Iran's Nuclear Program

[Airbrush]

Secondly, for the record, Iran had nothing to do with 9-11. It was the US ally Saudi Arabia who did it. This resulted in no retaliation, no sanctions, nothing against Saudi Arabia? Why is that?

 

OIL deals. Why can't Iran do the same?

 

Since the Ayatolla has publically declared that nuclear weapons are NOT their intention and are "not Islamic" by issuing a formal religious edict gainst nuclear bombs, all the world needs to do is prove that Iran went past uranium enrichment for power generation. Then their supreme leader will be caught in a LIE, and all hell may break loose.

 

Yet most Iranians believe Iran should have nuclear weapons, just like other world powers do. How to you reconcile this with the Ayatolla's proclaimations? Common Iranians are thinking, "good, lie to them so we can have our nuclear weapons"?

Edited April 10, 2015 by Airbrush

[waitforufo]

I think you watch too much Fox News. You are repeating their uninformed talking points. For the record, the only nation that has ever used a nuclear weapon is the US. By your reasoning, they are the worst offenders in the world.

 

Secondly, for the record, Iran had nothing to do with 9-11. It was the US ally Saudi Arabia who did it. This resulted in no retaliation, no sanctions, nothing against Saudi Arabia? Why is that?

I never watch TV news of any kind and never go to web sites associated with TV news. I'm sure you won't believe that but there is nothing I can do about your beliefs. I do find it curious that "watching Fox News" is such an important condemnation for liberals. All arguments can be dismissed with "you watch FOX News!" Well you watch MSNBC! So there!

 

Secondly, for the record, I never said Iran had anything to do with 9-11.

 

 

OIL deals. Why can't Iran do the same?

 

Since the Ayatolla has publically declared that nuclear weapons are NOT their intention and are "not Islamic" by issuing a formal religious edict gainst nuclear bombs, all the world needs to do is prove that Iran went past uranium enrichment for power generation. Then their supreme leader will be caught in a LIE, and all hell may break loose.

 

Yet most Iranians believe Iran should have nuclear weapons, just like other world powers do. How to you reconcile this with the Ayatolla's proclaimations? Common Iranians are thinking, "good, lie to them so we can have our nuclear weapons"?

No Iranian leader, religious or otherwise has ever issued a fatwa against nuclear weapons. Its a myth.

 

Besides we are the kafir. It's okay to lie to us if it promotes Islam. I'm sure the theocracy understands that.

Edited April 10, 2015 by waitforufo

[Willie71]

I never watch TV news of any kind and never go to web sites associated with TV news. I'm sure you won't believe that but there is nothing I can do about your beliefs. I do find it curious that "watching Fox News" is such an important condemnation for liberals. All arguments can be dismissed with "you watch FOX News!" Well you watch MSNBC! So there!

 

Secondly, for the record, I never said Iran had anything to do with 9-11.

 

 

No Iranian leader, religious or otherwise has ever issued a fatwa against nuclear weapons. Its a myth.

 

Besides we are the kafir. It's okay to lie to us if it promotes Islam. I'm sure the theocracy understands that.

Watching Fox News has been shown to leave people more misinformed than not watching the news at all. Most skeptics wouldn't trust MSNBC, or any other corporate news source either. It's funny how people repeat the conservative talking points, which are fed directly to Fox and the like, yet claim the don't partake those sources. I am aware you only denied Fox, but the corporate media is so full of BS that it really is just fiction.

 

Ali khamenei did issue a fatwa against nuclear weapons according to wikipidia. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Khamenei

 

Wiki can't always be trusted, but they are generally not completely inaccurate. In recent years, there has been a review process which has removed a lot of the BS.

 

The main reason it's unlikely that either side will use nuclear weapons in the region is that the end times prophecies require the region to be there to come true. We're dealing with people who believe in those prophecies, and have been fighting for centuries to secure those lands for their prophecies. Money comes into it too, and destroying the land destroys the resources there, and the ability to access them. Nuclear war is no more likely now than it was with the soviets a few decades ago.

[waitforufo]

Watching Fox News has been shown to leave people more misinformed than not watching the news at all. Most skeptics wouldn't trust MSNBC, or any other corporate news source either. It's funny how people repeat the conservative talking points, which are fed directly to Fox and the like, yet claim the don't partake those sources. I am aware you only denied Fox, but the corporate media is so full of BS that it really is just fiction.

See, you just can't help yourself. There's no way a person can come to conclusions different from your without watching Fox News. Anyone who claims otherwise is a liar. You must take comfort in being able to dismiss all counter points of view as mindless repetition of the talking points from the evil corporate spin masters at Fox News.

The main reason it's unlikely that either side will use nuclear weapons in the region is that the end times prophecies require the region to be there to come true. We're dealing with people who believe in those prophecies, and have been fighting for centuries to secure those lands for their prophecies. Money comes into it too, and destroying the land destroys the resources there, and the ability to access them. Nuclear war is no more likely now than it was with the soviets a few decades ago.

Well heck, we should just get over these little inconveniences with Iran of about who has or wants nukes and just give them a fully nuke equipped trident sub and be done with it. Based on the above we are safe. I'm sure they would really be our friends then. It's so important to have friends.

 

Apocalyptic cults can't wait for the end times. They try to bring it to the present through there actions. Doing so will produce the paradise of which they are certain. Nothing bad will happen to them. Allah will protect them because they do His will.

 

Your wiki page opens with "This page has some issues." The fatwa is a myth.

 

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/world-report/2015/02/18/irans-nuclear-weapons-fatwa-is-a-myth

Edited April 10, 2015 by waitforufo

[iNow]

Secondly, for the record, Iran had nothing to do with 9-11. It was the US ally Saudi Arabia who did it.

Secondly, for the record, I never said Iran had anything to do with 9-11.

Speaking of "for the record," and as a point of order:

 

While none of the hijackers were Iranian, 8 of them did pass through Iran and Iranian officials failed to place entry stamps on their passports and it appears there was help with training on a flight simulator earlier in the year. This doesn't ipso facto mean Iranian leadership was involved or that they were necessarily aware of the plot to target the WTC in NYC, but there are remaining questions on this point. It also means Iran is not entirely free from guilt and that it's somewhat inaccurate to make a blanket claim that they "had nothing to do with 9/11":

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Commission_Report

The [9/11] commission's final report also offered new evidence of increased contact between Iran and al-Qaeda. The report contains information about how several of the 9/11 hijackers passed through Iran, and indicates that officials in Iran did not place entry stamps in their passports. However, according to the report (Chapter 7), there is no evidence that Iran was aware of the actual 9/11 plot. Iran has since implemented several widely publicized efforts to shut down al-Qaeda cells operating within its country.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_state-sponsored_terrorism#September_11

The 9/11 Commission Report stated that 8 to 10 of the hijackers on 9/11 passed through Iran and their travel was facilitated by Iranian border guards. The report also noted that "a senior operative of Hezbollah" (Imad Mughniyah) was on the flights that convoyed the future hijackers from Saudi Arabia to Tehran, along with associates that Kenneth Timmerman describes as "Iranian agents". The extent of Iranian involvement has been questioned due to major differences between the religious ideologies of Iran and al Qaeda;[53] according to the 9/11 Commission report, Mughniyah's presence on flights carrying the hijackers to Iran may have been a "remarkable coincidence." After the commission called for "further investigation" into a possible Iranian role in the attacks, President George W. Bush demanded that Iran sever its ties with al-Qaeda, while saying that in his view, "There was no direct connection between Iran and the attacks of September 11."

 

Judge George B. Daniels ruled in a federal district court in Manhattan that Iran bears legal responsibility for providing "material support" to the 9/11 plotters and hijackers in Havlish, et al. v. Osama bin Laden, Iran, et al. Included in Judge Daniels' findings was that Iran "used front companies to obtain a Boeing 757-767-777 flight simulator for training the terrorists", Ramzi bin al-Shibh traveled to Iran in January 2001, and an Iranian government memorandum from May 14, 2001 demonstrates Iranian culpability in planning the attacks. Defectors from Irans intelligence service testified that Iranian officials had "foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks."

