# Iran, post 9/11 **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 26, 2007, 6:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-post-9-11/420524 "2007-09-26T06:31:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![sqweels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f19dbf/32.png) [@sqweels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sqweels)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2007, 6:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-post-9-11/420524/1 "2007-09-26T06:31:45Z")
I’ve heard references to Iran having offered to help against Al Queda in the wake of 9/11. What were the details of this and what other communication was there with Iran in the early stages of the War on Terrorism? I gather there was a large candlelight vigil in Teheran after 9/11, but the US/Iranian relations went south pretty quickly, didn’t they? Were the Iranians planning all along to produce nuclear weapons and go on the Islamofascist offensive, or was there still some potential for moderation that was somehow fouled up? ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2007, 7:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-post-9-11/420524/2 "2007-09-26T07:01:08Z")
Iran is a majority Shi’ite country and Al Qaeda, while proclaiming its cause embraces all Muslims, is predominantly Sunni. So there’s a religious issue. Prior to 9/11, Al Qaeda was based most strongly in Afghanistan. If Al Qaeda wanted to expand its territory, its next obvious target would have been Iran, which seperates Afghanistan from the rest of the Middle East. So Iran had reasons to not support Al Qaeda and had been watching their activities. After 9/11 they decided “an enemy of my enemy is sort of my friend” and passed on some of their information to the CIA. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2007, 7:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-post-9-11/420524/3 "2007-09-26T07:04:51Z")
For starters, both the Taliban and AlQ are associated with an extreme Muslim sect known as wahabbism, centered in Saudi. Wahabbists are violently anti-Shia, for reasons known best by them, and the main population center for Shia Muslims is Iran. So Iran would have been entirely supportive of any effort to reduce the Taliban. Whether this would have involved any more cordial relations with the Great Satan is anybody’s guess. ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2007, 10:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-post-9-11/420524/4 "2007-09-26T10:13:06Z")
[QUOTE=sqweels] I’ve heard references to Iran having offered to help against Al Queda in the wake of 9/11. What were the details of this and what other communication was there with Iran in the early stages of the War on Terrorism? I gather there was a large candlelight vigil in Teheran after 9/11, but the US/Iranian relations went south pretty quickly, didn’t they? Were the Iranians planning all along to produce nuclear weapons and go on the Islamofascist offensive, or was there still some potential for moderation that was somehow fouled up? [/QUOTE] There is no evidence that Iran is going for nukes. Just the same old suspicions and same old accusations from the same old war criminals with an agenda. Just like there is no evidence that Iran is significantly aiding insurgents in Iraq. And islamofascism is a meaningless neo-con hate-speak term signifying nothing. Iran are entitled as sigs to the Non Proliferation Treaty to develop nuclear power and given the hostility of a proven aggessive enemy occupying a country on their borders you couldn’t blame them for wanting nukes.. ---
**Author:** ![Hail\_Ants](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/dc4da7/32.png) [@Hail\_Ants](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hail_Ants)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2007, 10:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-post-9-11/420524/5 "2007-09-26T10:31:48Z")
> [@](#): > > Iran are entitled as sigs to the Non Proliferation Treaty to develop nuclear power and given the hostility of a proven aggessive enemy occupying a country on their borders you couldn’t blame them for wanting nukes.. Yeah right. Iran has huge oil deposits. They have absolutely no need for the expense, complexity, nor the dangers of nuclear power. Plus they are an even bigger sponsor of terrorism than Iraq was. They are doing it to make weapons grade fissionable material. No if, ands or buts about it. And they **must & will** be stopped by force if they don’t voluntarily. No ifs, ands or buts about that either. ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2007, 10:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-post-9-11/420524/6 "2007-09-26T10:44:17Z")
