Oh look, an unclenched fist!

[DC]

Did you mean the IAEA? Perhaps. However, as acknowledged by the IAEA themselves, their conclusions are limited to what has been declared by Iran and what they've been permitted to verify. By their own charter, the IAEA strictly sticks to what they observe; they do not assess intentions, and are only sensitive to outright declarations.

In other words... their conclusions are only as good as their access. Iran has been deceptive concerning their nuclear programs in the past; to echo your sentiment... "Where is the evidence that they've stopped being deceptive about their nuclear program?"



I assume you mean "now", because you said you hadn't in you response to me earlier...



As I have said, there is no "smoking gun". There is certainly a lot of smoke - enough to cause reason for alarm. You might wish to read this interview with the Director of the IAEA by Der Spiegel, as provided by the IAEA website...

http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Transcripts/2005/derspiegel21022005.html



You may also wish to read this by a group that I believe to be relatively neutral:

http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Iran-IAEA-Issues

In other words, you have nothing.

they assume something and base alot more assumptions on that assumption.

 

[Darth Rotor]

"I think the Iranians should be embraced." .......

Agreed.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_81MnOiooOXc/R9efNiaXVwI/AAAAAAAAEc4/UAvRiJzEME8/s400/Sepideh+Haftgoli.jpg

@ jmercer and Dic Cheney:

Guys, Iran with nukes is no problem. Let them get them. Then, send them the email:

Hi Iran Dudes

You are now targeted by our nuclear weapons, which you weren't before. Sorry, old chum, and welcome to the nuclear club.

Membership sucks.

Love and kisses

The US​

Or, just text them:

U R Fuxored

DR

 

[DC]

Agreed.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_81MnOiooOXc/R9efNiaXVwI/AAAAAAAAEc4/UAvRiJzEME8/s400/Sepideh+Haftgoli.jpg

@ jmercer and Dic Cheney:

Guys, Iran with nukes is no problem. Let them get them. Then, send them the email:

Hi Iran Dudes

You are now targeted by our nuclear weapons, which you weren't before. Sorry, old chum, and welcome to the nuclear club.

Membership sucks.

Love and kisses

The US​

Or, just text them:

U R Fuxored

DR

nice post.

still nukes could give em more political power, i dont think that would be a good thing.

 

[jmercer]

In other words, you have nothing.

they assume something and base alot more assumptions on that assumption.

Nope. All I've said is that Iran wants nukes, and produced two statements by them about it; and that there's a lot of cause for concern that Iran may be still trying to develop nukes due to their nuclear development program, which has been stated by any number of agencies - including the one you specifically requested cites from.

There's more than sufficient evidence to be concerned.

Agreed.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_81MnOiooOXc/R9efNiaXVwI/AAAAAAAAEc4/UAvRiJzEME8/s400/Sepideh%2BHaftgoli.jpg

@ jmercer and Dic Cheney:

Guys, Iran with nukes is no problem. Let them get them. Then, send them the email:

Hi Iran Dudes

You are now targeted by our nuclear weapons, which you weren't before. Sorry, old chum, and welcome to the nuclear club.

Membership sucks.

Love and kisses

The US​

Or, just text them:

U R Fuxored

DR

Heh - nice. Unfortunately, not practical, really.

Four scenarios if Iran gets nukes:

1) They sit on them and do nothing but bluster and threaten. (I have trouble seeing this as happening due to the rhetoric that's been going on for years from there.)

2) They continue to develop them until they're small enough to move around easily, then sell them to terrorists to use against us and/or their other "enemies". The strike won't appear to have come from Iran in that case, so having missiles aimed at them won't matter because they won't be used. (I see this as a real possibility, because it solves so many problems - for them, anyway.)

3) They develop short-range nuke-tipped missiles, and attack Israel (or possibly another of their neighbors. We aren't going to launch nukes due to strikes in other countries unless we wish to invoke the NATO treaties. Unlikely, and not a real deterrent to Iran in that case. (Another possibility, depending on how likely they are to underestimate world reaction to such an act.)

4) They develop intercontinental nuke capacity, and attack us. Very unlikely.

 

[DC]

Nope. All I've said is that Iran wants nukes, and produced two statements by them about it; and that there's a lot of cause for concern that Iran may be still trying to develop nukes due to their nuclear development program, which has been stated by any number of agencies - including the one you specifically requested cites from.

There's more than sufficient evidence to be concerned.

you may be concrened, but dont claim there is evidence etc. because there isnt.
Also the IAEO points out everytime, that there is no evidence at all that they have an active nuclear weappon program.

and just because you belive they have, based on some old quotes you was not able to backup (btw, i could bring up claims about a fatwa against nukes and several quotes of high Iranian official claiming they dont have and dont want nukes) , and based on claims from 2003 about a stopp of an alleged nuclear weppon programm. where is the evidence to justofy that assumtion? just cause an agency said so?
did you learn anything from the Iraq WMD scandal?

