Iran Acknowledges Enriched Uranium Found

[Seraphim]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=3&u=/ap/20030929/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_nuclear_7



By GEORGE JAHN, Associated Press Writer

VIENNA, Austria - Iran acknowledged Monday that additional traces of weapons-grade uranium have been found on its soil but argued they came from abroad — a claim U.N. and other experts said cannot be discounted.


The United States and its allies accuse Tehran of running a secret nuclear weapons program, and Iran's acknowledgment was expected to strengthen those arguments. Over the weekend, President Bush (news - web sites) and Russian President Vladimir Putin (news - web sites) urged Iran to abandon its suspected nuclear-weapons programs.


Iran is facing an Oct. 31 deadline to bare its nuclear secrets set by the International Atomic Energy Agency board of governors. If the board rules at its Nov. 20 meeting that Tehran has violated the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty banning the spread of nuclear arms, the Security Council could impose diplomatic or economic sanctions.


The IAEA is sending a team to Iran for negotiations Thursday ahead of what the agency hopes will be a new round of inspections starting Friday.


Iran insists it will not stop uranium enrichment and that it has a right to a peaceful nuclear program, as allowed under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.


Reacting to leaked reports last week, Ali Akbar Salehi, Iran's representative to the IAEA, told state-run Tehran television Monday that traces of highly enriched uranium had been found at the Kalay-e Electric Co., just west of Tehran.


But he ruled out that what was found there and at another facility at Natanz, was locally produced, saying the traces came in on contaminated equipment that was bought abroad.


That argument first surfaced in a report presented to the board meeting that set the October deadline, detailing the Natanz find and other activities feeding suspicions about Iran's nuclear intentions.


While expressing concern, IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei, the author of the report, indicated then he could not dismiss Iran's version of events, suggesting it was one of "a number of possible scenarios."


Others concurred Monday.


"It is certainly not being dismissed by (IAEA) experts as being beyond the pale," said a diplomat familiar with the Iran issue, who spoke on condition of anonymity.


Iran has refused to say where it bought the contaminated equipment, but diplomats have told The Associated Press the most likely country of origin was Pakistan. Former IAEA inspector David Albright said that could mean Iran was telling the truth.


The isotopes found in the traces of weapons-grade uranium on centrifuges at Natanz this year do "not have the signature of Europe," he said by telephone from Washington. "The finger points at Pakistan."


"There is not enough information to discount what Iran says," said Albright, now president of the Institute for Science and International Security.


Still, he said, it was also possible that Iran clandestinely enriched small quantities of uranium to weapons-grade quality. That would point to attempts to develop a military nuclear program.


Christopher Paine, a nonproliferation expert at the Washington-based National Resources Defense Council, said Iran's argument was "plausible."


But Thomas Cochran, with the same think-tank, said it was unlikely that Iran would not have checked any used equipment for contamination.





He said establishing the source of the equipment was key to checking on Iran's assertion.

"Then, you should be able to go back to those countries, and you should be able to go to the facilities and confirm" whether isotope traces there matched those found in Iran, he said.

In a bid to show Iran's good intentions, Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi said Monday outside the United Nations (news - web sites) that the country was prepared to undergo more severe inspections because it had "nothing to hide."

Foreign diplomats said last week that IAEA inspectors found minute quantities of weapons-grade uranium at the Kalay-e Electric Co. Earlier this year, U.N. inspectors found weapons-grade highly enriched uranium particles at a plant in Natanz that is supposed to produce only a lower grade for energy purposes.

European Union (news - web sites) foreign ministers urged Tehran to abandon its suspected nuclear arms program. The ministers are expected to urge Iran to sign a new IAEA protocol to allow for unfettered inspections of nuclear sites. Kharrazi said his country was willing to do so, "but we want to make sure that additional protocol is ... going to be enough," to ease pressure on his country.

