Talk:Nuclear program of Iran/Archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Peak Oil in the timeline - please be reasonable

What does a 1956 Hubbart hypothesis, which failed on top of it, to do with Iranian nuclear program, which started 11 years after that? Does anyone seriously think that it had anything to do with it, in that time, when Hubbert's prediction was at best a fringe hypothesis that few experts in th US knew about? A notion that Timeline of Iran nuclear programs starts with Hubbart peak is at best not true. IMO it is clearly misleading and missplaced propaganda and therefore I've removed it.

I just replaced the Hubbert peak oil prediction in the timeline. Please read the article and you will see that Hubbert made his prediction in 1956, the Iranian nuclear program began the very next year, in 1957, not 11 years later. Major developments in the Iranian nuclear program have coincided with each of the production peaks (OPEC countries typically follow a two peak model). The two peaks are each listed in the timeline. Not to include the Hubbert prediction removes valuable context and may limit the reader's ability to understand why nuclear decisions were taken when they were. --Dave 09:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

"Iran the Next Iraq" Documentary on the History Channel POV

I am half Iranian and half American of European decent. I was born, raised, and live here in the U.S., though I have visited Iran. The current situation in the middle east is disconcerting to me to say the least. I just watched this documentary on the History Channel and my first impression was that it does indeed sound like a propaganda film. I remember the war between Iran and Iraq and I remember the stories my family would tell me about what was going on over there. I even lost an uncle, who was a pilot, to an Iraqi surface-to-air missile on the seventh day of that war.

My family was pro-Shah and against the fundamental Islamics that took control of that country in 1979. I myself was in the U.S. Embassy 3 hours before the students stormed the building and took the hostages (much to the dismay of my father here in the U.S.) So needless to say, I have a vested interest in what happens over there.

Do I believe Iran is working on a nuclear program? Unfortunately, yes I do.

Do I think the U.S. will launch a pre-emptive strike against Iran? I don't believe diplomacy will work, therefore a strike seems likely.

Whether this documentary is propaganda or not is really immeterial. The propaganda is only meant to sway public opinion in favor of a strike, it doesn't change whether or not Iran has nuclear capability or will soon have that capability. Even if they are 20 years away from that capability, I do believe they are actively seeking it out. I also know (don't ask me how) that the U.S. intelligence services have been looking at ways of disrupting Iran's capabilities for some time now. At least since 1997-98. This means that it isn't just the ultra-radical fundamentalist Republicans that are worried about Iran, but rather that they are a genuine threat that the Clinton administration was looking at very closely as well.

I don't want the U.S. to go to war with Iran. I have family over there and honestly, it really is a beautiful country with a very rich history. At the same time, I don't want Iran to succeed in creating a nuclear weapon. So where do I stand?

If it does happen, I honestly hope that the current administration has the common decency to be honest about why we are attacking and don't lie to the American people like they did with the Iraq situation. Iraq is such a mess and we'd very likely be looking at the same kind of mess, if not worse, in Iran.

Thanks, Roach131313

Hi Roach ... Am from a 3rd world country with nuclear capability ... and you know what i am proud of it. Whether the nulear cabability is for energy requirements or to act as a deterrent to protect our sovereignity .. i do respect the decision cause in all likelyhood it may be for both.

You know what when i was in school there was this big bully, physically overgrown, with a rich dad and all the other kids used to flock around him for the goodies and he did buy their loyalty with that , then he started enforcing his will on people asking them to gang up against any resistance and was very insecure about his dominant position. So a couple of us said "we wont put up with this bullshit", and guess what we got roughed up a little by his crew. A few of gave up but the other few said " who the is he to dictate what we do, where we go, poke fun at us, buy us out and then insult us.

So as time went by the guys who were scared of him joined him and the others resisted. More and more guys joint the resistance and more often than not the nuetral guys joint the resistance. And the neutral gang who was perceived be in tacit agreement of the hegemony changed sides. So the Big bully saw the resistance growing and decided that its time to shake things up or his empire would crumble ... he went ahead and picked up a fight with a weakling (phsically) and thrashed him... a couple of us pelted some stones at him, he turned and snarled and scared us off ... then the thrashed bleeeding weak guy crawled and bit his foot .. and thet set the chain reaction going. That was the inspiration we needed to end thr hegemony and bullying and we chased him out of the boarding school and out of our lives.

Well i hope the international bully also faces the same treatment .. but it all has to start from the weakest guy standing against the mighty guy telling him "you know what, my soul aint for sale". Till that happens the hegemony will continue and we will all be scared for our families and accept the ruler. We will all be economically and racially exploited.

Can we sustitute barbaric terrorism by calculated and economic terrorism with the rubber stamp of spineless supporters? Both the kinds of hegemonies are not good for the world and its importatnt for us the "educated " elite" in our coutries to rise and fight against both the forms of evil.

Sanidhya

NPOV and US vs. Iranian sources

At least with US and Iranian sources you know everyone is probably lying. Maybe that makes their content a little less useless somehow? I think we should all accept two pragmatic assumptions: 1.) given a reasonable chance to pull it off, Iran would pounce on WMD in a second (most states would?), and 2.) everything the US says about Iran, and Iran about itself, is patently false. Worth quoting, maybe, but seriously. Anyone who believes a government newsbriefing on the subject of its own or others' nuclear weapons must have just fallen off the turnip wagon. That's the point of NPOV, right? The contradictory intuitions that all news information about Iran is probably wrong, and that Iran probably is seeking nukes are not that hard to reconcile. Tooraloom

"Everything the US says ... is patently false"? Please think before forming an opinion rather than dismiss something outright. BushidoWarlord

"The perfect lie is a semi-truth" and "Nobody needs lie, — there is too much of truth in the world". (approx. quote of Lukyanenko). You are a bit of kiddish: lie, truth.. You don't understand that a semi-truth is more efficient than direct lie. ellol 10:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed BushidoWarlord... you cannot deny a claim on the basis that it's a mainstream source or governmental statement. Refute claims with evidence. C. Nelson

He claimed that everything Iran says is likewise wrong.Read before you burst,Yanks.--CAN T 00:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Calls for Speculation.

Any time the Words Weapons of Mass Destruction cross a nation in the middle east, opinions will arise...Neutrality issues will come into question on a current event of this matter due to third party 'reporting' of facts. Unless one is actually dispatched by a credited news service or actually there in the first person, we must report fact citing referencee in a past tense. Since nobody knows what Iran is capable of or even what they possess, WMD tags are 100% speculation. The UN security council accused Iraq of this exact same thing a few years ago and as reported in the March 19, 2004 edition of the Chicago Tribune, the Final Report from the UN states No WMDs were found in the whole of Iraq.

This seems like a deadly pattern. UNSC accuses a nation of WMDs. Said nation doesn't allow the UNSC to case their country, we threaten sanctions and a possible invaion.

It's quite hypocritical that the nation which possesses by far the most nuclear weapons becomes quite pontifical when even the speculation of another nation having the same weapons. Then, factor into this deadly mixture that the technology and intelligent behind the alleged proliferation was in many cases sold or given to these nations by the same government now trying to take them back.

However, Iran differs from the United States in that it is NOT a democratic society, the highest authorities believe in a religion that considers jihad part of their doctrine, and it has diplomatic and trade ties with other nations which are not free societies. the_paccagnellan 17:08, 4 February 2006 (EST)


These current events need to be seriously policed for neutrality so as to not spurn a fruitless battle of opinions to clutter this site further. chaz171 14:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

A credible Iranian nuclear deterrent

a credible Iranian nuclear deterrent would make impossible the kind of forcible "regime change" imposed on Iraq in 2003.

"Nuclear weapons would allow Iran to preserve its territorial integrity and sovereignty, and we can't have that."—Is any U.S. government official stupid or arrogant enough to say something like this openly? (yes, we all know they're thinking it.) Or is this just a view expressed by right-wing jingoist pundits? Can we get some idea of who said this? --anon

Probably a W.A.S.P Right-Wing Human Parasite who forgot to attend "Diplomacy 101" lessons.--85.97.76.234 15:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Chirac didn't mention Iran

In fact, Chirac's speech did not mention Iran, though many mainstream media interpreted it as such: therefore I removed this paragraph, which is in any case not a good summary of the speech. Mark K. Jensen 09:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

January 19, 2006: Criticizing Iran's nuclear program, Jacques Chirac said France was prepared to launch a nuclear strike against any country that sponsors a terrorist attack against French interests.[1]


 ?

Alireza Jafarzadeh, a [...] and critic of Tehran, [...]

Someone can be a critic of a political system, but saying someone is a critic of a city can be misunderstood and sounds vaguely. --Abdull 19:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Maybe he means he's from Tehran...:) --Zereshk 01:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
No it means hes a critic of the Government of Iran. Capital's and Regieme's are often interchanged when talking about a foreign power. ex "The United States and Great Britian were often at odds with Moscow." Learn more english this Saturday on Adult Swim--AdultSwim 05:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Cold War motivation?

