Thelasian
4 oktober 2004, 02:35
Among the smoke-and-mirror and fear-mongering innuendo, these are some
facts about Iran's nuclear program that aren't being mentioned in the
US press:
1- The Bushehr reactor--which was started under the Shah with US
support--is not a weapons proliferation threat since it is a
lightwater
reactor which is under IAEA safeguard. Even the IAEA itself admits
that much.
Proof:
UN clears Iran nuclear facility
The head of the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency has said
Russia's nuclear co-operation with Iran is no longer a matter of
concern.
(SOURCE: BBC Online Tuesday, 29 June, 2004)
2- Note how the articles confuse a nuclear "weapons" program with
a plain "nuclear program". In fact according to Article 4 of the
Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran has an "INALIENABLE RIGHT"
to possess nuclear technology, as does any othe country. Several other
nations use the same technology too, such as Brazil and Holland and
Japan. So a nuclear
program is not the same as a nuclear weapons program.
3- A common refrain is that Iran's nuclear program can't possibly be
for anything except weapons because Iran has so much oil and natural
gas. In fact Iran needs nuclear energy despite possessing extensive
oil and gas because of rising domestic consumption and the reliance on
the sale
oil and gas for earning hard currency. The Stanford Research
Institute advised the Shah's government that Iran could not rely on
oil and gas for energy way back in the mid 1970's. Other nations which
have extensive oil and gas resources also have nuclear energy - such
as Russia and the USA. Iran has also been experimenting with
geothermal energy and wind-turbines, as well as building its largest
hydroengery dam.
4- There is in fact no evidence of an actual nuclear WEAPONS program
in Iran, as admitted by the IAEA itself - there is only the INFERENCE
that Iran COULD ONE DAY POSSIBLY use the legitimate technology to
build a weapon of POSSIBLY desires to do so. Needless to say, ANY
TECHNOLOGY
"could" be used to make nukes, and so could any country. And the
reason why Iran would want to build nukes is to DEFEND ITSELF.
Proof:
"IAEA: No evidence of Iran nukes
VIENNA, Austria (AP) -- The U.N. nuclear watchdog agency has found 'no
evidence' Iran is trying to make nuclear weapons...
SOURCE: AP Monday, November 10, 2003
" 'The United States has no concrete evidence of a nuclear-weapons
program,' Albright told me. 'It's just an inference. There's no
smoking gun.' "
SOURCE: New Yorker by SEYMOUR M. HERSH Issue of 2004-06-28
5- Iran can't be compared to Iraq: The bombing of Iraq's Osirak
reactor did not signficantly affect Iraq's nuclear program, since the
centrifuge sites were not bombed. If anything, it encouraged them to
speed up the process. But in any case, Iran has signed the Additional
Protocol which permits IAEA inspections anywhere-anytime, and Iraq had
not.
Iraq also used chemical weapons and invaded its neighbors- with the
blessing and support of the USA, by the way.
6- In fact, according to the NonProliferation Treaty, not only is Iran
entitled to have nuclear technology, but other countries are required
to share their nuclear technology. That was the quid-pro-quo that the
nuclear-haves and have-nots agreed upon when they signed the NPT.
However, the nuclear-haves are not living up to their side of the
Non-Proliferation Treaty
bargain.
7- Don't mix up Iran and North Korea either: Currently, Iran has
signed the Nonproliferation Treaty and its nuclear installations are
all under IAEA safeguards - unlike North Korea.
7.5- Kerry has said that he'll offer nuclear reactor fuel to Iran,
and if Iran refuses to accept the stuff and continues the program to
makes its own nuclear reactor fuel, that's proof that Iran is secretly
building a bomb. This of course is total bullshit. Lots of countries
make their own nuclear reactor fuel, that doesn't mean they're
secretly building nuclear weapons. Iran has the natural uranium
deposits and the know-how to makes its own fuel, why would it want to
become reliant on a foreign source of fuel? How can Iran be guaranteed
that the fuel won't be "sanctioned" some time in the future? Asking
Iran to be reliant on Kerry's good will is a lot like Asking the USA
to not use any of its own oil and become solely reliant on King Fahd
of Saudi Arabia.
