Monday, May 17, 2010

Iran Plans to Ship Its Uranium to Turkey.

Posted by parallel

The earlier nuclear deal fell through when the Western powers insisted that Iran should ship its uranium to Russia and then get it processed into fuel rods by France. Iran’s experience was that both countries were susceptible to US persuasion to renege on deals and feared they might ship the uranium out of the country and never get it back. For example, Iran paid Russia for an advanced air defense system they need now but Russia has not delivered it. France never returned the billions it received from Iran for a nuclear deal they later canceled.

The current proposal, worked out by Turkey and Brazil, is for Iran to ship 1,200 Kg of 3.5% enriched uranium to Turkey, where it would be stored. Then a year later “obtain the right” to purchase 120 Kg of uranium enriched to 20% from Russia and France, needed now for their small medical reactor.

The NY Times reports that this deal may be unacceptable to “Washington and its partners” presumably because the US and Israel want to stop Iran making its own fuel for power plants and possibly because they would lose the chance to simply keep most of Iran’s uranium indefinitely.

Mrs. Clinton said. “Every step of the way has demonstrated clearly to the world that Iran is not participating in the international arena in the way that we had asked them to do and that they continued to pursue their nuclear program,”

Having already forecast the deal will fail, Mrs. Clinton will need to wait for Israel’s instructions for a mutually satisfactory way of keeping the planned military strike on Iran alive. In the face of the evidence, the propaganda that Iran is making nuclear weapons becomes an increasingly hard sell, but I see the neocons have already started. One unjustified, illegal, trillion dollar war is not enough for them. Is it a part of the “spend your way to wealth” plan?


Blogger Spencerblog said...

One unjustified, illegal, trillion dollar war is not enough for them. Is it a part of the “spend your way to wealth” plan?

What was "illegal" about it?

May 17, 2010 at 1:54 PM 
Blogger Spencerblog said...

According to Wikipedia. “Prior to the war, the governments of the United States and the United Kingdom claimed that Iraq's alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) posed a threat to their security and that of their coalition/regional allies.[46][47][48] In 2002, the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 1441 which called for Iraq to completely cooperate with UN weapon inspectors to verify that Iraq was not in possession of WMD and cruise missiles. The United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) found no evidence of WMD, but could not verify the accuracy of Iraq's weapon declarations.[49][50][51][52] Lead weapons inspector Hans Blix advised the UN Security Council that while Iraq was cooperating in terms of access, Iraq's declarations with regards to WMD still could not be verified.[49][53]” See

Just how could Iraq prove a negative? As everyone knows, that is impossible.

“In March 2003, Hans Blix reported that "No evidence of proscribed activities have so far been found" in Iraq, saying that progress was made in inspections which would continue. He estimated the time remaining for disarmament being verified through inspections to be "months".[49] But the U.S. government announced that "diplomacy has failed", and that it would proceed with a coalition of allied countries — named the "coalition of the willing" — to rid Iraq of its alleged WMD. The U.S. government abruptly advised U.N. weapons inspectors to leave Baghdad immediately.”

To answer your specific question.
“The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan said in September 2004 that: "From our point of view and the UN Charter point of view, it [the war] was illegal."[1][2] The Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court reported in February 2006 that he had received 240 communications in connection with the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 which alleged that various war crimes had been committed.

The UN Security Council, as outlined in Article 39 of the UN Charter, has the ability to rule on the legality of the war, but has yet not been asked by any UN member nation to do so. The United States and the United Kingdom have veto power in the Security Council, so action by the Security Council is highly improbable even if the issue were to be raised.”


May 17, 2010 at 4:28 PM 
Blogger Spencerblog said...

I see, Adrian. You put a lot more stock in the rulings of corrupt international bodies and their corrupt leaders than I do. Kofi Annan?

For better or for worse, Bush went to Congress and to the American people to make his case for bringing Saddam Hussein to heel.

The weapons of mass destruction issue was one the intelligence agencies of the whole world got wrong. Specifically thanks to the lies and duplicity of the Hussein regime.

The invasion of Iraq was a quick and amazing success. The occupation was botched for years until Gen. David Petraeus was handed command.

As per Iran, I find your assertions somewhat ludicrous. Hillary Clinton a neocon? Barack Obama a neocon? Concern about Iran's nuclear intentions mere "propaganda" to justify going to war?

For years, American and European diplomats and high officials have been trying to get Iran's mullahs to see the light when it comes to their nuclear program.

The very idea that they want nukes only for medical purposes is ridiculous. If that was their goal the west would provide them more medical technology and supplies than they could use in decades.

It should be obvious to an sentient, thinking person, that Iran doesn't desire enriched uranium for non military purposes. It is costing the country too much.

That you would believe the word of Iran's totalitarian mullahs over those of both Republican and Democratic American administrations is frankly, shocking.

We may end up having to contain Iran when and if it gets the bomb. When that day comes you blame America for forcing Iran to arm itself with nuclear weapons.

What's next? A post on how Kim Jong Il is being unfairly isolated and threatened by the neocon Obama administration?

Save it.

May 18, 2010 at 7:24 AM 
Blogger Spencerblog said...

Posted by parallel

Gil, I despise many politicians, but if you are going to argue about the law you have to take the rulings of those who are in charge, whether those rulings are stupid or not. If the head of the UN and the articles of the UN Charter state that the war was illegal, that is the law. Possibly the International Criminal Court could rule on the matter, but as you know, America has exempted itself from their rulings. There is little doubt that court would find America guilty.

I care less about the law than what is morally right. I am certain that it is wrong for a country (or worse an alliance) to attack another. The one that starts the war is the guilty party. It is too easy for a powerful nation to come up with propaganda that sells it to their uninformed population and then rewrite history afterwards..

The issue of Iraq’s WMD was understood by some intelligence agencies. How could I see it, just from what was available on the internet? I wrote about it at the time so it is not 20/20 hindsight. It was a war of choice. The American Press has a lot to answer for, just regurgitating the White House line without investigation or criticism. Rah! Rah! Doesn’t hack it.
Even if Iraq really had a few nuclear weapons, they would have been far less likely to attack us than Russia was. They never were any threat to us. Dictators have a strong sense of self preservation and wouldn’t be so foolish.

I would hardly call the destruction of a country, the death of between half a million and a million people (depending who you believe) with possibly ten times that number wounded, not to mention the trillion dollar cost, an “amazing success.“
Most people realized America had overwhelming firepower, so it was like shooting fish in a barrel.

Iran has stated it doesn’t want nuclear weapons. There is no hard evidence that they are working on weapons. They want the technology for nuclear power for several reasons. To generate electricity; to make radioactive isotopes for medical use (cancer) using the reactor given to them by America, that now needs refueling; to be the supplier of nuclear technology to others in the M.E. To be considered a technically advanced country.
It might even make sense for Iran to make a few nuclear weapons as unfortunately that seems to be the best way a country can deter others from attacking them.

It makes a lot of sense for all countries to use nuclear power as soon as possible. It can be fail safe and very cost effective with LFTRs. Radwaste is not a problem with those reactors. Better to use the oil for transport and as a chemical feedstock. Consider too that oil is a finite resource.

All political parties lie through their teeth when it suits them. Iran would not be a problem but for Israel’s paranoia. Iran is no threat to us. N. Korea would be vitrified should it use an atomic weapon on another country.

May 18, 2010 at 12:12 PM 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home