An Inside Look At Iran's Nuclear Program 528
NotBornYesterday writes "On April 8, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad visited his country's secretive nuclear enrichment plant at Natanz for a photo op. What came out of this visit is a series of photos which have caused a fair amount of interest among western scientists. Shown in the photos are not only some of the inner workings of the plant and current generation of enrichment centrifuges, but also key components to newer generations of more effective centrifuges. Analysts are 'intrigued' not only by the technical revelations in the pictures, but also because Iran's Defense Minister Mostafa Mohammad Najjar accompanied Ahmadinejad through the facility."
Threat? (Score:4, Interesting)
Ok, let's get this straight (Score:5, Interesting)
Umm... am I the only one that wonders about the only question worth asking? I.e. why?
He is not dumb. Doing a tour to an uranium enrichment plan with your minister of defense and going public about it is not really what you do if you have a nuke program running and want to keep it secret. The very first reaction is, well, the reaction it caused. That's a no brainer. So the only logic conclusion is that this reaction was wanted.
And that again starts another round of asking why.
There are now two possible reasons. First, there is a nuke program and they are trying to create some sort of deterrent for an immediate strike, to show that they are able to retaliate. Second, there is no nuke program, but they want everyone to think there is one. Now, there is no strike planned (at least none that I know of), so the first reason makes little sense.
The second starts another round of why.
Personally, I could see a plan. The US will start a new ralley for nuke inspections in Iran, finally Iran will grudgingly agree, they will poke and prod and find nothing, and Iran can do another finger pointing at the US as some aggressor, which only thinks the worst of any country they can't control, discredit the US internationally.
And then start a nuke program. Who'd call for inspections?
Iran : Crazy Conspiracy Theory (Score:4, Interesting)
Motive
1. Geopolitically, US foreign policy is to create regional checks around the globe so that she can use her weight so swing a balance of power one way or the other but without having to be overtly committed. A strong Iran creates enormous problems for Russia and China both. China has no domestic oil whatsoever, and Russia is well within range of Iranian missiles.
2. Money. We often talk about the US petrodollar as a product of Saudi Arabia, but what's often overlooked is that the USA still possesses a fairly sizable proved reserve of oil in her own right. In essence, the dollar is not just backed by US influence in the middle east but also by the USA's own oil reserves. Yes, the USA does not pump enough of its own oil, but, if we were to throw the environment into the dumper, we could drill Alaska, drill offshore, grind up all the shale in Colorado, convert to coal to liquids, drill the Bakken, and we'd wind up with trillions of barrels of the stuff. So, in the long run, high oil prices benefit the United States, because ultimately, the USA has that money in the bank. Let's put it this way: ANWR alone is worth a trillion dollars.
Supporting Evidence
1. Whose benefited. Everything the Bush Administration has done has benefited Iran from a security perspective. The Iranian foreign minister even pointed this out on NPR. Bush knocked off Iraq and Afghanistan both, and neither regime supported the USA. On the flipside, the high oil prices that exist partially because of the war in Iraq and the bellicosity with Iran actually are proving to be lucrative for nearly every traditionally Republican constituency. Oil men, miners, agribusiness, chemical, even US manufacturers have all benefited from rising oil prices and a devalued dollar. If Iran and the USA are enemies, both sides are laughing all the way to the bank.
2. History. Republicans, in particular, despite their bellicosity with Iran, have a long and fabled history of actually dealing with the Iran in pragmatic terms "behind the scenes". Ronald Reagan was nearly brought down because of a complicated deal which actually saw the USA supply weapons to Iran during the Iran - Iraq war. I mean, while Democrats talked rapproachment with Iran, Republicans were already making deals with them and hiding it.
Later on, administration officials from both Reagan and Bush I would both admit that they did, in fact, have a back door in communications to Iran. It's reasonable to think that a Dick Cheney who was an integral part of all of those administrations might actually have a back door to Iran himself. We do know, right away, that the government we work with in Iraq travels to Iran rather frequently. It's almost inconceivable that the USA would not be using the Iraqi leadership as the most covert sort of conduit.
