The IAEA released its report on Iran today, that included the new Qom facility that raised so much noise month.

The facility is still under construction and will not be running until 2011 or later. But, the IAEA stated that Iran failed to notify them prior to starting construction-which is required under IAEA safeguards. Therefore, Iran did violate the IAEA safeguards agreement. The IAEA concludes this does not bode well for the legitimacy of Iran's program and drops the level of trust between Iran and the IAEA.

The IAEA also concluded Iran does not have any other sites in construction. In addition, the IAEA concluded, as already out there, that Iran is not enriching its uranium for weapons.

But, the IAEA stated that Iran is still not cooperating on possible military connections to its enrichment program and Iran still has not passed the Additional Protocol which allows for more IAEA inspections. Both give more ammo to the belief that Iran is not 100% trustworthy and shady in some aspects.

Interesting report. Not earthshattering, but goes to the argument that Iran is not trustworthy even if they are not seeking nuclear weapons. Anything they say or do must be taken with a huge grain of salt.

A BBC report: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8362865.stm
Arms Control Association view: http://www.armscontrol.org/pressroom/IAEAReport2009Nov16
Arms Control Wonk view: http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/

Full report:
http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/file_download/211/gov2009_74_Iran.pdf

In other news, not related, but Russia has suspended work on the Bushehr reactor, saying it was for "solely technical" reasons. I don't buy that one bit. The Russians probably cut off work as punishment for the Qom reactor.
http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSTRE5AF1MF20091116?sp=true


Note, hit the wrong button, should not be a heart as the icon lol.

I'm sure we have no reason to believe the UN or Iran is lying, mistaken or corrupt.

Alrighty then.

haha Ptown, when I first saw that heart while looking at the topic title, I thought to myself "make sure you bring up the heart"! LOL!!!
Anyway...

In other words, regarding the whole nuclear thing, Iran is being a bunch of Dirty Rat Bastards?
(there is a rootbeer with a DRB label)

Writerbuckeye wrote: I'm sure we have no reason to believe the UN or Iran is lying, mistaken or corrupt.

Maybe so. Perhaps BHO should travel to Iran, bow to Ahmadinejad, and apologize for our disbelief.

Writerbuckeye wrote: I'm sure we have no reason to believe the UN or Iran is lying, mistaken or corrupt.

Alrighty then.

So any report that doesn't fit your preconceived notions is a lie?


It is interesting to see Russia punishing Iran for their work on the Qom facility.

eersandbeers wrote: So any report that doesn't fit your preconceived notions is a lie?

I think it would be very fair to say that everybody on this board fits this description, don't ya think?

eersandbeers wrote:

Writerbuckeye wrote: I'm sure we have no reason to believe the UN or Iran is lying, mistaken or corrupt.

Alrighty then.

So any report that doesn't fit your preconceived notions is a lie?


It is interesting to see Russia punishing Iran for their work on the Qom facility.

No, but reputations mean something.

Iran has repeatedly lied about its nuclear program and defied "authority" and has aided and abetted terrorism.

The UN has a long history of corruption and policies driven by ideologues. Why should they be given the benefit of doubt now?

Good enough for you or do you have some more snide comments to make backed by little or no facts?

Writerbuckeye wrote:

No, but reputations mean something.

Iran has repeatedly lied about its nuclear program and defied "authority" and has aided and abetted terrorism.

The UN has a long history of corruption and policies driven by ideologues. Why should they be given the benefit of doubt now?

Good enough for you or do you have some more snide comments to make backed by little or no facts?

I don't believe it is snide to point out that everytime something doesn't fit your ideas it is a lie or from a corrupt organization. My apologies if you took it that way. I was basing my comments on history.


However, in no way did your comments prove the report was a lie or full of false statements.

I actually trust the IAEA on this one. The report is pretty detailed, and backed up by other intelligence agencies. In the report, they do note that the information is of right now, and could change as other reports come out. They also are coming down on Iran, saying that Iran still has far to go to gain trust. They also leave open how much military cooperation there is with their program, noting Iran must come clean. It is a report that is critical of Iran, and supports all the evidence that Iran is not enriching weapons uranium, but is still shady.

The IAEA is not the UN also. The IAEA was set up outside the UN and only reports to the UNSC, and is not subject to regular UN crap.

Besides, the IAEA was right about Iraq. They know their stuff.

I think you're too trusting about this.

And I fully expect the West to get burned royally by Iran when all is said and done.

^^^Guaranteed.

Writerbuckeye wrote: I think you're too trusting about this.

And I fully expect the West to get burned royally by Iran when all is said and done.

Fair enough. So the question is, what course of action would you take. Its easy to say we shouldn't diplomatically engage someone we have a dispute with (which I don't believe has any logic to it whatsoever) but much more difficult to come up with an alternate policy.

It's not like they'll nuke us or anything. I mean, they're our buddies now...right?

fish82 wrote: It's not like they'll nuke us or anything. I mean, they're our buddies now...right?

they're not going to nuke us for the same reason no other state will nuke us - because they'd be committing suicide

Would it be a fair statement to say

"They'd run out before we did"?

