Nuclear Iran, Reloaded

In the Reloaded version of my blog, I'll write about Iran, its nuclear program, its culture, and most importantly, myself.

Monday, February 28, 2005

changing position or tactics?

While IAEA does not have new information about Iran's nuclear program and only asks for cooperation, in a recent Washington Posts report, Robin Wright writes:

    "Now, the administration appears willing, at least in the short term, to hold out the prospect of tentative engagement with Iran"
It seems that the second scenario is under study.

Sunday, February 27, 2005

know-how and do, know-how and don't

As stated in the top left corner, the writings in this blog are my understandings about Iran's nuclear issues. Although I am proud of my nationality, I don't like the way current authorities in Iran rule my homeland. I hate it when intelligent productive individuals are deprived of decision-making positions because of their way of thinking. Iran, with a good administrative lead, could have been in a much better position than what it is now.

Therefore, what you read here is a blend of nationalism and hatred about the nuclear issues. I am not trying to justify whatever the Iranian government has done or is doing, but I will challenge all parties involved.

Today, Washington Posts's
Iran Was Offered Nuclear Parts discussed the information found from Iran's 1987 deal with Khan's associate. Iran was offered the knowledge, design, and parts for a nuclear weapon program.

    "There is evidence, however, that Iran used the offer as a buyer's guide, acquiring some of the pricier items elsewhere, officials said . . .

    . . . Over the last two years, the IAEA has uncovered an 18-year-old nuclear program, which the Iranians began in secret and in violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. But because much of the equipment can be used for energy development and there is no evidence of past weapons work, the violations are technical and based on Iran's not reporting the program . . .

    . . . Khan and his associates stood to gain millions from the sales, but the agency believes Iran outsmarted the dealers by buying much of the equipment and technology at lower prices from European, Russian and Chinese competitors during the early 1990s. The equipment was used for programs that could develop nuclear energy, and there is no evidence the materials were assembled in a manner consistent with bomb-building."

OK. They aquired the knowledge some 15 years ago, they bought the centrifuges from Khan's associates, and they obtained some other parts.

Some questions are to be asked from Iranian officials:
1. Why didn't they make the bomb then if they knew how to do it and aquired the stuff?
2. Why did they wait for the Bushehr Power Plant to come close to operation? intentionally or unintentionally?
3. If they assert that their nuclear activities are for peaceful purposes, why did they buy the stuff from black-market?
4. If they assert that their nuclear activities are for peaceful purposes, why didn't they report their activities on-time?

possible scenarios/factors, part (1), Iranians are after the bomb:

  1. It was delayed for financial/technical/administrative problems.
  2. unintentionally
  3. not applicable.
  4. not applicable.

possible scenarios/factors, part (2), Iranians are not after the bomb:

  1. not applicable.
  2. intentionally
  3. M. Zarif, Iran's embassador to UN, said on an interview with CBC (I can't find the link, hope I am wrong about the CBC) that Iran couldn't aquire the parts from the legal market due to sanctions.
  4. although they didn't want to, they eventually had to. I personally don't blame them if their justification for question 3 is sound. I wouldn't have told anybody if I got such a thing from black-market.

I thik the second scenario makes more sence, or I may say perfect sence.

My understanding is that the Mullahs did ask "intelligent productive individuals" for their nuclear plans, otherwise they wouldn't have been capable of planning such sophisticated (and impressive) programs. (The mullahs or their family members could not have done so!) There are many many Iranian scientists outside the country that don't take their chances of going back to Iran.

suspicious delay and confidential deal!

MehrNews reports that the deal between Iran and Russia was signed less than an hour ago. Details of the agreement were confidential!

Monday, February 21, 2005

What if EU-Iran talks fails?

I suggest you read the LATimes' Iran Will Dominate Bush's Europe Trip, where the authors say:

"Some experts predicted that transatlantic relations would be further strained if the European initiative were to collapse and the U.S. tried to take the issue to the Security Council."

This complicated issue does not seem to have a binary solution (an engineering way of saying "straightforward solution"), similar to what Iraq's problem had (a solution that led to Iraq's occupation).

Two scenarios exist:

1. United States can refuse to back the EU-Iran talks, which will doom it to failure. This would make the problem more sophisticated when US wants to take the case to Security Council and some veto powered nations (such as Europeans/Russia/China) resist. Some may say a war would follow. But I don't even think that military action against Iran is an option on Washington's table, because: (1) US is still struggling in Iraq (2) Oil prices are already high, (3) The public and old allies of the States wouldn't buy America's accusations about Iran after Iraq's War. Accusations that are proven wrong by through IAEA inspections, and blunted by Putin's recent statement. (4) American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan (and also Israel) are in reach of Iran's missiles.

2. United States can back the negotiations which wouldn't be possible without taking part in it. That way United States may have to 1. remove sanctions against Iran, 2. release the frozen assets of Iran, 3. deport the known Iraq-based terrorist organizations that oppose the Iranian regime (such as National Council of Resistance of Iran), and 4. remove Iran from the list of nations advocating terrorists (or simply stop addressing Iran! :) ). I personally don't think Iran would settle for anything less if it comes to negotiations with the great Satan!. Anything less is probably not sufficient enough for Iran to satisfy its hardliners when it abandons its right to develop nuclear fuel. Whatever Iran is supposed to do (and will do) in addition to scraping its enrichment facilities, will not be broadcasted.

