Iran's Nuclear Policy 6 replies

Please wait...

masked_marsoe VIP Member

Heaven's gonna burn your eyes

50 XP

16th April 2005

0 Uploads

8,063 Posts

0 Threads

#1 11 years ago

I read an interesting article back in December, a new (or at least different) take on Iran's nuclear ambitions. It gives weight to the idea that Iran does actually want nuclear energy for civilian generation, and it points to a growing economic crisis within Iran.

The background is this: Iran has been one of the world's biggest and most important oil providers since the 1910s. Not just that, it's predicted by the International Energy Agency that Iran will be bearing a lot of the brunt of the forcasted 50% increases in oil demands up til at least 2030.

However, there's something wrong with Iran's oil industry. It's in an incredibly poor position for such a vital and essential resource, backed by one of the oldest and most developed oil industries in the world. The trouble goes back more than 30 years, to the Iranian Revolution of 1979. You should be pretty aware of the story by now, but here's it in brief;

The Shah, pet of the US, had essentially killed off all the moderate opposition to his rule in a sort of low-scale war against his subjects, leaving only the extremists left. The Islamists take over, with an ideology rooted in Shia Islam with a heavy islamosocialist influence, and are generally welcomed by the populance, who by now hate the Shah. The US doesn't like its friends being overthrown, and then is hit by the Iranian hostage situation (Iranian extremists take over US Embassy).

Saddam Hussein sees that Iran is in a shambles, and gets ready to sort out some old territorial disputes and win the favour of the US, and invades in 1980. The oil industries of Iran and Iraq were targetted, as well as foreign tankers, which led to reprisals. The US also attacked Iranian oil platforms in the later part of the war. After the war, Iran became the reject of the Middle East.

So, in the past 30 years, Iran has spent 8 of them at war, and the rest as a pariah. Economically, this has proved devestating for investments in Iran's oil industry. And then, the Iranian government has been subsidising domestic oil for the same time (currently at about $US 0.09/l, US$ 0.33/gallon for petrol), to the point where its one of the things that keeps the population under control (so long as the oil is cheap, people don't care so much). Of course, this means that the Iranian government gets less money from its domestic market.

So Iran would rather divert oil to the international market, where much, much more money can be made. One of the biggest users is of course electricity generation, and due to the cheap (subsidised) prices of oil and gas, most Iranian domestic appliances are extremely inefficient.

So nuclear generation could provide the electricity Iran needs, while freeing up the oil for overseas. Without it, Iran will face an economic crisis, as more and more money is lost to domestic subsidies and lack of infrastructure, which gives Iran a strong motive to introduce nuclear generation as soon as possible.




WarHawk109

From the Austrian School

50 XP

21st July 2003

0 Uploads

2,926 Posts

0 Threads

#2 11 years ago

When you have their leader, President Tom, on the record as desiring to see Israel "wiped off the map" I think it is prudent to err on the side of caution. I do not see a nuclear Iran as being benefitial to anyone at this point...I mean they are practicing the goose-step over there!




emonkies

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

17th July 2003

0 Uploads

15,096 Posts

0 Threads

#3 11 years ago

I dont even see it as being safe than sorry.

Iran is refusing to work with the UN and the IAEA.

If their actions are peaceful then why not work with the IAEA?

Instead they are dragging their feet and drawing out the confrontation while in the meantime building bombproof underground "research centers" and building as many centrifuges as they can as fast as they can.

IMHO all their actions seem to me to be them trying to buy more time til they can achieve a certain goal.

Sanctions will mean jack squat. All that does is give Russia and Pakistan a open market to sell their goods.

Add to this a kind of arrogance where Iranians get insulted if you call them Arabs. They feel they should be a World Power and would be if not for the US . The Iranians feel having nuclear weapons will be both a deterrence and a strong hand in the region and think having such will command the respect they feel they are not given.

It has already been stated that if Iran gets nukes then Jordan and Saudi Arabia will want nukes to counter what they already think of as the danger of Iran expansionism.

If you look at the big picture the US is only one of several nations opposed to Iran having nukes.




Look at that!

Rock to Heavy Metal!

50 XP

5th December 2006

0 Uploads

556 Posts

0 Threads

#4 11 years ago
Anlushac11;3532559I dont even see it as being safe than sorry. Iran is refusing to work with the UN and the IAEA. If their actions are peaceful then why not work with the IAEA? Instead they are dragging their feet and drawing out the confrontation while in the meantime building bombproof underground "research centers" and building as many centrifuges as they can as fast as they can. IMHO all their actions seem to me to be them trying to buy more time til they can achieve a certain goal. Sanctions will mean jack squat. All that does is give Russia and Pakistan a open market to sell their goods. Add to this a kind of arrogance where Iranians get insulted if you call them Arabs. They feel they should be a World Power and would be if not for the US . The Iranians feel having nuclear weapons will be both a deterrence and a strong hand in the region and think having such will command the respect they feel they are not given. It has already been stated that if Iran gets nukes then Jordan and Saudi Arabia will want nukes to counter what they already think of as the danger of Iran expansionism. If you look at the big picture the US is only one of several nations opposed to Iran having nukes.

America has very big army and start war on lie, also USA do as please and not listen to globel view if they want and help who they want too how America diffrent? what make you boss? you dangerous, you should be stopped, your nation of bully




WarHawk109

From the Austrian School

50 XP

21st July 2003

0 Uploads

2,926 Posts

0 Threads

#5 11 years ago

Hypocrisy anyone? *coughtibetcough*

Anyway, I thought the discussion was about Iran?




Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#6 11 years ago
If their actions are peaceful then why not work with the IAEA?

Well they were working with the IAEA before the sanctions. But why the heck cooperate when they sanction you? It means they already has a fixed belief already, so why cooperate? No point. Plus the IAEA is mostly controled by the US and the US wants to impose their views no matter what.

Also the IAEA never said they evidence that Iran is working on nuclear weapons.

Also, not cooperating doesn't really mean what they are implying. Saddam wasn't cooperating, it doesn't mean he was working on nuclear weapons.

Clearly when you "punish" somebody based on allegations, that person won't just act as if nothing happens. And if the response is to stop cooperation then so be it. Thats how things work.




Relander

Ambassador

50 XP

8th April 2005

0 Uploads

2,538 Posts

0 Threads

#7 11 years ago
DecebalusPlus the IAEA is mostly controled by the US

Proof for this statement would be appreciated.

Also, not cooperating doesn't really mean what they are implying. Saddam wasn't cooperating, it doesn't mean he was working on nuclear weapons.

As strange as it sounds, Saddam himself actually believed that he had WMD's: Iraqi WMD program scientists had assured him that the program was well underway when this wasn't the case, just to save themselves and their families.

Denying access of well respected IAEA from entering nuclear facilities is a very strong signal that they have something to hide: it would not just be foolish but also very dangerous for Iran to deny the access just to play with the west. If everything is okay, it's not like the IAEA would order Iran to shut down it's nuclear reactors.

Clearly when you "punish" somebody based on allegations, that person won't just act as if nothing happens. And if the response is to stop cooperation then so be it. Thats how things work.

It's Iran who haven't made cooperation when cutting down negotiations a couple of times and turning down hefty proposals made by the Big Three: Germany, France & Great Britain and also the USA.

P.S. Weren't we too uncivilized for you to discuss with Decebalus? :rolleyes: