Iran says it now runs more than 5,000 centrifuges

[oberliner]

Source: AP

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) — Iran has more than 5,000 centrifuges to process uranium at its enrichment plant, its nuclear chief said Wednesday, in the country's latest defiance of U.N. demands that it halt the controversial program.

Vice President Gholam Reza Aghazadeh said Iran will continue to install centrifuges and enrich uranium to produce nuclear fuel for the country's future nuclear power plants. The number of centrifuges is up sharply from the 4,000 Iran said were running in August at the plant in the central Iranian city of Natanz.

Uranium enriched to low level is used to produce nuclear fuel. Further enrichment makes it suitable for use in nuclear weapons.

The United States and some of its allies accuse Iran of seeking to build nuclear weapons. Tehran denies the claim and insists it has the right under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to enrich uranium and produce reactor fuel.

Read more: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jG7bnyWWJfgaYD-JwcqmImlpRujwD94MLOLO0

[Billy Burnett]

1. BE AFRAID.

Next thing we'll know, Obama will be paling around with Ahmadinijad. :nuke:

:scared:

:sarcasm:

[oberliner]

3. What action, if any, should the US/UN take regarding this?

How will Obama address relations with Iran?

[Billy Burnett]

7. Turn them into a glass parking lot?

Is that the right answer? Did I win a prize?

:dunce:

Nope. :(

[oberliner]

10. Of course that is not what anyone here supports

My question is, what actual action should the US (and the UN) take?

Economic sanctions?

Do you believe that Iran has no intention or desire to develop nuclear weapons?

[dantyrant]

12. The real question is,

to what extent does Iran's having one or two nuclear devices change the strategic equation. Much as our leaders would like to pretend its a game changer, it's not. Iran knows that if they even think of using a nuclear device, that they would be obliterated immediately with no questions asked. I don't think they're suicidal.

[NorCalDem]

14. The real question is...

can we afford to take any action at all? The answer is no.

I personally do not think action is warranted, but even if we wanted to, how would we pay for it?

[oberliner]

29. Diplomacy doesn't cost anything

Economic sanctions are also feasible.

[Regret My New Name]

31. Economic sanctions tend to hurt the people of the targetted country a lot...

I think Iraq showed that, and it really didn't help the situation much... If anything, it helped Saddam keep more power over his people, no? Now, with Iran they have a huge population of younger folks who are not fans of their government nor particularly hostile toward the west. I wonder what sort of long term affects such sanctions would have.

Oh, I'm not arguing by the way, I'm just following your lead and throwing out thoughts. :D Just thought I would make that clear in case you plan on responding. I encourage everyone to point flaws in my thinking, logic, and 'understanding' if they see it...

[oberliner]

34. The question was how we would pay for taking action

My point is that there are actions we could take that would not require a lot of expenditure on our part.

The impact those actions would have on the population of Iran is a different question.

What, if any, steps do you think the US or the UN should take regarding Iran?

[Regret My New Name]

35. I really don't know...

Obviously ideally Iran would not develop nuclear weapons. Most of us would probably rather not have the US, Russia,Israel, India, China etc.. developing/maintaining nuclear weapons... but they are. Unless these countries who are saying Iran cannot have nuclear weapons do something about their own, then I don't see how they have much room to speak... The the US is always developing new weapon systems and other crazy shit. Imagine what would be the reaction of most if some other countries say "we don't want you to do that".. Actually, you don't have to imagine it, just look at the missile shield, the US pretty much said go fuck yerselves... Is that much different than what Iran is doing? They're a sovereign nation and it's only fair they can do what the other nations are doing.

Of course the world isn't fair, and it's probably ideal if Iran didn't have nuclear weapons. After all, the less nuclear weapons the better, right? I get that. So I guess the other question is if it's worth preventing them from obtaining them. I don't think you suggest this, but going to war with Iran over it would end up in probably more deaths than simply allowing them to have a nuclear bomb... That's even assuming it's possible at this time. Sanctions would end up hurting the pro-western democracy movements in Iran, and perhaps giving the crazies in charge there more hold over the people. Not to mention it would affect the Iranian population and lead to even more resentment of the US/west, which would just breed more extremism... I also wonder if Iran would even use a nuclear weapon if they could get one. That would be instant death to them if they did.

