Thank you for your posting Mehrad, your different perspective is appreciated. Nonetheless, your final sentences appear to insinuate that the UN is in fact the US and this is yet another Circus. If I am mistaken, I humbly apologize, and will post it right after your response. Hence, I have a few simple questions: 1) Why should not Iran accept snap inspections? 2) The EU resisted American pressures regarding Iraq. They have recently rejected the US design for a UN mandate in Iraq that is devoid of Iraqi participation in the exercise of sovereignty. Are you suggesting that all of a sudden, the EU has surrender to American pressure on Iran? If not, why has one of the EU asked Iran to accept snap inspections? 3) In the end, there is mind-boggling question that I would like to figure out. Why is Iran so eager to acquire nuclear capacity,... [more at the permalink of the entry above]
Well, as you might see, both comments of saoshyant and Mehrad are illuminating, sth is going on there, in Iran and they are hiding sth, it is apparent. US and EU in a smart and elegant move has put the Iranian king in a corner on the chess plate, in a real severe check situation, they are asking for a definite move. Not mentioning how profitable this is for them, it is so, so embarrassing for Islamic Republic to respond definitely, they have shown that they love “vague” responses and situations to escape from confrontation, now US and EU and UN has brought up a definite question and it was IR ‘s dangerous mistake and some other diplomatic movements which resulted in this situation. Islamic Republic will continue to act as if he wants to comply with IEA and will proceed on his own intentions, but Americans nowadays want... [more at the permalink of the entry above]
There are so many arguments against having a nuclear plant in Iran as Kaveh mentioned in his post but bringing up the argument, why does Iran want to have another source of energy, to prove other intentions is very naďve to me. First of all as we all know like so many other oiled reached countries in the world are, it is wise to have an alternative source as these recourses are limited and irreplaceable and also our whole economy is based on them. And also most of theses resources are potential ones and it is as I was told by a chemist much more expensive to rely on them than using a nuclear plant. I think what UN is asking from Iran is really unreasonable specially that they already can visit anywhere they want with in a one week notice and I don’t think nuclear weapons and their... [more at the permalink of the entry above]
Dear Ghazal: Thank you for your very good International Relations questions. I personally think Russia, both as the Czar's Empire and the USSR has incurred so much damage to the historical integrity of Iran that today that it has been reduced to a wounded bear, I find it the worst type of ally one can find. Just as a friendly reminder, there are many other alternative sources of Engergy that combined together and providing they are distributed to respond to regional and local needs, they can provide enough energy for a haphazardly insdustrializing state like Iran. You can use all types of wind mills in many parts of Iran, for example Yazd and Kerman. I have not forgotten the ferocity of the winds in those regions that according to the local people remain on average considerable throughout the year. You can do the same thing near major mountain passages... [more at the permalink of the entry above]
Dear saoshyant, 1. I didn't mean UN is US, in fact it is not. Obviously,UN is UN -who cares? let it be!- but it is US that rules. 2. Let's suppose Mr. ElBaradei advises its board of governors independently. Does IAEA decide independently which country should be inspected next?
Two more points saoshyant, 3. I'm not suggesting that EU has surrenderd to US. At least in this case it seems that the EU is truely worried about Iran nuclear programs. But it's not always like that. There are many cases in which EU and US confront and although doing their best, Europians can do nothing but compromise or surrender at last. 4. Why should not other countries accept snap inspections? Because they're not under suspicion now? Why not? Don't tell me there are no other countries developing underground nuclear projects right now...
