BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Switchboard >

Iran's nuclear program ::

  
 
werwolf
07:19 / 12.08.05
[my first topic.]

as all of you already know iran has some time ago declared an uranium enrichment program for (as they claim) peaceful purposes and the (re-)establishment of nuclear power processing plants.

some info-links (there are many others easily found via googling):

iran's nuclear programme chronology (reuters)
factbox (reuters)

now, this article from boston.com talks about the most recent concerns of the UN / IAEA, france, britain, germany and the usa and a proposal to hand the matter over to the security council. the article quotes an agency diplomat saying that the case for the security council would have to be built 'on a collection of sins' and that 'this would be the reference document' on which the security council would take actions if at all.

word from iran (my relatives and what little iranian media is available here in austria) is very upbeat and proud - as you would expect iran to be. they really want to push the programme along and back nasseri in his actions.

word from the iaea (living in vienna gets me a lot of extra buzz from the agency) is that the agency itself is not as concerned as is being purported by media. they believe that the whole matter is 'just' political power-wrestling and cultural head-clashing.

well, i for one feel that this is a big powder-keg that the world is sitting on with the fuse only a hair's breadth away from catching fire. i think it is being (rather too easily) brushed aside, the recent developments being followed but not much dicussed.

so, here's what my post is leading to:
being of iranian heritage this issue concerns me on more levels than the obvious political ones. i consider myself a politically semi-informed person. my opinions about politics being beside the issue, i'd like to ask the fully-informed liths (having a better overview of political matters):
what do you think this problem is - a flea blown out of proportions or a dangerous powerplay? or something else entirely?
 
 
sleazenation
08:24 / 12.08.05
Iran's nuclear programme is very much a complex and important issue that spills over into a variety of areas.

A massive component is Iranian right to self-determination and US/Iranian relations. I wrote a bit about Iran's history about a year ago when the possibility of US-led military action was being mooted. You can read it here.

I'm not sure how much I have to add to that. The lack of long-term political engagement between the US and Iran has made diplomacy more difficult. The US (and the UK) have a pretty abysmal record in its relations with Iran, going back more than 50 years. A strong argument could easily be made against previous US policy of favouring friendly governments of dubious complexion to unfriendly democracies...

On a practical level, this means there is very little trust between the Iranian leadership and the US government - The US hasn't had an Embassy in Iran since the early 80s. On top of this two of Iran's neighbours have recently been invaded by US-led forces. North Korea has notably faced no such fate. It is difficult to conclude that this has nothing to do with North Korea's apparent nuclear arsenal.

There is also the problem of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty itself, which does not expressly prohibit signatory nations from pursuing nuclear power. Unfortunately, much of the technology used in the generation of nuclear power can easily be used to help create a nuclear weapon. One could easily argue that NNPT is deeply flawed, but it seems unlikely that a more stringent document will gain any more currency at this time - particularly since Israel has developed its own nuclear arsenal outside of the NNPT.

As I said in the post linked to above - there are no easy answers to the current situation but a greater degree of direct political engagement between the US and Iran is something that needs to happen.
 
 
lord henry strikes back
12:58 / 12.08.05
I am of the opinion that Iran does intend to develope a nuclear weapon, and I think that that is understandable. As has been pointed out above, the nuclear threat does appear to be the only defence against a US attack. For the same reason I also don't believe that we need worry too much if Iran does achieve a nuclear weapon. All of the security that a nuclear threat would provide would disappear the second Iran attempted to use it. It is only effective as a last ditch counter measure: 'you attack us and we'll take Israel with us'. A pre-emtive attack on Israel, or anyone else, would not only not achieve all that much for Iran but would also lead to one of the fastest, biggest, and most destructive international responces in history.

The other important issue here is the timing. If Iran is both relatively close to developing a weapon and making a big scene internationally about breaking the UN seals, restarting enrichment etc. then the responce from many within America will be to take Iran down before the threat is complete. However, right now the US armed forces are already overstreched. As no other nation has either the force or the political will to lead an invation of Iran I think the Iranian leadership have reasoned that they have a couple of years breathing room in which to a) rattle the sabre and increase their international standing, and b) possibly complete the nuclear weapon the so covet.
 
 
ESOZONE : Oct 10 - 12 PDX 2008
17:00 / 12.08.05
[woohoo, other Iranian 'lithers! Hi!]

"Iran should get the bomb because America probably already gave one to Israel." - My Iranian Mom

Iran is a very complex issue, and there is no way any kind of international intervention would make anything better. Iran is on the brink of overthrowing their theocracy internally, and they need to make the choice for a true and fair democracy on their own, or else things will end up even worse than the last revolution, and even worse than Iraq has yet to have even seen at this point.
 
 
grime
18:14 / 12.08.05
i feel like there is a lot of hypocrisy regarding iran's nuclear power program.

here we have iran, a relatively stable, prosperous and democratic country who say they only want to run their reactors for electricity, which might even be true. and the western world reacts as if this will lead directly to doomsday.

meanwhile pakistan, a country run by the military, openly develops nuclear weapons while one of their top scientists sells the technology.* and they're an ally.

india as well develops weapons outside the nnpt and their pm gets to chill with bush in the rose garden.

it seems like there is so much mutual distrust and bad blood between the us and iran for the two countries to communicate reasonably.