I say give them all the support they need to build power plants... If possible, try to make relations better with them so they don't feel a need to develop nuclear weapons. I don't know if that's possible or would work. Let's assume it doesn't and they go the route of sneaking around to build nuclear weapons. I say give them bad information on the process and have them sink so much money into bad technology that they end up giving up in failure, or that the people get so outraged that they do something about it... heh, I dunno. I'm just talking out of my ass, obviously... but you asked.

[oberliner]

36. I appreciate your comments

I like the Obama/Biden approach:

Obama and Biden will present the Iranian regime with a clear choice. If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, they would offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization. If Iran continues its troubling behavior, Obama and Biden will step up our economic pressure and political isolation.

http://origin.barackobama.com/issues/foreign_policy/

Carrots and sticks as they say.

[marmar]

2. And how many does the United States have?

Well, at least we would never attack a nation that was no threat to us. :sarcasm:

[The Stranger]

4. So well struck.

I was going to say something about nucular weapons having never been used by any nation in war time, but . . . wait, what?

[oberliner]

8. Does that make another county's defiance of the IAEA acceptable?

Don't you still think its a good idea for countries to comply with the IAEA irrespective of the fact that the US has nuclear weapons?

[marmar]

9. I think the fact that hypocritical nations get to play the World's Nuclear Policemen.....

.... is unbelievable hubris.

[oberliner]

11. But this is an issue being pressed by the United Nations

The IAEA is an inter-governmental group.

[NorCalDem]

15. At this point

our country has given every other nation on earth the greenlight to run roughshod over WHATEVER international treaty they wish. If Iran doesn't follow the IAEA, so what, WE threw out the GENEVA CONVENTION!!!!

Let Iran do whatever the hell they want. The days of "moral police officer" and "protector of international corporate interests" are over, in part because the world has seen us for what we really are and partly because we quite simply cannot afford it anymore.

Sorry, thems the breaks...

[Boojatta]

16. The term "Geneva Convention" is a misnomer.

It should be called the "Tehran Convention." The greatest devotees of the Geneva Convention are the political authorities in Tehran. They consider the Geneva Convention to be almost sacred.
;-)

[cosmicone]

18. Iran is within its rights under the NNPT regime.

They are not being defiant. They are only exercising their rights under the treaty. They have an absolute right to enrich uranium for reactor fuel. Unless someone can prove that they are making a bomb, there should be no kvetching.

[oberliner]

19. Report says Iran not cooperating with probe on weapon development

VIENNA, Austria - Iran may be withholding information needed to establish whether it tried to make nuclear arms, the International Atomic Energy Agency said Monday in an unusually strongly worded report.

The tone of the language suggesting that Tehran continues to stonewall the agency — the U.N. nuclear monitor — revealed a glimpse of the frustration felt by agency investigators stymied in their attempts to gain full answers to suspicious aspects of Iran's past nuclear activities.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24830677/

[cosmicone]

20. The cooperation would be there if

the IAEA was not infiltrated by CIA and Mossad agents who pass on what they find from the inspections to powers hostile to Iran. Saddam had the same problem. Scott Ritter actually stated that he was passing on info to intelligence agencies when he was an inspector in Iraq.

The multilateral bodies are used by US and EU to keep the rest of the world under their thumb.

After exploiting the third world for centuries, the Europeans and the Americans should have no say in how the world functions.

[Pavulon]

21. Let them have it..Then they play by big kid rules

if they fuck up they will wiped out by another nuclear power. North Korea has not been shooting rockets over japan because they are now assumed nuclear and would trigger the launch of trident d5 in response.

Visit the rest of the world and you will have a massive appreciation of western europe and american (canadian) systems.

Start in africa. Gives a new perspective on life and death.

[cosmicone]

22. I have been to every country in the world except Paraguay and

Mongolia. I have seen what colonialism has done to Africa and Asia.

[Pavulon]

23. Yep all the fault of the west

that logic will time out eventually. I have not been to every country but quite a few and seen poverty that was abject. Cant blame it all on the english speaking world. But you can try.

[cosmicone]

26. It is not just the English

the French, Portuguese, Spanish, Dutch and Belgian played a part too. The poverty is because those countries were robbed of their resources via colonialism and imperialism.

India and China were prosperous before. In the 14th century, 80% of the world's GDP came from those two countries. Then came the European "white man" looting and exploitation, later continued by white Americans.

Get real.

[Pavulon]

27. When you get over blaming the "white man"

take a fresh look at the world. Until then enjoy the ride, when you get fucked up sick go to sloan kettering or mayo..

