Iran warns of 'consequences' if referred to UN re uranium

[Blue Peter]

Can I add that when I was at school I had a very good friend who was (and no doubt still is) Iranian. He and is family were some of the nicest people I have ever met - always feeding me and looking after me well when I went to their house. They came to the UK during the Iran Iraq war. The stories they used to tell me of the US propaganda machine at work in Iran and Iraq during that war made my blood boil. Needless to say that he and his family weren't very pro-US.

And, of course, the same could be said about many American families (and individuals) which you meet. Something seems to go wrong when we get to the higher echelons though


Peter.

[Totally_Baffled]

IMO , Iran shouldn't be allowed to have nuclear weapons.

I think comparing states like the US and UK having nukes to states like Iran is ridiculous.

The former are no likely to use such weapons lightly. There has been plenty of wars since WWII involving the US and UK and nukes have not been used.

If states like Iran have nukes, I have no doubt they would use them if they entered anysort of conflict. I think Pakistan and India came pretty close did they not?

Irans language against Isreal is also alarming. If Iran gets nukes, then there is a real danger of a nuclear exchange between these two hostile nations.

I realise the US is the only country to have used nukes, but there is still much debate on whether that saved more lives than cost. I personally would of used them rather than have to invade main land Japan.

However I dont think we have much choice given that UK/US forces are overstretched and our finances are too overstretched to start more wars.

[fishertrop]

Personally, I don't like and don't trust the Iranian leadership - I would rank them low on my "top-100 world regimes, most liked first".

But that doesn't detract from the fact that the west isn't saying it's time for a new NPT, lets redraw it, they are saying to Iran "thanks for signing the NPT, but the rules are different for you" - that's ALWAYS going to lead to friction.

I think Iran has had a stated aim for the removal of Isreal since it's inception, as many arab countries once had and some still have (I believe). That's not nice, but it's not new.

Didn't GW say "saddam has to go" a couple of year ago, and the taleban also?

Our constant intervention only makes thing worse - unless you have an end-game of resource control, which will also make things worse but at least has a stated aim.

My guess is most rank-and-file Iranian people and most average-joe yanks are fine and decent and we could live in peace with them, but as others have said, the further up the chain you go the worse the quality of people you seem to find.

[fishertrop]

IMO , Iran shouldn't be allowed to have nuclear weapons.

I think comparing states like the US and UK having nukes to states like Iran is ridiculous.

Because we're superior to them how? No wonder they think we use double standards...

The former are no likely to use such weapons lightly. There has been plenty of wars since WWII involving the US and UK and nukes have not been used.

If states like Iran have nukes, I have no doubt they would use them if they entered anysort of conflict. I think Pakistan and India came pretty close did they not?

Nation-in-peril wars are not the same as distant skirmishes like the Falklands.

Had the UK had Trident in Sept 1940 would we have refrained from using them?

Irans language against Isreal is also alarming. If Iran gets nukes, then there is a real danger of a nuclear exchange between these two hostile nations.

Iran and Isreal would face the same mini-MAD that east-vs-west did in the cold war.

I realise the US is the only country to have used nukes, but there is still much debate on whether that saved more lives than cost. I personally would of used them rather than have to invade main land Japan.

Actually I'm in agreement with you there. A first-ever use of the A-bomb was likely needed in order for the world to really understand what is was about.

Plus, the non-nuke plans for Japan used chemcial weapons instead - which could have been much worse, the first nukes were only tiny really in payload.

However I dont think we have much choice given that UK/US forces are overstretched and our finances are too overstretched to start more wars.

We're in opposite corners on this one !!

I agree with the conventional-overstretch but disagree that it makes any difference.

[peaky]

I picked up a copy of ?Web of Deceit? by Mark Curtis recently on recommendation of someone in this forum.

I think that was me GDm, glad you found it interesting - and it really is a schocking indictment our our successive governments' words on the one hand and actions on another. It's definitely "Do as I say, not as I do".

Have a look here http://www.medialens.org/alerts/index.php - it does give an insight into the strange world that is journalism and politics. It's sometimes hard to see that when we're on here having genuine, open, honest discussion. People here correct each other, apologise if they find themselves in the wrong and though we have an acceptance of PO, we can see that even within that there are many differening opinions. Government and politics sadly aren't really like that as there's so many vested interests. It's essential for us to realise that when Jack Straw says something is 'inconceivable' he's not saying that in the way that you or I might say it.

"Do as I say" - you wicked Iranian's can't have nuclear power ('cos we know what you really want it for) - "not as I do" - look at all our nuclear power stations, look at Trident, look at the rest. And Jack Straw has said that this government would be prepared to use nuclear weapons.

