Iran Bars Some Nuclear Inspectors, Raising U.N. Alarms
I’m not against Iran having nuclear power. And really, I’m not sure the anti-proliferation régime has a leg to stand on, since when India & Pakistan got nukes, it just threw up its hands. There’s not a lot of real rollback.
But this sort of thing worries me. Yes, it’s part of what I said would happen–that Iran would get nukes, & only give them up after the USA did–but it would have been nice for it not to go this way.
Funny, Iraq didn’t have nukes AND it let the inspectors in. Surely we can expect another glorious invasion soon? 
I for one am not afraid of Iran having nukes, not with Pakistan and North Korea on the list of nuclear powers. Iran may as well be the stable and friendly Land of Oz compared to those other two. Also, I’m a little uncomfortable with the US (and other nations) saying essentially: “We have nukes but you’re not allowed. Nanny nanny boo boo.” Hypocrisy much? The US has flaws and is governed by fallible people, same as Iran. I don’t see why I should be afraid of one set of bombs but not the other.
So the article mentions Iran’s objections to the two inspectors, but doesn’t bother saying what the objections were, and instead wanders off into telling us some general background about Irans nuclear project (at least semi-relevant) and then Syria (apparently we’ve devolved into writing a general article about the IAEA in asia to pad out the end of the article). They also don’t bother to say whether the blocking of the two relevant inspectors leaves the inspection teams with inspectors who do have the qualifications they feel they need, or what the rules are for selecting members of these teams. I can’t imagine Iran’s veto ability on the teams is absolute.
I wish reporters would write articles that tried to convey all the relevant information about the thing they’re actually reporting on, instead of just free associating on the general topic.
This is a tired argument. Iran has signed and ratified the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty as a non-nuclear weapon state. As such, the treaty forbids them from acquiring, receiving, manufacturing, or seek or receive assistance in manufacturing nuclear weapons. The treaty also requires non-nuclear weapon states to accept IAEA safeguards to ensure a non-nuclear state is not diverting resources or fuel from peaceful nuclear energy projects to nuclear weapons projects.
Rather than play a cat-and-mouse game with IAEA inspectors and hide either information or the existence of entire nuclear facilities, it could end all of this by withdrawing from the treaty. Of course, the only real purpose for withdrawing from the treaty would be to remove the last legal and international impediments from developing nuclear weapons.
Treaty or no, why should some countries be allowed to pursue the technology to make nuclear bombs and not others? I agree Iran should withdraw if they refuse to abide by the terms of the treaty, but what basis do we have to set up such an unfair system (countries with nukes get to keep them, countries without are forbidden from pursuing them) in the first place? I think either all autonomous nations should be allowed to pursue and possess nukes or else none of them should. This tiered system we have where the countries with the big sticks get to bully the weaker countries and refuse to allow them sticks of their own is ridiculous.
To paraphrase an old line, “the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty is not a suicide pact”. Given the threat they live under from America they’d be both personally suicidal and criminally irresponsible as leaders to not try to get nuclear weapons.
Several “experienced inspectors” in Iraq turned out to be CIA spies, gathering information prior to invasion.
The US has repeatedly threatened Iraq with military action over the past 5 years.
So this hardly think that this is an unreasonable demand on Iran’s part.
If the US were capable of acting with any degree of honour or integrity there might be some basis for criticism, but when it uses the IAEC inspectors to spy on its enemies we can hardly expect any nation to allow IAEC inspectors anything but minimal freedom.
Once again, then you US for fucking up 50 years of international trust and accord building. Mission accomplished.
This the same Iran who has restarted it’s nuclear weapons research several times in secret, despite being a signatory to the NPT?
Conversely, if Iran had any degree of honor then they would have the right to be offended by such duplicity. Since nations don’t act due to the dictates of honor, instead act due to their own perceived national interests, ‘honor’ really isn’t in it. That said, I don’t believe that anyone has exactly covered themselves in ‘honor’ or ‘glory’ in this entire business…and that includes our supposedly pure as the driven snow Euro-buddies either.
I think it’s a foregone conclusion that eventually, Iran is going to get nuclear weapons. And the situation will become that little bit more unstable. But I’m sure that, as Der Trihs says, they are REALLY only doing it to protect themselves from the evil US (:p), and that their government is just as stable as Pakistan or North Korea…no chance of THEM going completely tits up and the nukes winding up in the hands of gods know who, ehe?
Countries that signed the NPT agreed NOT to pursue nuclear weapons. If Iran wanted to build a bomb they simply needed to NOT sign the treaty, right? And, of course, they can always formally back out of it and then do whatever they want…after all, it’s not exactly an unprecedented development.
Why is it ‘unfair’? And why do you feel that it would be a good thing to simply allow ever country to get nuclear weapons? Do you not see how destabilizing that would be?
So, you feel that the proper thing to do would be to simply let every country build the things, correct? That local arms races should include a mad scramble for nuclear weapons as well? Because that would be the realistic effect…if Iran gets nukes, then several of it’s neighbors are going to think they need them as well. And you think that this would be a GOOD thing? That it would be fair and just?