[QUOTE=Hail Ants] Yeah right. Iran has huge oil deposits. They have absolutely no need for the expense, complexity, nor the dangers of nuclear power. Plus they are an even bigger sponsor of terrorism than Iraq was. They are doing it to make weapons grade fissionable material. No if, ands or buts about it. And they **must & will** be stopped by force if they don’t voluntarily. No ifs, ands or buts about that either. [/QUOTE] It’s not up to you to judge the economic or power needs of another nation. You do not have the information, you do not understand the costs, you do not have any basis on which to make a judgment and quite frankly your record as a cheerleader for the whole Iraq debacle suggests that, like with Bush and the other unindicted co-conspirators, any judgment expressed is likely to be 100% wrong. All you are doing is parroting the same neo-con talking points as part of the same process that led us into the current mess. [And the IAEA disagree with you](http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Statements/2007/ebsp2007n014a.html#iran) . > [@](#): > > Regarding the implementation of Agency safeguards in the Islamic Republic of Iran, I would make four brief points. > > First, the Agency has been able to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran. Iran has continued to provide the access and reporting needed to enable Agency verification in this regard. > > Second, Iran has provided the Agency with additional information and access needed to resolve a number of long outstanding issues, such as the scope and nature of past plutonium experiments. > > Third, contrary to the decisions of the Security Council, calling on Iran to take certain confidence building measures, Iran has not suspended its enrichment related activities, and is continuing with its construction of the heavy water reactor at Arak. This is regrettable. > > Fourth, while the Agency so far has been unable to verify certain important aspects relevant to the scope and nature of Iran´s nuclear programme, Iran and the Agency agreed last month on a work plan for resolving all outstanding verification issues. > > These verification issues are at the core of the lack of confidence about the nature of Iran´s programme, and are what prompted actions by the Security Council. Iran´s agreement on such a work plan, with a defined timeline, is therefore an important step in the right direction. Naturally, Iran´s active cooperation and transparency is the key to full and timely implementation of the work plan. If the Agency were able to provide credible assurance about the peaceful nature of Iran´s past and current nuclear programme, this would go a long way towards building confidence about Iran´s nuclear programme, and could create the conditions for a comprehensive and durable solution. So no - your and Bush’s discredited and hysterical judgment aside - the people charged with being in the know are, like the Iraq weapons inspectors, pretty sanguine. And be sure to get back to me when we stop sponsoring terrorism around the world. Or even in Iran. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2007, 10:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-post-9-11/420524/7 "2007-09-26T10:51:55Z")
[QUOTE=Hail Ants] Iran has huge oil deposits. They have absolutely no need for the expense, complexity, nor the dangers of nuclear power. [/quote] Except that they might want to sell that oil. And they might want to have something after it’s gone. [QUOTE=Hail Ants] Plus they are an even bigger sponsor of terrorism than Iraq was. [/quote] Since Iraq wasn’t much of one, that says little. And it’s not like we haven’t cheerfully “sponsered terror”. [QUOTE=Hail Ants] They are doing it to make weapons grade fissionable material. No if, ands or buts about it. And they **must & will** be stopped by force if they don’t voluntarily. No ifs, ands or buts about that either. [/QUOTE] Yes, there is. What right do we have to stop them ? And why shouldn’t they ? Under the circumstances ( namely, having bloodthirsty, amoral conquerers like us on their border ) it’s not only reasonable, but the **duty** of the Iranian government to acquire nukes. We are the ones running around conquering and slaughtering and destroying, not them. We are the danger to the region and the world, not them. More than just a danger, since we have and are mass murdering people right now. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2007, 12:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-post-9-11/420524/8 "2007-09-26T12:29:00Z")
[QUOTE=tagos] There is no evidence that Iran is going for nukes. Just the same old suspicions and same old accusations from the same old war criminals with an agenda. [/quote] I believe you are mistaken on that point. From CNN: > [@](#): > > [France: Iran program ‘military’](http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/02/16/iran.france/index.html) > > Thursday, February 16, 2006; Posted: 2:12 p.m. EST (19:12 GMT) > > PARIS, France (CNN) – Iran’s nuclear activity is a cover for a clandestine weapons program, French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy has said in France’s most direct attack on Tehran in the escalating international dispute. > > \ > > Europe and the United States fear that Iran is using its nuclear energy program to build nuclear weapons, and the U.N. Security Council is to consider Iran’s