Is the Iranian peaceful nuclear power genuine?

[Titus Livius]

Is the Iranian peaceful nuclear power genuine?

Do they have any need or are they lieing to get a nuclear weapon?

[hellheaven1987]

Look at Pakistan and you would realize nuke does prevent others to invade you.

[Vizsla]

Iran is a very hydrocarbon rich country. It is hard to see why they would need nuclear other than for making bombs. I can’t picture them being overly concerned about their carbon dioxide emissions. They have also developed medium range missiles capable of firing nuclear bombs at Israel.

Thing is they’ve been lying about this the whole time.
So how can anyone trust anything they say ever again?
For example, if they say they have peaceful intentions towards Israel or Turkey or Saudi Arabia or anywhere at all, or that they aren’t going to supply terrorists with nukes, we might as well just assume they’re going to do the opposite of whatever they say.
So the most logical course of action is to attack them first.

[spanish_emperor]

Iran is a very hydrocarbon rich country. It is hard to see why they would need nuclear other than for making bombs. I can’t picture them being overly concerned about their carbon dioxide emissions. They have also developed medium range missiles capable of firing nuclear bombs at Israel.

Thing is they’ve been lying about this the whole time.
So how can anyone trust anything they say ever again?
For example, if they say they have peaceful intentions towards Israel or Turkey or Saudi Arabia or anywhere at all, or that they aren’t going to supply terrorists with nukes, we might as well just assume they’re going to do the opposite of whatever they say.
So the most logical course of action is to attack them first.

you might want to do some research. Iran desperately needs nuclear energy:

"Iran's strong case for nuclear power is obscured by UN sanctions and geopolitics" is a scientific article by David Wood of the UK; published in the journal “Atoms for Peace: An International Journal 2007 - Vol. 1, No.4 pp. 287 – 300” which provides certain motives for peaceful nuclear energy in Iran. The article discusses how, although Iran maintains massive oil and gas reserves, it lacks the ability to refine those raw materials into petroleum and gas. Such is the dilemma that it cannot produce enough to meet domestic demand and is forced to import these refined commodities. According to David Wood, the problem emerges from under-investment and lack of technology in the area. Normally, foreign investment would provide the country with the industrial development but it has been impossible because of U.S. imposed sanctions since 1979. To counteract this problem, the Iranian government has decided to turn to nuclear energy since it is the most efficient and cost effective method of breaching this gap. This has caused controversy in its neighbors who fear it might secretly develop a nuclear weapons program. The UN Security Council, under NATO control, managed to place sanctions of Iran’s Nuclear Industry after its refusal to cease uranium enrichment in 2006.

Wood provides a few cases for Iranian nuclear energy development. The first is a growth in demand for electricity and points to the population increase from the 1970s to the 2000s has doubled to approximately 70 million inhabitants. Wood points out that, rather than oil production following pace, it has decreased since the revolution while “domestic oil consumption has risen some 75% since 1990 (more than 8% per year) and reached 1.66 million barrels per day in 2005, some 41% of total oil production and up from 29% in 1990.” (Wood, D. 2007, pp.290) He goes on to state how Iran’s dependency of oil has cost national export revenues tens of billions of dollars because of the enormous subsidies while contributing to environmental degradation.

The second motive for nuclear energy development is the lack of refinery ability that forces it to import these commodities. This growing dependency is dangerous considering the U.S. support of Iranian sanctions on this specific area. By 2006, Iran imported 41% of its gasoline demand. With the U.S. planning on placing sanctions, Iran will be forced to import from a lower number of nations which will drive prices and force it to spend more than the five billion USD per year which could be used for other purposes. If a sanction on imported oil and gas does materialize, Iran could have a hard time attempting to maintain current supply, which could force the people to rise up in protest for the higher prices of gasoline and natural gas as winter approaches. Cutting this dependency on imports would do Iran much good against hostile neighbors. Iran is a major gas producer with production increasing since 1990. However, most of the gas is consumed domestically and “in 2005, Iran was a net gas importer with consumption recorded at 8.6 bcfd with gas coming into northeast Iran through Neka from Turkmenistan” (Wood, D. 2007, pp. 290) and gas imports from Turkmenistan increasing. This only serves to increase the dependency on imports which is expensive and dangerous.

