Iran Defies UN: Opens Nuclear Reactor

[JaJae]

Print Story: Iran opens nuclear reactor, defying U.N. on Yahoo! News

Iran opens nuclear reactor, defying U.N.

By ALI AKBAR DAREINI, Associated Press Writer 29 minutes ago

Iran's hard-line president on Saturday inaugurated a heavy-water production plant, a facility the West fears will be used to develop a nuclear bomb, as Tehran remained defiant ahead of a U.N. deadline that could lead to sanctions.

The U.N. has called on Tehran to stop the separate process of uranium enrichment — which also can be used to create nuclear weapons — by Thursday or face economic and political sanctions.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad declared that his nation's nuclear program poses no threat to other nations, even Israel, "which is a definite enemy."

Ahmadinejad said in a speech that Iran would never abandon what he once again called its purely peaceful nuclear program.

"There is no discussion of nuclear weapons," he said. "We are not a threat to anybody even the Zionist regime, which is a definite enemy for the people of the region."

Though the West's main worry has been enrichment of uranium that could be used in a bomb, it also has called on Iran to stop the construction of a heavy-water reactor near the production plant that Ahmadinejad inaugurated.

A senior Israeli lawmaker warned in a statement that the plant inauguration marks "another leap in Iran's advance toward a nuclear bomb."

Israeli legislator Ephraim Sneh of the Labor Party, a partner in the ruling coalition, said that the Jewish state must "prepare itself militarily." Ahmadinejad last year called for Israel to be "wiped off the map."

The spent fuel from a heavy-water reactor can be reprocessed to extract plutonium for use in a bomb.

Reactors fueled by enriched uranium use regular — or light — water in the chain reaction that produces energy. Heavy water contains a heavier hydrogen particle, which allow the reactor to run on natural uranium mined by Iran, forgoing the enrichment progress.

Vice President Gholamreza Aghazadeh, who also heads the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, said the heavy-water facility will be used to treat and diagnose AIDS and cancer, and for other medicine and agricultural purposes.

Iran is scheduled to complete the reactor in 2009.

Iran responded Tuesday to package of incentives, presented by the five permanent members of the Security Council plus Germany, for it to halt uranium enrichment and return to negotiations on increasing international oversight of its nuclear program. Tehran said it would be open to negotiations but did not agree to the West's key demand to halt enrichment as a precondition to talks.

The International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. nuclear watchdog, will report on the state of Iran's program by mid-September. If its report finds that enrichment is continuing, the council could move toward sanctions.

Tehran has called the Security Council resolution that set the Thursday deadline "illegal" and has insisted it won't give up its nuclear program.

"They may impose some restrictions on us under pressure. But will they be able to prevent the thoughts of a nation?" Ahmadinejad said Saturday. "Will they be able to prevent the progress and technology to a nation? They have to accept the reality of a powerful, peace-loving and developed Iran. This is in the interest of all governments and all nations whether they like it or not."

Mohammed Saeedi, the deputy head of Iran's atomic organization, called the heavy-water plant "one of the biggest nuclear projects" in the country, state-run television reported.

Iran is looking for a beatdown. The US says they're going to impose sanctions on Iran, even if the UN doesn't. Which is smart. I don't know why they haven't. Hopefully other countries will follow suit.

The idea of Iran having a nuclear weapon is a scary one. Especially for Israel. Iran can't be trusted with a potato gun, let alone a nuclear weapon. The sitting and waiting on Iran is obviously not working. The policy of appeasement is failing. The world needs to do something to protect itself. All this sitting and watching Iran build up while defying the UN is a mistake. It was a mistake when we did it with Saddam and it's a mistake here.

I fear the world won't wake up to this threat until Iran developes the weapon and then we'll treat them like N. Korea and have no military threats because they know it'll all be bluffs at that point.

We don't need another N. Korea. When is the world going to learn from previous mistakes? Appeasement does not work.

[Thorgrim]

Ofcourse they are, nothing would make them happier than Israel or even the US striking them

Iran can't be trusted with a potato gun yet we sold them arms, I guess we can't trust Republicans?

The CIA can't find evidence that there is a nuclear weapons program, yet you want to strike now? We had TONS of evidence for WMD in Iraq...we have nothing on Iran...and you want attack that will cause regional warfare and almost certainly cut off supplies to US troops in central Iraq, making them prisoners to 90% of the population, and BTW the Kurds won't ride into to our rescue they'll stay in Kurdistan and watch us get butchered

Great plan

[JaJae]

I never said anything about the US invading.

And yes, the world should do something. There is no reason to sit and wait with Iran. You're so quick to judge the us for allowing N. Korea to go nuclear, but that's exactly what you're advocating with Iran. Very hypocritical.

