CNN: Iran rejects Russian nuclear offer

[allemand]

Sunday, January 1, 2006 Posted: 2155 GMT (0555 HKT)

TEHRAN, Iran (CNN) -- Iran's chief nuclear negotiator has rejected a Russian offer to produce nuclear fuel in its plants for Iran, the latest effort to resolve a diplomatic impasse over Tehran's nuclear program.

Speaking on state-run television Sunday, Ali Larijani argued the offer would deny his nation's right to "be in charge of its own fate" on energy matters.

He said Iran would be willing to have some, but not all, of its nuclear fuel produced outside the country.

Iran's hard-line conservative government insists it has the right to restart nuclear facilities and enrich uranium for the production of nuclear energy, despite fears by some other nations --including the United States -- that Tehran's true goal is to produce nuclear weapons.

More:
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/01/01/iran.nuclear/

:-(

Russian nuclear proposal has 'serious problems': Iran

TEHRAN (AFP) - A senior Iranian official dismissed a proposal for Iran to enrich uranium on Russian soil as problematic and expressed disappointment in Europe's latest negotiations over the Islamic republic's controversial nuclear program.

"It is an idea, not a structured proposal, we don't see it as mature and it has serious problems," the secretary of the country's Supreme National Security Council, Ali Larijani, said on national television.
(...)

Larijani warned the West, which has threatened to push for the United Nations Security Council to impose sanctions, about taking strong action.

"If they act harshly, our behaviour will change. We have prepared scenarios and they cannot checkmate us easily," he said.

More:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060101/ts_afp/irannuclearrussiaeu_060101220548

[EuroObserver]

1. "the right to restart nuclear facilities and enrich uranium

for the production of nuclear energy."

Of course they have that right, as nuclear non-proliferation signatories, under International Atomic Energy Authority supervision.

As signatories of the same treaty, the USA (and Russia as heir to the USSR), UK, etc. are also required to, progressively, eliminate their own nuclear weapons.

At least, that was the state of sanity the "MAD cold war" once achieved...

Meanwhile, thanks mostly to continuing, and especially most recent, extremely weird US behavior, many parts of the world feel increasingly insecure and may be thinking about (defensively) arming themselves.

And this has little to to with GWOT (global 'war' on terrorism).

See eg. insight here: (plug, plug) http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x182389

[cliss]

2. I'd say Iran is justified in feeling suspicious.

The sharks are cruising the waters. Iran has an enormous amount of oil; the world's largest supply of natural gas. Wouldn't the big countries just LOVE to walk in there and take it all? This could be an attempt by Russia to get its foot in the door and somehow get control of Iranian oil.

That's why the U.S. has been involved in a propaganda campaign to weaken Iran. The Iranians are now seen as the "black sheep" of the world.

But Iran is surprisingly strong. They've held together so far. And if you think about it, they are the SUPPLIER. Since when is the END USER the one running the show? Iran doesn't need the U.S. It can find lots of other oil buyers on the world market.

The U.S. however, desperately needs Iranian oil.

[lakeguy]

3. why should iran be prevented from controlling nuclear energy

within it's own country? it's make sense to convert to non-fossil fuel alternatives and sell the crude to energy needy countries, especially as prices increase.

[EuroObserver]

4. Seems to make sense.

Fossil fuel reserves will clearly become increasingly valuable as time goes by.

Why sell, if you don't have to, relatively cheap, now?

[Pavulon]

5. You don't need to enrich beyond 50%

for a reactor. IAEA found 90% weapons grade uranium. They are working on a bomb.

How else can they "wipe israel off the map"?.

They signed the NPT, they should either unsign it or pony up.

[almostradical]

7. Actually Iran is right.

The IAEA found no 90% enriched uranium in Iran. Traces of highly enriched uranium was found, but nowhere near 90%. Iran said the uranium must have been contamination from the suppliers of the centrifuges. IAEA tests proved that it must have come from contamination from the suppliers of the centrifuges.

Non-nuclear weapons states are allowed to have the entire fuel cycle without leaving the NPT.

The United States should either offer Iran a lot of capital and technology in exchange for Iran giving up its legitimate right to the fuel cycle, or it should shut up and leave Iran with the ability to build weapons if Iran feels the need.

Non-nuclear weapons states that are NPT signatories such as Canada, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and a lot of others could build weapons if they chose to, after leaving the NPT. Legally, Iran has no fewer rights than any other signatory.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

9. Right. Whatever you say. Most nuclear experts state that Iran is....

...ten years away from producing anything close to a nuclear weapon.

The NeoCon Junta should honor past U. S. agreements, too...but that's not what's happening is it?

[David__77]

6. Russia should defend Iran's national rights.

It is Iran's right to pursue nuclear energy as it sees fit, free from foreign interference and subversion.

[qazplm]

8. lets be clear

you dont have to be a bush lover, and goodness knows no one here is, for good reason times 1000, to know that Iran wants to do this because at the end of the day they want to join the nuclear weapon club.

I dont think thats a good thing. Doesnt mean I am advocating invasion, etc, thanks to the current administration we've screwed things up so much that we are pretty much stuck with both N Korea and Iran getting nukes, but I dont think we can say that Iran merely wants energy independence.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

10. Tell you what...if Iran DOESN'T develop nuclear weapons.....

...they will be at the mercy of aggressive dictatorships like the NeoCon Junta, or Israel who won't admit to having nukes but everyone knows they have them.

I'm surprised that anyone is falling for this crap again after hearing the same thing, almost verbatim, before the NeoCons ordered U. S. troops to illegally and immorally invade/occupy Iraq.

Wake up.

[almostradical]

11. Iran is definitely not building a bomb now

Iran wants to be nuclear capable. The way Japan could build nuclear weapons in three months or six months in an emergency, but for now Japan is a member in good standing of the NPT.

Nobody serious thinks Iran would be able to build a bomb while inspections are on. With the additional protocol it would be impossible. The reason the US, Israel and Europe want Iran not to have the fuel cycle is that they do not want Iran to have the ability Japan, Canada, Taiwan and South Korea have which is to build nuclear weapons if they decide to leave the treaty - which is a right guaranteed by the treaty.

On the one hand energy independence is a valid goal for Iran - Russia might be pressured to stop supplying nuclear fuel to Iran after Iran becomes dependent on it. Russia, China and other countries have agreed to help Iran consistent with the NPT before and stopped because of US pressure.

On the other hand energy independence and nuclear capability are difficult to separate and Europe's position is that Iran has to just give up energy independence in exchange for nothing. Of course Iran will not go for that.

To wrap it all up, neither energy independence or nuclear weapons capability are rights that signatories to the NPT are required to give up. Iran cannot build a weapon as long as inspectors are there, and Iran is willing to keep inspectors there. Iran does not have any legal or really any moral requirement to do anything more than that.