The fact that Iran is sitting on a sea of oil and natural gas might be the very reason why Iran wants a nuclear program. With the price of oil and gas escalating, other countries like America and China at some point are going to want that oil and natural gas. If Iran doesn't get the bomb, they run the risk of being overrun by a bigger country at some point in the next 50 years.

I'm totally amazed at the discussions on Iran's nuclear program. It was began under the Shah with American knowledge and technology. Why was it encouraged then and treated as a casus belli now? Iran has signed the NPT and is in total compliance with it as far as the IAEA has determined. It did begin the enrichment of some Uranium, allowed under the NPT, without informing the IAEA, also allowed under the treaty, which raised some peoples suspicions. It's entirely plausible that Iran, which has passed its peak oil production and continues to have large gas reserves, recognizes the high value these commodities will have as export items in an energy constrained world and wishes to provide for its domestic electrical needs with nuclear generation and reserve its oil and gas for export.

Is this the right message we should be sending to Iran and the world?

No, it's more Bush bluster that has been so destructive with North Korea and Iraq. Any pressure on Iran should come from the international community and requires some evidence of Iranian violation of the NPT. There is none!

Is there a better solution that you can think of to get Iran back to the table of negotiations?

Yes, the United States should agree to join the discussions and offer the the security guarantees that Iran is seeking. The inability of the Europeans to offer such assurance in any meaningful way led to the break down of negotiations.

One can only conclude that Bush once again is seeking an excuse for military action. It's hard to believe given the situation in Iraq but like an addicted gambler he may be seeking to cover his losses by taking on Iran next.

You really need this answered? You think perhaps relations between Iran and America, or Europe have changed since then? Besides no one is seeking to completely remove nuclear power capabilities from Iran. The E3 offered Iran the deal of having nuclear fuel provided to them. It is nuclear fuel enrichment that they wish to prevent Iran from doing unsupervised and unregulated as they believe she will build a bomb.




This is not the least bit true...not in the least. Iran is not in compliance with her agreements with the IAEA and any other additional agreements she has committed herself to. Just for your own awareness Iran agreed to suspend enrichment in 2003.
The IAEA recently adopted a resolution against Iran.


The statement said "outstanding issues relating to Iran's nuclear program have yet to be resolved, and that the [International Atomic Energy] agency [IAEA] is not yet in a position to conclude that there are no undeclared nuclear materials or activities in Iran", AP said.

The IAEA asked its chief, Mohamed ElBaradei, to report on Iran's compliance by 3 September.
source

If you have any evidence that this big international crisis has been resolved please share it with us.

This is what the Neocons and the Bush Administration would have you believe. Here is an article by Gordon Prather that summarizes the Iranian compliance issue. He is no light weight.



A couple of excerpts from the article:

Prather Article

My point is not that Iran is not a potential proliferation issue, rather it is that Iran is in compliance, that it insists on maintaining it rights under the NPT, and that it offered a negotiation path that we refused to follow apparently because we were unwilling to offer security guarantees.

Actually I don't think this is a "neocon" belief or even one only held by the Bush admin. It was three separate European nations that recently pursued this through negotiations with Iran. Also I was not told what to believe by anyone. I have researched, investigated, followed and educated myself on this subject and I have used a myriad of sources for doing so.

I don't quite understand the bio offering..am I to present my arguments to you or to your heavy Mr. Prather?

I read the article in it's entirety and it really honestly does not support your claim that "Iran has signed the NPT and is in total compliance with it as far as the IAEA has determined"
It more or less supports the argument, that I myself have previously already presented here in this debate, that the NPT does allow for and accommodates the inalienable right of nations to pursue peaceful nuclear use. And that the negotiations that the US and the Europeans wish for will allow further restrictions than just what the NPT already requires. I have already argued this point and I am in full agreement that it is true.

