You don’t need 50% enrichment to fuel reactors.
More to the point of ralph’s OP:
Does anyone suspect that Iran might have legitimate reasons to pursue its own, independent nuclear fuel cycle?
Sure, there are good reasons: concerns about how long the domestic fossil fuel supply will last and to make sure they have energy plants available now; to keep them from having to rely on foreign technology and assure independence in energy production; to free up more fossil fuels for export to bring in more money; etc.
Not that I think those reasons have anything to do with the current push, but they exist.
Again, I think the enrichm,ent thing is mostly symbolic. I have heard that the centrifuges they are using are not particularly reliable. I would worry that they might have a massive leak of UF6 gas-a disaster that could contaminate their plant and thousands of people. I wonder what the mullahs will say if they have a disater at one of their plants-say and explosion and fire with hundreds of casualties. of course, they could blame it on the USA and israel. I just can’t see this event as all that important just yet.
Ah, OK. Thanks for the clarification.
Very hard to find these resolutions. Actually, there is no UNSC resolution. It is an IAEA resolution. Text here Iran’s response
Needless to say, nothing about bombs there (except a tiny mention of one little document about “uranium metal hemispheres”).
A swell box we’ve put ourselves into.
Like treis, I think the Iranian leadership has read the situation well; this is win-win for them. They’re calling Bush’s bluff, and it works out pretty well for them either way.
If Bush folds, then they get to keep on doing what they’re doing without fear of near-term consequences, Bush looks like a paper tiger in the bargain, and Iran’s government gets street cred at home and in the region for having faced down the Great Satan. Iran wins.
If Bush unilaterally attacks Iran’s nuclear facilities, the Iranian nuclear program is set back a few years, but the U.S. gets the helicopters-from-the-embassy-roof moment of extreme humiliation next door in Iraq, because Iraq is 65% Shi’ite, that 65% will be very pissed at us if we attack their Shi’ite neighbor, and we can’t stay if they get pissed at us and stay that way for long. And if the disorder in Iraq expands, Iran can occupy southern Iraq under the excuse of stabilizing the region and ending internecine Shi’ite violence. Iran wins big.
Finally, if Bush attacks Iran on a much bigger scale than just its nuclear facilities, going for big chunks of its infrastructure as well, then while Iran’s set back more than a few years in various ways, it gets the sympathy of the entire region and a lot of aid in rebuilding, while the U.S. becomes an international pariah. There’s a Middle East oil embargo, people cut back on lending money to the U.S., our economy goes way south, and we go from a one-superpower world to a no-superpower world. In the short run, this is lose-lose-lose all the way around the world, but in the long run, any regional power at cross purposes with the U.S. wins big. Including Iran.
Plus, yeah, they are a little nuts, have an apocalyptic frame of mind, and are willing to up the ante if they think we’ll get hurt more than they will.
I’ll leave it to you to figure out. (and leave you guessing as to why you would be qualified) 
:rolleyes: Its hard to imagine getting more ignorance into a smaller paragraph.
‘Moral high ground’? Whats this got to do with anything? Iran signed the NNPT and is now (seemingly) backing out of it. Thats the issue.
Israel, IF they have nukes, has managed to keep it under wraps (and I don’t think THEY signed the NNPT in any case…could be wrong here). In addition are you comparing Israel to Iran in terms of stability??
Lastly, why do you think Israel is an ‘American nuclear launch pad’?? Are you making the incredible statement that Israel is an American puppet, doing whatever we tell them to do??
-XT
Right. However, the IAEA has bumped the whole issue up to the UNSC at this point.
I dont think you understand the scope of the American military when you say something like this. If America wanted to invade Iran, I would agree with you. We simply dont have the manpower available right now. But right now no country can even come close to matching the Air power the american air force can bring. If America wanted to turn every city in Iran into a parking lot it could simply do so from the Air, and using long range weapons from Sea. No need for nukes really.
We didnt do that in Iraq because we wanted to win “hearts and minds” (hold me while I laugh), and we knew we would have to rebuild. I dont think that would be the case in Iran. A sustained air and sea attack would destroy any nuclear plan they had, fairly fast.
