Iran Breaks UN Seals on Nuke Centrifuges

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-07-28 07:51am

http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20 ... -4401r.htm

Detroit FP Link

Kansas City Star Link

Posting the Times article as it's more detailed and longer than the AP
report:

Tehran breaks U.N. seals on nukes
By David R. Sands
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Iran has broken seals placed on nuclear centrifuges by U.N. inspectors and resumed work on the equipment, raising fresh fears that a deal to keep Tehran from joining the world's nuclear-armed powers has collapsed.

Diplomats at the Vienna, Austria-based International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the United Nations' lead agency on nuclear proliferation, confirmed yesterday that Iran had resumed construction of centrifuges, a key part of the nation's nuclear program.

The equipment can be used to produce the material needed for atomic bombs. Iranian officials reportedly broke the IAEA seals on the centrifuge equipment late last month.

Diplomats told reporters that Iran has stopped short of using the centrifuges to begin production of enriched uranium for the bombs, a step that clearly would violate Iran's obligations under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

State Department spokesman Adam Ereli said U.S. officials had not confirmed the Iranian move independently but that it fit with what the Bush administration considers a clear pattern of cheating by Iran's Islamic government on its nuclear pledges.

"Iran's commitment to cooperating with the IAEA, to put it kindly, remains an open question," Mr. Ereli said, "given its past failures to follow through on promises made to the [IAEA] board of governors."

Paul Leventhal, president of the Washington-based Nuclear Control Institute, said the Iranian decision was "clearly provocative" and a direct challenge to diplomatic efforts to rein in its nuclear programs.

"The Iranians only confess to what they are caught doing, so we don't know how much more there is to learn," he said. "Iran has been playing a very dangerous cat-and-mouse game, constantly testing how much they can get away with."

The resumption of centrifuge construction also is a direct challenge to the efforts of Britain, France and Germany, which struck a deal with Tehran in October to halt efforts to build the centrifuges or seek to enrich uranium.

The three European powers have resisted a U.S. effort to refer Iranian violations to the U.N. Security Council for sanctions and other punitive measures, arguing that diplomacy is a better path for gaining Iran's cooperation.

Iranian leaders insist that their nuclear programs are intended only for civilian energy purposes, and only grudgingly have conceded to violations uncovered in recent months by IAEA inspectors.

Tehran also has argued that the accord with the three European powers was voided when the IAEA Board of Governors issued another critical report on Iran's nuclear cooperation at the board meeting in June. The construction resumed after the October moratorium expired, Iranian officials said.

Iranian President Mohammed Khatami said earlier this month, "Nothing stands in the way" of renewed centrifuge activity. Iranian officials reportedly informed IAEA officials of their decision to break the seals and said a separate pledge not to produce weapons-grade uranium remained in force.

Despite the disclosures, British diplomats said Iran and the three European powers will hold a previously scheduled meeting later this week at an undisclosed European location.

"We still firmly believe that this is the right way to achieve our goal," a British Foreign Office official told Reuters news agency yesterday.

The prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran could be destabilizing in the region, in particular for Israel, which launched a pre-emptive strike against Iraq's nuclear facilities when Saddam Hussein began efforts to build a nuclear program.

Israeli Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Moshe Yaalon said on Israeli television yesterday that Iran had "broken the rules of the game."

"This should not only concern Israel, but all the countries of the free world," Gen. Yaalon said.

But Seyed Masood Jazayeri, spokesman for Iran's hard-line Revolutionary Guards, accused Washington of using its "wild dog" — Israel — to go after Iran's nuclear programs.

If Israel tried to disrupt the Iranian program, it "would be wiped off the face of the Earth and U.S. interests would be easily damaged," Mr. Jazayeri warned yesterday, according to the Iranian news reports.

•This article is based in part on wire service reports.

*****************

My comments:

Oh merciful fuck, get the B-2s warming up, we can't allow these
wahabbist fucks the BOMB.

CJvR · Post by **CJvR** » 2004-07-28 08:45am

Lets hope the Mullahs fanatisism don't include themselves but only brainwashed kids. MAD don't work against someone eager to die...

Faqa · Post by **Faqa** » 2004-07-28 01:43pm

We've got the planes, guys

Just let us at em'.

