What is Iran doing and why is the world worried?

[ZILLA THA GOODFELLA]

BEFORE WE GET INTO THE ARTICLE, IRAN NEEDS ITS RESPECT AND IT IS THAT TIME, SO IT'S ON. I KNOW THE PEOPLE OF IRAN ARE AGAINST THIS NEW PRESIDENT, TRUST ME, THE NEW GENERATION HAS A WESTERN INFLUENCED MIND-STATE, BELIEVE IT OR NOT. BUT THEY ARE NOT AGAINST HIS DECISION TO STAND AGAINST GETTING PIMPED BY AMERICA. WHY SHOULD THE PERSIANS GET FUCKED IN THE ASS WHILE ALL THE COUNTRIES AROUND THEM HAVE NUCLEAR POWER? WHEN A COUNTRY HAS 10% OF THE WORLD'S OIL, THEY BETTER RECIEVE SOME KIND OF RESPECT. PERSIAN POWER, AND FUC ZIONISM TOO!!

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-01-17-iran-QA_x.htm?csp=N009

WASHINGTON — Iran's recent decision to enrich uranium despite years of intensive diplomatic efforts by the United States and its European allies to stop it is pushing the world toward what could become a nuclear crisis.

Iran, which sits atop 10% of the world's oil and its second largest natural gas reserves, claims it's pursuing enrichment for peaceful atomic energy. But the conventional fear is the Islamic republic is using that as a cover for a nuclear weapons program the same way Pakistan, India and North Korea did.

President Bush has called Iran a "grave threat," using the same language he did before invading Iraq in 2003, when he called now deposed dictator Saddam Hussein "a grave threat."

So far, Bush has sought a diplomatic solution for Iran, although he has said military force is an option. But tangling with Iran and its 66 million people and army of 350,000 soldiers would require far more force than was used in Iraq, its much smaller and less populous neighbor.

Here are some questions and answers that explore why Iran wants to enrich uranium and why some Western and Arab countries are so adamantly opposed:

Question: What evidence is there that Iran is working toward a bomb?

Answer: The greatest point of concern is Iran's uranium enrichment program. The same technology used to make low-grade enriched uranium for energy can be used to produce highly enriched bomb-grade material.

Nuclear experts call these countries with enrichment capability "virtual" nuclear powers, and they represent one of the most serious threats to regional and global security today.

Uranium enrichment is also worrisome because it's much easier to make a nuclear weapon from uranium than plutonium.

Q: What are the principal dangers of a nuclear-armed Iran?

A: Israel considers a nuclear Iran a threat to its existence, but the rest of the Middle East also has cause for concern.

If Iran develops nuclear capability — for energy or weapons — it could trigger an arms race across the region by Sunni Arab nations that also feel threatened by Shiite Persian Iran.

Persians and Arabs have fought bitterly over the centuries. More than 1 million people died in the Iran-Iraq war, a Persian-Arab conflict. Shiites and Sunnis are now killing each other for control of Iraq.

A nuclear Iran could push Sunni Arab leaders in Saudi Arabia and Egypt to reconsider developing uranium enrichment capabilities. Both nations have started and given up nuclear weapons research.

A nuclear Iran also could choke off oil exports through the critically important Strait of Hormuz leading out of the Persian Gulf.

Iran is believed to have used the North Korean Nodong missile — capable of carrying a nuclear payload — as a model to develop its Shahab missiles, which can strike Israel and much of Europe.

Q: Is Iran breaking any international laws or treaties by pursuing uranium enrichment?

A: Iran signed the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, which permits development of peaceful uranium enrichment programs so long as they're fully transparent. Iran kept its nuclear program secret for almost 18 years before dissidents exposed it in 2002.

Q: Why might Iran want a nuclear weapon?

A: The speculation is that it could give Iran international respect, a hedge against perceived American and Arab hostility, and a bargaining chip to remove some U.S. economic sanctions.

War with Israel is also a possibility, although a remote one, according to many analysts. Iranian officials have talked about one nuclear bomb destroying tiny Israel while hard-line Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has talked about wiping Israel off the map of the Middle East.

But Israel is believed to have submarine-based nuclear weapons capable of responding if Tel Aviv is hit by a first strike.

Q: If Iran sought to make a nuclear weapon, how long would it take?