The third reason is the economic inconveniency posed by relying on oil fired electricity. The majority of the oil and gas fields in Iran are situated in the south of the country and in the Persian Gulf. Yet, the majority of the Iranian population is situated in the north, causing long and expensive transportation through the mountainous countryside. It would be much more convenient if the oil and gas were used for exporting rather than domestic consumption. As the report notes: “in spite of investments in nuclear power being substantially more expensive than gas-fired power generation and taking longer to have an impact on domestic energy consumption, the long-term benefits for Iran's economy and environment by generating some 20% of its electricity from nuclear power are reasonable aspirations.” (Wood, D. 2007, pp.291) Nuclear energy would allow nearby electricity to the major cities and free up gas and oil production for exports which would provide greater profits and revenues.


The article examines some of the alarmist positions and debunks some of their theories. One claim is that Iran hadn’t previously investigated on nuclear power until the 1979 when it became aggressively anti-Israeli. However, Wood addresses this concern by pointing out that nuclear power was already discussed prior to the revolution in the 1960s and that “The former Shah of Iran had a vision of a national electrical grid powered by nuclear power plants.” (Wood, D. 2007, pp. 299) He also asserts that Iran is not simply investing in nuclear power but rather has also invested in renewable energies such as wind and solar. The problems with renewable energies are that they are too expensive and inefficient to cover the amount of demand required. The availability to uranium deposits in Iran further supports nuclear power.

i wrote this myself two weeks ago. There is no evidence that Iran is pursuing a nuke.


BTW: calling Iran untrustworthy? Iran assisted in Afghanistan with intelligence (iran was and is allied to the northern alliance) Iran assisted U.S. in intelligence in the Iraq war. Iran proposed becoming a strong U.S. ally but it was the U.S. who betrayed her.



and lets not forget:
"it was Cheney and Rumsfeld who made sure that Washington dismissed Iran's May 2003 offer to open up its nuclear program, rein in Hezbollah and cooperate against al-Qaeda".[79]

[Vizsla]

If they were able to get around sanctions in order to develop nuclear then they could easily have expended a tiny proportion of those resources to build a few more refineries over a thirty year period.

[spanish_emperor]

If they were able to get around sanctions in order to develop nuclear then they could easily have expended a tiny proportion of those resources to build a few more refineries over a thirty year period.

Demand is growing beyond the expansion of refineries. These sanctions go a long way back. its nuclear industry has only just recently being placed in sanctions.

[Closetu]

..They have also developed medium range missiles capable of firing nuclear bombs at Israel.

..So the most logical course of action is to attack them first.

Then let Israel invade or bomb Iran. Don't drag everyone into it. Israel doesn't give a shyte what everyone thinks when they break international law anyway.

[alhoon]

we might as well just assume they’re going to do the opposite of whatever they say.
So the most logical course of action is to attack them first.

Attacking them first, based on assumptions is, IMO, ethically wrong. It's like condemning a man to prison after assuming he intended to do robbery.

[megaman]

Attacking them first, based on assumptions is, IMO, ethically wrong. It's like condemning a man to prison after assuming he intended to do robbery.

the modern regime in iran came to be through imprisoning the staff of the american embassy for 444 days. you can say that iran has declared war on the US and has continued in this path through various operations like the bombing of the american barracks in lebanon through what is widely considered as its proxy militia. so iran is actually fair game. also iran is responsible in the eyes of many for the bombings in argentina and many other things which put it at war with other players.

the more correct analogy would be that if a little girl went missing and you are a convicted pedophile and we want to check your house and you refuse to open the door then do we or do we not have the right to brake your door down and check? maybe not but there is a girl in austria who even you would not have the nerve to say it to.

[Yosemite]

Iran is a very hydrocarbon rich country. It is hard to see why they would need nuclear other than for making bombs.

that's a silly reason

it's always bad to rely on one type of energy for everything

[Poet]

Look at Pakistan and you would realize nuke does prevent others to invade you.