*who did that scientist sell to anyway? time for google.
 
 
sleazenation
22:42 / 12.08.05
Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan was the name of the man credited as being the father of Pakistan's nuclear weapons programme. As far as I'm aware the first the US was aware of Dr Khan's activities in selling nuclear knowledge (to Iran and others) was when Libya cut a deal with the US, telling them where they had obtained their own nuclear weapons knowledge from...

By the by, to the best of my knowledge the US was attempting to prevent Israel obtaining nuclear weapons. It has been recently revealed that the UK actually played a part in Israel's NWP by selling it a large quantity of heavy water it had bought from Norway...

On Iranian democracy. Like all other aspects of Iran, it is a complex issue. The Iranian government does have elements of a democracy, but it is an imperfect democracy, and one that does not extend up to the rank of supreme leader. Having said which, I can definitely see the virtue in having a rule that states a prime minister cannot serve more than two consecutive terms...

Outside of that, I think that Iran has great potential to evolve its own, less imprefect democracy. I only hope that it has the opportunity to do so...
 
 
werwolf
07:41 / 16.08.05
[quote grime]here we have iran, a relatively stable, prosperous and democratic country who say they only want to run their reactors for electricity, which might even be true. and the western world reacts as if this will lead directly to doomsday.[/quote]

well, i wouldn't call iran a 'relatively stable, prosperous and democratic' country. as a matter of fact, iran is quite a bit away from stable and prosperous and their democracy is a bit of a sham if you ask any iranian. i'd rather agree with chaoflux23 [hi! is this the beginning of a iranian lith invasion? ] and see iran as a country on the brink of some drastic changes.

[quote sleazenation]On a practical level, this means there is very little trust between the Iranian leadership and the US government[...][/quote]

yes, that's true, but what about iran's offers of having un-emissariess, security inspectors of the iaea and even us-observers be present at every step of their programme until they have assured themselves of iran's peaceful intentions? this is something that bogles my mind. it doesn't... 'jive' with the attitude that nasseri is fronting. what do you make of that?

lord henry's argument is pretty close to what i think about the whole situation. what makes me think that is might be a bigger threat than we think, though, is the fact that iran is being ruled by a theocratic minority and that the avergae iranian has about had it with the way they are running the country. if nasseri is not able to fulfill the expectations of the people of iran, well, then i predict bloody riots. and if there really were nuclear weapons thrown into the stake at that time, it would sharpen the edge of the situation dramatically.
 
 
sleazenation
09:21 / 16.08.05
Werwolf - interesting that you wouldn't describe Iran as 'stable'. I realise that there is widespread disaffection with the regieme of supreme leader, but is there really the imminent potential for a revolution to sweep him from power in a similar manner to which the Shah was swept from power in 1979?

I was actually surprized and disappointed that hard-liners did so well in Iran's recent elections. I'd like to know what the opinion of both resident and non-resident Iranians on the election and participation on the election.

I'd agree that Iran's democracy is pretty far from perfect, (and it is perhaps a wider debate on what constitutes a 'proper', for lack of a better term, democracy).

To what extent do Iranians think the turn-out was representative (given that the supreme leader has the right to veto potential candidate's right to stand for election)?

Did people stay at home, in apathy or in protest, at the lack of progress achieved by the previous more liberal government and the deficiencies in the Iranian democratic system in general?

Why did so many people vote for ahmadinezhad?
 
 
grime
15:56 / 16.08.05
well, for me the word "relatively" goes a long way. i've never been there, but it seems like iran is a lot better off that a lot of other countries.

from what i understand, the new president was elected on an anti-corruption, anit-waste ticket. someone who was supposed to help average iranian business, stimulate the economy and clean up the government. many progressives were disafected by years without much progressa and some called for a boycott of elections they saw as unfairly stacked in the favour of the conservative status quo. if the boycott was successful, then it could be a big factor in their election of a conservative president.

however it's also possible that the new president* was the prefered choice of the middle class for purely practical / economic reasons.

i just had a "heated" discussion about iran with a friend of mine the other night. so i'm definately keen on the iranian perspective.


*sorry for being obtuse, but iranian names hurt my poor white brain.
 