 

I have clearly stated my position and it is more than just sanctions. Here it is again.

Okay, so more sanctions, then bombing when those sanctions continue in their consistent history of failure to slow or stop an Iranian nuclear program, correct?

 

I'm not misrepresenting you, am I? Sustained or additional sanctions, then bombing when those continue to fail, right?

[Airbrush]

No Iranian leader, religious or otherwise has ever issued a fatwa against nuclear weapons. Its a myth.

 

Besides we are the kafir. It's okay to lie to us if it promotes Islam. I'm sure the theocracy understands that.

 

"Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei has issued a fatwa against the development of nuclear weapons, and President Rouhani has said that Iran would never develop a nuclear weapon".

 

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/obama-supreme-leader-ayatollah-khamenei-has-issued-fatwa-against

 

Think about it. Not all nations are "kafir". So it would be a big deal for the religious and political leader of Iran to issue a sacred fatwa and then break it. It would be like the pope getting arrested and charged for a sin.

[Willie71]

Speaking of "for the record," and as a point of order:While none of the hijackers were Iranian, 8 of them did pass through Iran and Iranian officials failed to place entry stamps on their passports and it appears there was help with training on a flight simulator earlier in the year. This doesn't ipso facto mean Iranian leadership was involved or that they were necessarily aware of the plot to target the WTC in NYC, but there are remaining questions on this point. It also means Iran is not entirely free from guilt and that it's somewhat inaccurate to make a blanket claim that they "had nothing to do with 9/11":http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Commission_Reporthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_state-sponsored_terrorism#September_11Okay, so more sanctions, then bombing when those sanctions continue in their consistent history of failure to slow or stop an Iranian nuclear program, correct?I'm not misrepresenting you, am I? Sustained or additional sanctions, then bombing when those continue to fail, right?

My understanding is the report on 9-11 was deemed nothing more than fraudulent propoganda, used to justify the wars in the region. The Wiki article you linked discusses that evidence. A report by a bunch of warmongering neo-cons is not the most trustworthy source.

[waitforufo]

Okay, so more sanctions, then bombing when those sanctions continue in their consistent history of failure to slow or stop an Iranian nuclear program, correct?

 

I'm not misrepresenting you, am I? Sustained or additional sanctions, then bombing when those continue to fail, right?

 

No that is not what I said. Let's look at it again.

The US leads the P5+1 group.

 

I have clearly stated my position. Iran can have no path to the bomb ever. This position is reasonable because Iran threatens to destroy nations. It even has a holiday to calling for the destruction of nations. They have also demonstrated no respect for human rights since their founding. Until Iran agrees to this basic starting position sanctions should not only be maintained but steadily increased. If Iran develops the bomb anyway, then sanctions should again be increased until they give it up. If they appear to be readying a bomb for use then we should destroy their nuclear arsenal and their ability to make nuclear weapons. All of this should be clearly communicated to them. Again, this is a reasonable position because of their often stated intentions and actions.

You are missing two very important ifs in your interpretation of my position. If Iran made bombs Iran would be given the option to give up their nuke bombs and Iran would only be attacked if they appeared to be readying a bomb for use.

 

Now do you understand?

 

***********Edit************

 

I also said the following.

If Iran would accept international controls on its nuclear material, it can have all the nuclear power it wants.

That control would have to be out of country for Iran.

 

 

"Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei has issued a fatwa against the development of nuclear weapons, and President Rouhani has said that Iran would never develop a nuclear weapon".

 

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/obama-supreme-leader-ayatollah-khamenei-has-issued-fatwa-against

 

Think about it. Not all nations are "kafir". So it would be a big deal for the religious and political leader of Iran to issue a sacred fatwa and then break it. It would be like the pope getting arrested and charged for a sin.

Your quote you are providing "Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei has issued a fatwa against the development of nuclear weapons, and President Rouhani has said that Iran would never develop a nuclear weapon", is a quote from President Obama not from Khamenei. Show me the fatwa. It's a myth.