[jdbjdb]

Send in the Israeli Air Force! :D

[He219]

http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20030929/thumb.teh10109291051.iran_nuclear_teh101.jpg

"We have no mass destruction"

http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/afp/20030929/thumb.sge.kbl23.290903223940.photo00.default-260x407.jpg

"I know Nothing! (http://www.hogansheroesfanclub.com/multimedia/sounds/schultzIKnowNothingISeeNothingAndISayNothing.wav)"

[budanski]

IRAN WARNS: DON'T HIT OUR NUKE PLANTS (http://www.nypost.com/news/worldnews/6746.htm)

We could always use the UN'd version of deterrance: "Stop! Or we'll tell you to stop again!"

[jdbjdb]

See Iran has been watching North Korea, they know the UN wont do a thing so Tehran's talking tough

[One?]

They are using their Nuclear capabilities to DEFEND themselves just like israel. ;)

[jdbjdb]

hmm WMD in Ottawa? ;)

[Seraphim]

hmm WMD in Ottawa? ;)

During the cold war...the US had permission to put nukes in Canada.

[GazB]

"See Iran has been watching North Korea, they know the UN wont do a thing so Tehran's talking tough"

Or maybe they have been watching the US and its treatment of Iraq and North Korea... one didn't have nukes but probably wanted them and might have got them over time, the other probably already has nukes and is North Korea. Hmmm how did the US react to each of these situations?

I could understand why they'd want nukes... the only defence from the new American foreign policy of Regime change as a diplomatic tool.

[budanski]

Time to test out the new ABLs.

[Saranof]

If we can have them, why can't they? :D

[GazB]

He has a point Trigger. You don't think Iran stole the F-14s or F-4s they had. Back when the British owned all of the oil facilities in Iran, Iran was the great white hope in the region. They largely payed for the development of the Challenger tank as well.. imagine if they had been delivered???

After a western supported Iraq used chem weapons against them in their war a few years ago it is only natural for them to want that capability for themselves. They probably achieved such a capability 10 years ago. So what? Who have they invaded recently? Saddam was the bad guy for invading all his neighbours and killing his own people. Iran is evil because it nationalised its oil industry and kicked the British out. Damn... how evil. Wanting the profits of the oil under their own soil to benefit Iranian people rather than foreigners... what bastards!!!

[budanski]

The U.S. shares samples of anthrax to anyone that wants them. Weaponised anthrax is a different matter. This was not shared with Iraq at the time.

[California Joe]

We should sell weaponized versions of your icon.

[budanski]

I've been told that I was the bomb.

[California Joe]

Your Mom's opinion doesn't count.

[budanski]

Your Mom's opinion doesn't count.

Mom calls me "Little Boy"/"Fat Man"

[GazB]

"uh, you lost me there GazB. I was referring to this: "

You didn't quote what you were referring to so I assumed you were referring to the whole post.

If I had said something rude like:

"After you remove your head from your ass, of course. (Some) Canadians "

I'd appologise for what I said now, but as I didn't lets just call it a (now cleared up) misunderstanding.

"I didn't get any of that from CNN though. I got it from spending a few years during the 1980s in Lebanon. I got it from reading, not just the New York Times, but every book I could find on the subject. Of course, today, it's difficult sometimes to keep up with the new books coming out, and not all are very credible. "

Interesting. You only read credible sources. What, to your mind, defines a credible source? If it were true that everything a credible source says is right and everything a non credible source says is wrong I'd agree with you. Even a non creditable source can raise valid points. If a source fails to cover both or other side of an issue then it is not credible except in terms of the side it covers.

"In regards to your edit in about WMD in Iraq from Western nations, if it's not too much to ask, may I ask what you're trying to say. "

I would guess the obvious... by giving Saddam the technology the west later ran him out of government for and now accusing the Iranians MIGHT do the same in providing dangerous items to its allies damage Western interests is a little hipocritical... especially in the sense that Iran is less likely to abandon their friends as quickly as the West does.

"Also, I do not ever mean to offend anyone with my writings on this message board. I sincerely apologize in advance if I miswrite and/or do not communicate well enough and I accidentally do offend someone. That was not my intent, and I am very sorry. I’m here to learn, not to offend or look down upon others. "

I wish more posters here were like you Tane Angle.
Some don't realise it is OK to disagree on things but a bit of respect can lead to discussions that while not solving the problems can explain the various sides of each issue.