Ooooooh, they're THREATENING us. Help! Because they'll send, what? Missiles? Iraq's closer and THEY couldn't hit shit. Not to mention that Arrow defense system. Suicide bombers? Shit, we've never dealt with THOSE. Troops? Yeah right.

In the words of Dubya - 'Bring it on!'. I'd rather stop these fucks BEFORE they can actually carry out that threat.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2004-07-28 03:03pm

What the hell are they going to DO with The Bomb? In case you forgot, the Soviet Union had The Bomb too, and they never used it.

CaptainChewbacca · Post by **CaptainChewbacca** » 2004-07-28 03:12pm

HemlockGrey wrote:What the hell are they going to DO with The Bomb? In case you forgot, the Soviet Union had The Bomb too, and they never used it.

The soviet union wasn't willing to die to destroy Israel. Iranians are.

Sharp-kun · Post by **Sharp-kun** » 2004-07-28 03:27pm

HemlockGrey wrote:What the hell are they going to DO with The Bomb? In case you forgot, the Soviet Union had The Bomb too, and they never used it.

The Soviets didn't have so many people that think along the lines of "kill the infidels!".

CJvR · Post by **CJvR** » 2004-07-28 03:32pm

HemlockGrey wrote:What the hell are they going to DO with The Bomb? In case you forgot, the Soviet Union had The Bomb too, and they never used it.

The advantage of secular fanatics over religous ones is that the secular fanatics want paradise in this world while the religous ones are in a hurry to get to the next world...

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2004-07-28 07:51pm

HemlockGrey wrote:What the hell are they going to DO with The Bomb? In case you forgot, the Soviet Union had The Bomb too, and they never used it.

This is one of the worst false-analogy fallacies I've ever seen. The Soviet hard-liners were interested in dominating the world. In contrast, Iranian hard-liners don't give a flying fuck about this world.

Should we therefore start handing out nukes to every dictator that sends us a self-addressed stamped envelope, secure in our knowledge that it turned out okay with the Soviets?

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2004-07-28 09:06pm

Axis Kast wrote:
Since I've never made any such argument about Iranian goodwill, I'm not going to be eating anything. Kindly keep your lies about my positions to one thread.
Did you or did you not insist that Iran was complying? Did you or did you not insist that despite a veritable laundry list of hostile activities, they deserved the benefit-of-the-doubt in the form of our non-intrusion in their nuclear development program? Did you or did you not insist that they were being magnanimous in their support of our activities in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that they wished to "turn over a new leaf," as it were, with the United States? You did every one of these things, Deegan. And now, it seems, you're being proven increasingly wrong by the day. Ah, the sweet irony!

Iran hasn't kicked out the IAEA inspectors, have they? They haven't shown evidence of pursuing a nuclear weapons programme, have they? They DID not attempt to interfere in our actions in either Afganistan or Iraq. I have NOT made the argument that Iran is ready at this point to "turn over a new leaf" and I tire of your continuous lies about my arguments on the issue.

So I'll make this very simple for you: EITHER PROVIDE THE QUOTES IN TEXT WHERE I'M SAYING "IRANIAN GOODWILL" AND "GIVE THEM THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT ON NUKES" OR STAND REVEALED AS THE LIAR YOU ARE. I've challenged you MULTIPLE TIMES to do so and all you do is come back with some half-assed "interpretation" of my arguments each and every time. I'm calling you on this here and now, fucker.

The quotes, or you are a liar. Plain and simple.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2004-07-28 09:06pm

Axis Kast's attempt to bait Deegan has been moved to the HoS.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2004-07-28 10:05pm

My point was that we've contained nuclear powers in the past and we can continue to do so in the future. The Iranian government, fanatical though they may be, are not suicidal and they will not be launching nuclear attacks on Israel.

tharkûn · Post by **tharkûn** » 2004-07-28 10:19pm

My point was that we've contained nuclear powers in the past and we can continue to do so in the future. The Iranian government, fanatical though they may be, are not suicidal and they will not be launching nuclear attacks on Israel.

The present Iranian government is likely not suicidal enough to launch nuclear attacks. However they have been spewing BS and propoganda at the younglings for quite some time now. The government has further been pulling ever more strongly to the fanatical religious bent for new blood (because the fanatical religious population is among the few populations that seriously support the ayatollah regime).

