Top Leaderboard, Site wide
November 24, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Get Truthdig's headlines in your inbox!


Bronze Age Lost Its Cutting Edge Before Climate Crisis




Joan of Arc


Truthdig Bazaar
Yogi Berra: Eternal Yankee

Yogi Berra: Eternal Yankee

By Allen Barra
$18.45

more items

 
Ear to the Ground

Iran Opens Nuke Fuel Plant

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Apr 9, 2009

Not to let North Korea hog the nuclear spotlight, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad presided over the opening of a nuclear fuel facility on Thursday. With Vulcan flair, he declared, “The Iranian nation has from the beginning been after logic and negotiations, but negotiations based on justice and complete respect for rights and regulations.”

BBC:

The move came as Tehran considered an offer by six world powers, including the United States, to take part in fresh talks on the crisis.

“The Iranian nation has from the beginning been after logic and negotiations, but negotiations based on justice and complete respect for rights and regulations,” Mr Ahmadinejad was quoted as saying on Thursday.

“One-sided negotiations, conditional negotiations, negotiations in an atmosphere of threat are not something that any free person would accept,” he said.

Read more

More Below the Ad

Advertisement

Square, Site wide

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By KDelphi, April 14, 2009 at 1:59 pm Link to this comment

Pakistan has nukes and is unstable. North Korea just set off a missile and is unstable. Iraq did not have nukes, but was slighlty unstable.

We invaded Iraq and occupied it. We talk to North Korea. The uS and Israel “will not tolerate’ nukes in Iran and will invade. Israel doesnt even admit that they are a nuclear power. We sell nukes to Saudi Arabia and Israel….What is wrong with this picture?

Report this

By Marshall, April 13, 2009 at 3:55 pm Link to this comment

“Haven’t you comprehended the basic premise of this article? Iran is only in non-compliance with the additional constraints.”

Ed - you’re gonna have to clarify what article you’re talking about; neither the blurb above nor the BBC article it links mention safeguards or Iran’s compliance so i’m a little baffled here.

“The IAEA has not[i/] said that Iran is violating the NPT’s safeguard provisions - only the additional “safeguards” that are illegal anyway.”

Au contrar - to wit: “1. Finds that Iran’s many failures and breaches of its obligations to comply with its NPT Safeguards Agreement, as detailed in GOV/2003/75, constitute non compliance in the context of Article XII.C of the Agency’s Statute;”

http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2005/gov2005-77.pdf

Iran is ALSO in non-compliance with the additional protocol, which you and some unnamed author have apparently chosen to declare as “illegal” since those parts of the safeguards agreement don’t suit you.

FYI - nothing’s illegal until it has been ruled as such by a court of law, so you either buy the IAEA’s authority or you don’t.

“larger question of whether Iran’s flouting of these added strictures could possibly be an issue worth going to war over”

That’s a policy decision to be taken by the UN nations and we are well within our duty to consider recourse for breaches in the agreement.

Report this
Ed Harges's avatar

By Ed Harges, April 13, 2009 at 12:37 pm Link to this comment

Marshall writes:

“IAEA has certified Iran as not in compliance with safeguards agreement…”

No, Marshall. Haven’t you comprehended the basic premise of this article? Iran is only in non-compliance with the additional constraints. The IAEA has not[i/] said that Iran is violating the NPT’s safeguard provisions - only the additional “safeguards” that are illegal anyway.

Iran’s position, which the author endorses, is that those additional constraints are illegal. That’s the premise of this article. Iran doesn’t have to comply with this crap. The author has examined the legal arguments and has concluded that these additional constraints are illegal, and therefore Iran is justified in refusing to comply with them any longer. Now do you understand?

Furthermore, there is the larger question of whether Iran’s flouting of these added strictures could possibly be an issue worth going to war over, even if the constraints are legal.

The answer to that question is: no freaking way.

Report this

By Folktruther, April 13, 2009 at 11:50 am Link to this comment

Iran is being threatened with attacks and bombing, including nuclear bombing, by Israel and the US.  Indeed, the US-Israeli currently is arming and supporting terrorist minority groups in Iran.

