Iran to make major nuclear announcement within days, Ahmadinejad says

[PELHAM 10]

The International Atomic Energy Authority says different:

In 2006, the IAEA inspectors found sensitive documents, including instructions and diagrams on how to make uranium into a sphere, which is only necessary to make nuclear weapons. Iran furnished the IAEA with copies, claiming not to have used the information for weapons work, which it had obtained along with other technology and parts in 1987 and the mid-1990s. It is thought this material was sold to them by Abdul Qadeer Khan (Pakistan), though the documents did not have the necessary technical details to actually manufacture a bomb.

In November 2011, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Board of Governors rebuked Iran following an IAEA report detailing how Iran had undertaken research and experiments geared to developing a nuclear weapons capability. The IAEA report outlines, in depth, the country’s detonator development, the multiple-point initiation of high explosives, and experiments involving nuclear payload integration into a missile delivery vehicle. IAEA officials identified a "large explosive containment vessel" inside Parchin. The IAEA later assessed that Iran has been conducting experiments to develop nuclear weapons capability. Iran rejected the details of the report and accused the IAEA of pro-Western bias and threatened to reduce its cooperation with the IAEA.

UN Security Council

The UN Security Council has passed seven resolutions on Iran:

Resolution 1696 (31 July 2006) demanded that Iran suspend its uranium enrichment activities, invoking Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter to make that demand legally binding on Iran.

Resolution 1737 (23 December 2006) imposed sanctions after Iran refused to suspend its enrichment activities, cutting off nuclear cooperation, demanding that Iran cooperate with the IAEA, and freezing the assets of a number of persons and organizations linked to Iran's nuclear and missile programs. It established a committee to monitor sanctions implementation.[116]

Resolution 1747 (24 March 2007) expanded the list of sanctioned Iranian entities and welcomed the proposal by the permanent five members of the Security Council plus Germany for resolving issues regarding Iran's nuclear program.

In resolution 1803 (3 March 2008), the Council decided to extend those sanctions to additional persons and entities, impose travel restrictions on sanctioned persons, and bar exports of nuclear- and missile-related dual-use goods to Iran.[117]

Resolution 1835 (27 September 2008) reaffirmed the preceding four resolutions, the only one of the seven not to invoke Chapter VII.

Resolution 1929 (9 June 2010) 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,[118] Canada,[119] Japan,[120] Norway,[121] South Korea,[122] and Russia.[123]

Resolution 1984 (8 June 2011) extended for a further 12 months the mandate of the Panel of Experts established by Resolution 1929.

Edited February 15, 2012 by PELHAM

[Nicholas 5]

I don't think it is right for the US or Russia to tell other countries they can not have nuclear weapons when they have nuclear weapons themselves. Although, the US and Russia have been attempting to cooperate and lower the nuclear arsenal.

I do believe that Iran has nuclear weapons, but they have kept them hidden. I think that there will always be nuclear weapons as at least one country will be unwilling to give them up.

[PELHAM 10]

I don't think it is right for the US or Russia to tell other countries they can not have nuclear weapons when they have nuclear weapons themselves. Although, the US and Russia have been attempting to cooperate and lower the nuclear arsenal.

I do believe that Iran has nuclear weapons, but they have kept them hidden. I think that there will always be nuclear weapons as at least one country will be unwilling to give them up.

Iran is a signatory of the Non-Nuclear Proliferation Treaty (NPT)

It is not the US or Russia telling them they can't have nuclear weapons it's the UN Security Council. Iran has signed an agreement stating they will not develop Nuclear weapons and will submit to verification procedures by the International Atomic energy Authority. The problem arose when Iran was repeatedly caught hiding aspects of it's Nuclear Program which led to the UN Security Council Resolutions shown in my post above.

It's a principle of international law, Iran can't have it both ways. If they want to develop nuclear weapons they must first withdraw from the NPT giving 90 days notice.

