IAEA inspections underway in Iran

bit_pattern said:
It was a workable proposal rejected outright by the West.
Click to expand...

Are we talking about the same issue?

Iran rejected that proposal days later, claiming that it did not recognize Iran’s right to enrichment. Tehran proceeded with uranium conversion, breaking the suspension agreement with the EU3 and ending negotiations.

In order to support Iran’s talks with the EU, Russia proposed to Iran in October 2005 that Tehran share ownership of a uranium-enrichment plant located in Russia. Following months of discussions on that proposal, Iran ultimately rejected it in March 2006.

McHrozni
 
DC said:
why on earth should they agree on that? the NPT allows for enrichment.
and with that proposal of the west, they would be totally dependend on others to provide them with fuel. wich is not needed as the NPT clearly allows them to enrich the uranium themself.
Click to expand...

Why is nuclear enrichment so important to Iran? The NNPT stipulates there need to be appropriate measures to ensure the programs are peaceful and a 10 year treaty to provide Iran with nuclear fuel they need is a very good compromise. But Iran wants to enrich it's own uranium and is willing to pay heavy economic price for it. Why?

McHrozni
 
McHrozni said:
Are we talking about the same issue?

Iran rejected that proposal days later, claiming that it did not recognize Iran’s right to enrichment. Tehran proceeded with uranium conversion, breaking the suspension agreement with the EU3 and ending negotiations.

In order to support Iran’s talks with the EU, Russia proposed to Iran in October 2005 that Tehran share ownership of a uranium-enrichment plant located in Russia. Following months of discussions on that proposal, Iran ultimately rejected it in March 2006.

McHrozni
Click to expand...

No, we've got wires crossed, the deal I referred to was the Turkey/Brazil deal which the West rejected.

But, taking a step back for a moment; if you were a state that wanted to pursue a civilian nuclear program and were told that the only way you could be allowed to do it is if you made you entirely dependent on the good graces of other states who have acted against your interests in the past, wouldn't you insist on being able to exercise your right to produce your own fuel? I mean, energy security is a big issue, do you really want to be beholden to people who have attacked your interests in the past?

Talking pure realpolitik here, not all the moralising and hoo-ha that passes for analysis in our media.
 
McHrozni said:
Why is nuclear enrichment so important to Iran? The NNPT stipulates there need to be appropriate measures to ensure the programs are peaceful and a 10 year treaty to provide Iran with nuclear fuel they need is a very good compromise. But Iran wants to enrich it's own uranium and is willing to pay heavy economic price for it. Why?

McHrozni
Click to expand...

why is it so important for the US to be oil independent ?
there was a treaty signed, and this allows them to enrich , but now the west wants some special rules. i see no reason for them to accept that.
it is their right.
 
McHrozni said:
I find it funny how some people will fight tooth and nail to support Iranian right to refining nuclear material, but will gladly look the other way when other nations' safety is at risk due to lack of proper safeguards in Iran.

A question you and Jenkins need to answer is this: why does Iran want nuclear refinement and refuses to accept the option to import fuel and is ready to risk major economic damage to that end? Clearly it's not due to any economic logic, so what is it?

McHrozni
Click to expand...
You have previously claimed that Iran is refining uranium that can only be used for nuclear weapons. Are you sticking with that erroneous claim?
 
bit_pattern said:
No, we've got wires crossed, the deal I referred to was the Turkey/Brazil deal which the West rejected.

But, taking a step back for a moment; if you were a state that wanted to pursue a civilian nuclear program and were told that the only way you could be allowed to do it is if you made you entirely dependent on the good graces of other states who have acted against your interests in the past, wouldn't you insist on being able to exercise your right to produce your own fuel? I mean, energy security is a big issue, do you really want to be beholden to people who have attacked your interests in the past?

Talking pure realpolitik here, not all the moralising and hoo-ha that passes for analysis in our media.
Click to expand...

No one said it was on good graces, but a legally binding treaty, your 'argument' is moot.

McHrozni
 
DC said:
why is it so important for the US to be oil independent ?
Click to expand...

Huh?

there was a treaty signed, and this allows them to enrich , but now the west wants some special rules. i see no reason for them to accept that.
it is their right.
Click to expand...

It allows them to enrich, but only if they agree to necessary safeguards ... which aren't in place.

McHrozni
 
bit_pattern said:
Says who exactly? IAEA inspectors are on the ground as we speak, Iran has always agreed to international oversight, oversight isn't the issue here.
Click to expand...

According to the last IAEA report, oversight wasn't adequate at that time, so it is indeed a very big issue.

McHrozni
 
bit_pattern said:
Like the NPT which guarantees the right of a signatory to enrich their own uranium? :eek:
Click to expand...

Yes, like the NNPT, which gives the right under the conditions you refuse to acknowledge for some reason. I suspect it's because they show you wrong.

McHrozni
 
JihadJane said:
You have previously claimed that Iran is refining uranium that can only be used for nuclear weapons. Are you sticking with that erroneous claim?
Click to expand...

No, they could indeed use it to fuel a nuclear powered fleet that would rival the US Navy. Unless you can provide some indication they intend to spend a few entire GDPs on investments in a naval force, however, your 'argument' is quite invalid I'm afraid.

McHrozni
 
McHrozni said:
No, they could indeed use it to fuel a nuclear powered fleet that would rival the US Navy. Unless you can provide some indication they intend to spend a few entire GDPs on investments in a naval force, however, your 'argument' is quite invalid I'm afraid.

McHrozni
Click to expand...

Or electricity. Or nuclear isotopes for modern medicine. Gee, what else could a country want nuclear technology for? Obviously the ONLY possibility is to wage a suicidal nuclear war agaisnt someone who already has 400+ nuclear warheads :rolleyes:

But their musso's and we all know their craaaaaazy :eye-poppi
 
McHrozni said:
http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/focus/iaeairan/iaea_reports.shtml

Any will do.

McHrozni
Click to expand...

Thanks! I picked two! :D

The Agency has been able to continue to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran. Iran has provided the Agency with access to declared nuclear material and has provided the required nuclear material accountancy reports in connection with declared nuclear material and activities. However, Iran has not implemented the modified text of its Subsidiary Arrangements General Part, Code 3.1 on the early provision of design information


F.1. Uranium Conversion
17. The Agency has finalized its assessment of the results of the physical inventory verification (PIV)
of nuclear material at the Uranium Conversion Facility (UCF) carried out in March 2007, and has concluded that the physical inventory as declared by Iran was consistent with the results of the PIV, within the measurement uncertainties normally associated with conversion plants of a similar throughput.
18. During the current conversion campaign at UCF, which began on 31 March 2007 following the PIV, approximately 63 t of uranium in the form of UF6 had been produced as of 14 August 2007, all of which remains under Agency containment and surveillance.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom