Thread: The Effectiveness of Negotiating With Madmen

Iran begins 'dramatic' nuclear expansion



NATANZ, Iran -- Iran today announced it has begun enriching uranium with 3,000 centrifuges, a dramatic expansion of a nuclear program that has drawn U.N. sanctions and condemnation from the West.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said at a ceremony at the enrichment facility at Natanz that Iran was now capable of enriching nuclear fuel "on an industrial scale."

Asked if Iran has begun injecting uranium gas into 3,000 centrifuges for enrichment, top nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani replied, "Yes." He did not elaborate, but it was the first confirmation that Iran had installed the larger set of centrifuges after months of saying it intends to do so. Until now, Iran was only known to have 328 centrifuges operating.

Uranium enrichment can produce fuel for a nuclear reactor or the material for a nuclear warhead. The United States and its allies accuse Iran of intending to produce weapons, a charge the country denies.

Sean McCormack, the State Department spokesman, said the U.N. Security Council and the U.N. nuclear watchdog group "don't believe Iran's assurances that their [nuclear] program is peaceful in nature."

The Vienna, Austria-based International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. nuclear watchdog, had no immediate comment on today's announcement.

The United Nations has vowed to ratchet up sanctions as long as Iran refuses to suspend enrichment. The Security Council first imposed limited sanctions in December, then increased them slightly last month and has set a new deadline of late May.

Iranian state television reported today that an Iranian Revolutionary Guard general who is under travel restrictions due to the sanctions has visited Russia without any difficulty.

Gen. Mohammad Baqer Zolqadr, who is also deputy interior minister for security affairs, was quoted on the state TV Web site as saying that his six-day journey to Moscow, which ended today, showed "the ineffectiveness of the resolution."

Tensions are also high between Iran and the West following the 13-day detention of 15 British sailors by Iran. The sailors, who were seized by Revolutionary Guards off the Iraqi coast, were released on Wednesday, but since then have said they were put under psychological pressure by their captors to force them to "confess" to being in Iranian waters when captured, angering many in Britain.

Across Iran, school bells rang today to mark the "national day of nuclear energy." The government sent out text messages of congratulations for the occasion to millions of mobile phone users.

In Tehran, some 200 students formed a human chain at Iran's Atomic Energy Organization while chanting "death to America" and "death to Britain." The students burnt flags of the two nations.

So, Iran keeps lying about the state of it's nuclear weaponsn program, and the suckers outside of Iran keep accepting the lie that it's not a nuclear weapons program.

I think the people wanting to work with A'mmadindahead should arrange a nice face-to-face meeting, in a place with lots of history, like Munich, for example.

Originally Posted by Freedom for All

So, Iran keeps lying about the state of it's nuclear weaponsn program, and the suckers outside of Iran keep accepting the lie that it's not a nuclear weapons program.

I think the people wanting to work with A'mmadindahead should arrange a nice face-to-face meeting, in a place with lots of history, like Munich, for example.

I agree, there is only one reason Amagonnaneedajob is enriching uranium and thats for nuclear weapons. Peaceful energy research my ass.

The question, in my mind, is not whether or not this is a peaceful program or a weapons program, but why is it an issue, and how has it come to this?
-
We know that the issue is not solely about the possession of nuclear weapons. If that were the case, then many other nations would feel the sting of a bomb and invasion - among them, britain, china, france, north korea, pakistan, india, probably israel, who knows.
Therefore, the issue becomes one of perception of the possibility that this program could be used for. It is not about the weapons, it is that we do not trust Iran's government, for whatever reason. We do not trust them to hold onto their nuclear weapons, and expect them to either launch them at an ally (Israel), or to launder them to terrorists, and have one arrive at our doorstep in a few months.
I'll try to answer the how question first. Prior to 1979, the US government installed in Iran the Shah - this Shah was a brutal dictator, that oppressed many of people in Iran. He was pro-west. This underscores a general movement in the lands of the former Islamic empire - it is percieved that America has come to imperialize their lands, to take away the oil, and do not do things for the general interest of those in arabia but for their own interest. Thus, our percieved actions in the Muslim world caused an anti-American movement to begin - a sort of Arabism, that could possibly be traced back to the residue of the Islamic Empire in its glory.
This movement has obviously grown. there is a greater radicalization of the muslim people aroud the banner of Islam than there has been in many years. Quite simply, ethno-muslim governments have grown in their influence - Iran, Iraq (to the extent that Saddam supported jihad against Israel), Saudi Arabia. The few western-style democracies are faced with clear internal strife (Lebanon, Egypt), and are losing there steam as legitimate democracies, and those that we are on good relations with dare not openly support us for fear of inflaming their populatin.
Therefore, there is a divide - this divide is not rooted in political structure, but it is rooted in culture, and the manipulation of. It can also be probably be rooted in religion, but thats a different story. That is how we came to not trust Iran's government - because they are not us, and they personify a great movement, one that perpetrates a counter idea to our idea of western / free / liberty democracies.