Google Scott Ritter and listen to the man.

but concerns are ok, but what would you want to do?
do you agree that they have a right to have the full nuclear power cycle? including low uranium enrichment?

or would your concerns go so far to support an illegal atack on Irans Nuclear reactors like Israel and bush wanted to?

 

[DC]

We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons
program1 ; we also assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Tehran at a minimum is
keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons.

what evidence led to that assumption?

 

[fuelair]

Nope. All I've said is that Iran wants nukes, and produced two statements by them about it; and that there's a lot of cause for concern that Iran may be still trying to develop nukes due to their nuclear development program, which has been stated by any number of agencies - including the one you specifically requested cites from.

There's more than sufficient evidence to be concerned.



Heh - nice. Unfortunately, not practical, really.

Four scenarios if Iran gets nukes:

1) They sit on them and do nothing but bluster and threaten. (I have trouble seeing this as happening due to the rhetoric that's been going on for years from there.)

2) They continue to develop them until they're small enough to move around easily, then sell them to terrorists to use against us and/or their other "enemies". The strike won't appear to have come from Iran in that case, so having missiles aimed at them won't matter because they won't be used. (I see this as a real possibility, because it solves so many problems - for them, anyway.)

3) They develop short-range nuke-tipped missiles, and attack Israel (or possibly another of their neighbors. We aren't going to launch nukes due to strikes in other countries unless we wish to invoke the NATO treaties. Unlikely, and not a real deterrent to Iran in that case. (Another possibility, depending on how likely they are to underestimate world reaction to such an act.)

4) They develop intercontinental nuke capacity, and attack us. Very unlikely.

For 2, we will know who it came from (at least the basic source) -there are ways and last I heard we can tell. I suspect and hope we would launch if. Any president who didn't and was found not to have will probably, at a minimum, doom himself/herself and party to exile for a long time.

 

[jmercer]

you may be concrened, but dont claim there is evidence etc. because there isnt.
Also the IAEO points out everytime, that there is no evidence at all that they have an active nuclear weappon program.

That's fine as far as it goes - but it doesn't go far enough. You shouldn't ignore the fact that in the same exact statements the IAEA qualifies that claim by stating that their conclusion is based on declared activity, and they cannot account for undeclared. If you read through the reports from the IAEA on Iran, they also state that additional protocols are needed to permit proper examination efforts in Iran to eliminate the possibility of covert development.

and just because you belive they have, based on some old quotes you was not able to backup (btw, i could bring up claims about a fatwa against nukes and several quotes of high Iranian official claiming they dont have and dont want nukes) , and based on claims from 2003 about a stopp of an alleged nuclear weppon programm. where is the evidence to justofy that assumtion? just cause an agency said so?
did you learn anything from the Iraq WMD scandal?

Immaterial and speculative. In addition, I told you that the quotes could be found from several sources on the web; I'm certainly not going to spend my time looking up more sources for you.

Google Scott Ritter and listen to the man.

I will.

but concerns are ok, but what would you want to do?
do you agree that they have a right to have the full nuclear power cycle? including low uranium enrichment?

I have no problem with a low uranium enrichment program; however, there is evidence found by the IAEA (and covered in many of its reports) that high uranium enrichment may be going on as well. As you know, HEU is weapons-grade material. Such is not needed for commercial reactors.

Allow me to draw your attention to this 2009 report by the IAEU to it's Board of Governers:

As the Report states, contrary to the request of the Board of Governors and the Security Council, Iran has not suspended its enrichment related activities, or its work on heavy water related projects. Nor has Iran implemented the Additional Protocol, which, as with other countries with comprehensive safeguards agreements, is a prerequisite for the Agency to provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities. Iran has not permitted the Agency to perform the required design information verification at the IR-40 reactor currently under construction, and it has not implemented the modified text of its Subsidiary Arrangements General Part on the early provision of design information.

The Agency regrettably was unable to make any progress on the remaining issues which give rise to concerns about possible military dimensions of Iran´s nuclear programme because of lack of cooperation by Iran. For the Agency to be able to make progress, Iran needs to provide substantive information and access to relevant documentation, locations and individuals in connection with all of the outstanding issues.

Unless Iran implements the transparency measures and the Additional Protocol, as required by the Security Council, the Agency will not be in a position to provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran. I again urge Iran to implement all measures required to build confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of its nuclear programme at the earliest possible date and to unblock this stalemated situation.

It seems clear to me that the issues and questions surrounding weapons-grade enrichment activities in Iran still remain; further, according to the IAEA, Iran is intentionally blocking efforts to provide transparency.

Smoke, Fire, Alarm time, I think.

If they claim all their efforts are peaceful, why not let the IAEA clear them of wrongdoing? Why refuse to cooperate in the face of HEU particles being found, and why continue heavy water development?

or would your concerns go so far to support an illegal atack on Irans Nuclear reactors like Israel and bush wanted to?

While you're at it, did you want to ask if I've stopped beating my wife yet?

Stick to the question, and stop trying to draw me into hypothetical responses about the proper actions.

