EU lambasts Iran over nuclear ambitions

[sabra]

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L21475930.htm

EU lambasts Iran over nuclear ambitions

VIENNA, Sept 21 (Reuters) - The European Union hardened its stance on Iran on Wednesday, saying it was "deeply concerned" about Tehran's determination to press ahead with a nuclear programme which could produce atomic bombs.

"We ... regret, and feel deeply concerned by the fact that Iran gives every sign of being intent on developing a fissile material production capability well before the international community obtains what it needs: confidence that Iran's programme is exclusively peaceful in nature," the EU said in a statement on behalf of 25 EU members and other European states.

The statement was read by British Ambassador Peter Jenkins during a closed-door meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) 35-nation board of governors, which is discussing an EU draft resolution that would report Iran to the U.N. Security Council for possible sanctions.

[Freddie Stubbs]

1. Iran doesn't care about 'deep concerns'

They know that the EU won't do anything substantive to back up its concerns, so they will continue down the road to nuclear arms.

[reprobate]

2. What does Iran care? They will now own Iraq, too.

[tainowarrior]

3. seriously,

can't we just leave Iran alone? I, for one, don't care that they have nuclear technology and possibly could develop nukes. I'd hope they wouldn't, but India and Pakistan developed nukes, and I'm not here freaking out. France, Britain, Israel, U.S., Russia, China...they all have nukes. Am I freaking out? No. All this WMD fears and "justifications" for war are pure hogwash.

If we don't mess with Iran, Iran will continue being the non-aggressive country it has been. Can't say much for its backwards, theocratic regime domestically, but it hasn't done anything to anyone. LEAVE EM ALONE. Focus on our own problems.

[Freddie Stubbs]

6. Iran does have a history of supporting Islamic terrorism

People aren't worried that Iran would use nukes, but give nukes to those who would use them.

[wuushew]

7. What exactly would supporting terrorists with nukes accomplish?

I fail to see how the strategy of hoping one or more nukes would successfully be used to attack Israel would be superior than a strategy of mounting nuclear warheads on ballistic missiles.

Such an attack by one terrorist cell would at best kill several thousands people in a major city while an Israeli counter attack would wipe Iran off the face of the map. The terrorists would also have to carefully place such a device to ensure maximum effect owing to the rapid rate at which the heat flash and pressure wave drop off over distance. At least with a conventional nuclear attack both sides would be assured the certainty of MAD for both belligerents, satisfying each side's "logic" of war.

[TheVirginian]

9. The many possibilities...

Iran selling a nuke to a terrorist would not neccesarily result in MAD. It depends on who uses it, where its used, how its used, and the amount of destruction done. The princple of MAD refers to the U.S. and USSR, where if one country fired a missile at the other, the other country could respond before the first missile hit OR the missile's impact wouldn't completely destroy the country's ability to respond. A nuclear-device detonated in a major city (a la Sum of All Fears, ignoring the rest of the nonsense in that movie) would create much more chaos than your basic rogue nation launching a missile.

And the primary reason for Iran to sell a nuke on the black market is the same reason anybody sells anything on the black market: to get something in return, whether that be a very very large amount of money, arms, food, commerce, et al.

While the possibility is unlikely, its definately one that is credibly feared.

[tainowarrior]

11. Iran doesn't need that type of money

Iran is an oil-rich nation. It doesn't need that type of money. The risk of having nukes that could eventually either be linked to Iran or used by those groups against Iran greatly outweights whater measly sum is paid for the nuke (in comparison to oil revenues). Iran is not selling nuclear or WDM weapons on the black market. I wouldn't put it past them regarding selling rifles, rockets, and grenades, but nothing larger than a Humvee.

Relax folks. Don't fall for the American propaganda. Leave Iran alone, and they'll focus on their own society.

[Freddie Stubbs]

13. You are assuming that Israel is the target

Iran also has a beef with the 'Great Satan.'

[fbahrami]

8. some clarifications

First let me say that though I'm Iranian I have no sympathy for the current regime, the shah's regime, or the CIA's 1953 meddling in Iran.

I think the level of discourse drops when we

1) discuss symptoms (e.g. terrorism) without discussing causes, and/or

2) use pre-made (propoganda) terminology like 'Islamic terrorism', since technically Islam supports terrorism no more than any other religion does.

[tainowarrior]

10. it doesn't work that way

States don't give nuclear weapons to non-state entities. States don't act like individuals do. Their prime interest is survival. Giving nukes to a person that could turn against you in the future is a dangerous move, so states wouldn't do that. Arming groups with conventional weapons, maybe, but even that, they won't give their strongest conventional weapons to a non-state group.

Iran may have sponsored proxy attacks, but the most I remember was attacks against Israel in Lebanon, which I thought were totally legitimate, and I don't consider it terrorism. Beyond that, Iran, if not messed with, hasn't done anything to anyone.

[Scurrilous]

4. Russian opposition threatens EU push on Iran

http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2005-09-21T102552Z_01_HO029363_RTRUKOC_0_UK-NUCLEAR-IRAN.xml&archived=False

<snip>

"A European Union drive to haul Iran before the U.N. Security Council over its nuclear plans was in jeopardy on Wednesday following stiff opposition from Russia, which warned against escalating the standoff with Tehran.

The EU has circulated a draft resolution calling on the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) governing board to report Iran's secretive nuclear programme to the Security Council, which could impose sanctions on Tehran.

But Russia, which as a permanent, veto-wielding member of the Council could block any action, warned against antagonising Iran, which Western countries suspect is developing atomic weapons under cover of a civilian nuclear energy programme.

"While Iran is cooperating with the IAEA, while it is not enriching uranium and observing a moratorium, while IAEA inspectors are working in the country, it would be counter-productive to report this question to the U.N. Security Council," Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov was quoted on Wednesday as saying.

"It will lead to an unnecessary politicising of the situation. Iran is not violating its obligations and its actions do not threaten the non-proliferation regime," he said in a speech in San Francisco reported by the RIA Novosti news agency."

[ECH1969]

5. Who is more dangerous the EU or Iran

I know what I think

[tainowarrior]

12. Said France and Britain

while they played with their own nukes in the sandbox.

Give me a break. Leave Iran alone.