"you said that the US protects its weapons but Iran would share its technology. So my point was why is the US and eurpoe allowed to share their WMD technology but not Iran, north korea, or china. "

The simple answer was that WMDs used against Iran at a time when Iran was not friendly to the West is OK. The potential use of WMDs against western interests is not OK. Double standard, very hipocritical, but that is politics for you... or should I say that is someone looking after their own personal interests only.

"I'd say keeping Iran from having nuclear weapons would be learning from one's mistakes. The fact that Iraq was given weapons doesn't mean Iran should have them now. "

But if Iran cannot be trusted how can you trust Israel? Unlike Israel Iran hasn't preempted anyone, and how many countries has Iran invaded?
Sure it has interfered with its neighbours... Afghanistan and Iraq spring to mind and support for Hezbollah also counts, but is that really something no one else does?

"But getting back to Iraq, I'm sorry, I'm slow, but I'm missing the reason for bringing it up. Yes those samples were given to Iraq. What of it? That it was wrong? Of course it was. That it was stupid? Of course it was. That we shouldn't have done it? Of course we shouldn't have. Perhaps I missed something; if so, I'd be interested in what it is."

How about what should your punnishment be?
No doubt if the US or Israel try to "stop" the Iranian reactor program it will be by bombing the facility and killing some Iranian civilians and probably Russian civilians as well. Their long term punnishment will be to have to use oil for their energy needs instead of nuclear power which reduces their foreign dollar revenue for oil sales.

Iraq was invaded because Saddam could not be trusted... he has killed his own people enmass and invaded neighbouring countries. What reason is there to attack Iran? They might cobble together a couple of crude Atomic bombs? In that case why isn't Pakistan also being threatened... it has many ties with many unsavoury groups... the security of its weapons must be suspect considering it has a military government, and probably many elements that supported the Taleban against the US.

"Perhaps the US can make up for their mistake by working against proliferation today. "

Perhaps the best way for the US to reduce proliferation is to give up more of its WMDs and to deter its ALLIES as well as its allies' enemies from getting WMDs.
When it only removes weapons from one side then it really doesn't look fair or balanced.
You say Iran can't have WMDs because you don't trust them. How can you expect them to trust you when you call them part of an axis of evil?

I don't know about you but I would be offended at being labeled a modern equivelent of Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan and Facist Italy. And what was my crime? Did I kill 50 million people like WWII did?
Gee, with the US engaged in Regime change as a military goal to be used before diplomacy has had time to work I think I'd sleep better with a few nukes in my armoury too.
Put yourself in their shoes and tell me you'd do otherwise?

"You're point about killing Palestinians being a deterrent is a good one."

Making the holy land a radioactive desert would not make them popular in the region...

"Also, regarding weapons security, I meant that it is possible a group outside the Iranian government could attempt to gain hold of Iran' nuclear weapons."

And it hadn't crossed your mind that for that very reason security will be as good as they can make it... there is no reason why an enemy of the current regime of Iran might not want to get a hold of a nuke to force some political changes by blackmail. Equally foreign powers have a habit of preemptive strikes to remove problems before the mature to real problems.

[TheBenz]

is the UN blind? or what

[GazB]

is the UN blind? or what

No, it is irrelevant remember?

Nonproliferation is not a role of the UN.

[IDFM203]

".
"You're point about killing Palestinians being a deterrent is a good one."

Making the holy land a radioactive desert would not make them popular in the region...

I was actually hoping to stay out of this thread, I mean I cant fight every falsehood here on this site, it is simply too tiring. Though I simply couldn’t let this one stupid and naive statement go unanswered

It is a stupid and naive point for two reasons.

The first is that on principle you would think that it would make them unpopular but in reality it wouldn’t have any effect (in fact the opposite would be true, they would be the most popular). You and I could argue how the Jews treat the Palestinians all day (so please don’t go into it here for that is not the topic matter) but what I am sure here is in the unanimous agreement amongst everyone, is the disgusting way that the Arabs have been treating the Palestinians over the years. They have shown over the years that they couldn’t give two ****s how the Palestinians conduct their daily lives and that they are clearly using and forcing them to live the lives that they do simply as a pawn to use against Israel especially in the worlds eyes. No, the Arab world never gave a **** about the actual well-being of the Palestinian people. And they sure as hell are not going to change now if they could destroy the Jewish nation.