The possibility that Iran doesn't quietly fold up and die like the USSR, but rather undergoes a violent, chaotic transition is quite strong. Just because the USSR managed to die without somebody deciding to steal, sell, or roguely launch their nukes doesn't mean every other government will.

Containment, from an ethical standpoint, is a piss poor policy. Invariably containment ends up resulting in mass civillian death and hardship. How many million people died because the USSR was contained? How many North Koreans are dying today because the DPRK is contained? More people have died under containment policies than in both world wars combined; it is great if you aren't a civillian in the contained country, but otherwise it sucks donkey balls.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-07-28 10:22pm

tharkûn wrote:Containment, from an ethical standpoint, is a piss poor policy. Invariably containment ends up resulting in mass civillian death and hardship. How many million people died because the USSR was contained? How many North Koreans are dying today because the DPRK is contained? More people have died under containment policies than in both world wars combined; it is great if you aren't a civillian in the contained country, but otherwise it sucks donkey balls.

So, are you suggesting that we should invade Iran now? Or that we should have invaded them instead of Iraq since they were always closer to developing a nuclear weapon?

Or, given the infant mortality rate in the Israeli occupied territories, should we have invaded them way back before they got the bomb?

tharkûn · Post by **tharkûn** » 2004-07-28 10:32pm

So, are you suggesting that we should invade Iran now?

I'm more in favor of the Osirak option. A few B-2's, a weathering of international disfavour, and a clear message to Iran.

Or that we should have invaded them instead of Iraq since they were always closer to developing a nuclear weapon?

I lean towards yes.

Or, given the infant mortality rate in the Israeli occupied territories, should we have invaded them way back before they got the bomb?

Umm it is 20.16 per 1,000 in the West Bank. In Jordan it is 18.11. In Syria it is 30.6. In Egypt it is 33.9. The occupied territories are hardly atypical in the middleeast.

However yes the US probably would have been further ahead to have bombed Dimona than to have let Israel get the bomb. From the American perspective Israel getting the bomb made its influence in the middleeast drop significantly. If you want to avoid dead bodies you either stop them before they get a deterrant or ally with them. Containment is largely just waiting for them to starve themselves to death.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2004-07-28 10:36pm

I'm not saying bombing should be ruled out, but I would prefer to use containment than military aggression which would result in an outpouring of anti-American sentiment, generate more terrorists, and quite possibly set back the cause of secularism in Iran.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2004-07-28 10:47pm

CaptainChewbacca wrote:
HemlockGrey wrote:What the hell are they going to DO with The Bomb? In case you forgot, the Soviet Union had The Bomb too, and they never used it.
The soviet union wasn't willing to die to destroy Israel. Iranians are.

Allah-addled groundlings with nothing better to do than vaporize themselves and get their 70 virgins early are willing to die to destroy Israel. The people who would actually have the authority to detonate a nuclear bomb have been in power for 20 years and are fully aware their power will be worthless if they're ruling over a radioactive ash pile. They're human, and love of power has trumped faith in human beings a lot more than love of life. If they were truly willing to die to destroy Israel, they would have given sarin to Hezbollah by now.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2004-07-28 11:09pm

So, are you suggesting that we should invade Iran now?

While there’s certainly plenty of justification for another occupation, the strategic situation at the moment obviously does not permit such an exhaustive undertaking. Instead, as Tharkun has suggested, we should concentrate on precision strikes against Iran’s vulnerable nuclear infrastructure, certain key air defense positions, and whatever military bases pose a potential threat to our air superiority over the regions in question.

I'm not saying bombing should be ruled out, but I would prefer to use containment than military aggression which would result in an outpouring of anti-American sentiment, generate more terrorists, and quite possibly set back the cause of secularism in Iran.

We’ve already reached the boiling point. Attacking Iran certainly won’t change things very much as far as the government of Iran is concerned. They already support terrorism via the Jerusalem Force and other unchecked elements of their armed forces. It’s thus difficult to see what new recruits could do after the bombing that other members of the terrorist organizations couldn’t do before.

As for the “cause of secularism,” don’t hold your breath. If you’re waiting for a Velvet Revolution, it’ll be a long time in coming, for sure. Too long.