What the article neglects to inform ..or weigh in on..is the fact that Iran has signed and agreed to further restrictions and disclosures regarding her nuclear programs. As I stated in my previous post in 2003 she did suspend her nuclear enrichment process and it was done kinda sorta in a very official manner with compliance and oversight of the IAEA.
In his report to the Board at that time, Dr. ElBaradei stated that "Iran has committed itself to a policy of full disclosure and has decided, as a confidence building measure, not only to sign the Additional Protocol, making way for more robust and comprehensive inspections, but also to take the important step of suspending all enrichment related and reprocessing activities and to accept IAEA verification of this suspension. These are positive and welcome steps which I very much hope will be sustained."
source

I think under the additional protocol and the original that Iran is in total violation and it is without question deliberately and intentionally deceptive towards the process.
The biggest reason or offering Iran gave at the time for signing the additional agreements and suspending enrichment was in order to help build confidence and show their eagerness towards negotiations. Yet as I have already shown twice in this debate Iran admitted recently the real reason was because the E3 negotiations allowed for more time.
The IAEA gave us a 50-day extension to suspend the enrichment and all related activities. But thanks to the negotiations with Europe we gained another year, in which we completed (the UCF) in Esfahan.

It is quite obvious to all now accept perhaps Mr. Prather that Iran intentionally misled the international community and purposefully misrepresented her willingness to negotiate in order to gain more time and complete the building of her nuclear program.

The reality is that the NPT and most importantly that little bit about peaceful use only has political will as an assurance and Iran has shown she has none.

bucket is totally right on this one. The neocon mythology has struck again it seems obscuring real issues and replacing them with hysteria politics.

The fact is Iran is not complying, if this goes the the Security Council, they'll have no one to blame but themselves.

Chirac says Iran must halt nuclear activities

Bucket, I think you are confusing agreements with the IAEA with the terms of the NPT. Please be specific concerning your view that the Iranians have violated the NPT. I know of no credible claim that they have. What Iranians did do was voluntarily inform the IAEA that they had secretely manufactured and acquired centrifuges to enrich uranium after the U.S. pressured Russia to not deliver turn key centrifuges. Furthermore, they declared that they then planned to construct first a pilot enrichment plan and then a full scale enrichment plant. These are things they have a right to do under the NPT so long as they are monitored by the IAEA.

This raised legitimate concerns that Iran might surreptitiously develop the technology to enrich not only to the 3% U235 required for a power plant but also to the 90% or so level required for a nuclear device. However, Iran offered to open negotiations with the Europeans and the U.S. regarding economic incentives and security guarantees in lieu of proceeding with enrichment and to freeze its program in the meantime. The Europeans opened negotiations but the U.S. refused to participate and refused to offer any kind of security guarantees and maintained all of their economic sanctions. The administration also continued its belligerent rhetoric regarding Iran. Consequently, there should be little question why Iran refused the European offer when the country they feared would offer no concession.

For what it's worth, here is another article that reviews the situation in a more moderate tone. Iranian Crisis

Even though you haven't claimed otherwise, some have, so here is a link explaining in some detail why Iran might have a legitimate desire for nuclear plants. Need for Nuclear



I'm glad we agree on this point. However, if the US wishes for additional restrictions why has it refused to participant and only grudgingly supported the European efforts while not putting anything on the table itself? What the Iranians want most is for the US to lift its sanctions and offer substantive security guarantees.



I assume this was a quote from someone. Can you provide the source so I can look at it in context? Thanks!

Discussion on this board stopped with the Katrina disaster unfolding. Since the US is moving ahead with its futile attempt to get the UN to sanction Iran and provide an excuse for "other" action, it is important to continue discussing this. Writing in the Asia Times, Pepe Escobar provides an oil dimension to this confrontation. With his usual elegance, he waits until the last two sentences of this Sept. 10 article to evoke the crisis over the Iranian nuclear program.[1] -- The last two sentences: "a peaceful, non-confrontational solution to the nuclear issue will be in the interest of all players involved. But not necessarily in the interest of Washington." -- The reason: Iran has been most successful in situating itself as a key player in exporting the vast quantities of oil and gas in the Caspian Basin by building pipelines that allow it to swap oil with surrounding countries, soon allowing it to get equivalent amounts of energy to Europe and Asia without using the recently opened but much less economical but U.S.-inspired and U.S.-financed Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) pipeline. -- (Somehow these facts don't find themselves discussed in the New York Times.) -- Could it be that if the U.S. or Israel find themselves "forced" to attack Iran's nuclear facilities, quite a few of the laser-guided munitions will be striking Iranian pipelines and pumping stations? Asia Times Article.

Remember Scott Ritter, the former head of the weapons inspectors in Iraq, who insisted throughout the run up to the invasion that Iraq had no WMDs that could threaten anyone. Events proved him to be correct in almost every respect but still the corporate media won't take him seriously. Now, writing on Aljazeera.net, Ritter insists that the Europeans have been trapped and that war is inevitable unless they reconsider.



