Iran welcomes Russia's role in enrichment program

Marwan said:
Tehran, Dec 26, IRNA-Iran's Government Spokesman Gholam-Hossein Elham said on Monday that Russia as well as other world countries can participate in Iran's peaceful nuclear program within the framework of Iran's proclaimed principles.
Making the remark at a press conference attended by both domestic and foreign correspondents, he reiterated that the Iranian government has clarified its position on the issue for several times.
He said Iran's views are based on three principles of conducting uranium enrichment inside the country, setting up an atmosphere of trust and providing objective guarantees to the international community on the peaceful nature of enrichment activities in accordance with internationally-recognized regulations.
He said Iran has already announced the domain of its nuclear activities as a commercial one in which foreign investments would be welcomed.
As for Iran's legal action against the US in the International Court of Justice in the Hague regarding confiscation of billions of dollars worth of Iran's assets in America, he said the new government is following up the issue.
He further noted that the Americans, given their inherent characteristic of evading their commitments and taking abnormal measures, are now trying to influence the court in order not to restore Iranians' rights.
According to the spokesman, several top legal experts were working at the Presidential Office to give necessary legal advice on the issue. Elham said the government would undoubtedly never allow the rights of the Iranian nation to be violated by the US.


http://www.payvand.com/news/05/dec/1203.html

I think if Russia agrees to this then the negotiation for both EU and West would be a success and we could finnaly produce high amount of low grade uranium. It won't just be Russia, I'm sure alot of country's would be interested... anyone think so it would work out?.

Well my personal opinion is that if Iran wants to persue "peaceful" nuclear activities why the hell not its their right to do so and just because they not in the USA's list of most compliant countries doesnt remove that right and if the Russians want to assist well thats between Russia and Iran.

As far as nuclear weapons go well they have stated that they have no intention of building them but lets face it India and Pakistan have them out in the open now, Israel undoubtably still has them and I have no doubt that the lovable Dr Kahn has merrily sold technology all over the world so I think you can safely say the NPT is close enough to dead and buried for it to be irrelevant.
 
Actually bulldogg that was a well placed shot directed squarely at those out there that can do nothing more that ape whatever talking head owns the microphone at a given moment. I like to refer to these programmed by the media types as “sheeple”. People who deep down are nothing more than sheep that spend their days wandering the fields guided by their Shepard, never wondering what is over the next hill, never asking why.


Since you are a Vet, the one group who's opinions I give the most weight to in many matters, I will be more than happy to expound on my brief statement. And since you are an educated and apparently intelligent man, I would be happy to take part in an argument, in the classical sense, with you about this subject.


For starters, you open, and close your statement with the standard, tired, fare used by both sides when trying to make a small piece of the puzzle the most important piece. In this case its the “Bush lied, people died”, and the “Evil Bush and his spin-doctors”, complete with a “Dubya” reference in the middle. This framing of your statement makes it quite clear your personal politics, and the fact that are viewing events through the lens of those politics. This does not make you right, wrong, good, bad, or even unique. It just places you firmly in the 80%-90% that lets their opinions be heavily influenced by whatever political wing they ascribe to. Somewhere along the way you stopped standing over the table and seeing everything, and sat down on one side and began viewing everything from only that perspective. Like I said, not good, bad, right, or wrong. Just being one of the sheep being led by the Shepard.


