Posted on 09/06/2003 6:09:24 PM PDT by Pubbie
America will tomorrow demand that the United Nations takes urgent action to prevent Iran acquiring the atom bomb as fears mount that Teheran is on course to develop a nuclear weapons capability within two years.
United States officials will make the demand at a special meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna that has been arranged to consider a 10-page report by Mohammed al-Baradei, the agency's director-general, into the state of Iran's nuclear programme.
Washington has already expressed deep concern about the discovery of traces of weapons grade uranium found in soil samples taken from one of Iran's top secret nuclear facilities last July.
In his report, a copy of which has been obtained by The Telegraph, Mr al-Baradei lists serious concerns raised by UN weapons inspectors about the scope of Iran's nuclear programme, which Teheran continues to insist is aimed at developing a nuclear power industry.
Inspectors are particularly concerned about activity at a nuclear complex at Natanz, in central Iran, which has sophisticated equipment for enriching uranium to weapons grade standard.
Even though the complex was built five years ago, the Iranian authorities only confirmed its existence to the IAEA earlier this year after its location was revealed by Iranian exiles.
The report also details the inspectors' concerns about the development of a heavy water facility at Arak, which they believe could help Iran to manufacture weapons grade uranium.
Mr al-Baradei writes in the report's conclusion that "there remain a number of important outstanding issues, particularly with regard to Iran's enrichment programme, that require urgent resolution".
US officials, however, are concerned that Mr al-Baradei, who this year argued in favour of UN inspectors being given more time to locate Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, will try to play down the significance of the recent discoveries made in Iran.
One American closely involved in monitoring Iran's nuclear programme said: "The big difference between Iraq and Iran is that the Iranians now have the ability to develop an atom bomb within two years. The time has come to force the Iranians to come clean about their real intentions."
Although Mr al-Baradei admits that the Iranians have deployed a variety of delaying tactics to prevent UN inspectors gaining access to secret nuclear facilities, he believes that they should be given more time to comply with their obligations under the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty.
American officials fear that many Europeans on the IAEA's 35-member board of governors, some of whose countries have lucrative trade ties with Teheran, will back Mr al-Baradei's position.
We are civilized, and not monsters as are the other nations that actually would like to use those weapons.
We have an obligation to the world to protect it from insane persons.
It is (IMO) too bad that you have to ask. It indicates that you likely skipped out on a lot of your homework assignments.
Because so many countries already have them. The object is to stop any more from being made .
It's like trying to stop a plague.
I just wanted people to know this because it sounds as if Bush is having a hissy fit because Iran defied the USA or someting. It is not the case.
On the other hand India, signed no such treaty and is thus not violating any agreements (which is what internatioal treaties really are) to build nuclear weapons. If Bush tried to stop India from building nuclear arms for example The world could and would ask Bush--on what authority do you tell India this?
I think Pakistan is also a non-signer.
Self-preservation and common sense. We hve been capable of wiping out any country on earth for a half century, and we haven't. We can't trust the unstable despots who run North Korea, Iran etc. not to do so.
Stay Safe !
We built them first .... we're just protecting our intellectual property rights under copyright law (75 years).
"Because we pay your friggen salaries, that's why. No agreement, no cash."
I would not have a problem with certain nations being in possession of nuclear weapons, because they're generally sane and sensible international actors. The US, France, Britain, Russia, China, India, Japan, Germany, Canada, Norway, Taiwan, and South Korea come to mind, for example. With some of these nations, I would have reservations, but an argument can be made that borderline nations tend to sober up really quickly when they realize that nukes aren't really usable for anything beyond deterrence.
Nations led by militant Islam or other similarly nutty ideologies (North Korea's Juche concept, Iraq under the Husseini al-Tikriti clan, Zimbabwe's "Kill and/or Loot Whitey" acts, et cetera) are very likely to actually USE nukes as if they were simply bigger bombs. To quote Egon from Ghostbusters, "It would be bad."
You could probably start with Jimmy 'dont shoot the student' Carter.
The major problem here is...the US has no credibilty left. We said Saddam was "on the verge" of producing nuclear weapons, missiles loaded and ready to fire containing chem's on the perimeter of Baghdad, etc. None of this was the case.
Unfortunately, Iran may be the "real deal" yet..."the boy who cried wolf" to many times will have a impact here.
Time for Israel is step up to the plate. We'll cover their ass(politically), should they need it...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.