I will say this, however - if hard evidence is found that the Iranians are secretly developing nuclear weapons, I would support a military action to reduce or eliminate their capability to do so. But the evidence had better be real, unlike that tripe issued by the Bush administration about "WMDs in Iraq".

I have no problem with a peaceful program.

what evidence led to that assumption?

Which document is that quote from? (I supplied several, not sure which one you're referring to. I'll attempt to look up the footnote and answer your question.)

 

[WildCat]

For 2, we will know who it came from (at least the basic source) -there are ways and last I heard we can tell. I suspect and hope we would launch if. Any president who didn't and was found not to have will probably, at a minimum, doom himself/herself and party to exile for a long time.

I hear people claim this, but never with anything concrete in the way of evidence. All Iran needs is plausible deniability. How would you know it came from Iran, and not N. Korea or even Pakistan or from a Soviet-era nuke?

 

[DC]

That's fine as far as it goes - but it doesn't go far enough. You shouldn't ignore the fact that in the same exact statements the IAEA qualifies that claim by stating that their conclusion is based on declared activity, and they cannot account for undeclared. If you read through the reports from the IAEA on Iran, they also state that additional protocols are needed to permit proper examination efforts in Iran to eliminate the possibility of covert development.

I fully support the additional protocolls. I think Iran should implement it asap.

Immaterial and speculative. In addition, I told you that the quotes could be found from several sources on the web; I'm certainly not going to spend my time looking up more sources for you.

could you bring up some actual quotes? not old ones ?

I will.

I have no problem with a low uranium enrichment program; however, there is evidence found by the IAEA (and covered in many of its reports) that high uranium enrichment may be going on as well. As you know, HEU is weapons-grade material. Such is not needed for commercial reactors.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/22/AR2005082201447.html

that HEU?

Allow me to draw your attention to this 2009 report by the IAEU to it's Board of Governers:



It seems clear to me that the issues and questions surrounding weapons-grade enrichment activities in Iran still remain; further, according to the IAEA, Iran is intentionally blocking efforts to provide transparency.

Smoke, Fire, Alarm time, I think.

If they claim all their efforts are peaceful, why not let the IAEA clear them of wrongdoing? Why refuse to cooperate in the face of HEU particles being found, and why continue heavy water development?

they are clear of any wrong doing

While you're at it, did you want to ask if I've stopped beating my wife yet?

Stick to the question, and stop trying to draw me into hypothetical responses about the proper actions.

I will say this, however - if hard evidence is found that the Iranians are secretly developing nuclear weapons, I would support a military action to reduce or eliminate their capability to do so. But the evidence had better be real, unlike that tripe issued by the Bush administration about "WMDs in Iraq".

then its fine, that was all i asked. You claimed there is evidence and you talked as if it is a known fact that iran is producing nukes.

I have no problem with a peaceful program.

fine

Which document is that quote from? (I supplied several, not sure which one you're referring to. I'll attempt to look up the footnote and answer your question.)

from that fantasy paper

http://middleeast.about.com/gi/dyna...w.dni.gov/press_releases/20071203_release.pdf

 

[jmercer]

could you bring up some actual quotes? not old ones ?

Of course not. As I pointed out before, since those quotes got world attention the Iranian government has been silent regarding whether or not they desire nukes. They have not, however, made any statements refuting those earlier ones.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/22/AR2005082201447.html

that HEU?

Please show me where the IAEU states that as a conclusion, since you're the one who asked to use them as a more "neutral" party.

they are clear of any wrong doing

No, they are not. They have and are still resisting compliance with the current protocols; and have - as the IAEU has stated - a history of deception regarding nuclear power.

then its fine, that was all i asked. You claimed there is evidence and you talked as if it is a known fact that iran is producing nukes.

You must have missed this when I wrote it back in post 82:

I will concede that there is no definitive publicly available proof that they are actually engaged in developing such weapons, and my statement to that effect is in error.

Regarding your last dismissive remark... I don't believe the National Intelligence Council engages in writing fantasy reports. *shrug*

 

[jmercer]

For 2, we will know who it came from (at least the basic source) -there are ways and last I heard we can tell. I suspect and hope we would launch if. Any president who didn't and was found not to have will probably, at a minimum, doom himself/herself and party to exile for a long time.

Unfortunately, I'm not sure I agree with our ability to quickly fingerprint a weapon like this. In example, Iran has acquired both nuclear material and equipment from varying sources - Pakistan, for one. And there are, of course, other countries sharing those pipelines. (Many legitimately, as per the IAEU annual reports.) Further, it wouldn't be enough that we were convinced. We'd have to present compelling proof to the rest of the world of the source.

Finally, responding in kind would be as much an atrocity as the act initiating our response. The majority of Iranians are no more responsible for what their government does than the majority of Americans. A nuclear response from the US would kill multitudes of innocent lives; there are far better military alternatives at our disposal than using a nuke to answer a nuke. There's a reason they're called weapons of mass destruction, ya know.