Hurray for the BBC

[SeVeR]

You won't find this on Fox News:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7486971.stm

 

"However, Iran is not making highly enriched uranium suitable for a weapon, only low-enriched uranium useable as nuclear power fuel. (Update 4 July: the evidence for this comes from the 26 May 2008 report from the IAEA, released on 5 June. This states that "the results of the environmental samples... indicate that the [enrichment] plants have been operated as declared. The samples show low-enriched uranium... particles.")"

 

For someone who reads the IAEA reports and is bewildered with the press coverage of this "nuclear crisis", the BBC has me relieved.

[Drake7707]

Of course you won't find it on Fox. All the US media gives biased information to the citizens. And if people think Iran is a bigger threat than it actually is then less people would oppose the idea to actually do something about it.

[Hoch]

Iran still continues not to comply with the IAEA. So what's the

story here again? Fox vs BBC?

 

-Hoch

[FMBI]

Just one more reason why I have 13 international news sources bookmarked.

 

Oh, and by the way, Hoch.. Iran is playing relatively nice with the IAEA. People always forget that Israel, India, Pakistan, South Africa, and North Korea all snuck through nuclear programs without anyone hearing about it.

[SeVeR]

Iran still continues not to comply with the IAEA.

So Iran haven't let inspectors into their civilian nuclear facilities? Those inspectors haven't verified that Iran isn't enriching uranium to weapons grade or that all fissile materials are accounted for?

 

I'm sorry, you just need to clarify what you mean by "not comply".

 

Iran hasn't complied with the UN Security Council's demands. They comply with the IAEA.

 

In October 2007 IAEA director, Mohammed El Baradei, reiterated that "there is still no evidence that Iran is trying to develop atomic bombs rather than more electricity as it says"

 

The Nuclear Proliferation Treaty, of which Iran is a member, allows all signees to enrich uranium for civilian nuclear purposes. Thus, the sanctions have no legal basis and are merely a decision reached within the United Nations Security Council in response to their suspicions. Iran is fully within their rights to object, and fully within their rights to continue enriching uranium for civilian purposes under the inspection of the IAEA, and within the terms of the NPT.

Edited July 20, 2008 by SeVeR

[Aileron]

Just one more reason why I have 13 international news sources bookmarked.

 

Oh, and by the way, Hoch.. Iran is playing relatively nice with the IAEA. People always forget that Israel, India, Pakistan, South Africa, and North Korea all snuck through nuclear programs without anyone hearing about it.

 

No we didn't forget. Its just dumb to let new nations in the nuclear club. India and Pakistan were bad enough. Hey, if it were up to me North Korea would be a crater right now for building a nuke.

 

Could you cite a source that Israel has nukes please?

 

 

SeVeR, my viewpoint on Iran's nuclear programs is that whether they are within their rights or not, its a smart decision to oppose them.

[Hoch]

[SeVeR]

I never said the resolutions are illegal. I said (or at least meant) that Iran has no legal obligation to comply with them. They are not bound to stop their enrichment, as enrichment is their right under the NPT.

 

As for the IAEA report, i'm guessing you dug up the worst of it. From reading what you quoted it doesn't sound too bad. Maybe you should quote all of the positive aspects of the report. Anyway, as for 25, it means nothing at all... what do you think it means? It's suspicion that doesn't belong in a report that is supposed to be factual. 13 is a little confusing, as those additional locations have nothing to do with enrichment or possible bomb development. Iran would probably view this as an attempt to spy on them. Does the NPT cover mining? Hard to say. 14 is no different to 13.

 

As i said, you can't sum it all up with "not comply with the IAEA". It's way more complicated than that as i'm sure you've now learnt.

 

Aileron:

SeVeR, my viewpoint on Iran's nuclear programs is that whether they are within their rights or not, its a smart decision to oppose them.

Iran has done nothing wrong yet. We simply don't trust them, or at least that's the excuse our leaders give. Without proper proof of Iran's misdoings, how can we trust our leaders motives if they happen launch a military attack against Iran? For someone who has studied the history of US-Iranian relations since WW2, i don't trust the U.S. government's motives one bit on Iran, and a look through the history books should convince you too.