I could be wrong, but I seem to remember that the US had a strong incentive to fund the Iranian monarchy in the context of the Cold War, pursuant to the doctrine of Domino theory. Perhaps this point could be made in the History section by someone more competent than I am? Thanks. DomQ 18:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


Ali Khamenei's statements in 1987

Has anyone brought this into light? "Regarding atomic energy, we need it now... Our nation has always been threatened from outside. The least we can do to face this danger is to let our enemies know that we can defend ourselves. Therefore, every step you take here is in defense of your country and your evolution. With this in mind, you should work hard and at great speed." [2]

Gordonf238 11:29, 09 March 2006 (UTC)

  • "Atomic energy". Iran's energy and petroleum infrastructure was severly damaged in the Iran-Iraq war. And they are aware of the limited Oil reserves. Maybe it was a reference to that.--Zereshk 15:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

POV

The pro-Iran bias in this article is almost ridiculous. There is clear and persistent advocacy of two positions: (1) that there is no evidence Iran has a nuclear weapons program, and (2) that even if it did this wouldn't be a bad thing. Both 1 & 2 may be true, of course, but given WP:NPOV we can't ASSERT the truth of either. We have to present both sides of the argument fairly and let the reader make up his or her mind. This article does not do so, so it needs the POV tag. Mikker ... 13:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

If you think there is a "pro-Iran bias" here, up to you to provide sources to back your claims. I am sorry, but writing that "A unifing viewpoint in the Iranian leadership is the hatred of Israel." is not only POV, it is false. The source does in fact works (my mistake), but what does it say? Apart of being the Memri.org site, (respectable site although it practices "advocacy journalism"), the article quotes almost only Ahmadinejad for these antizionist statements, and then quotes moderate Khatami who says:

a meeting with high-ranking Shi'ite cleric in Lebanon Sheikh Muhammad Hussein Fadlallah, former Iranian president Mohammad Khatami, who is currently serving as advisor to Iran's Supreme National Security Council, [23] said: "There is no one in Iran who wants the destruction of a state and a nation. The Iranian nation is only condemning the repression of the Palestinians by the Zionist regime, the failure to permit the refugees to return to their homeland, and the injustice that is in the programs of the Palestinian cause... If the destruction of a state and a nation is evil, then why has there been an effort, over 50 years, to eradicate the Palestinian state and people, and why is the world not reacting to this?" [24]

IT is manipulation to make the leadership of Iran all extremists while everyone, including the US and the European Union, knows there is a moderate wing represented by Khatami which you certainly can't caricature to the "hatred of Israel". Beside, we're talking about geopolitics here, so inflamed and passionate statements such as Ahmadinejad's concerning Israel should not be met with the same passions. Be rational please. Satyagit 16:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
You found anti-Iran POV. All the more reason to keep the pov tag. That said, I think you'll agree the article also suffers from pro-Iran bias (especially "Nuclear Power as a Political Issue"). I'm not saying "Iran is bad & evil!" nor am I saying "The US is the Great Satan". I'm saying let's rememver NPOV. Mikker ... 16:47, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


Here is obvious proof of the pro-Iran bias: go to the section on "Views on the Iran nuclear program". The Views of Iran section is 2-3x longer than those of the rest of the world COMBINED, including the assertion that the views of western countries are essentially the same as the Israeli position (which borders on antisemitism, by blaming the Israelis for the issue). ---

This "POV" (Point of View) nonsense has been used by individuals to silence and sensor others who disagree with their "POV"'s.

Everything ever written or spoken is by definition somebody's POV! You can not have a no POV; it is impossible.

Everything written in the Wikipedia encyclopedia, or any other encyclopedias is a "POV".

An article written by some charlatan at the New York Times, is not more credible than someone's personal Blog. To be fair Blogs are more truthful than Corporate Medias.

Read Judith Miller: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Miller_%28journalist%29 Also, Operation Mockingbird: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird Also, COINTELPRO http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO

Now, going back to Iran's nuclear program issue, the facts are there for intelligent people to read and to see. Under the NPT, Iran has an absolute right to have all the nuclear technologies available to it, including the uranium enrichment. The Corporate Medias keep lying and saying uranium enrichment is equal to nuclear weapons. As long as the uranium enrichment is below 90% purity, you can not use it for nuclear bombs, but the Corporate Medias almost never write this fact.

Under the NPT, Western nations are obligated to help Iran, but not only they refuse to do that, they also have had sanctions on Iran for almost three decades. It is the West that is in full violation of the NPT.

Also, under the NPT, all nuclear-armed nations are obligated to destroy ALL of their nuclear weapons, See article 6 of the NPT, also known as the 13 steps. And yet U.S. and Britain just expolded nuclear weapons in Nevada, on 23 February 2006, in full violation of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT).

In addition, U.S., Britain, and France have threatened to attack Iran (a non-nuclear weapon state) with their massive nuclear weapon arsenals. What the Corporate Medias do not want us to know is that, all these Western nuclear-armed nations are now also in violation of the United Nations Security Council resolution 984 (UNSCR 984): http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/resolutions/SC95/984SC95.html

Among other things, UNSCR 984 "RECOGNIZES" that "in case of aggression with nuclear weapons or the threat of such aggression against a non-nuclear-weapon State Party" to the NPT, "the nuclear-weapon State permanent members of the Security Council will bring the matter immediately to the attention of the Council and seek Council action to provide, in accordance with the Charter, the necessary assistance to the State victim". In other words, U.S., Britain, and France which have threatened to attack Iran (a non-nuclear weapon state) must be send to the Nations Security Council for violating the UNSCR 984.

Read a little of Dr.Prather "POV"'s, and learn something!

This has been Rick's "POV". If you can find any non-POV written material ever, please let me know!

Dr. James Gordon Prather is a nuclear weapons physicist and former nuclear bomb tester at the Lawrence Livermore lab. He was also the technical director of nuclear bomb testings at the Sandia lab, and a former chief scientist of the U.S. Army. He is also a U.S. Navy veteran. http://www.antiwar.com/prather/

Sunday Times, March 12, 2006 Revealed: UK develops secret nuclear warhead http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.iranian/msg/7fcda6d581111dae

Sunday Times, March 12, 2006 Britain's secret nuclear blueprint http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.iranian/msg/fa33b3845ed79be0

U.S. and Britain conducted the 22nd underground nuclear explosion, in full violation of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, February 23, 2006 Krakatau Subcritical Nuclear Experiment Conducted http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.iranian/msg/151341cfb6372100 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 149.99.116.161 (talk • contribs).

Dear 149.99.116.161. Your objection to WP:NPOV is a common misunderstanding. Please read WP:NPOV#There.27s_no_such_thing_as_objectivity. Please also read all of the NPOV article, and have a look at WP:POV. What you're doing is advocating for the truth of some set of statements. Great, and you're entitled to your views. However, we as Wikipedia editors are required to follow NPOV, which states: "where there are or have been conflicting views, these are fairly presented, but not asserted. All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. It is not asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions." (emphasis added). Mikker ... 13:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Lack of cooperation with IAEA

The source for this is [3]:

Still, it declared that – because of lack of sufficient cooperation from the Iranian side – the IAEA remained unable “to conclude that there are no undeclared nuclear materials or activities in Iran.”

The finding was essentially an admission that the agency cannot establish whether Iran is hiding aspects of its nuclear program that it is obligated to report to the IAEA, the U.N. atomic watchdog, under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

Simesa 14:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Associated Press (AP) is lying as usual:

"lack of sufficient cooperation from the Iranian" (The only place IAEA agents have not look into thoroughly is inside of the Ayatollah's pockets).
"IAEA remained unable to conclude that there are no undeclared nuclear materials or activities in Iran" (As Dr. Prather explains bellow, IAEA will never be abale to make such claims ever. You can not prove a negative.)

Antiwar.com, March 14, 2006

The IAEA Pleads Incompetence

Dr. James Gordon Prather:

"According to all Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei's reports made since November 2004, there is no indication that there are now any "undeclared" source or special nuclear materials in Iran; nor is there any indication of any diversion of nuclear materials. Nevetheless, despite ElBaradei's many reports that Iran is NOT in "violation" or in "non-compliance" with its NPT-required Safeguards Agreement, Condi Rice has seized on these words in ElBaradei's most recent report – "the agency is not at this point in time in a position to conclude that there are no undeclared nuclear materials or activities in Iran" – and declared them to be "questions that are within the competence of the Security Council".
It's doubtful that ElBaradei would ever be in a position – no matter how much more Iran cooperated or how much additional authority the UN Security Council gave him – to make such a conclusion. Besides, no one asked him.
The truly important part of all ElBaradei's recent reports is that as best he can tell, after more than two years of GO-ANYWHERE SEE-ANYTHING inspections, Iran is in compliance with its NPT-required IAEA Safeguards Agreement." http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=8696

IAEA chief invalidates the NPT

On December 10, 2005, Mohamed ElBaradei stepped behind the podium and delivered his Nobel lecture.

"If we choose to ignore the insecurities of some, they will soon become the insecurities of all. With the spread of advanced science and technology, as long as some of us choose to rely on nuclear weapons, we continue to risk that these same weapons will become increasingly attractive to others". [4]

What takes us aback today is ElBaradei's silence, and even his approval of the US-India nuclear deal. Was India off his radar? Or is ElBaradei, like Bush, a fan of the so called "democracies" having nuclear weapons?!

On 20 July 2005, ElBaradei officially declared his support of the US-India nuke deal:

"Making advanced civil nuclear technology available to all countries will contribute to the enhancement of nuclear safety and security". [5]

The deal ElBaradei so enthusiastically embraced, makes the U.S. a violator of "Article III" of the NPT. Since India has clearly refused to halt the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons, US-India deal clearly indicates a nuclear build-up/proliferation which the Chief of the IAEA applauds. [6]

America's nuclear hypocrisy

Even as Bush is telling Iran not to produce nuclear weapons, U.S. is planning to build nuclear bunker-busters. In addition to the nuclear bunker-buster, the Bush administration wants new nuclear warheads to replace old ones. That's not a prospect likely to dissuade the insecure leaders of Iran.

