What WOULD have undermined the Iranian claim that they need to make their own reactor fuel is if the US had agreed to allow Iran to purchase the fuel for the Tehran Research Reactor on the open market, as usual. Instead we prevented them from doing so -- in violation of the NPT -- and have since imposed other forms of energy sanctions on them, which only bolsters their claim that they can't rely on mere promises of fuel delivery.
Actually, that Russia is providing fuel to Iran's Bushehr reactor does not undermine their argument that they need to have a domestic capability to make the fuel. Iran is going to build 22 reactors, and it was Dick Cheney himself who accused Russia of playing energy blackmail.
Iran did not 'reneg' on the original deal. They specifically said that they only agreed to it "in principle" and needed additional concerns addressed, specifically, that they didn't trust the US to allow any of the LEU converted to fuel to be returned to Iran -- so they proposed (quite reasonably) a simultaneous exchange on Iranian soil. The US said "my way or the highway" and so the Iranians backed out, until the Turks stepped in and resolved that concern. Once again, the Iranians did not "reneg" on anything.
Incidentally calling IRan a "rejectionist" state is quite funny, considering how intent the Israelis are themselves in killing off the two-state solution. Iran has repeatedly said that it would agree to whatever the Palestinians agree to. Israel has been intent on destroying the chance of a two-state solution from Day 1. Who is the "rejectionist" party here?
As long as the US continues to fund Israeli expansionism, it is ridiculous to claim that Obama has expended any political capital at all. If you want to see the Two-State Solution take off, stop giving millions of tax-payer dollars a day per Israeli to Israel.
Accusing people right and left of being 'mouthpieces of the Intelligence Ministry' is a worn tactic. The fact is that Iran is in need of diversified energy resources, and even Iran's large gas deposits will not suffice. I suggest you read up on the facts before attributing your own views to Iranian activisits:
Abstract: Rapid growth in Iran's domestic energy demand and its dependence on oil exports for revenue has forced it to consider alternative future energy solutions...
Iran’s Nuclear Power Ambitions Bolstered by Petroleum Geopolitics
Energy Tribune, Dec. 11, 2006
[G]iven Iran’s ongoing energy struggles, it makes sense, both economically and from an energy point of view, for the country to be pursuing nuclear power. Why? Iran simply doesn’t have enough gas production to increase its electricity production in the short term. It does, however, have a surfeit of uranium.
Past Arguments Don't Square With Current Iran Policy
By Dafna Linzer
Washington Post Sunday, March 27, 2005
The fuel behind Iran's nuclear drive
By David Isenberg
Asia Times Aug 24, 2005
Forced to Fuel by M Sahami
Harvard Int'l Law Review,
Vol. 26 No. 4 - Winter 2005
Blasts from the Past: Western Support for Iran's
Nuclear program
Iran Affairs May 30 2007
Iran actually is short of oil
by Roger Stern
International Herald Tribune January 8, 2007
Energy : Iran needs nuclear power
By Mohammad Sahimi, Pirouz Mojtahed-Zadeh and Kaveh L.
Afrasiabi
International Herald Tribune
Published: TUESDAY, OCTOBER 14, 2003
Is Iran Building Nukes? An Economic Analysisby William O. Beeman and Thomas Stauffer (and Part 2)
Pacific News Service, Jun 26, 2003
Basic necessities include power, and Iran has long been in desperate need of diversifying its power resources to include nuclear power, which the US encouraged Iran to develop in the first place. Those "peace activitists" who are opposed to Iranian nuclear energy had better get a clue.
Iran has already long ago offered to place severe restrictions on its nuclear enrichment program, and operate the program as a multinational effort, thus ensuring that it can't be used to secretly make bombs. They've even offered to only produce sufficient enriched uranium as required by their reactor fuel needs, and to immediately covert the enriched uranium into fuel rods so none can be used to make bombs. These and other Iranian compromise proposals (See link to nytimes.com ) would have addressed any legitimate fear of nuclear weapons proliferation by Iran -- have been simply ignored by the US, thus proving that the entire nuclear conflict with Iran is a deliberately manufactured pretext just as "WMDs in Iraq" was a pretext.
Iran is not "largely" in compliance with the NPT -- it is in full compliance. However, the demands made on Iran are far beyond what the NPT requires of signatories. Also, remember that the US too is a signatory, and is required to 1- disarm its nuclear weapons, 2- share nuclear technology with countries such as Iran that are signatories, and 3- not share nuclear technology with countries such as India and Israel which are not signatories.
