Iran May Open Military Site to UN Nuclear Watchdog

[TheDemSocialist]

An Iranian official is saying the country may open a controversial military site to inspectors of the United Nations nuclear watchdog.A Thursday report by independent Mardomsalari daily quotes Deputy Foreign Minister Hasan Qashqavi as saying the inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency may visit Parchin military site "if the foreign threats weaken". He did not elaborate.
As high government officials rarely speak out on such sensitive issues, Qashqavi's remarks were seen as echoing the views of Iran's leadership.
[FONT=georgia, times new roman, serif]Earlier this month IAEA inspectors on a trip to Tehran failed to visit Parchin, where they believe Iran has carried out some nuclear experiments.[/FONT]

[FONT=georgia, times new roman, serif]

[/FONT]

[FONT=georgia, times new roman, serif]Read more @: Iran May Open Military Site to UN Nuclear Watchdog - ABC News[/FONT]

[FONT=georgia, times new roman, serif]Iran may allow inspectors to visit this site if the foreign threats calm down. I say we need to lower these threats, allow the IAEA to visit, and both sides come to the table immideatly. War should not be an option. Lets lower the pathetic rhetoric and have a serious talk on this issue. [/FONT]

 

[ecofarm]

Yeah, the world should stop being mean and the Iranian regime will be happy to allow inspections and begin open-minded progressive negotiations. It's just that everyone is such a jerk... what can the mullahs do?

 

[EagleAye]

Now that they've had ample time to make the site positively spotless, Iran deigns to let inspectors see it? How magnanimous! I'll bet those buildings have been positively cleared of everything. No phones, no computers, no scientific instruments, no office supplies, nothing. Not even a dust mote remaining. As though nothing has ever been done there. This should be amusing the results, if Iran decides the world, "has been good enough," in Iran's estimation.

 

[apdst]

Iran's going to allow nuke inspectors in? What a joke! :rofl

 

[ecofarm]

See, everyone's a jerk.


Death to America.

 

[justabubba]

[/COLOR][/FONT]

[FONT=georgia, times new roman, serif]Read more @: Iran May Open Military Site to UN Nuclear Watchdog - ABC News[/FONT]

[FONT=georgia, times new roman, serif]Iran may allow inspectors to visit this site if the foreign threats calm down. I say we need to lower these threats, allow the IAEA to visit, and both sides come to the table immideatly. War should not be an option. Lets lower the pathetic rhetoric and have a serious talk on this issue. [/FONT]

too bad iran did not make such access conditional upon israel also making its facilities open to UN inspection ... we will but only if they will

 

[ecofarm]

too bad iran did not make such access conditional upon israel also making its facilities open to UN inspection ... we will but only if they will

Yeah, the Iranian regime should not abide by their agreements until others abide by agreements they did not make.

 

[justabubba]

Yeah, the Iranian regime should not abide by their agreements until others abide by agreements they did not make.

it would then be a simple matter for iran to use that failure to treat israel in a like manner as the basis to rescind its execution of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty
voila, the UN's legal basis to expect to inspect iran's facilities would disappear

 

[ecofarm]

it would then be a simple matter for iran to use that failure to treat israel in a like manner as the basis to rescind its execution of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty
voila, the UN's legal basis to expect to inspect iran's facilities would disappear

The Iranian regime agreed. Why should Israel be subject to UN deals that they never ratified, in order for others to do what they agreed to? That's ridiculous. What's next, in order for the Iranian regime to honor its UN agreements, Israel must ratify the Rome statutes? This is Cold War blackmail to force other nations into agreements they never made - nuclear terrorism.

 

[justabubba]

The Iranian regime agreed. Why should Israel be subject to UN deals that they never ratified, in order for others to do what they agreed to? That's ridiculous. What next, in order for the Iranian regime to honor its UN agreements, Israel must ratify the Rome statutes? This is Cold War blackmail to force other nations into agreements they never made - nuclear terrorism.

iran can rescind, and become just like israel, no longer subject to the UN inspections

 

[ecofarm]

iran can rescind, and become just like israel, no longer subject to the UN inspections

Israel did not rescind. Ratifying the agreement brought benefits to the Iranian regime. As the Iranian regime will have broken a deal while not refunding the benefits, they would not be the same as a country that never entered an agreement. They could be subject to coalition-dependent sanctions and strongly worded letters.

 

[justabubba]

Israel did not rescind. Ratifying the agreement brought benefits to the Iranian regime. As the Iranian regime will have broken a deal while not refunding the benefits, they would not be the same as a country that never entered an agreement. They could be subject to coalition-dependent sanctions and strongly worded letters.

nonetheless, by effecting rescission they could adopt the same stance found acceptable to the UN, as a non-participant to the NPT and no longer subject to UN scrutiny
by adopting this gambit they expose israel's hypocrisy on the matter (insisting the UN monitor the iranian facilities while exempting its own facilities from like UN inspection)

 

[ecofarm]

nonetheless, by effecting rescission they could adopt the same stance found acceptable to the UN, as a non-participant to the NPT and no longer subject to UN scrutiny

Wrong, they will have agreed and then rescinded and may be subject to UN actions as a result.

by adopting this gambit they expose israel's hypocrisy on the matter (insisting the UN monitor the iranian facilities while exempting its own facilities from like UN inspection)

There is no hypocrisy. Israel made no similar agreement.