Anti-Western sentiment in discussion

I was startled to read this large amount of radical anti-Western and anti-American points of view (bordering on propaganda). It seems to be a replay of the 1970's and 1980's, when so many "Balanced", "Just" and "Righteous" people, much like most of those writing above, were publishing enthusiastically on behalf of the Soviet Union. These people can twist and turn treaties (like the NPT), foreign diplomacy (U.S. relations with India, Israel) and declarations (by El-Baradei, Bush, and Ahmedinajad). They can quote and mis-quote out of context, and point out how much Iran is justified, o.k., and generally a peace-loving and friendly country reeling under U.S. dictations to the world. This is very upsetting, since this is exactly the kind of truth flip-over that allowed the USSR to keep millions in the gulags, that allowed the Nazis to rearm quietly right up to 1939, and that today denies the Holocaust. The writers above should understand that the weaker party is not always right (Anyone mention suicide bombers?), that letting radicals with idealogy get what they want is not good (see Stalin, Hitler, Pol-Pot, Khomieni), and that letting the free Western Democratic nations have a lead in weapons technology and nuclear technology is necessary when keeping the bullies of the world at bay is required. The tens of millions of the dead and murdered across Europe, Russia, Cambodia and Africa cry a mute warning to us across the vastness of history on this subject. We cannot allow these things to happen again, even if Iran's energy market has slightly slower growth. No amount of number playing and legal wrangling can change this basic truth.

With regard to Israel's nuclear program - the reasons pointed above are exactly why the two programs are not equated by either the U.S. or Europe, or any other western country. Israel's program was born out of the horrors of the Holocaust, to deter and prevent any future destruction of the Jewish people in any circustance. Even when engaged in wars on two and even three fronts - Israel has never used its arsenal. Israel has never called for any country to be "Wiped off the map". Israel's security services answer to laws and parlimentry commitees (altough this has, sadly, not yet led to a withdrawl from the West Bank). Israel has Jewish characteristics, but is by no means a theocracy. The leaders are for the most part secular, and the country has a reasonbly well defined command and control structure. In fact - Israelis feel that anyone calling for a "Middle East free of nuclear weapons" is actually trying to open the door on their elimination again, by making another Holocaust possible.

To sum up what I want to point out in all of this - letting Iran have nuclear technology is bad, since they are a radical theocracy, with defense and intelligence bodies that are unaccountable to the public, that has called for the destruction/elimination of some of its neighbors, and that it cannot be trusted to abide by international diplomatic and humanitarian norms. Iran simply cannot be trusted to keep any peaceful nuclear technology is obtains as such without turning to weapons production. Iran has considerable contacts with the Lebanease group Hizbullah, which has carried out international terrorist attack in the past 15 years. To further the point, Iran cannot be trusted not to use any weapon it does obtain for "The Glory of Allah" - no matter the price. The combination of terrorists with Nuclear weapons is so dangerous that it cannot be risked, even if the risk is small.

This is why the international community responds as it does, this is why the righteous post-modern comments posted above are false, and this is why national nuclear programs must be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.152.128.44 (talk • contribs).

Well no one can really know for sure if Iran will use the program for developing nuclear weapons. I do agree that the article should provide both points of view. Regarding your opinion, I must disagree, since we shouldnt be so quick to condemn something and get over paranoid so quickly. There is nothing we can do since its their country and they can do what ever they please. Trying to be hostile towards a country based on paranoia and conspiracy theories is just silly. Also United States still has nuclear weapons and it is one of the most war-active countries in recent history. Tutmosis 02:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
If you're going to discuss the merits of each side's case, I suggest you do so on a forum other than this one. Wikipedia talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article so whether or not the US or Iran is "right" is moot. What we need is discussion about how to present both sides cases in a neutral manner. Mikker ... 10:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

March 2006: Mearsheimer-Walt Study

John Mearsheimer [7] from the University of Chicago's political science department and Stephen Walt [8] from Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government, just published a lengthy study (March 13, 2006), claiming the U.S. Iran policy is not in America's national interest and is motivated primarily by the Israeli lobby, the AIPAC.

"No lobby has managed to divert U.S. foreign policy as far from what the American national interest would otherwise suggest, while simultaneously convincing Americans that U.S. and Israeli interests are essentially identical". [9]
"The core of the Lobby is comprised of American Jews who make a significant effort in their daily lives to bend U.S. foreign policy so that it advances Israel’s interests". [10]
"American Jewish leaders often consult with Israeli officials, so that the former can maximize their influence in the United States". [11]
"Washington would not be nearly as worried about Iran, were it not so closely tied to Israel". [12]
"Iran’s nuclear ambitions DO NOT pose a direct threat to the U.S. If Washington could live with a nuclear Soviet Union, a nuclear China or even a nuclear North Korea, it can live with a nuclear Iran. And that is why the [Jewish] Lobby must keep up constant pressure on politicians to confront Tehran". [13]
Fascinating, but not about Iran or its nuclear program; there's a whole article on the study. Jayjg (talk) 22:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Above and Beyond the Safeguards Agreement

Dr. James Gordon Prather:

"Iran has been VOLUNTARILY cooperating with the IAEA, even though the number and scope of these inspections go far BEYOND that required of Iran by its Safeguards agreement, even BEYOND that would be required if an Additional Protocol to Iran’s Safeguards agreement was in force, which it is not since it hasn't been ratified by Iran's parliament. [14]
"According to the Russians, Iran has met all its international obligations. And, according to the director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Iran has provided objective guarantees – above and beyond those required by its Safeguards Agreement with the IAEA – that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only". [15]

Dr. James Gordon Prather is a nuclear weapons physicist. He was former nuclear bomb tester at the Lawrence Livermore lab. He was also the technical director of nuclear bomb testings at the Sandia lab, and a former chief scientist of the U.S. Army. He is also a U.S. Navy veteran. http://www.antiwar.com/prather

West's three decades of violating Iran's rights

Antiwar.com, March 25, 2006. Dr. James Gordon Prather:

"For more than 20 years, Iran's rights under the NPT had been grossly and systematically violated, while major state parties to the Treaty failed to meet many of their NPT obligations to Iran". [16]
  • Dr. James Gordon Prather is a nuclear weapons physicist, and former nuclear bomb tester at the Lawrence Livermore, former technical director of nuclear bomb testing at the Sandia, and former Chief scientist of the U.S. Army. He is also a U.S. Navy veteran.

Removed section

The existence of an Iranian nuclear weapon would also pose a potential threat to other US allies, such as Saudi Arabia. Finally, a credible Iranian nuclear deterrent would neutralize attempts at forcible "regime change" such as the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. Those forcible "regime change" have been formalized in the Bush doctrine and the concept of a "Greater Middle East".

This is from the "stance towards Israel" section. What does any of this have to do with Israel? The comment about regime change is especially out of place. --Mr. Billion 21:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Some Jew probably got scared of WMD which his own country holds as well.Though I despise fundamentalists as well,this supreme hypocrisy of "I-can-get-WMD's-and-you-can't-because-you-are-not-democratic.You-are-not-democratic-until-I-tell-my-corpulent-Media-corporation-whores" gives me an erection.--85.97.76.234 15:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

What the hell does that mean you piece of crap? -Jay Kay 06:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

It means that your country(Israel probably since you shot upwards with flames,being offended by "Some Jew") makes crappy decisions now,and made crappy decisions then.Bristling with ICBM's is not a way to ask your neighbors to lay down their nukes.It is like U.S asking the Soviets to Disarm immediately during the 80's.Like it or not,you guys have a scary political view.After all,who am I to complain?I am a goyyim.--81.214.33.117 08:18, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Changed section title

I changed Western Viewpoint to US Viewpoint as this section currently contains only a US viewpoint and a partial rebuttal by the UK, one of the other leading Western nations. It does not currently express a coherent western viewpoint.

I suggest the title remain as modified until the views of several othewr western nations are incorporated. The US view would then become a subsection under the newly titled Western Viewpoint.

--Dave 13:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

im sorry my question doesnt have anything to do with the U.S. but i need to know about china's veiwpoint for a model un project . if you can help me just write back here.