3. Careful rules of engagement. The USA rightfully complains about the Iranians funding and helping anti-American insurgents in Iraq, but at the same time, the USA is also helping anti-Iranian insurgents in Iran. This is a sort of a standoff. Despite proclamations against Iranian leadership, the Administration has bent out of its way to say, for the most part, that Iranian leaders are not directly implicated in this and they actually might not be.
4. A total pass on WMD proves cooperation. The USA had absolutely no problem launching a unilateral war on Iraq because of WMD that didn't even exist, but Iran has 9000 centrifuges spinning and there's not been a shot fired. Even the claim that the Iraqi invasion has weakened the USA abilities to conduct airstrikes doesn't wash. The Navy and Air Force are certainly not tied down. The USA has, since the invasion of Iraq, conducted airstrikes in Somalia, Sudan, Pakistan... rumoured to have conducted airstrikes in Oma
Re:Bomb, bomb Iran, bomb, bomb Iran! (Score:3, Interesting)
You daughter gets raped and murdered. The crime gets reported. The person who is suspected of doing the crime lives in a run down apartment building that everyone knows houses nothing but criminals. Instead of arresting the suspect at work (imagine they know where he works, and no he hasn't ducked out) they decide instead to organize a SWAT raid on the whole building. During the raid the police enter 12 seperate residenses and make 18 arrests for other crimes (drug possesion that sort of thing). The police during the raid injure 9 people (2 placed in ICU) and one person is fatally wounded. During the confusion, no one manages to arrest the murder/rape suspect. In fact he's wasn't home at the time of the raid, he was at work. Later, in a press release, the Chief of Police explains to the press that the raid was done to catch the man suspected (photo given out, if you know his location please call (bet you money he skips town at this point)) and they show a photo of the girl that he supossedly raped and murdered. And the photo of the concerned father. You live a mile from the location of the raid.
Now, that's a better analogy, and if it were up to me I'd prefer that instead of what I just outlined that they arrest him at work.
Do you get it yet?
Iran is NOT run by suicidal religious zealots (Score:5, Interesting)
These people are only there for business, they are businessmen.
I start by more familiar examples, say Dick Cheney. Does anybody believe him to be a true Christian or a ruthless businessman who'll do anything for the sake of profit? Or when he talks of supporting troops, is he telling what he truly means?
In Iran we have our own businessmen. Since the 'Islamic' revolution of 1979, these people have taken over the government in a country where 90%+ of the economy is owned and operated by the government.
A clear example, is the largest of these business entities: Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), most recent bogeyman on CNN/FOX. While the American media focuses on the 'military' part of IRGC's operation, they neglect to mention the much much bigger side of IRGC.
Revolutionary Guards is the single biggest business entity in Iran, they build all the dams, bridges, tunnels and roads, railroad, they operate civilian airports all across the country, they do the largest mining operations, they own many of the largest and most profit generating financial institutions in Iran and this list goes on forever.
Almost half of the members of the current parliament are former IRGC members, Ahmadinejad himself made his way to being Tehran's Mayor and later, Iran's president through IRGC.
Then there's Mesbah Yazdi, a mid-level clergy, known as the mentor of Ahmadinejad, the biggest fucking piece of shit I know in Iran. Plays the same role to Ahmadi Nejad as Dick plays to Bush. But there's another side to this guy, he is also known as "Sultan of Sugar" in Iran. He controls import, distribution and sale of all Sugar in Iran. Believe me, in a country of 70 million population a monopoly on sugar is better than a monopoly on gold mines. He also says that the 'Zionist regime' of Israel is doomed, however nuking them means end of the sweet sugar business for him.
Former president Rafsanjani, former parliament speaker Nategh Noori and many others are businessmen too. They don't give a fuck about religion unless in public when preaching people.
Oh, did you hear the Moral Police Chief of Tehran was recently arrested in a brothel with six girls [timesonline.co.uk] and they were mocking muslim prayers, naked? That screams of the hypocrisy of the current situation in Iran.
I just want you to think, what benefit does nuking Israel which guarantees a much much harsher reaction from Israel bring to these ruling businessmen? See, that's why Iran, even with nukes is no threat at all to any other country?
All that matters to these people is survival of their business, they are not religious zealots, they don't believe in the second coming or afterlife or crap like what they preach to people. If a day comes where wiping their asses with pages of Quran helps them keep control of their business, then that's what they WILL HAPPILY DO.
