Iran parliament votes to reduce ties with Britain

[IAN 2411]

Iran parliament votes to reduce ties with Britain
By Hossein Jaseb | Reuters – 5 hours ago

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran's parliament voted on Sunday to reduce diplomatic relations with Britain, with one lawmaker warning that Iranians angered by London's latest sanctions could storm the British embassy as they did to the U.S. mission in 1979.
The bill, if it passes one further legislative hurdle, will oblige the government to downgrade ties within two weeks, forcing the ambassador out and leaving the British embassy to be run by a charge d'affaires.

It comes less than a week after London banned all British financial institutions from doing business with their Iranian counterparts, including the Central Bank of Iran, as part of a new wave of sanctions western countries are imposing over Tehran's nuclear programme.

By announcing its moves ahead of other European Union countries, Britain -- which Iranians often refer to as "the old fox" -- is first in the firing line for retaliation by Tehran, but lawmakers said they would push to cut ties with other EU countries if, as expected, they follow London's lead.

"The legislative branch is observing the behaviour of the British government and this is just the beginning of the road," speaker Ali Larijani told parliament.

Lawmakers who spoke out against the bill did so because they deemed it not strong enough.

"This plan should be firmer and stronger against Britain," Mahmoud Ahmadi Bighash told the house. "Having relations with Britain, even with one representative, is a total betrayal and we should padlock the British embassy."

Another member went even further, invoking the storming of the U.S. embassy -- dubbed the "den of spies" -- by students in the 1979 Islamic revolution. The hostage crisis lasted for 444 days and set the tone for rock-bottom relations between Tehran and Washington ever since.

"The British government should know that if they insist on their evil stances the Iranian people will punch them in the mouth, exactly as happened against America's den of spies, before it was approved by officials," Mehdi Kuchakzadeh said.

Ahead of the vote, lawmakers chanted "Death to England."
The British foreign ministry called the parliament vote "regrettable."
...............................................
Surely my Government was not naive as to think Iran would not hit back like a spoilt child. They are throwing all of their toys out of the pram because no one wants to play their games. This self proclaimed peaceful nation is threatening the UK with Embassy siege, while chanting “Death to England.” They are going to punch us in the mouth. Well let me tell you this. I am sixty three and that niece of mine that married the Iranian that I don’t like will soon be visiting him in Intensive care, because I believe that attack is the best form of defence.
..........................................
UNWARRANTED
"This unwarranted move will do nothing to help the regime address their growing isolation or international concerns about their nuclear programme and human rights record. If the Iranian government acts on this, we will respond robustly in consultation with our international partners," it said.

Iranian state radio said there would be a demonstration outside the British embassy on Tuesday, the first anniversary of the death of Majid Shahriyari, a nuclear scientist killed along with his wife by a car bomb that Tehran said was the work of Israeli agents.

London and Washington announced new sanctions after a U.N. nuclear agency report suggested Iran had worked on an atomic bomb design. Tehran maintains its work is entirely peaceful and said the report was based on false Western intelligence.

That report and U.S. allegations of an Iranian-backed plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to Washington have further soured relations between Iran and the West, with Israel and the United States saying military action is still an option.

Defence Minister Ahmad Vahidi said Israel could expect up to 150,000 missiles to rain down on it if it attacks Tehran and said the United States should not expect Iran to fall easily.

They Just dont know how to stop threatening the West.

"America should not think it staged war in Afghanistan and Iraq," Vahidi said in a speech carried by the Fars news agency. "Iran is strong enough to show America a war, to give it a lesson on war to understand what fighters are and what war is."

In a final vote on the bill in the 290-strong assembly, 171 voted for, three against, and seven abstained, according to numbers displayed on screens in parliament.

The bill now goes to the Guardian Council, a panel of 12 clerics and jurists who judge whether legislation is Islamic. The process usually take one to two weeks. If the council approves the bill, the foreign ministry will be obliged to put it into force and downgrade relations with London.

In the meantime, European Union foreign ministers are due to meet on Thursday to approved new sanctions on Iran.

Paris has proposed banning oil imports to the bloc, which accounted for 18 percent of Iranian oil purchases in the first half of 2011, and the Netherlands is pushing for the EU to follow London's move on sanctioning the Iranian central bank.
Parliament's bill instructs the foreign ministry to downgrade relations with any country that follows London's sanctions move.
(Additional reporting by Mitra Amiri; Writing by Robin Pomeroy; Editing by Sophie Hares)
....................................
I really don’t know why the UK is bothered about the little toe rag in charge of Iran. They don’t export oil to the UK and other export from them is less than 1% of UK imports. Their loss of imports and loss of exports worldwide is getting greater every time their leaders open their mouths. If Iran was so self sufficient they would not be crowing because of sanctions.