Take a look at the Beijing and Moscow warm to Tehran and the The new geostrategic alliance sections of http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/GF04Ad07.html. --Dave 12:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

thanks dave any treaties sign for te program

See http://www.nti.org/db/china/nca.htm --Dave 00:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Too much bias towards Iran

I know that this encyclopedia must be balanced, but come on! "Just because Iran sits on one of the world largest oil deposits" is not the only reason why the US thinks Iran wants a bomb. This is it in a nutshell: Why would a radical fundementalist Islamic regime whose country sits on one of the world largest energy deposits on the planet, wants to wipe an entire country off the face of the earth, and whose slogan is Death to Isreal/America/the West would want to have the ability to have the most powerful source of energy source harnessed by mankind. DUH!!!!!!! Its a no brainer. I Only the Iranians say the program is for peaceful purposes. Some people question why we support Isreal. 1.Its a democracy, 2.THey have not threatned genocide! the difference between Iran and the USSR is that Iran would be crazy enough to use the weapons. It would be sad to see this great institution be overrun by radical proganda. I am from the US and I don't believe half the things my gov says, but to believe Iran is just plain stupid.--Maxflight 02:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

You forget within Iran there are factions. The usage of unsophisticated language in the objection also doesn't seem to assist in the justification of the existence of the dispute. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 04:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Well I have to thank all authors of this article for this very infomative piece of work, ESPECIALLY for the Iranian point of view. BIAS is when you just show the daily US/media viewpoint and let out the facts from the often neglected minority. I have to add that I'm very sceptic about muslims and there is a tendency towards hate in their culture, but this hate has sometimes a reason. If the US would offer me nuclear and democracy and then demolish it I would also be kind of angry. I urge all fellow cowikipedians to keep this article as UNBIASED as it is now by collecting and showing all kinds of viewpoints. Thank you all. Allahu Akbar - God is great. Endymi0n 11:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


I support the opinion that the article is still biased in favor of Iran. The reasons for this are: 1) The fact and the reasons that Iran hid nuclear operations in clandestine sites is shown as minor compared to the importance of its rights under the NPT.

2) The legal language of the NPT is stated out of context - using the letter of the law against the spirit of the law. The spirit of the NPT and IAEA mechnisms exist in order to facilitate peacful nuclear energy. Iran's behavior is in contast to this. Normally pro-Iran France and Russia have not voiced their dissapointment in vain.

3) The demands of Iran's leaders to wipe out other nations and indeed the culture of the west of the whole are ignored in so far as being in context with Iran's rights and policies.

4) U.S. policy towards Iran up to the 1979 revolution is twisted to show that the U.S. is supposedly two-faced, hypocritical or dishonest in its Iran policy (see the William O. Beeman quote). In fact it is a reasonable result of a change of diplomacy towards a new, hostile, leadership of a foreign country.

5) The policies and viewpoints of the Iranian leadership are not put in context vis-a-vis their will to use their nuclear abilities and/or nuclear umbrella. One example is that Iranian missiles have banners on parades saying, “Israel should be wiped off the map” and “We will trample America under our feet,” “Death to America,” and “Death to Israel.[17] Iran would probably also advance its support of radical Islamic groups around the world. First and foremost among these is Hizbullah - which has carried out terrorist attacks around the world, Including Latin America.

6) Very little is said about:

  A) The potential danger of combining a destructive idealogy and anti-semetism with military/technological  
    prowess, as Nazi Germany has shown so well.
  B) The potential danger of combining nuclear materials or weapons with terrorist group contacts.

7) A claim of "Equality" of the Iranian and Israeli nuclear programs is put forward according to Mordecai Vanunu's opinion. First of all - Vanunu is an (anti)Israeli, not an Iranian, and therfore his opinion has no place in the Iranian Viewpoint. If his opinion does represent an Iranian one - a relevant quote should be put forward. Secondly that comment belongs to the "Lets-remove-Israel's-nukes-so-we-can-finally-destroy-it" group, and has no place without a specific refrence to that opinion's hidden, eventual and final meaning. By RZ. 88.153.197.38

