Iran says its nuclear program is peaceful

frigidmagi · Post by **frigidmagi** » 2004-09-25 03:14am

UNITED NATIONS (CNN) -- Iran foreign minister, seeking to deflect the international community's tough stance toward his country's nuclear aspirations, told the U.N. General Assembly on Friday that Iran is committed to the peaceful development of technology.

"While we insist on our right to technology for peaceful purposes, we have, and will, leave no stone unturned in order to provide assurances of our peaceful intentions," Kamal Kharazzi said.

The United Nations' nuclear watchdog agency, the International Atomic Energy Agency, has demanded that Iran suspend all uranium enrichment and centrifuge activities. Iran has rejected that demand.

There have been long-standing concerns that Iran has aspirations to develop nuclear weapons, but Iran has said its program is peaceful.

On September 18, the International Atomic Energy Agency called on Iran to clarify outstanding issues related to its nuclear program by November 25, the date of its next scheduled meeting, and to freeze all work on enrichment and centrifuges.

Iran's chief nuclear negotiator, Hassan Rohani, called the demand "illegal."

The United States had wanted to refer Iran to the United Nations to face possible sanctions if it did not comply with demands.

Before the General Assembly, Kharazzi said the international community must confront "the existence and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction."

"As the only victim of the unbridled use of these weapons in recent years,' he said, referring to the Iraq-Iran war of the 1980s, in which Iraq used chemical weapons on Iran, "Iran feels very strongly about the absolute imperative of a collective and rule-based multilateral campaign to eradicate all these weapons and to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons as an interim measure."

He said there must be a "universal application of disarmament and nonproliferation instruments in a comprehensive and nondiscriminatory manner."

"The relevant multinational instruments must become truly universal and the rights and obligations of all must be scrupulously enforced," he said. "Access to technology for peaceful purposes is the only true incentive for the universality of these instruments."

He added that Iran "has always been prepared" to cooperate with inspectors.

Kharazzi took aim at Israel, saying the Jewish state has obstructed efforts by Iran and others to pursue "a zone free from weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East."

Despite wide suspicions, Israel has neither confirmed nor denied that it has a nuclear weapons program.

Also, Iran condemned terrorism and said no state can fight it alone.

Kharazzi also praised Secretary-General Kofi Annan's recent statement that the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq was illegal.

"The increasing lawless militarism, the second face of the challenge we encounter, is the use of brute and unsanctioned military force to achieve some political goals, albeit desirable goals.

"A clear example of this lawlessness is the attack against Iraq. The attack against Iraq was illegal. I wish to thank our distinguished secretary-general for making this statement a few days ago and courageously defending the charter of the United Nations and the rule of law."

Even though Saddam Hussein has been removed and Iranians are pleased to see the person Kharazzi called "the murderer of their sons" imprisoned, he said the principles of the U.N. charter indicate that "this cannot but be regarded as the fruit of the forbidden tree."

The international community has demonstrated that it will not celebrate achieving this desirable goal through illegal means of glorifying military power, through rushing to use force without the approval of the United Nations."

And we all believe them when they say that! No really, of course Iran has no desire for anything but peace and goodwill towards men. Terrorist support? Huh... Look over there! *runs away*

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2004-09-25 03:46am

As an interesting aside, NZ has very good relations with Iran at the moment, much better than the US, and we are involved International Atomic Energy Agency. I think you will find that this is an instance where the Iranians will be persuaded to be more open with exactly what they are up to.

The Cleric · Post by **The Cleric** » 2004-09-25 10:49am

Stuart Mackey wrote:As an interesting aside, NZ has very good relations with Iran at the moment, much better than the US, and we are involved International Atomic Energy Agency. I think you will find that this is an instance where the Iranians will be persuaded to be more open with exactly what they are up to.

Oh, I'm sure that Iran willl be HAPPY to just show the world that they have no desire whatsoever in building nuclear weapons. Because they're such a peaceful country and all. A regular Switzerland.

aerius · Post by **aerius** » 2004-09-25 11:44am

Sure it's peaceful. And if you believe that I have some prime mountain top property complete with scenic glaciers & streams to sell you. It's in Louisiana. I also have some wonderful ocean front property in New Mexico if you're interested.