[Aileron]

Oh please. Historically the US has only been able to pull off a shadow of the evil !@#$%^&* Europe got away with, and frankly the history of all the previous versions of Iran back to ancient Persia are worse than both.

 

I mean, Iran is more modern than it used to be, but at the end of the day her cultural beliefs are still in the 'might makes right' category.

 

I know the story of US-Iranian relations since WWII! Long story short: things were good for us, then Jimmy Carter messed things up. He was too busy cleaning our hands of one totalitarian dictatorship that he replaced it with one which is worse!

 

Besides, whether or not you trust the US is irrelevant. The US' nukes are an entirely different issue.

[NBVegita]

Hoch I do believe I had the exact same debate with sever back in February.

[SeVeR]

And who's fault is that? I started a topic about the media response to Iran, and got comments about the IAEA. If that's the discussion people want, then i'm happy to have it again with someone else.

[SeVeR]

When i talk about US motives being suspect i refer to things such as this, a letter from the IAEA to the US House of Representatives: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/14_09_06_iaea.pdf

[AstroProdigy]

Carter didn't put the clerics in power in Iran. They came to power by using the dissatisfaction of the Iranian people with the corrupt Shah who was put in power in place of the democratically elected leader because he didn't serve our interests.

 

Also the questions Iran hasn't answered were ones that Iran isn't legally obligated to answer. Therefore, to the extent of existing laws Iran has complied.

[SeVeR]

Exactly what Astro said.

 

Anyway Aileron, i remember you saying Iran started the Iran-Iraq war. I had to correct you on that one... exactly what history books do you read?

[Hoch]

Hoch I do believe I had the exact same debate with sever back in February.

I'm sure you did, and as have I on the DSB boards. Yet, I keep getting

roped into it on this false hope that he will realise that his myopic think-

ing is, if not wrong, then flawed After all, it is only based on an obvi-

ous disliking of anything the US (or 'the West') supports. Such subjective

thought rationalised in this manner will always be flawed. Anywho...

 

As Iran is a signatory to the UN Charter it is bound by the decisions of

the UN Security Council. Full stop. Of course it can ignore them, as it

does, but were the Security Council to press the matter it is will within

its competence to force Iran to comply. And I stand uncorrected. Thank

you.

 

The simple fact of the matter is Iran is under obligations arising from the

NPT to comply with certain protocols. Rather than doing this, Iran contin-

ues to stonewall the IAEA. Evidence of this can be found in the various

reports issued by the IAEA where it notes that Iran continues to not pro-

vide certain bits of information. With few exceptions, Iran is the only na-

tion to adopt such an abstinent position.

 

Even the greatest cynic would concede that if Iran were fully transparent

with its nuclear activities that this matter would be resolved. The absence

of this creates the current climate.

 

To summarise, Iran's actions, or lack thereof, smacks of noncompliance.

Even a less erudite observer would make the conclusion based on Iran's

actions, or inactions as the case may be. Fox News redresses the imbal-

ance in the American media. And comparatively the BBC is more objec-

tive.

 

-Hoch...I'll take my Nobel Peace Prize now.

 

-Hoch

[AstroProdigy]

Hoch I do believe I had the exact same debate with sever back in February.

I'm sure you did, and as have I on the DSB boards. Yet, I keep getting

roped into it on this false hope that he will realise that his myopic think-

ing is, if not wrong, then flawed After all, it is only based on an obvi-

ous disliking of anything the US (or 'the West') supports. Such subjective

thought rationalised in this manner will always be flawed. Anywho...

 

As Iran is a signatory to the UN Charter it is bound by the decisions of

the UN Security Council. Full stop. Of course it can ignore them, as it

does, but were the Security Council to press the matter it is will within

its competence to force Iran to comply. And I stand uncorrected. Thank

you.

