Ahmedinejad opens Iran's first nuclear production facility

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Frazzled**

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6068368.ece

The West fears progress towards atomic weapons as President Ahmedinejad celebrates his country's big leap forward

James Hider, Middle East Correspondent
A triumphant President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad opened Iran's first plant for producing nuclear fuel today, marking a significant leap forward for his controversial nuclear programme and sparking international fears that the Islamic Republic may be closer than ever to acquiring an atomic weapon.

Just two months before crucial elections in which he is pitted against a powerful moderate candidate, the hardline Iranian leader celebrated the breakthrough in his country's pursuit of nuclear technology, saying that Iranian scientists have tested two new types of enrichment centrifuges with a higher capacity for producing uranium. The President has insisted that the nuclear fuel will be used only for generating electricity, but the international community fears that it could also be used to build nuclear warheads.

Israel in particular, which Mr Ahmedinejad has in the past threatened to annihilate, has warned that Iran is trying to become a nuclear power, and the new hawkish Government in Jerusalem has said that it would be willing to take all measures, including military action, to prevent Tehran achieving that goal. Many Arab states, led by Egypt and Saudi Arabia, also fear growing Iranian power in the region and an accelerating arms race in the Middle East.

The ribbon-cutting ceremony in Isfahan, in central Iran, coincided with the country's national Nuclear Day. The new plant will produce pellets of uranium oxide to fuel the heavy-water research reactor, which is expected to be up and running either this year or next. The international community is worried that Iran could reprocess spent fuel from the heavy-water reactor into plutonium for building a warhead.

The Iranian news agency said that the fuel plant can produce 10 tonnes of nuclear fuel annually to feed the heavy water Arak reactor as well as 30 tonnes for light water reactors such as the Bushehr nuclear plant.

Gholam Reza Aghazadeh, the head of Iran's nuclear programme, said that the country had reached a "new phase of acquiring the technology of uranium enrichment", adding that 7,000 centrifuges had been installed at the Natanz uranium enrichment facility, which is also in Isfahan.

That is far more than the 3,964 centrifuges that the International Atomic Energy Agency said were already at work in Natanz in February. It said that another 1,476 were undergoing vacuum or dry-run tests without nuclear material, while another 125 had been installed but not been deployed.

Alaeddin Borujerdi, the head of Iran's parliamentary commission of national security and foreign policy, said: "Today the nuclear fuel cycle has been practically completed and there is no room for the idea of halting (uranium) enrichment in the negotiations with global powers".

The high-profile event came just a day after Mr Ahmedinejad responded cautiously to a proposal by Barack Obama, the US President, for more open, direct relations between the two hostile countries. Mr Ahmedinejad said that he was ready for talks with the West if they were based on "justice" and "respect".

**Kyrolon**

Well, I guess we can start the countdown on Operation Opera v 2.0.

**Fallen668**

So? Who are we, the flag wavers of freedom to deny freedom to someone else? Never really understood how we can scream everyone needs to be free and yet want to impose limits on everyone else.

**Ironhide**

Actually, I'm not against them having them. I am scared they have them, and not for the reasons you might think. Iran is the sworn enemy of Israel. Israel does have nukes. Israel also takes a more proactive approach when they seem threatened. Iran with nukes would be a threat to Israel. Israel bombed an Iraqi nuclear facility in 1981 because of the potential threat. What makes people think they wouldn't do the same thing with Iran? If they did perpetuate such an attack, it could draw the whole region into a war.

**namegoeshere**

^ That is very possible. But I think the Arab world is split into two halves in terms of military action. The various nations governments, which don't want their asses handed to them as before. And are more concerned with wealth. So won't join in any conflict. And on the other hand are the religious terrorist orgs, who are flying rodent gak crazy, but luckily poorly organized.

**Nofasse 'Eadhunta**

Okay, now that they have nukes, we should stay the hell away from them.

Because people in that region take our help as an act of war and treat it just the same. Just the reason why the war on terror isn't going as grand as we planned.

**NO_SUCH_LUCK**

Iran, like North Korea just wants to be one of the "big boys". They didn't learn the lesson that the Sov's learned in the early 90's, nukes ruin the economy's of oppressive socialist governments.

Thats how we really beat the russians, made them buy weapons they couldn't afford.

**Envy89**

But the ruskies got more nukes then the USSA dose...

