What is Iran up to?

From the BBC:

UK Prime Minister Tony Blair says Iran's decision to resume its nuclear activities is likely to result in a referral to the UN Security Council.

It also states:

The West fears Iran is seeking nuclear weapons after it broke seals on a research facility. Tehran says it only wants to produce electricity.

Now I have serious doubts about their intentions.

After all, this kind of research is expensive and dangerous. If they wanted nuclear fuel, they could easily buy it. That would get them into energy production much sooner.

And considering the kind of idiotic and dangerous statements that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has made in recent times, I wouldn't trust them.

[Derek S]

Originally Posted by ScaredWebWarrior

After all, this kind of research is expensive and dangerous. If they wanted nuclear fuel, they could easily buy it. That would get them into energy production much sooner..

But that would leave them at the mercy of the suppliers. If they see an opportunity to be self-sufficient in their energy needs they are going to take it.

[DocDutch]

yeah sure...they have enough oil so enough to trade if needed.

I think they are after a nice missile to either reach Israel or Europe, but if that happens we'll see more mushrooms popping around the Mid East

Originally Posted by dezzo

But that would leave them at the mercy of the suppliers. If they see an opportunity to be self-sufficient in their energy needs they are going to take it.

No more than we are 'at the mercy' of OPEC.

We are also 'at the mercy' of USA and Russia for wheat, coal and probably 'at the mercy' of several more countries for much more - they're called 'imports'.

If they can afford the research, then they can afford the imports. Every country would love to be self-sufficient for everything, but none are, and never will be.

And I've never heard that argument put forward, only that they claim the 'right', as a sovereign nation, to do it. That clearly is NOT suggesting that they are concerned about being dependant on another nation for their fuel.

[Damien]

Not to mention what Israel might do if Iran does come close to building a missile!

Also the goverment of Iran does not seem it can be trusted, given the statements that have been made I would be very uneasy to see them having weapons.

Lets hope the UN can actually do something for once instead of argueing and prancing about wondering how best they can annoy the United States.

[punky]

Originally Posted by BBC

UK Prime Minister Tony Blair says Iran's decision to resume its nuclear activities is likely to result in a referral to the UN Security Council.

Oooh, that'll scare Ahmadinejad.

Reminds me of that legendary quote from Team America

Hans Blix: Then let me look around, so I can ease the UN's collective mind. I'm sorry, but the UN must be firm with you. Let me in, or else.

Kim Jong Il: Or else what?

Hans Blix: Or else we will be very angry with you... and we will write you a letter, telling you how angry we are.

At least Iran have stopped blackmailing the gullible fools that make up the EU arbitrators. That's something I suppose.

[Chris]

Originally Posted by Damien

Not to mention what Israel might do if Iran does come close to building a missile!

Also the goverment of Iran does not seem it can be trusted, given the statements that have been made I would be very uneasy to see them having weapons.

Lets hope the UN can actually do something for once instead of argueing and prancing about wondering how best they can annoy the United States.

Israel can't simply do what it did to Iraq. Iran is a lot further away and Israel has nothing to gain from acting apart from the USA. It is very unlikely Iran could develop something that would threaten Israel anyway. Even if they could launch a missile that far it would be as likely to land in Jordan or Gaza, or the sea.

[Derek S]

Originally Posted by levig

yeah sure...they have enough oil so enough to trade if needed.

But the Oil isn't going to last forever. You can already see places like Dubai trying to diversify so when it does run out they won't be left with nothing but memories of the good times when they had money.

Originally Posted by ScaredWebWarrior

No more than we are 'at the mercy' of OPEC

Yep and I'll be if the UK were having problems with OPEC, importing gas etc. they would be looking at home grown sources of power.

Iran is very insular and does not want to be reliant on the West.

While the actual leadership in Iran might not be the most stable or trustworthy in the world you don't see people shouting and screaming at Israel for having a nuclear program (and nuclear weapons)

You can't complain about other countries (possibly) having nuclear ambitions if you don't make any complaints about their neighbours having the weapons or helped them achieve the weapons.

[BBKing]

If they wanted nuclear fuel, they could easily buy it.

No they couldn't. It's not on eBay or the shelves at B&Q, you know ('I'll have a pot of Dulux White and some enriched uranium please, in a lead-lined carrier bag').

What are they up to? Beats me. They're probably gambling on the low probability of action against them having any effect. Let's be clear, they have just as much right to enrich uranium as we have, and given the US attitude to international treaties and obligations (torture, Geneva conventions) we really aren't in the morally high position we should be. Given that, and the Iraq situation, any statements from Blair or the US on the subject of Iran are highly likely to be based on misleading or false intelligence, or have a hidden subtext related to the US plans for Middle East domination by military means. Don't trust the dog that already bit you.

Good point, Chris. With something like a nuke, the consequence of bunging one at Tel Aviv and *missing* (Bethlehem? Gaza? The Dome of the Rock? Amman?)* should be highly worrying to the Iranian leadership, as everywhere else is broadly speaking not going to admire that particularly (and the Israelis can certainly aim theirs rather better, and have a bigger target, so you're looking at smoking-hole-instead-of-Tehran followed by international pariah status from absolutely everybody followed by lots of tanks). Actually, in that case the Israelis would be better off *not* replying, come to think of it, as that might jeopardise other Islamic countries contributing troops.

* All of which are well within about 100 miles of Tel Aviv

[Kliro]

Sense of deja vu here - Iraq changed the currency of their oil trading from dollars to Euros - America invaded and changed the currency back to dollars - meaning the oil was then worth 17% less to Iraq.

Now Iran have already made it clear that this is the year they are setting up their own market for oil, trading in Euros and inviting all other oil bearing nations to follow suit - which is very bad news for America.

Seems like the same thing is starting all over again.....

[andygrif]

Originally Posted by ScaredWebWarrior

From the BBC:
It also states:
Now I have serious doubts about their intentions.

After all, this kind of research is expensive and dangerous. If they wanted nuclear fuel, they could easily buy it. That would get them into energy production much sooner.

Yes, but that wouldn't wind up the West - something that Iran enjoys doing - and why not? After all Bush and Blair like winding up the Middle East too. I still haven't heard a rational explanation as to why Iran (or N Korea for that matter) isn't allowed nuclear energy and/or weapons. We have them, and we invaded a couple of countries recently. Isreal has them, and they don't exactly have squeeky clean record of peace in that area do they?

To see the hypocracy of the situation, you need to put the shoe on the other foot.

Let's say that we were not the all powerful superpower. In fact lets say that America were not our friends and we did things that America didn't like of us. They threaten to invade us. Nothing specific, just a bit of Yankish bravado...you're next kind of thing. Now, at this point would it be wrong of us to start building every weapon, nuclear or otherwise, to try to defend ourself from attack, or (which is what nuclear is good for) deter them from attacking in the first place?

And if it's not wrong for us, why is it wrong for them to do it?

Originally Posted by ScaredWebWarrior

And considering the kind of idiotic and dangerous statements that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has made in recent times, I wouldn't trust them.

There's quite a few idiotic things that come from the mouth of Bush and Blair too; bombing Al Jazeera, 45 minutes, WMDs, etc etc etc.

[Chrysalis]

its all about spin folks.

here in the uk we apperently have proper democracy (party loses election then changes from manifesto elected in on within a year, first past the post system means over 70% of votes are useless, party in complete power with under 35% of national vote)
usa and uk are peaceful nations yet we the only countries doing the invading, usa lies to united nations to justify invading iraq when we all know its for oil and to boost their own economy with rebuilding projects, uk backs them up to keep superpower as ally and possible share in oil spoils.

Now if my neighbouring country got invaded for oil and the world didnt bat an eyelid the first thing I would do is make myself hard to invade and when america is concerned the only way is nuclear arnament. So if thats the reason for iran arming themselves I fully understand.

However it may not be the reason and we wont know the reason if ever for a long time since the whatever the news spits out will be biased anyway.

[punky]

Originally Posted by andygrif

I still haven't heard a rational explanation as to why Iran (or N Korea for that matter) isn't allowed nuclear energy and/or weapons.

Well how about this. They are run by homicidical certifiable nut cases who have no regard to life or human/civil rights. You don't think sensible law-abiding citizens can be trusted with a small handgun, yet you think homicidal dictators should have WMD? Our politicans may be enept, but they are moderate, accountable and for the most part (Galloway exluded) sane.

Ahmadinejad has already called for Israel to be "wiped off the map" (his exact words, although he later conceded to allowing them to move to another continent, how gracious of him). If he had the means, I can see him doing it, even it makes a martyr out of himself/his country. And a significant portion (maybe even a majority) of the 1.1billion muslims would support Iran on wiping out Israel.

[Kliro]

On the other hand its perfectly fine for Bush to carry out 'the work of our lord' and we're all meant to feel safe with him in control of nukes?

Oh yeah, of course I forgot, Iraq had WMD's didnt they........ooo I'm glad we bombed them, think what might have happened if we didn't do that

[punky]

Originally Posted by Kliro

On the other hand its perfectly fine for Bush to carry out 'the work of our lord' and we're all meant to feel safe with him in control of nukes?

He's still electable, accountable and passed a medical including a mental competency test to become president. Many people claim to talk to either God or Jesus. They aren't all nutcases.

Anyway, The US have nuclear weapons because the UN treaty on nuclear weapons says they should. Bush had nothing to do with it.

Oh yeah, of course I forgot, Iraq had WMD's didnt they........ooo I'm glad we bombed them, think what might have happened if we didn't do that

Everyone has conceded that Saddan was trying to restart his program, all he needed was the time.