Iranian Chill Thread

[Arian]

واقعاً با شنیدن اندیشه های یکی از تحصیل کرده ترین افراد سیستم، می شه دید که چقدر در سیستم اختلاف دیدگاه هست
این آقا یکی از دانشمندان هسته ای خوب کشور هست (که یکی از بدترین گندهای تاریخ کشور رو زده)، اما هنگامی که شما اندیشه ها و دیدگاه های سیاسی این فرد رو می شنوید تازه می فهمید که جمهوری اسلامی با همه هارت و پورت هاش چقدر تمایل به رابطه با غرب داره
​

​

‌می‌گویند چرا درمورد برجام و هسته‌ای قسم خوردی؟ قسمم را الان دو برابر می‌خورم / اگر برجام نباشد و دوباره به شورای امنیت باز گردیم، فاجعه می‌شود؛ آن وقت می‌خواهیم چه کار کنیم؟ / می‌گفتند فاتحه صنعت هسته‌ای خوانده شده، اما امروز می‌گویند فورا غنی سازی ۲۰ درصدی را آغاز کنید / تعجب می‌کنم شورای نگهبان چگونه این قانون هسته‌ای مجلس را تصویب کرده / آقای جلیلی در مذاکرات پذیرفته بود راجع به غنی سازی ۲۰ درصد اقداماتی بکند / دکتر ظریف در مذاکره عملگرا بود، اما آقای جلیلی آرمانگرا بود؛ در ذهنش بود که «ستد» باشد، اما «داد» نه

از آقای ظریف می خواهم اسناد آن کلاسور بزرگ درمورد مذاکرات مسقط را منتشر کنند، وگرنه ممکن است خدای ناکرده اینها یکدفعه یکجوری محو شود / پس از کسب مجوز از رهبری، می گفتند می گفتند شما یک برداشت اشتباهی دارید و این چنین نیست؛ دوباره استفسار شد و دو سه ماه طول کشید که ما بار اول برویم با آمریکایی ها...

www.entekhab.ir

 

[SalarHaqq]

as I said that's a healthy growth of population , what people advocating here is having 4 even more children and that's not a sustainable growth rate. no country can provide for those population specially when its economy have so much problem

I at least am not advocating 4 or more children per woman. But 2.1 is the minimum for a healthy demographic. It should be stabilized in those areas (of between 2.1 and 2.3). Anything below would be hugely problematic and counter-productive, at least as much as a figure of 4 or 5.

the problem is that Iran don't have population growth problem

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&sxsrf=ALeKk03vNsDEN7S23xUI5IADPER_aUQuKA%3A1608506884891&ei=BN7fX-uCNuWPlwSr_6zoCA&q=iran+population+growth+rate&oq=iran+population+growth+rate&gs_lcp=CgZwc3ktYWIQAzICCAAyAggAMgQIABAeMgUIABDLAToECAAQRzoHCCMQsAIQJzoGCAAQBxAeOgQIABANOgYIABANEB46CAgAEAgQDRAeUM-_AljY5wJg9ukCaAFwAngAgAGCAogBvxKSAQUwLjkuM5gBAKABAaoBB2d3cy13aXrIAQjAAQE&sclient=psy-ab&ved=0ahUKEwjrlPiL293tAhXlx4UKHas_C40Q4dUDCAw&uact=5

the ones who advocate for population growth want we go back to the population growth rate of +4% of 80s they simply have forgotten what it did with us.

I certainly hope that the fertility rate is stabilized at over 2 children per woman of reproductive age.

As per my understanding, the recent evolution of the fertility rate suggestes that in the near future, this goal will no longer be achieved by Iran if public policy incentives are not provided to families.

Problem is that there is no absolute consensus on statistics in Iran, and the latter tend to become politicized too easily. Also, individual sources contradict findings from official statistical institutes every now and then, in addition to different institutions producing variable figures.

But, it was a spokesperson for the current liberal Rohani administration - not a osulgara, who claimed in Majles that fertility had fallen below 2 children per woman. I was recently shown a link to it in a discussion with Arian.

Either way, if the fertility rate starts falling below 2 children per woman, then authorities must act fast and decisively to counter the trend, otherwise Iran will be in for major problems. But if it's as you say and the growth rate is healthy, then a vigilant eye must be regularly kept on it nonetheless, considering the tendencial slowing over the past two to three decades.

no our population growth is increasing instead of decreasing and its well above 1% which is alot in my book , a sustainable growth in my book is something between 0.3%-0.5%

You need to look at the fertility rate, rather than at the overall population growth.

If women of reproductive age have an average of 2.1 children or more, then all is fine. If not, then Iran will have a demographic problem because the substitution of generations will no longer be effective.

no that policy is a trap we can't afford. as I said our population is increasing , we need to work on quality of the population instead of its quantity

It will become necessary if and when Iranian women give birth to less than 2.1 children on average. In such a case, not proceeding with such policies would be the actual trap.