 

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/world-report/2015/02/18/irans-nuclear-weapons-fatwa-is-a-myth

My understanding is the report on 9-11 was deemed nothing more than fraudulent propoganda, used to justify the wars in the region. The Wiki article you linked discusses that evidence. A report by a bunch of warmongering neo-cons is not the most trustworthy source.

Who got it from Fox News right?

Edited April 10, 2015 by waitforufo

[iNow]

I'm not misrepresenting you, am I? Sustained or additional sanctions, then bombing when those continue to fail, right?

No that is not what I said. Let's look at it again.

If Iran develops the bomb anyway, then sanctions should again be increased until they give it up. If they appear to be readying a bomb for use then we should destroy their nuclear arsenal and their ability to make nuclear weapons. All of this should be clearly communicated to them.

I'm not at all clear why you think that's different from what I said, but okay I guess.

[waitforufo]

I'm not at all clear why you think that's different from what I said, but okay I guess.

Because those Ifs, make our actions dependent on their actions. Iran can stop this whenever they want.

[Airbrush]

Ok that is a good point about "fatwas" or official religious edicts by Iran's leader CAN be retracted after they decide that Muslims NEED to be defended by nuclear weapons. But that is a huge leap to start by calling nuclear weapons non-Islamic, and then later saying, "we changed our mind, now nuclear weapons are ok to defend Muslims."

 

When leadership in a country is absolute and becomes insulated from public opinion, because the people are all too afraid to protest, that leadership grows delusional, out of touch with reality. Something like Hitler's Nazi Germany or Tojo's Japan.

Edited April 11, 2015 by Airbrush

[MigL]

Let me see if I can clear up the misunderstanding between iNow and Waitforufo...

 

I think we can all agree that it would be a bad thing if Iran gets Nuclear weapons. Am I not correct ?

And the reason it would be bad is because the leadership of Iran, not the people, cannot be trusted.

So we enter into an agreement with Iran where they promise not to enrich any more weapon grade material.

Because so far, Waitforufo, punishing sanctions have made no difference to the leadership and only 'hardened' the populace's views towards us. As iNow says, they are clearly not working.

 

But then Waitforufo says, 'what makes you think they can be trusted to keep that agreement' ?

Edited April 11, 2015 by MigL

[Robittybob1]

Let me see if I can clear up the misunderstanding between iNow and Waitforufo...

 

I think we can all agree that it would be a bad thing if Iran gets Nuclear weapons. Am I not correct ?

And the reason it would be bad is because the leadership of Iran, not the people, cannot be trusted.

So we enter into an agreement with Iran where they promise not to enrich any more weapon grade material.

Because so far, Waitforufo, punishing sanctions have made no difference to the leadership and only 'hardened' the populace's views towards us. As iNow says, they are clearly not working.

 

But then Waitforufo says, 'what makes you think they can be trusted to keep that agreement' ?

What happens if ISIS takes over Iran next?

Edited April 12, 2015 by Robittybob1

[StringJunky]

What happens if ISIS takes over Iran next?

It's 89% Shia. 9% Sunni. IS is Sunni. Not very likely.

[iNow]

I've implicitly tried to highlight this point before, but find it important enough to reinforce once more. Iran is not some one-dimension monolithic bloc of people and it's ridiculous to paint everyone with one broad indistinguishing brush. There are different political powers and ideologies and the more progressive western friendly views become more common each day, even among conservatives.

 

Note that I'm not attempting to paint some Pollyannish picture and I acknowledge that significant hurdles remain to be overcome in negotiations, but we need to approach these discussions with a mature and accurate understanding of the situation before us.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2015/04/15/irans-conservative-consensus-on-the-nuclear-deal/

Explanations of the Islamic Republic of Iran’s decision to come to the negotiation table and conclude a nuclear deal often emphasize the will of Iranian voters and the election of Hassan Rouhani as president. These explanations ignore two equally important factors behind both Rouhani’s election and the decision to negotiate: Disunity among Iranian conservatives and intra-factional consensus politics in Iran.

<snip>

Especially after the controversial 2009 Iranian presidential election, many traditional conservatives began taking issue with the form and substance of the policies of former president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his hard-line conservative allies.