nuclear activities next month. Amid mounting tensions, Iran resumed small-scale uranium enrichment last week. > > “Now it’s up to the Security Council to say what it will do, what means it will use to stop, to manage, to halt this terrible crisis of nuclear proliferation caused by Iran,” Douste-Blazy said. There is also the matter of [UNSC resolution 1737](http://www.undemocracy.com/S-RES-1737(2006).pdf), passed by that body in Dec 2006. It’s a PDF file, and I can’t quote from it, but it clearly expresses concern about the potential military nature of Iran’s nuclear program. The US may be more vocal about Iran’s nuclear program and the potential for military applications, but it is absolutely not alone in that concern. As for Iran and al Qaeda, I’m not aware of any ties that have been substantiated and, as others have said, there are good reasons to suspect they would not be compatible as allies. OTOH, there is a saying (originating in that part of the world)… something about “the enemy of my enemy”. You know the drill. Now, that could cut both ways (either in favor of the US or in favor of al Qaeda). In the first year of the invasion of Afghanistan, it seem to cut in our favor, with Iran helping on its border with that country. Given Bush’s bellicose rhetoric, it’s unclear that it might not cut the other way sometime in the future. Fortunately, for us and the rest of the world, that should not be much of an issue after Jan '09. ---
**Author:** ![toadspittle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c0e974/32.png) [@toadspittle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/toadspittle)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2007, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-post-9-11/420524/9 "2007-09-26T14:32:16Z")
Regarding the OP: [How Neocons Sabotaged Iran’s Help on al-Qaeda](http://www.antiwar.com/orig/porter.php?articleid=8590) > [@](#): > > The United States and Iran were on a course to work closely together on the war against al-Qaeda and its Taliban sponsors in Afghanistan in late 2001 and early 2002 – until Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld stepped in to scuttle that cooperation, according to officials who were involved at the time. > > After the Sept. 11 attacks, U.S. officials responsible for preparing for war in Afghanistan needed Iran’s help to unseat the Taliban and establish a stable government in Kabul. Iran had organized resistance by the Northern Alliance and had provided arms and funding at a time when the United States had been unwilling to do so. > > “The Iranians had real contacts with important players in Afghanistan and were prepared to use their influence in constructive ways in coordination with the United States,” recalls Flynt Leverett, then senior director for Middle East affairs in the National Security Council (NSC), in an interview with IPS. > > … > > The bureaucracy recognized that there was an opportunity to work with Iran not only on stabilizing Afghanistan but on al-Qaeda as well. As reported by the Washington Post on Oct. 22, 2004, the State Department’s policy planning staff had written a paper in late November 2001 suggesting that the United States should propose more formal arrangements for cooperation with Iran on fighting al-Qaeda. > > That would have involved exchanging intelligence information with Tehran as well as coordinating border sweeps to capture al-Qaeda fighters and leaders who were already beginning to move across the border into Pakistan and Iran. The CIA agreed with the proposal, according to the Post’s sources, as did the head of the White House Office for Combating Terrorism, retired Gen. Wayne A. Downing. > > But the cooperation against al-Qaeda was not the priority for the anti-Iranian interests in the White House and the Pentagon. ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2007, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-post-9-11/420524/10 "2007-09-26T15:22:49Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] I believe you are mistaken on that point. From CNN: [/QUOTE] Accusations from right-wing pols cut no ice with me and neither, given the Iraq fiasco, should it with anyone else. When some independent evidence emerges - and the IAEA are the people who are monitoring it - then I’m willing to listen. But as the USA and the UK refuse to hold up their end of the non-proliferation bargain I don’t think we are in any position to get upset with Iran. We ignored Pakistan’s nuke bazaar and we blithely ignore the fact it is their nukes that will make Pakistan the first Islamic fundamentalist state. Any attack on Iran will just make that more likely. In the end I don’t think there is anything that can be done to stop Iran getting a nuke if that is what they want. Nothing that won’t make matters worse in terms of pissing off the muslim world even more thoroughly, destabilising our allies and screwing the world economy. And we have no moral leg to stand on anyway. If we want to stop them diplomacy is the only game in town. I’m convinced however, that the Bush regime will do their damnest to engineer a causus belli for bombing. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2007, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-post-9-11/420524/11 "2007-09-26T16:12:30Z")