 

[aryobarzan]

واقعاً با شنیدن اندیشه های یکی از تحصیل کرده ترین افراد سیستم، می شه دید که چقدر در سیستم اختلاف دیدگاه هست
این آقا یکی از دانشمندان هسته ای خوب کشور هست (که یکی از بدترین گندهای تاریخ کشور رو زده)، اما هنگامی که شما اندیشه ها و دیدگاه های سیاسی این فرد رو می شنوید تازه می فهمید که جمهوری اسلامی با همه هارت و پورت هاش چقدر تمایل به رابطه با غرب داره
​

​

‌می‌گویند چرا درمورد برجام و هسته‌ای قسم خوردی؟ قسمم را الان دو برابر می‌خورم / اگر برجام نباشد و دوباره به شورای امنیت باز گردیم، فاجعه می‌شود؛ آن وقت می‌خواهیم چه کار کنیم؟ / می‌گفتند فاتحه صنعت هسته‌ای خوانده شده، اما امروز می‌گویند فورا غنی سازی ۲۰ درصدی را آغاز کنید / تعجب می‌کنم شورای نگهبان چگونه این قانون هسته‌ای مجلس را تصویب کرده / آقای جلیلی در مذاکرات پذیرفته بود راجع به غنی سازی ۲۰ درصد اقداماتی بکند / دکتر ظریف در مذاکره عملگرا بود، اما آقای جلیلی آرمانگرا بود؛ در ذهنش بود که «ستد» باشد، اما «داد» نه

از آقای ظریف می خواهم اسناد آن کلاسور بزرگ درمورد مذاکرات مسقط را منتشر کنند، وگرنه ممکن است خدای ناکرده اینها یکدفعه یکجوری محو شود / پس از کسب مجوز از رهبری، می گفتند می گفتند شما یک برداشت اشتباهی دارید و این چنین نیست؛ دوباره استفسار شد و دو سه ماه طول کشید که ما بار اول برویم با آمریکایی ها...

www.entekhab.ir

I am no fan of the rohanni or zarif. But salehi is a great iranian scientist playing in a bad team.

This is a very long interview...the first 45 min is his global analysis of the future shape of things to come and Iran's place in it. I can not disagree with his views .
The second part is about Iran's nuclear energy organization and here he gives figures that are very interesting..I imagine these numbers and figures are not confidential so it will be OK to repeat them here...an example...the annual cost of fuel for the busher reactor is 30 million dollars...and busher reactor cost all together 5 billion dollars to construct.(2.5 germans 1.5 Russians and I guess 1 for the rest). If I get a chance I will listen and write down some of the figures he gave....if you speak farsi and have 2 hours spare time definitely view this.

 

[Arian]

I am no fan of the rohanni or zarif. But salehi is a great iranian scientist playing in a bad team.

This is a very long interview...the first 45 min is his global analysis of the future shape of things to come and Iran's place in it. I can not disagree with his views .
The second part is about Iran's nuclear energy organization and here he gives figures that are very interesting..I imagine these numbers and figures are not confidential so it will be OK to repeat them here...an example...the annual cost of fuel for the busher reactor is 30 million dollars...and busher reactor cost all together 5 billion dollars to construct.(2.5 germans 1.5 Russians and I guess 1 for the rest). If I get a chance I will listen and write down some of the figures he gave....if you speak farsi and have 2 hours spare time definitely view this.

Yes. He's a well-educated individual in the Islamic Republic. He is a gentleman too. But his optimism about the US - Iran relations is not realistic and makes him look naive. Does he really think that the USA will rely on Iran for containing China or Russia? Because that's his analysis.

I think his views contrast each other. At one point it says that the US cannot and will not allow Iran to exist in its current political form because it will set a bad example for others, but just before that he was hypothesizing a scenario where the US would rely on Iran for containing China and Russia. That doesn't sound realistic or logical to me. Why would the US approach Iran for cooperation when they don't want it to exist in its current form? I get his point that Iran can give them a leverage in the energy market, but they already have the Saudis for that. Why would they switch to their arch foe Iran now?

He also lied and tried to mislead the viewers about Iran's nuclear program at some points during the interview, like when he said that no cement had been poured in the Arak reactor at all. Or when he said that they had not fired nuclear scientists working for the previous administration. Or when he said that they had started the negotiation with Russians for building two new nuclear reactors at Bushehr for the first time after the revolution. He also didn't talk about many important things like the IR-40 heavy water reactor and its reconstruction with the Chinese, but I blame the interviewer for that. The interviewer is from a leftist newspaper belonging to the Reformist Party and he spent most of his time trying to direct the interview against the Conservative Party.