Be well IAN 2411

[Austerus]

I so love the British talent for dry understatement. "Regrettable" indeed.

[denuseri]

Looks like a familiar sort of wind up to me.

[lucy]

I am sixty three and that niece of mine that married the Iranian that I don’t like will soon be visiting him in Intensive care, because I believe that attack is the best form of defence.

And how exactly is that making you any less of an asshole than an Iranian student storming into the British embassy in Teheran?
Just wonderin'.

Apart from that, I guess they don't have to sell their oil to the EU. China will most likely be very pleased to buy it. I guess the time for sanctions has run out, as has time for military options.

[IAN 2411]

And how exactly is that making you any less of an asshole than an Iranian student storming into the British embassy in Teheran?
Just wonderin'.

I wont be holding him hostage for 444 days. If he feels like he needs to punch me in the mouth, i can asure you and he that i will use every skill i learnt in the army to hurt him first.

If sanctions were not working the Iranians would not be complaining, and there is never a time for Military actions when deplomicy and blackmail works just as good.

I would like to point out that neither military options nor diplomicy will work, they will do the same as any western country in the world. Tell the other countries to keep out of their soverign affairs and carry on regardless [What is good for the goose is good for the gander]. This is not about nuclear capeability against the west, it is about the threat to Israel.

Be well IAN2411

[Austerus]

Maybe I was confused. Are you saying that because of the Iranian government's actions you want to attack your nephew-in-law? That seems like an unreasonable response.

[js207]

Maybe I was confused. Are you saying that because of the Iranian government's actions you want to attack your nephew-in-law? That seems like an unreasonable response.

It does indeed. It sounds as if someone has just delivered a more appropriate response (http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/report-explosion-rocks-iran-city-of-isfahan-home-to-key-nuclear-facility-1.398312) to Iran's posturing and plotting...

[IAN 2411]

Maybe I was confused. Are you saying that because of the Iranian government's actions you want to attack your nephew-in-law? That seems like an unreasonable response.

I think that you missed the quote
If he feels like he needs to punch me in the mouth. The key word is, “If”. And yes you are very confused. I was also answering lucy's question.

Which would you find unreasonable, defending yourself or turn the other cheek while the Iranians laugh at your Government for 444 days?

I believe what I am saying is Quid pro Quo and that is very reasonable.

Be well IAN 2411

[ksst]

It doesn't sound reasonable to me at all.

[js207]

It doesn't sound reasonable to me at all.

You don't think it reasonable to use force against someone who comes out saying "I'm going to punch you in the mouth"? Are you really saying you'd just stand there and take it instead? I doubt most people would - or think it reasonable to be expected to.

[ksst]

I think it sounds like a couple of guys looking to get into a brawl by kicking sand at each other, which I don't think is particularly reasonable.

[Austerus]

I agree with ksst. If someone says they are going to punch you in the mouth you can just walk away. Of course, this situation isn't really about a schoolyard fight. It's about international incidents which can lead to war, billions (trillions) spent, and thousands (or millions)killed. It's one thing to get huffy with someone at the bar and get in a fight. It's quite another to let another country's name calling bullshit goad us into the kind of actions that can't be undone. It's not even apples and oranges, it's apples and spaceships.

And I still don't understand why you would threaten your nephew over something Iran did.

[IAN 2411]

I think it sounds like a couple of guys looking to get into a brawl by kicking sand at each other, which I don't think is particularly reasonable.

Yawnnnnn, trivialities!!!

Be well IAN 2411

[IAN 2411]

Iranian protesters storm British embassy
By Robin Pomeroy | Reuters – 29 minutes ago

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iranian protesters stormed two British diplomatic compounds in Tehran on Tuesday, smashing windows, hurling petrol bombs and burning the British flag in protest against sanctions imposed by London.

Britain said it was outraged by the attacks and warned of "serious consequences."

The attacks come at a time of rising diplomatic tension between Iran and Western nations who last week imposed fresh sanctions over Tehran's nuclear programme which they believe is aimed at achieving the capability of making an atomic bomb.

Iran, the world's fifth biggest oil exporter, says it only wants nuclear plants to generate electricity.