Any other option you think?

Sunday, February 20, 2005

Iran's Nuclear Program (a session in USC)

Iran's Nuclear Program. Part I: Its History
Iran's Nuclear Program. Part II: Are Nuclear Reactors Necessary?
Iran's Nuclear Program. Part III: The Emerging Crisis

Thursday, February 17, 2005

Definition problem

I don't like to see anyone killed by anyone else in anyway. I don't like fights, I don't like death sentences, I don't like wars, and I don't like terrorism.
I am sure that individuals/nations involved in any of the abovementioned acts can justify their purpose. However, I still don't understand the meaning of terrorism, and I can't analyze the justifications.


  1. Is it people killing people?
  2. Is it soldiers killing soldiers?
  3. Is it people killing soldiers?
  4. or is it soldiers killing people?
This is what I think and is incomplete:
Number 1 is called FIGHT.
Number 2 is called WAR.
Number 3: I don't know, may be defence!
Number 4: This is what I hate the most and is probably what terrorism is all about.

What about the Israel-Palestine conflict?
What about Iran killing its dissidents?
What about Iraq bombing Kurds with chemicals during the Iran-Iraq war?

I raised the issue and I'll comment on it a little bit more later.

Wednesday, February 16, 2005

Related Material

EIR's Bill Clinton Extraordinary Davos Interview: On Iran; Debt; the Dollar:

Clinton: "Most of the terrible things Saddam Hussein did in the 1980s he did with the full, knowing support of the United States government, because he was in Iran, and Iran was what it was because we got rid of the parliamentary democracy back in the '50s; at least, that is my belief."

Reuters' Oil Jumps Then Retreats on Iran Reports

BBC's Large explosion in southern Iran

Washington Post's IAEA Head Disputes Claims on Iran Arms: U.S. Called Inconsistent in Nuclear Talks:

"The head of the U.N. agency responsible for investigating Iran's nuclear program said Tuesday that there had been no discoveries in the last six months to substantiate claims that the Islamic state is secretly working toward building a nuclear bomb."

Thursday, February 10, 2005

Iran solution?

This is what I think about Rodger A. Payne's recent post:

“What would the Bush administration do if, in the next few months, Europe
announces that Iran has agreed to a comprehensive nonproliferation accord,
with intrusive IAEA inspections?”

I don’t think this will happen in future. This idea has already been materialized.

About “Tony Blair communicating this message on American television”, I don’t think it happen either. EU and US are both playing the same game, but at two different roles (and therefore, they don’t need to communicate on American television). I also agree with "Always Confused" in the previous comment that US want to show “who’s the boss” in this game.

“Anyone believe Iran will go for that?”

Iran has already gone for transparency (as it has been mentioned in UN’s November 2004 resolution) about its legal nuclear activities. Iran claims that it does not have any nuclear weapons program, and it has not yet been proven wrong. Therefore, “voluntary disarmament” wouldn’t make sense unless you believe in the US accusations (as I did before the war on Iraq).

But “voluntary disarmament” is not what US is after: they want Iran to fully abandon its nuclear research program, no matter what the purpose. Iranian officials don’t care about Iran’s needs for energy as much as they care about their existence and wealth. Apparently, they are confident that US is not able to endanger their existence with their current involvement in Iraq. I think there is only one thing that US can do to persuade Iran to stop its nuclear activities and that is to release the frozen assets of Iran (estimated to be $8 billion).

“Anyone believe the Bush administration will settle for less?”

That I can’t guess.

Afraid and Unfair

US is so afraid of seeing Iranian mullahs with Nuclear Bombs at hand, and it is not so hard to figure out why. Although Iran has denied US accusations of having a secret nuclear weapon program, and the fact that its denials has not yet been proven wrong by IAEA inspectors, US continues its allegations. US not only accuses Iran of its covert weapons program, but it brings up other issues such as "supporting terrorism" and "human rights".

Despite the fact that I don't like Iranian mullahs have access to nuclear weapons, I do see their current peaceful activities as a right for all Iranians. US officials, similarly, don't like to see Iranian mullahs have acces to nukes, but they don't care about the right of Iranian people.

No matter what alibi they come up with for their objective, and no matter right or wrong (wrong as the one for Iraq), US officials just don't want Iranians to get close to the vicinity of nuclear technology (peaceful or unpeaceful). There is no doubt that US is acting "unfair" about these issues, and this is why:

1. US has double standards about nuclear issues. Having nuclear Israel close to its borders, Iran has enough reasons to think of nuclear weapons. While muslim brother nation, Pakistan, or the close ally, Russia, both with nuclear power, will never endanger Iran's regime, they wouldn't protect Iran against the hostile Israel.

