• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

'Very clear' signs of Iran sanitizing military site, Western diplomat says

Khayembii Communique said:
Anyone that believes this is even a plausibility is beyond reason. You apparently exist only to spread misinformation and to obfuscate to such an extent to justify unnecessary and unjustified intervention against Iran.
Click to expand...

The construction of a deterrence regime is a theoretical alternative to military strikes.

If this is true then why would you start such a dishonest, partisan hack thread?
Click to expand...

I am in no way suggesting that Iran is not engaging in illicit nuclear activities. Like the IAEA, as will be noted in its forthcoming report, I have concerns about its recent activities. Iran, like any other state, bears the consequences of its choices.
 
I am in no way suggesting that Iran is not engaging in illicit nuclear activities.
Click to expand...

Yet you openly admit that in this case the Iranian government is completely justified in denying IAEA inspection of Parchin, and that IAEA was overstepping its bounds in requesting such a thing, and that there has never been any evidence to suggest that Parchin has been linked to the Iranian nuclear program and that therefore the bulldozing of two buildings on its premises has absolutely nothing to do with anything whatsoever.

And then you continue to make unsubstantiated, baseless claims that Iran is engaging in illicit nuclear activities.

Yes, certainly not a partisan hack thread whose purpose is the spread of misinformation (read: lies) and obfuscation (read: deceipt). :roll:
 
donsutherland1 said:
For some satellite photos of Iran's activities:

http://isis-online.org/uploads/isis-reports/documents/Parchin_site_activity_May_30_2012.pdf

These activities are not the activities one normally witnesses around civilian nuclear facilities. How often does one witness such activity around European or U.S. nuclear plants? There is no benign explanation for them.
Click to expand...
The simple reason for the U.S. and Europe not having to engage in covert nuclear activities like Iran, is because they proudly and arrogantly flaunt openly the fact they have WMD's already. Imagine if the situation was reversed and Iran had a WMD first, and was trying to tell the European's and American's not to build their own WMD's. The U.S. and Europe would say go piss off why do you have the right to have them and not us? And you best believe the U.S. and Europe would covertly try to produce them same as Iran if they didn't have the military upper hand and felt pressured/threatened with inspections and sanctions... just sayin:shrug:
 
Khayembii Communique said:
Yet you openly admit that in this case the Iranian government is completely justified in denying IAEA inspection of Parchin, and that IAEA was overstepping its bounds in requesting such a thing...
Click to expand...

Not at all. I'm suggesting that Iran has sovereign grounds to take its stance. However, the worry that Parchin is being used for nuclear activities gives the IAEA legitimate grounds to seek an inspection. Iran could well continue to refuse to permit it, but IAEA would be well within its authority to conclude that Iran failed to allow it to resolve doubts and make recommendations based on that situation.

And then you continue to make unsubstantiated, baseless claims that Iran is engaging in illicit nuclear activities.
Click to expand...

I stated that the operative assumption should be along those lines until the concerns are resolved. Until its concerns are resolved IAEA is likely to conclude that it cannot verify that Iran is not engaged in such activities. Iran, almost certainly, will not like that conclusion, but that conclusion will be a logical outcome of its own choices vis-a-vis the IAEA.
 
donsutherland1 said:
However, the worry that Parchin is being used for nuclear activities gives the IAEA legitimate grounds to seek an inspection.
Click to expand...

The unfounded suspicion by the IAEA does not give it authority to schedule such an inspection. I think you need to get a little educated on what you are discussing because you are very clearly clueless on what the IAEA's jurisdiction is or on what grounds it can request an inspection.

In other words, you're perpetuating the same lie that was asserted a decade ago.

IAEA is likely to conclude that it cannot verify that Iran is not engaged in such activities.
Click to expand...

"We suspect that Iran is hiding nuclear bombs under Ahmedinejad's bed, therefore we request an inspection. If this request is denied, we will conclude that we cannot verify that there are no nukes under his bed lul." - Chief IAEA Spokesman (pictured below).

200px-Trollface.svg.png
 
Last edited:
24107 said:
The simple reason for the U.S. and Europe not having to engage in covert nuclear activities like Iran, is because they proudly and arrogantly flaunt openly the fact they have WMD's already. Imagine if the situation was reversed and Iran had a WMD first, and was trying to tell the European's and American's not to build their own WMD's. The U.S. and Europe would say go piss off why do you have the right to have them and not us? And you best believe the U.S. and Europe would covertly try to produce them same as Iran if they didn't have the military upper hand and felt pressured/threatened with inspections and sanctions... just sayin:shrug:
Click to expand...