A: That's uncertain. Iran still has yet to enrich uranium in large quantities.

The Washington, D.C.-based Institute for Science and International Security predicts Iran would need a year to get its enrichment equipment working properly and then 18 months or so to make bomb-grade material and other weapon components. Factoring in inevitable setbacks and complications, the institute calculates Iran could have its first bomb by 2009.

Q: What's the status of diplomatic efforts to stop Iran's enrichment program?

A: The United States is trying to bring Iran before the five-member United Nations Security Council, potentially for a vote on economic sanctions. Each member of the panel has veto power over any measures that come before it. So far, three Security Council members — China, Russia and France — have voiced reluctance to endorse sanctions against Iran just yet.

Q: What role does oil play in the diplomatic struggle?

A: It's a factor. China, which imports 13% of its oil from Iran, could be a spoiler if it decides sanctions could hurt its energy supply and it opts for a veto. So far, China's International Atomic Energy Agency representative has been abstaining from votes on formal declarations about Iran's enrichment activities.

Q: Are there any feasible military options?

A: Yes, but they likely would require extensive bombing and result in huge civilian casualties. Iran has spread its nuclear program out over more than a dozen major facilities, some 75 feet or more underground. Many are near cities.

[J @ M @ L]

I don't know why everybody is tripping talking about trying to maintain a balance of power when their goal is the exact opposite of what they claim.... and...

AND FUC ZIONISM TOO!!

str8 up

[Sikotic™]

Iran is just talkin' some gangsta shit. There's nothing to be threatened by. Like Zilla said, they just don't wanna play ball with the west & refuse to be bullied.

[TraceOneInfinite Flat Earther 96']

Rod, although your post was decent, you really shouldn't disrespect the leadership in Iran like you do.  I doubt you would be strong enough to stand up against America's pressure if you were in leadership there.  You'd probably cave under the pressure and be a sell-out.  You'd cut some backdoor deal, hook all your homeboys up, and become a "house negro". 

What American's need to understand is that it's not Iran that is anti-US, but rather it is America that is anti-Iran, and Iran is only trying to defend themselves.  It is Iran that is potentially under-siege, not America.  America doesn't like Iran's leadership, simply because they are saying that they have a right to defend themselves and that they have a right to develop their country with their own interests at heart.

[J Bananas]

yeah i'm sure they love us over there

[nibs]

Q: What are the principal dangers of a nuclear-armed Iran?

A: Israel considers a nuclear Iran a threat to its existence, but the rest of the Middle East also has cause for concern.

If Iran develops nuclear capability — for energy or weapons — it could trigger an arms race across the region by Sunni Arab nations that also feel threatened by Shiite Persian Iran.

Persians and Arabs have fought bitterly over the centuries. More than 1 million people died in the Iran-Iraq war, a Persian-Arab conflict. Shiites and Sunnis are now killing each other for control of Iraq.

the sunni arab world has demonstrated countless times that shia-persian iran is always the lesser of two evils.  it is true that that the eight years war with iraq was portrayed as arab's vs persians, but remember; states like syria actually sided with iran, not iraq.  baathist-sunni-arab  syria sided with the shia persians over the sunni arab iraqi's.  syria and iran recently announced their mutual support and protection agreement, further strengthening the ties between those two nations.  these arab/persian and sunni/shia arguments are inapplicable, as it seems like the muslim world tends to stick together against the non-muslim world first.  those internal differences seem to be handled as a secondary matter.  with the u.s. bombing and threatening to bomb muslim states left and right, with israel making it clear that they will use force to prevent iran from getting nukes; it seems obvious that the rest of the muslim world would rally behind iran and not view a nuclear iran as a threat.  and such has been the message in newspapers from jordan and qatar that i've seen.

iran has always supported the arab sunni hostilities against israel.  across the middle east, it's always been clear that the greatest threat and enemy is israel and the u.s.   having a nuclear iran balances the power there somewhat.  it wouldn't spark an arms race.  and with iraq in disarray, saudi arabia still kurupt, what nation in the middle east is strong enough and rich enough to pursue nuclear weapons to engage in this arms race?  syria?  syria has no oil and is relatively poor.  does turkey count?  maybe turkey...