This leads us to the next couple of points you make. You state that the current administration has ethics problems. I hate to break the news to you, but politicians lie. Anyone who thinks for themselves can see this. When we elect a politician, we elect him because we like his lies, and we want him to lie for us. The only difference from one administration to the next is the type of lie, and how many they get away with. It is wrong, I personally don't like it, but it has been the way of American politics for at least the last hundred years. I feel pretty confident in stating that every other government on the face of the Earth that practices some form of democracy partakes in the same liefest. The saving grace for Democracy is that when we tire of one sides lies, we can get rid of them, and put someone in power who's lies we like better.
Credibility on the world stage is another cruel joke. The current notion of National “Credibility” is fairly new to geopolitics. Since every nation lies to forward their own agenda, deeming what is “Credible” has morphed into a policy where the level of credibility is in direct correlation to what the nation or individual has to offer to the entity that makes the judgment. During WW2, the Nazi death camps were an open secret to the major “free” world powers. Photo's, reports, and affidavits were presented, and then discounted as lacking “credibility”. The Jews had nothing to offer, and the sad fact is that the US and others knew that most people either did not care about the Jews, or hated them outright, and they did not want to lose the support of their people for the war in Europe by making it a crusade to save the Jews. So your notion of US “cred” while being noble, is nonetheless flawed.
Historically, the only real “influence” one nation has had on another has been gained by force of arms, economic warfare, subterfuge (assignation, tampering with the political process etc), or a forced integration of culture. Money also buys influence, but only as long as the Benjamin's continue to flow. All “influence” arises out of either power, or money. As far as the US loss of influence is concerned, the only real losses we have suffered the last few years revolve around countries such as France (mad because Saddam can't honor the oil field leases he signed in return for their votes at the UN), Germany (mad because of the multi-billion dollar contracts for building fixed defensive, and command and control emplacements cannot be paid for), China (mad because the hardened fiber optic and electronic command and control hardware they were installing not only proved to be a joke, but Saddam can no longer finish paying for it), Russia (mad because one of their top importers of weapons is no longer around), and the UN (mad simply because the Benjamin's quit flowing their way). If you want a few on the plus side, how about Lybia admitting to, and ending their nuke program (complete with full disclosure, and surrendering of the hardware), or maybe Pakistan and India taking steps back from decades long armed conflict (this did not happen in a vacuum).


You speak of Iran's nuclear program, and hatred of the Jews as if it something new. Iran has had a on and off again nuclear weapons program for over 40 years. The Shah at one time had ambitions to join the nuke club, but was dissuaded by the United States. When the Theocratic government took power, they immediately began spouted “Death to Israel” and “Death to the United States”, and then took advantage of any opportunity through financial, technical, and state support to make it happen. A devastating war with Iraq, and the bloody purges and internal power struggles have provided the only checks to Iran's clearly stated goals of the annihilation of Israel, and the fall of the West. It's been the same message for the last 26 years. Carter, Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton have all heard the same human waste spewing from Iran, and have not been able to stop it, yet you seem to infer Bush II is somehow at fault.


The Russians. I get the impression that you believe the Russians have at some point been “friendly” with the US. Here's a history lesson for you. Since the US involvement in the Russian civil war, they have never been our “friends”. Let me repeat that in case I was not clear enough, THE RUSSIANS HAVE NEVER BEEN OUR FRIENDS. When the Sate Department snubbed Lenin, we made an enemy forever. Lenin did not forget, and instilled a hatred of the US into the very fabric of the Soviet Government. The US of course set this stain in by fighting on the side of the White's during the civil war. The Russians have never given a concession that was not forced by the gun or purchased via massive financial aid. Russia has always armed and supported any country that was willing to cause the US damage. As far as Putin's dealing with the Muslim World, he like the Chinese, can't see the forest through the trees. They believe that they can placate, and actually make deals with fanatics that openly declare they will take over the world. Their inherit hate of the US has blinded them to the greatest threat posed to the world as a whole right now.




I sincerely hope that more people will quit swallowing the rhetoric from both the right and left, and start looking around. Read. Research. Take a hard look around. When one bothers to actually learn about politics, world affairs, and history, they see that everything has a reason. It's the rare man that bothers to ask why, and then tries to find out. It's even a rarer man that can do anything about it. As far as the rest... well, they're “sheeple” happily following their Shepard and spewing the last sound bite they heard that conforms to the comfortable little box that is their idea of the world.
 
FG, I would give you a serious attaboy on the rep system here but it seems to have been disabled. You have provided some food for thought and I thank you for the time you took to write such a detailed and intelligent post.
Cheers.
 
I'm just gonna paste in my entire entry from the related article:
godofthunder said:
Underlying thing this comes back to: Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

1.) Iran did sign it.
2.) If Iran wants to enrich Uranium for 100% peaceful purposes, more power to them. But because Enriched Uranium can be used to make nuclear weapons, it is Iran's responsibility to prove that they are not breaking the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Constant unrestricted monitoring by impartial/neutral overseers would be a sufficient act of good faith to make the rest of the world a lot less nervous about Iran's nuclear ambitions.
3.) If Iran is even remotely suspected of having a nuclear warhead or even the capability to make one, every nation in the Middle East will immediately scramble to develop their own nuclear weapons, just to protect themselves.
4.) Suddenly, we have a dozen-odd new nations with nukes. That makes a dozen-odd new possible "OOPS!!!" scenarios: The kind that touch off nuclear exchange/holocaust and EVERYBODY ON THIS EARTH DIES.
4.) It is in the best interests of every nation in the world to not blast the human race into extinction.
5.) All of that is exactly why the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty is there to begin with.