Imperial Overlord · Post by **Imperial Overlord** » 2004-09-25 02:09pm

Sure I believe that Iran has only peaceful intentions for nuclear power. I also believe the Khan was a single rogue scientist and no other part of the Pakistani establishment was involved in nuclear proliferation.

CJvR · Post by **CJvR** » 2004-09-25 04:30pm

LOL! Not even the UN will fall for that one, although they might debate it long enough for Iran to detonate their first peaceful A-Bomb.

frigidmagi · Post by **frigidmagi** » 2004-09-25 05:43pm

As an interesting aside, NZ has very good relations with Iran at the moment, much better than the US, and we are involved International Atomic Energy Agency. I think you will find that this is an instance where the Iranians will be persuaded to be more open with exactly what they are up to

It be also impossible for you not to have better relations with Iran than the US. They call us the Great Satan and have school children chant "Death to America" every damn day. Meanwhile we call them part of the Axis of EvilTM and invaded their nieghbor. Granted they hated Saddam to, but at least they knew they could handle him military speaking.

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2004-09-26 12:00am

StormtrooperOfDeath wrote:
Stuart Mackey wrote:As an interesting aside, NZ has very good relations with Iran at the moment, much better than the US, and we are involved International Atomic Energy Agency. I think you will find that this is an instance where the Iranians will be persuaded to be more open with exactly what they are up to.
Oh, I'm sure that Iran willl be HAPPY to just show the world that they have no desire whatsoever in building nuclear weapons. Because they're such a peaceful country and all. A regular Switzerland.

Just like the good ol USofA?
I didnt say that they were or were not after nukes, I said they will be persuaded to be more open with what they are doing..learn to fucking read befor you go rolling eyes at me asshole.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2004-09-26 12:06am

I hope some of our friends that aren't as wrapped up in the IvP thing or other such ventures, can talk reason with these asslakes, but I'm not as confident of actual results. Hopefull? Yes, but not expectent.

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2004-09-26 12:11am

Knife wrote:

I hope some of our friends that aren't as wrapped up in the IvP thing or other such ventures, can talk reason with these asslakes, but I'm not as confident of actual results. Hopefull? Yes, but not expectent.

Same here. It's one thing the US sometimes forgets, that if you want to be able to influence positive change you actualy have to be able to talk to people in a constructive manner. Having said that, I have picked up the idea that nations like NZ have played good cop to the US bad cop in more than one instance, despite our whole anti-nuke thing.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2004-09-26 12:27am

Stuart Mackey wrote:
Knife wrote:

I hope some of our friends that aren't as wrapped up in the IvP thing or other such ventures, can talk reason with these asslakes, but I'm not as confident of actual results. Hopefull? Yes, but not expectent.
Same here. It's one thing the US sometimes forgets, that if you want to be able to influence positive change you actualy have to be able to talk to people in a constructive manner. Having said that, I have picked up the idea that nations like NZ have played good cop to the US bad cop in more than one instance, despite our whole anti-nuke thing.

Probably, in the later, any way. I actually think the US is aware of this, though it may not look like it on the surface. The UK and others are instramental in the US foreign policy even if we don't admit it.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2004-09-26 12:27am

Not that you're part of the UK.

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2004-09-26 12:50am

Knife wrote:
Stuart Mackey wrote:
Knife wrote:

I hope some of our friends that aren't as wrapped up in the IvP thing or other such ventures, can talk reason with these asslakes, but I'm not as confident of actual results. Hopefull? Yes, but not expectent.
Same here. It's one thing the US sometimes forgets, that if you want to be able to influence positive change you actualy have to be able to talk to people in a constructive manner. Having said that, I have picked up the idea that nations like NZ have played good cop to the US bad cop in more than one instance, despite our whole anti-nuke thing.
Probably, in the later, any way. I actually think the US is aware of this, though it may not look like it on the surface. The UK and others are instramental in the US foreign policy even if we don't admit it.

Indeed, of cource this is in areas where there is commonality in objectives, naturally.

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2004-09-26 12:52am

Knife wrote:Not that you're part of the UK.

