seem to be the the same fabricated bullshit that brought the US army to svagely bomb Iraq.. how many tonnes of chemecals Rumsfeld and Cheney claimed Hussein had to justify the invasion?

"your enemies are my friends" seems to be the motto around here.

 VIENNA, March 19, 2007 (AFP) - Iran stopped UN inspectors from visiting an underground bunker where it is building an industrial-scale plant to make enriched uranium but the inspectors will try again, diplomats told AFP Monday.

Iran had however promised "frequent inspector access" to the site in Natanz, the UN watchdog International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported in February.

The highly sensitive inspections, and talks over how they are to take place, came as Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was expected to plead Iran's case this week before the UN Security Council, which is considering tightening sanctions on the Islamic republic over fears that it seeks nuclear weapons.

A centre of concern is the uranium enrichment facility at Natanz, in central Iran, where the Iranians are already operating above-ground a pilot plant carrying out research levels of enrichment, the process which makes what can be fuel for civilian nuclear reactors but also the explosive core of atom bombs.

A diplomat said Iran had last Saturday refused to let IAEA inspectors into the underground hall at Natanz where the Iranians have set up hundreds of centrifuges in what is to be a 3,000-centrifuge facility for enriching uranium.

Centrifuges are the machines used to refine uranium for the U-235 isotope that is valuable for fuel or weapons.

Such a facility could make enough highly enriched uranium for an atom bomb in about 10 months, according to the IISS think-tank in London.

Frederic Christie:

Very good to hear from you. -- Don't stay a stranger.

David Peterson
Chicago, USA

SGTR, apparently you trust the US, UK, and Israel to refrain from using their nuclear weapons? To just threaten to use them? To sign treaties and then blatantly break them (as you accuse Iran of doing) because that protects you and me? (Or in Israel's case, to never sign the treaty in the first place--more honest, I admit.) Or perhaps you want these besieged nuclear powers to go ahead and nuke Iran? It might be beneficial to know what you would like to see in this connection. Usually I disdain rightwingers like you, because usually all they want to do is derail the conversation, but you're staying right with it, and my congratulations for that. You've already evinced a more polite approach than your thought-peers. (Maybe there's a Kill-Them-Before They-Kill-Us School of Manners?) So tell us what you would like the US, the UK, and Israel to do with their great big bombs. We're listening. And who knows, maybe the gentle dismay lodged in the kind hearts of these enlightened superpowers might gain some courage and solace from your thoroughly researched point of view. T

SGTR:

Let me be charitable and work from the presumption that in asking these questions, you are sincere -- though badly misinformed.

According to Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement and Relevant Provisions of Security Council Resolution 1737 (2006) in the Islamic Republic of Iran (GOV/2007/8), dated February 22, 2007, and the most current IAEA report on these matters that is publicly available (par. 4 -- emphasis added):

Since 14 November 2006, Iran has continued to operate single machines, as well as the 10-, 24-and 164-machine cascades, at the Pilot Fuel Enrichment Plant (PFEP), and to feed UF6 intermittently into these machines. Between 2 November 2006 and 17 February 2007, a total of approximately 66 kg of UF6 was declared by Iran as having been fed into the process and enriched to levels below 5% U-235. The environmental sample results thus far indicate a maximum enrichment of 4.2% U-235 in the first 164-machine cascade (GOV/2006/64, para. 4).  

So-called "weapons-grade material" runs somewhere greater than 90% enrichment levels, I believe.

In the "Summary" of this same IAEA report, we read that "Pursuant to its NPT Safeguards Agreement, Iran has been providing the Agency with access to declared nuclear material and facilities, and has provided the required nuclear material accountancy reports in connection with such material and facilities" (par. 26), and that "The Agency is able to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran" (par. 27).

Of course, the same IAEA report also reiterates this never-ending sop to the U.S. Government (par. 27 -- emphasis added):

The Agency remains unable, however, to make further progress in its efforts to verify fully the past development of Iran's nuclear programme and certain aspects relevant to its scope and nature. Hence, the Agency is unable to verify the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran unless Iran addresses the long outstanding verification issues through the implementation of the Additional Protocol (which it signed on 18 December 2003, but has not yet brought into force) and the required transparency measures. 

Insofar as public information is available, this is it, in a nutshell. 