I agree that parts of the history section are biased in the fact that they omit the huge relevance and major impact the 1979 change in government represents. I'll sort through this so that this does not seem hypocritical. This said, one could argue that the United States is still hypocritical in their attitudes towards other nations that were allowed to develop nuclear weapons secretly, though the case of whether these other nations (pakistan, india, north korea) were not as fundamentalist as Iran. Yet who isn't hypocritical. Trying to blaim US hypocracy is unrelated to the debate though, it's a form of personal attack; just as using fear and the small possibility of dange to support a point shouldn't be part of a debate. If you're trying to determine if someone has something, just deal with the facts. If they have a nuclear weapons program, we should be able to prove it exists with verifiable claims, not speculation. This is a major debating point that swings the POV in favor of Iran. There is no hard evidence, just a few circumstantial pieces, that suggests Iran has or wants a nuclear weapons program. C. Nelson 16:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that as an encyclopedia, one must stick to the facts. In this percise context, one must include risk analysis and international diplomatic crisis management.
For example - were we to hop back to 1938, there would probably be a lively discussion about Nazi Germany's political aims. Some would say that Germany is peaceful, and only want to restore its rights under international law. That Hitler is just a demagouge. That "For more than 20 years, Germany's rights under the Versallies Treaty had been grossly and systematically violated, while major state parties to the Treaty failed to meet many of their Treaty obligations to Germany" (Now look at the Dr. James Gordon Prather quotes and remember Chambairlain).
These people would also say that the world wronged Germany in the Versallies agreements, being hypocritical vis-a-vis France. This would all be historically true. In that context, an analysis saying that given Hitler's stated ideaology (Living room for Germany in the east, destruction of socialism, annihilation of the Jews, etc) he would likely open a war when he had the chance would be reasonable.
It is in this context that it is legitimate to suspect Iran. A more direct sample the of evidence would be this:
  A) The distance from Iran to Israel is about 1200Km. 
  B) Iran developed ground to ground missiles called Shihab-3 with a range of 1300Km
  C) Iran develops nuclear technology in clandestine facilities.
  D) Iranian president calls for Israel to be wiped off the map.
All this does not mean that Iran is developing nukes. However given the evidence it is legitimate, even according to Wikipedia's high standards, to put this possibility forward as likely (or - not unlikely).
By RZ. 88.153.197.38
I know the situation too little to make reasonable statements. But, considering Hitler's Germany one could note that the public opinion was... may be, aggressive, nationalistic. Not only the leader, but the nation as well was pro-war. It would be interesting to learn about public opinion in today's Iran. You'll say, that nobody will believe iranian people, coz if they are pro-war, they will try to conceal it. But I promise, that I'll believe. ellol 06:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
____
A) The distance between the borders of Iran and Israel might be 1200km, but the distance between the hardened missile sites in Iran's central mountins is well beyond 1300km from Israel.
B) Iran is developing the Shahib-4 with a 2000km range, probably to adress the point in (A).
C) Every country with nuclear technology develops it in secret. It is very valuable intellectual property.
D) Its interesting that people condemn Iran for saying Israel should not exist but many applauded when Israel actually attacked Iran and suggest they, and/or the US, should do so again.
I also find it interesting that the US is so hard-line with respect to Iran but is actively supporting the nuclear programs of two nuclear rogue states, India and Pakistan. Perhaps someone can explain why this is happening, while keeping a straight face. --Dave 10:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't think a talk page is a place to hash over the politics of this, but your point C is incorrect (nuclear power development programs are rarely kept secret; bomb programs are almost always kept secret) and inapplicable anyway (Iran is not trying to develop proprietary devices, they are duplicating designs used by other countris), and your point D has, I believe, a factual error (Israel attacked Iraq, not Iran) and a strange leap of judgment (attacking a country's nuclear facilities is not the same thing as attempting to eradicate a country or claiming they have no right to sovereignty). As for why the US treats Iran the way they do, I think the reason is clearly for political reasons. The US has an economic incentive to be on good terms with India and a military incentive to be on good terms with Pakistan, and as such (especially in the case of Pakistan) are taking a ridiculous double-standard (i.e. not doing anything about A.Q. Khan, who seems to have been single-handedly the worst proliferation threat of the 20th century). --Fastfission 01:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I concede my poind (D) is a factual error and I am embarrassed to have made it. I stand by point (C) however. The concept of valuable intellectual property cuts both ways. Any serious industrial scale research will yield valuable results, innovations and techniques. On the flipside, reverse engineering can also yield valuable information, which sometimes infringes on the intellectual property rights of others. Neither a company nor a country would want such trade secrets to become public knowledge. They tend to keep their cards close to their chests when the stakes are high, and the highest stakes of all involve nuclear weapons. Oh, and BTW I have met a number of people in my career who know a thing or two about nuclear weapons. One chap I knew used to run simulations of plasma containment systems in the idle time of our supercomputer. Its amazing some of the places dual-use research like that is carried out. --Dave 07:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Imagine you are a boy. Other boy sais you, that he'll kick you. Would it be a proper answer to kick him? I think, a proper answer would be just ignoring him. But if he really begins an attack on you, kick him, hard as you can. Actually, the thing about Israel and Iran is just that simple. ellol 05:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
      • The threat of toal annihilation via nuclear weapons is not that simple. Israel is so small that three nuclear weapons hitting its large population centers would probably be enough to destroy it as a nation. That level of risk does not allow it to let the other side take the first shot. As the memories of the Nazi Holocaust still haunt Israel, its leaders simply cannot take that chance - as the attack on the Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981 clearly showed. RZ.
        • Why doesn't memories of 27 million soviet citizens killed by Nazi and tens millions of Chinese citizens killed by Japanese(excuse me, please) haunt modern Russia and China? By the way, nuclear strike at Moscow (hope it will never happen) would simultaneously kill 10% of Russia's population. ellol 07:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
        • Ellol - I am glad you asked that. The Holocaust is unique for several reasons, and so are its aftereffects. I do not wish to burden this page with a long paragraph, so I wholeheartedly suggest you look here[18]. It is very important to know this. You might have gone on to compare Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden and Rawanda to the Holocaust - although it is also a wrong comparison to make. You can also look here [19]. RZ.
I read this and wrote a vast comment. You can find it in history.
Then i reread this. What to say? Yeah, I don't feel the tragedy of Holocaust. In the summer I hope I will finally read "Heavy sand" by Rybakov, may be that will help...
Btw, some claims in the first article made me laughing. E.g., obvious romantization of Stalin. After all, Stalin was a paranoic, an ill person. And also by the way, the number of people arrested in Gulag due to political reasons is about 4 million.
Now what to say? I will never convince you that the pain of the past must be left in the past, and not to prevent you from soberly estimating the reality.. As in that well known Jew joke: "Moisha, why you are not sleeping?" "Sara, I have to pay 20$ to Joseph by tomorrow." Sara knocks the wall: "Joseph? Have Moisha to pay you 20$? You should know, he'll not pay it. Sleep, Moisha, let Joseph be not speeping." Let young Germans to feel guilt for past, not you to feel fear! ellol 18:33, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
But, despite all of this, we live in the real world. All of us must estimate the situation soberly. Otherwise, after several decades iranians would write articles of the same kind, about new Holocaust but of their nation. ellol 18:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Rephrasing Lukyanenko, "Hear Brzezinski, he is clever." (grandfather in original) ellol 18:57, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
        • I can see how Iran is much larger geo/demi-graphically... but the concept of MAD still holds. The world would not stand to have a rouge nuclear country firing missiles everywhere. If Iran nukes Israel off the face of the planet, you better believe there's going to be huge serious consequences for Iran. The least you would expect would be air strikes that would obliterate all of Iran's known nuclear technology. The worst would be nuclear attack on Iran as well. I don't think its legitimate to argue that if Iran makes a bomb, which they won't, that they'll use it on Israel. If we're worried about selling them on the black market, we should focuse on pakistan and north korea as well as iran. C. Nelson
          • 1) No matter how badly Iran would be punished if Israel were attacked, it wouldn't help Israel very much. Just as carrying out the death penalty on a murderer won't bring back his victim.
2) Iran deserves the harsher treatment in the nuclear arena because of its proxy orginization Hizballah. Iran has declared its deadly intention, and Hizballah are a possible murder weapon. If Iran were afraid of the consequences of its actions, a realistic scenario for it would be to have a nuclear weapon be lobbed via Hizbullah into Israel. They would have deniability. Hizballah sits right atop Israel's northern border, has attacked Israel with medium rockets (including 122mm variants) in the recent past, and is outside the judgement sphere of any nation today.
3) Pakistan and North Korea, for all the criticism I have of them, don't share the will or the proxy-terrorist orginizations and affiliates to carry out atrocities of genocidal magnitudes - except against their own populations.
4) My opinion is that Iran's main goal in aquiring a nuclear weapon is the prevention of regime change. Expansion of Iran's clout and power in the middle east come second, and destroying Israel third. Thus even if the threat of regime change ended, the bomb program would continue. However - the third goal is horrible enough as to morally justify the prevention of Iran attaining the first two goals.
5) The IAEA were, are, and will be taken to false buildings, false control rooms, surgically cleaned facilities and so on, while the weaponry work is undertaken in hidden clandestine facilities. It has been done before. I think it is being done again. RZ.
Sorry that I'm writing this not below earlier comments..
1)It's MAD. And we all live in MAD world. But our ancestors saw no better alternative sixty years ago...
2)Iran's sharing A-bomb with any terroristic organisation is equal to death to Iran. Because there would be no answer for question "WHO?!" other than IRAN, and it would lead to death of it.
3)A very deep thought... But why not the opposite? Only a government which doesn't care about its own citizens can start a global war!
4)a)Regime change. Please, reread "Iranian POV" section. You forgot about role of a leader in the history. This is right, but it's consequence, not the cause. NATION WANTS NUCLEAR POWER, AND ANY LEADER CAN DO ONLY LITTLE IN SUCH SITUATION. Either acquiring nuclear power, either leading Iran into civil war and breaking its backbone. This is as right, as Israel's fear of Holocaust.
b)Yes, Iranians want death of Israel. The question is whether or not Iranians want to wipe off Israel using a military force. ellol 17:49, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Ellol. I understand what you have written. However, I have not seen that my points have been countered. Shrugging off destruction (MAD) is not somehing that Israelis would consider. The world today has enough hypocracy going around to ask Israel to "Prove" who attacked it (and no proof would ever be enough - just see 9/11 conspiritors). Your third point is mistaken due to the interests involved. Iran has very different interests and goals compared to Pakistan and North Korea. Concerning the cause/role loop - I understand it, and yet find it irrelevent. The end result is what matters. Iran sees today two ways for Israel to be destroyed. One is giving the palestinians their right of return. The other is nukes. They actively influence option A (=fund Hamas) and develop option B. As I said - their tertiary goal is horrible enough as to morally justify the prevention of Iran attaining the first two goals. I have yet to see any convinving counter-arguement, although I would happily wish to see one floated for discussion.
Iranian people themselves say that it's uncertain whether Iran will use military force to kill Israel. Iranian citizens are upbrought in very patriotic manner, e.g., they must recite every day in school "death to israel" or "death to america". But you must understand that propaganda doesn't involve common acception of it (how it was in Soviet Union: people said common lies in public places, which fitted politics of Party, but although all pronounced those speeches, all knew they were lie.) Yes, such propaganda produces some fanatics; but the life of most people is more influenced by their families, than with what they hear in school or elsewhere -- of course in normal situation, when people have work and enough food. Pavlik Morozov's (fanatics) are few; and poor palestinean kids who become shakhids for a hundred dollars are not the case for Iran, due to Iran is rich enough. Futhermore, it's the East, with its traditions of honouring elders. If you are a father, you understand that no normal father will send his son to death. Not considering case of war.
Btw, i don't understand! Why no iranian guys are here around, explaining that their country is wrongly thought of?
RZ, i don't understand what do you want, to find moral justification for preventive strike on Iran, or to learn what is Iran actually intended to do?
I'll repeat that any use of nuke in that region will lead to elimination of Iran by US. 9/11 showed only, that US does almost all it wants. Israel can feel itself freely, due to position of US seems to be pro-Israeli.
About MAD... Nuclear proliferation is a wrong thing. But just want to say you: MAD still isn't end of the world. Our ancestors implemented it sixty years ago; the world still lives, although there used to be a number of fears about nuclear end of the world. Something like this but in less scale may repeat in your region. ellol 18:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I understand how serious nuclear proliferation is... but we have no proof of even clandestine nuclear weapons out of Iran (although in 2003 the IAEA says it will take longer to guarantee they don't). The sites that were found to be underground in 2002 have been inspected. The traces of HEU were found to be from Pakistan. If you like paraboles; right now, Bob America is pointing a finger at a Muslim named Mahmoud and saying he's going to rob a bank with a gun. Mahmoud says, "I don't even have a gun." Bob says he saw Mahmoud strolling through the gun shop, in which Mahmoud says, "it was next to the tire section at Wal-Mart." Bob says Mahmoud hates the Jews running the bank and wants to steal their money... and Mahmoud replies that he dislikes the banking systems use of fractional reserves and how citigroup made a ton of profit off of credit cards, but he wouldn't shoot them. Mahmoud mearly wishes for a day when they didn't exist. Disheartened, Bob desides to accuse Mahmoud of hiring thugs to do his bidding. Mahmoud does not deny this, but accusses Bob of hiring mobs of mercenaries as well. He says that Bob used them to attack Mahmoud in 1953, made allies with his neighbor and use his house to lob stink bombs into his garden during the 1980's, shoot down his paper airplane and sank his rubber ducky in 1988, and then break friendship against his neighbor and then attack the neighbor. .... Feel free to delete this if you view it not relevent. C. Nelson
I was actually very amused by the time I got to the rubber ducky :) However, I feel this does not weaken my case. Consider what has been said and the risks involved (Genocide and a bank robbery are very different). Iran's tertiary goal of destroying Israel is terrible enough as to morally justify the prevention of Iran attaining its first two goals - Prevention of Regime Change [20], and increased regional clout. The possible means (Shihab 3 missiles, Hizballah) and will to use them considerably strengthens the argument. RZ.

When referring to the Iranian president's quotation, we should note that it was said Israel would be wiped from the map just like the soviet union, saddam's iraq, and the shah of iran. Although the international community and even the jewish leader in iran condemned the anti-zionist speech (obviously), I don't believe this was a quote expressing militaristic plans to attack, or as some would use it, nuke, israel. It's a threat, but how big or small is the question. C. Nelson

Full text with thorough comments is placed at Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel. ellol 18:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

The only winning move is not to play

Because it is certain that the United States and other Western media will downplay any nuclear activity in Iran (i.e. explosions), it would be a good idea to report any seismologic events that occur that could indicate that there may have been an explosion.

Nuclear explosions do register on siesmograms, but just to make sure that records at the United States Geologic Survey are not tampered for "national security reasons", it would be wise to post events from other Geologic agencies.

The war has undoubtedly begin, but the Department of Defense will not acknoledge the event.--Bushido Hacks 03:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Shall we play a game?