I fully recognize that there is an element of fairness involved. Nonetheless, the fact is that Iran agreed to the NPT, which comes with obligations. The other issue is that the greater the number of countries possessing nuclear arms grows, the greater risk there could be of accident or worse.
 
Can you hear that? It is the drum of War, and they haven't stopped beating it.
 
Khayembii Communique said:
The unfounded suspicion by the IAEA does not give it authority to schedule such an inspection. I think you need to get a little educated on what you are discussing because you are very clearly clueless on what the IAEA's jurisdiction is or on what grounds it can request an inspection.
Click to expand...

Contrary to your implicit assertion of Iranian immunity, the NPT states in Article V:

Each Party to the Treaty undertakes to take appropriate measures to ensure that, in accordance with this Treaty, under appropriate international observation and through appropriate international procedures, potential benefits from any peaceful applications of nuclear explosions will be made available to non-nuclear-weapon States Party to the Treaty on a non-discriminatory basis and that the charge to such Parties for the explosive devices used will be as low as possible and exclude any charge for research and development.

And in Iran's treaty with the IAEA, Article 2 declares:

The Agency shall have the right and the obligation to ensure that safeguards will be applied, in accordance with the terms of this Agreement, on all source or special fissionable material in all peaceful nuclear activities within the territory of Iran, under its jurisdiction or carried out under its control anywhere, for the exclusive purpose of verifying that such material is not diverted to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.

The IAEA is not precluded from requesting inspections anywhere in Iran.

Iran's protections with regard to sensitive sites are set forth in Article 8 (c) and 9 (c). Article 8(c) states:

If the Government of Iran so requests, the Agency shall be prepared to examine on premises of Iran design information which the Government of Iran regards as being ofparticular sensitivity. Such information need not be physically transmitted to the Agency provided that it remains readily available for further examination by the Agency on premises of Iran.

Article 9 (c) declares:

The visits and activities of Agency inspectors shall be so arranged as:

(i) To reduce to a minimum the possible inconvenience and disturbance to the Government of Iran and to the peaceful nuclear activities inspected; and

(ii) To ensure protection of industrial secrets or any other confidential information coming to the inspectors’ knowledge.

So, to clarify, Iran can invoke national security grounds to seek these protections. It cannot outright reject inspections on those grounds. Iran's latitude is narrower than I had previously stated.

"We suspect that Iran is hiding nuclear bombs under Ahmedinejad's bed, therefore we request an inspection. If this request is denied, we will conclude that we cannot verify that there are no nukes under his bed lul." - Chief IAEA Spokesman (pictured below).
Click to expand...

You might believe it is a joking matter. But the Iran-IAEA treaty states:

If, as a result of the repeated refusal of the Government of Iran to accept the designation of Agency inspectors, inspections to be conducted under this Agreement would be impeded, such refusal shall be considered by the Board, upon referral by the Director General of the Agency (hereinafter referred to as “the Director General”), with a view to its taking appropriate action.

The lack of sufficient cooperation has led the IAEA to document its concerns and the forthcoming report will be no different, barring a sudden change of conduct on Iran's part.
 
Last edited:
donsutherland1 said:
I fully recognize that there is an element of fairness involved. Nonetheless, the fact is that Iran agreed to the NPT, which comes with obligations. The other issue is that the greater the number of countries possessing nuclear arms grows, the greater risk there could be of accident or worse.
Click to expand...

Not everything in life is in black and white, to the Iranians the NPT only gives their advesaries in the region and abroad the upper hand, by taking away a deterrant that they can have in their deck of military cards, remember they are practically surrounded with threatening nuculear power's in the region such as the U.S. military and Israel.So it would be natural to lie and buy time by saying''ya ya well abide by the npt''. I want to point out that In iran's mind the npt was set up by enemy powers such as Israel, U.S. and Some European nation's who are also hostile, such as Britian, who are widely viewed as the U.S. and Israel's attack dog. So the npt is a proposterous hyprocritcal treaty designed to undermine and weaken Iran's regional strength which negatively affects their economy. Plus the Iranians saw how saddam bent over to inspectors and still ended up hanging like a dog. While the North koreans stuck two middle fingers up and dared anyone attack them, and they produced nukes. and we hear crickets chirping about them. You think the Iranians noticed these two situations?
 
The Agency shall have the right and the obligation to ensure that safeguards will be applied, in accordance with the terms of this Agreement, on all source or special fissionable material in all peaceful nuclear activities within the territory of Iran, under its jurisdiction or carried out under its control anywhere, for the exclusive purpose of verifying that such material is not diverted to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.
Click to expand...