 
David Batty
20:10 / 16.08.05
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's victory is perceived to be due to his appeal to the conservative working class - that apparently forgotten element of the Iranian electorate.
 
 
werwolf
06:26 / 17.08.05
[quote sleazenation] I realise that there is widespread disaffection with the regieme of supreme leader, but is there really the imminent potential for a revolution to sweep him from power in a similar manner to which the Shah was swept from power in 1979? [/quote]

imo, absolutely. don't forget that the islamic revolution of '79 came about pretty unexpectedly (not from a political viewpoint, but from the point of view of the people of iran). it was a sudden outburst and rallying of the fundamentalists. the thing about iranian people (if we were to generalize) is probably that 1.) they are very proud and stubborn, to the point that they will not admit mistakes until those mistakes come biting their asses, and 2.) they tend to be more interested in discussing problems than doing something about them. but these traits can make a pot boil over, if you catch my drift. mind you, this is only my take of iranians, by way of personal experience and what my family is telling me.

[quote grime] well, for me the word "relatively" goes a long way. i've never been there, but it seems like iran is a lot better off that a lot of other countries. [...] however it's also possible that the new president* was the prefered choice of the middle class for purely practical / economic reasons. [/quote]

as far as i can tell and as most of my relatives and iranian acquaintances confirm, iran has always been a rather conservative country. even under the shah it was conservative, only conservative capitalist, which might seem liberal from the outside. i think mahmoud ahmadinezhad's electoral victory can easily be explained consiering the conservative background of iran. first of all he is a non-cleric! that is not to be underestimated. this has put his anti-corruption, pro-economic standpoints in a different light. all of this together with his very (for the people) very accessible way of doing politics, made the conservative working class, as David Batty has already pointed out, sway in his favor. ahmadinezhad makes the majority of iranians feel safe and they prefer safety over anything else at this time. so, you see, that's why i don't think that iran is very stable. yes, they are better off than many countries, but then again they're not nearly where they want and could be. frustration is very high over there and the only thing that really keeps iranians going is the promise of economic change and upswing.

sleazenation - the sentiments of iranians i know (both in iran and here in vienna) are pretty much the same: 'it would've been nice to have a liberal president, but ahmadinezhad is more suited to get us out of our current state.'... i can only assume and speculate (as i did further above) where that sentiment comes from.

correction: i meant to write 'ahmadinezhad' in my previous post instead of nasseri. nasseri is the iranian chief negotiator with the iaea. apologies, got confused.
 
 
grime
17:35 / 19.08.05
sooo . . . let's say terhan did get the bomb, what would they do with it?

immeadiately start lobbing rockets at tel aviv?

sell weapons to al qaeda?

equip their triton submarines with enough ordinance to wipe out every major city on earth three times over?

none of that makes much sense to me. but is it possible that they would actually use a nuclear weapon aggressively?
 
 
sleazenation
19:20 / 19.08.05
I really don't see Iran using nuclear weapons aggressively any more than say, Pakistan or China has. They would certainly make Iran even more difficult for the US to deal with...
 
 
A0S
20:41 / 19.08.05
As sleazenation says for anyone but the big three (USA, Russia, China) nuclear weapons are not an offensive option.
They are an extremely good defensive option though as North Korea proves the best way to avoid being invaded under the pretence of having WMDs is to actually prove you do have them.
As to the risk of them falling into terrorist hands - they are not exactly portable or easily hidden. Also given the chaos in Eastern Europe after the Berlin wall came down if any nuclear weapons were likely to 'go missing' it was then. The nuclear terrorist threat is a very powrful tool for creating fear and for justifying invasions but (hopefully)not a likely occurence.
I also seem to recall hearing somewhere that even if it's nuclear program preceeds apace Iran is 10 years away from it's first bomb.
 
 
werwolf
11:09 / 23.08.05
yes, i agree. iran is unlikey to use nuclear weapons aggressively. but you have to consider their relatively weak military forces. for a nation of that size iran is (as far as i know) dramatically understaffed, underquipeed and unprepared for hostile confrontation. considering that one of the greatest military powers on earth has singled the middle east out as their favorite target, this combination of political strong-arming, head-butting and real military threat makes me feel quite a bit uneasy.
 
 
Morpheus
01:01 / 02.09.05
well, i wouldn't call the USA/British a 'relatively stable, prosperous and democratic' country. as a matter of fact, British States of America is quite a bit away from stable and prosperous and their democracy is a bit of a sham if you ask any American/Brit. (I)'d rather agree with Bob Dylan [hi! is this the beginning of a singer/songwriter lith invasion? ] and see U.S.A./United Kingdom a couple ofcountries on the brink of some drastic changes.
 
 
FinderWolf
16:40 / 07.09.05
Iran just offered the US something like 20 billion barrels of oil to help with the US oil problems in the post-Katrina world -- on the condition that the US and UN don't come down hard with sanctions on their nuclear-power having selves. Doubt the US will take them up on this offer, though it's a shrewd public relations move on Iran's part.
 
  
Add Your Reply