So my question would be: Is Iran willing to take steps to PROVE that they're not working on making a nuclear weapon??

Marwan said:
do you have any proof that we have nuclear weapons or were going for them? were being watched by U.N. and IAEA so look carefully into your own sources please.
Marwan, it behooves you to provide a source for that. Specifically who is watching the whole thing. Is it 100% unrestricted access? Is it going to be possible for Iran to kick those overseers out of their countries or tell them where they can't go/look?

Maybe its silly of us, but the West and especially the USA are not all that trusting of Iran ever since the current government seized power, took all those American hostages and so forth. That incident was a long long time ago, obviously, but Iran has not exactly made much effort to make them seem any less ... well, I suppose 'disagreeable' works. As it relates to nukes or potential nukes, lets all be paranoid anyways. Safer world that way.
 
Last edited:
For starters, you open, and close your statement with the standard, tired, fare used by both sides when trying to make a small piece of the puzzle the most important piece. In this case its the “Bush lied, people died”, and the “Evil Bush and his spin-doctors”, complete with a “Dubya” reference in the middle.

If you look closer you will see that I made fair reference to the fact it was not in fact Bush's lie since I am well aware that the same accusations have been made by Clinton, Albright and others. But he does get to wear it because it was his finger, not theirs, who pushed the button. I mentioned no slogans nor do I believe in them. Not once in any of my posts or even in my daily real life communications have I ever referred to Bush as "evil". The worst was my comment on his apparent lack of intelligence that began a nice row with Missileer and myself early on in my days in this forum. If the use of common terminology is now the measure of a man's philosophical intent I feel behooved to develop my own new language to avoid being grouped with others who I have quite divergent views with... the source of another row not so long ago between Italian Guy and me. I would daresay its a nasty business besieged with error trying to extrapolate another person's geopolitical views from the printed page of one post.

You state that the current administration has ethics problems. I hate to break the news to you, but politicians lie.

Something I stated very clearly in a post commenting on Rabs' thread about the hypocrisy of Europeans in regards to the Kyoto Protocols. I said they had a problem with ethics. You have not refuted it. You seem to have decided what I meant by "problem" rather than clarifying it with me. Seeing as I am in a generous mood I will do you the honour of clarifying what I meant by problem. The current administrations problem is that the cat is out of the bag, they have not kept the manure out of sight. I allude to the fact all politicians lie and that they are essentially all the same with my post on the thread about "Who is your favourite US President", my answer was William Henry Harrison as he died before he could screw anything up. And I would also agree with your point that this is something endemic to all of politics the world over as I believe all governments to be a necessary evil in light of mankind's inability to co-exist with things which are different from their own kind.

Credibility on the world stage is another cruel joke. The current notion of National “Credibility” is fairly new to geopolitics. Since every nation lies to forward their own agenda, deeming what is “Credible” has morphed into a policy where the level of credibility is in direct correlation to what the nation or individual has to offer to the entity that makes the judgment.

Here is something that I would not say is new to politics. Credibility has taken many forms but it is essential to any alliance, treaty or other such agreement between nations and people. The basis of the credibility is owing to social standards of the parties involved so to make a blanket statement would be gross misjudgement.

During WW2, the Nazi death camps were an open secret to the major “free” world powers. Photo's, reports, and affidavits were presented, and then discounted as lacking “credibility”. The Jews had nothing to offer, and the sad fact is that the US and others knew that most people either did not care about the Jews, or hated them outright, and they did not want to lose the support of their people for the war in Europe by making it a crusade to save the Jews

Herein lies something that I would have to take exception to unless you have some proof as to the actual thoughts of the leaders involved. Perhaps Italian Guy, who has studied this subject, can shed some light. You may or may not be correct but I have not read anywhere that the basis of the decision to not intervened was based on a hatred of the Jews or that they had nothing to offer. I would daresay in the US the case of Mr. Einstein alone would have been more than enough proof. To that we can also add the vast monetary influence of the affluent and successful Jewish Americans of their day. I am going to need to see something in order to buy your version.