And if Iran gets actual nuclear weapons, Israel.... it was nice knowing ya… maybe some day ill visit the smoldering crater that used to be your country.

**dogma**

There is a massive difference between funding militant groups attacking a given state, and giving those militant groups nuclear weapons.

There is an even more massive difference between supporting terrorists, and directly attacking an enemy.

Iran will not give its nuclear weapons to terrorists. It would be unbelievably foolish on a number of levels. Similarly, they will not use a nuclear weapon on Israel. This is would be an even more foolish choice given the incredible severity of the response.

This isn't to say that neither of things will happen, but that it is highly unlikely they will happen in the immediate future. In 30 years things will likely be very different.

**reds8n**

NO_SUCH_LUCK wrote:Iran, like North Korea just wants to be one of the "big boys". They didn't learn the lesson that the Sov's learned in the early 90's, nukes ruin the economy's of oppressive socialist governments.

Thats how we really beat the russians, made them buy weapons they couldn't afford.

I agree we economically outfought the russkies.

But...Iran's socialist ? Really ? Pretty certain religion plays a sizable role over there.

**dogma**

Take Stalin's Russia and replace the Communism with Islam and you have a pretty accurate rendition of how the state controls the Iranian economy.

The regime isn't quite as oppressive as Stalin's. Political dissidence is allowed, for example. But the state engages in what is essentially favoritism for those merchant families who either aided in, or ignored, the revolution.

**efarrer**

reds8n wrote:
NO_SUCH_LUCK wrote:Iran, like North Korea just wants to be one of the "big boys". They didn't learn the lesson that the Sov's learned in the early 90's, nukes ruin the economy's of oppressive socialist governments.

Thats how we really beat the russians, made them buy weapons they couldn't afford.

I agree we economically outfought the russkies.

But...Iran's socialist ? Really ? Pretty certain religion plays a sizable role over there.

I'm 90% sure you could call the country a theocratic democracy.

**Ironhide**

1. Iran isn't as big as Russia.
2. Iran has a plethora of oil and natural gas for revenue.
3. The Arab mindset is totally different from the way we westerners think.
4. Arabs hate Israelis. They stole their land.
5. Who has the majority of the worlds oil? Arabs and Persians, that's who.

**Ahtman**

Ironhide wrote:
4. Arabs hate Israelis. They stole their land.

That oversimplification makes my head hurt.

**Orlanth**

Oversimplification maybe, but it is the Arab opinion.

Besides who is to say it is untrue. Israeli military policy only appears justifiable because of the huge media spin it gets, and holocaust guilt. Something for which the Arabs cannot be blamed.

Israel has a long established track record of attack who we please, when we please and not give a monkeys about the consequences or victims, sometimes this is justified, usually it is not.

While no nation is especially likely to use its arsenal in a first strike capacity unless invaded. However Israel have an attitide problem repeated time and again, namely: one of our lives is beyond value, any of your lives are of little value. Look at Gaza for proof, if rockets kill one or two, we will bomb one or two hundred. The irony of this is while the Palestinians are not collectively responsible for terror the Israeli nation is collectively responsible for their military.

So an Iran with nukes is in a way a good thing as it will keep Israel, and Iran in check. It is not in Irans interest to see the world burn, it is in their interest to makes sure the US and Israel can no longer tread on them at will. Sure there is a lot of rhetoric but that is good copy, besides the Arabs are not the only ones issuing threats, Ahmedinejad is smart enough not to use his arsenal, just like everyone else. Funnily enough this is precisely what has been happening. The occupation of Afghanistan and the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq are proof positive of this.

**Ahtman**

Orlanth wrote:Oversimplification maybe, but it is the Arab opinion.

Well, if it's an opinion I guess that is just good enough.

Orlanth wrote:Besides who is to say it is untrue.

I will. It's my opinion and apparently that is good enough.

**Ironhide**

Just want to clarify something, Ahmedinejad is the president of Iran, but is not the overall leader of the country. The overall leader of Iran is the Supreme Leader. The Supreme leader and the Guardian Council are the real power in Iran. Ahmedinejad's role is mostly that of a figurehead.

**dogma**

Ironhide wrote:1. Iran isn't as big as Russia.

And? You have to draw a conclusion from such a point.

Ironhide wrote:
2. Iran has a plethora of oil and natural gas for revenue.

So does Russia.