100% right.

The IAEA is not precluded from requesting inspections anywhere in Iran.
Click to expand...

100% wrong.

How you can make the leap from the former to the latter is mind boggling. You yourself underlined the section that says that the Agency has jurisdiction "on all source or special fissionable material".

Hint: There never was any "source or special fissionable material" in Parchin.

So again, you have no idea what you're talking about.

EDIT: For fun and more pwnage, let's quote 8(b) which you conveniently (dishonestly) omitted:

(b) (i) The Agency shall require only the minimum amount of information and data consistent with carrying out its responsibilities under this Agreement.

(ii) Information pertaining to facilities shall be the minimum necessary for safe-guarding nuclear material subject to safeguards under this Agreement.
Click to expand...


I will also provide the source document because I am honest and know I am right.

 
Last edited:
AreteCourage said:
Can you hear that? It is the drum of War, and they haven't stopped beating it.
Click to expand...

I'm not advocating war. I still believe a diplomatic resolution is feasible, but Iranian good faith and cooperation will be required and the timeframe for such an agreement is shortening. Much tougher sanctions might be needed to bring about such an outcome. Alternatively, if that fails, a deterrence regime might be feasible. Certainly, it should be explored.

Having said that, one can't rule out a military strike by Israel and/or the U.S. at some point. In the absence of an effective and verifiable agreement and an available deterrence alternative, the risks of such a strike could be elevated.
 
Khayembii Communique said:
100% wrong.
Click to expand...

Your assessment is 100% wrong. The Iran-IAEA treaty states what it does and I posted the language. Its provisions are unambiguous. That you choose to ignore them does not change Iran's obligations vis-a-vis the IAEA nor the IAEA's authority.
 
donsutherland1 said:
From MSNBC:



World News - 'Very clear' signs of Iran sanitizing military site, Western diplomat says

If Iran's nuclear activities were truly within compliance of its NPT obligations, one very likely would not be witnessing the kind of activities described in this story. Given this latest development, I believe the operative assumption should be that Iran is engaging in illicit nuclear activities. Diplomatic and broader policy strategy should at least take into consideration such a scenario.
Click to expand...

It's clear to me that we should invade them, slaughter their men and have our way with their women, and their dogs, if you are from Kansas. Iran should learn that we expect the same verification privileges that we extend to them. Cheeky bastards.
 
donny said:
Your assessment is 100% wrong. The Iran-IAEA treaty states what it does and I posted the language. Its provisions are unambiguous. That you choose to ignore them does not change Iran's obligations vis-a-vis the IAEA nor the IAEA's authority.
Click to expand...

Aww, cute, you've been cornered by the blatant facts and you can no longer respond reasonably.

Facts:

1. The IAEA's jurisdiction is "on all source or special fissionable material in all peaceful nuclear activities within the territory of Iran".
2. There was never any of that at Parchin.
3. The IAEA has no right to inspect Parchin as it is outside of its jurisdiction as blatantly defined by the treaty, as "Information pertaining to facilities shall be the minimum necessary for safe-guarding nuclear material [remember there was none of this at Parchin] subject to safeguards under this Agreement."

QED
 
Last edited:
Typical UN exercise in lots of time and money wasting; give notice as to the inspection zone, picked from a list agreed to by Iran, wait until the agreed permission to inspect date, briefly inspect and then announce that all seems well. Rinse and repeat.
 
Khayembii Communique said:
100% right.

You yourself underlined the section that says that the Agency has jurisdiction "on all source or special fissionable material".
Click to expand...

Yours is a blanket assumption. One does not know that. From The San Francisco Chronicle:

Iran razed two buildings near a suspected nuclear-trigger test site inside of its sprawling Parchin military complex...

Iran Razes Two Buildings Near Suspected Parchin Nuclear Site

From The New York Times:

The world’s global nuclear inspection agency, frustrated by Iran’s refusal to answer questions, revealed for the first time on Tuesday that it possesses evidence that Tehran has conducted work on a highly sophisticated nuclear triggering technology that experts said could be used for only one purpose: setting off a nuclear weapon.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/25/world/middleeast/25iran.html

So, yes, the IAEA has authority and reasonable basis to seek to inspect the suspected nuclear site.
 
donny said:
From The San Francisco Chronicle:

Iran razed two buildings near a suspected nuclear-trigger test site inside of its sprawling Parchin military complex...

Iran Razes Two Buildings Near Suspected Parchin Nuclear Site
Click to expand...