 

[aryobarzan]

Yes. He's a well-educated individual in the Islamic Republic. He is a gentleman too. But his optimism about the US - Iran relations is not realistic and makes him look naive. Does he really think that the USA will rely on Iran for containing China or Russia? Because that's his analysis.

I think his views contrast each other. At one point it says that the US cannot and will not allow Iran to exist in its current political form because it will set a bad example for others, but just before that he was hypothesizing a scenario where the US would rely on Iran for containing China and Russia. That doesn't sound realistic or logical to me. Why would the US approach Iran for cooperation when they don't want it to exist in its current form? I get his point that Iran can give them a leverage in the energy market, but they already have the Saudis for that. Why would they switch to their arch foe Iran now?

He also lied and tried to mislead the viewers about Iran's nuclear program at some points during the interview, like when he said that no cement had been poured in the Arak reactor at all. Or when he said that they had not fired nuclear scientists working for the previous administration. Or when he said that they had started the negotiation with Russians for building two new nuclear reactors at Bushehr for the first time after the revolution. He also didn't talk about many important things like the IR-40 heavy water reactor and its reconstruction with the Chinese, but I blame the interviewer for that. The interviewer is from a leftist newspaper belonging to the Reformist Party and he spent most of his time trying to direct the interview against the Conservative Party.

Here is what I found facinating from his political analysis:

1-Biden's (US) first priority is to contain China economically ...to contain china you need to ensure they (china) have no reliable energy source ...The only large and reliable (non-us controlled) energy source available to China is IRAN...conclusion..Gives Leverage to Iran

2-Biden's second priority is to put a fence around Russia (belarus the most recent example he said).. for the US to close that fence around Russia she needs IRAN...conclusion..Gives Leverage to Iran

he said both Russia and China know this so does Iran and US they all know this..and here is that historical opportunity for Iran to play these leverages to gain maximum outcome in her dealing with all three.

 

[Arian]

Here is what I found facinating from his political analysis:

1-Biden's (US) first priority is to contain China economically ...to contain china you need to ensure they have no reliable energy source ...The only large and reliable (non-us controlled) energy source theyChina has is IRAN...conclusion..Gives Leverage to Iran

2-Biden's second priority is to put a fence against Russia.. to close that fence around Russia he needs IRAN...conclusion..Gives Leverage to Iran

he said both Russians and China know this so does Iran and US they all know this..and here is that historical opportunity for Iran to play these leverages to gain maximum outcome in her dealing with all three.

And here's why he's contradicting himself:

1- The USA cannot let Iran exist in its current political form because according to him, it will set a bad example for our neighbors, for the Muslim world and for countries in the world. He also believe that the main reason for the US hostility towards Iran is the very nature of the regime.

2- According to him, Iran has no weight against the US economically or militarily (which is true). So, the US will never view Iran as an equal.

3- According to him, Iran wants to remain a sovereign nation. Hence, if Iran wants to stay independent, and considering the fact that the US will never view Iran as an equal, the US will never cooperate with Iran over matters of global concern.

That aside, he's also assuming that the USA would fail to convince the Saudis to pull out of the Chinese energy market. The whole idea that the US would cooperate with Iran over something that involves its strategic alliance with the Saudis is naive. After all, China's largest energy partner has been Saudi Arabia for the past decade, not Iran anymore. So, Iran has no leverage there. As far as Russia is concerned, Iran depends on Russia for its military plans and is part of the North-South corridor. If Iran wants to turn against Russia, Iran will lose both, among many other things.

 

[aryobarzan]

And here's why he's contradicting himself:

1- The USA cannot let Iran exist in its current political form because according to him, it will set a bad example for our neighbors, for the Muslim world and for countries in the world. He also believe that the main reason for the US hostility towards Iran is the very nature of the regime.

2- According to him, Iran has no weight against the US economically or militarily (which is true). So, the US will never view Iran as an equal.

3- According to him, Iran wants to remain a sovereign nation. Hence, if Iran wants to stay independent, and considering the fact that the US will never view Iran as an equal, the US will never cooperate with Iran over matters of global concern.

That aside, he's also assuming that the USA would fail to convince the Saudis to pull out of the Chinese energy market. The whole idea that the US would cooperate with Iran over something that involves its strategic alliance with the Saudis is naive. After all, China's largest energy partner has been Saudi Arabia for the past decade, not Iran anymore. So, Iran has no leverage there. As far as Russia is concerned, Iran depends on Russia for its military plans and is part of the North-South corridor. If Iran wants to turn against Russia, Iran will lose both, among many other things.

I just qouted what he said in his analysis, some of us will agree and some of us will disagree with that ..but that is the beauty of having open and honest discussions..

 

[Arian]

I just qouted what he said in his analysis, some of us will agree and some of us will disagree with that ..but that is the beauty of having open and honest discussions..

