UN nuclear agency IAEA: Iran 'studying nuclear weapons'
 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15643460

Note: 9 November 2011 Last updated at 00:15 GMT

After you have red Vendors lastest news, then read this too

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15621133


Markus

You know, when South Africa developed nukes, Nobody really knew much about it until after they destroyed them.

Iran should really follow that route

Can't say I blame Iran really. Even though they are not innocent in all this, with so many potentially hostile military powers, well, I'll want a nuke. And we all know NPT is a joke.

I don't like idea of Iran having nuke. Considering that Pakistan in east have nuke, Israel in a little bit west have a nuke and United States have a nuke I can't really blame them for wanting a nuke too.

"The others also have it!" and "We're surrounded by enemies" are the same arguments Germany had for the remilitarization of the Rhineland in 1936...

the others had what in 1936? and are you saying that if a german said something similar in the 1930s it is necessarily untrue?

very confusing post this.

in any case the reasons why Iran might want a bomb are only very loosely related to the reasons why other countries might not want Iran to have a bomb.

And once they have a working bomb, they are safe from attack. So we attack first, or not at all.

Good point...so why Iran wants to have the bomb and why its bad idea or just harmless one.?

Looks like the BBC is down atm :hmmm:

Stuff. It doesn't really matter what. In 10,000 years, if we are still here by then, some nation will say that it wants a portable black hole, because other nations have portable black holes too. Arms race is difficult to stop once it has started. Though it could as well be asked has it ever really ended at some point.

A German commentator brought it to the point yesterday, he wrote: Germany, and the West, do not owe it to their history in the 30s and 40s to not allow Iran a nuclear weapon capability, but we owe it to the basic principles of humanism. More, our governments have vowed in the past years to never, under no circumstance, allow Iran nuclear weapons, and they all reiterated time and again that they would never accept it. Stand by your damn words then, or admit that you are just slobbering and your promises are worthless.

It makes me sick to see how foolishly much of that talking already has been made a justified object of mockery already over the years, as I have illustrated in the hilarious exchange of notes and calls and demands and helpless word-fencing in this scanned book excerpt yesterday.

Time is running out, finally, and more or less even at the year that some years ago we have projected it would run out. We shall not be surprised. We shall not waver. We shall not play the victim of circumstance, or act as if we could not have known it. We shall not demand more "examination" and more "chances for diplomacy and good will", and more talking. We talked the talk ad nauseum. We had ultimatums, and promises, and threats, and sanctions, we let things slide, we hoped for the fairy queen and for a miracle, we did nothing. Nothing of all that worked, nothing of that solved the issue, while Iran got closer and closer to the bomb, and now just needs to assemble the readied components. Let's walk the walk, and have deeds following our one decade of endless, useless, consequence-less words - finally.

If there is one thing we should ask about the current situation, then it is only this, and nothing else: why after those many years that we knew this time would come, why are we still not prepared to face the challenge?

well unfortunately the Iranian leaders don't share their decision making process with me, but it is worth remembering that the Iranian Nuclear (and Space) programs began in the early 70's - before the revolution.

There were even then strategic reasons strong enough to start such a program. And they were largely to do with being the Shi'ite country in a Sunni world, and in addition being an oil rich country caught between the Soviet Union to the north and the American controlled seas to the south. The Soviet Union is less of a factor today, obviously.

Now we have an overtly hostile USA, in which GWB labelled part of them the axis of evil (which was a sort of intent to declare war), and sure, the bomb will make them safer from American attack.

From a position of safety and with nuclear prestige, they will be much more able to assert their influence in the region. And this is the problem for the Saudis, who think only their version of horrible Muslim influence is appropriate to be spread. It will be a problem for Israel in so far as Iran will be more secure as the string-puller of its agents such as Hezbollah.

This is also largely what worries the USA and everyone else.

For the US, europe, and Israel, an increase in Iranian influence and security is unpleasant in how it affects the here and now of middle eastern affairs. For the Saudis it is unacceptable for their struggle with Iran is eternal.