You can't have it both ways. You can't say the Republicans should continue to sit and wait and then blame them when other countries develop weapons. Sanctions on Iran are not working, and never have worked. Waiting could be a dangerous mistake.

And invading Iran will do nothing to prevent supplies from getting into Iraq. If anything it will help protect our soldiers and prevent Iran from selling arms to our enemies and Hezbollah.


We've been supplying through Kuwait which makes much more sense considering we have military bases and allies there.

[Thorgrim]

I blame Bush for scaring the world about the mullahs having a nuke, yet doing nothing about NK when they were developing nukes under his watch

It's not about waiting, its about DIRECT NEGOTIATIONS which the US has shunned...Iran has a reason for wanting nuclear energy...they have to IMPORT GASOLINE, thats how bad their energy needs are

You are right in that it would certainly drain almost all the funding from Hezbollah, but they'd just sit behind the US forces, claim victory over Israel and are in position to run the whole government come elections...without breaking the ceasefire Israel's hands would be tied, besides they still have Syria if things got really rough

Kuwait...through Basra and southern Iraq, which is controlled by forces who would take complete control of both in defense of Iran, these militant leaders were sheltered and protected by Saddam for decades, they are not going to turn their backs on them. You will not see Shia Iranian forces fighting Shia Iraqi militias in the streets of Basra, it will become an Iranian military outpost overnight, the supply lines will be completely cut

Why do you think current US generals opppose Iranian military attacks? Because they think they wouldn't destroy the facilities? Over time they'd take a big hit, but the retaliation would be so severe the Pentagon has protested the idea time after time

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

I blame Bush for scaring the world about the mullahs having a nuke, yet doing nothing about NK when they were developing nukes under his watch

It's not about waiting, its about DIRECT NEGOTIATIONS which the US has shunned...Iran has a reason for wanting nuclear energy...they have to IMPORT GASOLINE, thats how bad their energy needs are

You are right in that it would certainly drain almost all the funding from Hezbollah, but they'd just sit behind the US forces, claim victory over Israel and are in position to run the whole government come elections...without breaking the ceasefire Israel's hands would be tied, besides they still have Syria if things got really rough

Kuwait...through Basra and southern Iraq, which is controlled by forces who would take complete control of both in defense of Iran, these militant leaders were sheltered and protected by Saddam for decades, they are not going to turn their backs on them. You will not see Shia Iranian forces fighting Shia Iraqi militias in the streets of Basra, it will become an Iranian military outpost overnight, the supply lines will be completely cut

Why do you think current US generals opppose Iranian military attacks? Because they think they wouldn't destroy the facilities? Over time they'd take a big hit, but the retaliation would be so severe the Pentagon has protested the idea time after time

what? The military/pentagon is advocating precisions strikes if necessary. They think we COULD easily destroy their facilities which is why many of them are NOT for an all out invastion. What have you been watching/reading?

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

What have you been watching/reading?

Check his usertext. Oh and crooksandliars.

[Thorgrim]

Inside the Pentagon, senior commanders have increasingly challenged the President’s plans, according to active-duty and retired officers and officials. The generals and admirals have told the Administration that the bombing campaign will probably not succeed in destroying Iran’s nuclear program. They have also warned that an attack could lead to serious economic, political, and military consequences for the United States.

The New Yorker: Fact



Read the whole article, its quite enlightening, this isn't a new development either, hostility to such a situation has been present for months:

The Pentagon adviser said that, in the event of an attack, the Air Force intended to strike many hundreds of targets in Iran but that “ninety-nine per cent of them have nothing to do with proliferation. There are people who believe it’s the way to operate”—that the Administration can achieve its policy goals in Iran with a bombing campaign, an idea that has been supported by neoconservatives.

...

“The guys in the Joint Chiefs of Staff say there are a lot of uncertainties in Iran,” he said. “We need to have more than what we had in Iraq. Now we have the green light to do everything we want.”

...

One former defense official, who still deals with sensitive issues for the Bush Administration, told me that the military planning was premised on a belief that “a sustained bombing campaign in Iran will humiliate the religious leadership and lead the public to rise up and overthrow the government.” He added, “I was shocked when I heard it, and asked myself, ‘What are they smoking?’ ”

...

The adviser went on, “If we go, the southern half of Iraq will light up like a candle.” The American, British, and other coalition forces in Iraq would be at greater risk of attack from Iranian troops or from Shiite militias operating on instructions from Iran. (Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, has close ties to the leading Shiite parties in Iraq.) A retired four-star general told me that, despite the eight thousand British troops in the region, “the Iranians could take Basra with ten mullahs and one sound truck.”

The New Yorker: Fact

[archangel003]

Time for Osirak II.

[Donkey®]

Jesus Christ, leave those guys alone already.

[archangel003]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

Jesus Christ, leave those guys alone already.

quoted for posterity