Under those conditions Iran has a perfect right to create nulcear weapons in its defense to deter attack.  What Japan and Brazil have done is get to the point technically so they can rapidly make them if they feel they need them, without US publically objecting.  This may be what Iran wishes to do; or perhaps not.  But US and Israel are the aggressors, under the media bullshit that Iran is bent on the destruction of Israel.

But this can be avoided if the US garantees Iran’s security from US-Israli attack.  It is obvious that threats will not do it, especially in the face of its allies resistence, both Russia and China.  So Obama has no reasonable choice.  But he may be so in politcal debt to the Zionists that he cannot resist Israeli war hysteria successfully.  In which case, a worse disaster looms than the ones the Bushites created.

Report this

By Marshall, April 12, 2009 at 8:44 pm Link to this comment

By Ed Harges, April 12 at 10:31 am #

Really no need for the ad hominem Ed, but with regard to NPT: IAEA has certified Iran as not in compliance with safeguards agreement, and is suspicious of Iran’s intent with its nuclear program.  It also points to its “history of concealment” with regard to this, and Iran continues to refuse to comply with UN security council’s demand to halt enrichment.  The US NIE found that Iran did in fact have a nuclear weapons program, but likely halted it in 2003, though it would also likely have enough enriched uranium for such a bomb by 2010 or so and could restart at any time (and now may already have).

Now you may think that IAEA is perfectly happy with Iran’s word, but the problem is that it’s not.  That gives every country that takes Iran seriously in its stated goals of removing Israel from existence.  Yes yes i know: you and others here agree whole heartedly with Ahmadinejad’s hatred of the U.S. and israel… but I don’t.  I actually like the country i live in and accept the fact that Israel is an ally.  What’s bad for the ME is bad for the world i’m afraid, given the importance of that region.  So the administration is right to be concerned with Iran’s intentions and be willing to give that concern teeth, or it’ll mean absolutely nothing.

Report this
Ed Harges's avatar

By Ed Harges, April 12, 2009 at 3:35 pm Link to this comment

re: By Paolo, April 12 at 11:23 am:

Indeed, Paolo, you’re right: there is literally not a shred of evidence for some other, hidden, parallel Iranian nuclear program — one that is developing weapons, perhaps inside a hollowed-out mountain somewhere —  while Iran’s non-weapons nuclear activities and materials remain completely accounted for under the watchful eye of the IAEA.

And this is the same IAEA that was not believed when it told the world, during the run-up to Bush’s invasion of Iraq, that there was similarly no evidence whatsover of an Iraqi nuclear weapons program (while diplomatically admitting that it could never rule it out with absolutely perfect confidence).  But no, we can’t believe the IAEA; we have to continue believing the pro-Israel “experts” who we know have lied and lied and lied to us many times over, with ever more catastrophic consequences. If we refuse to believe them or even take them seriously, we’re anti-Semites, of course.

Israel’s obedient helpers in the US corporate media regularly refer to the unnamed “experts” who “believe that Iran may be developing nuclear weapons”, but there is literally NOTHING supporting this “belief.” This is all about Israel’s exalted idea of itself: no one else is allowed to have enrichment technology, because Israel must have perpetual supremacy in all things.

Report this

By KDelphi, April 12, 2009 at 10:12 am Link to this comment

I wish that no one had nukes. But, until we start whittling down our stockpile (certainly largest in the world, while some of our people, live in poverty—and we criticize North Korean govt..pretty soon it will be the only one that we can fairly criticize), we will not have any moral authrotity as to who should have them and who shouldnt.

If we go to nuclear power, as so many are suggesting now, there will just be more loose nuclear material in the world. We still dont know what to do with it.

If Israel attacks Iran, all bets are off for any of that “stuff you wanted to do in the Middle East”—and Afghanistan. We will be screwed there…

Report this
Paolo's avatar

By Paolo, April 12, 2009 at 8:23 am Link to this comment

Seems to me the burden of proof lies on the one who asserts the positive. Thus, if you claim, “Iran has a nuclear weapons program,” it is up to you to supply proof that your assertion is correct.

To this date, I have seen no one who makes that assertion actually offer EVIDENCE, much less PROOF, that Iran has a nuclear weapons program.