Dear Mehrad: First of all, I appreciate if in the end we happen to agree to "disagree". I found your responses fair enough. Now let me get back to what I call the "real politics" of policy option at a time of great regional and international tention. 1) The New Regime of snap inspections has just put in place, in the aftermath of the Iraqi and North Korean situation, and the Iranian case marks the beginning of such exercises. Indeed, the board of govrnors was not in agreement as to how it had to implement the whole inspection issue, until the United States prove to them that whether the whole world opposes it or not, it has the determination to do what it wants, the ways its resources permit, and how it wants in dealing with the opposing unyielding states. 2) In such a situation, does not wisdom rule... [more at the permalink of the entry above]
Although US and other world forces of varying natures (UN, for example) are worried about the world peace being threatened by a fundamentalist regime having access to the bomb, and although some Iranians' response seems to be of merely defiant nature (Why should Isreal have the bomb, but not us? Why should UN or US dictate us what we should do?), I think our major concern as Iranians must be the possible (I'd say "likely"!) human catastrophes that may result from having the bomb or even the peaceful reactors for generating electricity (yeah, sure!) and not knowing how to protect *ourselves* from it. Chernobyl must have had invaluable lessons for us. If Russians (who I think we agree are much more advanced in technology than Iranians) could not prevent such a wide-range disaster, how could we? What if the Iranian janitor who is supposed to clean the reactor premises... [more at the permalink of the entry above]
I think according to the contracts with Russia, they want the nuclear waste back. But I completely agree that if we are not prepared enough for emergency and containment issues it is not worth the risk at all. This is what I could find for comparison of oil/gas, wind and nuclear plants as energy sources in US which some of them apply to Iran as well: Nuclear: • Fuel is inexpensive • Energy generation is the most concentrated source • Waste is more compact than any source • Extensive scientific basis for the cycle • Easy to transport as new fuel • No greenhouse or acid rain effects x Requires larger capital cost because of emergency, containment, radioactive waste and storage systems x Requires resolution of the long-term high level waste storage issue in most countries x Potential nuclear proliferation issue Wind: • Wind is free if available •... [more at the permalink of the entry above]
Ghazal: Is this the site that you got your information from? http://www.nucleartourist.com/basics/why.htm In order to defend a view rationally, one has to provide "Authentic" sources and before anything else attempts to try to falsify one's position as much as I can. I vividly see your attempt to defend this position was not based on an attempt to falsify it in order to test its reasonable defencibility based upon the knowledge available. Any book on the mehtodology of science can help better than what I just said. We are discussing Iran and you clearly cut and paste your defence from a US website. I became suspiscious when I saw the "US" concerning the rejection of solar power!!!!! Deliberative argument is a matter of convincing ohters based upon sharing methods of verifiying the truth, Not resorting to "google" platforms of justifications. I am really sorry, but whatever the proponent of the... [more at the permalink of the entry above]
I don't want to get too bogged down into details because this is a political discussion, but natural gas turbine electricity generation is now the most attractive energy source for a country that has large reserves of natural gas, as does Iran (2nd in the world in reserves). Nuclear is about twice as expensive, depending on the interest rates. The US is building natural gas plants like mad, and we don't have nearly as much natural gas as does Iran. This is the reason why Iran's cover story of energy diversification has no credibility to the international community (or the US, if that's the way you wish to identify it), even if for the vast majority of countries, including the US, it is very sensible energy policy.
saoshyant wrote: "Deliberative argument is a matter of convincing ohters based upon sharing methods of verifiying the truth, Not resorting to "google" platforms of justifications." I'm afraid this is what I find myself guilty of too. :-| Damn google!
saoshyant and Dan, I think the whole thing have been mixed up a little, so let me clear myself about this Atomic Energy debate. For me, the recent crisis and our own arguments consist of two completely different aspects that I wish to explain. 1. Scientific Approach Facts that Ghazal posted on her last comment or the realities Kaveh mentioned in his "Hiroshima,..." entry are examples of this approach which might include scientific figuers or environmental issues. From this point of view, I personally, am against nuclear programs to the extent that they put human lives in seriuos danger. Let it be in Iran or US, for civil or evil purposes. 2. Political Approach The last couple of sentences in my post or those comments addressing to international relations could be examples of this kind of approach. In this, I've got quite a lot to argue about. There's no... [more at the permalink of the entry above]
Looks like you guys have got enough time, why not have a look at this short article from The Guardian on Iran Atomic Crisis: http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,12858,1042837,00.html
Dear The Donkey (can you guys set a policy that people are prevented from using this kind of pseudonyms?): The Guardian article that is also on the BBC Persian web site, is just an editorial that does not address the concerns regarding bad policy making and/or at least bad timing and lack of co-operation on the part of Islamic Republic. For example, one of the reasons mentioned there is deterrence. Really???? If Israelis or Pakistanis for what ever freaking reason decide to drop a nuclear bomb on Iran, that could come as a first strike, for all intents and purposes Iranians need to have at least a very good, and by good I mean "really sophisticated" missile system. Plus, even if Iranians do have a missile system, it is no good, as both Israel and Pakistan, thanks to the bloody US embargo on Iran for the past 25 years,... [more at the permalink of the entry above]
Follow up: Of course, I do not know if the Shehab missiles and a combination of old style Soviet airplanes and old American Jets would make a case for a strong Iranian Air Force: if it does, which could be a miracle, then I am humbly mistaken, other than that the present Iranian air defence technology is a historical joke and mirculous debacle.
