Iran to make major nuclear announcement within days, Ahmadinejad says

[ProfTournesol 956]

Remeber, East germyn was labeled the democratic republic of germany...to cal somethign democratic is not makign it a democracy. Currently there are at best one or two true democracies in the world.

How can something be a democracy when all you can vote is your hangman and all decissions of real grave relevance are done in the backroom.

I agree with this, voting is only a necessary condition, but not sufficient. Democratic culture (ie accepting oponents, defending their rights to disagree etc.) must be shared all over the system, and particularly by those who have the power.

[onlyrazor 11]

This is starting to remind me of the bartender in Deus Ex.

Rhetoric! And you believe it!

[-GR-Operative 10]

Every nation has the right to defend itself. UN has no powers whatsoever. I'm fine with it.

[PELHAM 10]

If you are wondering where the last post was in this thread that is on topic, has some logic and common sense behind it - #38 on page 4.

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?131119-Iran-to-make-major-nuclear-announcement-within-days-Ahmadinejad-says/page4

[Nicholas 5]

Iran proclaims nuclear advances

The official IRNA news agency said Iran's top nuclear negotiator, Saeed Jalili, told European Union foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton that Iran is ready to return to talks with the U.S. and other world powers.

In a live TV broadcast, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was shown overseeing what was described as the first Iranian-made fuel rod inserted into a research reactor in northern Tehran. Separately, the semiofficial Fars agency reported that a "new generation" of Iranian centrifuges — used to enrich uranium toward nuclear fuel — had gone into operation at the country's main enrichment facility at Natanz in central Iran.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/story/2012-02-15/iran-oil-export-cuts/53100254/1

Edited February 15, 2012 by Nicholas

[walker 0]

Iran proclaims nuclear advances

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/story/2012-02-15/iran-oil-export-cuts/53100254/1

Hi all

In Reply to Nicholas

Already known and posted:

Hi all

Turns out it was three announcements:

1. They have successfully enriched Uranium to 20%
   
2. They are now able to refuel their medical research reactor and in all probability their other reactors.
   
3. They have started manufacturing their own more advanced centrifuges.
   

http://news.monstersandcritics.com/middleeast/news/article_1691239.php/State-broadcaster-Iran-to-unveil-three-new-nuclear-projects

Consequences.

Iran can now build its own reactors, it has mastered high speed centrifuge technology so Stuxnet type attacks will no longer work.

When you combine this with Iran's all to apparent technology advances one has to accept that: as well as 30 or so warheads it bought from former soviet sources and the three it manufactured from nuclear material it purchased, heck there is even evidense it tested two nukes in underground tests back in 2008; Iran has the capability to make its own nukes.

Whether it will is moot.

Kind regards walker

And on the next page I detail with links the source for my stating that Iran already has nukes, and we in the west know it.

So just to make this all clear Israel and the US are not going to attack Iran because it already has Nukes. It will announce that it has nukes when it can make its own ones thus not dropping its suppliers in the doodoo with regard to the NNPF treaty.

Kind Regards Walker

Edited February 15, 2012 by walker

[Nicholas 5]

Woops, didn't see that walker. This thread was filled with so much other nonsense I couldn't see your post.

[Beagle 684]

The whole politic in this is the wish of some decission makers to delay progress for another nation in fear it could become too strong. Wel I guess it is too strong already.

[mrcash2009 0]

I love a bit of perspective in life. :)

I just see Iraq "WMD" wardrums rinse and repeat in terms of the next one on the list, who else in this world has them on mass and also who actualy has used them so far? 1945 anyone? Depleted Uranuim ..... and so on.

Bit of perspective for me, before I shit myself about the next media campaign that tells (sells) me who to hate on.

Edited February 15, 2012 by mrcash2009

[Nicholas 5]

I love a bit of perspective in life. :)

http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg855/scaled.php?server=855&filename=picomq.jpg&res=medium

I just see Iraq "WMD" wardrums rinse and repeat in terms of the next one on the list, who else in this world has them on mass and also who actualy has used them so far? 1945 anyone? Depleted Uranuim ..... and so on.

Bit of perspective for me, before I shit myself about the next media campaign that tells (sells) me who to hate on.

What does this have anything to do with an Iran Nuclear Announcement?

[Beagle 684]

What does this have anything to do with an Iran Nuclear Announcement?

A lot, very, very lot. its about consequences and about what you need to tell people to go to war and die for you ideas.