NNWS parties to the NPT agree not to "receive," "manufacture" or "acquire" nuclear weapons or to "seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture of nuclear weapons" (Article II). NNWS parties also agree to accept safeguards by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to verify that they are not diverting nuclear energy from peaceful uses to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices (Article III).

Iran is a party to the NPT but was found in non-compliance with its NPT safeguards agreement and the status of its nuclear program remains in dispute. In November 2003 IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei reported that Iran had repeatedly and over an extended period failed to meet its safeguards obligations, including by failing to declare its uranium enrichment program.[19] After about two years of EU3-led diplomatic efforts and Iran temporarily suspending its enrichment program,[60] the IAEA Board of Governors, acting under Article XII.C of the IAEA Statute, found in a rare non-consensus decision with 12 abstentions that these failures constituted non-compliance with the IAEA safeguards agreement.[20] This was reported to the UN Security Council in 2006,[61] after which the Security Council passed a resolution demanding that Iran suspend its enrichment.[62] Instead, Iran resumed its enrichment program.[63]

Edited February 15, 2012 by PELHAM

[Nicholas 5]

Iran is a signatory of the Non-Nuclear Proliferation Treaty (NPT)

It is not the US or Russia telling them they can't have nuclear weapons it's the UN Security Council. Iran has signed an agreement stating they will not develop Nuclear weapons and will submit to verification procedures by the International Atomic energy Authority. The problem arose when Iran was repeatedly caught hiding aspects of it's Nuclear Program which led to the UN Security Council Resolutions shown in my post above.

It's a principle of international law, Iran can't have it both ways. If they want to develop nuclear weapons they must first withdraw from the NPT giving 90 days notice.

NNWS parties to the NPT agree not to "receive," "manufacture" or "acquire" nuclear weapons or to "seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture of nuclear weapons" (Article II). NNWS parties also agree to accept safeguards by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to verify that they are not diverting nuclear energy from peaceful uses to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices (Article III).

Iran is a party to the NPT but was found in non-compliance with its NPT safeguards agreement and the status of its nuclear program remains in dispute. In November 2003 IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei reported that Iran had repeatedly and over an extended period failed to meet its safeguards obligations, including by failing to declare its uranium enrichment program.[19] After about two years of EU3-led diplomatic efforts and Iran temporarily suspending its enrichment program,[60] the IAEA Board of Governors, acting under Article XII.C of the IAEA Statute, found in a rare non-consensus decision with 12 abstentions that these failures constituted non-compliance with the IAEA safeguards agreement.[20] This was reported to the UN Security Council in 2006,[61] after which the Security Council passed a resolution demanding that Iran suspend its enrichment.[62] Instead, Iran resumed its enrichment program.[63]

I never said that the US and Russia told Iran they could not have weapons. Re-read my post.

I don't think it is right for the US or Russia to tell other countries they can not have nuclear weapons when they have nuclear weapons themselves. Although, the US and Russia have been attempting to cooperate and lower the nuclear arsenal.

Here is the part where I talk about Iran:

I do believe that Iran has nuclear weapons, but they have kept them hidden.

[walker 0]

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

[PELHAM 10]

I never said that the US and Russia told Iran they could not have weapons. Re-read my post.

Sorry about that, as this is a thread about Iran I thought that's what you meant. Hope you understand why it is correct for any of the 5 NWS nations to insist others cannot have Nuclear weapons if they have signed the NPT?

In other news:

Iran also cut off oil supplies to the Netherlands, Spain, Italy, France, Greece and Portugal today. It is said to be a reaction against finger pointing by the EU at Iranian involvement in terrorist activity in Thailand, Georgia and India during the past week. Iran seems to be targeting Israelis in response to the attacks on it's nuclear scientists which it blames on Israel.

-In Bangkok a residential house exploded after a bomb factory exploded by accident. An Iranian man carrying a bag of explosives and grenades was severely injured when that also exploded. Magnetic bombs were defused at the house and a second Iranian was arrested trying to board a flight to Malaysia.