The second reason is the more valid one. Just like the Palestinians consider a suicide bomber a martyr, so too the Arab world would consider the Palestinian people a martyr if that were to fulfill their elusive dream of ridding the holy land of Jews. Hell, they wouldn’t even give it more then a second of thought before they pressed that button.

So it’s the exact opposite of what you said. If Iran were to use a nuke against the Jewish nation and destroy it they would be the most popular Muslim nation on earth and the Palestinians would be considered the little price that they had to pay for that.

[GazB]

"And they sure as hell are not going to change now if they could destroy the Jewish nation. "

I doubt they'd shed a tear for lost Jewish lives, but they might shed a few tears at their own losses after the US fires a few ICBMs their way.
Bush threatened Saddam with nuclear retaliation if he attacked allied forces with WMD during DS. I doubt GB jnr would do anything less.

The fact that you deny that the Palestinians consider the land you live on as their own and actually want it back... as do Hezbulla (spelling) suggests to me that their Iranian backers would have something to answer for if they did launch a preemptive strike on Israel, and of course suggests your indoctrination is going well.
If you really did understand the Palestinians then you'd be much closer to peace than you are at the moment (or have ever been)... not that I understand them either of course.

"Just like the Palestinians consider a suicide bomber a martyr, so too the Arab world would consider the Palestinian people a martyr if that were to fulfill their elusive dream of ridding the holy land of Jews."

Don't confuse matyrdom with ignorance. They want their land back, not just obliterated.

[IDFM203]

"And they sure as hell are not going to change now if they could destroy the Jewish nation. "

I doubt they'd shed a tear for lost Jewish lives, but they might shed a few tears at their own losses after the US fires a few ICBMs their way.
Bush threatened Saddam with nuclear retaliation if he attacked allied forces with WMD during DS. I doubt GB jnr would do anything less. . whether they are worried about other responses is something else (left for another debate). I brought my points to counter your assertion that the Palestinians being there are a deterrent to the Iranians using nuclear weapons and as I have outlined it is not. Also, Your non-response to that specific point indicates that you agree with that or that you have no intellectual rebuttal to that.

The fact that you deny that the Palestinians consider the land you live on as their own and actually want it back... as do Hezbulla (spelling) suggests to me that their Iranian backers would have something to answer for if they did launch a preemptive strike on Israel, and of course suggests your indoctrination is going well.
If you really did understand the Palestinians then you'd be much closer to peace than you are at the moment (or have ever been)... not that I understand them either of course. . stop changing the subject matter. I have gone over this in other threads. No, what’s clear is your indoctrination of the propaganda you watch and read is going super for you. Before I go any further here I will repost what I just wrote in my last post
“You and I could argue how the Jews treat the Palestinians all day (so please don’t go into it here for that is not the topic matter)”

On this thread and in particular to this topic we are discussing the Palestinians as a potential deterrent, that is all. Don’t go off on the whole Israeli/Palestinian conflict here for I have done it on other threads and it is a long discussion indeed. (If you want to go at it, go to the other threads where we discuss these issues at length)

:bash: :bash: Geeeez not every discussion has to turn into the whole Israeli/Palestinian conflict. No, just stay focus on this one point here. :bash: :bash:



"Just like the Palestinians consider a suicide bomber a martyr, so too the Arab world would consider the Palestinian people a martyr if that were to fulfill their elusive dream of ridding the holy land of Jews."

Don't confuse matyrdom with ignorance. They want their land back, not just obliterated. no, this is not about what the Palestinians want or consider themselves. No, this is what the Arab world wants to happen. It is pure ignorance to believe that Iran wouldn’t finally rid the mid-east of “the Jewish problem” (as they see it) simply because they don’t want to see Palestinians killed.

Yes they want to get the land of Israel, but that has been proven to be impossible (after 6 wars and constant conflict) so they are more then willing to settle for the next best thing (in their eyes). They have tried for fifty years now to get that whole land and they now realise that if they are not going to be able to get it, at least they will rid the Jews of that land.

Oh and martyrdom and ignorance in the Muslim world do go hand in hand, I mean that whole 70 virgin thing proves that to be true.