Dear Saoshyant, I don't want to defend a view but instead let it be known and actually what made me to even do that in the first place was the fact that I didn’t see anyone trying to falsify the position that it is irrational to have nuclear plants in Iran. I did clearly cut and past the “comments” (not defense) from a US website and I thought I made it clear in my comment. I happen to believe that it is possible to grasp the truth even without some defined methods of verification. By the way I find it interesting to know the position of US itself about using nuclear plants as an energy source as it was the only country who was suggesting Iran doesn’t need nuclear plants because it has gas.
"Official" position of the US government is that they want to replace all the dirty sources of energy with clean ones.
Dear Ghazal, thank you for your comments, I leave our scientific methodology debate to later, especially when I am not convinced through gazing at fire, or Irfan and Mysticism one can verify much truth in the modern world as opposed to some type of more vrifiable method. Nonetheless, the main questions remains why nuclear energy for Iran? Indeed, there are many people in the US who oppose Nuclear Energy and they are pretty active about that 5% of them voted for Ralph Nader in the last presidential election. Here, I can comfortably cite google with respect to all sorts of data and statistics about Nuclear Energy and opposition to its use in the US. Protests at the local level against them are increasing. State officials have to consult with people increasingly. There are lawsuits in the courts. The story is as big as the US itself. But at least,... [more at the permalink of the entry above]
I agree with Saoshyant in that Islamic Republic's way of handling the situation has been less than satisfactory, if not flat out idiotic. The whole nuclear energy project strikes me as just a show-off or food for the propaganda machine. That's my personal opinion *at the moment* and open to debate, the main question of which being: "what purpose is exactly this project supposed to serve?" My impression of the scietific activity conducted at the Institute for Atomic Energy, for instance, is, from the few occasions I hppened to be there as a student, that it was quite thin, to say the least. I really wonder, what scientific base for operating and maintaining such a grand undertaking there is, especially with the current well-known brain drain in Iran.
Dear Mehrad; With respect to 3 and 4 I really appologize for the emotional take-over. Some of my comments were inappropriate and appologize from everybody. But at last, something happened! I got some direct response and that I expected dearly. I will respond accordingly shortly.as per 1 and 2.
To flog this dead horse mercilessly, the United States hasn't built a new nuke electricity site in about 35 years. Contrast to the fact that over the next 3 years, the US will add more natural gas turbine generation than Iran's entire current electricity generation output. This is true even though the US has only 1/5 the natural gas reserves of Iran. It is plain and obvious to the US that it doesn't make any sense at all for Iran to generate electricity through nukes.
Dear all: I find myself obliged to ensure that I retract some of the emotional parts of my my few previousc ommetns, that are indeed distracting and counter-productive for the purposes of democratic debate. As a matter of self-reflection, and upon an exchange of few messages with other commentators, I think what I have learned from my emotional blunders in the present debate is that concerning the "the nukes", is that it would be better if I had paused a bit, sat aback, and formulated my thoughts in a way that would help continuing discussion in productive manner. Instead, I allowed myself to be taken over by "what I felt about strongly". Overcoming by those feelings was wrong, and I had to ask more questions for clarification, even if they could be challenging in nature. In fact, as many of you know, I often do ask questions like that... [more at the permalink of the entry above]
Gotta love those Mexican "dia de los muertos" skulls.