When the Saudi Crown Prince warns of the risk of a nuclear arms race, he's saying that the Saudi's also have a nuclear research program, and it will be stepped up, and move more into the public eye, and there will be a Saudi weaponised bomb shortly after Iran has one.

Despite the rhetoric, there is little danger of an apocalyptic attack on Israel. Not while Israel is under US protection. (and nor will they be giving away expensive nukes in easily-traceable bomb-ready format to unpredictable terrorist groups either)

It is not the model for final victory that anti-Israel muslims have in mind anyway.

But for Israel: if someone threatens you, and at the same time seeks the means that makes it possible to carry out the threat - what can you do? Even if they are just talking crap for political purposes.

But you know all that.

Ultimately the nuclear cat is out of the bag, and in time more and more countries, for one reason or another, will get the bomb. Unless Iran's is dismantled, there will also be a Saudi bomb. i don't know who else in the area, but Brazil will eventually want one too.

The question is, is it worth bombing Iran for the gain in time it buys, and giving the game to the Saudis (who, let us not forget, are the wellspring of the terrorism the US has actually been fighting against) ? Ah, whatever, the world's in an awful mess anyway. How much worse can it get? And it might help Obama to win a second term.

My point is that it is no good idea to let a dictatorship get access to powerfull weapons. The deployment of the Wehrmacht into the Rhineland was the obvious signal to the world: we want the same rights/military like the other countries, while simultaneously trying to acquire the superweapons of its time (battleships, tanks, submarines). Don't know what's confusing about this.
Countries like Saudi-Arabia give me the same worries, not only regarding a potential acquisition of nukes, but also regarding conventional weapons, like the purchase of fighter jets from the US or tanks from Germany, deals that were made in the past months.

It'S simple. Action would be needed, but most likely, there will be none. Europe is totally focussed on itself and it'S problems, and desinterested in any threats by Iranian missiles to European metropoles or Israel. The US is tired of war, drowns in debts, and has a presidential election rising. Two key allies of the US, South Korea and Japan, vitally depend on Iranian oil. Sanctions or resolutions in the security council will be brought to a full stop by China and Russia.

Either Israel creates facts by attacking all by itself and by that forces the Us into full support from a colds start, or it does not do that - then we need to face the new reality of a nuclear armed Iran, a regime even more irrational and dangerous and uncalculatable than Pakistan, that threatens not only Israel, but Europe as well, and will proliferate nuclear options to terror groups as well.

It will also be the start of a new nuclear arms race in the regiuon. And this race takes place in a setting that is far less stable and rational then the cold war. I do not bet money on that we will survive this cold war 2.0.

Not disarming Iran may give the reason to Saudis and others to seek nuclear weapons in first place...
It may put ME into crazy nuclear arms race while the above countries fight for influence in the region.
At the end of the day you would have bunch of Islamic nuts fighting by proxies-making cold war look like predictable boring story.

Possible Iranian first step will be spreading influence over Shi'ite population/minorities in neighboring oil reach countries to gain control of energy resources/western economy .
Lets not forget that most Arab oil reach countries have Shi'ite minorities so scenarios style Iraq in each and every one of them is not out of question.
Iran might get much more active in supporting destabilisation of Sunni countries.
The situation would make any direct intervention from west impossible since whole EU could be under nuclear ballistic missile threat.
It would cause havoc in worlds economy due to oil prices as well.

Bombing Iran may buy some time
It eventually might lead to regime change which is more favorable to the west and possible abolition of nuclear program.

So why Iran wants nukes-self defence...then against whom?

What is its ambition if not domination and spreading influence all over ME and then maybe even controlling energy sources contrary to western interests.

Later on Iranians could rain Israel with missiles and bombs in attrition war using proxies while all the West would call Israelis to show maximum restrain.
Israel might even find its self totally isolated and sold out.
Who gives a crap about some "arrogant settlers:-?" country of 7m people in middle of nowhere anyway.

That my dooms day scenario-without using nukes on Israel:D