8- If Iran is attacked, Iran will withdraw from the Non-Proliferation
Treaty (as it is legally do pursuant to Article X) and will start
working on a nuclear weapons program in earnest. Centrifuge sites will
pop up like mushrooms all over the country - too many to be bombed -
and the IAEA inspectors will not be around to check them. Within 6
mos. the first nuclear test will occur, and within a year Iran's
missiles will be armed with nuclear warheads.
9- The people of Iran will rally to support their government if Iran
is attacked, as their nationalism is stirred by such an act. Iran's
decision to develop nuclear deterrence will occur with the full
support of the people of the government too, so changing governments
will not change the decision to build nukes. Iranians know that their
country has a right to nuclear technology, they are proud of their
nuclear accomplishments, and have a long history of resenting foreign
superpowers trying to deprive them of their rights.
10- Attacking Iran's nuclear installations will prove once and for all
to the people of Iran the necessity of obtaining nuclear weapons as a
deterrence. There
are already many Iranians who believe that Iran should withdraw from
the NonProliferation Treaty since the US has failed to abide by ITS
OWN obligations under the same treaty (to share nuclear technology,
and to get rid of its own nuclear weapons) Furthermore, Iran is
surrounded by nuclear-armed or nuclear-capable states that threaten
Iran's security.
So yes, by all means, go ahead and bomb or try to invade Iran and see
what happens.
(Addendum: among the various innuendo against Iran, one was that that
traces of enriched uranium found on centrifuges in Iran was proof that
Iran had illegally engaged in enriching uranium specfically for making
bombs. This was repeated so often as to turn into conventional wisdom.
Yet today the IAEA itself concluded that the presence of traces of the
staff was indeed attributable to contamination, just as Iran had
claimed all along - now do you think the media will set the record
straight and take back all of their innuendo?)
facts about Iran's nuclear program that aren't being mentioned in the
US press:
1- The Bushehr reactor--which was started under the Shah with US
support--is not a weapons proliferation threat since it is a
lightwater
reactor which is under IAEA safeguard. Even the IAEA itself admits
that much.
Proof:
UN clears Iran nuclear facility
The head of the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency has said
Russia's nuclear co-operation with Iran is no longer a matter of
concern.
(SOURCE: BBC Online Tuesday, 29 June, 2004)
2- Note how the articles confuse a nuclear "weapons" program with
a plain "nuclear program". In fact according to Article 4 of the
Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran has an "INALIENABLE RIGHT"
to possess nuclear technology, as does any othe country. Several other
nations use the same technology too, such as Brazil and Holland and
Japan. So a nuclear
program is not the same as a nuclear weapons program.
3- A common refrain is that Iran's nuclear program can't possibly be
for anything except weapons because Iran has so much oil and natural
gas. In fact Iran needs nuclear energy despite possessing extensive
oil and gas because of rising domestic consumption and the reliance on
the sale
oil and gas for earning hard currency. The Stanford Research
Institute advised the Shah's government that Iran could not rely on
oil and gas for energy way back in the mid 1970's. Other nations which
have extensive oil and gas resources also have nuclear energy - such
as Russia and the USA. Iran has also been experimenting with
geothermal energy and wind-turbines, as well as building its largest
hydroengery dam.
4- There is in fact no evidence of an actual nuclear WEAPONS program
in Iran, as admitted by the IAEA itself - there is only the INFERENCE
that Iran COULD ONE DAY POSSIBLY use the legitimate technology to
build a weapon of POSSIBLY desires to do so. Needless to say, ANY
TECHNOLOGY
"could" be used to make nukes, and so could any country. And the
reason why Iran would want to build nukes is to DEFEND ITSELF.