Yeah look at us. Hey anybody would tell me why India is so humble with us?

[Rome101]

Look at Pakistan and you would realize nuke does prevent others to invade you.

Like I said in the other thread, this is not true.
Actually in the other thread I asked you to define what you consider an invasion. Come to think of it, a great example had been hiding under my nose the whole time: Israel had nuclear capabilities since the 1960's, but it was invaded and almost brought down to total annihilation during the 70's.

Nuclear weapons are a deterrent only in certain cases.



As to the OP's question:
the UN report was crystal clear. Couple that with the Iranian constant denial and already-exposed wall of lies and you have a recipe for disaster.

[hellheaven1987]

Like I said in the other thread, this is not true.
Actually in the other thread I asked you to define what you consider an invasion. Come to think of it, a great example had been hiding under my nose the whole time: Israel had nuclear capabilities since the 1960's, but it was invaded and almost brought down to total annihilation during the 70's.

First of all we don't really know when Israel has nuclear weapon capability, second of all it was remained as a secret until past few decades - which means Egyptians absolutly had no idea Israel had nukes back in 70s. Lastly, the Yom Kippur War hardly eliminated Israel, and in fact strategically it was far less dangerous than Six Days War.

[Claudius Gothicus]

Like I said in the other thread, this is not true.
Actually in the other thread I asked you to define what you consider an invasion. Come to think of it, a great example had been hiding under my nose the whole time: Israel had nuclear capabilities since the 1960's, but it was invaded and almost brought down to total annihilation during the 70's.

I ain't buying that, Israel might have been shocked for a certain amount of time but the rapid mobilization of it's citizens and the unconditional support of the US were enough to assure that Israel was nowhere near ''annihilation''. Also, the fact that Sadat's well planned offensive was beaten back with ease is proof of the significant superiority of it's military.

Six Days War was far more dangerous to the integrity of the Israeli State and not only it triumphed but also expanded it's territory to a large extent.

[Mangalore]

...
As to the OP's question:
the UN report was crystal clear. ...

No it wasn't. It was surprsingly vague given it was declared crystal clear, particularly since most of its compromising details came from unnamed "countries" and most of the others had been already presented multiple times in reports before and had been set before dates other intelligence reports assume Iran abandoned its nuclear program so would be utterly meaningless in and of itself.

[removeduser_4536284751384]

Like I said in the other thread, this is not true.
Actually in the other thread I asked you to define what you consider an invasion. Come to think of it, a great example had been hiding under my nose the whole time: Israel had nuclear capabilities since the 1960's, but it was invaded and almost brought down to total annihilation during the 70's.

Nuclear weapons are a deterrent only in certain cases.

Isreal was never brought to total annihilation.

A nuclear armed country can go to war and be defeated, but it can never be invaded and destroyed. Isreal would have nuked the victors if they had been overrun any of the arab wars - one of the reasons they still exist.

[Nevins]

Isreal was never brought to total annihilation.

A nuclear armed country can go to war and be defeated, but it can never be invaded and destroyed. Isreal would have nuked the victors if they had been overrun any of the arab wars - one of the reasons they still exist.

Note that the use of the "Temple" (name for the nuclear arsenal in Israel) weapons was an option that Golda Meir gave some thought to in the early, disastrous days of the Yom Kippur War.

[Condottiere 40K]

It's a deterrence until they use it, and then it's a death warrant.

[Sadreddine]

If it wasn't, the IAEA inspectors would have noticed it long ago. There is a somewhat technical explanation by an ex-inspector here:

http://alethonews.wordpress.com/2011...chamber-claim/

I'd be greatly surprised if Iran was secretly developing a nuke right now, to the point I won't trust mainstream western media pointing to it unless irrefutable public evidence was showed. I definitely can't consider Amano IAEA impartial right now.

[John ''True Grit'' Wayne]

Innocent untill proven guilty.After the Iraq fiasco and sexed up reports i think we have to give Iran the benifit of the doubt