The embassy storming is also a clear sign of deepening political infighting within Iran's ruling hardline elites, with the conservative-led parliament attempting to force the hand of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and expel the British ambassador.

"Radicals in Iran and in the West are always in favour of crisis ... Such radical hardliners in Iran will use the crisis to unite people and also to blame the crisis for the fading economy," said political analyst Hasan Sedghi.

Several dozen protesters broke away from a crowd of a few hundred outside the main British embassy compound in downtown Tehran, scaled the gates, broke the locks and went inside.

Protesters pulled down the British flag, burnt it, and put up the Iranian flag, Iranian news agencies and news pictures showed. Inside, the demonstrators smashed windows of office and residential quarters and set a car ablaze, news pictures showed.

One took a framed picture of the Queen, state TV showed. Others carried the royal crest out through the embassy gate as police stood by, pictures carried by the Fars news agency showed.

Demonstrators waved flags symbolising martyrdom and held portraits of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei who has the final say on matters of state in Iran.

Another group of protesters broke into a second British compound at Qolhak in north Tehran, the IRNA state news agency said. Once the embassy's summer quarters, the sprawling, tree-lined compound is now used to house diplomatic staff.

An Iranian report said six British embassy staff had been briefly held by the protesters. Foreign Secretary William Hague said the situation had been "confusing" and that he would not have called them "hostages."

"Police freed the six people working for the British embassy in Qolhak garden," Iran's Fars news agency said.

A German school next to the Qolhak compound was also damaged, the German government said.

BRITAIN OUTRAGED

Police appeared to have cleared the demonstrators in front of the main downtown embassy compound, but later clashed with hardline protesters and fired tear gas to attempt to disperse them, Fars said. Protesters nevertheless entered the compound a second time, before once again leaving, it said.

Prime Minister David Cameron chaired a meeting of the government crisis committee to discuss the attacks, Hague said.

"We hold the Iranian government responsible for its failure to take adequate measures to protect our embassy, as it is required to do," Hague said in a statement. "Clearly there will be other, further, and serious consequences."

The United States condemned "in the strongest terms" the storming of the embassy and urged Iran to prosecute offenders. The European Union and many of its member states also condemned the attacks.

There have been regular protests outside the British embassy over the years since the 1979 Islamic revolution that toppled the U.S.-backed shah, but never have any been so violent.

The attacks and hostage-taking were reminiscent of the 1979 takeover of the U.S. embassy in Tehran carried out by radical students who held 52 Americans hostage for 444 days. The United States and Iran have cut diplomatic ties ever since.

INFIGHTING

The demonstrations appeared to be a bid by conservatives who control parliament to press home their demand, passed in parliament last week and quickly endorsed by the Guardian Council on Tuesday, for the government to expel the British ambassador in retaliation for the sanctions.

A lawmaker had warned on Sunday that angry Iranians could storm the British embassy.

"Parliament officially notified the president over a bill regarding degrading the ties with Britain, obliging the government to implement it within five days," Fars news agency quoted speaker Ali Larijani as saying.

Ahmadinejad's government has shown no willingness to compromise on its refusal to halt its nuclear work, but has sought to keep channels of negotiation open in an effort to limit the worst effects of sanctions.

An Iranian official told Reuters the storming of the British compounds was not planned by the government.

"It was not an organised measure. The establishment had no role in it. It was not planned," said the official, who declined to be identified. Iran's Foreign Ministry said it regretted the attacks and was committed to ensuring the safety of diplomats.

Police made a number of arrests, Fars said, quoting a police chief as saying they would be handed over to the judiciary.

Protesters said they planned to stage a sit-in at the gates of the north Tehran compound and would not move until they were told to do so by Iran's religious leaders.

Britain, along with the United States and Canada imposed new unilateral sanctions on Iran last week, while the EU, France and Italy have all said financial measures against Tehran should be strengthened.

London banned all British financial institutions from doing business with their Iranian counterparts, including the Central Bank of Iran.
.................................................. .........

Iran will soon have no friends not that the UK was a friend in the first place. I think that Europe will have to show unity now with the UK or it will cost them dearly. The uk is not too happy with our comrades the other side of the channel as it is, not to respond would not be an option.

[lucy]

They are going to punch us in the mouth.
... was what you said. Not your nephew in law. They. Us. Not 'me'. Putting your nephew in law into the ICU coz 'they' punch the UK in the mouth is like, like, like, well, complete asshattery.