 

The nuclear issue was one source of tension between traditional and hard-line conservatives, with the former pushing for its resolution through negotiations in order to lift sanctions while the latter advocated continued confrontation.

<snip>

Most analyses of Iranian politics from outside the country focus on the fluently English-speaking and photogenic centrists and reformists on one hand and the bearded and bombastic hard-line conservatives on the other. However, for some time now the center of gravity in Iranian politics has shifted to traditional conservatives, whose most visible bases include the Shiite clergy and traditional mercantile class (bazaar).

 

Additionally, let's all remember that it was less than a single generation ago that the Iranian people enjoyed a much more cosmopolitan lifestyle and were actually quite similar to us in the west. It's not like the hard-liners have ruled the day since the time of the dinosaurs or something, so let's leave such ignorances behind us, shall we? As photos like the 49 at the link below suggest, Tehran relatively recently looked an awful lot like something we'd see here stateside in LA.

 

 

Life Under The Shah: What Iran Looked Like Before The Revolution >> http://all-that-is-interesting.com/shah-iran#1

[imatfaal]

Additionally, let's all remember that it was less than a single generation ago that the Iranian people enjoyed a much more cosmopolitan lifestyle and were actually quite similar to us in the west. It's not like the hard-liners have ruled the day since the time of the dinosaurs or something, so let's leave such ignorances behind us, shall we? As photos like the 49 at the link below suggest, Tehran relatively recently looked an awful lot like something we'd see here stateside in LA.

 

 

Life Under The Shah: What Iran Looked Like Before The Revolution >> http://all-that-is-interesting.com/shah-iran#1

 

It was like that AND a democracy before we got involved.

 

Beirut, Tehran, Cairo, Casablanca; from the Gulf to West African Magreb, were multi-cultural, multi-denominational, interesting, bohemian, relaxed etc... Then "Colonial Powers" reestablished the great game and played silly buggers with people's lives in a huge swathe of Persian/Arabic/Magreb land. We bear a heavy burden and at present we are trying and mostly failing to extirpate that guilt; under other administrations we were actively making it worse.

 

A large part of the problem is that no matter how clever the politicians and diplomats are (I remain to be convinced this is the case) that they try and sell whatever plan in simple black and white terms of us v them - the goodies v the baddies; it is obvious from some of the posts in this thread that this binary opposition has taken root in at least some people. That combines with the incredible shortsightedness of accepting the barbarous actions of a dictator because he is "our bastard" and leads to create a completely skewed, counter-productive, and inappropriate dialogue between administration and public.

[waitforufo]

I've implicitly tried to highlight this point before, but find it important enough to reinforce once more. Iran is not some one-dimension monolithic bloc of people and it's ridiculous to paint everyone with one broad indistinguishing brush. There are different political powers and ideologies and the more progressive western friendly views become more common each day, even among conservatives.

 

Note that I'm not attempting to paint some Pollyannish picture and I acknowledge that significant hurdles remain to be overcome in negotiations, but we need to approach these discussions with a mature and accurate understanding of the situation before us.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2015/04/15/irans-conservative-consensus-on-the-nuclear-deal/

 

 

Additionally, let's all remember that it was less than a single generation ago that the Iranian people enjoyed a much more cosmopolitan lifestyle and were actually quite similar to us in the west. It's not like the hard-liners have ruled the day since the time of the dinosaurs or something, so let's leave such ignorances behind us, shall we? As photos like the 49 at the link below suggest, Tehran relatively recently looked an awful lot like something we'd see here stateside in LA.

 

 

Life Under The Shah: What Iran Looked Like Before The Revolution >> http://all-that-is-interesting.com/shah-iran#1

Was that a picture of the Shah? The evil SOB put in power by Ike? The source of all evil that produced the Iranian revolution that put the theocracy in power? That's your example of the good life in Iran?

 

No one is saying the Iranian people are a monolithic block. The Iranian theocracy, which controls all the power an Iran, is a monolithic block. I'm sure Germany had lots of liberal minded nice people living in it while Hitler was in power and the same could be said about the USSR under Stalin. Those nice west leaning Iranians are doing nothing to change the power structure in Iran. Like I said, If they get uppity you just have to publicly kill a few of them and they calm down quick. That's true everywhere. Even here in the USA. How many college campuses were taken over after four died in Ohio?

