Iran's "peaceful" nuclear program Thoughts?

Question

Jalali made the remarks commenting on recent claims of deputy premier of the Zionist regime, Shaul Mofaz, who called Thursday for ElBaradei to be removed from his post at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
In his latest comments about Iran's peaceful nuclear activities, ElBaradei told a French paper that Iran's activities posed no immediate danger.
His comments raised the ire of the Zionist regime and the U.S., its major supporter.
ElBaradei is to release his latest report on Iran's peaceful nuclear activities later this month.
""The Zionists are using all their power to influence ElBaradei's next report on Iran and to impose their own ideas on the report,"" Jalali said.
Stressing that the IAEA is an independent international body, the Majlis rapporteur warned the world community ""against the Zionist lobby"" that is trying to disrupt performance of the international organizations and institutes.
http://www.tehrantimes.com/Index_view.asp?code=156797

Take the time to look at the link -

It is a new story that made headlines in the Tehran Times

The other half of the article

""The U.S.-led world arrogance along with the Zionist regime are trying to orchestrate misleading reports about Iran,"" Jalali said.

He added if international bodies provide their reports not in line with the world arrogance and the Zionist regime, they will discredit them.

Jalali expressed hope that ElBaradei and the IAEA would continue ""to maintain the credit of this international and independent body and will not let hegemonic powers to interfere in their works.""

Answer 1

In my opinion, very interesting, yes. Having heard recently myself about the Grand Ayatollah and his goals pertaining to a more peaceful stance. He is above the President in ranking as I believe. No WW3 he even gave audience to Putin and has stated if AMDJ refuses to settle down he would simply be removed. But how simply?

Iran is a booming place. Despite continual military interventions.
Secretary Rice was on This Week w/George Stephanopoulos today. She mentioned that this is not off the table given the circumstances were met to stop the progression toward weaponry usage. It's ABC News you can look at it. I shall research the link. Thank you very much.

Personally, right now I believe the US may need to bend here. But at what cost? And can we be certain anyone could be trusted. Saddam was once a Reagan ally...

edit : I suppose I have done more reading on this. I also think that Iran has had alot of problems' refining the oil resources they have on land & in the Gulf. They are working on some links to the Trans Caspian Oil Pipeline with Russia that is not going along with the intended routes. Iran is running short of funds. You might think it behoves us to be in the process lest she sources out further into the extremist communities. And this President has been there before.

Answer 2

Wasn't the IAEA caught off guard when India went nuclear? Weren't they completely inadequate at preventing North Korea from making nukes, or even gauging their process towards this goal?

On December 23, 2006, the UN Security Council passed a resolution requiring Iran to suspend its uranium enrichment activities and requiring all UN members and the IAEA to impose certain sanctions on Iran. In January 2007 IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei proposed a "time out", that Iran suspend enrichment related activity and the United Nations Security Council suspend sanctions simultaneously, with the aim to revive stalled negotiations.

However, on September 7, 2007, ElBaradei argued against military action, saying: "We have not seen any weaponization of their program, nor have we received any information to that effect - no smoking gun or information from intelligence. Based on the evidence we have, we do not see ... a clear and present danger that requires that you go beyond diplomacy."

Well, I don't believe him, any more than I believe any of the UN apologists who constantly defend that organization against the litany of legitimate concerns about their honesty, integrity, and motives.

Here is my analysis of the situation, and I am being very careful to not break any of Yahoo's rules of conduct. The concept of "honesty" in the Middle East is a lot more elastic and hazy than in the West. One of my best friends worked over there for many years. He confided to me that, in business, it was all a game. If you made an assertion or a promise, it was up to the other person to evaluate the situation himself. If he was gullible enough to believe you, that was his misfortune.

Therefore, when Iran "promises" it does not have any nuke intentions, let's just look at it from a realistically hypothetical chronology:

a) Iran is granted authority to pursue peaceful nuclear technology.

b) In international disputes, Iran starts making thinly veiled threats about using "ultimate force" against its opponents.

c) The Iranian government denies reports of a secret underground missile blast, calling the report "unfounded provocation by the defilers of peace".

d) Pressure is increased on Tehran to be truthful about its nuclear program.

e) Tehran finally admits it has been covertly developing nukes, and is now prepared to "defend its rightful place among the nuclear powers of the world".

So, let's just all be mature about this. We know ahead of time how the game is going to play out. Let's not delude ourselves.

I still prefer the wisdom of Ronald Reagan: "Trust, but verify".

Answer 3

Nothing about Iran's rhetoric and actions has been "peaceful" thus far. I recall a news report showing the Iranian military marching in the shape of a sword cutting through an American flag. The day before Ahmadinejad came to America about a month ago, he gave a speech in Iran, standing in front of a banner that read, "Death To America". Iran poses a threat that MUST be dealt with. He's a loose cannon.

Answer 4

Yea right.... Iran is all sunshine and daises... all sweetness and light.... That oil rich country *needs* to produce nuclear grade material to run it's reactors to produce electricity for the masses... to bad they can't even produce all the gas to run their own cars... they can't build a refinery and make their own gas, but can extract bomb grade Uranium? And I'm sure that they fund Hamas to help the homeless and not to bomb innocent women and children in Israel, Palestine, and Lebanon..... Those Iranian leaders are true saints and bend over backward to help the world to enlightenment.

Answer 5

there is no objective or independent source which backs up the NWO's claims about Iran's intention to:
1) even develop nuclear weapons
2) or to be foolhardy enough use them on anyone.
that is the facts insofar as they can ascertained by anyone- anyone who says otherwise is a dupe or a liar.

Answer 6

Do you really want Iran to have nukes? Do you not see the danger in that? They have an abundance of oil and do not need nuclear energy. You are being misled. Wake up!

EDIT: the anti US and anti Israel tone of your argument is obvious. Do you hate this country? Would you be happier in Iran?

Answer 7

Iran has more oil than they know what to do with so they do NOT need nuclear energy.

Everyone knows the real reason they want it.

Answer 8

The fact that you used the word ZIONIST [ 4 ] TIMES exposes you as a Racist Hater of the Jewish People.

Answer 9

A gun is peaceful until it is fired.

Answer 10

"DANGER WILL ROBINSON, DANGER!!!"