Catch that flight to mexico and bounce to cuba for that great care.

America had no real part in colonial africa. Africa was not that great before the "west" began manipulating there borders.

This is not the 14th century, pretty much everything around you is a product of western civ. Including the computer and ac power you are using to post your opinion.

[cosmicone]

28. Yes, "Western civilization" hahaha

When Indian and Chinese societies had art, music, theater, literature, governments, architecture and technologies, Europeans were eating raw meat, were wearing animal skins and living in caves.

Europeans were just more brutal and violent, which allowed them to colonize the world. They were not "superior" in any way.

Perhaps you'd want to read up on the history a bit before you start hurling clichés.

[Pavulon]

33. I am familiar with the history

and read a good bit. However when you travel I suggest AIG KER policy and medical evac. I carry both when visiting the developing world.

There is a theory of guns, germs, and steel that also takes geographic position into account. This is a balanced look at the evolution of modern society.

Superior is not the correct word and is not what I mean. Developed modern structure and technology.

I have seen poverty in china now, I am sure it was there 1000 years ago.

This is not about better but is about reality.

[struggle4progress]

30. At present, we still seem to have the luxury of determining the facts before we form opinions

Is Iran in violation of the NPT? AFAIK, they are not. Is Iran building or planning to build nuclear weapons? AFAIK, there is no evidence that they are. They say they are not. The IAEA last year said there was no evidence that they were; these findings were disputed by France and USA, two states which (in apparent violation of the NPT) themselves continue to stockpile nuclear weapons:

IAEA findings on Iran dismissed
Tuesday, 30 October 2007, 09:52 GMT
France and the US have dismissed a finding by the head of the UN's nuclear watchdog Mohammed ElBaradei that there is no evidence of Iran building a bomb ... The US said Iran's efforts to enrich uranium, rather than import it more cheaply, indicated that it really wanted nuclear weapons. Mr ElBaradei said on Sunday that Tehran was years away from developing a bomb. Iran denies it is seeking to build nuclear weapons and says it wants only civilian nuclear energy ... http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7068478.stm

The claim that Iran is really enriching for weapons purposes should also raise a broader question, whether any nuclear power production is consistent with long-term global non-proliferation goals. It's possible, for example, to view the nuclear power industry as the result of a 1950s US public relations effort to paste a consumer-friendly "Atoms for Peace" face onto Cold War weapons-related uranium enrichment programs. On that view, one should ask why Iran is singled out for special attention: any enrichment program (not merely Iran's) should be regarded as suspect and should be subject to international inspections. Since BushCo has been, from the very start, an enemy of international agreements such as the NPT (sending John Bolton to undermine NPT talks a few years ago) and has regularly proposed the development of new US nuclear weapons, current US policy may simply be intended to further weaken the existing NPT by forcing Iran to jump through extra hoops. And given the lies that started the Iraq war, it is also plausible that BushCo accusations about Iran were first produced in hopes of broadening the Iraq war to neighboring countries

Whether Iran plans to build nuclear weapons or not, there seems to be no emergency and no need for overheated huff-n-puff: we should seek the over-arching issues and attempt to deal with them without hypocrisy

[L0oniX]

5. How can you be sure that the AP wasn't paid to release fake news?

[oberliner]

6. Here is the same information as reported by the Iranian state-run news agency

"At present, we have more than 5,000 centrifuges operating," Aqazadeh told reporters on the sidelines of his tour of the Exclusive Exhibition on Nuclear Industry Achievements.

http://www2.irna.ir/en/news/view/line-22/0811266710162606.htm

[dantyrant]

13. Doesn't mean it's true...

The Iranians tend to exaggerate to the upside when they talk about centrifuges.

[oberliner]

17. The poster suggested that the AP may have paid to put out "fake news"

The AP story reports on the fact that Iran has said it has that number of centrifuges.

That same information can be found on the Iranian state-run news agency.

Thus, the AP is not running a fake news story as they are merely reporting what the Iranian government has claimed.

Whether their claims are true or not is another question altogether.

[ohio2007]

24. fake but accurate nt

[oberliner]

25. What exactly is fake here?

I don't follow this. The number of centrifuges matches the IAEA estimate. It was announced by Iran and reported on by the AP.

Explain where the "faking" is happening.

[Regret My New Name]

32. I think Ohio2007 agrees with you... :)

Just going on previous discussions I read around here.