In this thread, buddy431 wrote:
Agreed, so here goes:
Is Iran, or is Iran not, in violation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty?
Yes. At a minimum, the IAEA found that they violated safeguard provisions by failing to declare parts of their nuclear program. And this would be true even if they only had intentions for civilian use.
It’s in dispute. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (which Iran signed) says that countries without nuclear weapons can develop nuclear technology for peaceful means but not for the production of nuclear weapons. Iran claims its nuclear technology programs are peaceful. Other countries, including the United States, claim that Iran’s intent is to develop nuclear weapons.
The main issue is compliance with restrictions set by the International Atomic Energy Agency. The IAEA is supposed to set restrictions that prevent countries from diverting their peaceful nuclear technology to weapons development. Iran has not followed the IAEA restrictions that have been set. Iran claims this is because the IAEA are too restrictive and would prevent Iran from developing peaceful energy programs. Iran says the United States pressured the IAEA into imposing these overly restrictive policies. Iran claims it is willing to comply with reasonable restrictions that would allow it to develop peaceful programs while preventing it from developing weapons. The IAEA has not agreed to these alternative restrictions.
Huh? Are you disputing that Iran agreed to the Safeguards Agreement pursuant to the NPT?
Yeah, it seems to me that if the IAEA says they are not in compliance, as they did in this case, then they are not in compliance. Unless one wants to dispute the authority of the IAEA on the subject. Which then raised the question: is there any authority on the subject?
They also aren’t “restrictions set by the IAEA.” They are restrictions Iran voluntarily agreed to, and did so expressly pursuant to the NPT.
I was just reading up on this exact issue.
This .pdf says:
Along the same lines, this article states that:
So there’s that. Enjoying the debate so far, by the way - keep 'em coming.
There are different types of safeguards in play. One is the general NPT safeguards. The other are the ones made bilaterally for a specific project. So if Iran buys a reactor from say, the UK, they will have additional safeguards which the UK may insist upon and the IAEA will enforce. These can be more or less stringent than NPT safeguards.
To take a real world example, the Chashma Nuclear Power complex in Pakistan is under IAEA safeguards, following a Pakistan-China accord. Pakistan is not a signatory of the NPT, but has agreed to place Chashma under safeguards. One of the terms is that Pakistan has to import nuclear fuel from China, it cannot use domestic supplies (as an aside, I think that decision was stupid as hell).
I just wanted to present both sides of the argument in as both sides are making their own cases.
The Iranian argument is essentially, “We agree to only have peaceful nuclear programs and we’re complying with that. We will comply with any IAEA regulations that are necessary to show that we are complying with the agreement. But the IAEA regulations that have been imposed on Iran go far beyond what is necessary under the treaty and are being used by the United States as a means to undermine Iran’s economy.”
Now my personal belief is that Iran is lying. I believe they are planning on building nuclear weapons and are trying to hide a nuclear weapons program under a supposed nuclear energy program. They are claiming compliance to the NPT because they don’t want to openly declare they’re building weapons until they’ve got them built.
And my point is that Iran portraying the Safeguard Agreement as something imposed on them by the IAEA or the US is not just an error of opinion. It is demonstrably, factually false. They voluntarily agreed to it. In 1974.
Iran’s statements are just plain false. The IAEA regulations in question are not restricted to only weapons grade nuclear programs, but apply to all nuclear programs-- peaceful or otherwise.
The IAEA regulations in dispute were written in 1993 and went into effect in 1996 and 1997. So Iran obviously didn’t agree to them in 1974. That said, Iran did agree to the new regulations in 2003. But Iran is claiming the new standard which Iran is being asked to comply with goes beyond this agreement.
Then you are talking about something else. The agreement they breached that I am referring to is the 1974 one.
What part are they alleged to have breached.
The Additional Protocol and an article on the issues of Iran’s compliance.
Principally, Article 8’s notice requirements for Article 34(c) materials, subject to the definitions in Article 98.j and 98.I. But the whole list of violations fills multi-page reports.