  • Wikipedia does not engage in Original Research. And in any case nobody thinks Iran could possibly develop a nuclear weapon sooner than five or six years. --Fastfission 13:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
The USA is not the only country to have a geological survey system. Russia and china also use seismology, which can detect the launch as well as the detonation of ICBMs. First use of nuclear weapons would be public knowledge within miminutes of an explosion. --Dave 00:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I see. I totally misunderstood what he was implying (I thought he was implying that Iran would be testing a bomb, not that the U.S. would use one against Iran). I don't think the U.S. would try to covertly use nuclear weapons against Iran (there is very little military reason for them to; the entire effect would be a political one, and doing it covertly would ruin the effect), and yeah, it would be pretty easy for the Iranians and other countries to verify if that had been done. --Fastfission 01:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
There has been some speculation the US may use nuclear bunker busters on hardened targets in Iran that are impossible to destroy with conventional weapons. A few years ago most people would have scoffed at the idea but the US has since developed a [doctrine of joint nuclear operations] that lends it credibility. --Dave 01:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
From what I've seen, it is unlikely that there are many targets in Iran that the U.S. would be unable to destroy with their conventional bunker-busters, but yeah, I know they've been talking about it. I don't put it against the Bush administration to do it, I just don't think they'd do it covertly.--Fastfission 01:26, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Repeated sections of text

The article seems to have many sections where ideas and even text itself is repeated. For example hit search and copy in "Shortly afterwards Iraq invaded Iran and the nuclear program was stopped until the end of the war." You'll see the exact sentance repeated in two sections. A lot of areas repeat the same text as you get further into the article, and some whole sections (e.g. Western governments and the Iranian investments) just repeat previous ideas with similar text and no new information.

???

Why is this place turning into an opinion forum? Is that why we're here?--Zereshk 12:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

its because it is called a disscussion

chinas veiw( or any countries veiw)

so i dont much about other countries veiws on this topic right now but iwill be adding info on here, and when i do this message will be deleted. also i wanted to let anyone know that if they have any info on chinas veiw please feel free to add anything you like.

Russia, article of May, 4

This article was published at http://lenta.ru, one of the best known russian news sites.

The war is for sale (Russian) (bad computer translation).

Correcting computer translation:

Iran will not refuse of its nuclear ambitions. It was declared repeatedly by its leaders who have total support of the population in this question. The USA, Israel and European Union cannot allow possibility of appearance of technical abilities in Teheran for creation of a nuclear bomb. This position is also absolutely precise and is not a subject to discussion. No compromise is possible in this situation, which is clearly shown by all last statements and acts of the opposing countries. Rigid collision of two totally opposite positions is inevitable.

Washington, which is the main inspirer of idea to punish Iran, utterly needs the corresponding resolution of Secutiry council of the United Nations. It should create at least visibility of international support for inevitable sanctions against Teheran. Washington don't want to do one mistake twice, beginning active actions against other country without approval from the international community.

Now it's an unique opportunity for USA to achieve such approval. Iran does all the possible to cause irritation from even potential defenders of its position. In addition, the majority of countries are really worried about possibility of appearing of nuclear weapons in unpredictable regime..

However while it's no need to convince Europeans of necessity of punishing Iran, USA will have to come to agreement with Russia and China, which pursue their own interests in this whole story.

Moscow needs approval of Washington to join WTO, guarantees of West's not interfering in events on the post-Soviet space and approval of legality of last changes in structure of the property of the Russian power companies.

Pekin is rather annoyed with US's reasonings about human rights, their persistent claims of valorizing yuan and position of the White House about Taiwan.

It's most likely, that these are the questions involved in the trading between Russia + China and USA. Moreover, positions of Moscow and Pekin concerning acceptance of the resolution, which "frees hands" of Washington, change with striking frequency. But agreements with texts, which are offered by countries of West, always drift aside. Obviously, the trading doesn't go unsuccessfully.

But it seems that Americans and Europeans got tired to persuade partners of correctness of their position. This explains that their representatives in the United Nations are intended to carry voting about text of the document before the 8th of May, the date of meeting of Ministers for Foreign Affairs of the countries of Security Council in New York. The West has reasons to worry that the head of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs Sergey Lavrov and his Chinese colleague Chzhao Sin will bring new conditions of approval of the resolution.

Anyhow, the sides will come to agreement and the resolution will be accepted. Certainly, the opportunity of sanctions or even military operation against Iran will not be stated there in precise and unambiguous manner -- Russia and China cannot so frankly "spit on their principles". But the final text will certainly have the places, open for further interpretations. A classical example of such a compromise is the formulation "serious consequences", which can cover everything.

The Iranian leaders have already declared, that they won't be intimidated by any resolutions and the nuclear program won't be stopped in any case. You may not doubt that they will make a similar statement after acceptance of the document.

George Bush, having waited for this act of Teheran, will make firm and anxious face and, laying on the table resolution of Security Council, will declare economic sanctions against Iran.

Certainly, it may cause sharp growth of the oil prices, but Americans will suffer some time. Waiting will not last for long: a swaggering answer will immediately come from Teheran, written in the style of "you threaten us, and we are not afraid". This, in general, will be the perfect truth as inhabitants of Iran are traditionally ready to sacrifice everything for the sake of achievement of some superior aim. It's not casual that "battalions of martyrs" are very popular in Iran, tens thousand of people joining them, wishing to go to the best world, having blown up themselves with somebody else. Well, and for the local government sacrifices made by population are a mere trifle.

As a result, Americans will receive affirmation of correctness of their position from "first hands" and will carry more active planning of impact on nuclear objects, due to the economic will not bear for long extremely high oil prices. And presidental term of Georges Bush also comes to end.

As a result, the question with the Iranian nuclear program will be resolved rather quickly. Accorging to opinion of the majority of military experts, the bombardments will last for only some days. Ground intrusion is not planned, this will considerably accelerate and simplify the whole operation.

Indignation of the world community about "a barbarous act" of Bush will be short and not strong. Iran was warned about the danger in advance with the resolution. And the relief of not happened transformation of this country into a nuclear power will obviously be common for all.

by Yakovina Ivan.


What do you think about it? ellol 22:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

IMHO, one point is clear: the last thing Russia would do is participating in any global war conflict. (Due to still too big amount of inner problems.) Its political line might arise from this suggestion: at first trying to prevent the conflict... but if stopping the war gets impossible, yeah, "selling" the right to begin the war also fits the line (i will not explain, why). And the tone of this article towards Iran arises from trying to justify ourselves, due to obvious meanness of this option. --However, all of this is nothing more than my suggestion, based on a sole article. ellol 07:51, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

i was reading an article that said that russia and china had the power to veto any resolution that the u.n. throws at them. couldnt they just veto them all if they wanted to?

This actually belongs on the Iran and weapons of mass destruction page. However, yes they could - if that's what they wanted. However, Russia has been trying to negotiate a compromise with the Iranians, unsuccessfully so far. I haven't read what the Chinese want. Simesa 14:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Moving the WMD material to the appropriate page

Today I commented the following out of the page:

Another potentially serious scenario envisaged with the Iranian acquisition of nuclear capabilities is upset of the current balance of power in the Middle East. Iranian nuclear capabilities could in turn speed up and further develop the programs of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria, etc.[1][2]

I doubt Iran's acquisition of a nuclear power generation capability would have much effect at all in an energy rich region like the Middle East. At least not until depletion of oil reserves starts to become noticeable. Nuclear weapons technology is another matter, but not one for a page about nuclear power.

I believe that a brief statement about the dual use nature of nuclear technology is appropriate, but that material concerning Iran and weapons of mass destruction should be moved to the appropriate page. --Dave 07:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

This question hasn't been solved yet and won't be either in the near future. If I do understand your concern, you might be aware that some may also consider POV the sole existence of an article named "Iran and WMD". Indeed, Iran hasn't, to date, any such weapons, so why make an article about it? The expression itself of WMD gathers different kinds of weapons, so moving like you did everything there is not so NPOV as you would think it is. Indeed, an article named "Iran and nuclear weapons" would be lot more precise than the current one. The atomic bomb is not the same thing as weapons of mass destruction, a term which, beside, has became a bit too much related to the US-Iraqi war (and therefore of all the propaganda that went with it). Furthermore, you should be aware that there is no clear separation between civilian and military nuclear technologies, as both need enriched uranium, and the current crisis deals with the question of Iran's right to enrich uranium or not. Satyagit 18:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I doubt the issue will be solved within my lifetime regardless of whether Iran is bombed, invaded or occupied. I have private concerns over the issue, of course, but the concerns I raise here are some trivial concerns over what belongs where. I think a article about [[Nation X and WMD]] is appropriate even if Nation X does not have, has not had, or never intends to acquire, WMD. For some nations an outline of their campaign against WMD is appropriate. In fact I started an article recently about Australia and weapons of mass destruction with that in mind. Australia once covetted nuclear weapons and has a history of chemical and biological weapons research that is terrible to behold. Such things need to be recorded, despite the fact Australia is now a leading country in the campaign against these weapons. The Iranian WMD story needs to be told, but not in an article about nuclear power. Similarly the US Middle eastern policy needs to be set out, but not in an article on nuclear power in Iran. When you peel away the rhetoric the truth is plain: Iran has just as much right to enrich uranium as Australia, which is not being threatened at all over its SILEX program. Of course when POV is introduced, here as in the UN or the IAEA, things get murky. We end up with articles about nuclear power riddled with political text about nuclear weapons and vice versa. Hopefully the wiki will be easier to sort out than the middle east! --Dave 07:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Merge Iranian nuclear crisis here

Shouldn't Iranian nuclear crisis be merged here? Satyagit 19:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Probably, and/or renamed. US-Iran nuclear confrontation seems a a more accurate title for the events. --Dave 23:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I disagree. I don't think it should be merged. Those are two different issues. One is Iran's nuclear programm, the other one is the crisis caused by it.--83.131.41.72 06:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

At the moment the "crisis" page does not contain anything which this page does not have on it, and its "history" is very incomplete. Frankly I think a simple redirect would suffice, all of the info is already on this page. Personally I think the "facilities" on this page could be potentially split into a separate page (since only a few of them are really important) and ditto with the "timeline", but that's a separate issue. --Fastfission 02:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Reverted edits by Jrkarp

This morning I reverted a series of edits made by Jrkarp. The edits cut a significant amout of material from The US viewpoint, some of which was properly referenced. Jrkarp claimed the material implied US hypocrisy and was therefore irrelevant to the article. In a NPOV article it is necessary to put both supporting information and opposing information. The information cut certainly opposes the US viewpoint, but it is factual and well referenced. It is neccessary to include such material in a balanced NPOV article. If the US viewpoint is relevant at all, that view must be subject to rigerous criticim. --Dave 00:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

This whole entry is unbelievably biased in favour of Iran.