Writerbuckeye wrote: I think you're too trusting about this.

And I fully expect the West to get burned royally by Iran when all is said and done.

But i do trust the IAEA. They've been right before, and they are absolutely nothing like your typical UN group.

I don't like the sounds of this. Too much appeasement going on.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6919329.ece

Oh and derek: It's not like any Muslims have ever considered suicide to be a way to get to heaven as a martyr for Allah or anything, right?

Writerbuckeye wrote: I don't like the sounds of this. Too much appeasement going on.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6919329.ece

Oh and derek: It's not like any Muslims have ever considered suicide to be a way to get to heaven as a martyr for Allah or anything, right?

you're confusing a select few with the other 99% of Muslims, which is sad

derek bomar wrote:

Writerbuckeye wrote: I don't like the sounds of this. Too much appeasement going on.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6919329.ece

Oh and derek: It's not like any Muslims have ever considered suicide to be a way to get to heaven as a martyr for Allah or anything, right?

you're confusing a select few with the other 99% of Muslims, which is sad

No, I'm considering who is running Iran.

Writerbuckeye wrote: I don't like the sounds of this. Too much appeasement going on.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6919329.ece

Oh and derek: It's not like any Muslims have ever considered suicide to be a way to get to heaven as a martyr for Allah or anything, right?

Two things with that.

1. An agreement which brings the Iranian program under the Additional Protocol and tighter IAEA inspections is fantastic. The Additional Protocol pretty much gives the IAEA all power to go inside any Iranian facility. If Iran refuses, the IAEA can send them to the Security Council. It also opens up any possible military connection to Iran's nuclear program. Given Iran's resistance to the Additional Protocol, I doubt they will agree to that measure.

2. Elbaradei is leaving soon, so even if the deal is being worked out, I highly doubt it would get the support needed or the specifics needed to become final. It is unknown how the next Secretary General will act or go forward.

Writerbuckeye wrote:

derek bomar wrote:

Writerbuckeye wrote: I don't like the sounds of this. Too much appeasement going on.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6919329.ece

Oh and derek: It's not like any Muslims have ever considered suicide to be a way to get to heaven as a martyr for Allah or anything, right?

you're confusing a select few with the other 99% of Muslims, which is sad

No, I'm considering who is running Iran.

There are no martyrs in the Iranian government. Neither Ahmadinejad, nor even the Supreme Leader, really run Iran. The hardliners behind the scenes are the ones pulling the strings in Iran. So you can't confuse rhetoric with actual ability to do something.

I agree that Iran is a rational regime, in that each move over the past 10-15 years has been calculated and a rational move, from their perspective.

But, rational or not, the regime is not trustworthy. They are hiding certain aspects, and not fully cooperating with the IAEA on military connections and failing to implement the Additional Protocol.

ptown... thanks your your insight on this issue. You comments always seem to be informative, logical, measured, and non-partisan. It's a refreshing perspective.

No prob. The MSM usually butchers the story, so I try and add some technical details and perspective to help along my fellow huddlers.

Concerning nuclear issues, upcoming in the next few months that I'll be watching and others should too: The Nuclear Posture Review (Feb.), which dictates the U.S. nuclear policy,
the Senate vote of the Nuclear Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (early next year),
the new START Treaty (hopefully by Dec.)
and a meeting in April on securing all loose nuclear material.

ptown_trojans_1 wrote: I agree that Iran is a rational regime, in that each move over the past 10-15 years has been calculated and a rational move, from their perspective.

But, rational or not, the regime is not trustworthy. They are hiding certain aspects, and not fully cooperating with the IAEA on military connections and failing to implement the Additional Protocol.

Yeah I don't know where this idea that Iran is a rational regime came from. Their actions on the world stage are extremely calculated and in no way resemble anything that could be considered irrational. I agree about the trustworthiness though.


To condense the Iran threads, here is an interesting article from Newsweek.....


The clerical establishment has become so sick of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei that they will not replace him when he dies.

Iranian reformists and liberals worldwide can be forgiven for thinking that the election and crackdown last summer strengthened the hardliners. In the short term, they're right: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is still president and his opposition has gone to ground. In the long run, though, they may have already won the battle: Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is likely to be the last all-powerful Supreme Leader of the Islamic republic, even if the theocratic system manages to survive this tumult.

A not-so-quiet debate is now brewing inside the seminaries of Qum, Iran's religious capital, over how to abolish the post, the velayat-e faqih, which Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini assumed when he established the Islamic republic in 1979. Khomeini asserted that his role as the ultimate political and religious authority was effectively endorsed by God, the Prophet Muhammad, or by his last legitimate heir, the Twelfth Imam, whom Shiites believe went into hiding in 941 to escape rival Sunni caliphs but will return to earth to usher in an era of peace and justice.


http://www.newsweek.com/id/223345