Oh? And who suspects that? The SF Chronicle? You? Who cares?

The IAEA? Provide the direct source, then, and let's get to it.

From The New York Times:

The world’s global nuclear inspection agency, frustrated by Iran’s refusal to answer questions, revealed for the first time on Tuesday that it possesses evidence that Tehran has conducted work on a highly sophisticated nuclear triggering technology that experts said could be used for only one purpose: setting off a nuclear weapon.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/25/wo...st/25iran.html

So, yes, the IAEA has authority and reasonable basis to seek to inspect the suspected nuclear site.
Click to expand...

This has absolutely nothing to do with Parchin. You're obfuscating and being dishonest again.

EDIT: Also, this NYT article is lying. Good job posting a crap article that makes you out to be even more deceitful.
 
Last edited:
donsutherland1 said:
Yours is a blanket assumption. One does not know that. From The San Francisco Chronicle:

Iran razed two buildings near a suspected nuclear-trigger test site inside of its sprawling Parchin military complex...

Iran Razes Two Buildings Near Suspected Parchin Nuclear Site

From The New York Times:

The world’s global nuclear inspection agency, frustrated by Iran’s refusal to answer questions, revealed for the first time on Tuesday that it possesses evidence that Tehran has conducted work on a highly sophisticated nuclear triggering technology that experts said could be used for only one purpose: setting off a nuclear weapon.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/25/world/middleeast/25iran.html

So, yes, the IAEA has authority and reasonable basis to seek to inspect the suspected nuclear site.
Click to expand...

If I were Iran, I'd definitely be building 'nukes.' The USA continually threatens Iran, has invaded Iran's neighbors, Embargoed Iran, violated Iran's airspace and uses bullcrap UN propaganda just like was used against Libya. Iran should be afraid of the USA, the UN, and our ignorant allies. There is OIL under their sand and that is what it is all about. All the diplomatic smooth talkery in the world cannot hide the fact that Exxon/Mobil, BP, Total, etc. have paid enough politicians to get Iran's resources into the Centralized Distribution Network. Screw a bunch of nuance, it's about OIL politics and treachery and scumbaggery, USA style.
 
Just for fun, and since I assume (hope - for his sake) that Don stops responding to me to save face, let's look at the claim he quoted in the NYT article that I called a lie:

The world’s global nuclear inspection agency, frustrated by Iran’s refusal to answer questions, revealed for the first time on Tuesday that it possesses evidence that Tehran has conducted work on a highly sophisticated nuclear triggering technology that experts said could be used for only one purpose: setting off a nuclear weapon.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/25/wo...st/25iran.html
Click to expand...

This is a lie for a two reasons.

First, the IAEA never said that it possessed evidence in its May 24, 2011 Report

Let's quote the report itself:

35. Based on the Agency’s continued study of information which the Agency has acquired from many Member States and through its own efforts, the Agency remains concerned about the possible existence in
Iran of past or current undisclosed nuclear related activities involving military related organizations, including activities related to the development of a nuclear payload for a missile. Since the last report of the
Director General on 25 February 2011, the Agency has received further information related to such possible undisclosed nuclear related activities, which is currently being assessed by the Agency. As previously
reported by the Director General, there are indications that certain of these activities may have continuedbeyond 2004.40 The following points refer to examples of activities for which clarifications remain necessary
in seven particular areas of concern:41

• High explosives manufacture and testing: developing, manufacturing and testing of explosive components suitable for the initiation of high explosives in a converging spherical geometry.

• Exploding bridgewire (EBW) detonator studies, particularly involving applications necessitating high simultaneity: possible nuclear significance of the use of EBW detonators.

• Multipoint explosive initiation and hemispherical detonation studies involving highly instrumented experiments: integrating EBW detonators in the development of a system to initiate hemispherical
high explosive charges and conducting full scale experiments, work which may have benefitted from the assistance of foreign expertise.

Source
Click to expand...

It's quite clear from this passage - the only relevant passage in the document - that the agency did not reveal that it possesses evidence. It "remains concerned" about the "possible existence" and has received "information" about "possible" activities.

So that's that for lie number one. Let's move to lie number two.

Second, the "highly sophisticated nuclear triggering technology" - multipoint exploding bridgewire(EBW) detonators - are most certainly used for purposes other than setting off a nuclear weapon

Without boring you about EBW detonation in general, or multipoint initiation, such technology is used in the creation of detonation nanodiamonds. Weird, isn't it? Well, if you know what you're talking about then this makes perfect sense. The "unnamed expert" which they reference in later reports (one of their sources for this information) was actually Vyacheslav Danilenko, a Ukrainian scientist who has worked on the forefront of the nanodiamond industry since its infancy in the USSR.