................................................................................
.......................

Ritter Article.

Anyone want to bet on the price of gasoline if this happens?

I have already linked the source two or three times in this debate. You can easily find it if you review my past posts.


I am sorry that article's ending is not very impressive. It just hangs there ...with nothing supporting it. One has to assume or agree to the unsubstantiated claim or assumptions that America..or as it was specified Washington does not wish for peace in Iraq, ...or Syria, or Iran for that matter. And this is all proven with what? Because other's have economic strengths? Or resources? Yes and?

Also that article seemed to be alluding to a belief that not only does Washington not wish for peace in this region she also wishes to restrict her allies access to their much needed resources.

It also attempted to portray the US as an outsider in the international trade of oil and gas..which seems very absurd really.

Also the article's ending was a claim that Washington was not in favour of these things..which Washington? Past, present, future? The last thing anyone could claim in regards to Washington and Tehran's relationship is that it is consistent and predictable and so easily explained that you could sum it up in a final paragraph. It has even taken a twist this week.

None of the above is anything I am inclined to believe or support in argument...and I read nothing in that article to convince me otherwise.

The Iraq/Iran pipeline that is in operation was in fact not publicly disapproved by the Bush admin...in fact the opposite occurred..
"We leave the whole diplomatic question in the hands of the Iraqis. Paul Bremer (the US chief administrator in Iraq) says he realises they (the Iraqis) have to have good relations with all their neighbours," one senior coalition official said.
source



Could you please support this claim? Because your linked article seems to portray another picture..
Iran is currently producing 4.3 million barrels of oil a day. It used to be 6 million in 1978, immediately before the Islamic revolution. According to OPEC's current quota system, Iran will only reach this level again in 2025. The Petroleum Ministry for its part argues that Iran will be producing 7 million barrels a day by 2015.

The reason for this lack of production is given as...
Lack of investment in the maintenance of oil and gas installations; lack of rebuilding of installations destroyed during the 1980s Iran-Iraq war; years of non-relations with foreign companies; terrible management; and crucially, American sanctions.

And the solution your own article offers is...
But every player in the industry at large knows the key for Iran is to be able to attract much-needed foreign investment.

I have searched for your original post showing a source for this quotation using the fairly unique word "Esfahan." I find several repetitions of the quote but no source for any or them. Please help me out.



The pipeline referred to in your quote was one designed to provide an avenue for the export of Iraqi oil not Caspian Sea oil and is irrelevant to Iranian competition with the BTC pipeline.





My quotation cited is an out of context quotation of my summary of the article. The article speaks for itself. It is my personal view that the pipeline competition is only one of the issues motivating the administration toward confrontation with Iran.

Here is another Gordon Prather article on the status of the confrontation. And here are two articles from the Financial Times and Washington Post also indicating that the US's UN offensive against Iran appears stalled.

I couldn't discern what you were trying to get at by citing the Iranian production statistics and need for outside capital and expertise. What's the point?

It is here



Yes I understood that but your article tried to prove that such a pipeline is inevitable through Iran/Iraq/Syria by showing that Iran and Iraq are already exchanging oil through their newly built pipeline. The article even claimed that Washington was horrified by this..because apparently ..according to the author..Iraq engaging in open trade is against American interests.

You claimed that "Iran has been most successful in situating itself as a key player in exporting the vast quantities of oil and gas in the Caspian Basin "
Yet I felt your article told a different story. Iran is not up to it's peak oil production, it will take a large amount of FDI to make Iran a key exporter...so in reality Iran can not successful situate herself in such a position with out foreign cooperation, encouragement and money. The US being one of the more important figures since your own article claimed that US sanctions were one of the key reasons Iran's oil production was so low.


I will read your other articles when I have more time.

That link didn't work anymore, Bucket. Here is another.



Regarding the Scott Ritter opinion piece posted earlier by TedN5... I must ignore the rantings of a proven schizophrenic who has irrevocably discredited himself in the past.

Back when he resigned he was interviewed on pbs and had this to say: His report formed the basis for much of our intelligence on Iraq. Now, he's writing opinion pieces on Iran for Al Jazeera. I think this all speaks for itself.

