NationStates Jolt Archive

Iran wants permission to make nuclear material. They say they are going to use it for nuclear power to help their country. Some people think they are going to use it to make nuclear weapons, which they could then use on Israel, which they have openly admitted to disliking. The UN realizes that if they deny Iran the right to nuclear material, they would have to have some damn good reasoning because other countries have nuclear material, and Iran would be asking "Why can't we?" Also, as so many other countries have done, Iran could decide to ignore the UN's decision and do it anyway.

I am writing a paper on all this, and I am in the research stage at the moment. Any websites or articles or cited quotes you could provide from the point of view of the UN, Israel, or Iran would be absolutely fantastic, and in the mean time, you all can debate the issue and help me get different points of view on the matter.

So, who has something to say?

Didn't the IAEA say they want it for weapons? I could be wrong since I only catch brief snippets of news.

Didn't the IAEA say they want it for weapons? I could be wrong since I only catch brief snippets of news.the IAEA could say they "think" Iran wants it for Weapons..

That all they can say..

Eric Margolis has long rationalized that countries which didn't sign the NNPT are perfectly within their rights to develop nukes, and from a strategic perspective it's understandable why countries want them even if they did sign the NNPT. Check out articles on his website www.ericmargolis.com
He claims that Iran offered to pay Pakistan's military defence bills for 10 years in exchange for nuclear know-how.

Any books/articles on the signing of the NNPT should explain the logic of countries like India, Pakistan and Israel who said no. The point of view of the UN is arguably the rationale of the major nuclear powers at the time of the signing of the NPT: they like their nuclear monopoly and the security it brings, and prefer to limit the number of states that share in that protection to protect their monopoly and limit horizontal proliferation.

Iran wants permission to make nuclear material. They say they are going to use it for nuclear power to help their country. Some people think they are going to use it to make nuclear weapons, which they could then use on Israel, which they have openly admitted to disliking. The UN realizes that if they deny Iran the right to nuclear material, they would have to have some damn good reasoning because other countries have nuclear material, and Iran would be asking "Why can't we?" Also, as so many other countries have done, Iran could decide to ignore the UN's decision and do it anyway.

I am writing a paper on all this, and I am in the research stage at the moment. Any websites or articles or cited quotes you could provide from the point of view of the UN, Israel, or Iran would be absolutely fantastic, and in the mean time, you all can debate the issue and help me get different points of view on the matter.

So, who has something to say?

Basically, i think the Iranian argument has merit - "to the one side of us we have Iraq, occupied by the americans, who dubbed us as members of the Axis of Evil. To the north we have Afghanistan and Turkey, one occupied by the americans and one allied to the americans. And to the east we have Pakistan, allied to the americans. It's within our rights to want nuclear weapons for national security issues"

Note - i don't think anywhere should have nuclear weapons, but this whole non proliferation thing is more than a little hypocritical.

Basically, i think the Iranian argument has merit - "to the one side of us we have Iraq, occupied by the americans, who dubbed us as members of the Axis of Evil. To the north we have Afghanistan and Turkey, one occupied by the americans and one allied to the americans. And to the east we have Pakistan, allied to the americans. It's within our rights to want nuclear weapons for national security issues"

Note - i don't think anywhere should have nuclear weapons, but this whole non proliferation thing is more than a little hypocritical.

Aye this is how it seemed to me. The West [ EU, US ] is getting a foothold in the middle east. Its only understandable they want nuclear technology, atleast.

Basically, i think the Iranian argument has merit - "to the one side of us we have Iraq, occupied by the americans, who dubbed us as members of the Axis of Evil. To the north we have Afghanistan and Turkey, one occupied by the americans and one allied to the americans. And to the east we have Pakistan, allied to the americans. It's within our rights to want nuclear weapons for national security issues"

Note - i don't think anywhere should have nuclear weapons, but this whole non proliferation thing is more than a little hypocritical.

What it basically all comes down to is that the U.S. has really messed this one up. Five years ago they were holding vigils in Tehran for sept 11th victims. They had a moderate government and student demonstrations. They hate Iraq to the point that they fought a pretty bad war with them in the 1980's and have the whole Sunni vs,. Shi'ite thing going on. And they weren't big fans of the Taliban either, who killed their diplomats and was pretty hostile in general. In 2002 they were handing over Taliban they had caught to the U.S. They were offering support, making diplomatic gestures to Europe and everything seems like it's going to open up. The hardliners look dated. The U.S. is fighting fundamentalism and militarism and Iran is ready to modernize. Things are looking good, yes?

No. First, the U.S. surrounds them, like people here have already said. Being surrounded by the Americans would put anybody on edge. Then we declare them in the Axis of Evil. We've been antagonizing them for the past 4 years. Then we get Europe and the UN involved, trying to get money out of the country, getting third parties to divest. We even told Israel to go bomb them if they wanted.

All I'm saying is that you alienate a country for four years and are shocked when they are ruled by hardnliners who want to build a bomb? And what are we going to do about it anyway? We have enough on our plates with Iraq, a country that's what, a third of the area and has been starved with sanctions the past decade. Are we really going to get into it? Or Europe? They couldn't even figure out what to do in Bosnia. I know they are making great strides, but with the Constitution getting voted down and them not knowing how to coordinate a military action, they couldn't execute a UN operation if their life depended on it.

The US has shown that it's threats are good if it has the resources. Europe has shown it isn't ready to back any of it's threats. If I was Iran, I would be building a bomb too. Now is the perfect window. IAEA reports are a joke, the US is spread thin, and any hesitation could mean your country getting invaded. I don't like it, but I sure as hell don't blame them.

Agreed on Iran having a perfectly valid reason to want nukes- self defense. The Colt was the Great Equalizer of the Wild West; nukes are the Great Equalizers of the World. Hence, why we haven't invaded North Korea- if they have nukes, then they're going to use them if invaded, thus making any invasion far, far more costly than anyone is willing to accept.

Also, a note on the fear over Iran using its nukes on Israel: Don't pay attention to the Iranian president. Unlike most countries, he has no power over the military; he certainly doesn't have the power to declare war. Look instead at the rest of the Iranian government; I think you'll find people who are much more reasonable and who aren't willing to kill themselves to damage Israel.

What it basically all comes down to is that the U.S. has really messed this one up. Five years ago they were holding vigils in Tehran for sept 11th victims. They had a moderate government and student demonstrations. They hate Iraq to the point that they fought a pretty bad war with them in the 1980's and have the whole Sunni vs,. Shi'ite thing going on. And they weren't big fans of the Taliban either, who killed their diplomats and was pretty hostile in general. In 2002 they were handing over Taliban they had caught to the U.S. They were offering support, making diplomatic gestures to Europe and everything seems like it's going to open up. The hardliners look dated. The U.S. is fighting fundamentalism and militarism and Iran is ready to modernize. Things are looking good, yes?

No. First, the U.S. surrounds them, like people here have already said. Being surrounded by the Americans would put anybody on edge. Then we declare them in the Axis of Evil. We've been antagonizing them for the past 4 years. Then we get Europe and the UN involved, trying to get money out of the country, getting third parties to divest. We even told Israel to go bomb them if they wanted.

All I'm saying is that you alienate a country for four years and are shocked when they are ruled by hardnliners who want to build a bomb? And what are we going to do about it anyway? We have enough on our plates with Iraq, a country that's what, a third of the area and has been starved with sanctions the past decade. Are we really going to get into it? Or Europe? They couldn't even figure out what to do in Bosnia. I know they are making great strides, but with the Constitution getting voted down and them not knowing how to coordinate a military action, they couldn't execute a UN operation if their life depended on it.

The US has shown that it's threats are good if it has the resources. Europe has shown it isn't ready to back any of it's threats. If I was Iran, I would be building a bomb too. Now is the perfect window. IAEA reports are a joke, the US is spread thin, and any hesitation could mean your country getting invaded. I don't like it, but I sure as hell don't blame them.

My god, almost as if America made very bad diplomatic decisions which forced a country or group of countries into a...well, you could call it a "Cold War".

THAT ONE HAS NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE, EH?

Agreed on Iran having a perfectly valid reason to want nukes- self defense. The Colt was the Great Equalizer of the Wild West; nukes are the Great Equalizers of the World. Hence, why we haven't invaded North Korea- if they have nukes, then they're going to use them if invaded, thus making any invasion far, far more costly than anyone is willing to accept.

Also, a note on the fear over Iran using its nukes on Israel: Don't pay attention to the Iranian president. Unlike most countries, he has no power over the military; he certainly doesn't have the power to declare war. Look instead at the rest of the Iranian government; I think you'll find people who are much more reasonable and who aren't willing to kill themselves to damage Israel.

Yeah, Iran's always seemed pretty diplomatically savvy to me. Back in the pre-9/11 world, it seemed ready to do the whole economic integration track countries like the Ukraine and Turkey are taking now. Now they are playing the whole "the U.S.A. is going crazy, don't pretend you aren't a little bit scared, we're looking at you China" card, and they're probably going to get a bomb out of it.

I strongly recommend reading up on the foundation of the IAEA and its mission. It is a rich source of irony, which can spice up any essay on this subject. ;)

[off-topic bump] Tactical Grace, I just wanted to say that you have the Best. Sig. Ever. :D [/off-topic bump]