Iran's nuclear program - no politics.

[Nars_Glinley]

Iran has been saying for sometime now that it’s nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only. What actions have they taken that would cause other countries to think otherwise? I understand that there are different types of nuclear reactors that use different fuels. If they are not telling the truth, what actions (technically speaking) have they committed that would indicate that they are not being truthful?

On preview, I think that perhaps my question would benefit from a twisted analogy. Suppose that blue basketballs were critical to the production of nuclear weapons but had no useful purpose in producing energy. If Iran were to be caught stockpiling blue basketballs, that would satisfy my OP.

[StewieGriffin420]

what actions have they taken to prove it is NOT for weapons?

[Philster]

The type of nuclear fuel they are extracting is incredibly inneficient for making nuclear power via power plants, but is highly desirable (and quite expensive and time consuming) for nuclear weapons. It is ‘weapons grade’.

France was instrumental in getting Iran rolling with nuclear power for powering power plants, but they kind of set France aside and decided that nuclear weapons grade material was more to their liking…but, um… they still want to use it for generating electricity. Yeah - suuuuuurrrrre they do.

[Philster]

Oops…missed a key component: they have ‘blue basketballs’, yes. I think it is fairly well known. Again, scientists from other countries were pretty involved the whole way. It is not a big mystery or anything.

[MLS]

One of the major oil producers needs weapons-grade nuclear capability to create power? Gimme a break. They need more power generating capability like, well, like Carter needs little liver pills. Or something.

[BrainGlutton]

@StewieGriffin420

what actions have they taken to prove it is NOT for weapons?

What actions could they take to prove that?

[ftg]

@MLS

One of the major oil producers needs weapons-grade nuclear capability to create power? Gimme a break. They need more power generating capability like, well, like Carter needs little liver pills. Or something.

The smarter oil producing countries are very interested in developing nuclear power programs for when the oil runs out. Iran has a lot of people in a small area with not a lot of good farmland. It is quite concerned about it’s post-oil finances. Note that the price of oil is quite volitile. You don’t want your economy to tank because a mega-field is found on the coast of Siberia.

[toadspittle]

First, Iran’s nuclear program was begun with the full support of the United States. We all forget that part–it’s just that we had that nasty business with the hostages shortly after, and US leaders decided they’d rather not allow Iran to pursue a nuclear program.

From Wiki, which gives a nice summary:

Nuclear program of Iran

The foundations for Iran’s nuclear program were laid in the 1960s under auspices of the U.S. within the framework of bilateral agreements between the two countries. In 1967 the Tehran Nuclear Research Center (TNRC) was built and run by the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI). The TNRC was equipped with a US supplied 5-megawatt nuclear research reactor. Iran signed and ratified the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1968. With the establishment of Iran’s atomic agency and the NPT in place plans were drawn by Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi (Iran’s monarch) to construct up to 23 nuclear power stations across the country together with USA by the year 2000.

By 1975, The U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, had signed National Security Decision Memorandum 292, titled “U.S.-Iran Nuclear Cooperation,” which laid out the details of the sale of nuclear energy equipment to Iran projected to bring U.S. corporations more than $6 billion in revenue. At the time, Iran was pumping as much as 6 million barrels (950,000 m³) of oil a day, compared with about 4 million barrels (640,000 m³) daily today.

President Gerald R. Ford even signed a directive in 1976 offering Tehran the chance to buy and operate a U.S.-built reprocessing facility for extracting plutonium from nuclear reactor fuel. The deal was for a complete “nuclear fuel cycle”. The Ford strategy paper said the “introduction of nuclear power will both provide for the growing needs of Iran’s economy and free remaining oil reserves for export or conversion to petrochemicals.”[3]

…

The [Bushehr] facility was the idea of the Shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, who envisioned a time when the world’s oil supply would run out. He said that, “Petroleum is a noble material, much too valuable to burn.” Instead, he wanted a national electrical grid powered by clean nuclear power plants. Bushehr would be the first plant, and would supply energy to the inland city of Shiraz.