 

[justabubba]

Wrong, they will have agreed and then rescinded and may be subject to UN actions as a result.

no longer being bound by the provisions of the NPT neither would iran be subject to UN inspection - just like israel

There is no hypocrisy. Israel made no similar agreement.

the obvious hypocrisy is israel's insistence that the iranians be subject to UN inspections which israel will not permit for itself

 

[ecofarm]

no longer being bound by the provisions of the NPT neither would iran be subject to UN inspection - just like israel

But Iran would be subject to actions by the UN for breaking an agreement after benefits rendered. One cannot simply make an agreement and expect to break it without repercussions. By making the agreement, one becomes subject to the regulations and penalties therein. Why do you refuse to accept that there is responsibility that comes with ratifying a UN agreement? - not just like Israel.

the obvious hypocrisy is israel's insistence that the iranians be subject to UN inspections which israel will not permit for itself

There is no hypocrisy, only context that you refuse to recognize. Iran made an agreement and Israel did not; thus, Iran is subject to that agreement and Israel is not.



Do you think that the US should be able to force Iran to ratify the Rome statutes? And, if not, then why should Iran be able to force another country to ratify something? Via nuclear blackmail, nonetheless. You really don't see a problem with breaking agreements regarding nuclear weapons, starting a cold war and blackmailing the world in attempt to force another country to ratify a UN treaty against their will and benefit?

Who gave Iran the ability to break UN agreements without consequence and made them the boss of everyone? You did. Why?

 

[justabubba]

But Iran would be subject to actions by the UN for breaking an agreement after benefits rendered. One cannot simply make an agreement and expect to break it without repercussions. By making the agreement, one becomes subject to the regulations and penalties therein. Why do you refuse to accept that there is responsibility that comes with ratifying a UN agreement? - not just like Israel.



There is no hypocrisy, only context that you refuse to recognize. Iran made an agreement and Israel did not; thus, Iran is subject to that agreement and Israel is not.



Do you think that the US should be able to force Iran to ratify the Rome statutes? And, if not, then why should Iran be able to force another country to ratify something? Via nuclear blackmail, nonetheless. You really don't see a problem with breaking agreements regarding nuclear weapons, starting a cold war and blackmailing the world in attempt to force another country to ratify a UN treaty against their will and benefit?

Who gave Iran the ability to break UN agreements without consequence and made them the boss of everyone? You did. Why?

show us what prevents iran from rescinding its commitment to participate in the NPT agreement, such that it would be like israel - no longer subject to UN inspection

 

[Grant]

too bad iran did not make such access conditional upon israel also making its facilities open to UN inspection ... we will but only if they will

What does the subject of this thread have to do with Israel??

 

[ecofarm]

show us what prevents iran from rescinding its commitment to participate in the NPT agreement,

For examples:

The United States yesterday called on members of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to establish penalties for nations that withdraw from the pact, Reuters reported (see GSN, May 8)...

Ford mentioned several possible penalties that could be levied against nations that abandon the treaty, including cutting off future nuclear sales, requiring the return of already provided technology and materials, and the prospect of Security Council sanctions, Reuters reported (Mark Heinrich, Reuters, May 9).

U.S. Urges Penalties for NPT Withdrawals | Global Security Newswire | NTI

Australia is considering a drive to punish Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty member states that violate and then abandon the pact, the Australian Associated Press reported today (see GSN, Oct. 21, 2008)...

Australia Could Seek Penalties for Abandoning NPT | Global Security Newswire | NTI

 

[justabubba]

What does the subject of this thread have to do with Israel??

the thread had to do with iran
and i posited a gambit that i think iran should employ as a condition of allowing UN inspections to occur
that proposal would be to force the UN to exhibit parity by imposing the same oversight on israel - a vocal advocate of UN inspections of iranian facilities
and should the UN oppose such a condition, because israel is not a signatory to the NPT, then iran should use that failure to similarly monitor israel as its legitimate basis to rescind its own execution of the defining NPT, thereby keeping the UN (and israel) at bay

 

[Sherman123]

[/COLOR][/FONT]

[FONT=georgia, times new roman, serif]Read more @: Iran May Open Military Site to UN Nuclear Watchdog - ABC News[/FONT]

[FONT=georgia, times new roman, serif]Iran may allow inspectors to visit this site if the foreign threats calm down. I say we need to lower these threats, allow the IAEA to visit, and both sides come to the table immideatly. War should not be an option. Lets lower the pathetic rhetoric and have a serious talk on this issue. [/FONT]

