• 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!

Iran: We will never develop nuclear weapons

I'm liking this guy... at least via comparison to his predecessors.

He doesn't have power though. The power in the Iranian government is vested in the Mullahs.

There are a few obvious signs that Iran is working on a bomb.

A civilian power program would simply just buy the LEU off the world's markets and use it to generate power. The small amount of HEU it needs for research reactors would be way cheaper to simply buy rather than refine. And if Iran was serious about civilian only, they would have opened up entirely all of its sites to inspection. The cost structure alone of civilian is so exponentially less than what Iran has spent that it's basically inconceivable that they aren't trying to get nuclear weapons. In many ways, their program resembles the Israeli march to achieve nuclear weapons.

When compared to say Argentina, who openly does all of its nuclear activities in public view, the Iranian program is by far more secretive. No one accuses the Argentinian government of a secret nuclear program. Argentina mines the uranium, sends it to the US for enrichment and then buys it back.
 
He doesn't have power though. The power in the Iranian government is vested in the Mullahs.

There are a few obvious signs that Iran is working on a bomb.

A civilian power program would simply just buy the LEU off the world's markets and use it to generate power. The small amount of HEU it needs for research reactors would be way cheaper to simply buy rather than refine. And if Iran was serious about civilian only, they would have opened up entirely all of its sites to inspection. The cost structure alone of civilian is so exponentially less than what Iran has spent that it's basically inconceivable that they aren't trying to get nuclear weapons. In many ways, their program resembles the Israeli march to achieve nuclear weapons.

When compared to say Argentina, who openly does all of its nuclear activities in public view, the Iranian program is by far more secretive. No one accuses the Argentinian government of a secret nuclear program. Argentina mines the uranium, sends it to the US for enrichment and then buys it back.

Argentina isn't a strategic opponent of the US. Iran very clearly has taken the Iraq fiasco into account in determining how it handles UN weapons inspections. Further, so far as I know, there hasn't been much "secret" to the Iranian nuclear program in terms of how much uranium they have and what they're doing with it.
 
Ahmedinejad never did that. Stop spreading a lie.

Doesn't matter what the Iranian President says or does. He's a figurehead. Especially after h0w the Khatami administration gave the Mullahs a run for their money on liberalization, the office lost what little power it had.
 
Doesn't matter what the Iranian President says or does. He's a figurehead. Especially after h0w the Khatami administration gave the Mullahs a run for their money on liberalization, the office lost what little power it had.

If it doesn't matter then it wouldn't be continuously repeated. It obviously has enormous propaganda value or people wouldn't continually repeat it when it is completely and 100% confirmed to be false.
 
Argentina isn't a strategic opponent of the US. Iran very clearly has taken the Iraq fiasco into account in determining how it handles UN weapons inspections. Further, so far as I know, there hasn't been much "secret" to the Iranian nuclear program in terms of how much uranium they have and what they're doing with it.

Iraq systematically played games with UN inspectors. And if Iran simply was doing civilian programs, they'd have no problem having the UN inspectors walk through and see nothing going on. And they'd save huge sums of money simply buying fuel rather than making it themselves. When you have a clear ledger of how much you bought, how much got consumed in electrical generation and how much waste you shipped back, that's a solid argument you're not doing secret programs. There's plenty of signs of an obvious civilian program. Hiding your facilities under mountains, having them run by the military and denying their existence does not suggest you're doing entirely peaceful operations.

If Iran was doing purely civilian, they wouldn't have gone the way they did purely out of cost.
 
If it doesn't matter then it wouldn't be continuously repeated. It obviously has enormous propaganda value or people wouldn't continually repeat it when it is completely and 100% confirmed to be false.

I guess, but in the context of who has power to do anything in Iran, the President is a joke. What he says is largely irrelevant simply because the office itself is nothing more than a figurehead.
 
In ancient Persia one the greatest crimes that could be committed was to tell a lie. Also for a decent period of time you could say the Persians or Middle Easterns in general were a more "civilized" people than those of Europe.

So although they may not be the most exemplary people on Earth right now, let's not deny them their place in history.

Yes, history is the best place for them.
 
Iraq systematically played games with UN inspectors. And if Iran simply was doing civilian programs, they'd have no problem having the UN inspectors walk through and see nothing going on. And they'd save huge sums of money simply buying fuel rather than making it themselves. When you have a clear ledger of how much you bought, how much got consumed in electrical generation and how much waste you shipped back, that's a solid argument you're not doing secret programs. There's plenty of signs of an obvious civilian program. Hiding your facilities under mountains, having them run by the military and denying their existence does not suggest you're doing entirely peaceful operations.

If Iran was doing purely civilian, they wouldn't have gone the way they did purely out of cost.

I'm not going to address your mention of Iraq. My point was that, regardless of what was actually going on in Iraq, what was known - or, to prevent you debating me on this subject, what was perceived by Iran and most likely other states - was that the US was using UN weapons inspectors to spy on Iraq. So with regards to this point, and coupled with the fact that UN inspectors have made requests outside of the scope of any legal agreement or negotiation (such as visiting military facilities unconnected to the nuclear program, simply because they have an unsubstantiated idea that it might be part of it), it's clear that Iran is not going to comply with such requests.

Further, you will find that neither the IAEA nor the United States make - nor attempt to substantiate - the claim that Iran has not been transparent about nuclear materials. All you have is suspicion that they "might" be "researching" weaponization, with no evidence to support the fact. What you find when you review the past five years of IAEA reports and events surrounding the Iranian nuclear program is minor conflicts that get resolved in time.

As for the choice of production vs. importation, that's a non-argument. Iran has the legal right, under NPT, to produce its own uranium. Politically, it makes sense for Iran to produce its own uranium, as the past years of sanctions has transparently shown; importing uranium might be more cost effective generally, but not when there are economic sanctions and embargoes in place. Duh!
 
I guess, but in the context of who has power to do anything in Iran, the President is a joke. What he says is largely irrelevant simply because the office itself is nothing more than a figurehead.

I agree to an extent. They are given a certain leeway.
 
ever hear of Arabic numerals? back in the middle ages Islamic empires were more advanced in terms of research and culture. Islamic doctors had knowledge of herbs and medical cures, and back then i would have been safer being treated by a Arabic doctor then a European one.

And you would have needed that doctor in that terminal war zone.
 
With respect to Iran, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani has an op-ed in today's Washington Post. The op-ed can be found at:

President of Iran Hassan Rouhani: Time to engage - The Washington Post

My quick thoughts:

The rhetoric is encouraging, but one needs concrete policy information and actions to determine whether the softer rhetoric is indicative of an Iranian shift or whether it is merely fresh packaging on a policy that remains little changed. One also has to bear in mind that Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei's authority supersedes that of the President. Khamenei has not had a record of flexibility.

In the op-ed, President Rouhani repeatedly refers to "constructive engagement." He talks about a world where "global politics is no longer a zero-sum game." The big question concerns whether he is indicating new Iranian flexibility or whether he is largely imploring the international community to be more flexible in its dealings with Iran. A diplomatic breakthrough will require trade-offs from both sides, not simply the international community's abandoning its needs with respect to Iran.

The rhetoric and appeals to "mutual respect" and "win-win outcomes" seems encouraging. Certainly, if the opportunity arises, President Obama should meet with his Iranian counterpart at the UN General Assembly.

Having said that, there are elements in the op-ed that suggest more a change in style than substance. For example, Rouhani declares that it is "counterintuitive to pursue one's interests without considering the interests of others." He could just as easily be charging that the U.S. and international community have been ignoring Iran's interests. Perhaps most decisive, he ties Iran's nuclear program to Iran's identity. He writes:

The centrality of identity extends to the case of our peaceful nuclear energy program. To us, mastering the atomic fuel cycle and generating nuclear power is as much about diversifying our energy resources as it is about who Iranians are as a nation, our demand for dignity and respect and our consequent place in the world. Without comprehending the role of identity, many issues we all face will remain unresolved.

Is the Iranian President willing to accept international safeguards to assure that his country's nuclear program is "peaceful?" Is he willing to limit his notions of "mastering the atomic fuel cycle" to the more limited areas consistent with a civilian nuclear program rather than inclusive of know-how or technology necessary to create highly-enriched uranium that could be weaponized? If not, and that remains to be seen and should be probed by international diplomats in the near-term, then he is actually making a decisive stand against compromise on Iran's nuclear activities despite the kinder rhetorical packaging he has offered.

Actions and concrete policy details will determine whether Iran is shifting course. Until then, the best one can suggest is that the possible opening needs to be explored to see if it is real. One cannot, at this time, conclude that Iran has shifted its policy course.
 
And you would have needed that doctor in that terminal war zone.

Apparently the herbal treatments aren't helping them much.

Question: if you were somehow transported back in time to medieval Europe, and you develop a severe headache, who would you seek medical help from? a Arabic doctor or a christian doctor?
 
With respect to Iran, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani has an op-ed in today's Washington Post. The op-ed can be found at:

President of Iran Hassan Rouhani: Time to engage - The Washington Post

My quick thoughts:

The rhetoric is encouraging, but one needs concrete policy information and actions to determine whether the softer rhetoric is indicative of an Iranian shift or whether it is merely fresh packaging on a policy that remains little changed. One also has to bear in mind that Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei's authority supersedes that of the President. Khamenei has not had a record of flexibility.

