Pasban
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2010
- Messages
- 771
- Reaction score
- 0
do so, minus the verbosity
I'll attempt to be brief for it is an exhaustive topic. From the Iranian perspective, they have disclosed enough information and have even invited inspectors, allowed for the reports, and even addressed specific points on them. It is only the politicization of the situation which has brought it this much attention.
The nuclear energy issue is itself part of a much larger Iranian program aimed at making Iran a large energy exporter. The triad involves hydroelectricity and solar power as well. Iran has become one of the largest dam builders and there a series of more projects in this regard-- this is surprising given that hydroelectric resources are somewhat limited on a whole. There was also a study done on developing a very large man-made lake in the country's center but it never progressed further. As to solar power, the existing farms have been enlarged and more are planned to be installed. Iran was keen on securing a deal with Syria on energy issues whereby Iranian wind turbines would be placed. Point is, to the Iranian public, this seems as a part of a natural progression and a stated right-- because it is seen as such, there is heavy public support for it and this is more reason why it wouldn't be halted. Also, the program isn't a new Iranian endeavor. It was started in the 50s and developed throughout the 70s. Following the revolution and the near decade long war it was merely shelved and delayed. The initial program planned a total of 19 of such plants. This would not be followed given large investment in other energy sectors but Iran has made it clear that she would not stop with the singular Busher reactor and will construct more.
Apart from this, other than accusations, there is little in the way present pointing out that Iran's isn't mounting a nuclear energy program. She only started enriching herself when she wouldn't receive supplies and devoted more resources when foreign technical aid was further constrained. To me it seems more of an action-reaction cycle on the part of Iran. The 2009 February IAEA report's primary issue was the Iranian stance to continue with enrichment, which was not a hidden measure but stated openly. Apart from this, the compilers found no further evidence to substantiate the US position. Add on news reports suggested then that Iran did not report the enrichment amounts properly. To which, Soltaniyeh (Iran's ambassador to the IAEA) remarked, 'the report provides no new insight.' In fact, he suggested for the report to be lengthened to make it more comprehensive. To add to this, Iranian religious scholars issued a religious order or Fatwa negating nuclear weapons which they stated as a disservice to humanity-- a first. Furthermore, there was the Tehran declaration in which Iran accepted sending partially-enriched fuel to Turkey in return for fully-enriched one to ensure checks, of course this wasn't sufficient for many. I could write in more detail about the reports but I'll halt here to keep it brief. Lastly though I'd like to add that given Iran's political stances and attitudes, Iran would feel little in openly pulling out of the treaty to pursue a weaponisation program.
As to nuclear weapons in general and similar devices, I am vehemently against their existence. However, as long as the possession of them by others is present, an Iranian possession of them to me is hence sufficiently justified as is that of other nations.