Hysterical anti-Iranians bent on ginning up another splendid war think just making empty assertions is all that’s needed. Unfortunately, given the recent example of Iraq, they are probably right.

Folks, Iran has not invaded another country in over 200 years. They have a GNP about on a par with Denmark. Although I am no fan of Obama, he had it right during the campaign when he said Iran is a weak country that cannot threaten the US.

And of course, Iran is a signatory to the NPT. Israel is not. Iran allows intrusive inspections as part of the protocol of being an NPT signatory. Israel, of course, does not, although it is considered the world’s worst-kept “secret” that Israel has over a hundred nukes, which puts it decades ahead of Iran in the nuclear arms race, even if Iran were in the race.

Report this
Ed Harges's avatar

By Ed Harges, April 12, 2009 at 7:31 am Link to this comment

re: By Marshall, April 12 at 1:52 am #

Marshall wants to know if I mean that we should “take the Iranians at their word that they are not pursuing” nuclear weapons.

No, I didn’t say that, nor can that be non-idiotically inferred from what I did say.

Marshall, poor thing, I laid unmistakable stress on compliance with the NPT. Did you notice that by any chance? Are you trying to read too fast? Do you need more coffee?

Any-hoo: the NPT, which is what I said all concerned ought to respect, does not propose that any signatories be taken at their word. There is a regime of safeguards that includes lots of inspections and monitoring and so on. So, you’d think that Marshall could not possibly have concluded that I mean we should merely take Iran at its word about not developing nuclear weapons.

Nevertheless, the talented Mr. Marshall managed to get that out of what I said.

Report this

By Nap, April 12, 2009 at 12:36 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Zionist need not worry on Iran talks but the welfare of their benefactor, America’s problems run much deeper. Iran’s threat and talk are now just a distraction for the elephant in the room. Obama is Bush humoring Iran.

http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/28045,features,world-leaders-episode-6-youre-a-big-titted-liar

Report this

By Marshall, April 11, 2009 at 10:52 pm Link to this comment

By Ed Harges, April 11 at 11:56 pm #

So Ed - what you’re saying, if I understand you is this:

While we wouldn’t necessarily want Iran to have nukes, we take them at their word that they are not pursuing them.  And even if they are, it’s not a big enough issue for us to do anything substantive about it.

Do I have that about right (your opinions about Israel aside)?

Report this
Ed Harges's avatar

By Ed Harges, April 11, 2009 at 9:07 pm Link to this comment

Please read this cogent analysis by Jeremy R. Hammond in the latest Foreign Policy Journal, showing exactly why Iran is completely in the right: it’s nuclear program is completely legal; Israel and its obedient US government servants are completely in the wrong:

A common refrain in the Western media is that Iran’s nuclear program is illegal, “outlawed”....

This assertion is based on the fact that the U.N. Security Council passed a number of resolutions calling on Iran to halt its enrichment activities and imposing sanctions on the country….

The U.S. view, adopted elsewhere as well, is that the resolutions are binding and by failing to heed their demands Iran is in violation of international law.

Iran’s view, of course, is that as a signatory of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT), who has not been shown to have been developing a parallel weapons program, their program is perfectly legal and their right to enrich uranium guaranteed under international law. It is therefore the U.N. resolutions themselves which are illegal, a violation of the very Charter under which they were passed and therefore null and void.

There can only be one correct interpretation. In this case, a reading of the relevant texts under international law clearly demonstrates that Iran’s interpretation is actually the correct one.

http://foreignpolicyjournal.com/2009/04/08/irans-outlawed-nuclear-program/

Report this
Ed Harges's avatar

By Ed Harges, April 11, 2009 at 8:56 pm Link to this comment

Marshall asks:

“Are there any countries you would not like to have them [nukes]?”

That’s really not the relevant question.

The question is: of the countries in the world which we would rather not have nuclear weapons, are there any that we believe we ought to go to war against, simply for having developed the capacity to enrich uranium, even though they have signed the NPT and are complying with its provisions?

The answer to that question, for any sane person, is “no”.

And a second question is: are there, especially, any such countries we want to go to war against in order to protect the regional hegemony and nuclear monopoly of Israel, which has a huge nuclear arsenal, hasn’t signed the NPT, and habitually attacks its neighbors and steals their land?