Yes, it is true that I think the success of Iran in providing a cheaper alternative to the American BTC pipeline is another reason for the administration's confrontation with that country. However, this has nothing to do with their production levels past or present. Caspian oil is not produced by Iran. They are merely providing a transportation corridor for it and in some cases using Caspian oil domestically and exporting formerly domestically consumed oil from the Southern region of the country. As for investment funds, given the rapid run up in oil prices in recent years, Iran is much better shape than it was.

Let me reiterate, however, that I also regard Iran as a proliferation threat. What I am criticizing is the administrations use of this threat to provoke a confrontation rather than joining in serious negotiations to avoid a nuclear armed Iran. It's counter productive and reminds one of the North Korean stand off.

Thank you and Mrs. Pigpen for the link to your excerpts from the Iranian negotiators interview. I would have preferred a complete transcript but the excerpts are significant. I probably didn't read them the way both of you did, however. I found nothing that I found particularly alarming - it was mostly an explanation for a domestic audience regarding the Iranian negotiating strategy. The fact that they used the negotiating time to complete some nuclear fuel facilities is not new. What I did find significant was his open declaration that the IAEA would have definitely referred the Iranian issue to the Security Council absent the European negotiation. I plan to explore this farther.



Scott Ritter is a Republican with a long military record and experience as an inspector and team leader with UNSCOM, not exactly a leftist like myself. He was very critical of the Clinton Administration and the Security Council for not being more hard nosed about inspections before his resignation in 1998. To his credit, he later became a critic of the sanction regime. He vehemently opposed the campaign for the invasion and certainly called the real WMD threat much more accurately than any administration official. How can anyone doubt that we would be much better off if we had listened to him? The fact that he has been the subject of character assassination since beginning to question the powerful is no different than the fate of numerous others including Ambassador Wilson, Richard Clark, Seibel Shepard, and many others. Let's let him minimally speak for himself in this Time Magazine interview.



The difference between Ritter and the administration is and was that he wanted to pressure for effective inspections not seek an excuse for a war that had ulterior motives.

I just realized or perhaps I am incorrect but you seem to believe that Iran's pipeline is already built and ready for operation. It isn't. It is still..only a pipe dream har har.

BTC took over 10 years and close to 4 billion USD and it's most exciting sell is not is affordability but rather it's avoidance of certain nations in and around the Persian Gulf..something Iran can not offer.

My point of listing or just selectively quoting bits from your original article was to show a Iran that I am more familiar with...not this superior, fit and politically well aligned Iran you seem to believe in. You and I have very different beliefs.
If Iran suffers so much now from her own deteriorated and substandard oil production structures..and if the article you used is correct in saying Iran alone is not capable of updating this, or producing oil at the once exported levels without a great influx of FDI exactly how are we supposed to believe that Iran will in turn have the funds to construct, operate and maintain an oil line in an incredibly unstable region? Don't these two realities contradict one another? Put that in line with her other mass projects ohh like nuclear arms production and a hitler-esque rural depopulation program..and I am left wondering how will Iran fund all of this?



This assertion of yours..that our nation some how avoids negotiations over favored military threat is not the least bit proven especially when one considers our long and arduous relationship with Iran. And your attempt to further prove our nation's dislike for "serious negotiations" with the North Korean example is completely inconsistent with reality. North Korea has agreed to end its nuclear weapons program after how many years of negotiations that America was a major player in?


The other evening I saw footage of the Lebanon bombings of US Marines...horrific and yet you sit here concerned about America's aggressive threats towards Iran. After the UN speech by the newly elected president do you still feel we are the aggressors and that we are the one throwing around wild accusations and hatred? Do you perhaps question even slightly Iran's nuclear agenda?

Sorry for the double post..but I had expired the edit.

I thought it might be of some use or contribution to this debate to highlight the newly elected president to Iran's speech to the United Nations. I have read several articles on the effects his approach or manner of addressing the UN may have on the international handling of Iran and her nuclear ambitions. Most are in agreement that the Iranian president has made America's case for her..Iran is a threat.

I wrote in another debate on the election of the new president of Iran that...
Looks like now the Iranian gov. has finally agreed that this little charade of reform wasn't working. I personally am glad with the results..now perhaps when America starts getting sick and tired of the Iranian run around our allies won't have any more of the of Iranian reform facades to point to.

The speech given to the Un last week was exactly the kind of unmasking I had in mind.

Full text of President Ahmadinejad's speech at General Assembly