Re:Here the propaganda machine starts again (Score:3, Interesting)
As for bringing the defense minister along, well, what's strange about the defense minister inspecting a site that the President of the USA would like to turn into a crater? A site that's alredy surrounded by a heavily armed perimeter that includes anti-aircraft guns? Isn't that where you'd practically expect to see the man? And if he can go while Ahmedinejad's got the cameras there, and hang out with the president for a few hours, then he even gets a share of the (locally) good PR.
Re:This is nothing the IAEA hasn't seen already (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes, but they were even better off under Mosadegh. You know, the popularly elected guy that the CIA removed from power because he had the gall to nationalize Iran's oil for the benefit of his people? The Mullahs of today could never have gotten the popular support of the Iranian people to overthrow him or more democratic people that could have followed.
The revolution and rise of the Mullahs can be traced almost directly to the removal of Mosadegh and the installation of the Shaw. The CIA even acknowledges this and applied the term "blow-back" to how badly the situation went.
So yeah, the Mullahs are bad, but most of the blame for them even being in power lies with the US. Imagine... we could have had that "model of democracy" in the Middle East had we supported Mosadegh rather than deposing him. Sure, just like any other sovereign country, there would be no guarantee that they would have "done our will", but frankly, I would rather have had Iran as a democratic ally rather than a theocratic enemy.
I wonder what nuking Iran would do for all the extremist among the Muslims out there who'd like to have an example of the US being an imperialist aggressor in the Muslim world. I suspect they'd be thrilled that we made their case for them.
Re:Bomb, bomb Iran, bomb, bomb Iran! (Score:3, Interesting)
If Israel put down their weapons there would be genocide.
Re:Iran : Crazy Conspiracy Theory (Score:1, Interesting)
Here's a quick link I found for more information: http://english.gov.cn/2006-01/31/content_176010.htm
Some points from it:
"Statistics show that China's crude oil output increased from 165 million tons in 2000 to 183 million tons in 2005, and the output of natural gas rose from 27 billion cubic meters to 47.5 billion cubic meters.
New breakthroughs in oil and gas exploration were made in the past five years as the traditional oil fields in East China, such as Daqing, maintained a steady growth.
Oil fields capable of producing high yields were discovered in west China including Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region, Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region, and Qinghai, Gansu and Shaanxi provinces, and in offshore China's Bohai Bay.
Between 2000 and 2005, six large-scale natural gas zones were discovered in the Tarim, Ordos, Sichuan and Qaidam basins, in the South China Sea and in the East China Sea.
.
.
The great pipeline carrying natural gas from China's energy-rich West to the energy-thirsty East was completed at the end of 2004.
By the end of the following year, China had built up a basic pipeline network for natural gas stretching 24,000 kilometers, with 20,000 kilometers for oil products."
Re:Bomb, bomb Iran, bomb, bomb Iran! (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm inclined to believe that the US complicity in the trial was largely limited to turning him over on a regular basis, as it's my understanding that he remained in US custody when not in court. The rest of it was simply Shi'ite vengeance. There were at least some in the US military and political structures who argued vociferously regarding the trial and, especially, the rush to execute Hussein. In the end, Hussein went out in as dignified a manner as he could muster, and his executioners looked like the bloodthirsty mob that they had become. But truth be told, his fate was a foregone conclusion when he was captured. Much like Nicolae CeauÅYescu, no one in the West was going to seriously intervene in his execution at the end of a trial put on mainly to go through the motions.
Re:Here the propaganda machine starts again (Score:3, Interesting)
He is the same kind of species as the "butthurt patriot". They both make silly, simplistic statements that show they don't really understand the world at large; neither do they really care to. They prefer the caricature version that paints themselves and their own society as superior and anything that goes against this worldview is "propaganda". Remember folks, it is very easy to be critical and cynical of others. It is much harder to do that to yourself.
I'm an American that has lived in Europe for many years and this kind of thing pisses me off all the time. Americans who don't have a clue about Europe beyond FOX and stereotypes make broad brushed, dismissive comments about Europe; failing to understand Europe's history and why they are the way they are. Europeans are equally clueless about America, it's history and why the people are the way they are. Whenever I read about the US in Der Spiegel or The Guardian, the America I read about is not the place I know, but some strange construct seemingly created to make the readers feel smug and self satisfied.