There really isn't much to talk about at this point, nothing at least that hasn't been covered in the Geneva, Malta, New York, etc talks before. At the heart of the matter is whether or not Iran desires a nuclear, or proto-nuclear capability. The evidence has for many years heavily indicated that they are in fact desirous of such a capability and moreover that they have been taking steps to pursue it. This has been confirmed and re-confirmed by a slew of recent revelations and reports. If nothing else the open fact that Iran continues to enrich its uranium to 20% U-235, with particles detected upwards of 25-30%. There is no reason to do this unless you are on a weapons trajectory. It's why the benchmark of enrichment places anything below 20% as lightly enriched uranium (LEU) and anything above it as highly enriched uranium (HEU). It is not disputed that Iran is stockpiling U-235, as well as creating other facilities and fortified reactors where some have begun to worry that enrichment in small amounts has reached higher levels for test purposes. The IAEA also issued a report claiming that Iran had returned, or probably more accurately had been rediscovered, to be researching warhead design and implosion triggers.

Don't get me wrong I don't think we've reached the point where intervention is necessary or even desirous, but I don't think another round of talks or a relaxing of sanctions will do much good in this environment. We've had some inkling that some Iranian officials want a deal, and that the pressure on the government, and on the economy, is mounting to an unsustainable point. We'll have to see, and we should listen to what we hear. I think a much more positive move would be to declare an absolute enrichment cap, after which international powers commit to a targeted strike. Give a cap of 25% or 35% and say that once sustained enrichment at these levels is detected or discovered, an attack will occur. I believe that in conjunction with sanctions if the Iranian government believes that an attack will actually occur, it will cause a huge amount of dissension and debate about whether to risk crossing that threshold. Moreover by setting a clear threshold you create an open and transparent pretext for limited hostilities should the need arise, and you also give a window for a climb down.

I think we can avoid a conflict potentially, but it's foolish to pretend that you can talk someone into giving up a strategic interest just because you engage them in negotiations.

 

[Khayembii Communique]

The evidence has for many years heavily indicated that they are in fact desirous of such a capability and moreover that they have been taking steps to pursue it.

There isn't any evidence.

If nothing else the open fact that Iran continues to enrich its uranium to 20% U-235

20% U-235 is hardly weapons-grade. It's considered the absolute bare minimum of weapons-usable, on the upper end of LEU. It's being used in their research reactor and, in fact, was being supplied by Argentina since 1994. Interestingly, the US were the ones who provided the reactor to Iran and even supplied them with HEU to operate it between 1987 and 1994!

In 2009 the US proposed that Iran send some LEU to Russia for enrichment to 20% which would be sent to France for manufacture. It was Tehran who rejected this proposal on the grounds of delivery concerns.

So it's comical that you are complaining about this.

There is no reason to do this unless you are on a weapons trajectory.

There are plenty of reasons to enrich uranium up to and past 20% besides producing weapons (naval reactors, neutron reactors, producing medical isotopes, etc.). You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

It is not disputed that Iran is stockpiling U-235, as well as creating other facilities and fortified reactors where some have begun to worry that enrichment in small amounts has reached higher levels for test purposes.

"Some" people "worry[ing]" isn't proof of anything.

The IAEA also issued a report claiming that Iran had returned, or probably more accurately had been rediscovered, to be researching warhead design and implosion triggers.

Why don't you cite your source?

Give a cap of 25% or 35% and say that once sustained enrichment at these levels is detected or discovered, an attack will occur.

You are absolutely insane if you think attacking Iran is a good idea.

 

[EagleAye]

[...]
20% U-235 is hardly weapons-grade. It's considered the absolute bare minimum of weapons-usable, on the upper end of LEU. It's being used in their research reactor and, in fact, was being supplied by Argentina since 1994. Interestingly, the US were the ones who provided the reactor to Iran and even supplied them with HEU to operate it between 1987 and 1994!
[...]
You are absolutely insane if you think attacking Iran is a good idea.

I note that you left the bolded part out of the quote:

If nothing else the open fact that Iran continues to enrich its uranium to 20% U-235, with particles detected upwards of 25-30%.

A mistake perhaps...?

And then why claim someone "thinks attacking Iran is a good idea" after he said this?:

...I don't think we've reached the point where intervention is necessary or even desirous,...

 

[Khayembii Communique]

A mistake perhaps...?

No, just not really relevant. I already covered <=30% enrichment.

And then why claim someone "thinks attacking Iran is a good idea" after he said this?:

Because he does think attacking Iran is a good idea if they don't meet the proposed cap, which he said in the part I quoted...

 

[johnny_rebson]

We went through the same crap when Saddam reluctantly let inspectors in.

These dictators that run these mideast oil countries can't be trusted. We must always be ready to attack.

 

[Bronson]

Terrorist regimes that string up and murder gay people in public, stone women to death for showing more than an ankle in public, and brutally suppress their people deserve the benefit of the doubt apparently

Jews not so much