-An explosion in New Delhi injured the wife of an Israeli diplomat and a driver after a magnetic bomb was attached to a car by a passing motorcyclist, three bystanders were also injured. The incident occurred close to the residence of the Indian Prime Minister.

-Another magnetic bomb on a car was defused after being found at the Israeli embassy in the Georgian capital of Tbilisi.

Security sources say all the bombs were of a similar sophisticated design.

Bomb factory in Bangkok where 3 Iranians lived minus roof and windows.

Edited February 15, 2012 by PELHAM

[walker 0]

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.u

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

Hi all

When I made that previous post I realised I should have included the background and evidence for the statement about Iran already having nukes, but PELHAM had already posted so I felt while a spelling or grammatical or similar small factor could be added, such a major addition would be unreasonable. So without further ado.

In terms of proof of Iran already having Nukes.

It is one of reasons Israel backed off from the bombing plan. Estimates in the intelligence community vary from 3 to 30 plus. It is also why Iran became more bellicose in the last decade or so and why it has become so intransigent on the matter of Israel. If there are just 3 Nukes then they are large of the "fat man" variety if there are 30 plus then they include a batch purchased from a former soviet state. Over the years these will have degenerated and perhaps become non working. It is also probable that Iran has broken some of them down to make multiple lower yield weapons.

I will add links to this post shortly. DONE!

There is a wealth of evidence from various sources that Iran obtained Nukes and Nuclear material from Kazakhstan around 1992 and that it also employed former soviet Nuclear weapon engineers to adapt and maintain them.

There are multiple root sources for the above information including an NTI report which is very detailed has since been censored and then pulled but still available in both Pdf form, from those who took copies and in quotes from multiple sources, heck you even find it with the dear old WaybackMachine archive, though more modern Archivers are are more complete and faster and protected by mutiple nation and network server redundancy:

http://web.archive.org/web/20021201200016/http://www.nti.org/db/nisprofs/kazakst/fissmat/sapphire.htm

Remember if it ever goes missing it is still available on Dark-net and others.

http://www.vertic.org/media/assets/TV/TV27.pdf

People can also use Google; a search phrase containing Nuclear Iran, Kazakhstan and 1992 which will result in this:

http://www.google.co.uk/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=Nuclear+iran+Kazakhstan+1992

Take your pick of the source you most trust: :)

The USA knew that Iran could make Nukes within 10 years of Iran receiving plans from China in 1995 on building such a system:

http://www.clevelandjewishnews.com/archives/article_570a1231-d196-527e-acba-bbac223bf3cc.html

Both the Jerusalem Post and FAS say Iran has had Nukes for some time and that the Mossad is aware of it and has documents proving it: http://www.fas.org/news/iran/1998/980409-iran2.htm

Former CIA Director Porter Goss warned Turkey that Iran already had Nukes back in 2005:

Source:

http://regimechangeiran.blogspot.com/2005/12/turkey-goss-reportedly-told-ankara.html

The Russian General who was First Deputy Minister of Defense and Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation from 2004 to 2008 confirmed Iran has Nukes, mutiple sources confirm the story and was even admited in the Iranian press probably because they wanted the US to know they would not attack America with them, or allow them to fall in to terrorists hands:

Sources:

http://www.edwardjayepstein.com/2002question/Iran_fullticket.htm

http://www.iran-press-service.com/articles_2002/Jun_2002/iran_has_nuke_6602.htm

In 2008 Iran is believed to have tested a couple of Nukes:

http://israelinsider.net/profiles/blog/show?id=2018399%3ABlogPost%3A11698

http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2011/November/UN-Set-Release-Intel-Report-Iran-Nuke-Aims/

Iran is believed to have chosen that area because its regular earthquakes allowed it to mask the tests among quakes. The rumour is it was a test of one of the small tactical nukes that it got from a former soviet state, that it had dismanteled to learn the technology then rebuilt.

