Iran Next On Chopping Block?

[maplesyrup]

Iranians Refuse to Terminate Nuclear Plans

Iran refused Thursday to abandon plans to operate uranium enrichment equipment that could be used either for energy purposes or in a nuclear bomb-making project, European and Iranian officials said.

The refusal threatened to scuttle a nuclear agreement Iran reached 10 days ago with France, Britain and Germany to freeze all of Iran's uranium enrichment activities, the European officials added. It also gave new ammunition to the Bush administration, which asserts that Iran has a secret nuclear weapons program and cannot be trusted.

The impasse coincided with the opening of crucial meetings to review Iran's nuclear program at the International Atomic Energy Agency here, the United Nations nuclear monitoring body that has the authority to refer Iran to the United Nations for possible censure or sanctions.

Mohamed ElBaradei, the agency chief, said in a speech on Thursday that Iran had so far failed to meet its pledge to freeze fully its uranium enrichment because of its insistence on operating 20 centrifuges for research.

Noting Iran's long history of concealment of its nuclear activities, Dr. ElBaradei said: "A confidence deficit has been created, and confidence needs to be restored. Iran's active cooperation and full transparency is therefore indispensable."

This is country number two on the US Axis of Evil List, after Iraq, and before N. Korea. (I guess we are 4th).

Is Canada going to sit idly by and shrug its shoulders here? Do we have any business getting involved? Why? And if we are going to get involved, what exactly are we going to do, beside ring our hands?

BTW China is sticking its nose into this situation as well. We're just one big happy family out there, aren't we!

[Argus]

This is country number two on the US Axis of Evil List, after Iraq, and before N. Korea. (I guess we are 4th).

Is Canada going to sit idly by and shrug its shoulders here? Do we have any business getting involved? Why? And if we are going to get involved, what exactly are we going to do, beside ring our hands?

Not much we can do to help the Americans. We have a wishy-washy government and no real military. Still, a little push and Iran's government will topple. Then the yanks can bomb the hell out of their nuke sites with relative impunity.

I'm sure their stealth bombers will face little impediiment.

[Cartman]

Still, a little push and Iran's government will topple. Then the yanks can bomb the hell out of their nuke sites with relative impunity.

Do you think Bush would want to engage in another war right now? I think that the US is too strained militarily and economically. Iran would be much more difficult to deal with than Iraq and I think the US would be really isolated then.

[Argus]

Still, a little push and Iran's government will topple. Then the yanks can bomb the hell out of their nuke sites with relative impunity.

Do you think Bush would want to engage in another war right now? I think that the US is too strained militarily and economically. Iran would be much more difficult to deal with than Iraq and I think the US would be really isolated then.

In all seriousness, the US is going to find it very hard to justify given their early misinformation on Iraq. Which is unfortunate because I don't think there is a lot of doubt that Iran has a very serious effort going to build itself some nukes, and they are just about the last nation we want with access to nuclear weapons, or even nuclear material. Among the mad mullahs of Iran are some pretty fanatical people, people more than willing to bring a holocaust to the middle east, regardless of the cost, because they believe God wills it.

[Cartman]

I think that Iran's gov't will topple in time anyways. From what I understand, the moderates seem to be gaining influence. I think that Bush will just want to stay clear and let things go on. North Korea worries me more.

[Argus]

I think that Iran's gov't will topple in time anyways. From what I understand, the moderates seem to be gaining influence. I think that Bush will just want to stay clear and let things go on. North Korea worries me more.

If North Korea blows anyone up it will likely be South Korea, which would be a trajedy, but nothing like the scale of what would happen if some nutty mullah drops a nuke on Israel and the Israelis retaliate by bombing the hell out of the Arab world.

[August1991]

Canada's position on what the US government thinks of the current regime in Iran is completely and totally irrelevant.

(No, I'm wrong. There is some minor desk officer in State who keeps tabs on this but no one reads her/his reports. There is certainly a desk officer in Ottawa who keeps tabs on this but, in the grand scheme of things, any reports are ignored. IOW, this thread should be in the International section.)

The US will not invade Iran. There is a strong chance Iran will implode on its own. (If there is regime change in Iran in the future, the usual Chomsky/Rabble suspects will probably implicate the US government somehow.)

BTW, has anyone noticed that there is no violence, car bombs, random shootings, kidnapping in southern Iraq where Shiites live? What percentage of the Iraqi population are Shiites? Kurds?

(Idea: Iraq is going through a Lebanese Civil War on fast forward.)

[Argus]

The US will not invade Iran. There is a strong chance Iran will implode on its own. (If there is regime change in Iran in the future, the usual Chomsky/Rabble suspects will probably implicate the US government somehow.)

I agree. On the other hand, there is _no_ chance the Americans or Israelis will tolerate a nuclear armed Iran. If it really looks to them as if the Iranians are close to building one the bombers will go in and level Iran's nuclear sites, no matter how many howling mobs burn American and/or Israeli flags because of it.

[August1991]

If it really looks to them as if the Iranians are close to building one the bombers will go in and level Iran's nuclear sites, no matter how many howling mobs burn American and/or Israeli flags because of it.

Agreed.

----

The Iraqi elections in January may have a great impact on internal Iranian politics.

[maplesyrup]

Perhaps Canada should consider imposing some economic sanctions, as opposed to completely severing diplomatic relations, against Iran if they persist in this outrageous behaviour. Maybe we could stop sending them any more of our "BC Bud".

Iran cautions Canada against following case of murdered photographer

Canada's newly-appointed ambassador to Iran will get into "trouble" if he pursues the case of murdered Iranian-Canadian photographer Zahra Kazemi, Iran's foreign ministry warned.

"If anyone enters Iran on this mission they get themselves into trouble. This is a domestic issue of the Islamic Republic of Iran," foreign ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi told reporters.

[maplesyrup]

Iran Allegedly Builds Secret Facility for Nuke Program

Der Spiegel, citing a secret service file, said that Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei had personally ordered the facility built last month near the uranium enrichment site in Isfahan that is under UN observation. The tunnel, which the magazine said is out of the view of spy satellites, is intended to house a production site for large amounts of uranium UF6 gas which can be enriched in gas centrifuges - a key step in the building of a nuclear bomb. The clandestine project is being led by a task force that answers directly to Khamenei, the report said.

Nice! The only problem is do we believe Der Spiegel or is this more Israeli propaganda? I think we should send a contingent of CSIS agents led by Foreign Affairs Minister Bill Graham & PM Martin to go check it out. The odds of Graham and Martin surviving are probably better than a visit to a Chinese coal mine, eh!

[Choke]

The regime will be changed with CIA backing and everything will be fine...or there'll be a minor conflict between Israel and Iran, and that's the worst case scenario IMO. The mullahs are fanatical but not insane, they've no desire to allow their entire country to be sacrificed just to bother Israel.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Is Canada going to sit idly by and shrug its shoulders here?

No! I say. Canada must get on top of the problem of nuclear proliferation. Europe has nukes, Russia has Nukes, China, India, Israel, and Pakistan all have nukes. With this crowd, I don't think Canada can afford to be slack. We need to develop our own, moderate but convincing, nuclear deterent capability. Quickly.

[maplesyrup]

And what is a nuclear deterent capability comprised of?

[The Terrible Sweal]

And what is a nuclear deterent capability comprised of?

Well, I think it would be a start if we had a handful of long-submersion, stealth submarines, each armed with enough nukes to destroy a large capital city.

[maplesyrup]

That would be lunacy. Canadians have no intention of arming themselves with nuclear weapons. That is the most absurd comment I have ever seen posted on this dicsussion forum. You are watching too much US TV.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Canadians have no intention of arming themselves with nuclear weapons. That is the most absurd comment I have ever seen posted on this dicsussion forum. You are watching too much US TV.

Spare me the kneejerk emotionalism. The fact is nuclear weapons would make Canada safer against international threats and intimidation.

[Choke]

We've got the Americans for that...why would we want our own nukes? It would fly in the face of everything we stand for and give us NO advantage.

[The Terrible Sweal]

We've got the Americans for that...why would we want our own nukes? It would fly in the face of everything we stand for and give us NO advantage.

Well, we wouldn't hear any more complaints about how we're sponging off the US for our defence.

But having nukes would be a distinct advantage. It would make us safer against potential external threats.

[Choke]

Well, we wouldn't hear any more complaints about how we're sponging off the US for our defence.

[sarcasm]Let the bells ring out and the banners fly.[/sarcasm]

But having nukes would be a distinct advantage. It would make us safer against potential external threats.

Are you 10 years old? Do you have any understanding of world politics?

[The Terrible Sweal]

But having nukes would be a distinct advantage. It would make us safer against potential external threats.

Are you 10 years old? Do you have any understanding of world politics?

I'm afraid I don't see what understanding of politics you think I lack. To my thinking a country is safer from external threats if it has nuclear weapons. Do you disagree with that? Are you in favor of unilateral disarmament by the United States?

[chris29]

But having nukes would be a distinct advantage. It would make us safer against potential external threats.

Are you 10 years old? Do you have any understanding of world politics?

I'm afraid I don't see what understanding of politics you think I lack. To my thinking a country is safer from external threats if it has nuclear weapons. Do you disagree with that? Are you in favor of unilateral disarmament by the United States?

are you actually serious, think about it, which countries are in conflict right now, THE EXACT ONES YOU MENTIONED AS HAVING NUCLEAR WEAPONS!!!!!!!!!!! we signed the nuclear proliferation treaty for a reason, unfortunately for you you live in the wrong country, here in canada we are a country of "peacekeeping" not "peace-enforcing" (oxymoron)

[Choke]

Chris is right.

Atomic weapons are simply useless for us to have. No country threatens our national security, nor will they in the forseeable future.

To my thinking a country is safer from external threats if it has nuclear weapons. Do you disagree with that? Are you in favor of unilateral disarmament by the United States?

I'm in favour of abolishing nuclear weapons entirely...they defend NOTHING, no one can even use them anymore for fear of the reaction from the rest of the world.

[The Terrible Sweal]

are you actually serious, think about it, which countries are in conflict right now, THE EXACT ONES YOU MENTIONED AS HAVING NUCLEAR WEAPONS!!!!!!!!!!! we signed the nuclear proliferation treaty for a reason, unfortunately for you you live in the wrong country, here in canada we are a country of "peacekeeping" not "peace-enforcing" (oxymoron)

I don't think that mere possession of nuclear weapons necessarily causes conflict. I do however think that conflict is an incentive to possessing nuclear weapons. That means that so far, only countries in conflict have developed nuclear weapons. Probably if non-violent countries also developed nuclear weapons it would be a stabilizing force in the world. Accordingly, countries like Canada really should develop nuclear weapons.

I think it's clear that the NPT isn't working. Nuclear weapons are proliferating.

[August1991]

To my thinking a country is safer from external threats if it has nuclear weapons. Do you disagree with that? Are you in favor of unilateral disarmament by the United States?

I think that's the point, TS. We are under the US umbrella and hence we don't need our own nuclear weapons.

[it is worth noting that Canada did have nuclear weapons until 1971 when Trudeau got rid of them (arguably for technical reasons).]