Yeah…'cause if Iran gets nukes it’s not going to be a regional bully at all, right? That would simply be fair and just.
The thing is, the UNSC didn’t come up with the NPT in order to keep the small fry down…nothing an Iran or North Korea could get could possibly threaten one of the superpowers. It wasn’t about being unfair…it was about trying to keep the things from proliferating, and keep them in the hands of powers that would be at least nominally stable. Even THEN, the Soviets went tits up, and Pakistan and NK are both highly unstable, and could go the same way. It’s probably inevitable that at some point someone who is highly unstable is going to get their hands on one of the evil things and blow the crap out of some city somewhere. By having an NPT, however, that probability has been decreased by some non-zero amount…which was and remains the whole point. It’s not about ‘fair’…it’s about at least making the attempt TRY and keep some future city from going into the fire, and hopefully saving millions of lives.
-XT
As opposed to, say, China? As for their motives, what other motives to go to this kind of trouble do you think they might have? Getting us to back off is the only plausible benefit they could gain from such weapons.
Highly unlikely. They’ve shown little interest in that. And they couldn’t actually use them without being destroyed in return, which makes them useless for any bullying ambitions they may have.
Well…China is a tad more stable than Iran, plus they got their weapons before the NPT IIRC.
Iran? I think their motives are pretty clear. They want to become a Muslim regional superpower, possibly one of or THE leader of the ‘Muslim world’, such as it is, and that getting nukes is simply a way to one up the rest of the powers in the region. The effect will be that the other various Islamic powers (especially the Sunni dominated ones) will either have to build their own or put themselves more firmly into the sphere of one of the nuclear armed superpowers.
I disagree with your assessment of Iran’s past motivations or actions, but I concede that it’s debatable and don’t want to sidetrack the discussion. The thing is, using nuclear weapons isn’t the point of getting them…it’s in the perceptions of having the things, and in the effect they will undoubtedly have on their neighbors, and on the rest of the world community. You have always looked on Iran getting these things as a defensive measure, but I think this is because of your antipathy towards the US. IMHO, it’s the prestige aspects that are the real reasons behind why Iran and others want to obtain the damn things.
-XT
What the hell do you call their shipping of arms to Hezbollah via Syria and Lebanon? Or their arming of Al Qaida in Iraq? Fucking tiddly winks? Dude, I get that you hate the US with the white-hot passion of a thousand suns, but it’s time you realized that NO country is lily pure. They all act out of self-interest and in many (or even most) cases, that self-interest means they’re going to fuck over other people.
I don’t really think they are much more stable. The authorities have basically switched their bets on staying in control from the fading ideology of communism to attempting to bribe people into compliance with a more prosperous life; but economic expansions don’t last forever, and they are seriously damaging themselves in many ways with their fairly unregulated industry.
I really doubt that theory, since it discounts what I feel are their real motives: making us back off. We are the ones who have been implacable hostile to them for decades and rattled our saber at them on a regular basis. Including the occasional implied threat of a nuclear strike on them. We are the one who supported Saddam in his invasion. We are the ones who invaded their neighbor Iraq over blatant lies about nuclear weapons. We are a much more important problem than any future ambitions about becoming a regional power, something which they don’t even need nukes to pull off.
Pretty much, yes. That’s petty harassment, not some attempt to gain serious regional power.
Speaking of tired arguments…
Iran is more likely to be struck, militarily, by the US if they pursue nuclear weapons than if they don’t. That is a fact.
Once they get them, it might be a different matter. But apart from them pursuing nuclear weapons, the US has no interest in military intervention in Iran.
Really? Cite?
I am unaware of the American government making any such threat. Please enlighten us.
No, that’s nonsense, as demonstrated by Iraq. Our conquest of Iraq was a clear demonstration that attempting to appease us is suicidal, only sheer force will keep us away.
I didn’t know Iran had any bars.
If that’s true, why don’t they withdraw from the NPT? Why have various high-level Iranian leaders denied that Iran is working towards or will attempt to works towards anytime soon a nuclear weapon? Either they don’t have nuclear weapons and don’t plan on acquiring them - thus negating any justification for UNSC sanctions or a potential Israeli/US strike or they should publicly declare they either have or are very close to possessing nuclear weapons - thus potentially deterring any Israeli/US strike should they secretly manage to develop one or more weapons before a strike could take place. Whatever game Iran is currently playing by publicly denying trying to manufacture nuclear weapons but playing footsie with the IAEA and acting suspiciously only seems to be inviting an attack (most likely by Israel).
How did Iraq try to appease the US? If anything, it was Libya who tried and apparently successfully appeased the US by publicly giving up their largely defunct nuclear program.
Don’t you think the US has learned its lesson with Iraq?
I’m damn sure that if Cameron tried to join in a war against Iran there would be riots.
You are unaware of this? Really?
Defense Secretary Robert Gates
Under-Secretary of Defense for Policy Michele Flournoy
George W Bush
Barack Obama
Once again, I am suprised that you are totally unaware of this.