…

Iran claims that nuclear power is necessary for a booming population and rapidly industrializing nation. It points to the fact that Iran’s population has more than doubled in 20 years, the country regularly imports gasoline and electricity, and that burning fossil fuel in large amounts harms Iran’s environment drastically [4] [5]. Additionally, Iran questions why it shouldn’t be allowed to diversify its sources of energy, especially when there are fears of its oil fields eventually being depleted. It continues to argue that its valuable oil should be used for high value products, not simple electricity generation. Iran also raises financial questions, claiming that developing the excess capacity in its oil industry would cost it $40 billion, let alone pay for the power plants. Harnessing nuclear power costs a fraction of this, considering Iran has abundant supplies of accessible uranium ore [6].

After the 1979 Islamic Revolution, Iran informed the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) of its plans to restart its nuclear program using indiginously-made nuclear fuel, and the IAEA even planned to provide assistance to Iran under its Technical Assistance Program to produce enriched uranium. An IAEA report stated clearly that its aim was to “contribute to the formation of local expertise and manpower needed to sustain an ambitious programme in the field of nuclear power reactor technology and fuel cycle technology”. However, the IAEA was forced to terminate the program under U.S. pressure. [7]

**Iran has a legal right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, a right which in 2005 the U.S. and the EU-3 began to assert had been forfeited by the clandestine nuclear program that came to light in 2002. **Iran and many other developing nations who are signatory to the NPT believe the Western position to be hypocritical, claiming that the NPT’s original purpose was universal nuclear disarmament. ([8]) Iran also compares its treatment as a signatory to the NPT with three nations that have not ratified the NPT: Israel, India, and Pakistan. Each of these nations developed an indigenous nuclear weapons capability: Israel by 1968 [9], India by 1974 [10] and Pakistan by 1990 [11].

So we’ve got a few things here:

1. US companies stood to make a lot of dough from helping Iran build the original plants back in the 60s/70s/80s.

2. Iran, unlike many other states, already possesses Uranium within its boundaries.

3. Iran is indeed a huge petroleum producer, but petroleum is not limitless. The stated plan was to build nuclear plants to provide domestic power while saving petroleum for export/industrial uses, and not “waste” it on mere domestic power generation.

4. Iran ALREADY IMPORTS gasoline and electrical power; hence, they say they need more power generating capacity.

5. Nuclear power, Iran says, would be far cheaper for them to develop than making the necessary investments to upgrade the petroleum power system, and would have fewer detrimental effects on the environment than burning fossil fuels.

6. The IAEA supported Iran’s nuclear power program after the Islamic Revolution. They stopped doing so only after US pressure.

7. Iran is supposed to be allowed to develop nuclear power as a signatory of the NPT.

8. Iran, like any nation, wants more control over its crucial infrastructure; so it wants to develop the complete fuel cycle (uranium ore in the ground all the way to electrical power) within its own borders. This is a particularly sticky problem for some foreign govts., who feel that Iran should make do with sending the unrefined fuel abroad to a trusted/known nuclear state (i.e., Russia) and letting that state do the refining–thereby eliminating the possibility of Iran acquiring the ability to refine secretly for weapons purposes.

Saying simply that “Iran doesn’t need nuclear power–it has all that oil,” is like saying “the US doesn’t need to grow wheat–it grows all that corn.”

Except that this is potentially weapons-grade wheat.

[flex727]

@ftg

The smarter oil producing countries are very interested in developing nuclear power programs for when the oil runs out. Iran has a lot of people in a small area with not a lot of good farmland. It is quite concerned about it’s post-oil finances. Note that the price of oil is quite volitile. You don’t want your economy to tank because a mega-field is found on the coast of Siberia.

You logic is confusing. How does nuclear power help their economy if the price of oil goes down?

As far as the oil running out, they will have plenty of warning and would likely get more international support when that situation occurs, but that is not what’s going on now.

[flex727]

@toadspittle

First, Iran’s nuclear program was begun with the full support of the United States. We all forget that part–

Is there supposed to be some meaning associated with this statement? If the government supports (i.e. trains and/or licenses) Joe in his purchase of a gun, and then Joe threatens to shoot his neighbor (or demonstrates that he is not responsible enough for gun ownership), I think the government is justified in discouraging Joe from obtaining any more guns. The fact that the ownership was originally supported has zero relevance.