Also, the UK put Sanctions into effect without first discussing them with the rest of the EU and now the EU has to follow you suit and pat you on the back?
Hmm. Sounds a bit weird to me. I'm not a big fan of the EU myself, but one of the good things it has brought to our continent is that nations have started talking to each other. Sounds like the Brits should have cared about unity first and acted when that was achieved.

Also: Europe and unity. That's something I've yet to see before I believe it's possible. Sad but true.

[js207]

Lucy: The EU itself, France and Italy have all agreed already that financial sanctions need to be strengthened - the UK just moved a bit faster than them. Anyway, Iran is flouting international law yet again, refusing to trade with them is hardly an extreme response!

[lucy]

The Nuclear Proliferation Treaty is, as the name says, a treaty, not law. And even if it were law, why didn't anybody bother too much (well, with the exception of India) when Pakistan tested a bomb? Maybe because Pakistan never signed it (along with India and Israel). So all Iran had to do is to leave the treaty and they'd be in the clear? Doesn't sound right to me.

Anyway, me, personally, I don't see much of a difference between Pakistan and Iran. Well, maybe there is one: With Iran you know they're fooling you and will stab you in the back as soon as you turn around whereas with Pakistan you can only guess as much.

Either way, that doesn't mean I think it's not important to keep the mullahs in Teheran from obtaining nuclear weapons. But then again, I firmly believe that nobody should have them.

[js207]

The Nuclear Proliferation Treaty is, as the name says, a treaty, not law. And even if it were law

Treaties are international law (dictionary definition: "a body of rules established by custom or treaty"). What did you think international law consisted of, if not treaties?

One key difference is Iran's stated agenda of extermination; where Pakistan and India essentially seek nuclear weapons as part of their standoff over Kashmir, Iran seeks to destroy another country utterly - by some accounts, even at the expense of its own existence. If they sought peaceful coexistence, their weapons program would be less of an issue ... but then, if they sought peaceful existence rather than extermination of others, they wouldn't be pursuing these weapons in the first place.

[IAN 2411]

The Nuclear Proliferation Treaty is, as the name says, a treaty, not law.
I am in full agreement with you on that remark.




And even if it were law, why didn't anybody bother too much (well, with the exception of India) when Pakistan tested a bomb? Maybe because Pakistan never signed it (along with India and Israel). So all Iran had to do is to leave the treaty and they'd be in the clear? Doesn't sound right to me.


Neither, India or Pakistan are as volatile or unstable as Iran, there are the odd few people in the north of Pakistan that welcome the Taliban. The majority do not and have a high distaste for any kind of terrorism. You are correct about the treaty but I think that the world knew that the nuclear tests of India and Pakistan were not a sign of intent, but more of a warning that we will fight fire with fire. It was much the same as Russia and the West during the cold war.



Anyway, me, personally, I don't see much of a difference between Pakistan and Iran. Well, maybe there is one: With Iran you know they're fooling you and will stab you in the back as soon as you turn around whereas with Pakistan you can only guess as much.

There is a lot of difference, in the fact that Iran as you see by the invasion of the British Embassy, are nothing more than out of control animals. The country has a person in charge that was placed there through vote rigging and intimidation, in other words it is not a democracy. This is not about the rest of the world not wanting them to have nuclear capabilities; they under other circumstances would not give a damn. It’s just that the rest of the world knows that if they cannot get Iran to back down by sanctions and diplomatic means, then Israel that have been threatened by Iran will do it by other means. America will have to back Israel being their mentors and banker, and no one wants another war. Make no mistake Iran will be no walkover like Iraq.



Either way, that doesn't mean I think it's not important to keep the mullahs in Teheran from obtaining nuclear weapons. But then again, I firmly believe that nobody should have them.

If only this was a world of peace.

Be well IAN 2411

[lucy]

OK, so it is law. Damn definitions!

Agreed, Iranian officials have repeatedly stated that they'd want to exterminate Israel. With Pakistan developing the way it does this doesn't really seem unlikely to eventually happen, too.
Also, I believe that all this talk about exterminating Israel is mostly directed at the Iranian population (and the Lebanese Hizbullah and the Palestinians). With a youth unemployment rate as high as 25 percent they have to keep them entertained and in line somehow. And nothing unifies better than a common enemy.


...but then, if they sought peaceful existence rather than extermination of others, they wouldn't be pursuing these weapons in the first place.

