Iran - some facts

shafique A piece from the Guardian giving some detail about the Iranian plant - but for our friends who have short attention spans..I've summarised it with this extract ;) :
Beware politically motivated hype.
..
So when Obama announced that “Iran is breaking rules that all nations must follow”, he is technically and legally wrong.
..
Simply put, Iran is no closer to producing a hypothetical nuclear weapon today than it was prior to Obama’s announcement concerning the Qom facility.

Quote:

• 
  Keeping Iran honest
  09.25.2009 | The Guardian
  Iran’s secret nuclear plant will spark a new round of IAEA inspections and lead to a period of even greater transparency
  It was very much a moment of high drama. Barack Obama, fresh from his history-making stint hosting the UN security council, took a break from his duties at the G20 economic summit in Pittsburgh to announce the existence of a secret, undeclared nuclear facility in Iran which was inconsistent with a peaceful nuclear programme, underscoring the president’s conclusion that “Iran is breaking rules that all nations must follow”.
  Obama, backed by Gordon Brown and Nicolas Sarkozy, threatened tough sanctions against Iran if it did not fully comply with its obligations concerning the international monitoring of its nuclear programme, which at the present time is being defined by the US, Britain and France as requiring an immediate suspension of all nuclear-enrichment activity.
  The facility in question, said to be located on a secret Iranian military installation outside of the holy city of Qom and capable of housing up to 3,000 centrifuges used to enrich uranium, had been monitored by the intelligence services of the US and other nations for some time. But it wasn’t until Monday that the IAEA found out about its existence, based not on any intelligence “scoop” provided by the US, but rather Iran’s own voluntary declaration. Iran’s actions forced the hand of the US, leading to Obama’s hurried press conference Friday morning.
  Beware politically motivated hype. While on the surface, Obama’s dramatic intervention seemed sound, the devil is always in the details. The “rules” Iran is accused of breaking are not vague, but rather spelled out in clear terms. In accordance with Article 42 of Iran’s Safeguards Agreement, and Code 3.1 of the General Part of the Subsidiary Arrangements (also known as the “additional protocol”) to that agreement, Iran is obliged to inform the IAEA of any decision to construct a facility which would house operational centrifuges, and to provide preliminary design information about that facility, even if nuclear material had not been introduced. This would initiate a process of complementary access and design verification inspections by the IAEA.
  This agreement was signed by Iran in December 2004. However, since the “additional protocol” has not been ratified by the Iranian parliament, and as such is not legally binding, Iran had viewed its implementation as being voluntary, and as such agreed to comply with these new measures as a confidence building measure more so than a mandated obligation.
  In March 2007, Iran suspended the implementation of the modified text of Code 3.1 of the Subsidiary Arrangements General Part concerning the early provisions of design information. As such, Iran was reverting back to its legally-binding requirements of the original safeguards agreement, which did not require early declaration of nuclear-capable facilities prior to the introduction of nuclear material.
  While this action is understandably vexing for the IAEA and those member states who are desirous of full transparency on the part of Iran, one cannot speak in absolute terms about Iran violating its obligations under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. So when Obama announced that “Iran is breaking rules that all nations must follow”, he is technically and legally wrong.
  There are many ways to interpret Iran’s decision of March 2007, especially in light of today’s revelations. It should be underscored that what the Qom facility Obama is referring to is not a nuclear weapons plant, but simply a nuclear enrichment plant similar to that found at the declared (and inspected) facility in Natanz.
  The Qom plant, if current descriptions are accurate, cannot manufacture the basic feed-stock (uranium hexaflouride, or UF6) used in the centrifuge-based enrichment process. It is simply another plant in which the UF6 can be enriched.
  Why is this distinction important? Because the IAEA has underscored, again and again, that it has a full accounting of Iran’s nuclear material stockpile. There has been no diversion of nuclear material to the Qom plant (since it is under construction). The existence of the alleged enrichment plant at Qom in no way changes the nuclear material balance inside Iran today.
  Simply put, Iran is no closer to producing a hypothetical nuclear weapon today than it was prior to Obama’s announcement concerning the Qom facility.
  One could make the argument that the existence of this new plant provides Iran with a “breakout” capability to produce highly-enriched uranium that could be used in the manufacture of a nuclear bomb at some later date. The size of the Qom facility, alleged to be capable of housing 3,000 centrifuges, is not ideal for large-scale enrichment activity needed to produce the significant quantities of low-enriched uranium Iran would need to power its planned nuclear power reactors. As such, one could claim that its only real purpose is to rapidly cycle low-enriched uranium stocks into highly-enriched uranium usable in a nuclear weapon. The fact that the Qom facility is said to be located on an Iranian military installation only reinforces this type of thinking.
  But this interpretation would still require the diversion of significant nuclear material away from the oversight of IAEA inspectors, something that would be almost immediately evident. Any meaningful diversion of nuclear material would be an immediate cause for alarm, and would trigger robust international reaction, most probably inclusive of military action against the totality of Iran’s known nuclear infrastructure.
  Likewise, the 3,000 centrifuges at the Qom facility, even when starting with 5% enriched uranium stocks, would have to operate for months before being able to produce enough highly enriched uranium for a single nuclear device. Frankly speaking, this does not constitute a viable “breakout” capability.
  Iran has, in its declaration of the Qom enrichment facility to the IAEA on 21 September, described it as a “pilot plant”. Given that Iran already has a “pilot enrichment plant” in operation at its declared facility in Natanz, this obvious duplication of effort points to either a parallel military-run nuclear enrichment programme intended for more nefarious purposes, or more likely, an attempt on the part of Iran to provide for strategic depth and survivability of its nuclear programme in the face of repeated threats on the part of the US and Israel to bomb its nuclear infrastructure.
  Never forget that sports odds makers were laying 2:1 odds that either Israel or the US would bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities by March 2007. Since leaving office, former vice-president Dick Cheney has acknowledged that he was pushing heavily for a military attack against Iran during the time of the Bush administration. And the level of rhetoric coming from Israel concerning its plans to launch a pre-emptive military strike against Iran have been alarming.
  While Obama may have sent conciliatory signals to Iran concerning the possibility of rapprochement in the aftermath of his election in November 2008, this was not the environment faced by Iran when it made the decision to withdraw from its commitment to declare any new nuclear facility under construction. The need to create a mechanism of economic survival in the face of the real threat of either US or Israeli military action is probably the most likely explanation behind the Qom facility. Iran’s declaration of this facility to the IAEA, which predates Obama’s announcement by several days, is probably a recognition on the part of Iran that this duplication of effort is no longer representative of sound policy on its part.
  In any event, the facility is now out of the shadows, and will soon be subjected to a vast range of IAEA inspections, making any speculation about Iran’s nuclear intentions moot. Moreover, Iran, in declaring this facility, has to know that because it has allegedly placed operational centrifuges in the Qom plant (even if no nuclear material has been introduced), there will be a need to provide the IAEA with full access to Iran’s centrifuge manufacturing capability, so that a material balance can be acquired for these items as well.
  Rather than representing the tip of the iceberg in terms of uncovering a covert nuclear weapons capability, the emergence of the existence of the Qom enrichment facility could very well mark the initiation of a period of even greater transparency on the part of Iran, leading to its full adoption and implementation of the IAEA additional protocol. This, more than anything, should be the desired outcome of the “Qom declaration”.
  Calls for “crippling” sanctions on Iran by Obama and Brown are certainly not the most productive policy options available to these two world leaders. Both have indicated a desire to strengthen the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Iran’s action, in declaring the existence of the Qom facility, has created a window of opportunity for doing just that, and should be fully exploited within the framework of IAEA negotiations and inspections, and not more bluster and threats form the leaders of the western world.
  

