Welcome to SPN

Register and Join the most happening forum of Sikh community & intellectuals from around the world.

Sign Up Now!

World UN links Iran to nuclear weapons

Discussion in 'Breaking News' started by Archived_Member16, Nov 9, 2011.

  1. Archived_Member16

    Archived_Member16
    Expand Collapse
    SPNer Contributor

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2005
    Messages:
    3,451
    Likes Received:
    3,761
    UN links Iran to nuclear weapons

    8 November 2011 Last updated at 15:35 ET

    UN nuclear agency IAEA: Iran 'studying nuclear weapons'

    [​IMG]

    Russia helped Iran build its Bushehr nuclear power plant


    The UN's nuclear watchdog says it has information indicating Iran has carried out tests "relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device".

    In its latest report on Iran, the IAEA says the research includes computer models that could only be used to develop a nuclear bomb trigger.

    Correspondents say this is the International Atomic Energy Agency's toughest report on Iran to date.

    Iran says its nuclear programme is solely to generate civilian power.

    The BBC's Bethany Bell, in Vienna, has examined the IAEA's latest quarterly report on Iran's nuclear programme.

    She says the report gives detailed information - some of it new - suggesting that Iran conducted computer modelling of a kind that would only be relevant to a nuclear weapon.

    The report, published on the Institute for Science and International Security website, notes that some of this research, conducted in 2008-09, is of "particular concern", our correspondent says.

    The 25-page IAEA report is written in technical, deliberately undramatic language. But some of its findings are clear.

    The report says that Iran has carried out activities "relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device".

    But on first reading, the report does not state that Iran is actually building a nuclear weapon.

    The report lists in detail what it believes Iran has been doing in secret. These activities include conducting computer modelling, developing a detonator, and testing high explosives.

    The IAEA suggests that some of Iran's activities are only applicable to nuclear weapons research - in other words, there is no innocent explanation for what Iran is doing.

    The agency stresses that the evidence it presents in its report is credible and well-sourced.

    Iran's president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has dismissed the IAEA as puppet of the United States. His government has already declared that its findings are baseless and inauthentic.

    "The application of such studies to anything other than a nuclear explosive is unclear to the agency," the report says.

    It highlights:

    Work on fast-acting detonators that have "possible application in a nuclear explosive device, and... limited civilian and conventional military applications".
    Tests of the detonators consistent with simulating the explosion of a nuclear device

    "The acquisition of nuclear weapons development information and documentation from a clandestine nuclear supply network."

    "Work on the development of an indigenous design of a nuclear weapon including the testing of components."

    The report stops short, our correspondent adds, of saying explicitly that Iran is developing a nuclear bomb.

    It says the information is "credible", and comes from some of the IAEA's 35 member states, from its own research and from Iran itself.

    The report urges Iran "to engage substantively with the agency without delay for the purpose of providing clarifications."

    Ahead of the report's release, there had been speculation in Israeli media about potential strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities.

    Russia said the IAEA report had caused rising tension and more time was needed to determine whether it contained new, reliable evidence of a military element to Iran's nuclear programme.

    Experts say Iran is at least one year away, perhaps several, from being able to produce a nuclear bomb. Some believe Iran's leadership wants to be in a position to able to produce such a weapon on short notice.

    Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi said there was "no serious proof" that Iran was going to create an atomic warhead.

    "We have repeatedly stated that we are not going to create nuclear weapons," he said. "Our position has always been that we will never use our nuclear programme for purposes other than peaceful ones."

    source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15643460
     
    • Like Like x 1
  2. Loading...

    Similar Threads Forum Date
    India Indian sting busts up $130-million drug and money laundering ring-Links to Canada Breaking News Jan 31, 2013
    News Links to Doctored Video that Framed Professor Darshan Singh Now Exposed (Khalsa News) Punjab, Punjabi, Punjabiyat Dec 17, 2011
    Learn Punjabi Looking for a Few Good Links to Learn Gurmukhi Language, Arts & Culture Aug 8, 2011
    Emotional Links to Genetic Health: Biological Heaven and Hell Interfaith Dialogues Mar 4, 2011
    Infection links to Schizophrenia Health & Nutrition Sep 19, 2010

  3. Ambarsaria

    Ambarsaria Canada
    Expand Collapse
    ੴ / Ik▫oaʼnkār
    Writer SPNer Contributor Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2010
    Messages:
    3,366
    Likes Received:
    5,657
    Last two paras and lines are very interesting. Let us read between the lines.