Damn right! we are most cetainly not a bunch of sun deprived, whinging Prisoners of Mother England

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2004-09-26 12:54am

Stuart Mackey wrote:
Knife wrote:Not that you're part of the UK.
Damn right! we are most cetainly not a bunch of sun deprived, whinging Prisoners of Mother England

Your saying you don't drink Lime juice?

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2004-09-26 12:55am

That said, I think there is a gross generality that the US doesn't think of its allies in this matter. I think the fact is, we almost take them for granted in such a capacity.

Where would we be without such non partisan efforts?

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2004-09-26 01:09am

Knife wrote:
Stuart Mackey wrote:
Knife wrote:Not that you're part of the UK.
Damn right! we are most cetainly not a bunch of sun deprived, whinging Prisoners of Mother England
Your saying you don't drink Lime juice?

No screech for us..because we are better educated we have heather diets than the average POM

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2004-09-26 01:11am

Knife wrote:That said, I think there is a gross generality that the US doesn't think of its allies in this matter. I think the fact is, we almost take them for granted in such a capacity.

Where would we be without such non partisan efforts?

Heh, you can say that for PM's Blair and Howard but not for NZ since about 1984

Godzone: Home of the Nuclear free Pacific since 1984

The Cleric · Post by **The Cleric** » 2004-09-26 02:25am

Stuart Mackey wrote:
StormtrooperOfDeath wrote:
Stuart Mackey wrote:As an interesting aside, NZ has very good relations with Iran at the moment, much better than the US, and we are involved International Atomic Energy Agency. I think you will find that this is an instance where the Iranians will be persuaded to be more open with exactly what they are up to.
Oh, I'm sure that Iran willl be HAPPY to just show the world that they have no desire whatsoever in building nuclear weapons. Because they're such a peaceful country and all. A regular Switzerland.
Just like the good ol USofA?
I didnt say that they were or were not after nukes, I said they will be persuaded to be more open with what they are doing..learn to fucking read befor you go rolling eyes at me asshole.

Why the hell would a historically agressive and secretive nation such as Iran have any desire to be "open" with it's program to produce functional nuclear devices? You're being blindly optimistic over your chances of persuading an Islamic fundamentalist nation to come forth with it's weapon building plans.

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2004-09-26 03:12am

StormtrooperOfDeath wrote:
Stuart Mackey wrote:
StormtrooperOfDeath wrote: Oh, I'm sure that Iran willl be HAPPY to just show the world that they have no desire whatsoever in building nuclear weapons. Because they're such a peaceful country and all. A regular Switzerland.
Just like the good ol USofA?
I didnt say that they were or were not after nukes, I said they will be persuaded to be more open with what they are doing..learn to fucking read befor you go rolling eyes at me asshole.
Why the hell would a historically agressive and secretive nation such as Iran have any desire to be "open" with it's program to produce functional nuclear devices?

Because there economy might go down the shitter and get the regime polished off like some of the old eastern block governments? have you been following events inside Iran? and I dont mean Bush's stupid Axis of evil propaganda.

You're being blindly optimistic over your chances of persuading an Islamic fundamentalist nation to come forth with it's weapon building plans.

Dont be stupid.First you are assuming they are currently building something with nothing to show that they definatly are. They are suspected of it, but then so was Iraq and look at where that got people. The choice is Irans, but they are not about to be seen as caving to America when they may be another, more diplomatic, way out of it. Nations do not fit into your nice B&W fallacy, sorry.

The Cleric · Post by **The Cleric** » 2004-09-26 03:37am

Stuart Mackey wrote:
StormtrooperOfDeath wrote: Why the hell would a historically agressive and secretive nation such as Iran have any desire to be "open" with it's program to produce functional nuclear devices?
Because there economy might go down the shitter and get the regime polished off like some of the old eastern block governments? have you been following events inside Iran? and I dont mean Bush's stupid Axis of evil propaganda.

No, I haven't. But I'd be willing to bet that it's nothing out of the ordinary for the Middle East region. Last I checked, the US still needed their oil. In a bad way. And with the hardcore Islamic government, I don't think that anything short of a full-scale rebellion is going to result in real changes to the political structure.