Whenever people outside the monkey sphere come into discussion, all fairness goes out the window.
Re:Here the propaganda machine starts again (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Strawman (Score:2, Interesting)
He lies.
In the same post he "does not support" preventive violence, he threathens to use massive violence against a person.
Needless to say, this person is not a pacifist at all. And you're right, obviously :
"pure pacifism can't really exist without someone else to do violence on their behalf"
Read Pakistan's secession war if you want to know what pure pacifism meant to Gandhi (using "negotiations" to get other people to fight for him, never lifting a finger himself. And he was very good at it, he got over 10 million people killed by doing this).
Why can't USA follow Iran's Lead (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Why doesn't Iran openly admit to weapons progra (Score:2, Interesting)
A good number of Al Qaeda members have entered Iraq through Syria. This much is documented. Syria and Iran are friends.
I thought us and Syria were friends? (Aren't they torturing people for us? Or did we stop outsourcing that?) A good deal of actual al Qaeda (Not the pretend one in Iraq, the actual one that attacked us) have left Afganistan through Pakistan, and I'm fairly certain we're friends with Pakistan, too.
What that actually demonstrates is that Syria can't control their Iraq border, nothing more and nothing less. And considering that Turkey has been complaining about Kurdish terrorists getting into to Turkey through the Iraq border, which we in theory should be stopping, I don't know that we're actually allowed to complain about terrorists slipping over lax borders.
Sunni and Shia are not such clear dividing lines as you seem to imply, they actually do work together when it is convenient.
Yes, but 'convenient to work together' rarely describes them during civil wars when they're on opposite sides. Sorta like how Virginia and Maryland work together but not, you know, during the Civil War. Iran is not supplying weapons to al Qaeda in Iraq, because it wants them to lose and the Shia government (Or some Shia government, at least) to (re)gain control of Iraq. So Iran can then ally with them.
I like that there's some deluded universe where Iran actually wants a war in Iraq. Um, no. The majority of Iraqis have no problem with Iran. The sooner the damn war is over and the majority actually control the country, the sooner Iran can make friends. The war is, if anything, delaying Iran's plans. They were happy in 2005, now they're just sorta tapping their fingers waiting for the killing to end.
I didn't even mention Iran supplying weapons to people in Iraq.
Can you not read your post? You said:
Iran backs a number of radical groups in the middle east, including...probably Al Qaeda in Iraq.
As for supplying weapons to Hamas, there's never been any evidence of that. At all. (Hamas doesn't need weapons supplied to it, it's the fricking 'government' of Palestinian.)
Hezbollah, yes. Iran supplies the Hezbollah militia. Hezbollah is Iran's attempt to take over Lebanon, not destroy Israel.
Interesting enough for two organizations that dislike Israel, Hezbollah and Hamas have a notably frigid relation, because that Hezbollah was founded when Israel invaded Lebanon because the PLO had taken up residence there. Hezbollah may dislike Israel, but what it really disliked was Israel and the PLO fighting their war inside Lebanon, and they aren't real fond of Palestinians in general, especially Hamas. There have been signs of this dislike chilling in recent years, but asserting that Iran is helping both is probably just wrong.
If Iran wanted to help Hamas, it would ask Hezbollah to do something, as Hezbollah has demonstrated it can enter and leave Israel secretly. (And, while it's there, kidnap Israeli soldiers for fun and profit.) If Hezbollah actually were to step in and help Hamas, they could really help Hamas. But Hezbollah's is not helping Hamas, their Israel policy is (was) "wave their hand in front of Israel's face and say 'I'm not touching you'". Until Israel punched them in the face in 2006.
After a quick search, I found this lovely gem.
Oh, well, if General Petraeus says it, it must be true. I'm sure that he could read the serial numbers of the rockets in the air and track them back to their source. But, more to the point, that's a Shia militia, not 'al Qaeda in Iraq'. And, although I'm sure you won't believe it, al-Sadr is actually famous for being the one militia leader who won't work with Iran, so it's more than likely the weapons were stolen or purchased on the black market.