Page change motion

I motion to have a few parts of the article, which I deem as unbalanced or improperly presented, to be changed:

1) "Dr. William O. Beeman also points out that....cannot produce weapons-grade plutonium. [22]" should have a minder that the changes in U.S. policy due to the Iranian revolution were policy change, and not shown as plain hypocracy.

2) Due to the presentation of the Brzezinsky speech on March 16, 2006, comparing Iran with North Korea, I wish to add a contending viewpoint why Iran's situation is different from North Korea's.

I disagree with this. This section is interesting, due to it presents a view of situation by Brezinski. If you find an opposite POV in his speeches, ok to post it. But i think it's wrong to insert POV's of other people in that section. If Brzezinsky had other opinion, he would say other words; may be you hired out as secretary of Brzezinsky? I think the solution may be alike this: to put in the beginning of the section a note like this:
Note that this section doesn't present NPOV, but is intended to show viewpoint of a politician Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski.
This would make it more just than it's now. ellol 18:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

3) I suggest that Mordechai Vaanunu's comments be moved from the Iranian viewpoint. The equality claim of the Iranian and Israeli nuclear programs is irrelevent here (and has already been refuted in the discussion above). Vanunu is an Israeli, not an Iranian, and therfore his opinion has no place in the Iranian Viewpoint. If his opinion represents an Iranian one - a relevant quote should be put forward.

4) Should it be decided that Vanunu's comment remain, then I motion the addition of a counter quote showing that Vanunu wishes for Israel to be destroyed presented also as an Iranian viewpoint.

5) I recommend that the double showing of the "Eurodif" parts be merged into one piece. I welcome your comments. R_Z

Big Six Meeting of May 2, 2006

This article certainly does make it sound like only the U.S. is opposing Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions. However, in [21] the U.S., Germany, Britain, France, Russia and China are said to be "Although the negotiators are categorically against Iran's developing nuclear weapons, they remain divided over what the next steps should be." Somehow this article should be reflecting these other nations' views more clearly. Simesa 19:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that the situation is extremely complicated. Most nations that overtly oppose Iran's nuclear program do so to curry favour with the USA. France, Russia and China in particular have sold Iran nuclear technology in the past and hope to do so again in the future. Britain and the USA are the only two countries with an oil bourse, currently trading in US dollars, and Iran is trying to open a rival bourse trading in euro. The whole issue is only peripherally about nuclear weapons, what it is really about is power and money. Political power in the middle east, economic control of oil reserves, and support for the current situation of the US dollar as the world's currency standard. The position of each country is dependant on their stance on these major issues, but putting that into a properly referenced article is a very difficult task. I guess thats why no-one has done it yet. --Dave 22:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Do you think so?!ellol 03:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Bizarre. Do you really believe that either France, Germany, Russia or China are America's puppets? Or that an oil bourse is a reason to go to war over? The issue seems to be pretty clearly over the likelihood of the mad mullahs of Iran using those nuclear weapons against anyone they dislike. Simesa 05:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Simesa, that's a fairly simplistic interpretation of the situation. All six powers have their own agenda on the issue; in general, they're not terribly impressed with nuclear proliferation, but there's a whole lot of other issues that may or may not be influencing what they'd be prepared to do about the issue. If you want to get Machiavellian...Russia, for instance, is a big oil and gas exporter. So the present tensions are making them a great deal of money... --Robert Merkel 06:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Just changed the intro to reflect that this isn't purely a U.S. concern. Here's a non-involved-country's cite [22]. Simesa 19:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC) - link superseded

Stance towards Israel

Just done a big clean up of this section, which was pretty shocking, frankly. Loads of unattributed stuff, bad english, POV, and the summary of 7 points had stuff which wasn't even mentioned in the section, along with spurious references to Hizbollah. Also, writing about countries as if they were people reads poorly and is unrepresentative and non-encyclopedic. Avoid weasel words and use citations please.Felix-felix 07:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Nuclear program of Iran vs. Iran and weapons of mass destruction

If we're going to move all discussion of Iran's suspected attempts to develop nuclear weapons into the latter article, several sections will have to be moved. Pending discussion, I'll do that tomorrow. Simesa 01:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Brzezinski and Vanunu subsections

Simesa, you've probably forgot to copy this into other article. Placing them here for temporaty storage. ellol 16:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Zbigniew Brzezinski

The UPI claimed on July 19, 2004, that making a speech at the Council of Foreign Relations in Washington, Brzezinski emphasized that a military choice of disrupting Iran's nuclear facilities should be "a last resort, only to be used under extreme provocation or in the face of imminent danger." And added that "It would be much tougher to take out Iran's nuclear facilities than the Osirak operation of 1981. There are multiple sites, some of them deep underground, and they are close to cities, so it would be a very difficult operation which could involve large numbers of civilian casualties."[3]

From a speech delivered by Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski on October 12, 2004, at the Johns Hopkins University entitled "Threats, Dangers, and Uncertainties", which was sponsored by the Office of Force Transformation and the United States Navy as part of seminar series called "National Security in the 21st Century — Rethinking the Principles of War":

"Already a younger generation [in Iran] wants greater modernization in the society. This younger generation is more nationalistic than religious, and they want to play a role in the government. They want nuclear weapons if Israel has them and that is not an illegitimate view. Iran is now a serious country with a serious role and it does not have a record of irrational aggression".

From a keynote address delivered by Brzezinsky on March 16, 2006, at the Center for American Progress entitled "Iraq: Next Steps for U.S. Policy":

"Why is it[our policy towards Iran] so different from our policy towards North Korea? North Korea is perhaps doing more of what we don’t want the Iranians to be doing. Yet with North Korea we are engaged in direct multilateral negotiations{...}. We refuse to do that in the case of Iran."
"Are we perhaps trying to prevent a compromise? Do we really want Iran to desist, or do we want to drive it into extremism? It surely cannot be our deliberate intention to fuse Iranian nationalism with Iranian fundamentalism. But that is precisely what we are doing. As a general proposition, without going into any further detail on Iran, in international affairs, sometimes delaying something undesirable is far more effective than seeking directly to prevent it. And I believe that in the long run, time is on our side with Iran." [4]

See also Been there, done that, the article in Los Angeles Times by Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski, April 23, 2006.


Mordechai Vanunu

Former Israeli nuclear technician Mordechai Vanunu on Iranian nuclear program:

"Under the control of the IAEA, Iran does not pose any threat. Western experts perfectly know the nature of the Iranian nuclear program, contrary to Israel, which does not let anyone enter its nuclear facilities. That is why Iran decided to take a step forward and to tell the world: “You can not demand more transparency from us while closing your eyes to what is happening in Israel!” As long as the world continues to ignore Israel’s atomic weapons, they will not have the moral authority to say anything about Iran. If the world is really concerned, if they want to put an end to nuclear proliferation, then they have to start from the beginning, that is, Israel".
  1. ^ Interview with Condoleezza Rice. U.S. Department of State (February 12, 2006).
  2. ^ Debate on Iran in the UK House of Commons – Part 1. Iran Focus (February 1, 2006).
  3. ^ Martin Walker (July 19, 2004). "Analysis: Why the U.S. should engage Iran."
  4. ^ Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski(Rush transcript) (March 16, 2006). "Iraq: Next Steps for U.S. Policy."


Actually, I didn't forget, but we should discuss them and see what the consensus is. I see these two quotes as speaking pretty much for themselves - whereas my quote of Condoleeza Rice, speaking for the U.S. government, got axed. There's a strong question of balance here. How about Kissinger, someone very highly respected, in [23]? Simesa 19:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I trust your taste. Think all points of view should be shown. ellol 08:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


Incentives?

Should this article be updated to reflect the recent package of incentives proposed by the E.U./U.S. and Condi Rice's declaration that the U.S. acknowledges Iran's right to peaceful nuclear power? I would have thought these developments would be pretty important to this article, but I wasn't sure how to work them into the article's current structure. --Nomenclaturist 01:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Ford library documents

I was going to shore up the following paragraph when I realized that I couldn't find the documents mentioned on the site given:

A number of declassified documents were found on the website of the President Ford Library and Museum[5] Two documents in particular, dated April 22, 1975 and April 20, 1976, show that the United States and Iran held negotiations for cooperation in the use of nuclear energy and the United States was willing to help Iran by setting up uranium enrichment and fuel reprocessing facilities.[6]

The only April 22, 1975 document that I found was this one which has nothing about Iran in it. There is no April 20, 1976 document.