Now, why is this an issue? People get scared when they see that their enemies increase in power. An increase in power of their enemy throws off at least a little bit of their supposed power control. Being in control of a situation makes people feel powerful - being not in control of a situation does not.
The one problem I have with the hawkish approach to dealing with the Iranian situation, is that it misunderstands how a culture works. A culture is a set of circumstances that face a given people, and how those people respond to those circumstances. The government is merely a consolidation of such feelings into one voice. If you take away the government, and not the culture, people will merely re-form their government into another form, in order to counter the threat to their government. Because the government is an extension of the culture, any attack on the government if the government is based in that culture will be seen as an attack on their culture.

In one simple paragraph:
The anti-american sentiment personified by the Iranian pursuance of Nuclear Power will not dissapate after military action against Iran, but will grow stronger. This will result in the further polarization of our two societies, thus, peace, the desire objective for everyone, will be even further unlikely.

Originally Posted by Freedom for All

So, Iran keeps lying about the state of it's nuclear weaponsn program, and the suckers outside of Iran keep accepting the lie that it's not a nuclear weapons program.

I think the people wanting to work with A'mmadindahead should arrange a nice face-to-face meeting, in a place with lots of history, like Munich, for example.

Suspiciously, our White House refuses meetings. I wonder why.

Originally Posted by sid2112

I agree, there is only one reason Amagonnaneedajob is enriching uranium and thats for nuclear weapons. Peaceful energy research my ass.

So do we. They're allowed.

Originally Posted by The_Bear

The question, in my mind, is not whether or not this is a peaceful program or a weapons program, but why is it an issue, and how has it come to this?
-
We know that the issue is not solely about the possession of nuclear weapons. If that were the case, then many other nations would feel the sting of a bomb and invasion - among them, britain, china, france, north korea, pakistan, india, probably israel, who knows.
Therefore, the issue becomes one of perception of the possibility that this program could be used for. It is not about the weapons, it is that we do not trust Iran's government, for whatever reason. We do not trust them to hold onto their nuclear weapons, and expect them to either launch them at an ally (Israel), or to launder them to terrorists, and have one arrive at our doorstep in a few months.
I'll try to answer the how question first. Prior to 1979, the US government installed in Iran the Shah - this Shah was a brutal dictator, that oppressed many of people in Iran. He was pro-west. This underscores a general movement in the lands of the former Islamic empire - it is percieved that America has come to imperialize their lands, to take away the oil, and do not do things for the general interest of those in arabia but for their own interest. Thus, our percieved actions in the Muslim world caused an anti-American movement to begin - a sort of Arabism, that could possibly be traced back to the residue of the Islamic Empire in its glory.
This movement has obviously grown. there is a greater radicalization of the muslim people aroud the banner of Islam than there has been in many years. Quite simply, ethno-muslim governments have grown in their influence - Iran, Iraq (to the extent that Saddam supported jihad against Israel), Saudi Arabia. The few western-style democracies are faced with clear internal strife (Lebanon, Egypt), and are losing there steam as legitimate democracies, and those that we are on good relations with dare not openly support us for fear of inflaming their populatin.
Therefore, there is a divide - this divide is not rooted in political structure, but it is rooted in culture, and the manipulation of. It can also be probably be rooted in religion, but thats a different story. That is how we came to not trust Iran's government - because they are not us, and they personify a great movement, one that perpetrates a counter idea to our idea of western / free / liberty democracies.

Now, why is this an issue? People get scared when they see that their enemies increase in power. An increase in power of their enemy throws off at least a little bit of their supposed power control. Being in control of a situation makes people feel powerful - being not in control of a situation does not.
The one problem I have with the hawkish approach to dealing with the Iranian situation, is that it misunderstands how a culture works. A culture is a set of circumstances that face a given people, and how those people respond to those circumstances. The government is merely a consolidation of such feelings into one voice. If you take away the government, and not the culture, people will merely re-form their government into another form, in order to counter the threat to their government. Because the government is an extension of the culture, any attack on the government if the government is based in that culture will be seen as an attack on their culture.

In one simple paragraph:
The anti-american sentiment personified by the Iranian pursuance of Nuclear Power will not dissapate after military action against Iran, but will grow stronger. This will result in the further polarization of our two societies, thus, peace, the desire objective for everyone, will be even further unlikely.

You're right, I don't trust that bastard and I don't want him having the ability to build an atom bomb.

You're right, I don't trust that bastard and I don't want him having the ability to build an atom bomb.

Are you prepared to support any initiatives to cripple the economy of Iran, so that they would be unable to get the bomb? Are you prepared to support an Iraq-like invasion of Iran?

Originally Posted by The_Bear

Are you prepared to support any initiatives to cripple the economy of Iran, so that they would be unable to get the bomb? Are you prepared to support an Iraq-like invasion of Iran?

An Iraq-like invasion? Absolutely not. I am for military strikes against Iranian nuclear and conventional weapons facilities.

An Iraq-like invasion? Absolutely not. I am for military strikes against Iranian nuclear and conventional weapons facilities.

Two questions:
A) Do you want peace, or security?
B) What if those strikes miss their target, or fail to get rid of their weaponry, or worse - provide Iran with a clear propaganda victory over America? What then?