You're being blindly optimistic over your chances of persuading an Islamic fundamentalist nation to come forth with it's weapon building plans.
Dont be stupid.First you are assuming they are currently building something with nothing to show that they definatly are. They are suspected of it, but then so was Iraq and look at where that got people. The choice is Irans, but they are not about to be seen as caving to America when they may be another, more diplomatic, way out of it. Nations do not fit into your nice B&W fallacy, sorry.

Why would they be enriching uranium for energy purposes? They have all the oil they need right under their country. And your reference to Iraq is cute, but not really applicable. Iran DOES have uranium, and IS attempting to enrich it for some purpose. That's a little more clear than the evidence that precluded the Iraqi invasion.
As for Iran not wanting to "cave in" to the US, they've also never shown any predilection for diplomacy. It's just not in the playbook for that type of government.

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-09-26 04:50am

StormtrooperOfDeath wrote:
Stuart Mackey wrote:
StormtrooperOfDeath wrote: Why the hell would a historically agressive and secretive nation such as Iran have any desire to be "open" with it's program to produce functional nuclear devices?
Because there economy might go down the shitter and get the regime polished off like some of the old eastern block governments? have you been following events inside Iran? and I dont mean Bush's stupid Axis of evil propaganda.
No, I haven't. But I'd be willing to bet that it's nothing out of the ordinary for the Middle East region. Last I checked, the US still needed their oil. In a bad way. And with the hardcore Islamic government, I don't think that anything short of a full-scale rebellion is going to result in real changes to the political structure.

You're being blindly optimistic over your chances of persuading an Islamic fundamentalist nation to come forth with it's weapon building plans.
Dont be stupid.First you are assuming they are currently building something with nothing to show that they definatly are. They are suspected of it, but then so was Iraq and look at where that got people. The choice is Irans, but they are not about to be seen as caving to America when they may be another, more diplomatic, way out of it. Nations do not fit into your nice B&W fallacy, sorry.
Why would they be enriching uranium for energy purposes? They have all the oil they need right under their country. And your reference to Iraq is cute, but not really applicable. Iran DOES have uranium, and IS attempting to enrich it for some purpose. That's a little more clear than the evidence that precluded the Iraqi invasion.
As for Iran not wanting to "cave in" to the US, they've also never shown any predilection for diplomacy. It's just not in the playbook for that type of government.

Iran isn't sitting on the sea of oil that Iraq is last time I checked. It's got it, but not a gigantic lake of it. I could be wrong, though. *Shrug*

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2004-09-26 04:59am

Rogue 9 wrote: Iran isn't sitting on the sea of oil that Iraq is last time I checked. It's got it, but not a gigantic lake of it. I could be wrong, though. *Shrug*

Iraq has about 110 billion barrels of oil reserves, Iran has 89 billion barrels, which is a lake by any standards. Though a lot of it is in the sea and thus more expensive to exploit, but not by much more. Gulf rigs are pretty cheep. I believe Iran may also have superior natural gas reserves to either of those nations.

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-09-26 05:19am

Okay, so I was wrong. Happened before, will happen again. Conceded.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2004-09-26 05:30am

Rogue 9 wrote:Okay, so I was wrong. Happened before, will happen again. Conceded.

Nothing wrong with that. But basically, by some accounts Iran burns off more energy in unwanted natural gas then its new nuclear power plant will produce, and regardless that plant won't prove to be a money saving investment for decades, if ever. Running an nuclear plant economically is not easy, and quite impossible so long as you have a fuckload of oil. To some extent building early makes sense, but not in a nation in Iran's position. That money could have done a lot of other good infrastructure wise rather then being put into a reactor, which could easily spend half of its designed lifetime powering an Iran which is still rich in oil. Nuclear weapons production is the only reason why it makes sense. There really is no question that Iran is building this for the bomb, the only question is should we be concerned enough to destroy these efforts by force. Given Iran's history, current leadership and the recent squashed chances for self reform there really can be little doubt that if we don't destroy this program now we will regret it later. Even if they rebuild and we don't destroy things again, the time gained will be worth it.