In the op-ed, President Rouhani repeatedly refers to "constructive engagement." He talks about a world where "global politics is no longer a zero-sum game." The big question concerns whether he is indicating new Iranian flexibility or whether he is largely imploring the international community to be more flexible in its dealings with Iran. A diplomatic breakthrough will require trade-offs from both sides, not simply the international community's abandoning its needs with respect to Iran.

The rhetoric and appeals to "mutual respect" and "win-win outcomes" seems encouraging. Certainly, if the opportunity arises, President Obama should meet with his Iranian counterpart at the UN General Assembly.

Having said that, there are elements in the op-ed that suggest more a change in style than substance. For example, Rouhani declares that it is "counterintuitive to pursue one's interests without considering the interests of others." He could just as easily be charging that the U.S. and international community have been ignoring Iran's interests. Perhaps most decisive, he ties Iran's nuclear program to Iran's identity. He writes:

The centrality of identity extends to the case of our peaceful nuclear energy program. To us, mastering the atomic fuel cycle and generating nuclear power is as much about diversifying our energy resources as it is about who Iranians are as a nation, our demand for dignity and respect and our consequent place in the world. Without comprehending the role of identity, many issues we all face will remain unresolved.

Is the Iranian President willing to accept international safeguards to assure that his country's nuclear program is "peaceful?" Is he willing to limit his notions of "mastering the atomic fuel cycle" to the more limited areas consistent with a civilian nuclear program rather than inclusive of know-how or technology necessary to create highly-enriched uranium that could be weaponized? If not, and that remains to be seen and should be probed by international diplomats in the near-term, then he is actually making a decisive stand against compromise on Iran's nuclear activities despite the kinder rhetorical packaging he has offered.

Actions and concrete policy details will determine whether Iran is shifting course. Until then, the best one can suggest is that the possible opening needs to be explored to see if it is real. One cannot, at this time, conclude that Iran has shifted its policy course.

Yes! I read that and was so pleased. Now, all he need do is let the UN inspectors run free and "Hey presto!"

Until then the sanctions that were installed to help the Persians make this decision must stay in place and the military must be prepared.
 
I'm liking this guy... at least via comparison to his predecessors.

Iran's president Rouhani: We will never develop nuclear weapons

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani told NBC News on Wednesday that the country will never develop nuclear weapons and that he has the clout to make a deal with the West on the disputed atomic program.

“In its nuclear program, this government enters with full power and has complete authority,” Rouhani told Ann Curry, NBC News national and international correspondent and anchor at large, in his first interview with a U.S. news outlet since his election.

“The problem won't be from our side,” he said at the presidential compound in Tehran. “We have sufficient political latitude to solve this problem.”

“We consider war a weakness. Any government or administration that decides to wage a war, we consider a weakness. And any government that decides on peace, we look on it with respect to peace.”​

Wow, you actually buy this crap?
 
With respect to Iran, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani has an op-ed in today's Washington Post. The op-ed can be found at:

President of Iran Hassan Rouhani: Time to engage - The Washington Post

My quick thoughts:

The rhetoric is encouraging, but one needs concrete policy information and actions to determine whether the softer rhetoric is indicative of an Iranian shift or whether it is merely fresh packaging on a policy that remains little changed. One also has to bear in mind that Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei's authority supersedes that of the President. Khamenei has not had a record of flexibility.

In the op-ed, President Rouhani repeatedly refers to "constructive engagement." He talks about a world where "global politics is no longer a zero-sum game." The big question concerns whether he is indicating new Iranian flexibility or whether he is largely imploring the international community to be more flexible in its dealings with Iran. A diplomatic breakthrough will require trade-offs from both sides, not simply the international community's abandoning its needs with respect to Iran.

The rhetoric and appeals to "mutual respect" and "win-win outcomes" seems encouraging. Certainly, if the opportunity arises, President Obama should meet with his Iranian counterpart at the UN General Assembly.

Having said that, there are elements in the op-ed that suggest more a change in style than substance. For example, Rouhani declares that it is "counterintuitive to pursue one's interests without considering the interests of others." He could just as easily be charging that the U.S. and international community have been ignoring Iran's interests. Perhaps most decisive, he ties Iran's nuclear program to Iran's identity. He writes:

The centrality of identity extends to the case of our peaceful nuclear energy program. To us, mastering the atomic fuel cycle and generating nuclear power is as much about diversifying our energy resources as it is about who Iranians are as a nation, our demand for dignity and respect and our consequent place in the world. Without comprehending the role of identity, many issues we all face will remain unresolved.

Is the Iranian President willing to accept international safeguards to assure that his country's nuclear program is "peaceful?" Is he willing to limit his notions of "mastering the atomic fuel cycle" to the more limited areas consistent with a civilian nuclear program rather than inclusive of know-how or technology necessary to create highly-enriched uranium that could be weaponized? If not, and that remains to be seen and should be probed by international diplomats in the near-term, then he is actually making a decisive stand against compromise on Iran's nuclear activities despite the kinder rhetorical packaging he has offered.