As for the historic sources of influence I would agree with your analysis. The way of the gun has always been the tool of powerful countries. However you must recognise a change and that with some they have a far subtler but equally devestating weapon- economics. Eisenhower used it to end the Suez Crisis in the 50's and China is using it today with alarming success. The end result remains the same but the means to get there can evolve and a smart enemy will exploit your weakness through their strength whatever the two might be.

You speak of Iran's nuclear program, and hatred of the Jews as if it something new. ... Carter, Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton have all heard the same human waste spewing from Iran, and have not been able to stop it, yet you seem to infer Bush II is somehow at fault.

Its his watch now.

The Russians. I get the impression that you believe the Russians have at some point been “friendly” with the US. Here's a history lesson for you. Since the US involvement in the Russian civil war, they have never been our “friends”. Let me repeat that in case I was not clear enough, THE RUSSIANS HAVE NEVER BEEN OUR FRIENDS.

I'm not hard of hearing and impressions, like opinions, can often be wrong. We are allied now with Pakistan, I do not consider Pakistan a friendly government. We did have a margin of support from Russia from time to time, regardless of their reasons, and now we do not as Putin's rhetoric has shifted in the interests of his newly formed company have dictated. I, personally, am friends with many Russians but I have never been under any impression that our countries have ever been anything but the bitterest of enemies with occasional detentes for various reasons.

Lay on MacDuff. ;)
 
Mohmar Deathstrike said:

you gotta be kidding us!?! right?

MontyB said:
Well my personal opinion is that if Iran wants to persue "peaceful" nuclear activities why the hell not its their right to do so and just because they not in the USA's list of most compliant countries doesnt remove that right and if the Russians want to assist well thats between Russia and Iran.

As far as nuclear weapons go well they have stated that they have no intention of building them but lets face it India and Pakistan have them out in the open now, Israel undoubtably still has them and I have no doubt that the lovable Dr Kahn has merrily sold technology all over the world so I think you can safely say the NPT is close enough to dead and buried for it to be irrelevant.

nothing is wrong with a peaceful nuke program in the hands of responsible and free elected governments but the issue here is that the Mullahs regime in Tehran isnt responsible, democratic or freely elected. It is a mullahcracy consisted of bunch of illiterate ayatollahs who think they must build their caliphate on this planet and the rest of the world must obey them!

The reason they shouldnt be given any nukes is that they have shown their true intentions on why they need nukes.

They want it to build a bomb and use it if possible! My take is that the clerical regime of Iran wants to scare the west by their A-Bombs and keep'em away and keep on suppressing the people!

These lunatics (mullahs) shouldn't be trusted and given nuclear stuff! Perid...
 
Last edited:
Well bulldoog, you and I will have some productive discussions. I look forward to hearing more about you views, and life in China.

Take Care


And localgrizzly. Historian? No, just someone who has had a lifelong love of the rich tapestry of the past. Of course in school this would get me in trouble. History Teachers get a bit upset when you drag books in from the school library and point out the numerous errors in thier textbooks. At least it made for some interesting classroom discussion, and lively post class debate.
 
Last edited:
With compliments fine sir, I reciprocate your sentiments.

Tis always enjoyable dusting the cobwebs off the grey matter is it not?
 
Forrest_Gump And localgrizzly. Historian? No said:
Indeed! My world history thesis had to be rewritten twice before the liberal professors would accept it.

It's interesting how difficult it is to have research accepted if you present facts, and how easy it is if you present misinformation that agrees with the faculty's preconcieved biases.
 
localgrizzly, if you haven't done so already, you should read James Loewen's "Lies My Teacher Told Me". I only wish this book had come out when I was in High School, I would have had all sorts of drama going on.
 
http://www.mosnews.com/news/2006/01/04/visitiran.shtml

A high-level Russian delegation will visit Tehran this week to discuss Moscow’s compromise proposal on the Islamic republic’s nuclear program, AFP reported.