Proof:
"IAEA: No evidence of Iran nukes
VIENNA, Austria (AP) -- The U.N. nuclear watchdog agency has found 'no
evidence' Iran is trying to make nuclear weapons...
SOURCE: AP Monday, November 10, 2003
" 'The United States has no concrete evidence of a nuclear-weapons
program,' Albright told me. 'It's just an inference. There's no
smoking gun.' "
SOURCE: New Yorker by SEYMOUR M. HERSH Issue of 2004-06-28
5- Iran can't be compared to Iraq: The bombing of Iraq's Osirak
reactor did not signficantly affect Iraq's nuclear program, since the
centrifuge sites were not bombed. If anything, it encouraged them to
speed up the process. But in any case, Iran has signed the Additional
Protocol which permits IAEA inspections anywhere-anytime, and Iraq had
not.
Iraq also used chemical weapons and invaded its neighbors- with the
blessing and support of the USA, by the way.
6- In fact, according to the NonProliferation Treaty, not only is Iran
entitled to have nuclear technology, but other countries are required
to share their nuclear technology. That was the quid-pro-quo that the
nuclear-haves and have-nots agreed upon when they signed the NPT.
However, the nuclear-haves are not living up to their side of the
Non-Proliferation Treaty
bargain.
7- Don't mix up Iran and North Korea either: Currently, Iran has
signed the Nonproliferation Treaty and its nuclear installations are
all under IAEA safeguards - unlike North Korea.
7.5- Kerry has said that he'll offer nuclear reactor fuel to Iran,
and if Iran refuses to accept the stuff and continues the program to
makes its own nuclear reactor fuel, that's proof that Iran is secretly
building a bomb. This of course is total bullshit. Lots of countries
make their own nuclear reactor fuel, that doesn't mean they're
secretly building nuclear weapons. Iran has the natural uranium
deposits and the know-how to makes its own fuel, why would it want to
become reliant on a foreign source of fuel? How can Iran be guaranteed
that the fuel won't be "sanctioned" some time in the future? Asking
Iran to be reliant on Kerry's good will is a lot like Asking the USA
to not use any of its own oil and become solely reliant on King Fahd
of Saudi Arabia.
8- If Iran is attacked, Iran will withdraw from the Non-Proliferation
Treaty (as it is legally do pursuant to Article X) and will start
working on a nuclear weapons program in earnest. Centrifuge sites will
pop up like mushrooms all over the country - too many to be bombed -
and the IAEA inspectors will not be around to check them. Within 6
mos. the first nuclear test will occur, and within a year Iran's
missiles will be armed with nuclear warheads.
9- The people of Iran will rally to support their government if Iran
is attacked, as their nationalism is stirred by such an act. Iran's
decision to develop nuclear deterrence will occur with the full
support of the people of the government too, so changing governments
will not change the decision to build nukes. Iranians know that their
country has a right to nuclear technology, they are proud of their
nuclear accomplishments, and have a long history of resenting foreign
superpowers trying to deprive them of their rights.
10- Attacking Iran's nuclear installations will prove once and for all
to the people of Iran the necessity of obtaining nuclear weapons as a
deterrence. There
are already many Iranians who believe that Iran should withdraw from
the NonProliferation Treaty since the US has failed to abide by ITS
OWN obligations under the same treaty (to share nuclear technology,
and to get rid of its own nuclear weapons) Furthermore, Iran is
surrounded by nuclear-armed or nuclear-capable states that threaten
Iran's security.
So yes, by all means, go ahead and bomb or try to invade Iran and see
what happens.
(Addendum: among the various innuendo against Iran, one was that that
traces of enriched uranium found on centrifuges in Iran was proof that
Iran had illegally engaged in enriching uranium specfically for making
bombs. This was repeated so often as to turn into conventional wisdom.
Yet today the IAEA itself concluded that the presence of traces of the
staff was indeed attributable to contamination, just as Iran had
claimed all along - now do you think the media will set the record
straight and take back all of their innuendo?)