Yes, I understand. But do you see that his statements and hypotheses contradict each other? That was my point.

 

[aryobarzan]

Yes, I understand. But do you see that his statements and hypotheses contradict each other? That was my point.

I have to watch the interview again..I was interrupted several times ..I definitely want to write down those figures he mentioned..

 

[Arian]

I have to watch the interview again..I was interrupted several times ..I definitely want to write down those figures he mentioned..

Important figures he mentioned:

1- Iran has spent about 7.5 billion dollars on its nuclear program in the last 30 years, i.e. an average of 250 million dollars per year.

2- The first phase of the Bushehr nuclear reactor is worth 5 billion dollars. Its construction cost Iran 4 billion dollars over all: 2.5 billion dollars to the Germans and 1.5 billion dollars to the Russians.

3- The Bushehr nuclear reactor (with only one reactor operational at the moment) creates an added value of 630 million dollars each year. This figure is based on selling the electricity to our neighbors, like Iraq, at a rate of 9 cents for 1 kWh apparently. (He later says that the Bushehr nuclear reactor produces 7 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity per year. 7 billion times 0.09 yields 630 million dollars of income per year)

4- Its nominal capacity of electricity production is 1000 megawatts. It produces 7 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity (which is about 800 megawatts of energy).

5- According to him, Iran is currently exporting 3,000 to 4,000 MW of electricity to its neighbors.

6- The Bushehr nuclear reactor with one reactor will cover its construction costs in 8 years. Its lifespan is expected to be 60 years.

7- It saves us 11 million barrels of oil per year, reducing air pollutants and gas emissions by 7 million tonnes per year. At $50 per barrel, it can save us 550 million dollars while the cost of running it with nuclear fuel is about 30 - 40 million dollars.

8- All of those calculations do not consider other benefits such as radiopharmaceuticals or dual applications in other industries.

 

[WudangMaster]

I don't understand why he thinks biden will have these aspirations of containing China or Russia, especially to the point of wanting to turn to Iran. He is also naive in that he forgets the the US is the goyim of another entity and that other actor has to approve of any real rapprochement between it goyim and Iran.

 

[WudangMaster]

Also, what is the status of the arak facility? Something definitely had concrete poured into it and it was witnessed by iaea. I am more inclined to believe the iaea verification than Salehi alleging some clever sleight of hand or magician trick that made the witnesses think they saw it. The heavy water calandria is probably no more so that leaves a partially completed one from China?

 

[Arian]

Also, what is the status of the arak facility? Something definitely had concrete poured into it and it was witnessed by iaea. I am more inclined to believe the iaea verification than Salehi alleging some clever sleight of hand or magician trick that made the witnesses think they saw it. The heavy water calandria is probably no more so that leaves a partially completed one from China?

The IR-40 heavy water reactor has been left unfinished after the JCPOA. They poured cement into the calandria and rendered it useless. They had plans to modify the nuclear reactor to reduce its plutonium production to less than a kilogram per year, previously it was estimated at 8 - 10 kilograms per year if I remember correctly. The Americans had promised to help with the reconstruction of the reactor, but after they pulled out of the JCPOA, the Brits said they would help with the reconstruction. The Brits didn't do anything either. So, the Chinese promised they would replace the Brits. And they have done nothing since then.

The resolution passed by the parliament has obligated the Iranian Atomic Agency to reconstruct the reactor on its own in a period of 4 months, if I'm not mistaken.

 

[WudangMaster]

The IR-40 heavy water reactor has been left unfinished after the JCPOA. They poured cement into the calandria and rendered it useless. They had plans to modify the nuclear reactor to reduce its plutonium production to less than a kilogram per year, previously it was estimated at 8 - 10 kilograms per year if I remember correctly. The Americans had promised to help with the reconstruction of the reactor, but after they pulled out of the JCPOA, the Brits said they would help with the reconstruction. The Brits didn't do anything either. So, the Chinese promised they would replace the Brits. And they have done nothing since then.

The resolution passed by the parliament has obligated the Iranian Atomic Agency to reconstruct the reactor on its own in a period of 4 months, if I'm not mistaken.

My concern is if it is another heavy water design, it will end up as another concrete mold. They might as well try to make it light water, if they intend to go along with jcpoa. I even saw videos of them placing the lid and upper biological shield over the pit so I can assume that there is a calandria in the works just what type of moderator it will be using is the question.

 

[WudangMaster]

I think the parliament resolution demands the original heavy water design to be implemented.
Question for me is what are these things made out of and how easy is it for Iran to construct them. If the alloys can be made in house then I guess it would be worth the risk of going ahead for another heavy water core even if you have to pour more concrete into it later.
On the other hand if alloys have to be smuggled in at great cost and misery, then obviously go the light water route so the jackals and coyotes can calm down and not demand its destruction.