rudeboy what I dont understand is how can one country decide that it will have a nuclear bomb and will not allow others to have it? i.e USA has it, Israel has it but they all making big fuss about Iran. Secondly, how is one country able to decide who is evil and is innocent :D. i.e USA has decided that North Korea and Iran are axis of evil. Sorry but I havent seen anything done by North Korea or Iran which was EVIL? Those two countries havent attacked any other country, USA has. Those two countries havent killed hundreds of people yet USA has. Iraq was in the axis of evil, they went in for the WMD, they couldnt find that, they went for Al Qaeda. They didnt find that so they said lets get rid of Sadam and go for the oil. In the process they have killed thousands of people. Is USA not evil? thirdly, I thought it was the UNs job to stop wars. Shouldnt the UN be going in to Iran and make them stop nuclear war developments. If so UN should ask USA, Russia, France and even Israel, Pakistan and India to get rid of their nuclear bombs. Berrin The UN is crooked by the permanent members of its security council…. and guess who they are; USA, UK and France..,(and Russia, China), and it is this trio that barking often when it comes to bully the nations in middle east or whoever…and are the ones standing side by side for instance obama,brown,sarkozy bullying iran over missiles in the recent news… Unfortunately if other nations want to pass resolution to condemn Israel or any other peace violators or whatever…… they will often get blocked and vetoed by the Security Council if their interests aren't served right… Now come and talk about being democratic.... rudeboy

• Berrin wrote:
  The UN is crooked by the permanent members of its security council…. and guess who they are; USA, UK and France..,(and Russia, China), and it is this trio that barking often when it comes to bully the nations in middle east or whoever…and are the ones standing side by side for instance obama,brown,sarkozy bullying iran over missiles in the recent news…
  Unfortunately if other nations want to pass resolution to condemn Israel or any other peace violators or whatever…… they will often get blocked and vetoed by the Security Council if their interests aren't served right… Now come and talk about being democratic....

See its ok for USA, UK, France, Russia, CHina, India, Pakistan, and Israel to have nuclear bomb. Although India and Pakistan had sanctions put on them just like Iran. But how can USA decide North Korea is evil? over the last 2 years USA has killed more people then the North Korea!! Isn't USA evil? Yet there is no1 to declare that USA is evil. not even UN and thats because UN is basically USA. And then the west wonder why people like Osama appear overnight. Its because of your bloody DOUBLE standards in the UN DUH. Berrin Absoluetly rudeboy...couldn't have written better... i too ask the same question and yet answers to be found nowhere and only lie in the hearts of righteous people.. my sympathy and compassion goes to those who suffer or die innocently as a result... Red Chief

• rudeboy wrote:
  UN is basically USA.

I have to admit that you are absolutely right but UN has never been a hindrance for US as we saw in case of the last invasion to Iraq.
After unpunished bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999 the bully started did whatever it wanted. Serbia, Afghanistan, Iraq (pay attention that not everybody was Muslim countries). Who is the next? shafique Whilst I agree with the gist of what has been said about the UN and US arrogance etc, I have to make the pedantic point that the US bombing of Kosovo/Serbians was not done with UN approval but as a Nato initiative. I agree that the spin has been that the US bombed Serbs to prevent or because Muslims were being slaughtered by Serbs, but the reality and historical record shows that the bombing caused the massacres to take place - before the bombing, the KLA were doing most of the killing, after the bombing (which proved later to be much less effective than the spin at the time), then we had Srebenica etc. This deliberate changing of the narrative is a recurring theme, unfortunately - and you see it happening not only in the Mid East, but also in South America. Notable big examples are the Cuban missile crisis (presented as the USSR backing down, when in fact Kruschev was protesting against missiles in Turkey, which Kennedy eventually agreed to remove), and the recent bombing of Gaza where the spin was that Hamas broke the ceasefire when in actual fact it was Israel who launched an attack on Gaza in Nov 08 (during the US election) - Hamas had not launched any missiles in the period. Cheers, Shafique Red Chief

• shafique wrote:
  
  I agree that the spin has been that the US bombed Serbs to prevent or because Muslims were being slaughtered by Serbs, but the reality and historical record shows that the bombing caused the massacres to take place - before the bombing, the were doing most of the killing, after the bombing (which proved later to be much less effective than the spin at the time), then we had Srebenica etc.
  

Wait... Don't mix up everything wearing your Muslim glasses. There were not any slauthering but ethnical cleansing, sending Albanian expats back to Albania.
Srebrenica wasn't and isn't in Serbia and have nothing in common with bombing. Anyway the massacre happened 4 years before bombing and Serbia didn't participate. After barbaric bombing the cleansing was even in larger scale against Serbs than it had been against Albanians in Kosovo. Now there are only a few percent of Orthodox population in "independent" Kosovo. So US played simply to punish SERBS, they didn't realy care about humanitarian rights.
There were not any real reason for bombing neighter Serbia nor Iraq, only lame excuses. There were no any resolution of UN in both cases. event horizon Some like to pontificate. rudeboy

• Berrin wrote:
  Absoluetly rudeboy...couldn't have written better...
  i too ask the same question and yet answers to be found nowhere and only lie in the hearts of righteous people.. my sympathy and compassion goes to those who suffer or die innocently as a result...

if UN allows USA or NATO to start a war on other states, then it should do its job in solving the palestine and kashmir issues. If these issues arent solved ASAP freedom fighters (terroists to the west) will still exist.