I found this document (March 14, 1975) which discusses Iranian atomic energy plans but does not say that the US would set up enrichment or reprocessing facilities (it is a request for a study about the possibility of the US selling Iran a reactor or Iran being able to use US enrichment facilities). I couldn't find any other documents relating to Iran and nuclear things. I've remove the above text from the article for now until it is substantiated. --Fastfission 22:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The documents do indeed exist. They are National Security Decision Memorandum 292 dated 22 April 1975 and National Security Decision Memorandum 324 dated 20 April 1976. According to 292, "the U.S. shall: Permit U.S. material to be fabricated into fuel in Iran for use in its own reactors." 324 states "The U.S. side should: Seek a strong political commitment from Iran to pursue the multinational/binational reprocessing plant concept." These documents clearly substantiate the text removed from the article. Cpeter 10:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The Names of Directors of Iran's Nuclear Program

Here are the names and positions of some of the highest ranking Iranian scientists in charge of Iran's secret nuclear program in the Persian Wiki fa:مدیران پروژه اتمی ایران, (that was not known before) so if someone knws Persian I thought is very interesting to make an article about it. --Kaaveh 06:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

What Alan Dershowitz said on Iranian nuclear program

I just heard Alan Dershowitz on OUradio.com say that Iran was putting some of its nuclear activities beneath hospitals so they wouldn't be bombed. If true, this would be huge. Is their any corroborating evidence for this at all?

NickDupree 12:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

NickDupree;12:49;31 August 2006. If you look at the map of Iran you will see that Iran is a very mountainous country. Tehran itself is 1100 - 1700 m above sea level and is next to the Alborz mountain renge and its Mount Damāvand being 5,610 m tall just next to Tehran. So, if Iran decide to hide its nuclear facilities don’t you think digging a few short tunnels under the mountain would firstly be easier and secondly far securer (being 3000-4000 m under surface) than the basement of a hospital? Do you know any bunker buster or even nuclear bomb that can even scratch the surface of that mountain? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alborz

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Damavand Kiumars

References

Please divide the double references into a, b, c, d, ... etc.100110100 23:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Debatus.com Iran debate link

I’ve been told by Wikipedia administrators that I shouldn’t make external links on Wikipedia articles that are also debates on a wiki site I founded: www.debatus.com. This makes sense. I have been told, though, that I can see on the discussion pages if Wikipedia users other than myself would consider making such external links. There are a number of debates on Debatus about Iran, one of particular relevance is "Does Iran have the "right" to enrich Uranium for the production of nuclear energy?" If anyone is willing, consider assessing the value of the debate and making it an external link in this article. I think that doing so would fit the criteria of improving this article because Wikipedia does not seek to cover the entire scope of the arguments made on controversial issues, and traditional mediums that are provided as external links do not present all of the arguments of the debate in a kind of concise bird’s-eye way. In addition, Debatus, being a wiki, follows the same philosophy as Wikipedia and produces equally as refined debate content, which should be considered. Loudsirens 05:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Loudsirens;05:10,26 September 2006; The Time magazine had an article on Wiki and in the conclusion said “Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia not based on facts but based on consensus”. The article stopped short of saying “the consensus of mostly non-qualified contributors!”. So I agree with Wiki refusing another non-qualified source because as you can see on this article people cannot even come to consensus based on semi-qualified sources! Let's not make it more complicated! Kiumars

Iran and the NPT

Details of specific 'evidence' of questionable validity and relevance could be confined to the main article on Iran and WMD, could it not? Especially as the IAEA found no evidence of nukes in Iran, and this article concerns the NPT and breaches thereof. I've reverted much of the last edit and phrased it more neutrally-lets bang our heads together and work something relevant out here.Felix-felix 09:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

You can't expect to say solely that the IAEA found nothing when the IAEA has now found something solid. I'll try to work with you, but that doesn't include misconstruing the situation. Simesa 17:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
What did they find that's "solid"?
Also, what's this sentence got to do with the NPT?
"however, any gas centrifuge cascade has the capability to be arranged to produce such material, and Iran plans to operate 54,000 of them."
All the bestFelix-felix 15:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
The article references what the IAEA found. Now I understand that the IAEA said these traces "could plausibly" be from fuel sent by the US - but how it got out of the fuel bundles hasn't been explained. "after more than three years of investigation, the IAEA is still unable to conclude definitively whether the Iranian program is peaceful or has more sinister ambitions." [24]
There was a statement that the equipment Iran had could not be used to enrich uranium to bomb-grade - this is false. I'll agree to removing the statement about the equipment entirely. Simesa 00:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, but the addition of the last sentence is a bit misleading-from the citation; A senior UN official who was familiar with the report cautioned against reading too much into the new finds of traces of highly enriched uranium and plutonium, saying Iran had provided explanations for both that were now being examined by the agency and - if confirmed - could be plausibly classified as the byproducts of peaceful nuclear activities.' This brings us back to the main point-that this section is called 'Iran's nuclear programme and the NPT' if there's no NPT violation here, then stuff like this should stay in the Iran WMD article-this section should surely deal strictly with compliance/violation issues with the NPT. We should either add a qualifier or cut it out entirely.Felix-felix 15:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I've adjusted the sentence to reflect the citation now.

Timeline

I suggest moving the timeline to a separate article. Khodavand 09:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

کس نخارد پشت من جز ناخن انگشت من

کس نخارد پشت من جز ناخن انگشت من

This is an old Iranian saying and it means “You should not rely on anyone but yourself”. Kiumars

Is that essentially the same as the Arab one that goes, "I against my brothers, I and my brothers against my cousins, I and my cousins against the world."? You have to understand that that seems an odd concept to societies that have prospered based largely on teamwork. Simesa 21:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I think that expression is about teamwork.Felix-felix 00:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually, according to Bedouin, the Arab quote (common to several countries) apparently refers to a mindset that the tribe is the largest unit of teamwork (this is echoed in the book The Arab Mind - however, the book says the quote also resembles the intent of the Iranian saying). Simesa 04:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • This Iranian proverb actually means “If you want something to be done, do it yourself, don’t wait for help because it may never come”. Reading the history of the Iranian Nuclear program here, I thought that was an appropriate proverb. Kiumars

Copyvio

Please be careful of taking text directly from copyrighted material without placing quotes around it. I found two paragraphs had been taken almost word-for-word from the Washoington Post. You can rewrite the material so as to be non-offending. See WP:copyvio. Simesa 05:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Sanctions and non-compliance

Changed sentence to more accurately reflect reason for sanctions being sought.No breach of the NPT has ever been shown.Felix-felix 10:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Mossad assassination of Iranian nuclear scientist

Ardeshire Hassanpour, a prize winning Iranian nuclear scientist has been assassinated last week by Israel's Mossad according to Stratfor. See:

--64.230.125.182 17:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Guys, guys! Do you think Iran really gives the name of the brains behind the project so that they could be assassinated? All the names you see on the front page are fakes. It is the same everywhere! Kiumars


Who "breached" the Paris Agreement?

You keep deleting references to the fact that the EU-3 violated the terms of the Paris Agrement by submitting a proposal to Iran on Aug 5th that analysts called an "empty box" since it would only "consider" providing incentives to Iran, and the security guarantees it contained were only from the European states, and which still required that Iran permanently give up nuclear enrichment technology - despite the explicit terms of the Paris agreement that required the EU to recognize Iran's rights. Also, note that the EU3 dragged its feet in submitting even that proposal, trying to drag out Iran's "temporary" suspension.

See: http://www.basicint.org/pubs/Notes/BN050811-IranEU.htm (EU offer was an "empty box") http://www.spinwatch.org/content/view/209/8/ (who really "breached" the Paris agreement) http://www.acronym.org.uk/docs/0508/doc03.htm (Iran's detailed response to the EU-3 offer)

AND, Iran's decision to resume enrichment had no relationship whatsoever to Ahmadinejad's election, as you imply. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.26.54.10 (talk) 17:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC). 12.26.54.10 17:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)Cy

Perhaps you are right, but the sources you cite are not credible. Spinwatch is an opinion cite, and basicint.org website states that it is committed to a particular point of view. Try to find better analysis. As to the election, it is to be expected that a new government would change policy. If you think it's not the case, please provide sources. CDaMama 18:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Spinwatch and BASIC all cite to the text of the Paris Agreement and the Iranian response to the EU offer which you're ignoring. The Iranians didn't just say the EU offer was "insulting" - they said it violated the terms of the Paris Agreement. Why not allow the readers to judge the veracity of the "opinions" of BASIC and Spinwatch which are amply backed up by facts instead of just reporting the EU version of events without any analysis or context? 67.81.186.142 02:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)d

And the EU offer was dated Aug 5. This predates Ahmadinejad's assumption of office. Iran made it clear long before Ahmadinejad's election taht they would not suspend enrichment. The whole Irnaian nuclear file is outside of Ahmadinejad's control anyway - so it is misleading to link his election to it. Why do you insist on that?

Thanks for the reply. The fact that the websites cite the text of the agreement does not make them credible. Please do try to find better sources. However, I defer to your assessment of the situation, since you're probably more knowledgeable about Iran than I do.CDaMama 05:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../n/u/c/Talk%7ENuclear_program_of_Iran_Archive2_d36b.html"