It's what Orwell called Double-Think - the ability to hold two condradictory thoughts in your mind without conflict.

[Totally_Baffled]

So let me get this straight , despite Irans comments this week and all the threats from north korea to south korea and Japan, you are quite prepared for Iran and NK to have nuclear weapons?

You cannot compare the dictatorship of NK, or the religous extremist Iran regimes to that of the UK, France , US or other western nuclear power.

I accept your point about "nation threatning" wars, but you have to get real , there is a real danger NK and Iran would/could use nukes without being under threat. Hell the implication from Iran this week , was that if they could , they would remove Israel from the world map. The only way you are going to do that is via nuclear weapons.

I dont know why Iran wants nuclear power anyway , gas generated electricity is way cheaper than nuclear, especially when you are the producer nation. Just ask the UK!

The argument that Iran wants to keep its gas for export is nonsense. The gas export revenues would be more than offset by the importation of all the nuclear fuel, the cost of waste storage, construction of nuclear facilities, etc etc etc

[PS_RalphW]

You cannot compare the dictatorship of NK, or the religous extremist Iran regimes to that of the UK, France , US or other western nuclear power.

Let's leave N Korea out of this thread, but do you know much about
modern Iran? The typical modern Iranian is 17 years old,
wears designer clothes, and is as likely to be found in an internet cafe
as in a mosque. They are overall a highly educated and
(from my limited personal experience) civilised people. They have
a mish-mash of a ruling system, where a (until recently) modernising,
liberalish government is (was) in constant friction and often
blocked by the religious leaders who are the real power brokers. There
still are bearded, violent and intolerant mobs of Koran bashers
left over from the revolution, but they are largely kept in the
barracks these days.

The current president is a throwback, I still don't know how he got
elected (although I wouldn't rule out election rigging). He is an
incompetant lightweight who is rapidly becoming an embarrasment to
his religious masters and I don't expect him to last long.

Just how civilised are we here in UK or France? We (UK) invaded
Iraq on made up evidence. France backs the Algerian military
regime which simply cancelled the result of the (1990 ?) election
because they didn't win... (sparking an Islamic fundamentalist
backlash). The UK is prepared to lock up ANYBODY in jail without
trial and indefinately on the basis of secret evidence extracted under torture
in foreign jails. How civilised is that? At the last count 21 people
had died under interrogation (read torture)by US forces in recent years,
and that is just the ones we know about. Iran didn't start the Iran/Iraq
war. That was Hussein when he had full US backing, and was being
sold chemical weapons component materials by western companies.

Have you been to the US bible belt recently? There are a few
religious nutters there as well.

[Bozzio]

So let me get this straight , despite Irans comments this week and all the threats from north korea to south korea and Japan, you are quite prepared for Iran and NK to have nuclear weapons?

It's not a case of wanting them to have nuclear capabilities, it's a question of applying equal standards. If we don't want Iran or NK to have nuclear weapons then no one should have them - not US, not UK, not Israel, no one.

You cannot compare the dictatorship of NK, or the religous extremist Iran regimes to that of the UK, France , US or other western nuclear power.

You're correct, all countries and rulers are different. That doesn't make Iran and NK anymore dangerous. Who has killed more people in the last 50 years in the name of freedom and ideology, US or Iran/NK? Perhaps we should ask the people of Vietnam, Nicuragua, Cuba, Haiti, Afghanistan and Iraq that question.

I understand your concerns about these so called radical countries but remember our picture of these people is painted by western media reports which rarely give a balanced view as GD and peaky point out.

I dont know why Iran wants nuclear power anyway , gas generated electricity is way cheaper than nuclear, especially when you are the producer nation. Just ask the UK!

This maybe true and I like your analysis of this. I guess this would need further study but my question is, in which case why hasn't the UK made more use of gas for power generation so far?

The bottom line for me is that there should be no attacks of any kind. Since China has done deals with Iran for long term LNG supply, it wouldn't be a good idea anyway!

[Bandidoz]

Iran doesn't have "the bomb" until they test one.

[johnathome]

I think this is going to be the BIGGEST threat to world peace.

I don't mean the Iranians, i mean the Yank's.

The only people more likely to escalate this into disaster is the Israelis.

[fishertrop]

I dont know why Iran wants nuclear power anyway , gas generated electricity is way cheaper than nuclear, especially when you are the producer nation. Just ask the UK!