You mean, like, the US of A? Russia? China? FranceGreatBritainIndiaIsraelPakistanNorthKorea? ;)

[IAN 2411]

UK expels Iran diplomats after embassy attack

By Robin Pomeroy and Mitra Amiri | Reuters – 12 minutes ago

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Britain shut Iran's embassy in London and expelled all its staff on Wednesday, saying the storming of the British mission in Tehran could not have taken place without consent from Iranian authorities.

Foreign Secretary William Hague also said the British Embassy in Tehran had been closed and all staff evacuated following the attack on Tuesday by a crowd that ransacked offices and burned British flags in a protest over sanctions imposed by Britain on Tehran.

Iran warned that Britain's closure of the Iranian embassy in London would lead to further retaliation.

Tuesday's incident was the most violent so far as relations between the two countries steadily deteriorate due to Iran's wider dispute with the West over its nuclear programme.

Analysts say it also appeared to reflect factionalism within Iran's ruling establishment, a unique hybrid of clerical and secular authority, and efforts by hardliners to undermine President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

On top of its ban on British financial institutions dealing with Iran and its central bank last week, Britain has called for further measures and a diplomatic source said London would now support a ban on oil imports from the Islamic Republic.

Hague said Iranian ambassadors across the European Union had been summoned to receive strong protests over the incident. But Britain stopped short of severing ties with Iran completely.

"The Iranian charge (d'affaires) in London is being informed now that we require the immediate closure of the Iranian embassy in London and that all Iranian diplomatic staff must leave the United Kingdom within the next 48 hours," Hague told parliament.

"We have now closed the British embassy in Tehran. We have decided to evacuate all our staff and as of the last few minutes, the last of our UK-based staff have now left Iran."

France, Germany and the Netherlands said they were recalling their ambassadors for consultations. Germany said it would offer to take over consular duties on behalf of Britain in Tehran.

It was the worst crisis between Britain and Iran since full diplomatic relations were restored in 1999, 10 years after Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini's fatwa that author Salman Rushdie could be killed for writing "The Satanic Verses."

Hague said it was "fanciful" to think Iranian authorities could not protect the British embassy, or that the assault could have taken place without "some degree of regime consent."

"This does not amount to the severing of diplomatic relations in their entirety. It is action that reduces our relations with Iran to the lowest level consistent with the maintenance of diplomatic relations," he added.

Mindful of the 1979 seizure of the U.S. embassy in Tehran, when radical students held 52 Americans hostage for 444 days, Britain waited until all its two dozen diplomatic staff and dependents had left the country to announce its move.

Iran's state TV quoted a foreign ministry spokesman as calling London's closure of the Iranian embassy "hasty." "Naturally the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran would take further appropriate action regarding the issue," a news reporter said.

RIFTS IN IRAN

Negotiations on Iran's nuclear programme were now "dead," said Ali Ansari, director of the Institute for Iranian Studies at St Andrews University in Scotland.

"What you are moving into is a period of containment and quarantine. I don't think we are into a military confrontation, but we are into a period of containment and they (the West) are going to try and tighten the noose."

The attack also exposes widening rifts within Iran's ruling elite. It appeared to be part of a move by the conservatives who dominate parliament to force Ahmadinejad to heed their demand to expel the British ambassador.

Ahmadinejad and his ministers have shown no willingness to compromise on their refusal to halt Iran's nuclear work but have sought to keep talks open to limit what sanctions are imposed.

The West believes the programme is aimed at building a nuclear weapon, a charge Tehran strongly denies.

"This incident was planned by elements who are not opposed per se to negotiations but want to stop them merely because of their own petty political struggles," said Trita Parsi, a U.S.-based expert on Western-Iranian relations.

"The push to get the UK ambassador out came from parliament which is headed by Ali Larijani," Parsi said. "When Larijani was chief nuclear negotiator Ahmadinejad carried out a similar campaign against negotiations."

Ahmadinejad was once seen as a protege of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. But he has faced challenges this year from hardliners who fear his faction threatens the role of the Islamic clergy in the political system that emerged after Iran's 1979 revolution: a parliamentary one, with a directly elected president overseen by a powerful cleric.

Khamenei's recent comment that the directly elected presidency could be replaced with one elected by parliament has been welcomed by those who want to clip Ahmadinejad's wings.
Conservative newspapers trumpeted the embassy seizure.

The daily Vatan-e Emrouz declared: "Fox's den seized," referring to Britain's nickname "the old fox" which reflects a widely-held view in Iran that London still wields great power behind the scenes in Iranian and international affairs.