[Nicholas 5]

A lot, very, very lot. its about consequences and about what you need to tell people to go to war and die for you ideas.

Vote for Ron Paul if you want a lot of those bases gone. He'll withdraw many soldiers from overs seas and focus more on defending the homeland....oh wait, the US can't do that either because everyone will get mad at them.

Double standard as it is called. Everyone will find a way to hate the US no matter what the subject may be. American scientist finds cure for cancer? Fuck him he's American and probably stole it from someone else.

Pathetic.

[gammadust 12]

Vote for Ron Paul if you want a lot of those bases gone. He'll withdraw many soldiers from overs seas and focus more on defending the homeland....oh wait, the US can't do that either because everyone will get mad at them.

Double standard as it is called. Everyone will find a way to hate the US no matter what the subject may be. American scientist finds cure for cancer? Fuck him he's American and probably stole it from someone else.

Pathetic.

Indeed, US has advanced a war agenda so much, in so many places and for such a long time, that now even if it backtracks a bit somewhere it is still not good enough in the eyes of "everyone".

I wouldn't call this exacly an instance of double standards. A more fitting double standard example would be something like Syria >< Bahrein. A more exacting definition of US position is "cornering itself" in regards to public opinion.

Edit: Even superficially watching that map anyone with a minimum of a forehead can perceive two old fashioned wars of conquest ongoing, and one about to burst.

Edited February 16, 2012 by gammadust

[STALKERGB 6]

American scientist finds cure for cancer? Fuck him he's American and probably stole it from someone else.

Lol I doubt that would be a "normal" person's reaction. I can't imagine most of the world would label him/her a thief.

who else in this world has them on mass and also who actualy has used them so far? 1945 anyone?

I think that the US use of nuclear weapons is/was different to a contemporary use of them, I mean if Japan possessed a nuclear capability in 1945 I think that would have made the decision to use nuclear warheads a very different one.

[reconteam 19]

Iran really wants a demonstration of the validity of strategic airpower in the 21st century. We should have bombed that damned UAV.

[mrcash2009 0]

Double standard as it is called. Everyone will find a way to hate the US no matter what the subject may be. American scientist finds cure for cancer? Fuck him he's American and probably stole it from someone else.

Pathetic.

No more pathetic than speaking of the elephant in the room which is clear to anyone, and yet someone has to bring it down to hate America. I dont hate America, that's a massive assumption, i'm from the UK, were steeped in some shady shit too, I question the ones at the top that's all, so please stop with that "label" or that old reliable chestnut.

Offering a simple solution like voting Ron Paul will do nothing what so ever, but then, that's US politics so I will leave that.

As I mentioned it was just perspective on the subject, which is still relevant because this announcement is yet another build up to "shock what will they have!" when everyone else has it all and surrounds them, thats all my point was.

I think that the US use of nuclear weapons is/was different to a contemporary use of them, I mean if Japan possessed a nuclear capability in 1945 I think that would have made the decision to use nuclear warheads a very different one.

Agreed on that, but as I mention it was just some perspective on the whole "Iran are the worlds nuclear enemy now" angle, let alone North Korea when it comes to it. Then Nicholas mentions "Double standards" ... your damn right, just misdirected mate :)

Edited February 16, 2012 by mrcash2009

[NoRailgunner 0]

ReconTeam has this UAV anything to do with Irans nuclear enrichment? Please no sensationalistic "proofs" covered in links that only show opinions, blogs or bias against Iran. Guess that average US Joe already forgot about the "axe of evil" and some strange evidences of weapons of mass destruction (nuclear, chemical). Lets see how many "experts" will comment on how evil all people of Iran are. The best propaganda works if people don't see + hear it until its too late.... enjoy your drink waiting for "WW3 breaking worldnews" on TV.

[PELHAM 10]

I love a bit of perspective in life. :)

I just see Iraq "WMD" wardrums rinse and repeat in terms of the next one on the list, who else in this world has them on mass and also who actualy has used them so far? 1945 anyone? Depleted Uranuim ..... and so on.

Bit of perspective for me, before I shit myself about the next media campaign that tells (sells) me who to hate on.

Your information is out of date and inaccurate. Just because the US Air Force lands a plane somewhere from time to time does not make it a US Military Base. The same is true of ships entering a port to refuel or replenish supplies / rotate personnel.