    Here is someone almost saying you don't know what I know. Yours is not serious proof. Only I have it and I will judge when you have it.

    Having nuclear weapons can be used as an argument for peace as part of their deterrent use. Then one will say we will never strike first. Then you strike and say it was pre-emptive to maintaining peace.

    Creator must be laughing how so called humanity is planning to take drastic actions to reduce world population.

    Pretty sad overall for every place that has such weapons, no exceptions.

    Sat Sri Akal.
     
  4. Archived_Member16

    Archived_Member16
    Expand Collapse
    SPNer Contributor

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2005
    Messages:
    3,451
    Likes Received:
    3,761
    Ahmadinejad vows Iran won't retreat ‘an iota’ from its nuclear path

    ALI AKBAR DAREINI
    Tehran— The Associated Press

    Published Wednesday, Nov. 09, 2011 4:59AM EST
    Last updated Wednesday, Nov. 09, 2011 6:44AM EST

    Iran won’t retreat “one iota” from its nuclear program but the world is being misled by claims that it seeks atomic weapons, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Wednesday in his first reaction since a UN watchdog report that Tehran is on the brink of developing a warhead.

    Mr. Ahmadinejad strongly chided the UN International Atomic Energy Agency, saying it is discrediting itself by siding with “absurd” U.S. accusations.

    “This nation won’t retreat one iota from the path it is going,” Mr. Ahmadinejad told thousands of people in Shahr-e-Kord in central Iran. “Why are you ruining the prestige of the (UN nuclear) agency for absurd U.S. claims?”

    The 13-page annex to the IAEA’s report released Tuesday included claims that while some of Iran’s activities have civilian as well as military applications, others are “specific to nuclear weapons.”

    Among these were indications that Iran has conducted high explosives testing and detonator development to set off a nuclear charge, as well as computer modeling of a core of a nuclear warhead. The report also cited preparatory work for a nuclear weapons test, and development of a nuclear payload for Iran’s Shahab 3 intermediate range missile – a weapon that can reach Israel.

    Mr. Ahmadinejad repeated Iran’s claims that it doesn’t make sense to build nuclear weapons in a world already awash in atomic arms.

    “The Iranian nation is wise. It won’t build two bombs against 20,000 (nuclear) bombs you have,” he said in comments apparently directed at the West and others. “But it builds something you can’t respond to: Ethics, decency, monotheism and justice,” he added in a his speech, which was broadcast live on state TV.

    The U.S. and allies claim a nuclear-armed Iran could touch off a nuclear arms race among rival states, including Saudi Arabia, and directly threaten Israel. The West is seeking to use the report as leverage to possible tougher sanctions on Iran, but Israel and others have said military options have not been ruled out.

    The bulk of the information in the IAEA report was a compilation of alleged findings that have already been partially revealed by the agency. But some of the information was new – including evidence of a large metal chamber at a military site for nuclear-related explosives testing. Iran has dismissed that, saying they were merely metal toilet stalls.

    Iran’s official IRNA news agency quoted lawmaker Mahmoud Ahmadi Bighash as saying the report shows that IAEA “has no powers and moves in the direction” of the U.S. and allies. Another parliament member, Parviz Sorouri, accused IAEA chief Yukiya Amano of tarnishing the agency.

    “The report was drawn up by Americans and read by Amano,” the semi-official ISNA news agency quoted him as saying.

    The UN Security Council has passed four sets of damaging sanctions on Iran, but veto-wielding members China and Russia oppose further measures and are unlikely to change their minds despite the report’s findings.

    China has not isn’t publicly commented yet on a UN assessment of Iran’s nuclear programs in a likely sign that it will wait for Washington and Moscow to signal their intentions. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei said Wednesday that Beijing was studying the report and repeated calls for dialogue and co-operation.

    In Paris, French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe said his country is ready to push for new sanctions of “an unprecedented scale” if Iran refuses to answer new questions about its nuclear program.

