NationStates Jolt Archive

If anyone here is interested in a direct source for what the Iranian authorities are saying about themselves these days, France 24 has recently interviewed the Iranian ambassador to France. Amongst other things, he (not surprisingly) denies that Iran is trying to develop nukes, saying that having nukes would not increase Iran's safety (and would therefore be useless).

He also talks about the United States and Israel.

The interview is here (http://www.france24.com/france24Public/en/talk/Interview-FRANCE-24.html).

That table looks a lot like the BBC24 table... (mumble mumble, damn Frogs, ripping off our tables...)

And y'know what, as time goes on, I am more and more convinced that Iran's nuclear program is on the straight and narrow. Of course, the West is simply unable to back down and admit that. We could end up facing the absurd scenario where any impartial observer could clearly tell that Iran's program is completely amilitary, but yet our governments continue to insist against the evidence that it is not.

I hope you're not naive enough to actually believe him.

Considering that Iran imports 40% of its oil because it doesn't have enough oil refineries to meet demand, nuclear energy is the last thing it needs.

they couldn't get the president of Iran? (its not like he has anything to do?)

Considering that Iran imports 40% of its oil because it doesn't have enough oil refineries to meet demand, nuclear energy is the last thing it needs.

so if Iran is running low on energy the last thing it wants to do is use alternative sources of power :confused:

If you ask me which no-one ever does *mutters* this was started as a perfectly fine alternative energy programme* but because the world is basically saying “back down or else” Iran is keeping this going out of spite and such

*hence why Iran offered the white house everything the west wants

I hope you're not naive enough to actually believe him.

Considering that Iran imports 40% of its oil because it doesn't have enough oil refineries to meet demand, nuclear energy is the last thing it needs.

Oh no. I wouldn't do anything as foolish as to believe an ambassador. I'm believing the empirical evidence. Despite three years of the USA and allies trying to find some kind of proof that Iran's program is hostile, none has emerged.

And even if Iran was planning on developing a nuclear bomb in 2003, they certainly aren't going to try anything now while they are under the spotlight. So the existance of their nuclear program is either there, a) for civilian energy purposes, or b) for propaganda purposes (Plucky Persia Protects Self From Bullying Superpower).

And by developing nuclear power now, they will have more oil to sell when the stuff starts running out. Burning it yourself would just be a waste when you could sell it abroad for a hugely inflated price.

so if Iran is running low on energy the last thing it wants to do is use alternative sources of power :confused:

If you ask me which no-one ever does *mutters* this was started as a perfectly fine alternative energy programme* but because the world is basically saying “back down or else” Iran is keeping this going out of spite and such

*hence why Iran offered the white house everything the west wants

You misunderstood me. Iran is sitting on a sea of oil. Yet it doesn't have enough oil-refineries for its own needs. Therefore, in the interest of cost efficiency, it would be more prudent for Iran to ramp up its oil refining capacity instead of embarking on a confronational and costly nuclear programme.

Unless they want nukes.

instead of embarking on a confronational and costly nuclear programme.

it wasn't confrontational or costly to begin with India certainly had fun and that was to build atomic weaponry

Unless they want nukes.

or to…be at least be half prepared for an oil crisis/bank in on future energy markets/rely on more than one source of power that isn’t as finite/actually care about the environment

edit: so why does Russia have Nuclear plants when it has stores of natural gas?

Oh no. I wouldn't do anything as foolish as to believe an ambassador. I'm believing the empirical evidence. Despite three years of the USA and allies trying to find some kind of proof that Iran's program is hostile, none has emerged.

And even if Iran was planning on developing a nuclear bomb in 2003, they certainly aren't going to try anything now while they are under the spotlight. So the existance of their nuclear program is either there, a) for civilian energy purposes, or b) for propaganda purposes (Plucky Persia Protects Self From Bullying Superpower).

And by developing nuclear power now, they will have more oil to sell when the stuff starts running out. Burning it yourself would just be a waste when you could sell it abroad for a hugely inflated price.

The Iranian president's rhetoric, notwithstanding, all you have to do is consider Iran's geopolitical position.

According to Bush, Iran is in the "axis of evil" of North Korea, Iraq, and Iran. North Korea had nukes. Iraq didn't. Iraq got invaded. North Korea didn't.

Iran sees nukes as the ultimate way of protecting itself from invasion and as a way to enhance its power in the region. The knowledge that America won't take any decisive action agaisnt you because you are armed with nukes will embolden you to pursue your goals in the region if you are Iran.

If you want "emprical" evidence, however, consider this. The Iranians are pursuing the most intensive missile program in the Third World, with constantly increasing ranges. The Iranian Shahab 3 missile (domestically produced within Iran) can threaten either Tel Aviv or Riyadh from the same launch point. The newer Shahab 3ER, with its 2,000 km range, can reach Ankara in Turkey, Alexandria in Egypt, or Sanaa in Yemen from one single launch point deep within Iran. Thus, Iran does not have to move its launchers to project power, making its missile arsenal more survivable.

Yet even this missile does not appear to be enough for Iran. According to the Washington Times:

In January (2006), the German magazine Bild reported that Iran purchased 18 BM-25 land-mobile missiles from North Korea. The BM-25 is a variation of the SS-N-6, a Soviet-made submarine-launched ballistic missile, with a range of up to 1,800 miles. The BM-25, according to Mr. Rubin, "is a nuclear missile...There is no other warhead for this other than a nuclear warhead." The Iranian missile threat is clearly growing. (See also Defense News).

Finally, Iran's ultimate goal seems to be the ability to strike anywhere, including the United States. The Center for Strategic and International Studies took a look at Iranian research plans. They noted that:

...Iran is attempting to create a Shahab-5 and a Shahab-6, with a 3,000-5,000 kilometer range. These missiles would be three-stage rockets. If completed, the Shahab-5 and the Shahab-6 would take Iran into the realm of limited range ICBM's, and enable Iran to target the US eastern seaboard.

http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/45884734/critiques/Iran_A_Threat_to_Israel_and_the_World.asp

it wasn't confrontational or costly to begin with India certainly had fun and that was to build atomic weaponry

or to…be at least be half prepared for an oil crisis/bank in on future energy markets/rely on more than one source of power that isn’t as finite/actually care about the environment

It is confrontational for the simple reason that most of the international community is against it. When India was at it, I don't think they had the UN imposing any sanctions on them.

Somehow, I don't think the environment is on the mullah's list of priorities. And once again, even if an oil crisis/bank was to happen, Iran would not be nearly as severely affected if it had enough refining capacity...which they aren't even trying to achive.

so why does Russia have Nuclear plants when it has stores of natural gas?

For one, because it helped develop their nuclear weapons, second because nuclear power was good propaganda, and third because they would prefer to sell their natural gas rather than waste it in power plants when they have more than enough uranium for their needs.