[QUOTE=tagos] Accusations from right-wing pols cut no ice with me and neither, given the Iraq fiasco, should it with anyone else. [/quote] So, can we get a cite that he is one of the “same old war criminals” (your words, not mine)? Or have you moved the goal post? And can we get a definition of what a “right-wing” pol is-- preferable not: \*anyone \*\*tagos \*_disagrees with_. > [@](#): > > When some independent evidence emerges - and the IAEA are the people who are monitoring it - then I’m willing to listen. But that’s not what you said earlier, and that’s not what I was responding to. You said “There is no evidence that Iran is going for nukes. Just the same old suspicions and same old accusations from the same old war criminals with an agenda.” Do you retract that now? > [@](#): > > But as the USA and the UK refuse to hold up their end of the non-proliferation bargain I don’t think we are in any position to get upset with Iran. A separate issue entirely, but one that I don’t have any substantial disagreement with you over. > [@](#): > > We ignored Pakistan’s nuke bazaar and we blithely ignore the fact it is their nukes that will make Pakistan the first Islamic fundamentalist state. What are we supposed to do about it? Ain’t much we can do. BTW, did you mean to say the first Islamic fundamentalist state with nuclear weapons? Surely you didn’t mean what you wrote, since there is at least one such state already (If Iran or Saudi Arabia doesn’t qualify, I don’t know what does). > [@](#): > > Any attack on Iran will just make that more likely. > > In the end I don’t think there is anything that can be done to stop Iran getting a nuke if that is what they want. Nothing that won’t make matters worse in terms of pissing off the muslim world even more thoroughly, destabilising our allies and screwing the world economy. And we have no moral leg to stand on anyway. > > If we want to stop them diplomacy is the only game in town. I’m convinced however, that the Bush regime will do their damnest to engineer a causus belli for bombing. Again, I can’t disagree with that in any substantive way. But you were still wrong in your initial statement about who thinks Iran is trying to develop nulcear weapons. It is not just Bush and the crowd that cried wolf about Iraq. I gave cites to back up my claim, and you have not repudiated them. All I can see that you have done is to move the goal post instead of admitting you made a mistake. ---
**Author:** ![sqweels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f19dbf/32.png) [@sqweels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sqweels)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2007, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-post-9-11/420524/12 "2007-09-26T18:08:45Z")
OK, but it wasn’t for some months after 9/11 that Iran re-started its nuclear program. Have any analysts provided an explanation as to their timing? Were they keeping with their schedule to nuke Israel, or were they reacting to something? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2007, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-post-9-11/420524/13 "2007-09-26T18:40:38Z")
[QUOTE=sqweels] OK, but it wasn’t for some months after 9/11 that Iran re-started its nuclear program. Have any analysts provided an explanation as to their timing? Were they keeping with their schedule to nuke Israel, or were they reacting to something? [/QUOTE] There could be any number of reasons, assuming that they are trying to build nukes (probable, if you ask me, but not certain). 1. Having nukes is the best way to make sure the US won’t invade (witness Iraq vs NK). 2. With the US throwing its weight around with Iran’s neighbors, Iran might want to throw its weight around, too. 3. With a weakened Iraq, Iran becomes the new regional power (aside from Pakistan, which is probably more interested in India than the M.E.) 4. It provides a counterbalance to Israel. ---
**Author:** ![sqweels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f19dbf/32.png) [@sqweels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sqweels)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2007, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-post-9-11/420524/14 "2007-09-26T21:54:06Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] There could be any number of reasons, assuming that they are trying to build nukes (probable, if you ask me, but not certain). 1. Having nukes is the best way to make sure the US won’t invade (witness Iraq vs NK). 2. With the US throwing its weight around with Iran’s neighbors, Iran might want to throw its weight around, too. 3. With a weakened Iraq, Iran becomes the new regional power (aside from Pakistan, which is probably more interested in India than the M.E.) 4. It provides a counterbalance to Israel. [/QUOTE] Your first 3 points imply that we might not be in this situation (assuming, etc.) if the US had acted differently after 9/11. #4 could very well be true, but raises the question of why their nuke program was dormant for so long. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2007, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-post-9-11/420524/15 "2007-09-26T22:03:33Z")
[QUOTE=sqweels] Your first 3 points imply that we might not be in this situation (assuming, etc.) if the US had acted differently after 9/11. [/quote] We should have acted differently after 9/11/01. Well, more like after 10/11/02 (when the Iraq AUMF passed), or whenever it was that Bush made his “Axis of Evil” speech (SoU address in '02?). I don’t know if we could have completely stopped their nuclear ambitions, but it seems pretty clear that Bush’s actions and rhetoric have played at least some role in what the Iranians are doing. > [@](#): > > #4 could very well be true, but raises the question of why their nuke program was dormant for so long. It could be a little bit of all 4, plus others I didn’t think of. I don’t know that there is 1 and only 1 reason. ---
**Author:** ![marshmallow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@marshmallow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marshmallow)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2007, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-post-9-11/420524/16 "2007-09-26T23:10:20Z")
[QUOTE=Hail Ants] Iran has huge oil deposits. They have absolutely no need for the expense, complexity, nor the dangers of nuclear power. [/QUOTE] Burning oil to run an electrical grid is dangerously short sighted for both economic and environmental reasons. In fact, no less serious men than Cheney and Rumsfeld under the Ford administration advised Iran under the Shah that acquiring nuclear energy would be an intelligent and prudent long term investment. ---
**Author:** ![sqweels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f19dbf/32.png) [@sqweels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sqweels)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2007, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-post-9-11/420524/17 "2007-09-27T02:50:08Z")
[QUOTE=marshmallow] Burning oil to run an electrical grid is dangerously short sighted for both economic and environmental reasons. In fact, no less serious men than Cheney and Rumsfeld under the Ford administration advised Iran under the Shah that acquiring nuclear energy would be an intelligent and prudent long term investment. [/QUOTE] I kinda figgered, but why have they refused international oversight? ---
**Author:** ![CJJ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecc23a/32.png) [@CJJ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CJJ)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2007, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-post-9-11/420524/18 "2007-09-27T20:08:29Z")
[QUOTE=sqweels] I kinda figgered, but why have they refused international oversight? [/QUOTE] Because there are [well-substantiated](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/301168.stm) [reports](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/iraq/stories/unscom010899.htm) that UNSCOM was infiltrated by spies from both MI6 and the CIA during the late-'90s period. ---
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2007, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-post-9-11/420524/19 "2007-09-27T23:20:19Z")
Does Iran have significant uranium deposits? I’d say their nuclear program makes sense if they cn mine their own uranium. But importing it, refining it, enriching it-doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense. That said, I don’t think Iran has any intention of provoking any wars. ---
**Author:** ![toadspittle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c0e974/32.png) [@toadspittle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/toadspittle)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2007, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-post-9-11/420524/20 "2007-09-28T23:04:10Z")
[QUOTE=ralph124c] Does Iran have significant uranium deposits? I’d say their nuclear program makes sense if they cn mine their own uranium. But importing it, refining it, enriching it-doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense. [/QUOTE] Yes, they have uranium mines (unlike Iraq). Their determination is to be energy independent (by closing the nuclear fuel loop): > **[BBC NEWS | Middle East | Iran mining uranium for fuel](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2743279.stm)** > > Iran has its own uranium deposits and is on track to become self-sufficient in nuclear energy, President Khatami announces. > [@](#): > > “If we need to produce electricity from our nuclear power plants, we need to complete the circle from discovering uranium to managing remaining spent fuel,” President Khatami said. > > “The government is determined to complete that circle.” [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-post-9-11/420524.md?page=2)