[iNow]

The Iranian theocracy, which controls all the power an Iran, is a monolithic block.

<snip>

Those nice west leaning Iranians are doing nothing to change the power structure in Iran.

It's on these two specific points that we now disagree.

[MigL]

It would be interesting to know wether the Iranian population misses life under the Shah, or if he's still detested by the populace.

[CharonY]

It would be interesting to know wether the Iranian population misses life under the Shah, or if he's still detested by the populace.

 

Which one? In either case, chances are that answers would differ depending on which portion of the populace you ask.

[MigL]

Only old people in their 70s would have known more than one Shah.

[Airbrush]

 

Which one? In either case, chances are that answers would differ depending on which portion of the populace you ask.

 

That means the vast majority of Iranians are probably anti-Shah. Because he was of a wealthy elite, out of touch with the common people, and because public opinion has been so anti-Shah for so long that you can be sure the textbooks in Iran are biased against the Shah and favorable to the Theocracy.

[CharonY]

Only old people in their 70s would have known more than one Shah.

 

While true, considering the age demographics a minority of the current population would have personal experience with the second, either (assuming an age of ~10 to have actually some significant pre-revolution memories less than a third of the population from 2011, where I found census data would have been that age or older in 1979).

Thus the majority of the population would only know it from historic contexts. And that one was tainted due to the fact that his installment was based on foreign powers. Though the lead-up to Mossadegh's election would have been the most relevant time, as there the democratic movement was arguably at its peak.

 

Depending on who you talk to, the view of Iranians with regard to their history is quite complicated. Especially among the more modern folk it seems that in historic context they liked the initiated modernization under daddy Shah, but more important to them was the opening of the political system. Even the politics of his son was seen somewhat positive (even including parts of the white revolution) but it is acknowledged that he become more and more despotic and he is also somewhat despised due to his reliance on foreign powers. As a parallel line to the modernization there is also the nationalistic movement to consider, which focuses on the Persian identity and the right for self-determination and democratization, which ended with deposing Mossaddegh. You would be surprised how knowledgeable some Iranians are with regards to their history and what nuanced views they have.

But it obviously depends on who you talk to.

 

actually liked the modernization and considere

[MigL]

The thing about despots, is that usually ( eventually ? ) they are overthrown by the armed forces. Then either a general becomes the new despot, or sometimes ( at least when viewed through the rosy glasses of history ) you end up with the Pashas who secularized and remade Turkey into a modern state. That is not to say that they wouldn't be viewed as despots today.

 

Even Iraq advanced and ran more efficiently under S. Hussein.

And the biggest advancements made by Germany, economically and technologically, were under Hitler.

The same could be argued for Stalin and Mao.

[overtone]

 

 

The thing about despots, is that usually ( eventually ? ) they are overthrown by the armed forces.

Not exactly - usually there's a series of coups, and the winner is despot for a long, long time. Then a foreign country lines up a local ally and enough of the army to dump him.

 

 

Even Iraq advanced and ran more efficiently under S. Hussein.

Not really. Saddam's war with Iran hurt it badly, and its immediately prior history had been artificial, and its Kurds and Shia majority fared poorly under Saddam.

 

And the biggest advancements made by Germany, economically and technologically, were under Hitler.

Germany was trashed by the Kaiser's bellicosity, suffered the consequences, fell for another one and was trashed by Hitler's bellicosity, suffered the consequences, and owed most of its economic and technological advances to the Jewish intellectual elite it nurtured and robbed before suffering the consequences again.

 

The same could be argued for Stalin and Mao.

Except for the part about bringing prosperity, then being deposed by the country's army (didn't happen to Hitler, or Mao, or Stalin, or Suharto, or Mott, or Castro, or Pinochet, or Marcos, or Ceaușescu, or Tito, or Hussein, or Peron, or Hoxha, or Yew, or Franco, or so many others)

Fascists, which despots in modern industrial economies tend to be, do not make the trains run on time.

And the Shah of Iran was not deposed by the military after bringing prosperity to his country.