The answer to that question, for any sane person, is “hell no”.

Report this

By Marshall, April 11, 2009 at 6:22 pm Link to this comment

By Erroll, April 10 at 5:31 pm #

Erroll - I’m well aware of what Iran says it wants.  But that’s not the question i asked: are you good with Iran having nukes?  Are there any countries you would not like to have them?

Report this

By geronimo, April 11, 2009 at 4:12 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The Iran Reactor Fuss Is One More Manufactured Scare

“As per the Cold War, Domino theory & WMD?”

“Exactly.”

“Why manufacture scares?”

“To justify wars of conquest along with its prerequisite, massive military spending

“Otherwise?”

“A peaceful and just world.”

“Based on?”

“One equals one.”

“Anything else?”

“Liberty and justice for all.”

Report this
Paolo's avatar

By Paolo, April 10, 2009 at 4:51 pm Link to this comment

Ed Harges, you said it all!

Iran has every right to process and enrich Uranium to reactor grade (3 percent or so of U-238).

Only the blundering, stupid US Administration could make a nutcake like Ahmadi-Nejad look logical!

As a libertarian, I would have a many points of disagreement with Ahmadi-Nejad. But, in the final analysis, those are HIS problems, not mine!

Neutrality in foreign affairs, folks! America should become a free society with minimal taxes, honest money, and general prosperity: a beacon to the world.

I still think, perhaps idealistically, that liberals and libertarians have much more in common than either side thinks. If you want to see the stinking center of all evil in the world, examine the Neocons.

Report this

By Erroll, April 10, 2009 at 2:31 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

What Marshall at 04-10 at 5:04pm does not seem to understand is that Iran has never said that it wishes to build a [that is one] nuclear weapon as compared to Israel’s 200-400 nuclear weapons. On the contrary, it has consistently maintained that it desires to build a nuclear energy program to help its people despite the continual saber rattling and the distortions put forth on the part of Barack Obama.

Report this

By Marshall, April 10, 2009 at 2:04 pm Link to this comment

By Afif Elias, April 10 at 6:58 am #

“Who give us the right to possess nuclear weapons”

So Afif - you’re good with Iran having nukes?  Syria too?  Any countries you don’t think should have ‘em?

Report this
Ed Harges's avatar

By Ed Harges, April 10, 2009 at 10:07 am Link to this comment

Besides a moral right, Iran has a perfect legal right, under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), to produce its own nuclear fuel. In fact, the NPT explicitly states that signatories have an “inalienable right” to do this, and that it is the duty of nations having this technology to help other nations acquire it.

On the other hand, the US is forbidden by law to provide military aid to Israel. Why? Well, among other reasons, there is the fact that Israel has a nuclear arsenal but is not a signatory to the NPT.

The Symington Amendment of 1976 and the Glenn Amendment of 1977 prohibit US military assistance to countries that acquire or transfer nuclear reprocessing technology outside of international nonproliferation regimes. Israel, unlike Iran, is not a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. If Congress wishes to provide US taxpayer funded foreign aid to Israel in compliance with US law, it may do so only under a special waiver from the office of the President as in the case for Pakistan.

(See: irmep.org)

This special waiver has not been sought in the case of Israel, because the Holy State owns our foreign policy. In fact, even with the special waiver, any aid to Israel would be subject to strict conditions which are not applied to US aid to Israel. In fact, no conditions whatsoever effectively apply to US aid to Israel, which is worse than useless to the US as any sort of “ally”.

Report this

By mud, April 10, 2009 at 9:12 am Link to this comment

If it’s good for the goose…

Report this

By Afif Elias, April 10, 2009 at 3:58 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Who give us the right to possess nuclear weapons and those like israel who disregard any laws and yet dedicate to other countries what they can and can’t do.  We, the USA, are hypocrite at best and crminal at minum.

Report this

By SteveK9, April 9, 2009 at 5:58 pm Link to this comment

A ‘crisis’ is not something that goes on for years (or decades).

Report this
 
Monsters of Our Own Creation? Get tickets for this Truthdig discussion of America's role in the Middle East.
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.

Like Truthdig on Facebook