe to sort out the whole Catholic/Protestant thing, but I don't think it would be wise to let nuclear technology slip into the mix of this reformation. Honestly, the only other reason I can think of for supposedly sane, rational, and educated individuals to defend Iran on the issue of nuclear technology is that you are trying to position yourselves as "the most radical" of radical leftists.

Iran is just anotrher oily target for the US. the mere fact it trade oil with Russia and China make Iran a primary target just like Iraq was.. Again the plan is to send Iran back to the stone age, the same way the americans had success with afgahnistan and Iraq. In my opinion , it would be a mistake for Iran not to pursue nuclear ambitions and use them if it is nessesary to protect its population.

Posted by Kelvin Yearwood:

Gross audacity is the order of the day. It is as though Hitler in early 1945 had taken Australia to an international court for their admittedly appalling treatment of their aborigine population.

Just a cursory glance around the internet suggests that not only does the US regime have no intention of fulfilling its NPT obligations of reducing its nuclear arsenal and declaring all of its nuclear weapons capacity, but that its goal is to continue to develope its nuclear weapons range:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,898550,00.html (US plan for new nuclear arsenal, Secret talks may lead to breaking treaties, Julian Borger in Washington, Wednesday February 19, 2003)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2779069.stm (BBC website, Wednesday, 19 February, 2003, US 'plans new nuclear weapons')

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/10/AR2005091001053.html
(Pentagon Revises Nuclear Strike Plan, Strategy Includes Preemptive Use Against Banned Weapons,
By Walter Pincus, Washington Post Staff Writer, Sunday, September 11, 2005)

http://www.slate.com/id/2099425/ (Our Hidden WMD Program, Why Bush is spending so much on nuclear weapons. By Fred Kaplan, Posted Friday, April 23, 2004)

I hate to bang on about the theme of internet access, but apparently the IAEA and the UN do not have the basic access levels to the internet that the vast majority of Western citizens have.

I could not respond to this US-elite-led attack on Iran through the UN Security Council and IAEA in any better form than to go to the conclusion section of the following article by David Peterson and Edward S Herman.

http://www.electricpolitics.com/2006/05/the_fourth_supreme_internation.html (The Fourth 'Supreme International Crime' in Seven Years is Already Underway, with the Support of the Free Press and the 'International Community'," Edward S. Herman and David Peterson, ElectricPolitics.com, May 16, 2006)

I quote:

"Our conclusion is twofold. First, given the U.S. and Israeli possession of nuclear weapons, their threat to possibly use them in attacking Iran, and the record of both countries in major law violations such as the U.S. violation of the UN Charter prohibition of aggression and the Israeli violations of the Fourth Geneva Convention on obligations of an occupying power, and given the fact that the Washington regime is already in the early phases of aggression against Iran, the UN and Security Council should be urgently focusing on the U.S. aggression instead of some minor inspection delinquencies on the part of Iran (and it goes without saying, instead of giving positive aid to the aggressor's program).

Second, if there is a concern over violations of the NPT, far more important than Iran's deficiencies are the U.S. failure to undertake any measures to eliminate nuclear weapons and its protection of Israel as the sole nuclear power in the Middle East, and remaining outside IAEA jurisdiction. In fact, the United States is improving its nuclear arsenal with the express intention of making nuclear strikes more "practicable." As these threaten Iran as well as many other countries, common sense dictates that this violation of the NPT is vastly more important than any attributable to Iran—real or imaginary.

In a decent and sane world, bringing the U.S. violations of the NPT and its nuclear improvement actions before the UN and Security Council ought to have a very high priority, second only to stopping the U.S. aggression already underway against Iran and which threatens an enlargement of the conflagration begun by its prior and still raging "supreme international crime" in Iraq."