Edited February 16, 2012 by PELHAM

[reconteam 19]

I'm not saying it has anything to do with their nuclear program, but it highlights the behavior. It is also absolutely unacceptable that we allow our stealth technology (even if it's older) to be compromised like that.

Their patrol craft bait US ships, they parade around this captured UAV wreckage, they ship arms to Iraqi militants, and they press forward with their nuclear program despite the condemnation of the international community. When they get attacked the only people they will have to blame is themselves. Nowhere am I claiming that all people of Iran are evil, but their leadership consists of power hungry fools more obsessed with a hatred of the west and Israel than what's best for their people.

If war with Iran is inevitable, lets not bother with a ground invasion and a decade of nation-building. Smash everything from the air and sea. Leave them with no working planes, no floating ships, every military facility bombed to rubble until they seek terms.

[PELHAM 10]

The Nuclear issue in Iran dates back many years. The key issue is Iran's secret nuclear program which is illegal under international law as it has signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The UN Security Council has passed seven resolutions on Iran due to it's illegal nuclear activites and considers them a threat to world peace under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter.

A Timeline of events:

December 2002: Satellite photos reveal nuclear sites at Natanz and Arak.

February, 2003: IAEA head Mohammed Al Baradei arrives with a team to inspect nuclear sites and plans.

August 2003: Weapons grade uranium is discovered at Natanz.

October, 2003: Iran says it will stop producing enriched uranium and agrees to sign the Additional NPT Protocol, after meeting with French, German and British foreign ministers.

December 2003: Iran signs Additional NPT Protocol.

September 2004: The IAEA orders Iran to stop planning uranium enrichment. US Secretary of State Colin Powell urges UN Security Council sanctions.

November 2004: Iran agrees with the EU to temporarily suspend uranium enrichment, while the status of the nuclear program is being negotiated.

January 2005: Iran allows inspectors into the Parchin plant.

April 2005: Iran indicates that uranium conversion at Isfahan will be resumed.

June 2005: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Tehran's ultra-conservative mayor, wins a run-off vote in presidential elections, defeating cleric and former president Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani.

August-September 2005: Tehran says it has resumed uranium conversion at its Isfahan plant and insists the programme is for peaceful purposes. IAEA finds Iran in violation of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

May 2005: the EU warns that resuming uranium conversation will halt trade and economic negotiations.

August 2005: Under newly elected president Mahmud Ahmadinejad, Iran announces its plan to resume uranium enrichment.

September 2005: Ahmadinejad asserts Iran's right to process nuclear fuels on its own soil and claims Iran seeks nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.

2006: Iran declares that it will no longer cooperate voluntarily with the IAEA. Negotiations between Russia and Iran over whether Russia might process uranium for Iran continue.

January 2006: Iran breaks IAEA seals at its Natanz nuclear research facility.

February 2006: IAEA votes to report Iran to the UN Security Council over its nuclear activities. Iran resumes uranium enrichment at Natanz.

March 2006: After repeatedly remarking Iran's unwillingness to be more transparent about its nuclear activities, IAEA head El Baradei says he will forward a report on this issue to the U.N. Security Council. At the end of the month, the Security Council approves a statement requesting Iran to halt nuclear activities.

July 2006: A U.N. resolution demanded that Iran suspend nuclear enrichment and reprocessing by the end of August. Iran ignored the demand.

September 2006: The IAEA contested a House of Representatives report, saying it exaggerated claims of Iran's nuclear preparedness. Iran and the European Union cancel negotiations on uranium enrichment.

October 2006: President Bush signs Freedom Support Act into law, authorizing sanctions against any country that provides support for Iran's nuclear program.

October-November 2006: The IAEA finds evidence that enrichment technology is operable. It also finds traces of materials required for atomic warheads at a nuclear waste facility.

December 2006: The UN Security Council votes unanimously to impose sanctions to halt Iran's ability to acquire nuclear technology or materials, including the demand that enrichment program stop immediately. Iran declares that sanctions will not halt its ability to continue nuclear work.

January 2007: Iran says the U.N. sanctions will not halt its uranium enrichment.

March 2007: UN Security Council imposes second round of sanctions on Iran.

October 2007: United States imposes unilateral sanctions against Iran. It designates Iran's Quds Force a terrorism supporter, and calls out the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) for "support of weapons of mass destruction."

