Iran says has basic atomic agreement with Russia

[DoYouEverWonder]

Feb 26, 2006

BUSHEHR, Iran (Reuters) -

Iran has reached a "basic" agreement with Russia on a joint venture to enrich uranium and will contine talks on this issue in coming days, Iran's nuclear chief Gholamreza Aghazadeh said on Sunday.

"Regarding this joint venture, we have reached a basic agreement. Talks to complete this package will continue in coming days in Russia," he told reporters in the southern Iranian port of Bushehr.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060226/ts_nm/nuclear_iran_russia_dc

[cal04]

1. Russia, Iran Agree to Enrichment Venture

Iran's nuclear chief said Sunday that Moscow and Tehran had agreed in principle to set up a joint uranium enrichment venture, Russian news reports said. Gholamreza Aghazadeh, who heads Iran's Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, said the two nations had agreed in principle on Moscow's proposal to enrich Iranian uranium in Russia, the ITAR-Tass and Interfax news agencies reported.

Previous talks on the Moscow offer, backed by the United States and the European Union, brought no visible breakthrough. Russian nuclear chief Sergei Kiriyenko, who met with Aghazadeh in Iran on Sunday, said Moscow would insist on resolving the Iranian nuclear dispute within the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency, RIA Novosti news agency reported.

Kiriyenko said Russia would stress its position at a March 6 meeting of the IAEA. The meeting could start a process leading to punishment by the U.N. Security Council. The council has the authority to impose sanctions on Iran.
Moscow has been struggling to persuade Tehran to return to a moratorium on uranium enrichment and agree to shift its enrichment program to Russian territory to ease world concerns it could divert enriched uranium to a weapons program.

Such steps would ease pressure on the Security Council - whose veto-wielding members are the United States, Russia, China, Britain and France - to punish Tehran and could foster further diplomacy.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-5648790,00.html

[Toots]

7. Hmmm so now there will be transports of enriched uranium ripe for attack

I do believe there are still a few stingers and SAMS floating around out there and if they tried to do it by truck well.......I worry that this may not be the best solution..

[ktlyon]

2. great news now they have to find another reason to attack them

I'm sure Bush will find something, then again the reality of the situation has never stopped him before. He will probably keep running around saying Iran wants to nuke us.

[Neverarepublican]

3. Ha Ha Bush. No reason to attack. Ha Ha. Ha Ha.

[IDemo]

4. * co will step up the rhetoric

Scowleeza will reprimand Putin for dealing with Iran. She and the PrezIsn't will again accuse Tehran of supporting terra, and call for democracy, whether by purple fingers or Tomahawk missiles.

[DoYouEverWonder]

6. However, the UAE who also supports terrorists

and does not recognize Israel's right to exist are treated with kit gloves.

[meganmonkey]

5. I really wish that this would make bushco back off

but we all know that it has nothing to do with nukes, and everything to do with oil and the instability in the ME.

:(

[tatertop]

8. Bush will accuse them of crawdaddin,' and that's enough for Dumbmericans

Remember when Bush accused Saddam of crawdaddin'?
War followed soon after. No higher crime than crawdaddin'!

The war is coming.

[cliss]

9. So Iran has a new best friend.

I don't believe Iran was thrilled about such a close relationship with Russia. But call it a shotgun marriage. They were forced into it by Bush.

It's not going to change things drastically, other than the war drums will probably be put away - for a while. But it still doesn't settle the issue of the Iranian Oil bourse which is set to open in late March.

Nor does it settle any of the other issues. But it does buy them some time. I'd like to see Bush's reaction now. Tears?

[daleo]

10. He will have to go to Plan B to get his war on

Which could be:
- ignore this move by the Russians, and claim Iran is enriching uranium for an atom bomb to be used against the U.S. anyway.
- claim Iran is planning to use chemical weapons against Tel Aviv at any moment and must be stopped.
- claim Iran is going to block the Strait of Hormuz any moment.
- claim the Iranians want to be "liberated" from their government (he may feign great concern for the rights of women and/or homosexuals if he uses this gambit).
- whip up memories of the 1979 hostage crisis, and try to induce a revenge based war fever in the U.S.

Probably elements of all of the above will be employed. He may blame Iran for destroying New Orleans, just for good measure. He would assume his sheep wouldn't know the difference, anyway.

[Psephos]

13. Daleo, an honest question...

Set aside Bushco for a moment. We all know where *he* is coming from, and what kind of threat he represents.

Now, speaking specifically about Iran, do you see problems with the current regime? Do you have any misgivings about fundamentalists who believe they are supposed to usher in the advent of the Twelfth Imam acquiring the means to do that?

I'm asking this because you usually put a lot of thought in your posts, whether or not I agree with them. Iran + nukes makes me see visions of Armageddon, based on what Ahmadinejad keeps spouting. I believe the man. I'm curious where you stand.

Peace.

[daleo]

14. I honestly don't see Iran as worse than many other nuclear powers

Past or present.