 

The simple fact of the matter is Iran is under obligations arising from the

NPT to comply with certain protocols. Rather than doing this, Iran contin-

ues to stonewall the IAEA. Evidence of this can be found in the various

reports issued by the IAEA where it notes that Iran continues to not pro-

vide certain bits of information. With few exceptions, Iran is the only na-

tion to adopt such an abstinent position.

 

Even the greatest cynic would concede that if Iran were fully transparent

with its nuclear activities that this matter would be resolved. The absence

of this creates the current climate.

 

To summarise, Iran's actions, or lack thereof, smacks of noncompliance.

Even a less erudite observer would make the conclusion based on Iran's

actions, or inactions as the case may be. Fox News redresses the imbal-

ance in the American media. And comparatively the BBC is more objec-

tive.

 

-Hoch...I'll take my Nobel Peace Prize now.

 

-Hoch

 

 

This all ignores the point that what Iran doesn't comply with is what it's legally required to do so. IF a country signed the Geneva Convention and was then being asked to lay down its army by Geneva then it wouldn't be legally obligated to do so. You can significantly change the rules here, but that would require the countries of the world to sign a new charter and even if they weren't required to for it to take effect you'd have to have the IAEA monitoring every little detail of every nuclear program of every country the way we expect Iran to allow the IAEA to do. Now I may wish for the theocracy to be toppled, but the way the laws are being applied and some being made up from thin air specifically to any US adversary is very hypocritical.

Edited July 23, 2008 by AstroProdigy

[SeVeR]

Edited July 23, 2008 by SeVeR

[AstroProdigy]

I think the notion that Iran might flood the market with cheap oil, sold in euros, and thus crash the dollar is a real threat, but politicians won't bring that up because if we had a serious discussion on it then it would force us to address an economy based on debt and consuming much more than we produce. No one wants to commit that political suicide as Americans still want a quick fix to everything so they can go on borrowing more. That's why popular proposals to our problems are offshore oil drilling, blaming China, and building a wall between the US and Mexico. They want quick, easy solutions that are easy to understand and don't challenge what they're doing in life (even if that's part of the problem). Americans have been tricked into thinking debt is good and a country can grow indefinitely on consumption.

 

The reason Iran is so easy to turn into an "existential threat" is because it's easy to put into a sound byte and Ahmedinejad is already hated due to a massive media campaign (despite him not being the ruler of Iran). If we actually addressed the real threat Iran poses by creating a surplus to start paying off our debt and becoming a producer country again so our money is backed by real value rather than how much we can dominate the world then there will no longer be a threat and we can stop having to listen to politicians lie to us.

Edited July 23, 2008 by AstroProdigy

[Hoch]

Let me simplify the issue, or at least my position.

 

For the avoidance of doubt, the (peaceful) use of nuclear technol-

ogy by Iran is not in dispute. To verify the commitments laid down

in the NPT and to ensure that nuclear materials are not being di-

verted for weapons purposes, Article III tasks the IAEA with the

inspection of the nonnuclear weapon states' nuclear facilities.

 

It is this inspection process which is at the crux of the matter. Iran

continues to be evasive with certain information, which the IAEA

has noted many times in its reports. It is Iran's abstinence and lack

of transparency which creates concern for the US, UK and other

nations. Were Iran to comply fully with the IAEA then this situation

would not exist. Full stop.

 

It is of course pure speculation on the part of Western nations that

Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons programme. This too has never

been in dispute. But given Iran's evasive behaviour and the rhetoric

from its elected (and unelected) leaders, it can hardly be surprising

that nations are concerned about the possibility of Iran becoming a

nuclear weapons state.

 

It would be wrong and set a very bad precedent if technology capa-

ble of enriching uranium to a fissionable state for nuclear weapons,

or general nuclear machinery, was not inspected. This is all 'the West'

wants, as is prescribed by the NPT. Surely this is not wrong.