1 Dubai Jobs .com The First Place to Find a Job in Dubai
shafique ^Red Chief - you misunderstand me, I was agreeing with you in regards to the bombing by Nato.
I know the story is that the bombing was done to save Muslims being slaughtered etc, but I was pointing out that the facts are that the bulk of the killings of Muslims took place after the Nato/US bombings. At the time, and since, the 1999 bombing of Serbia was justified as to counter/prevent further 'massacres' of Kosovan Muslim by Serbs. The stats show that this was not the case - the usual list of 'massacres' took place after the bombings began. (And you are right Srebrenica took place in the earlier Bosnian war, sorry for that mistake - the US line at the time was that a 'genocide' was taking place and cited Srebenica as a prior example of Serb 'ethnic cleansing')
In the Kosovo 98-99 War, it was the Serbs who were being subject to the propaganda machine.
I came across this quote from the wiki page on the Kosovo war:

Quote:

• 
  After the bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade, Chinese Premier Jiang Zemin said that the US was using its economic and military superiority to aggressively expand its influence and interfere in the internal affairs of other countries. Chinese leaders called the NATO campaign a dangerous precedent of naked aggression, a new form of colonialism, and an aggressive war that groundless in morality or law. It was seen as part of a plot by the US to destroy Yugoslavia, expand eastward and control all of Europe.
  

This machine has now turned against the Iranians (and Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea etc)
Cheers,
Shafique rudeboy

• Red Chief wrote:
  
  • rudeboy wrote:
    UN is basically USA.
  
  I have to admit that you are absolutely right but UN has never been a hindrance for US as we saw in case of the last invasion to Iraq.
  After unpunished bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999 the bully started did whatever it wanted. Serbia, Afghanistan, Iraq (pay attention that not everybody was Muslim countries). Who is the next?

north korea hmmm if they attack on those guys, china will be pissed off and the chinese will help the koreans under the table.
Iran hmmmm yes possibly but not for another 10 years, already USA is fighting too many battles in this region. can it afford to start another war when the other two havent even finished yet?
Libya?
Pakistan?
Syria? They too are developing nuclear bomb
Somalia?
Sudan?
It could be anyone of the above. shafique Here's another good article - this time some

Quote:

