Oh look, an unclenched fist!

[DC]

A valid question, to which the answer is "No one knows what they plan to do." And that's the problem. Having nukes isn't the same as "being a member of a club" - it's having possession of the most powerful and destructive device in existence today. The fact that we don't know if Iran will act responsibly (or not) with such a device is reason for concern... and Iran's ongoing warlike rhetoric rightly escalates concern into something stronger.

When someone insists that a nation should be wiped from the face of the earth... and then proceeds to work at building weapons capable of it, it's absolutely reason for alarm.

Not to derail this thread (I hope), but I have the exact same concerns over North Korea. Both countries make threats, and both countries are pursuing nuclear power for "peaceful" reasons while stating to the world that they have the right to build a bomb.

If that's not cause enough for serious alarm, I'd hate to see what is.

No evidence of that.

 

[jmercer]

Iran has stated publicly that they intend to have nuclear weapons. (North Korea as well.) Both have active programs for the development of nuclear ability, which could be used for peaceful use or weapons development; given their stated objectives in acquiring said weapons - plus their ongoing warlike rhetoric - I'd say that's a pretty good indication of what's going on behind closed doors.

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. Having said that... if someone says "I have the right to own a gun" and "I would like to kill someone", and they begin acquiring or creating items that could be used for a gun...

 

[DC]

Iran has stated publicly that they intend to have nuclear weapons. (North Korea as well.) Both have active programs for the development of nuclear ability, which could be used for peaceful use or weapons development; given their stated objectives in acquiring said weapons - plus their ongoing warlike rhetoric - I'd say that's a pretty good indication of what's going on behind closed doors.

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. Having said that... if someone says "I have the right to own a gun" and "I would like to kill someone", and they begin acquiring or creating items that could be used for a gun...

can you please backup the claim about Iran stated to want Nuclear weapons, i must have missed that one. Because actually i heard them say , no we dont want nuclear weapons, we want Nuclear energy. and the NPT grants them that right aslong they dont want or have Nuclear weappons.

 

[varwoche]

Some people [cough, dubalb] apparently think that by staking out a centrist position that they're granted a free pass to pull unsupported assumptions from their crevices.

I came back to see if dubalb identified any of the "progressives" who "embrace the regime in Iran". Alas no, it was vacuous posturing.

What's the point of posting something like that if you can't provide even one example?

 

[Dr Adequate]

Hell they believed this:

http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_2412412.html

Is the use of squirrels in espionage really that unlikely?

After all, the CIA already employs moles.

 

[fuelair]

Is the use of squirrels in espionage really that unlikely?

After all, the CIA already employs moles.

So do we chemists. But nobody ever suspects the chemists.

 

[Cleon]

So do we chemists. But nobody ever suspects the chemists.

1 mole espionage = 6.022 * 10^23 spy squirrels

 

[fuelair]

1 mole espionage = 6.022 * 10^23 spy squirrels

Holey Moley!!

 

[jmercer]

can you please backup the claim about Iran stated to want Nuclear weapons, i must have missed that one. Because actually i heard them say , no we dont want nuclear weapons, we want Nuclear energy. and the NPT grants them that right aslong they dont want or have Nuclear weappons.

They have commented on it several times in the last two decades:

http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/congress/1998/h980603-iran.htm

In 1991, Ayatollah Mohajerani, one of Rafsanjani's deputies, clarified the need to obtain nuclear weapons. `Since the enemy has nuclear facilities,' he said, `Islamic countries must be armed with the same capacity.'

In 1989, Rafsanjani underscored the need to obtain an atomic arsenal, stressing that `Iran cannot overlook the reality of nuclear strength in the modern world.' Nuclear arms, in the Tehran mullahs' view, are `the most important strategic guarantee' of their survival.

Given the reaction to these statements - and the mounting evidence of an active program for nuclear power - western reaction was predictably strong, and the issue began to be addressed in earnest in the world arena. Iran switched its rhetoric from this to silence on the topic for a while. As world pressure continued to mount in the face of growing evidence that Iran was still pursuing nuclear power, Iranian officials then began to claim they were pursuing it for peaceful purposes only, carefully never retracting the statements made by prior officials.