 

-Hoch

[SeVeR]

I guess it comes down to what the IAEA can ask for under the terms of the NPT, and whether Iran is legally obligated as a member of the UN and signatory of the NPT to obey the IAEA to the extent at which they are being asked. I'm not so sure that "mining of uranium" is something that Iran has to divulge to the IAEA. Additionally, when NBV and me had this discussion in February it was "monitoring equipment" that Iran was rejecting - and quite rightly so, as the implantation of foreign devices on Iran's nuclear equipment is overly intrusive and would be a problem for any countries security office.

 

The IAEA says in their reports that Iran doesn't do this and doesn't do that, but does Iran have to do it? It would be nice to know. Ultimately the IAEA will always ask for as much transparency as possible, while Iran will have security issues with the overly intrusive parts. This debate is at a standstill until we know exactly what Iran HAS to do under their NPT requirements.

[Hoch]

The NPT itself is an intrusive do!@#$%^&*ent. After all, it has to be in

order that the objectives of the Treaty are met. To that extent

the use of monitoring devices to ensure that fissionable materi-

al is not diverted towards purposes other than what they are in-

tended for, it is my understanding that this permissible. This arises

out of a review of the NPT in 1995, in which a number of decisions

were concluded. Chief among them is that nothing shall undermine

the IAEA's authority with respect to Article III and the safeguards.

It is obviously a matter of interpretation whether this creates a le-

gally binding obligation on the part of states parties' to comply with

requests such as this. However, it would be contrary to the inten-

tion of the Treaty if a state party were to create obstacles with re-

spect to nuclear inspections and the disclosure of certain forms of

information. This is the present situation with Iran.

 

Whilst I take the point that this is a grey area it must be recalled

that there are very few instances of states parties refusing such

requests (not necessarily of this type). The last country that I can

think of was North Korea, and we all know how that ended.

 

Iran has a vested interest in being transparent. Ultimately, the

burden is on Iran to disprove allegations of transference of nu-

clear material to weapons because this is at the heart of the NPT.

Moreover, both the UN and the IAEA in the past have expressed

a desire to maintain the Middle East is a nuclear-free area.

 

It is indeed unfortunate that the current political leadership use

this highly volatile issue has political fodder as a cover for domes-

tic woes in Iran. But this is a decision of the Iranian political author-

ities and not of the West.

 

-Hoch

[Aileron]

Exactly what Astro said.

 

Anyway Aileron, i remember you saying Iran started the Iran-Iraq war. I had to correct you on that one... exactly what history books do you read?

 

I was being expedient. Iraq started a border skirmish. Iran responded with a war. The point I was trying to make was that the war was about Iran's expansionism. If they weren't being expansionist they would have made peace after fighting the initial invasion back. While technically Iraq started the fighting, Iran was the one who decided the scale and nature of most of the conflict, so it is more fair to say it was Iran's war. I'll admit I'm not very good at communicating clearly, and you interpreted it as a faulty statement.

 

Oh, "mining of uranium" should be revealed first and foremost. The IAEA can't know they have tracked all the uranium unless they know how much they have to track to begin with.

 

Though this argument seems to be involving a lot of international law, which is not my strong suit.

[SeVeR]

Iraq launched a full scale invasion of Iran. I don't know where you get this idea of a border skirmish from. Iraq wanted to capture territory (Khuzestan).

 

Iraq were attempting to take advantage of the situation following the Iranian Islamic revolution. They made significant gains into Iran (showing their intent was more than a "border skirmish") but were pushed back by Iran. Iran then decided that Saddam Hussein needed to go, and turned on Iraq. The USA provided Iraq with mus!@#$%^&* gas and nerve agents (WMDs) to repel the Iranian !@#$%^&*aults. Thousands of Iranians died.

 

20 years later Saddam threatens to sell all of his oil in Euros, America invades claiming Iraq has WMDs.... which THEY SOLD THEM.

 

What had changed in Iraq in those 20 years? Nothing other than Saddams deteriating allegiance with the USA. Suddenly WMDs are a problem, and lets throw terrorism into the pot too (no evidence of that either). We all know it was about the oil.

 

It's interesting how this gets forgotten...