Posted on 03/04/2003 5:19:10 PM PST by knak
Iran will start operating a uranium processing plant within the next few weeks, it said yesterday, a move that has long concerned experts as a stage in the possible development of nuclear weapons.
Western intelligence agencies have given warning for more than a decade that Teheran was secretly developing a nuclear weapons programme under the guise of creating an alternative energy supply.
Washington has contended that Iran does not need nuclear energy because of its extensive oil and gas supplies. Teheran says the volatile situation in the Middle East and the constant shift in alliances means it has to ensure supplies that are independent of outside influences.
The announcement by Hassan Rohani, secretary-general of the National Supreme Security Council, that a uranium processing plant in Isfahan, central Iran, would open shortly was bound to set fresh alarm bells ringing.
Iran has always firmly denied developing a secret nuclear weapons programme, but the Isfahan plant would be an essential piece in a chain of installations that go towards producing the enriched uranium essential for atomic armaments. The plant would process uranium from nearby mines, and the resulting gas would then be enriched at a plant in the town of Natanz. Uranium must be enriched for use in nuclear reactors to generate electricity. But highly enriched uranium is a key ingredient for weapons.
Mr Rohani said: "Having access to the technology is not translated into having access to an atomic bomb.
"It is scientific technology used for peaceful purposes."
Mohammed ElBaradei, the head of the Vienna-based United Nations nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, visited Natanz, 200 miles south of Teheran, last month and reported seeing a sophisticated facility with a pilot project.
He said part of a larger unit still under construction was being built underground. Underground facilities are of particular concern to inspectors because they cannot easily be monitored from the air.
A UN spokesman said that as far as is known, Iran had so far operated within the constraints of the IAEA and all its facilities are "under our safeguards".
US officials say Iran's existing facilities could, nevertheless, be used to gain access to fissile material by clandestinely diverting it from a location such Natanz.
Teacher points out: the pro-Western younger generations (45% of the entire population at last count) in Iran I feel that there is too much emphasis on the new generation of university educated Iranians. Yes, they are much more pro-Western, and very alientated from the traditionalists in the regime. But they make up a tiny proportion of the Iranian population. A very tiny proportion! The young people, who make up 45%, are mainly in the rural areas of this nation of 60 million, and most of them are village boys and girls, of a very traditional type. The university students are reminiscent of the 60s radicals in America - and it is interesting that they are having the same problems of widespread drug use. If you went to Berkeley in 1968, you would have the impression that the youth of American were finished with our traditional style of democracy. But they were just a noisy minority - very culturally influential (as these Iranians will be) - but nothing like the majority of the nation.
Also, war changes things. It causes a nation to unite behind its leaders. Would not all of you have stilled every criticism of Bill Clinton, if there was a foreign army at the border?
Go right ahead.
And if you don't see the irony in someone accusing others of being UNEDUCATED in an ungrammatical sentence, that's fine with me. To each his own.
But, since he is clearly right in his ascertion,
I do not believe that he is right in his assertion. Let alone in his "ascertion", whatever that is.
then he could of been ...
Oh geez. You're just putting me on, aren't you? ;-)
The nuke gene can never be kept in the bottle.
My thoughts exactly. Colonel Ramon may be with Hashem, but his spirit lives on in the IDF.
Not much eh? So the kids are going to go up against the Revolutionary Guard and the MOIS which are controlled by the Mullahs? With what? Stick and stones? BTW 70% of the Iraqi public is also not have a love fest either and we saw what happens to those who attempt revolt.
First, Study the region and the extreme sect of both the Shiites and Sunni's while the Shah was very heavy handed to keep them in order as well. Second, The Axis of Evil? Please first understand how this term came to be. Third, if you think we are going to do all this in a year your living on another planet. Fourth, the Israeli's are not stupid either.
"No, they will not be allowed to return. That border will be sealed pretty much (too bad we can't use the same military force to seal the Mexican border, but that's another issue). If they do not overthrow the mullahs by the time we are ready, we will invade Iran from the East, West, air and sea late this year."
NO eh? Seal the boarder eh? Watch and learn how this is harder than you think. Invade Iran? You do have a screw loose.
Hell, I can answer this one. It's called military power and will. Enough said.
Yes I have matter of fact I have and I just retured from Dubai. I never said the Shah was a good thing but he was at one time important to us. Talk to Carter about screwing up Iran. I also have a clue. The reason why I support intervention into IRAN FIRST before Iraq. Saddam had to go but he presents nothing of the threat that Iran presents in the region in both terrorism and weapons systems. I also understand the spheres in the region including what the Russians are doing. Lets not forget the Chinese as well.
Since you claim to have a clue tell me how we expect to take on Iran after Iraq? Yea, now tell me the one of the reasons for us taking on Iraq first is to have a forward operating base in the region to take on Iran and I will tell you it is you who is clueless.
I highlighted your remark for a point. The british tried this a very longtime ago and it failed. If anything invading and occupying Iraq could give even more influence to the Fundamentalists Shiite and Sunni Muslim in the region, especially Iran and it's Shiite Muslim majority which is also in the majority in Iraq and this includes the Kurds. Let's not mention the millions of Iraqi Shiite's now residing in Iran as well.
Think they will be rejoicing over a US victory in Iraq once they return? Terrorism itself dates back to around 1094AD with an Egyptian Sect of the Ismailis who were Shiite Muslims. After the Gulf War in Iraq and even with in the Baath Party there was a Shiite uprising.
There are geo-political forces in the region we still do not have a good working understanding of. Changing a regime especially in the Iraq region without first uprooting or degrading the source(s) of Islamic Fundamental Revolution can very easily cause a severe backlash. If the root-cause of the problem is not degraded meaning Iran and its Shiite Fundamental Religious Leaders.
What will be the backlash if we do topple Iraq and then target Iran while the Fundamental Shiite population in Iraq is seeking control of the new Iraq Government?
Tactics is one thing, strategy is another. While only someone who is an ignoramus can't tell the difference between the two.
"Iran is the most serious issue, you and I must agree on that. We must take Iraq first so we can neutralize Syria and have that deep water port to deploy heavy equipment. Kuwait is inadequate for that. As for your experience there, I will not question it other than to ask, what did the good citizens of the UAE advise you (as myself)? They want stability last time I talked to my friends and that means the elimination of the Lebanese, Syrian, Iraqi, Iranian, Saudi and if necessary Pakistani regimes. I'm curious to hear what your friends told you. Despite the US media's proclamation about "religion is first" in that region, my friends say capitalism is first."
Yes Iran is a very serious issue much more serious than Syria primarily because of it Religious Leaders. While Syria must also be dealth with. However remember Iran is not part of the Arab World and would not be viewed as an attack on an Arab Nation whereas Syria would be. Yes stability and commerce is one of the prime motives in the UAE though as you well know its a Country that is one of the more progressive Arab States unlike many of the others.
Thank you for the debate as well though we disagree with the tactics. Just to let you know the same debate is going on inside the NSC as we write. You are correct we are going in. Once we have done so all debate must stop and ALL support must be directed at our troops. After that we shall see what we have wrought?
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.