Friday, December 4, 2009

Iran's Nuclear (Weapons?) Program and the IAEA

In today's news, noted and recorded:
"Official says Iran to limit cooperation with IAEA"
The Associated Press (December 4, 2009)

"A nuclear official said Friday Iran will not answer to the U.N. nuclear watchdog about its plans to build 10 new uranium enrichment sites beyond the barest minimum required under the international nonproliferation treaty.

"The comments by Abolfazl Zohrehvand, an adviser to the country's top nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili, came days after President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Iran was considering whether to scale back cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency after it approved a resolution censuring Iran over its nuclear program.

"If Iran follows through on the threat, it would be another slap to Western efforts to curtail Iran's nuclear program for fear it is aimed at building weapons.

"Tehran on Sunday announced it intends to build the 10 new sites...."

"Iran Rejects IAEA Transparency Demand on Atom Sites"
Reuters, via The New York Times (December 4, 2009)

"Iran said it will provide the U.N. nuclear watchdog with the bare minimum of information about its plan to build 10 new uranium enrichment plants, a stance sure to stoke Western suspicions about its atomic agenda.

"In a defiant response to last week's International Atomic Energy Agency board of governors vote rebuking Iran for building a second enrichment plant in secret, Tehran said on Sunday it would build 10 more sites like its IAEA-monitored one at Natanz.

"In 2007, in reprisal for U.N. sanctions slapped on it, Iran renounced an amended IAEA code of conduct requiring states to notify the agency of nuclear plans as soon as they are drafted, so as to catch any illicit atomic bomb work in the early stages.

"Iran reverted to an earlier IAEA transparency code mandating only 180 days notice before a nuclear site begins production...."
Given time and effort, I could probably cobble together a story that makes Iran's leaders sound like a nice, reasonable bunch of well-meaning people who just happen to be making the rest of the world think they're probably getting ready to build nuclear weapons. A little more time and effort, and I could make them look like victims.

I'm not going to do that.

As nice as it would be, if everybody would be nice: the world isn't like that, and hasn't been for thousands of years of recorded history. That's why we have SWAT teams. And, at the national level, the armed forces.

Related posts:

No comments:

Unique, innovative candles

Visit us online:
Spiral Light CandleFind a Retailer
Spiral Light Candle Store


Note! Although I believe that these websites and blogs are useful resources for understanding the War on Terror, I do not necessarily agree with their opinions. 1 1 Given a recent misunderstanding of the phrase "useful resources," a clarification: I do not limit my reading to resources which support my views, or even to those which appear to be accurate. Reading opinions contrary to what I believed has been very useful at times: sometimes verifying my previous assumptions, sometimes encouraging me to change them.

Even resources which, in my opinion, are simply inaccurate are sometimes useful: these can give valuable insights into why some people or groups believe what they do.

In short, It is my opinion that some of the resources in this blogroll are neither accurate, nor unbiased. I do, however, believe that they are useful in understanding the War on Terror, the many versions of Islam, terrorism, and related topics.