In fact, let's look at this alarmist WaPo article:

The Associated Press reported that U.N. officials have acquired satellite photos of a bus-size steel container used by Iran for some of the explosives testing.
Click to expand...

Oh, you mean something that looks like this?

kamera.jpg


This was pulled from the Alit website, a producer of detonation nanodiamonds and with whom Dr. Danilenko is related. That is a detonation tank to create nanodiamonds, not a nuclear device. So how does this relate to nuclear weaponry at all? It doesn't!

IAEA said:
44. The Agency has strong indications that the development by Iran of the high explosives initiation system, and its development of the high speed diagnostic configuration used to monitor related experiments, were assisted by the work of a foreign expert who was not only knowledgeable in these technologies, but who, a Member State has informed the Agency, worked for much of his career with this technology in the nuclear weapon programme of the country of his origin. The Agency has reviewed publications by this foreign expert and has met with him. The Agency has been able to verify through three separate routes, including the expert himself, that this person [Dr. Danilenko] was in Iran from about 1996 to about 2002, ostensibly to assist Iran in the development of a facility and techniques for making ultra-dispersed diamonds (“UDDs” or “nanodiamonds”), where he also lectured on explosion physics and its applications.

45. Furthermore, the Agency has received information from two Member States that, after 2003, Iran engaged in experimental research involving a scaled down version of the hemispherical initiation system and high explosive charge referred to in paragraph 43 above, albeit in connection with non-nuclear applications. This work, together with other studies made known to the Agency in which the same initiation system is used in cylindrical geometry [see the above image], could also be relevant to improving and optimizing the multipoint initiation design concept relevant to nuclear applications.

Source
Click to expand...

This is a shining example of the level of misinformation, obfuscation and outright lies constantly paraded about in the press and elsewhere regarding Iran's nuclear program and its relation with the IAEA.
 
Last edited:
DaveFagan said:
If I were Iran, I'd definitely be building 'nukes.' The USA continually threatens Iran, has invaded Iran's neighbors, Embargoed Iran, violated Iran's airspace and uses bullcrap UN propaganda just like was used against Libya. Iran should be afraid of the USA, the UN, and our ignorant allies. There is OIL under their sand and that is what it is all about. All the diplomatic smooth talkery in the world cannot hide the fact that Exxon/Mobil, BP, Total, etc. have paid enough politicians to get Iran's resources into the Centralized Distribution Network. Screw a bunch of nuance, it's about OIL politics and treachery and scumbaggery, USA style.
Click to expand...

..and all the stalled talks and nonsensical posturing by Iran is only a smoke screen for buying time to further develop Iran's nuclear missile capability . "Iran’s nuclear chief, reversing the country’s previous statements, said on state television on Sunday that the country would not halt its production of higher-grade uranium,The official, Fereydoon Abbasi, said there would be no suspension of enrichment by Iran, the central requirement of several United Nations Security Council resolutions. He specifically said that applied to uranium being enriched to 20 percent purity — a steppingstone that puts it in fairly easy reach of producing highly enriched uranium that can be used for nuclear weapons."

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/28/w...-production-of-higher-grade-uranium.html?_r=1
 
I never quite cease to be amazed at all the apologists for the Iranian theocracy's pursuit of nuclear weapons. What I don't understand is why they think the acquisition of nuclear weapons by religious zealots would advance the cause of nuclear nonproliferation. Maybe it's just me be thick headed again.
 
Khayembii Communique said:
Oh? And who suspects that? The SF Chronicle? You? Who cares?

The IAEA? Provide the direct source, then, and let's get to it.

This has absolutely nothing to do with Parchin. You're obfuscating and being dishonest again.

EDIT: Also, this NYT article is lying. Good job posting a crap article that makes you out to be even more deceitful.
Click to expand...

There is a direct reference to the Parchin site in the news. To say that the stories have "nothing to do with Parchin" is completely baseless. That the news accounts don't support your unconditional belief in Iran's account does not mean that the newspapers are, therefore, "lying."
 
There is a direct reference to the Parchin site in the news.
Click to expand...

The lying NYT article to which you linked did not mention nor have anything to do with Parchin whatsoever. Deny it all you want, the link is right there for everyone to see that it says absolutely nothing of Parchin and you brought it up in order to attempt to make people assume that it was related.

Regarding the lying, I already showed that to be true.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom