Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Language of Iran Sanctions Leads to Familiar 'Regime Change' Threats
Iran Sanctions Are the Talk of the Day
WASHINGTON - If there were any doubts about what exactly U.S. President Barack Obama meant when he warned Iran of "growing consequences" during his State of the Union address last month, they seem to be dispelled by recent statements from top administration officials, who are beating the sanctions drum loud and clear.
When U.S. Secretary of Defence Robert Gates spoke of sanctions Monday as the sole remaining option in dealing with Iran's nuclear ambitions, he was echoing another more outspoken colleague - Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
"The only path that is left to us at this point, it seems to me, is that pressure track but it will require all of the international community to work together," Gates said during a news conference Monday in Paris with French Defence Minister Herve Morin, regarding the need for tougher sanctions.
Harve was in "complete agreement" with his U.S. counterpart. But should Iran have a last-minute change of heart and concede to Western demands, the U.S. and its allies would be open to "a peaceful way to resolve this issue," the Pentagon chief said.
Clinton had told reporters last Friday "We think it is important that we move now toward looking at what pressure, what sanctions can be brought to bear on the Iranians."
Talk of sanctions does not hurt in Washington and to a lesser degree in Western European capitals, where many are weary of what they see as Iran's mind games and perceived intransigence. In fact, as Mehrzad Boroujerdi, an Iran expert at New York's Syracuse University, says, it has become "a popular sport in Washington" to bash Iran.
The remarks by two senior officials of the Obama administration came after recent contradictory messages coming out of Iran with regard to its nuclear programme. On Feb. 2, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told Iranian state television that he had "no problems" with a deal with the West to swap Iran's low enriched uranium for nuclear fuel rods.
Although Ahmadinejad's remarks were largely met with scepticism, they sparked some hope that Iran might be pursuing a different course of action. However, ending any enthusiasm that he might have generated in the outside world, in a 180-degree change, Ahmadinejad ordered the country's nuclear energy organisation last Sunday to start enriching uranium to 20 percent.
Iran needs 20-percent enriched uranium to operate a medical research reactor in the capital, Tehran.
Obama made unprecedented overtures to Iran when he took office last year, to encourage Iran to come to the negotiating table over its nuclear programme. The U.S. and its allies set a deadline for last December for Iran to respond to a proposal for a nuclear fuel exchange deal, but Iran did not accede to Western demands.
"The window for diplomacy is quickly closing. The language of the Obama administration has changed dramatically, and the actions of the Ahmadinejad government has hardly help build confidence," said Trita Parsi, president of the National Iranian American Council. "At this stage, a period of punitive and confrontational measures may be politically unavoidable."
Now, with additional sanctions promoted as the new tool for confronting Iran, the key question is how and when the U.S. can get the other two members of the P5+1 club, China and Russia, onboard with other western powers. The P5+1 group is made up of the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council plus Germany, a leading trading partner of Iran.
Although Russia has been recently more in line with Western powers over imposing more sanctions on Iran, China has remained a serious opponent of further punitive measures.
Many analysts attribute Beijing's position to the growing commerce between the two countries. A recent Financial Times report says China is now Iran's number one trading partner, overtaking the European Union (EU).
The volume of Iran's commerce with China stood at 36.5 billion dollars in 2008, according to the FT, while the EU's trade with Iran totaled 35 billion dollars for the same year. In return, Iran supplies 11 percent of China's energy needs, according to the Iran-China Chamber of Commerce.
"I am not holding my breath that these sanctions will work," Boroujerdi told IPS. "It's really hard to sanction an oil-rich state that has something that the rest of the world needs."
Boroujerdi sees the ongoing smuggling activity conducted through the country's borders as another factor that can challenge sanctions' success.
In fact, many experts are deeply sceptical about the effectiveness of sanctions and consider them a failure in general. Although the U.S. and its allies have spoken of "smart sanctions" mostly aimed at Iran's military institutions, such as the Revolutionary Guards and its affiliate businesses, there is a lot of doubt as to whether a sanctions policy can bring an end to Iran's nuclear programme.