    “We cannot accept this situation (of a nuclear-armed Iran), which would be a threat to stability and peace of the region and beyond,” he said on France’s RFI radio.

    source: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...an-iota-from-its-nuclear-path/article2230264/
     
  5. Kanwaljit Singh

    Kanwaljit Singh India
    Expand Collapse
    Apache Spark, Scala developer
    Writer SPNer

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2011
    Messages:
    1,458
    Likes Received:
    2,147
    Now US is taking no action here, for they can only attack states without nuclear capabilities!
     
  6. Ambarsaria

    Ambarsaria Canada
    Expand Collapse
    ੴ / Ik▫oaʼnkār
    Writer SPNer Contributor Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2010
    Messages:
    3,366
    Likes Received:
    5,657
    Kanwaljit Singh ji why should USA take action? They are damned if they do and damned if they don't!

    Why does not India or Pakistan do it as they are closer? Oh I forgot, people want action from USA so that they can judge it [​IMG], condemn it, demonstrate against it, etc. Poor USA, can never do anything right!

    Sat Sri Akal.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. Archived_Member16

    Archived_Member16
    Expand Collapse
    SPNer Contributor

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2005
    Messages:
    3,451
    Likes Received:
    3,761


    Trouble over Tehran

    Five reasons that Israel and the United States might want to think long and hard about preemptively striking Iran's nuclear facilities.

    BY AARON DAVID MILLER - NOVEMBER 8, 2011

    This week's imminent publication of an International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report on Iran's nuclear program -- details of which have been leaking out -- is expected to provide evidence that Tehran is hard at work building a nuclear weapon. Once again, the proverbial tick-tock in media and diplomatic circles has begun: Is a U.S.-backed Israeli strike against Iran in the offing?

    Much of the saber rattling and the leaks from Israel may be designed to use the IAEA report to motivate the international community to do more about Iran's developing nuclear program and to lay down a warning of what the consequences might be if it doesn't. Already, China and Russia are urging evidence in the report be kept secret, so it's a good bet that they would block any proposals for kinetic action, and perhaps even further sanctions, in the United Nations. The Israelis might decide for any number of reasons that they must launch a military strike at some point; and it might be that a U.S. president cannot be in a position to dissuade them. Indeed, as a tiny nation living on the knife's edge with a dark history and a track record of successful pre-emption against military threats, the Israelis may well act at some point, though not necessarily now.

    Before they do, here are the five top reasons they might want to consider keeping their jets and missiles on the ground:

    1. There's no good end state. Striking Iranian nuclear sites is like mowing the grass. Unless a strike succeeded in permanently crippling the Iranian capacity to produce and weaponize fissile material, the grass would only grow back again. And no strike -- or even series of strikes -- can accomplish this. Iran's hardened sites, redundancy of facilities, and secret locations present significant obstacles to a successful attack. Even in the best-case scenario -- an incomplete strike that, say, set back the Iranian nuclear program by two to three years -- the Iranians would reseed it with the kind of legitimacy and urgency that can only come from having been attacked by an outside power. Self-defense would then become the organizing principle of Iran's nuclear program; it would resonate tremendously throughout the Middle East and even in the international community.

    The counterargument of course is that the Israelis would cut the grass periodically, striking Iran every 18 months or so. But this situation is probably untenable; it would put Iran and Israel in a permanent state of confrontation and keep the region burning for years to come.

    2.
    No one can prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. Except Iran. The fact is that India, Pakistan, North Korea, and even Israel -- nations with both a profound sense of insecurity and entitlement -- have all developed nuclear weapons secretly. Iraq and Syria were on their way, too. Iran, under the Shah, was also committed to a nuclear program and might, over time, have tried to weaponize.

    But denying Iran a weapon means more than taking away the toys; it means changing the national calculation and motivation of a power that historically has imagined itself as a great nation. Even in the unlikely event Iran became a democracy, its own regional image and ambitions might still impel it to develop a nuclear capacity. At a minimum, denying Iran nuclear weapons means fundamentally changing the mullahcracy in Tehran; a military strike by the Israelis might do just the opposite -- further legitimizing it, particularly if there were civilian casualties. There's no better way to mobilize a divided polity or bring out its nationalist and unified character than to demonize a foreign enemy. And the Israelis would be the target of a massive Iranian propaganda effort across the Arab world, an effort that would likely win a great deal of sympathy.