Multiple sources also verify nuclear weapon testing by Iran.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/story/2011-11-08/Iran-nuclear-weapons-treaty/51125744/1

http://www.haaretz.com/news/iran-may-have-tested-nuclear-warhead-design-secret-iaea-report-says-1.4641

And there is even a veiled admission from sources in Iran's Revolutionary Guards http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/julian-borger-global-security-blog/2011/jun/08/iran-blogging

As I reported earlier in another thread the Current UK Prime Minister let it slip:

5 August 2010 Last updated at 18:37

David Cameron accused by Labour of Iran nuclear 'gaffe'

Labour has accused David Cameron of committing a gaffe by mistakenly claiming Iran has a nuclear weapon.

Asked why he was backing Turkey to join the EU, he said it could help solve the world's problems, "like the Middle East peace process, like the fact that Iran has got a nuclear weapon"...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-10886435

As always follow the text to the original text in full

There is some discussion that the Israel bombing threat may have been an attempt to garner information from troop movements as to the location of Iran's Nukes.

In all honesty a Palestinian state is what will enable change in Iran. That is why Iran is going ape-shit to prevent Hamas from doing a Palestinian State deal, rumour has it that a viable deal is possible. Hense why many in the west have switched horses and are now supporting that.

Kind Regards Walker

NB LINKS TO BE ADDED Computers are still better than phones or tablets for complex arguments on a forum DONE!

Edited February 15, 2012 by walker
Added links as promissed

[NoRailgunner 0]

There is a difference between laboratory-scale production and mass production. IIRC one need to enrich uranium close to 90 percent to make it work for weapon development/production. Are there any non-sensationalistic evidences which proof that Iran has nukes "ready to fire" in the past and today?

[PELHAM 10]

There is a difference between laboratory-scale production and mass production. IIRC one need to enrich uranium close to 90 percent to make it work for weapon development/production. Are there any non-sensationalistic evidences which proof that Iran has nukes "ready to fire" in the past and today?

Iran is a signatory of the Non-Nuclear Proliferation Treaty (NPT)

NNWS parties to the NPT agree not to "receive," "manufacture" or "acquire" nuclear weapons or to "seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture of nuclear weapons" (Article II). NNWS parties also agree to accept safeguards by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to verify that they are not diverting nuclear energy from peaceful uses to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices (Article III).

Iran is in breach of those agreements hence the UN Resolutions and Sanctions etc. (see page 3 of this thread). Having a weapon ready to fire or possession of viable components is not the issue. By hiding elements of it's nuclear program (eg Qom), refusing access to the IAEA and seeking information and assistance from others is already breaking international law. Resolution 1696 (31 July 2006) demanded that Iran suspend its uranium enrichment activities, invoking Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter to make that demand legally binding on Iran.

Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter sets out the UN Security Council's powers to maintain peace. It allows the Council to "determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression" and to take military and non-military action to "restore international peace and security".

[GRS 10]

Ha! Treaties...

[onlyrazor 11]

Ha! Human rights and a fair government...

[GRS 10]

What are those?

[walker 0]

There is a difference between laboratory-scale production and mass production. IIRC one need to enrich uranium close to 90 percent to make it work for weapon development/production. Are there any non-sensationalistic evidences which proof that Iran has nukes "ready to fire" in the past and today?

Hi NoRailgunner

Links added sorry about that needed to get to a computer first :)

As you can see the sources include Russia's top General, The UK Prime Minister, Head US CIA and members of the State Department, FAS, etc. hardly err sensationalistic people.

Plane fact is they have the nukes everyone just wants them to admit it.

Kind Regards walker

Edited February 15, 2012 by walker
grammar

[ProfTournesol 956]

Come on guys, grow up a little. Saying that you don't what human rights are shows that you're living in a country respecting them.

[onlyrazor 11]

I appreciate human rights. I'm no politician however. As long as there are power and money, human rights are nothing but words on paper.

[Beagle 684]

I appreciate human rights. I'm no politician however. As long as there are power and money, human rights are nothing but words on paper.

Human right were always just words omn paper. just look how the french guillotine gang or the new founded USA dealt with human rights.