A nuclear Iran could push Sunni Arab leaders in Saudi Arabia and Egypt to reconsider developing uranium enrichment capabilities. Both nations have started and given up nuclear weapons research.

saudi arabia is too kurupt, too weak and susceptible to u.s. influence.  i'm not buying the saudi arabia angle.  egypt?  other than ancient historical conflicts with persia; why would egypt be more intimidated by iran than israel?  if egypt seeks nukes, i'd expect it would be a result of isreal (whom they've actually had a conflict with in modern times) than persia.  egypt and iran aren't neighbors, trading rivals...what is the basis for that statement?

Q: Is Iran breaking any international laws or treaties by pursuing uranium enrichment?

A: Iran signed the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, which permits development of peaceful uranium enrichment programs so long as they're fully transparent. Iran kept its nuclear program secret for almost 18 years before dissidents exposed it in 2002.

what nation cannot back out of a treaty at their discretion?  israel never even signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.  this argument is really a moot point.

[TraceOneInfinite Flat Earther 96']

and with iraq in disarray, saudi arabia still kurupt, what nation in the middle east is strong enough and rich enough to pursue nuclear weapons to engage in this arms race?  syria?  syria has no oil and is relatively poor.  does turkey count?  maybe turkey...

Yeah, Turkey is strong, no doubt.  They have one of the top 10 military powers in the world.  Don't forget, Turkey was the old world superpower before Britian, and even during the rise of Britian, Turkey was never a colonized country.  They've been a force for nearly a thousand years.  Turkey was the seat of the last Islamic (Ottoman Caliphate) Empire.  The Ottomans used to control lands all the way from Eastern Europe, Middle East, North Africa, and almost as far East as India.   

Infact, people often think that there has never been peace in Jerusalem, but for the 400 years that the Ottomans controlled it, from 1500 to 1900, that region was at peace.  Muslims controlled the region, and Jews and Christians were allowed passports for travel to their Holy sites.   But the Jews wanted more.  The Jews wanted a homeland.  The Christians had driven the Jews out 2,000 years ago, and many Jews wanted all that land back for themselves no matter how many Arabs would have to be killed or displaced in the process.   In 1948 their dreams were fullfilled when the UN made Palestine a Jewish homeland, changing the name from Palestine to Isreal and ultimately displacing 8 million Palestinians.

[nibs]

looking further into the matter:
turkey has atleast twice attempted to start nuclear energy programs and both times those plans have stalled.

egypt has sought both nuclear weapons and nuclear power at various times.  it appears that egypt's plans for nuclear power are still in effect, research and the procurement of reactors is still in place.  argentina is building egypt's facility, which is interesting.  argentina, mexico and brazil have all developed nuclear energy at some points, with varying degrees of success.

[King Tech Quadafi]

Rod, although your post was decent, you really shouldn't disrespect the leadership in Iran like you do.  I doubt you would be strong enough to stand up against America's pressure if you were in leadership there.  You'd probably cave under the pressure and be a sell-out.  You'd cut some backdoor deal, hook all your homeboys up, and become a "house negro". 

I think your attack here is misguided infinite. Rod has every right to attack the Iranian leadership.  The problem with these revolutionary rhetoric spewing Islamists is that they make for great talk but when it comes to wallking the walk, their exposed as corrupt, greedy un islamic parasites. And it is only the ones dealing with the govt on a daily basis (the Iranians themselves/) that recognize this. And Infinite, the Mullah theorcracy in Iran are house negroes. they aint shit. they aint real.

Im all for fuck the zionists, muslim power, let iran have a nuke. but i also realize that iranians got a legitimate beef with an illegitimate govt

[TraceOneInfinite Flat Earther 96']

I think your attack here is misguided infinite. Rod has every right to attack the Iranian leadership.  The problem with these revolutionary rhetoric spewing Islamists is that they make for great talk but when it comes to wallking the walk, their exposed as corrupt, greedy un islamic parasites. And it is only the ones dealing with the govt on a daily basis (the Iranians themselves/) that recognize this. And Infinite, the Mullah theorcracy in Iran are house negroes. they aint shit. they aint real.

Im all for fuck the zionists, muslim power, let iran have a nuke. but i also realize that iranians got a legitimate beef with an illegitimate govt

Assalamualikum... I know they are not perfect, but it's hard to be anywhere close to perfect when the major superpowers in the world are constantly trying to sabatoge you in everything you do. 