You might also want to read this report:

http://middleeast.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=middleeast&cdn=newsissues&tm=23&f=00&tt=2&bt=0&bts=1&zu=http%3A//www.dni.gov/press_releases/20071203_release.pdf

As I said - sufficient cause for alarm. I did not suggest that it was cause for action or overt condemnation at this time - but there's a lot of smoke, so it's reasonable to suspect and fear there's a fire burning.

 

[DC]

They have commented on it several times in the last two decades:

http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/congress/1998/h980603-iran.htm




Given the reaction to these statements - and the mounting evidence of an active program for nuclear power - western reaction was predictably strong, and the issue began to be addressed in earnest in the world arena. Iran switched its rhetoric from this to silence on the topic for a while. As world pressure continued to mount in the face of growing evidence that Iran was still pursuing nuclear power, Iranian officials then began to claim they were pursuing it for peaceful purposes only, carefully never retracting the statements made by prior officials.

You might also want to read this report:

http://middleeast.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=middleeast&cdn=newsissues&tm=23&f=00&tt=2&bt=0&bts=1&zu=http%3A//www.dni.gov/press_releases/20071203_release.pdf

As I said - sufficient cause for alarm. I did not suggest that it was cause for action or overt condemnation at this time - but there's a lot of smoke, so it's reasonable to suspect and fear there's a fire burning.

i didnt know those statements.
are they backed up? or just claimed in a congressional hearing?

and about what evidence are you talking? there is no evidence they are building nukes.
they signed the aditional protocoll, it is not yet ratified.
and pushing them to ratify it is the next step i guess.

i didnt read the report, i wonder if you also have a more neutral source.

for a long long time, the USA and others had no problem with iran having nuclear technilogy, alsong their puppet the shah was there.

when you have found evidence that Iran is building Nukes, pls present it, so far you havent.

 

[DC]

and the mounting evidence of an active program for nuclear power

pls present that evidence, not just claims about it, but the actual evidence.

 

[gdnp]

Maybe she addmited beeing a spy, after some hours of special interrogation techniques.

Honestly i dont belive she is a spy, but isnt it amazing how the "iran-bashers" directly assume she is innocent.
And when some Afghani is captured in HIS country, the same people are pretty convinced that he did something to deserve beeing in Gitmo and beeing tortured.

Why don't you believe she is a spy? I have no information pro or con. The Iranians claim she is a spy, but have not released any evidence. US officials, including Clinton and Obama, have used terms like "regrettable" in describing her conviction, but have not denied that she was a spy.

Does the US have spies in Iran? I certainly hope so. Might some be working as freelance journalists as a cover? I can't see why not.

 

[DC]

Why don't you believe she is a spy? I have no information pro or con. The Iranians claim she is a spy, but have not released any evidence. US officials, including Clinton and Obama, have used terms like "regrettable" in describing her conviction, but have not denied that she was a spy.

Does the US have spies in Iran? I certainly hope so. Might some be working as freelance journalists as a cover? I can't see why not.

well to be honest, i just assumed she is not a spy becaue she is a woman, and i assumed it would be alot lot harder for a woman to spy (In Iran and other islamic countrys), but i have no clue about spys

 

[varwoche]

well to be honest, i just assumed she is not a spy becaue she is a woman

Tell that to famous dead chef Julia Childs.

 

[DC]

Tell that to famous dead chef Julia Childs.

i expressed it badly, the Iran/Islam part is pretty important i thought.

ETA: mmmhhh after reading your link i see more realisticly what kind of spy work she could have done i watched to much James Bond lately

 

[WildCat]

US officials, including Clinton and Obama, have used terms like "regrettable" in describing her conviction, but have not denied that she was a spy.

Obama has:

"We are working to make sure that she is properly treated, and to get more information about the disposition of her case," Obama said Sunday.

"She is an American citizen, and I have complete confidence that she was not engaging in any sort of espionage."

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/04/22/iran.us.journalist/

But no need to worry, Jesse Jackson is on the case!