2. While US is long due to neutralize its nuclear warheads, and while it is working on its bunker-buster (a type of nuclear boms), it is asking Iran to drop all its nuclear program (even the part for peaceful purposes).

3. US continues its unsubstantiated accusations of Iran persuing nuclear bomb while no such evidence has been found by IAEA inspectors.

4. US ignores Iranian's need for alternative source of energy.

If I were among the Iranian officials, I would have:

1. repeadedly shot back accusations, stating that United States has to drop its research on nuclear weapons.

2. hold a referendum on the issue, asking Iranian people to decide whether or not to go ahead with the uranium enrichment.

... to be continued.

Sunday, February 06, 2005

Headline news summary

Patrick Clawson's U.S.-Iran Relations: A Danger to Gulf Stability:
detailed document about America's policy towards Iran

BBC’s text and video:
Dr. Hassan Rohani said Iran's ability to produce its own nuclear parts had made it "invulnerable" to attack since it could simply rebuild whatever was destroyed.

Hassan Rohani told Reuters that “the West could offer nothing that would persuade it to scrap its nuclear program”, not even the removal of U.S. sanctions on Iran or security guarantees from Washington.

CNN’s report: Asefi shot back accusations toward Washington: Abu Ghraib is U.S.'s shame.

CBC’s Frequently Asked Questions about Iran’s Nuclear Program

CBC’s Frequently Asked Questions about Iran’s Nuclear Program:

It has to be mentioned that the information in the above mentioned document has not been updated lately (last updated on November 29, 2004). The following Question/Answer is an example:

“Hasn't Iran opened its program to inspections?Yes, according to Iran. Not totally, according to the IAEA.”

IAEA says otherwise now. “Not totally” hasn’t been the case since 29 Nov 2004, when the IAEA resolution was adopted. They have had access to all the nuclear sites they wanted. Even IAEA inspectors were allowed to visit the open area of the Parchin military site to look for traces of nuclear activities after the false claim by US. It should be noted that inspecting military sites is not part of the NPT.
US takes any opportunity to claim that Iran is secretly developing nuclear weapons, a claim that has not been proven.

Friday, February 04, 2005

Ms. Rice is not as harsh as she sounds.

I am really surprised by Ms. Rice's change in prospect about Iran's issue. As reported by CBC (text, video):

Rice warned that Iran must not "use the cover" of civilian nuclear power development "to sustain a program that can lead to a nuclear weapon."

So, the only problem is: "it [Iran's Nuclear Program] can lead to a nuclear weapon" and not "it is a nuclear program". United States distorts the truth so badly, sometime they themselves forgot what they lied about.

The Iranian government lied about their Nuclear Program and they are suffering from it now (their credibility can't be fixed even by accepting impromptu inspections by IAEA). Though, the question is "When is America going to suffer from their lies?" They diverted the attentions on "Afghanistan" to "WMD in Iraq", then to "Iraqi Elections", and now to "Iran's nuclear program". How long does this scenario work?

Is it for peacful purposes?

The question I am try to get answer to is the following:
Are Iranian Mullahs after making nuclear weapon?

The answer is: it is not clear yet.
(a solid YES or NO would be a wrong answer, unless you are the Mullah)

Until few months ago, I thought they have taken steps towards making a nuclear bomb. But they haven’t. They have had the centrifuges, the yellow cake, and no trace of highly enriched material. The later was the part I doubted, but after IAEA’s close inspections of the sites, I am pretty sure there is no enriched material that the mullahs can use for making a bomb. Otherwise it would have been on the headline news for weeks (and BTW, there would have been no nuclear talks between EU and Iran) .

The tones seem to be changing too. They frequency of calling it a "weapons program" is reducing in the news and the concerns are more over "diverting to weapons program". Financial Times article on Feb 04 writes:

"But the EU says it cannot deliver until it has assurances that Iran's programme will not be used to develop weapons. Contrary to US assertions that Iran has a military nuclear weapons programme, Tehran maintains its programme is peaceful."

I guess that is an achievement for Iran's government to convince -at least- some EU diplomats that its current nuclear program is for peaceful purposes.

The question that is raised at this point is:
Why does such a religious dictatorship government become suddenly so determined to build Iran’s nuclear powerplants? Let’s talk about it later.

I guess it is getting screwed up.

In a recent Financial Times article on Feb 04, Daniel Dombey describes the stage EU-Iran talk is at.

Iran: "speedier, more concrete benefits in trade and technological ties"
EU : "Iran is expecting too much, too soon"!!!!

Iranian government shouldn't be very surprised. EU has been playing this game along with US in the same accord to stop Iran from acquiring the knowledge and technology of nuclear technology. They shouldn't be fooled by their different prospect of the issue, it is part of the game.

In this article in Mehr News (in Persian), which describes what Hossein Mousavian said in the interview with the FT, he insists that "dismantling of all activities related to uranium enrichment" has neither been requested nor discussed by Europeans.

Thursday, February 03, 2005

I am concerned....

Since I am concerned about my country's atomic issues, I will post links to recent news about Iran's Nuclear Plans. I'll try to comment on what I think is not correct. Or what needs to be done.