The U.S. has imposed a ban on U.S. companies dealing with Iran for the past three decades but, in effect, the sanctions are considered largely ineffective as the Islamic Republic has looked elsewhere for business.
Iran's nuclear programme has not been only a source of controversy in the Western world but also among Middle Eastern countries, particularly Israel. They doubt Iran's nuclear activities are for peaceful energy purposes and charge that Iran is seeking a nuclear bomb.
Iranian officials have repeatedly rejected this claim and say the programme is solely geared toward peaceful purposes, such as producing electricity.
As a deal between Iran and the West appears far-fetched at this point, calls for regime change and use of force against Iran are on the rise. Richard Haas, head of the Council on Foreign Relations, in an article entitled "Enough is Enough", called on Obama administration to work for regime change in Iran, a policy former President George W. Bush unsuccessfully pursued for years.
Daniel Pipes, a neoconservative, has called for bombing Iran, saying it was a way for Obama to "salvage his tottering administration" and protect the U.S. and its allies.



32 Comments so far
Show AllAgain, an article that doesn't even mention the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which Iran has never been found in violation of.
The U.S. should be put under sanctions, as they have continuously violated the terms of the NNPT by not working to reduce stockpiles.
When will the IAEA come to the U.S. and snoop around our most secretive nuclear sites as they have in Iran for over a decade?
When will Pakistan, India and Israel come under sanctions for refusing to sign the NNPT even though they possess many nuclear weapons.
This is all about regime change.
The U.S. wants a puppet to replace Ahmadinajad who'll let U.S. multinationals into the country in order to steal their resources.
Could this be any more obvious to an informed news watcher?
NO!! The problem is the last four words in your question. Finding "an informed news watcher" can be quite difficult.
So far left, I'm right!
OYE
Unka 'Bomb: You've already run upon Iraq; now it's time to turn around and yell, I ran! It's their HOMELAND, styoopid!
Remember when the US puppet Shah Pevlazi (sp?) was the poster child for nuclear energy? In US newspapers full page ads were taken out with a big picture of the Shah and a heading that went, "Guess who's building nuclear power plants?"
I think it was a Boston energy consortium that did these ads, could be wrong on that, and the ads were targeting the American populace in the push for more nuclear energy plants here in The Homeland.
If the Iranian A-Man was signing those US multi-national contracts you can bet he too would be the poster child for US Big Nuclear Energy and praised as a man of vision. Especially now that Homeland O-Man is owing Exelon a payback.
The governing principles of this country correspond pretty much with those of the mafia.
Good recall mcoyote. Saved me some typing. It would be interesting to speculate on what would be required to really turn Iran into a favored nation again. I mean the minimal changes. Regime change would do it. But is there anything less?
My guess is that having wriggled free of US domination at great cost, the Iranians would have to grovel and winkle their necks back under Uncle Sam's foot, again at great cost, to be favored again.
Not in the cards. They will be free or they will be conquered. And by free I mean only 'free from the US', i.e. sovereign. What things are like there for the average citizen is another deal altogether. For all the concern expressed here for the ordinary Iranians, I don't think their lives are worse than the lives of the ordinary citizens in the US imperial domains (Haiti comes to mind ... even before the earthquake).
Here's what is at stake. The following link from Global Security describes the matter in detail. I'll post a bit here:
...
Forward presence of US forces in Iraq cements US credibility, strengthens deterrence, and facilitates transition from peace to war. Although ground forces provide the bulk of the long-term forward presence in Iraq, access to ports and airfields is essential to project other forces into the area. The continued presence of US forces in Iraq sends a strong visible message of the US commitment to defend this region. Presence is enhanced through on-going military-to-military interaction, cooperative defense measures, and prepositioning of equipment and supplies critical to US responsiveness and warfighting flexibility.
...
OPLAN 1002-04 has probably been revised to reflect the American occupation of Iraq, and the power projection opportunities this provides against Iran. The Zagros Mountains form a natural pallisade defending Iran from incursions from Iraq. The Iranian province of Khuzestan is the one large piece of flat Iranian terrain to the west of the Zagros Mountains. American heavy forces could swiftly occupy Khuzestan, and in doing so seize control of most of Iran's oil resources, and non-trivial portions of the country's water supply and electrical generating capacity.
Khuzestan [Khouzestan] is the most important pivot of Iran's economy. The existence of such huge resources as oil, gas and water in Khuzestan have changed the economic appearance of Iran. Oil first erupted from a well in the Massjed e Soleyman area, located in the southern Khuzestan province.
...
Abadan is a large (pop. 308,000) oil-refinery boomtown, located at the junction of the Karun and Arvandrud rivers. It was largely destroyed during the Iran-Iraq War. Before the war, Abadan had a fairly good museum, but little else worth seeing; now it has even less. It is located 420 mi/675 km south-southwest of Tehran. Like Abadan, Ahvaz is a commercial city (pop. 580,000) that was heavily bombed during the Iran-Iraq War. The city's main attraction is its proximity to several historic sites: Choga Zambil (Elamite ruins and well-preserved ziggerat), Haft Tappe (ruins) and Shush 70 mi/115 km north of Abadan. Once Iran's largest port, Khorramshahr was almost destroyed during the Iran-Iraq War and is being rebuilt.
...
The vast majority of Iran's crude oil reserves are located in giant onshore fields in the southwestern Khuzestan region near the Iraqi border and the Persian Gulf. Iran has 32 producing oil fields, of which 25 are onshore and 7 offshore. Major onshore fields include the following: Ahwaz-Asmari (700,000 bbl/d); Bangestan (around 245,000 bbl/d current production, with plans to increase to 550,000 bbl/d), Marun (520,000 bbl/d), Gachsaran (560,000 bbl/d), Agha Jari (200,000 bbl/d), Karanj-Parsi (200,000 bbl/d); Rag-e-Safid (180,000 bbl/d); Bibi Hakimeh (130,000 bbl/d), and Pazanan (70,000 bbl/d). Major offshore fields include: Dorood (130,000 bbl/d); Salman (130,000 bbl/d); Abuzar (125,000 bbl/d); Sirri A&E (95,000 bbl/d); and Soroush/Nowruz (60,000 bbl/d).
According to the Oil and Gas Journal (1/1/04), Iran holds 125.8 billion barrels of proven oil reserves, roughly 10% of the world's total, up from 90 billion barrels in 2003. In October 1999, Iran announced that it had made its biggest oil discovery in 30 years, a giant onshore field called Azadegan located in the southwestern province of Khuzestan, a few miles east of the border with Iraq. Reportedly, the Azadegan field contains proven crude oil reserves of 26 billion barrels. In July 2004, Iran's oil minister stated that the country's proven oil reserves had increased again, to 132 billion barrels, following new discoveries in the Kushk and Hosseineih fields in Khuzestan province.
Iran's energy generation capacity has risen to about 26,000 megawatts. The share of Khuzestan in total amount of energy produced in the country was 3,800 mega watts. The figure is expected to increase following operationing of three dams in Khuzestan province. Water resources are unevenly spread; 30 percent of surface water resources are concentrated in one province (Khuzestan), while many other populated provinces fully exploit their scarce available resources.
...
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/oplan-1002.htm
"What things are like there for the average citizen is another deal altogether. For all the concern expressed here for the ordinary Iranians, I don't think their lives are worse than the lives of the ordinary citizens in the US imperial domains (Haiti comes to mind ... even before the earthquake)."
See: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article24275.htm
Regarding day to day life in Iran.
More people need to see this.
I agree Cygnus, and can only think that the Western World is too apathetic, too caught up in their personal lives to even notice this happening. The majority of people take daily news at face value, never questioning the bias or hidden agendas which may influence any story.
Just as there is no mention of Iran's full compliance with the demands of the NPT, there is no mention of the other countries, most notably Israel, who simply fail to sign up.
We are presented with a distorted picture of Iran, which shows it as a dark, evil power, with old mantra that it is the major force behind state sponsored terrorism.
There is a power struggle going on inside Iran, and the reformist movement need space, they need to press home their points in their way, without the US and others getting involved.
We ruined Iran in 1953 with the US/UK sponsored coup, which left our friendly dictator on the Peacock throne, and robbed Iran of the only democratically elected government in the Middle East.
The Iranian people may be frustrated at the excesses of their present leaders, but they are not stupid, and would in no way welcome intervention by the US or UK.
"We ruined Iran in 1953 with the US/UK sponsored coup" We sure did. Oh how we loved Ike back then while Nixon and his CIA were secretly terrorizing the world. Ike played golf while Dick played death. What a gig!
O'BobbleHead needs a good war or a terrorist attack to give him a boost in his ratings. Iran could be the start of something big. Contact SleazeNN and tell them to get their cameras ready. Action!
If only someone (most likely U.S. or Israel) would just set off a nuke inside the U.S. it could be blamed on Iran and give the US and Israel a good excuse to nuke Iran. Then all our troubles would be over.
[Then all our troubles would be over.]
No, at that point your troubles would just begin. No one would believe that Iran had the ability to nuke the usa, I certainly wouldn't. It would be too obvious that the usa had 'shot' itself in order to justify another war. The nuclear bombardment of Iran by the usa or Israel would be ... I can't think of how badly the world would react to that. The usa and its client states would be instant pariahs.
There is no 'good excuse' to slaughter tens of millions of people.
[on edit]
Oh, damn. I missed your sarcasm. Sorry.
no problem :)
Iraq
Afghanistan
Pakistan
Yemen
Haiti
...Iran?
All of them are so dangerous, they require sanctions followed by massive invasions, occupations, bombings, drone bombings, CIA operations, hordes of mercenaries. We march across the borders into their countries and drop bombs on their people based on a large variety of pretexts created on behalf of the oil and munitions industries.
Meanwhile, back at home, things fall apart.
Joe
Chapters in a new book by William Blum:
1. China - 1945 to 1960s: Was Mao Tse-tung just paranoid?
2. Italy - 1947-1948: Free elections, Hollywood style
3. Greece - 1947 to early 1950s: From cradle of democracy to client state
4. The Philippines - 1940s and 1950s: America's oldest colony
5. Korea - 1945-1953: Was it all that it appeared to be?
6. Albania - 1949-1953: The proper English spy
7. Eastern Europe - 1948-1956: Operation Splinter Factor
8. Germany - 1950s: Everything from juvenile delinquency to terrorism
9. Iran - 1953: Making it safe for the King of Kings
10. Guatemala - 1953-1954: While the world watched
11. Costa Rica - Mid-1950s: Trying to topple an ally - Part 1
12. Syria - 1956-1957: Purchasing a new government
13. Middle East - 1957-1958: The Eisenhower Doctrine claims another backyard for America
14. Indonesia - 1957-1958: War and pornography
15. Western Europe - 1950s and 1960s: Fronts within fronts within fronts
16. British Guiana - 1953-1964: The CIA's international labor mafia
17. Soviet Union - Late 1940s to 1960s: From spy planes to book publishing
18. Italy - 1950s to 1970s: Supporting the Cardinal's orphans and techno-fascism
19. Vietnam - 1950-1973: The Hearts and Minds Circus
20. Cambodia - 1955-1973: Prince Sihanouk walks the high-wire of neutralism
21. Laos - 1957-1973: L'Armée Clandestine
22. Haiti - 1959-1963: The Marines land, again
23. Guatemala - 1960: One good coup deserves another
24. France/Algeria - 1960s: L'état, c'est la CIA
25. Ecuador - 1960-1963: A text book of dirty tricks
26. The Congo - 1960-1964: The assassination of Patrice Lumumba
27. Brazil - 1961-1964: Introducing the marvelous new world of death squads
28. Peru - 1960-1965: Fort Bragg moves to the jungle
29. Dominican Republic - 1960-1966: Saving democracy from communism by getting rid of democracy
30. Cuba - 1959 to 1980s: The unforgivable revolution
31. Indonesia - 1965: Liquidating President Sukarno … and 500,000 others
East Timor - 1975: And 200,000 more
32. Ghana - 1966: Kwame Nkrumah steps out of line
33. Uruguay - 1964-1970: Torture -- as American as apple pie
34. Chile - 1964-1973: A hammer and sickle stamped on your child's forehead
35. Greece - 1964-1974: "Fuck your Parliament and your Constitution," said
the President of the United States
36. Bolivia - 1964-1975: Tracking down Che Guevara in the land of coup d'etat
37. Guatemala - 1962 to 1980s: A less publicized "final solution"
38. Costa Rica - 1970-1971: Trying to topple an ally -- Part 2
39. Iraq - 1972-1975: Covert action should not be confused with missionary work
40. Australia - 1973-1975: Another free election bites the dust
41. Angola - 1975 to 1980s: The Great Powers Poker Game
42. Zaire - 1975-1978: Mobutu and the CIA, a marriage made in heaven
43. Jamaica - 1976-1980: Kissinger's ultimatum
44. Seychelles - 1979-1981: Yet another area of great strategic importance
45. Grenada - 1979-1984: Lying -- one of the few growth industries in Washington
46. Morocco - 1983: A video nasty
47. Suriname - 1982-1984: Once again, the Cuban bogeyman
48. Libya - 1981-1989: Ronald Reagan meets his match
49. Nicaragua - 1981-1990: Destabilization in slow motion
50. Panama - 1969-1991: Double-crossing our drug supplier
51. Bulgaria 1990/Albania 1991: Teaching communists what democracy is all about
52. Iraq - 1990-1991: Desert holocaust
53. Afghanistan - 1979-1992: America's Jihad
54. El Salvador - 1980-1994: Human rights, Washington style
55. Haiti - 1986-1994: Who will rid me of this turbulent priest?
"Daniel Pipes, a neoconservative, has called for bombing Iran, saying it was a way for Obama to "salvage his tottering administration" and protect the U.S. and its allies."
Good ol DP is half right, half wrong.
HALF RIGHT: Obama could well "salvage his tottering administration" by bombing Iran. That damnable "Washington Consensus" of both branches of the D-R duopoly would rush to support the action, and Congress would pass a resolution of overwhelming support. Obama's re-election would be a cakewalk.
HALF WRONG: Such bombing would "protect the U.S. and its allies." To the contrary, this would be a recklessly endangering action, as it would set in motion a latent flood of "terrorist" actions taken against the "U.S. and its allies" everywhere from Washington to London, Paris, Berlin and Baghdad to Kabul. It would be a total abrogation of presidential and congressional responsibity to take care of the "security" of the American people, if not those of the world. The UN "Security Council" would become a weak joke.
Once again, China will be a key factor in whether or not sanctions will work.
China needs Iran's energy, with the third largest oil reserves in the world (behind Canada and Saudi Arabia) and the second largest gas reserves (behin Russia)
So far, the US has been very sucessful in closing down the pipeline construction (IPI) from Iran to India and from Iran to China from the South fars gas fields.
With the US economy in the toilet and with a disappearing middle class to buy crap from China, China will turn to a market of more than 65 million Iranians (bigger than France or the United Kingdom)
Iran does not have to worry about US multinationals. It has to worry about Chinese Multinationals.
And, if Iran moves from dollar based petroleum to EURO based petroleum - they effectively put sanctions on the dollar and the US Economy.
Iran has proclaimed that it will produce some major event in the coming few days that will just boggle the mind of "the west". I wonder if they are going to stop trading oil in dollars and move to the Euro. This was a fatal move for Saddam.
Could be, but I thought Iran already had started to sell its oil in Euros. Of course the Iranians aren't quite in the same boat as the Iraqis were in, Iran hasn't been under crippling sanctions for the last decade, and it's army hasn't suffered the slaughter that Iraq's did in the 90s and later in the 00s.
I hope the 'boggle' involves something completely unexpected, something like a deep cover spy returning from the usa to Iran and bearing a copy of all the secret documents held by the cia over the last 60 years...
-"Iran hasn't been under crippling sanctions for the last decade, and it's army hasn't suffered the slaughter that Iraq's did in the 90s and later in the 00s. "
Iran is a stronger country in many respects than Iraq, I agree, on the other hand the US HAS been trying to blockade Iran for decades (just as it sanctioned Iraq) and like the "slaughter" in the US invasion of Iraq, Iran suffered many casualties in the US backed Iraqi war on Iran in the '80s. Paradoxically, Iran is stronger in some ways, because they have become more self reliant in the face of American/Israeli hostility.
Hilary Clinton OPENLY threatened China in a speech she gave In Europe.
She stated that if China refused to support sanctions against Iran, China would risk seeing AL Of its oil cut off from the Middle east.
Now who has the power to shut down all oil exports from the Middle East? Whose Military is strewn all over that area and whose fleets are sending more ships into the Persian Gulf?
When people stated this war on Iraq was all about Oil and that war in Afghanistan about Oil and Gas...it NOT just to profit from it. It is so the USA can control the taps and threaten nations at will.
This is why they are desperately trying to villianize Chavez who has indicated he wishes to sell more of his Oil to China. The USA wants a Government in Venezuala who will TURN OFF THE OIL to China when THE USA demands it.
China claims the USA is funding the Uighurs in Western China and encouraging them to rebel. They are upset that the USA has sold 6 billion in arms to Tawain. The USA is meddling in the South China sea in areas in dispute encouraging other nations ot stake claims to the regions waters while suggesting the US MIlitary will support those claims.
The USA is pushing for a war with Iran and they do not care if Russia and China are drawn in. The conflict against Iran is NOT about Terrorism , or a "Madman In Charge" or even about Iran becoming a "Threat to the region". It is about gaining control of more of that Oil and Gas so that they can pressure China and other Nations.
-Trita Parsi, president of the National Iranian American Council. "At this stage, a period of punitive and confrontational measures may be politically unavoidable."
I think we have found Obama's "Ahmad Chalabi"!
Most of you are forgetting or ignoring the faction behind the 'Bomb, Bomb, Iran" scenario. ISRAEL. The very non-mention of their unmitigated pushing of bombing Iran shows how successful their propaganda has been to shift the argument and framing for the bombing of Iran.
Israel is the decider and source of this issue. Israeli propaganda and lies have led us to this place. The grabbing of resources would only be an excuse. They have used lies and distortion to push this agenda.
I am at a loss to explain the inexplicable and unconditional support for the terrorist state of Israel. What horrible action (among many) are they blackmailing the U.S. about - that commands such overwhelming support of our Congress in the face of U.S. voter majority against this insane policy?
If we thought 9/11 was a nightmare (brought about by our undying support of Israel), just wait until we bomb Iran and REALLY trigger a truly worldwide backlash against us.
" I am at a loss to explain the inexplicable and unconditional support of the terrorist state of Israel". Well 99, to me it is very simple: The U.S. is the # 1 terrorist, fascist, state in the world so I am at a loss to understand why the U.S. would not support another terrorist, fascist state. In terms of foreign policy the U.S. is Nazi Germany and Israel is Mussolini's fascist state of Italy.
Obomba: You need to bomb the hell out of Iran, so we can bring them freedom and democracy and besides; according to Sarah Palin, it will assure Obomba; your re election in 2012. Also, do not forget the billions and billions and billions of $$$$$$$$$$$$$$ of Iranian resources that would be good for big oil....oh, one other thing: XE could probably get a billion $ contract to protect the Iranian people and its oil resources. Yep,makes sense to Daniel Pipes!
The most hated thing in Washington is the truth.
Here are some more facts.
1. Washington destroyed the vibrant democracy in Iran (where women had the vote BEFORE women in the United States of Global Domination) in 1953 because the democratically elected president of Iran began to nationalize their resources for the benefit of Iranians.
The greedy U.S. and British oil companies were behind the overthrowing of the Iranian government and the installing of the dictatorial Pavlovi's(sp?). This left the Iranian people seething with resentment for decades until a religious coup threw out the U.S. and its vicious and vain puppet.
2. Of all of the major nations in the "Middle East", Iran has been the least belligerent in actions in modern times. The U.S. has repeatedly attacked Iran, either economically or through a puppet regime such as when the U.S. supported Saddam Hussein and the war of aggression wherein MILLIONS were slaughtered in Iran.
3. There is NO evidence to support the claim that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons and this fact has been repeatedly verified. Certainly, Iran has seen ample evidence that it is the target of numerous nuclear-weapon-laden-nations (the U.S. and Israel being the most consistently aggressive).
4. Iran is the foremost representative of Shiite islam and is nearly surrounded by numerous U.S. allies who are loaded with Sunni fundamental (such as Osama's friends) thinkers who would love to eradicate what they see as the "infidel" beliefs of Iran.
At this point, I have to wonder how the U.S. and the E.U. and their greed-lusting corporations will overcome Iran's only remaining safeguard - China.
The Global Dominating Beast is salivating.
The words of the Obama administration must be seen as the DROOLing bloodlust that they are.
We need a regime change alright: but not there, here!
What a poorly written article. It is full of "he said, she said" quotes without analysis and context. At least explain that Iran has the right under international law to develop nuclear for peaceful purposes and that the CIA came out with a report a few years ago saying Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program (yet the politicans and Israel continue pounding the war drum).
If we can't have all that oil and gas, then we need to make sure that no one else does. Since the allegedly could build bombs in underground bunkers, we should get started and nuke the nuclear bomb factories. There are nuclear bunker busters just recently developed.
Slim Pickens where are you when we need you?
No one to the best of my knowledge has mentioned the possible underlying reason for Iran's decision to enrich uranium for use in a biochemical reactor. A large proportion of the world's radioactive biochemicals is produced today in the Dutch nuclear reactor at Petten which will soon be closed for controls and overhaul. Experts have predicted a disastrous shortage of these materials when that happens unless other countries pick up the deficit. I do not think that Iran will produce these materials only for domestic use but also for very lucrative export. The offer of the Obama administration to provide Iran with its needed supply of radioactive biochemicals is not only laughable, it is criminal because it will not avert the above mentioned shortfall when Petten closes.
Today’s NY Times reads:
“Iran’s stated intention to enrich uranium to higher levels is in one sense another incremental act of brinkmanship in a standoff with the West. But nuclear specialists say it also suggests that the country is striving to make real technical progress toward producing a bomb.”
It is true that in one line the article also states, “Its rationale is that it needs 20 percent fuel for its medical reactor.” As if to discard such reasoning.
The above IPS article also, does mention in one line : “Iran needs 20-percent enriched uranium to operate a medical research reactor in the capital, Tehran.”
10s of thousands of Iranians all over the country and other nationals in the region depend on treatment with isotopes from this medical experimental reactor. Over a month ago Iran made offers to swap low enriched uranium under an agreement with France and Russia for 20% enriched and this offer has been deliberately ignored, and although Iran is left with NO CHOICE but to take it upon themselves to start preparation to start enrichment activities beyond the 4 %, it stated yesterday AGAIN that it would reconsider this if it could achieve agreement to swap uranium in 3 or 4 shipments over the next months.
All enrichment activities are under the supervision of the UN nuclear agency, the IAEA and there is ABSOLUTELY no evidence of diversion of nuclear material to military purposes or any weapons programmes.
This type of article and the one in the NY Times conflating a genuine need for higher grade enriched uranium for medical purposes with speculation without foundation on military application, and refusal to follow through on negotiations for the enriched uranium swap, is so obviously a concerted effort lead by the US to continue to harass and threaten Iran to create excuses for unjust sanctions. It is high time American hegemony and propaganda is shown up for exactly what it is.
The fact that this article quotes the violent aggressive desires of Danial Pipes, a surrogate spokes person for the Zionist apartheid entity of Israel responsible for so much suffering to the Palestinian people and a clandestine nuclear, bio/chemical arsenal which threatens the region, gives this piece of journalistic propaganda the tone and legitimacy it deserves.