The argument that Iran wants to keep its gas for export is nonsense. The gas export revenues would be more than offset by the importation of all the nuclear fuel, the cost of waste storage, construction of nuclear facilities, etc etc etc

The NPT treaty says this:

Convinced that, in furtherance of this principle, all Parties to the Treaty are entitled to
participate in the fullest possible exchange of scientific information for, and to contribute alone or in co-operation with other States to, the further development of the applications of atomic energy for peaceful purposes.
....
1. Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the
Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful
purposes without discrimination and in conformity with Articles I and II of this Treaty.

(see http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Docume ... irc140.pdf )

So before we get into the argument about the fitness to possess nuclear weapons lets just remember what anvil we're trying to break Iran over - that is "atomic energy".

Regardless of WHY they want it, they went to all the time/effort/expense to sign up to the full NPT which under international law (such as that is....) gives them as full a right as any other signatory to "further development of the applications of atomic energy for peaceful purposes".

The why doesn't matter - maybe they like the idea, maybe they figure oil at $150/barrel and n/gas at $50 will make more profit than nuclear will cost, maybe they just want to be in the nuclear club for status.

If we say "most states should not be allowed any atomic technology" then we need a new NPT, one that will be much harder to get people to sign up to I would guess...

Until all the big NPT signatories start following the other bit that no one likes to talk about:

Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.

When did anyone in the nuke-club last do any work on that aspect?

Before any of us in the West get into discussing any other countries fitness or otherwise for possessing nuclear weapons we need to get our own house in order wrt the NPT, otherwise we only breed contempt in others and only encourage others to "takes us on" in these areas.

[SherryMayo]

eek!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... altop.html

We will use force, Blair warns Iranians
By Anton La Guardia, Toby Helm and David Rennie
(Filed: 28/10/2005)

Tony Blair delivered his strongest warning to Iran last night, saying Teheran would not be allowed to become a "threat to our world security".

He hinted that the West might have to resort to force. The Prime Minister said western allies would meet in the next few days to decide how to react after President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad called for Israel to be "wiped off the map".

Tony Blair
Tony Blair felt a 'real sense of revulsion' at the remarks

While the initial response is likely to be an intensification of diplomatic pressure, senior British officials did not rule out the possibility that they could resort to force if Iran continued on its path of radical confrontation.

Speaking at a European summit at Hampton Court, west London, a visibly angry Mr Blair said Iran would be making "a very big mistake" if it believed western leaders were too preoccupied with other issues to deliver a strong response.

[SherryMayo]

Forwarded from another list I read:

>Iran is now backing away from its earlier comments,
>but you won't read about it in the Australian.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/ ... B49166.htm
Iranians hold anti-Israel street protests
Friday 28 October 2005, 13:41 Makka Time, 10:41 GMT

Tens of thousands of Iranians have joined anti-Israeli protests in support of
their president's call for the destruction of Israel.
<snip>
At the same time, however, Iran's embassy in Moscow has sought to smooth the
effects of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's comments, saying the president did
not mean to speak in such "sharp terms".

The statement was the first official Iranian reaction since the president's
speech on Wednesday to a meeting of conservative Islamic students.

"Mr Ahmadinejad did not have any intention to speak up in such sharp terms and
enter into a conflict," the Iranian embassy's statement said.
<snip>

[Bandidoz]

[conspiracy mode]

Hmmm I wonder if all of the world leaders are following the Bible Code?

http://www.exodus2006.com/atomcodeJ.htm

[/conspiracy mode]

[Totally_Baffled]

Regardless of WHY they want it, they went to all the time/effort/expense to sign up to the full NPT which under international law (such as that is....) gives them as full a right as any other signatory to "further development of the applications of atomic energy for peaceful purposes".

The IAEA says Iran is in breach of the NPT?

But in September, the United Nation's nuclear watchdog, the IAEA, declared Iran was in non compliance with the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and gave Iran until its next meeting at the end of November to show it was prepared to co-operate more fully.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle ... 383856.stm

It's not a case of wanting them to have nuclear capabilities, it's a question of applying equal standards. If we don't want Iran or NK to have nuclear weapons then no one should have them - not US, not UK, not Israel, no one.

I understand your logic, and on the face of it, what you say is correct.

But I think the world is not that straight forward, and you have to look at the bigger picture.

We are all aware of the history of nuclear weapons , and you could argue that the relative stability of the world (I say RELATIVE) is due to the stalemate of MAD between the major nuke powers. The big boys will therefore NEVER get rid of their nuclear arsenals.

Now , for anyone to say "well you've got nukes so I should have them" , makes no sense to me.

There is a real risk that the more volatile regimes will use (or supply to terrorists) nukes outside of the "option of last resort as the nation is threatened" kind of criteria.

IMO, if Iran wants nuclear power , then fine , but if there is a sniff of a weapons programme, then the international communtiy has every right to be very concerned.