While Iranian police at first did not stop the protesters storming the embassy gates, they later fired tear gas to disperse them and freed six Britons held by demonstrators.

Iran's Foreign Ministry expressed its regret for the "unacceptable behaviour of few demonstrators."

The protesters hit back, saying they had been "seeking to answer to the plots and malevolence of this old fox" and the Foreign Ministry should not sacrifice "the goals of the nation for diplomatic and political relations."

"We expected the police to be on the side of the students instead of confronting them," said a statement by a group calling itself the Islamic community of Tehran universities.

Britain imposed sanctions on the Iran central bank last week after a report by the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency suggested Iran may have worked on developing a nuclear arsenal.

Iran, the world's fifth biggest oil exporter, says it only wants nuclear technology to generate electricity.

Britain has not backed a ban on Iranian oil imports, but that could now change, the diplomatic source told Reuters, and London will likely back a call by France to do just that and impose "sanctions on a scale that would paralyse the regime."

The United States, which cut diplomatic relations with Iran after its embassy was stormed in 1979, has not bought Iranian oil since the 1990s, but has not taken any measures against Iran's central bank. That would cripple Iran's economy as it would not be able to process payments for its vital oil exports.
.................................................. .............
So it is already getting hot in Europe, France are now getting in on the act. It is not looking too good for Iran, and the thick students that caused that farce yesterday have no idea they are being used as pawns in a very dangerous game. Before long there will be no European Embassy’s in Iran; and that will not be good for the Iranian coffers.

Be well IAN 2411

[lucy]

It is not looking too good for Iran

I don't think that this bothers them all that much. It might bother the population, but not the circle of power in Iran. And they'll find ways to put all the blame on somebody else. Methinks what's happening now is pretty much what Iran wanted to happen all along. Well, at least its fucked up leaders.

Fact is, the west has no good options left: Sanctions will hurt the wrong people, an attack would cost the US what little sympathies are left in the Arab world and probably lead to retaliation. For instance, nobody wants Iran to shut down the strait of Hormuz, through which a large percentage of the world's oil supplies are transported. And the Iranians know that.

[js207]

There seem to have been some pretty effective covert operations against their nuclear weapons program so far: Stuxnet disrupted their uranium enrichment process significantly, it seems, although of course Iran doesn't volunteer details, and there have been several suspicious "accidents" lately: things connected with the illegal weapons program seem to have a strange habit of exploding randomly. The trouble is, these are really just delaying tactics: one way or another, someone will have to disarm Iran, maybe by peaceful or semi-peaceful means like an internal change of government, more likely by some significant level of force. With luck, perhaps some well-placed MOPs (the new deep 'bunker-buster' bombs) would cripple the program with minimal collateral: short of a sudden change of attitude on their part, that's probably the best case scenario.

Blockading the Straits of Hormuz would be extremely risky: apart from anything else, cutting off the flow of oil out of the Gulf also means cutting off the flow of money in the opposite direction, and if you think cutting off OPEC's third of the global oil supply would hurt us, think how countries like Saudi (not exactly unarmed) will feel about suddenly losing 90% of their exports and more than half their GDP? It's also a pretty blatant act of war - pretty much asking for a reenactment of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.

I read earlier today that part of the back-story to this may be a power struggle between two factions within Iran - though with both factions being genocidal theocrats who disagree only about the means, that probably isn't much comfort to us.

[rocco]

What if, and i mean if. Iran "was" only intending to use nuclear power to generate electricity? This has the same characteristics of so called "Weapons of mass destruction" hidden in Iraq!! There were none! And the so-called properganda and proof cost a lot of lives! So im led to believe it takes 9 sola powered plates to generate enough electricty to boil a kettle! So thats out of the question then!
The problem i worry about is their capabillity to actually run a nuclear power plant! There are two governing factors that run Iran, the Iotoller and president. [sorry for spelling mistake] The masses [I]fear[I] their religious leaders. The same way people feared the church back in the middle ages! And today!
Although most people are pretty laid back about religious beliefs etc.
If theres a constant "push me, pull me" attitude on running such technology. I fear there could be another Chonobal disaster!
Thats the most worrying thing about this all!

At least when Pakistan went nuclear, they have "stable" goverment that runs effeciently enough to control this powerful monster! Iran doesnt!
So i dont think we need to fear a nuclear missile flying over head from Iran, but rather an uncontrollable accident.
This i fear is the most worrying factor here!
We shall have to wait and see.