Besides... Tech, you got to realize that everyone from Trauma to Jake, to Englewood to and on down the line, have been waiting for the day that we get into an argument and start turning a blade inwards at eachother.  So if I have anything else to say to you on this issue, I'd rather discuss through Personal Message. 

[J @ M @ L]

you really shouldn't disrespect the leadership in Iran like you do.
Why not? Islam teaches that one should enjoin the right and forbid the wrong.... so if he sees something wrong with that government, then he SHOULD speak out against it.

I doubt you would be strong enough to stand up against America's pressure if you were in leadership there.  You'd probably cave under the pressure and be a sell-out.  You'd cut some backdoor deal, hook all your homeboys up, and become a "house negro".
See how you started your statement --- "YOU'D PROBABLY..." --- you're making negative assumptions about another person... check up on your "Welcome to Islam Guide 101" to see how that's viewed.

[TraceOneInfinite Flat Earther 96']

^^ No way man.  Rod used the word "against".  He said he was "against" the Iranian government.  Look at the opening thread.  So if you want to talk about enjoining the right and forbidding the wrong, that's exactly what I'm doing, because Rod is being a "house negro", he's an Iranian living in America's house, and critisizing the leadership of Iran that is deep in the trenches.  So I'm calling him towards Muslim unity, and discouraging his elements of dis-unity. 

As far as Tech's comment, I should have never responded to his comment, I should have sent him a personal message.  I will go back and edit my response to Tech right now. 

 

[J @ M @ L]

BEFORE WE GET INTO THE ARTICLE, IRAN NEEDS ITS RESPECT AND IT IS THAT TIME, SO IT'S ON. I KNOW THE PEOPLE OF IRAN ARE AGAINST THIS NEW PRESIDENT, TRUST ME, THE NEW GENERATION HAS A WESTERN INFLUENCED MIND-STATE, BELIEVE IT OR NOT. BUT THEY ARE NOT AGAINST HIS DECISION TO STAND AGAINST GETTING PIMPED BY AMERICA. WHY SHOULD THE PERSIANS GET FUCKED IN THE ASS WHILE ALL THE COUNTRIES AROUND THEM HAVE NUCLEAR POWER? WHEN A COUNTRY HAS 10% OF THE WORLD'S OIL, THEY BETTER RECIEVE SOME KIND OF RESPECT. PERSIAN POWER, AND FUC ZIONISM TOO!!

Rod, although your post was decent, you really shouldn't disrespect the leadership in Iran like you do.  I doubt you would be strong enough to stand up against America's pressure if you were in leadership there.  You'd probably cave under the pressure and be a sell-out. You'd cut some backdoor deal, hook all your homeboys up, and become a "house negro". 

He said he was "against" the Iranian government. 

he's an Iranian living in America's house, and critisizing the leadership of Iran that is deep in the trenches.  So I'm calling him towards Muslim unity, and discouraging his elements of dis-unity. 

You're wrong.

By the way... just because they're Muslim, doesn't make them good.

[TraceOneInfinite Flat Earther 96']

Jamal, okay I'll agree I shouldn't have stepped to Rod like that.  And he has my apology for the "house negro" comment.

At the same time though, I still do express my opinion that the Iranian government is doing as well as can be expected considering they have so many outside forces working against them and trying to sabotage their every move.

[ZILLA THA GOODFELLA]

This is the only move the people of Iran have agreed with in a LONG while, why? because it's a respect issue, point blank. Do you have any idea how the majority of people (Muslims) out there feel about their government? It is corrupt and opresses the people, depending on what ure definition of that is. Do your homework before you come here using your little book knowledge about house negroes & so on & so forth. The only thing ure worried about is not to fuck up the Islamic image infront of cats that oppose you on this message board. Well guess what? the image is already fucked because of governments like these. The people in Palestine or the goal of those in Al-Qaeda is a whole different ball game, they were standing up against opression. You on the other hand don't stand for what's real. You're the real house negro. Selling out just to make a point. And also, the only time I even labeled myself a Muslim on here was in 9th grade, around 6 or so years ago. Don't worry about my way of looking at religion, I stand for what's real, period.