“A Russian delegation led by Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Kisliak, is due to come on Jan. to discuss the Russian proposal,” said foreign ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi.

In a bid to break deadlock in negotiations, Moscow has suggested allowing Iran to conduct uranium enrichment in Russia, giving it access to the nuclear fuel cycle while guaranteeing its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only.

However, Asefi reaffirmed Iran would not consider the offer unless it acknowledges the country’s right to conduct uranium enrichment operations in Iran, a key sticking point in talks with the European Union.

“It’s not a structured proposal it is still an idea, we have to discuss it. There are ambiguities but if it says that enrichment can only happen in Russia it’s not acceptable, but if it’s a parallel and complementary plan we will consider that.”

If they truly are interested in only peaceful uses of nuclear energy why would this proposal from the Russians be so "not acceptable"?
 
In iran the issue is now one of national pride. It would be very difficult if not impossible for an Iranian goverment to agree to any proposal that is seen to give in to foreign pressure, especially when it comes with the threat of terror attached.

The point is that Iran believes its has every right (under the NPT) to enrich unranium for peaceful purposes on its own soil. It is signatory of the NPT and so far the IAEA has no evidence that Iran is trying to make WMD. Iran has also signed aditional protocols to the NPT as a confidence building guesture that opens it nuclear programme to more scrutiny than any other country. As the Iranians point out the UK and US would never allow their nuclear facilities to be opened up to the IAEA in similar fashion.

From Irans point of view they have complied with the NPT and made voluntary consetions to the IAEA that no ther country has made and all they have got back in return is the open threat of military action from the US and Israel.

The Russian proposal might have a tiny chance of being accepted but in the current political climate I cannot see how the Iranian government can accept it and save face at home.
 
Last edited:
Iran's goal is not simply about saving face.

They are developing nuclears weapons, because they believe they need to be a strong and powerful nation in the near future in order to help fullfll Islamic prophecy of world domination and conquest. This whole thing for them, is more than just about political wrangling or one-upmanship.
 
gladius said:
Iran's goal is not simply about saving face.

They are developing nuclears weapons, because they believe they need to be a strong and powerful nation in the near future in order to help fullfll Islamic prophecy of world domination and conquest. This whole thing for them, is more than just about political wrangling or one-upmanship.

I second that!
 
Gladius, is that your opinion or have you seen something somewhere that holds this as fact? Not saying I disagree, just an inquiring mind. ;)
 
Well mr inquiring mind ;)...

It's total absolute fact

I talked about this before in my other thread The rising of an Empire and the Future invasion of Europe! If you want details read that.

But here is proof of what I am talking about related to the President of Iran;


[FONT=Palatino, Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=+2]Iran leader's messianic end-times mission[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Palatino, Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=+1]Ahmadinejad raises concerns with mystical visions

[/SIZE][/FONT]Iranian President Mahmoud's Ahmadinejad's mystical pre-occupation with the coming of a Shiite Islamic messiah figure – the Mahdi – is raising concerns that a nuclear-armed Islamic Republic could trigger the kind of global conflagration he envisions will set the stage for the end of the world...

He sees his main mission, as he recounted in a Nov. 16 speech in Tehran, as to "pave the path for the glorious reappearance of Imam Mahdi, may Allah hasten his reappearance."...

[FONT=Palatino, Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Georgia, Times]All Iran is buzzing about the Mahdi, the 12th imam and the role Iran and Ahmadinejad are playing in his anticipated return. There's a new messiah hotline. There are news agencies especially devoted to the latest developments...

[/FONT][FONT=Palatino, Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Georgia, Times]Ahmadinejad is urging Iranians to prepare for the coming of the Mahdi by turning the country into a mighty and advanced Islamic society and by avoiding the corruption and excesses of the West...

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48225



I've said this before, this is their main agenda and is the real reason their wanting to have nuclear weapons. They want to be a powerful in order to usher in the Mahdi to unite all Islamic countries so they can, maybe a decade or two down the road challenge the West and Invade Europe.

Even now they are preparing for a war they know will happen, while left-wing dominated Europe daydreams about idealism and multi-cuturalism.


[/FONT]
 
Cheers Gladius, most appreciated. I guess I will give that other thread a gander now that it seems to be of interest... :)
 
Back
Top