• 
  Top Things you Think You Know about Iran that are not True
  10.01.2009 |
  Thursday is a fateful day for the world, as the US, other members of the United Nations Security Council, and Germany meet in Geneva with Iran in a bid to resolve outstanding issues. Although Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had earlier attempted to put the nuclear issue off the bargaining table, this rhetorical flourish was a mere opening gambit and nuclear issues will certainly dominate the talks. As Henry Kissinger pointed out, these talks are just beginning and there are highly unlikely to be any breakthroughs for a very long time. Diplomacy is a marathon, not a sprint.
  But on this occasion, I thought I’d take the opportunity to list some things that people tend to think they know about Iran, but for which the evidence is shaky.
  Belief: Iran is aggressive and has threatened to attack Israel, its neighbors or the US
  Reality: Iran has not launched an aggressive war modern history (unlike the US or Israel), and its leaders have a doctrine of “no first strike.” This is true of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, as well as of Revolutionary Guards commanders.
  Belief: Iran is a militarized society bristling with dangerous weapons and a growing threat to world peace.
  Reality: Iran’s military budget is a little over $6 billion annually. Sweden, Singapore and Greece all have larger military budgets. Moreover, Iran is a country of 70 million, so that its per capita spending on defense is tiny compared to these others, since they are much smaller countries with regard to population. Iran spends less per capita on its military than any other country in the Persian Gulf region with the exception of the United Arab Emirates.
  Belief: Iran has threatened to attack Israel militarily and to “wipe it off the map.”
  Reality: No Iranian leader in the executive has threatened an aggressive act of war on Israel, since this would contradict the doctrine of ‘no first strike’ to which the country has adhered. The Iranian president has explicitly said that Iran is not a threat to any country, including Israel.
  Belief: But didn’t President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad threaten to ‘wipe Israel off the map?’
  Reality: President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad did quote Ayatollah Khomeini to the effect that “this Occupation regime over Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time” (in rezhim-e eshghalgar-i Qods bayad as safheh-e ruzgar mahv shavad). This was not a pledge to roll tanks and invade or to launch missiles, however. It is the expression of a hope that the regime will collapse, just as the Soviet Union did. It is not a threat to kill anyone at all.
  Belief: But aren’t Iranians Holocaust deniers?
  Actuality: Some are, some aren’t. Former president Mohammad Khatami has castigated Ahmadinejad for questioning the full extent of the Holocaust, which he called “the crime of Nazism.” Many educated Iranians in the regime are perfectly aware of the horrors of the Holocaust. In any case, despite what propagandists imply, neither Holocaust denial (as wicked as that is) nor calling Israel names is the same thing as pledging to attack it militarily.
  Belief: Iran is like North Korea in having an active nuclear weapons program, and is the same sort of threat to the world.
  Actuality: Iran has a nuclear enrichment site at Natanz near Isfahan where it says it is trying to produce fuel for future civilian nuclear reactors to generate electricity. All Iranian leaders deny that this site is for weapons production, and the International Atomic Energy Agency has repeatedly inspected it and found no weapons program. Iran is not being completely transparent, generating some doubts, but all the evidence the IAEA and the CIA can gather points to there not being a weapons program. The 2007 National Intelligence Estimate by 16 US intelligence agencies, including the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency, assessed with fair confidence that Iran has no nuclear weapons research program. This assessment was based on debriefings of defecting nuclear scientists, as well as on the documents they brought out, in addition to US signals intelligence from Iran. While Germany, Israel and recently the UK intelligence is more suspicious of Iranian intentions, all of them were badly wrong about Iraq’s alleged Weapons of Mass Destruction and Germany in particular was taken in by Curveball, a drunk Iraqi braggart.
  Belief: The West recently discovered a secret Iranian nuclear weapons plant in a mountain near Qom.
  Actuality: Iran announced Monday a week ago to the International Atomic Energy Agency that it had begun work on a second, civilian nuclear enrichment facility near Qom. There are no nuclear materials at the site and it has not gone hot, so technically Iran is not in violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, though it did break its word to the IAEA that it would immediately inform the UN of any work on a new facility. Iran has pledged to allow the site to be inspected regularly by the IAEA, and if it honors the pledge, as it largely has at the Natanz plant, then Iran cannot produce nuclear weapons at the site, since that would be detected by the inspectors. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton admitted on Sunday that Iran could not produce nuclear weapons at Natanz precisely because it is being inspected. Yet American hawks have repeatedly demanded a strike on Natanz.
  Belief: T he world should sanction Iran not only because of its nuclear enrichment research program but also because the current regime stole June’s presidential election and brutally repressed the subsequent demonstrations.
  Actuality: Iran’s reform movement is dead set against increased sanctions on Iran, which likely would not affect the regime, and would harm ordinary Iranians.
  Belief: Isn’t the Iranian regime irrational and crazed, so that a doctrine of mutally assured destruction just would not work with them?
  Actuality: Iranian politicians are rational actors. If they were madmen, why haven’t they invaded any of their neighbors? Saddam Hussein of Iraq invaded both Iran and Kuwait. Israel invaded its neighbors more than once. In contrast, Iran has not started any wars. Demonizing people by calling them unbalanced is an old propaganda trick. The US elite was once unalterably opposed to China having nuclear science because they believed the Chinese are intrinsically irrational. This kind of talk is a form of racism.
  Belief: The international community would not have put sanctions on Iran, and would not be so worried, if it were not a gathering nuclear threat.
  Actuality: The centrifuge technology that Iran is using to enrich uranium is open-ended. In the old days, you could tell which countries might want a nuclear bomb by whether they were building light water reactors (unsuitable for bomb-making) or heavy-water reactors (could be used to make a bomb). But with centrifuges, once you can enrich to 5% to fuel a civilian reactor, you could theoretically feed the material back through many times and enrich to 90% for a bomb. However, as long as centrifuge plants are being actively inspected, they cannot be used to make a bomb. The two danger signals would be if Iran threw out the inspectors or if it found a way to create a secret facility. The latter task would be extremely difficult, however, as demonstrated by the CIA’s discovery of the Qom facility construction in 2006 from satellite photos. Nuclear installations, especially centrifuge ones, consume a great deal of water, construction materiel, and so forth, so that constructing one in secret is a tall order. In any case, you can’t attack and destroy a country because you have an intuition that they might be doing something illegal. You need some kind of proof. Moreover, Israel, Pakistan and India are all much worse citizens of the globe than Iran, since they refused to sign the NPT and then went for broke to get a bomb; and nothing at all has been done to any of them by the UNSC.
  

I wonder which forumers will read the 'beliefs' above and refuse to believe they aren't actually true? ;)
Cheers,
Shafique