[ProfTournesol 956]

Human right were always just words omn paper. just look how the french guillotine gang or the new founded USA dealt with human rights.

Go in Syria and appreciate how well human rights are respected in your country.

[GRS 10]

The point I was making is that governments don't care about people or their rights. :rolleyes:

[Beagle 684]

Go in Syria and appreciate how well human rights are respected in your country.

TRghe problem is that even in my cointry human right are no more respected and judgements made in Den Haag are simply neglected. Whe have in fact no constitution anymore that can contain the stream of totalitarian laws thats spawning for some time now that lets the east geerman StaSi look like a boyscout summer camp.

[ProfTournesol 956]

TRghe problem is that even in my cointry human right are no more respected and judgements made in Den Haag are simply neglected. Whe have in fact no constitution anymore that can contain the stream of totalitarian laws thats spawning for some time now that lets the east geerman StaSi look like a boyscout summer camp.

I don't say our democratic regims are perfect, or that HR shouldn't still be defended, nor that money or power aren't spoiling democracies, but that they are obviously the less evil ones.

[walker 0]

Hi all

As I already detailed Iran has the Nukes, we already know this even the Prime Minister of the UK, the head of the CIA and the head of the Russian Military have all admited it:

...

All this posturing by Israel and the US is to get Iran to admit it, which the Iranians wont do until they have secure internal source for warheads and there for wont drop their suppliers in the dodo by admiting they have them.

The major cause of all the HooHaa is the US and Israel trying to spot where they are, and the Oil companies and that includes Iran's oil companies wanting to raise the price of Oil.

Iran is going through the sanctions like a hot knife through butter mainly because China wants the oil and the US ain't about to give up its strategic reserve to fill the gap and so told the US to go roger itself.

The thing that will change the current government in Iran is an Israeli deal with Hamas, it is the thing the current Iranian government most fears:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/02/12/MNP21N6N02.DTL

A deal between Israel and Hamas will remove a key leg of the current Iranian governments reason for existing and enable the Arab spring to gain new momentum.

Kind Regards walker

Edited February 15, 2012 by walker

[gammadust 12]

I don't say our democratic regims are perfect, or that HR shouldn't still be defended, nor that money or power aren't spoiling democracies, but that they are obviously the less evil ones.

"Less evil ones" comparing to which?

That comment in the thread regarding an hipothetical self disclosure on Iran's nuclear (weapons?) program... does that imply Iran as a more evil one as opposed to our "democracies" in regards to HR?

Which country was the single one to use nuclear weapons ever? Which one has a count of war interventions above 50 in six decades of history (not counting inducing civil war in others)?

How does that count in regards to Human Rights? Are we really comparing Iran and the track record of NATO member countries' "democracies"? If not, appologies, but just let this comment pass its own relevance.

Money and power are not only effing up our so called democracies they are the very reason for all and every Human Rights abuses throughout. Still, "money and power" is a very simplistic approach in identifying the phenomenon.

[ProfTournesol 956]

"Less evil ones" comparing to which?

That comment in the thread regarding an hipothetical self disclosure on Iran's nuclear (weapons?) program... does that imply Iran as a more evil one as opposed to our "democracies" in regards to HR?

To cut it short : yes. Iranian youth tried to ask for more HR and was crushed into bloodshed by the so called Guardians of the Revolution. And there is no such thing as "so called democracies". There are democracies, very weak per se and which shall be defended at all costs, sometimes against their own flaws, and other regimes trying to wear democratic clothes because some elections are being implemented, with no real oponents, independent press or counter powers.

[NoRailgunner 0]

Question is still open:

Where is the smoking gun? Where is the proof and fact that Iran is producing nuclear weapons?

Guess if there is one Iran would have zero time to attack Israel.

[Beagle 684]

I don't say our democratic regims are perfect, or that HR shouldn't still be defended, nor that money or power aren't spoiling democracies, but that they are obviously the less evil ones.

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.