David Peterson
Chicago, USA

 

There are multiple ways to produce nuclear power/energy. Some DO NOT create weapons grade material as a by product, others do.

 If Iran is ONLY interested in producing energy, as you claim, why are they using a technology that produces weapons grade material?

Pangaea:

Your comments about this latest outrage are dead-on.  And it is worth adding that the principal source for all the suspicions that Iran's nuclear program is oriented towards anything other than electrical energy is allegations by the U.S. Government and not the findings of the International Atomic Energy Agency.  What the U.S. Government's now four-year-old exploitation of the IAEA and subsequently the UN Security Council to harass and sanction Iran teaches is the role of American Power in the contemporary world.  So the serial violators of the NPT's disarmament Article VI also get away with using multilateral agencies to demand that Iran's rights under the NPT be violated.  The U.S. and U.K. violate the NPT by refusing to disarm; and they seek to impose upon Iran a violation of Iran's NPT right to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.  After threats and bribes and more, the pliant "international community" go along with it.  Under Chapter VII, no less.  While the two principal Nuremberg-class aggressor states threaten to make war against Iran, with Iran portrayed as a threat to international peace and security!

"Welcome to 1984," as you say.

David Peterson
Chicago, USA

After (pointlessly) commenting the plurk below, I will now get down to the real business. Thanks for yet another good article. This is right in line with my own thoughts. Yet another "Welcome to 1984"-moment. A few weeks ago the UK decided they would develop new submarines for carrying nuclear WEAPONS. Mentioned in the press, but not put into the context of international law or Iran in any way whatsoever. Is Iran doing this? No. They are developing nuclear POWER. The IAEA has found no evidence Iran are developing nuclear weapons. As we know, they have the RIGHT to develop nuclear power. This is exactly what Iran are talking about on every occasion, to the ridicule of Western media outlets. According to the NPT: Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a Treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control. Hardly what the nuclear states are doing, is it? Not only are they not disarming, but they are developing new nuclear weapons, and upgrading old ones. It's not Iran that are breaking the NPT, it's the UK and US. It's not Iran that should get sanctions against them in the SC, it's the UK and US. This is the Iraq route all over again... Pangaea Oslo, Norway

This is ridiculous. Iran are no more "destabilizing" the Middle East than Iraq was 5 years ago. Look at the region now. Who destabilized it? I can say that Haiti is destabilizing the American hemisphere, and it would be equally ridiculous. Who do you think has most reason to be afraid. Iran or the USA? Pangaea Oslo, Norway

And then you can look at history the last 5 years and learn why the US government must be stopped. Pangaea Oslo, Norway

And then you can look at history the last 5 years and learn why the US government must be stopped. Pangaea Oslo, Norway

I do not believe that you truely know who you are defending and how evil the Iranian regime is. 

To barely scrape the surface of how evil the Iranian government is,  please read http://www.iranfocus.com and learn why the Iranian government must be stopped. 

Iran poses the preeminent threat to world stability.  Evidence: material support tor Hezzbolah which has destabilized Lebanon for over 20 years.  Iran also has proxy control over Syria due in part to Hezzbolah's presence in Damascus.  Iran is also commanding Hezzbollah as it seeks to gain control over Hamas, Islamic Jhihad, and other Palestinian terror groups.  There is also thought to be a Hezzbolah presense in west Africa, helping to finance the illicit diamond trade.  Iranian leaders have for 27 years called for the explicit destruction of the West and the anhiliation of Israel, a country of 8 million people, for no reason other than the country being Jewish.  As Iran claims to pursuing "peaceful" nuclear technology, it has chosen to purse a means that creates nuclear weapon grade material.  Iran HAS NOT chosen nuclear technology that DOES NOT produce weapons grade material. Iran seeks to incite the Shia minorities throughout the Arab world, primarily Saudi Arabia, so it can take the hegmonic position away from Saudi Arabia and gain influence over the Islamic world.

I'm sure there is more evidence of Iran's pathological behavior, all of which I'm sure will be ignored by posters on this blog. 

Yet, you think it was a bad idea to sanction Iran.  Why?  Do you want to see destabilization of the middle east and an increase of terrorism?   

 

 

 

Listening to Iranians talking about their history (from their point of view, and not some Fox news phantasmagoria) would be a useful start.