We have survived various totalitarian Russian leaders, including Stalin, who may well have been mad, especially near the end. We also made it through various totalitarian Chinese leaders who were said to be capable of starting Armageddon, such as Mao. In the case of those leaders, their very lack of religiosity was said to be what made them dangerous. Not having any professed belief in an afterlife, they were said to be capable of bringing on nuclear war if it would hurry the victory of the proletariat.

We have also survived several intensely religious countries (sometimes led by people who claimed to be very devout) possessing the bomb, including Israel, Pakistan, and India. Any of of them could have been said by people who opposed them to have been willing to usher in nuclear doom due to their religious inclinations. Israel has its religious fanatics who want to hurry the messiah, as does Pakistan, although the names change. Some might say Hindu fatalism is compatible with nuclear war, as are features of their religious beliefs and imagery (recall Oppenheimer's use of the Hindu quotation "now I become death, the destroyer of worlds" as he witnessed that first atomic explosion).

Let's not forget South Africa, in which a racial-superiority based ideology probably had nuclear weapons for a short period of time. Many claimed that the whites there were willing to go nuclear to preserve their privilege, as well as from an irrational fear of the black African majority.

I won't discount some of the unbalanced characters who have had their fingers on the button in the west. Foremost among them would be Nixon, in my opinion, but Reagan might rate a mention in some people's books (perhaps Thatcher too). Certainly Bush II comes to mind here, although some might prefer to put him in the religious fanatic camp. Then there have been the boozers, such as Yeltsin and Nixon. To be fair to the French, I should throw in De Gaulle, as he was said by almost everyone to have had delusions of grandeur. Just to show that I don't think Liberals are immune, I will mention Kennedy's brinkmanship during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Those are just the political leaders - we also had the possibility of Curtis Lemay or Douglas MacArthur going nuclear in a purely military decision. Who knows what unhinged military personalities may have had access to the button in the Soviet Union?

So, I guess I am saying Iran is well within the range of countries and leaderships that have had access to nuclear weapons. So far we are still here. I have to hope the same will be true if (when, really) nuclear weapons technology proliferates, as I think it will. We will have to assume (and there is a lot of hoping here, too) that the innate desire of human beings to survive will trump any madness when it comes to nuclear weapons use in the future.

I think attempting to deny this technology to certain elements of the human race through war will only make things worse. Such attempts will only prove futile, unless we plan to hold them subservient in perpetuity. That too would probably prove futile.

There also seems to be something inherently racist about the whole idea, rather like the old westerns, where "whites don't trade with the Indians for rifles" was a recurring theme. That being said, I don't necessarily think that having concerns about the current Iran government is racist, just that it doesn't take much for that pot to be stirred up.

[drduffy]

17. also, pressure is often brought

to bear by others who are connected with the potential nuke abuser. The Iranian government would come under a great deal of pressue by more moderate states (and is already I'd bet). Because other regional Islamic states are not so wanting of martyrdom.

Hell, if the Iranians achieve their oil bourse, the US is finished anyway. If I were in power in Iran, I would do all I could to ensure the success of the bourse. That will kill the US. No more requirement to have dollars. Most would divest themselves of dollars over variable period of time, I suppose. We wouldn't be able to buy anything from anybody anymore. And we would owe a shitload of money to everybody.

......uhh, I think I need to find that farm.....

[Psephos]

18. Is that a good thing?

"the US is finished anyway."

"If I were in power in Iran, I would do all I could to ensure the success of the bourse."

"That will kill the US."

"We wouldn't be able to buy anything from anybody anymore."

"We would owe a shitload of money to everybody."

It sounds like at least part of you wants this to happen. First off, should this come to pass, the entire US will know misery on a scale no one comprehends. That means political instability, violence, suffering, no public money available for anything. Having no pension and no medical coverage will become the norm, not the exception. Most of the grief will be borne disproportionately by those who were less fortunate to begin with. That's why I feel we should do whatever we can to prevent it from happening. It seems like the progressive view to me.

Second, if the US recedes from the global power elite, then another country will take its place as hegemon. When I look at the likely candidates, I see nothing but trouble. Who do you think will be the next country to whom the world will pay obeisance?

Human institutions are endemically tainted by corruption, abuse, and failure, because of genetic human nature. Xenophobia and the Us vs. Them mindset have their roots in deep evolutionary time, when human social units were competing tribes on the veldt. (Google Eibl-Eibsfeldt or Frans de Waal for further elaboration.) History shows no - and I mean *zero* - examples of utopias. So we have to work with what we've got, make it as good as it can be, and remember that no one will ever be totally satisfied. This takes discipline, including the self-discipline that keeps us from lapsing into bitter cynicism and so, becoming part of the problem instead of part of the solution.

These are my opinions, nothing more, nothing less.

Peace.

[Psephos]

19. Thanks, much to chew on there.... n/t

[DoYouEverWonder]

15. Iran is no where near building a nuke

Fortunately, the terrorists seem to prefer conventional weapons. They're a lot easier to handle and move around.

[drduffy]

16. nice, coherent comment that basically

sums it up.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[okieinpain]

12. oh oh, now bush and gang will have to really think up something

quick to able to attack iran.