    3. There are severe costs to the United States. When countries undertake actions that carry great uncertainty and risk, two questions need to be asked. First, can it be done? Second, what will it cost? The fact that Israel faces an existential threat may understandably lead it to downplay the costs to others, particularly to the United States. After all, it's easy enough for Americans to assume, living thousands of miles away, that Iran is a rational actor and would never use a nuclear weapon against Israel because of the expectation of its own obliteration at the hands of the Israelis or the United States. Israelis, of course, maintain that the threat of retaliation is not an acceptable deterrent and will look to their own interests first.

    But let's look at what an Israeli strike might do to U.S. interests and an economy still in recession. Even if the Iranians could only temporarily block shipping in the Strait of Hormuz (through which 40 percent of all oil sails), the price of oil would spike exponentially, further undermining and sabotaging world markets -- and doing tremendous damage to the fragile economic recovery in the United States. These economic and financial uncertainties could be truly global and catastrophic. At the same time, the Iranians would certainly try to turn up the heat against U.S. forces in Afghanistan and those remaining in Iraq, further compounding an already tenuous security situation in both countries. Together with a resurgent al Qaeda in Iraq (a Sunni threat), U.S. forces would be faced with a Shiite one as well. At the precise moment U.S. forces are committed to leaving Iraq, they could get sucked back into staying. Iran might well lash out at foes and perceived foes across the region, including in the Persian Gulf, particularly in a place like Bahrain. The Iranian capacity to strike the continental United State may be limited, but the capacity to wage a clandestine war against U.S. and Israeli interests across the Middle East is far more formidable.

    4
    . It will legitimize and popularize Iran in the Middle East. George H.W. Bush's administration went to great lengths to prevent Israel from responding to Iraqi Scud attacks during the 1991 Gulf War. The logic was pretty compelling: Iraq was in defiance of the international community and U.N. Security Council resolutions, and a 34-country international coalition had formed to enforce the global good. The last thing needed was for Saddam Hussein to turn his invasion of Kuwait into an Arab-Israeli confrontation. The same applies here, to some extent.

    Sanctions may never prevent the Iranians from acquiring a weapon, but they do have some impact; and Iran has become greatly isolated. An Israeli attack could undermine all that good work, particularly in the wake of this year's Arab revolutions. An Israeli attack might be quietly welcomed by the rulers of some Persian Gulf states, but it would be viewed on the Arab street as another example of Israeli aggression and U.S. double standards. The Arabs would love to see the Iranians taken down a notch or two; but Israel's involvement is going to complicate the post-strike environment and almost certainly undermine any U.S. effort to clean up the mess that will be left behind.

    5. If the Israelis strike, the United States is necessarily involved. There's no way that an Israeli strike comes off without major complications and a military response against U.S. interests. Clearly, the assumption in Tehran will be that the Israeli attack was coordinated with the United States. Likely responses include attempts to close off shipping in the Strait of Hormuz and proxy attacks against U.S. military installations and embassies. Even if the United States is actively not involved in the strike, it will likely be called upon to aid or support Israel against attacks from Hezbollah and Hamas using high-trajectory weapons. Washington's credibility, at an all-time low internationally, will be further undermined. The United States is now involved in the two longest wars in its history and still has thousands of forces on the ground in two Muslim countries. And let's be clear: The United States is not winning those wars. The last thing it needs is another war against a Muslim country whose staying power and effectiveness in striking back at America (albeit in asymmetrical ways) should never be underestimated.

    All these concerns are offered up knowing full well that Iran's acquisition of a nuclear weapon is a major problem for the United States, Israel, and the international community. It might even be a game-changer. The IAEA report seems likely to conclude that Iran is determined to acquire such a weapon, and it will reinforce -- with clarity -- that neither sanctions nor diplomacy have proved effective in stopping Tehran. No one should trivialize the consequences of an Iranian bomb. We can't stick our head in the sand, but we shouldn't lose our heads either.

    If there was a reasonable chance or expectation that an Israeli strike would eliminate Iran's nuclear capacity, then a more compelling argument might be made in defense of it. But there isn't. And that leaves us in a very tough spot, poised somewhere for the moment between two equally unpalatable choices: risky and potentially catastrophic military action, or learning to live with an Iranian bomb that could dramatically reshape the power balance in the Middle East.

    source: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articl...r_tehran?print=yes&hidecomments=yes&page=full
     

Share This Page