Actions and concrete policy details will determine whether Iran is shifting course. Until then, the best one can suggest is that the possible opening needs to be explored to see if it is real. One cannot, at this time, conclude that Iran has shifted its policy course.

These guys know how to play the western audiences so very well. The former communist leaders were all introduced as enjoying fine wine and jazz and all Daniel Ortega had to do, while killing off the Mosquito Indians, was wear a Yankees baseball cap and the western MSM did a swoon. These dictatorial leaders are no different.

I do not believe anything these people say, but instead look at their motives for saying it.
 
I'm liking this guy... at least via comparison to his predecessors.

Iran's president Rouhani: We will never develop nuclear weapons

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani told NBC News on Wednesday that the country will never develop nuclear weapons and that he has the clout to make a deal with the West on the disputed atomic program.

“In its nuclear program, this government enters with full power and has complete authority,” Rouhani told Ann Curry, NBC News national and international correspondent and anchor at large, in his first interview with a U.S. news outlet since his election.

“The problem won't be from our side,” he said at the presidential compound in Tehran. “We have sufficient political latitude to solve this problem.”

“We consider war a weakness. Any government or administration that decides to wage a war, we consider a weakness. And any government that decides on peace, we look on it with respect to peace.”​

A statement like that is a sure sign that they are.
 
How might that be done? Draw another line in the sand?

No. They drew that line. It's up to them to make themselves credible on that standard. Not our responsibility.
 
The Koran allows you to lie to your enemy.

Qur'an (16:106) - Establishes that there are circumstances that can "compel" a Muslim to tell a lie.
 
Last edited:
I'm not going to address your mention of Iraq. My point was that, regardless of what was actually going on in Iraq, what was known - or, to prevent you debating me on this subject, what was perceived by Iran and most likely other states - was that the US was using UN weapons inspectors to spy on Iraq. So with regards to this point, and coupled with the fact that UN inspectors have made requests outside of the scope of any legal agreement or negotiation (such as visiting military facilities unconnected to the nuclear program, simply because they have an unsubstantiated idea that it might be part of it), it's clear that Iran is not going to comply with such requests.

While that's true, that's not a reason to build your facilities underground and hidden away when everyone knows what you're up to there. Iran even posted official pictures of nuclear activities at underground sites. Civilian facilities don't need to be hardened or protected like that.

Further, you will find that neither the IAEA nor the United States make - nor attempt to substantiate - the claim that Iran has not been transparent about nuclear materials. All you have is suspicion that they "might" be "researching" weaponization, with no evidence to support the fact. What you find when you review the past five years of IAEA reports and events surrounding the Iranian nuclear program is minor conflicts that get resolved in time.

Have they allowed inspections into all of their facilities? If not, that's not transparent. They're doing the same thing the Israelis did. And I don't think you're going to say the Israelis don't have a nuclear weapons program. Sure, we have missing gaps in intelligence, but when their behavior resembles the type of behavior from offenders like the Israels as well as the initial secret program South Korea tried, that doesn't suggest a purely peaceful operation. We have known peaceful civilian usage around the world. We know what that looks like. If Iran was actually going about a purely peaceful operation, their behaviors would resemble that of Argentina, not Israel.

As for the choice of production vs. importation, that's a non-argument. Iran has the legal right, under NPT, to produce its own uranium. Politically, it makes sense for Iran to produce its own uranium, as the past years of sanctions has transparently shown; importing uranium might be more cost effective generally, but not when there are economic sanctions and embargoes in place. Duh!

Refinement has never been totally clarified under the NPT. It's been a sticking point since the agreement. Countries have complained that the US largely arbitrarily made the rules to which they're largely correct. But it still does not change the cost factor.

Iran could have saved billions by simply importing fuel. And that's outside of the sanctions. Remember that the sanctions only were US based. Nothing stopped Russia, French or others from agreeing to fuel arrangements. Iran under US sanctions before the round of banking sanctions would have had no problem getting such fuel agreements.
 
I agree to an extent. They are given a certain leeway.

Not as much as they used to. The administration before Disco Stu largely lost the power after their attempt to grab for more. The Iranian Presidency has always been a figurehead, it's just now more so than before.

I pay basically no attention at all to what the President says. It's the Mullahs that hold the power. Disco Stu got essentially neutered once he fell out of favor. The President is a puppet who dances on strings.
 
I believe it's a start and a standard they set with which to hold them to.

Right.....because we held Syria to a standard......Oh wait, we let Russia take control of the Middle East. Wake up dude, this is typical Iranian rhetoric.
 
Back
Top Bottom