Which leads to my confusion. Iran has to know that…how could they not? And yet they bluster still which leads to believe in Sam Stone’s list 5&6. Draw us into a fight, and hope the world (at least the muslim world) rises against us. However this ends…it wont be pretty.
They didn’t. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Nonproliferation_Treaty#India.2C_Pakistan.2C_Israel
[shrug] So don’t let them draw us into a fight.
As the US seems to have special forces in there it would be my first thought. If these people are prepared to talk about military action I’m certain sabotage is also on the list of options.
Which one do you think is more likely to still be around in ten years, in substantially the same form, with substantially the same government, pursuing substantially the same policies?
Israel without a doubt. Iran MIGHT still be around in substantially the same form with substantially the same government using substantially the same policies…but I doubt it. I think the revolution is starting to run out of gas to be honest.
Why do you ask? Do you think Israel is poised to go off the deep end?
-XT
BTW, thanks for the Wiki cite BG…appreciated. 
-XT
Best guess: A US sincerely interested in strong, positive, supportive and non-threatening bilateral relations founded on mutual interests of commerce and regional security.
Remove the enemy and repressive, conflict-driven regimes lose internal support. In the final analysis, commerce drives international relations. Theocrats gain strength from conflict, fear and isolation. Take them away and their support evaporates, relations normalize and the nuclear threat dissolves.
Regardless of what the US does, Iran will have its nuclear arsenal. Better we make Iran a respectful ally, rather than an adversary bent on revenge. A massive US attack on their homeland will stir a hornet’s nest the likes of which we have never seen.
An equally interesting question is why the US government is trumpeting this news everywhere, threatening military retaliation and regime change, casually letting mention of the possibility of nuking Iran get some press, etc?
There can be no question that the US is provoking the world as best it can. The best way for them to make progress towards global nuclear disarmament would be to quietly go about the business of supporting disarmament and discouraging nuclear development in any new countries while making non-threatening noises and promising to play nice. But that’s not what they’re doing. They’re acting belligerantly and openly flaunting their willingness and interest in invading other countries. This is hardening world opinion against them and making it more likely that every nation with more than a remote concern for American antagonism will rush out and develop nuclear capability as a disincentive to US invasion. So why?
Possible answers:
- The leadership is nuts.
- The leadership is fanatical.
- The leadship is full of fanatical nuts.
or…
-
They’re doing it for internal political reasons. Either to rally the fanatical nuts and shore up the radical nut support (midterm elections are coming and '08 is right around the corner), and because they believe it will unite the people (who otherwise wouldn’t mind dismantling the “war on terrorism” and going back to watching MTV-2), or for some other more obscure reason.
-
They’re trying to expand the middle east power vacuum they created by toppling S. Hussein, and gain control of the region as a pseudo-colony run by by puppet governments kept in subservience by a perpetual US military presence.
-
Did I mention they could be nuts? The worst possible reason of all is that the current leaders are increasingly followers of an apocalyptic sect of Christianity that actually wants war, because it will hasten the return of Jesus and the coming of the Apocalypse.
( )
I see you never played poker before. They have this obscure term called ‘bluffing’…
Its working so well for the Europeans after all, right? 
Not only has this been a great success story in Iran to date, but the North Koreans seem to be going for it as well…
Maybe its part of a plan…sort of a ‘good cop/bad cop’ type deal. The US plays the heavy and the Euro’s play the ones willing to listen and really care about what you are saying.
If so, this strategy isn’t working either.
As for the rest…well, I have to admit you got more than a chuckle there.
-XT
(BTW, I was aware your post was a whoosh…but there were some points to discuss in it anyway…ones I wanted to play off of. Good post though )
-XT
Not exactly, but the Israelis have been walking a knife edge every day of their national existence. There are countless ways Israel-as-a-Jewish-state might come to an end – and not all of those are bad things. http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=353829
In any case, Israel-without-the-OT’s would be a state we would no longer recognize. Its politics would be too different.
AHunter3, brilliant… and true, too!!