March 2008: The UN Security Council imposes a third round of sanctions. Iranian officials declare the sanctions illegal and coercive, and say Iran will continue to develop its nuclear potential.

September 2008: UN Security Council reaffirms commitment to sanctions, and to incentives if Iran agrees to halt uranium enrichment.

September 2009: After satellites reveal a secret nuclear facility, Iran admits that it is building a uranium enrichment plant near Qom, but insists it is for peaceful purposes. Secret nuclear development is illegal under the NPT.

September 2009: Iran refuses to accept the international proposal to end the dispute over its nuclear programme. UN nuclear watchdog IAEA passes a resolution condemning Iran for developing a second uranium enrichment site in secret.

June 2010: Resolution 1929 imposed a complete arms embargo on Iran, banned Iran from any activities related to ballistic missiles, authorized the inspection and seizure of shipments violating these restrictions, and extended the asset freeze to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and the Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines (IRISL). The resolution passed by a vote of 12–2, with Turkey and Brazil voting against and Lebanon abstaining. A number of countries imposed measures to implement and extend these sanctions, including the United States, the European Union, Australia, Canada, Japan, Norway, South Korea,and Russia.

June 2011: Resolution 1984 extended for a further 12 months the mandate of the Panel of Experts established by Resolution 1929.

November 2011: A recent International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report, based on the intelligence of 10 governments, presented images, letters and diagrams that suggested Iran was secretly working on nuclear weaponry. The IAEA Board of Governors passed a resolution by a vote of 32–2 that expressed "deep and increasing concern" over the possible military dimensions to Iran's nuclear program and calling it "essential" that Iran provide additional information and access to the IAEA.

Edited February 16, 2012 by PELHAM

[spooky lynx 73]

The Nuclear issue in Iran dates back many years. The key issue is Iran's secret nuclear program which is illegal under international law as it has signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Is Israeli nuclear program legal?

[PELHAM 10]

Is Israeli nuclear program legal?

Yes, it hasn't signed the NPT.

[spooky lynx 73]

So it doesn't need any inspections even if it is not officially the handler of nuclear weapons? And is it okay that Israel doesn't want to sign NPT?

[PELHAM 10]

So it doesn't need any inspections even if it is not officially the handler of nuclear weapons? And is it okay that Israel doesn't want to sign NPT?

I think there should be a commitment to a nuclear free zone in the middle east, similar to the one in central Asia. But yes, the situation is odd, Israel didn't sign therefore has no international obligations. Iran signed and therefore has these requirements and is now acting illegally. North Korea signed the NPT but decided to withdraw giving 90 days notice so is now legal.

So why is it that Iran stays in the NPT and continues to act the part of international nuclear law breaker, why don't they just withdraw from the agreement? Does it serve internal politics to be seen to be standing up to the rest of the world and the 'Great Satan'? Does the NPT and a veneer of legitimacy give Iran leverage and moral authority in opposition to it's rivals in the region, including Israel? If it were to withdraw would it then become more of a pariah state like North Korea? Would China and Russia then have to accept the use of tougher measures and sanctions?

It's a very odd game. Basically they are acting just as the Israelis did but are using the NPT to appear morally superior. I suspect Mahmoud Ahmadinejad uses this game to enhance his status and power in Iran, all dubious leaders do it. Have a look at the timeline on the previous page (2005) and notice when international relations seriously deteriorated and who was elected president at the time.

Edited February 16, 2012 by PELHAM

[spooky lynx 73]

I think there should be a commitment to a nuclear free zone in the middle east, similar to the one in central Asia. But yes, the situation is odd, Israel didn't sign therefore has no international obligations. Iran signed and therefore has these requirements and is now acting illegally. North Korea signed the NPT but decided to withdraw giving 90 days notice so is now legal.

So why no one tries to put some sanctions against Israel to force it to sign NPT? Don't you think that no obligations = uncontrollable selling of weapons and technologies to those who may pay for them? And don't you think that refusing to sign NPT equals breaking some its parts?

So why is it that Iran stays in the NPT and continues to act the part of international nuclear law breaker, why don't they just withdraw from the agreement?

Why? Maybe they have no nuclear weapons indeed and don't try to make them?;) So they don't need to withdraw from the agreement. Regarding 'The Great Satan' - they will be it no matter of their acting. Just like Bashar Assad now. Even if he tells that there will be plebiscite about the constitution changes, everybody around say "It's just funny! It doesn't matter, you are evil, you must get out!".