Anti-US governments love to embarrass US presidents by releasing hostages to Jesse.

 

[gdnp]

Obama has:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/04/22/iran.us.journalist/

But no need to worry, Jesse Jackson is on the case!

Anti-US governments love to embarrass US presidents by releasing hostages to Jesse.

I stand corrected. That's about as close as you will get to a denial in spy matters. Not that a denial is worth much. You can't expect government officials to be honest about covert operations.

 

[jmercer]

i didnt know those statements.
are they backed up? or just claimed in a congressional hearing?

There are other references on the web from a variety of sources citing those quotes; feel free to look.

and about what evidence are you talking? there is no evidence they are building nukes.
they signed the aditional protocoll, it is not yet ratified.
and pushing them to ratify it is the next step i guess.

i didnt read the report, i wonder if you also have a more neutral source.

What kind of source would you consider "neutral"? And how, pray tell, am I supposed to provide actual evidence of this?

I've been saying all along that there is cause for alarm - if there were a "smoking gun", we wouldn't even be having this discussion, now would we?

for a long long time, the USA and others had no problem with iran having nuclear technilogy, alsong their puppet the shah was there.

Irrelevant.

when you have found evidence that Iran is building Nukes, pls present it, so far you havent.

Read the report.

pls present that evidence, not just claims about it, but the actual evidence.

If you're not going to look at what I offer, then there's no point in offering anything. And as you said, you didn't even bother to read the report out of an automatic assumption that it's tainted due to the source... so I doubt I'll be making more effort in this discussion.

 

[DC]

There are other references on the web from a variety of sources citing those quotes; feel free to look.



What kind of source would you consider "neutral"? And how, pray tell, am I supposed to provide actual evidence of this?

I've been saying all along that there is cause for alarm - if there were a "smoking gun", we wouldn't even be having this discussion, now would we?



Irrelevant.



Read the report.



If you're not going to look at what I offer, then there's no point in offering anything. And as you said, you didn't even bother to read the report out of an automatic assumption that it's tainted due to the source... so I doubt I'll be making more effort in this discussion.

IAEO Reports would be at least more neutral and especially factual.

I did read your "report"

We use phrases such as we judge, we assess, and we estimate—and probabilistic terms such as
probably and likely—to convey analytical assessments and judgments. Such statements are not
facts, proof, or knowledge. These assessments and judgments generally are based on collected
information, which often is incomplete or fragmentary. Some assessments are built on previous
judgments. In all cases, assessments and judgments are not intended to imply that we have
“proof” that shows something to be a fact or that definitively links two items or issues.

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 is the evidence that iran halted their nuclear weapon program? and what is the evidence that they had one running untill 2003?

 

[jmercer]

IAEO Reports would be at least more neutral and especially factual.

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 did read your "report"

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

what is the evidence that iran halted their nuclear weapon program? and what is the evidence that they had one running untill 2003?

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

ELBARADEI: It´s not a matter of dispute as to whether Iran lied and deceived in the past. We made that very clear in our reports. In the meantime, however, Iran has improved its cooperation, which, as a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), it is obligated to provide. In response to our pressure, Tehran also signed the supplementary protocol last year, which allows us to perform more comprehensive inspections on short notice. I am certainly proud of what we have accomplished in Iran. Eighteen months ago, the country was more of a black hole for us...

SPIEGEL: ...which goes to show how completely the IAEA inspections had failed...

ELBARADEI: ...but now we have a rather clear picture of what is happening there.

SPIEGEL: Really? Or has the game of hide-and-seek just taken on a new, more refined form? Hardly any European expert is willing to believe the claims coming out of Tehran. After all, Iran has enough oil and especially natural gas that it could do without nuclear power.

ELBARADEI: There is a technical justification for everything. And I´m not saying that the rulers in Iran are not interested in acquiring nuclear weapons. If they have decided to operate a secret nuclear weapons program - for which we, as I mentioned, have not found any evidence to date -- they are likely to have a bomb in two to three years. They certainly have the know-how and the industrial infrastructure.

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