The US has of course violated every obligation under the terms of the NPT/
© 2018 All Rights Reserved
This analysis rests on the naive assumption that the US (and Israel) would be unhappy about a Shia-Sunni war
What WOULD have undermined the Iranian claim that they need to make their own reactor fuel is if the US had agreed to allow Iran to purchase the fuel for the Tehran Research Reactor on the open market, as usual. Instead we prevented them from doing so -- in violation of the NPT -- and have since imposed other forms of energy sanctions on them, which only bolsters their claim that they can't rely on mere promises of fuel delivery.
Actually, that Russia is providing fuel to Iran's Bushehr reactor does not undermine their argument that they need to have a domestic capability to make the fuel. Iran is going to build 22 reactors, and it was Dick Cheney himself who accused Russia of playing energy blackmail.
Iran did not 'reneg' on the original deal. They specifically said that they only agreed to it "in principle" and needed additional concerns addressed, specifically, that they didn't trust the US to allow any of the LEU converted to fuel to be returned to Iran -- so they proposed (quite reasonably) a simultaneous exchange on Iranian soil. The US said "my way or the highway" and so the Iranians backed out, until the Turks stepped in and resolved that concern. Once again, the Iranians did not "reneg" on anything.
Incidentally calling IRan a "rejectionist" state is quite funny, considering how intent the Israelis are themselves in killing off the two-state solution. Iran has repeatedly said that it would agree to whatever the Palestinians agree to. Israel has been intent on destroying the chance of a two-state solution from Day 1. Who is the "rejectionist" party here?
As long as the US continues to fund Israeli expansionism, it is ridiculous to claim that Obama has expended any political capital at all. If you want to see the Two-State Solution take off, stop giving millions of tax-payer dollars a day per Israeli to Israel.
Good. I guess that they're becoming smarter in running the country.
Accusing people right and left of being 'mouthpieces of the Intelligence Ministry' is a worn tactic. The fact is that Iran is in need of diversified energy resources, and even Iran's large gas deposits will not suffice. I suggest you read up on the facts before attributing your own views to Iranian activisits:
Iran's strong case for nuclear power is obscured by UN sanctions and geopolitics
Author: David Wood
Journal: Atoms for Peace: an International Journal
2007 - Vol. 1, No.4 pp. 287 - 300
Abstract: Rapid growth in Iran's domestic energy demand and its dependence on oil exports for revenue has forced it to consider alternative future energy solutions...
Iran’s Nuclear Power Ambitions Bolstered by Petroleum Geopolitics
Energy Tribune, Dec. 11, 2006
[G]iven Iran’s ongoing energy struggles, it makes sense, both economically and from an energy point of view, for the country to be pursuing nuclear power. Why? Iran simply doesn’t have enough gas production to increase its electricity production in the short term. It does, however, have a surfeit of uranium.
Past Arguments Don't Square With Current Iran Policy
By Dafna Linzer
Washington Post Sunday, March 27, 2005
The fuel behind Iran's nuclear drive
By David Isenberg
Asia Times Aug 24, 2005
Forced to Fuel by M Sahami
Harvard Int'l Law Review,
Vol. 26 No. 4 - Winter 2005
Blasts from the Past: Western Support for Iran's
Nuclear program
Iran Affairs May 30 2007
Iran actually is short of oil
by Roger Stern
International Herald Tribune January 8, 2007
Energy : Iran needs nuclear power
By Mohammad Sahimi, Pirouz Mojtahed-Zadeh and Kaveh L.
Afrasiabi
International Herald Tribune
Published: TUESDAY, OCTOBER 14, 2003
Is Iran Building Nukes? An Economic Analysisby William O. Beeman and Thomas Stauffer (and Part 2)
Pacific News Service, Jun 26, 2003
Basic necessities include power, and Iran has long been in desperate need of diversifying its power resources to include nuclear power, which the US encouraged Iran to develop in the first place. Those "peace activitists" who are opposed to Iranian nuclear energy had better get a clue.
Iran has already long ago offered to place severe restrictions on its nuclear enrichment program, and operate the program as a multinational effort, thus ensuring that it can't be used to secretly make bombs. They've even offered to only produce sufficient enriched uranium as required by their reactor fuel needs, and to immediately covert the enriched uranium into fuel rods so none can be used to make bombs. These and other Iranian compromise proposals (See link to nytimes.com ) would have addressed any legitimate fear of nuclear weapons proliferation by Iran -- have been simply ignored by the US, thus proving that the entire nuclear conflict with Iran is a deliberately manufactured pretext just as "WMDs in Iraq" was a pretext.
Iran is not "largely" in compliance with the NPT -- it is in full compliance. However, the demands made on Iran are far beyond what the NPT requires of signatories. Also, remember that the US too is a signatory, and is required to 1- disarm its nuclear weapons, 2- share nuclear technology with countries such as Iran that are signatories, and 3- not share nuclear technology with countries such as India and Israel which are not signatories.
The US has of course violated every obligation under the terms of the NPT/