[lucy]

What if, and i mean if. Iran "was" only intending to use nuclear power to generate electricity?
If that was the case they shouldn't have a problem letting inspectors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) into their facilities to have a good look at what they're doing there. Also, it would be much cheaper and faster to build a couple of power plants burning oil or gaz or coal to generate electricity.

[IAN 2411]

it would be much cheaper and faster to build a couple of power plants burning oil or gaz or coal to generate electricity.

That is a very good point lucy and one that is being overlooked, it would not just be cheaper but as they own their own oil, it would be free. By the way what country has sold them the uranium for this project, because i am almost sure that they have none of their own?

Be well IAN 2411

[js207]

If that was the case they shouldn't have a problem letting inspectors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) into their facilities to have a good look at what they're doing there. Also, it would be much cheaper and faster to build a couple of power plants burning oil or gaz or coal to generate electricity.

To be fair, nuclear power does make a little sense there even with a plentiful supply of oil/gas: every bit of fuel they burn to generate electricity is a bit they aren't exporting to generate money instead. Similarly, oil wells in the West are starting to experiment with other fuel sources to drive the oil extraction process: solar water heating to generate some of the steam needed for some older wells in California, for example, and I think nuclear power for some of the tar sand processing in Canada. None of it involves weapons-grade uranium of course...

As for the source of Iran's uranium ore, uranium is actually one of the most common elements in the earth's crust; there are large deposits in Kazakhstan, and might even be some in Iran itself: it's the enrichment process which is the real barrier to weapons programs, rather than obtaining the ore itself.

[thir]

If that was the case they shouldn't have a problem letting inspectors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) into their facilities to have a good look at what they're doing there. Also, it would be much cheaper and faster to build a couple of power plants burning oil or gaz or coal to generate electricity.

Then again, I sometimes wonder if other countries find the present nuclear state's self-appoited role of stopping others from having it ok?

[js207]

Then again, I sometimes wonder if other countries find the present nuclear state's self-appoited role of stopping others from having it ok?

Most do - that's exactly what they agree to including in international law by signing the non-proliferation treaty, that the five existing nuclear powers stay that way and everyone agrees to work to stop any more countries getting them (in exchange for access to uranium for fuel, information, equipment etc). A few countries aren't signatories (notably India, Israel and Pakistan) and North Korea withdrew from it in 2003; Iran, however, signed it and remains bound today. It's not just the existing nuclear powers, it's almost everyone who agreed that nuclear proliferation is a bad thing.

[lucy]

To be fair, nuclear power does make a little sense there even with a plentiful supply of oil/gas: every bit of fuel they burn to generate electricity is a bit they aren't exporting to generate money instead.

That makes hardly sense. I don't know what nuclear power plants cost and am too lazy to research it, but I guess they don't come cheap and they'd have to save a lot of barrels of oil to make that deal a good one. Also, to my knowledge, Iran actually has to import refined oil products such as gasoline, so if they needed the money it'd better be invested in building a couple refineries.
Finally, I heavily doubt that they want to substitute oil or coal generated power with fission generated power because they care a lot about the release of greenhouse gases.
Nope, really, the only reason for Iran to go after nuclear power (and make such a fuss about it) is because they want the bomb.

And yeah, I fully agree with everybody in this thread that Iran is probably the last country on this planet who should have nuclear weapons. I just happen to think that it's too late to stop them.

[Thorne]

I don't know what nuclear power plants cost ... but I guess they don't come cheap and they'd have to save a lot of barrels of oil to make that deal a good one.
I was told many years ago that the cost to generate a kilowatt hour of electricity from coal was about 20 times the cost using nuclear. Oil was even worse, about 50 times the cost of nuclear. I doubt that it would cost 20 times as much to build a nuclear plant as a coal or oil plant, so nuclear makes more economic sense. Especially if your primary source of money is from the export of oil.

[lucy]

You've been told wrong: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ad/Levelized_energy_cost_chart_1%2C_2011_DOE_report.g if. That's not yet including the money needed to eventually dismantle the nuclear power plant in fifty years. But then again, why think ahead, eh?

[Thorne]

You've been told wrong: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ad/Levelized_energy_cost_chart_1%2C_2011_DOE_report.g if. That's not yet including the money needed to eventually dismantle the nuclear power plant in fifty years. But then again, why think ahead, eh?
Looks like you're right. Like I said, it was a long time ago. But nuclear still outperforms coal 113.9 -136.2, unless you allow CO2 to escape.

But according to the article: "Capital costs (including waste disposal and decommissioning costs for nuclear energy)" so that's also factored in. I'm pretty sure the guy who told me those things back then was only talking about the actual production costs, based on fuel costs, and not including construction of decommissioning costs.

[denuseri]

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran's military has shot down a U.S. reconnaissance drone aircraft in eastern Iran and has threatened to respond to the violation of Iranian airspace, a military source told state television Sunday.

"Iran's military has downed an intruding RQ-170 American drone in eastern Iran," Iran's Arabic-language Al Alam state television network quoted the unnamed source as saying.
"The spy drone, which has been downed with little damage, was seized by the Iranian armed forces."
Iran shot down the drone at a time when it is trying to contain foreign reaction to the storming of the British embassy in Tehran Tuesday, shortly after London announced that it would impose sanctions on Iran's central bank in connection with Iran's controversial nuclear enrichment program.
Britain evacuated its diplomatic staff from Iran and expelled Iranian diplomats in London in retaliation, and several other EU members recalled their ambassadors from Tehran.
The attack dragged Iran's relations with Europe to a long-time low.
"The Iranian military's response to the American spy drone's violation of our airspace will not be limited to Iran's borders," the military source said, without elaborating.
The United States and Israel have not ruled out military action against Iran's nuclear facilities if diplomacy fails to resolve the nuclear dispute.
Iran has dismissed reports of possible U.S. or Israeli plans to strike Iran, warning that it would respond to any such assault by attacking U.S. interests in the Gulf and Israel.
Analysts say Tehran could retaliate by launching hit-and-run strikes in the Gulf and by closing the Strait of Hormuz. About 40 percent of all traded oil leaves the Gulf region through the strategic waterway.
Iran said in July it had shot down an unmanned U.S. spy plane over the holy city of Qom, near its Fordu nuclear site.

[thir]

Most do - that's exactly what they agree to including in international law by signing the non-proliferation treaty, that the five existing nuclear powers stay that way and everyone agrees to work to stop any more countries getting them (in exchange for access to uranium for fuel, information, equipment etc). A few countries aren't signatories (notably India, Israel and Pakistan) and North Korea withdrew from it in 2003; Iran, however, signed it and remains bound today.


Thanks for updating me.




It's not just the existing nuclear powers, it's almost everyone who agreed that nuclear proliferation is a bad thing.

The whole thing would be more believable if said 5 powers renounced their own nuclear powers. As it is, it is just 'we are the good guys and should have it, noone else should.'

[Stealth694]

If Iran continues to play its crazy game It will deny that they signed the Non-proliferation treaty, siting that its a American/Zionist plot to deprive Iran of much needed power ect,ect, ect.

[IAN 2411]

Iran could abandon the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) if forced to limit nuclear activities, its hardline president says.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said if the rights of the Iranian people were violated, Iran would "revise its policies".

He made the comments in a speech marking the anniversary of the 1979 Islamic revolution.
On 4 February, the IAEA decided to report Iran to the UN Security Council over its disputed nuclear programme.

The NPT, which has 187 signatories, was created to prevent new nuclear states emerging, to promote co-operation in the peaceful use of nuclear energy and to work towards nuclear disarmament.

Non-nuclear signatories agree not to seek to develop or acquire such weapons. In return, they are given an undertaking that they will be helped to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.

It is believed to be the first time Iran has threatened to pull out of the treaty.

'Peaceful use'

Addressing huge crowds in Tehran, Mr Ahmadinejad said that Iranian policy was based on the peaceful use of nuclear technology for "industry, medicine and economy".

"Until now the Islamic Republic has pursued its nuclear effort within the context of the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Non-Proliferation Treaty," he said.

"However, if we see that despite our respect for these regulations you want to violate the rights of the Iranian people, you should understand the Iranian nation will revise its policies," he warned.

On 6 February, following the IAEA's decision to report Iran to the UN Security Council, Iran formally told the UN nuclear watchdog to end snap inspections of its nuclear sites by mid-February.

It also ordered the IAEA to remove surveillance cameras and indicated it would end its freeze on full uranium enrichment.

Iran denies US and European claims that it is trying to develop weapons, maintaining that its nuclear programme is only for energy production.

Leaving the NPT is allowed under the treaty, and would allow a state free to develop nuclear power and weapons without inspection.

North Korea announced its withdrawal from the NPT in January 2003, the first state to make such a move.

Several states with nuclear weapons - Israel, India and Pakistan - have never joined the treaty.


Be well IAN 2411