Ironhide wrote:
3. The Arab mindset is totally different from the way we westerners think.

No, it actually isn't. Not at all. They are in a different position relative to the larger power game, but they are still human and think as such.

Ironhide wrote:
4. Arabs hate Israelis. They stole their land.

Most Israelis are Arabs. They just aren't Muslims.

Ironhide wrote:
5. Who has the majority of the worlds oil? Arabs and Persians, that's who.

Awesome. Good to see you read up on your geology.

**dogma**

Orlanth wrote:Oversimplification maybe, but it is the Arab opinion.

Perhaps you should change your name to Orientalist. Just three extra syllables.

Orlanth wrote:
Besides who is to say it is untrue. Israeli military policy only appears justifiable because of the huge media spin it gets, and holocaust guilt. Something for which the Arabs cannot be blamed.

And because their policy is generally consistent with that of states that believe themselves to be under imminent threat. Which is perfectly justifiable because the Israelis are under imminent threat.

**Orlanth**

Ahtman wrote:
I will. It's my opinion and apparently that is good enough.

Its good enough when you clearly say why.

**Orlanth**

dogma wrote:
Orlanth wrote:Oversimplification maybe, but it is the Arab opinion.

Perhaps you should change your name to Orientalist. Just three extra syllables.

Orientalist, hmm not many now understand the orginal interpretation of the term. Yes, I like the Arab culture and I say so without shame despite having no faith in Islam.

dogma wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
Besides who is to say it is untrue. Israeli military policy only appears justifiable because of the huge media spin it gets, and holocaust guilt. Something for which the Arabs cannot be blamed.

And because their policy is generally consistent with that of states that believe themselves to be under imminent threat. Which is perfectly justifiable because the Israelis are under imminent threat.

Much of the reason for that threat is because of their own attitudes. Israel has known a peace with Egypt and Jordan that has lasted for thirty years. Peace with Syria might finally be here. But as Israel believes itself under threat from other Middle Eastern states and people groups it pays to see why. By and large it is mostly because they either wont stop rubbing their noses in the dog gak, or support when the US does.
As far as it goes with Palestianians after the atrocities the Israels caused in recent months if they feel threatened, well they have it coming. Or do you justify the bombing of several hundred children? You are asking a lot to expect the rest of the Arab world to quietly forget such acts, they need some incentive to make that step and a US or Israeli boot is not the step they had in mind.

**ShumaGorath**

I'm not particularly fearful of the "threat" irans nuclear ambitions represent. If anything the threat of MAD in the region would serve to cause some of the more rogue nations there to shape up a bit.

Besides, terrorists are going to get their nukes from russia, not iran. If Iran can cobble together three or four they are still much better off then the thousands russia keeps in sheds. There's also the remote possibility that nuclear power is actually their ambition.

Either way, color me not worried about Iran and terrified of russia.

**Orlanth**

ShumaGorath wrote:I'm not particularly fearful of the "threat" irans nuclear ambitions represent. If anything the threat of MAD in the region would serve to cause some of the more rogue nations there to shape up a bit.

Besides, terrorists are going to get their nukes from russia, not iran. If Iran can cobble together three or four they are still much better off then the thousands russia keeps in sheds. There's also the remote possibility that nuclear power is actually their ambition.

Either way, color me not worried about Iran and terrified of russia.

Wise analysis.

Clinton helped alot by simply starting a policy by which the USa would outbid anyone for nucleaer materials from the former Soviet Union. It was a good planand Clintons forsight saved the world a lot of trouble.

An Iranian bomb is not in the same league as scary, for a start if you see the Arab mindset they have a pride which urges them to unwise action once humbled but once restored gives them a buffer against offence. A good example of this is the Camp David peace talks inn 1979. Egypt could afford peace with Israel because they had managed to giove the Israelis a bloody nose in the 1973 war which recovered a lot of the honour lost in 1967 and back. Now while the October War failed in its objectives the fact that the Egyptians won some battles and even made some 'heroic' moves that caught the Israelis offguard the nation had proven its worth and increasing competence. Once that bridge was crossed peace could happen. So the Sinai returned to egypt - what they wanted, but egypt cant park tanks on it - what they wanted.

Now Iran doesnt have a personal debt to Israel and has so far managed to successfully give the USA the finger. Bush promised all sorts of punishments for Iran is they started a WMD program, tehran has gone ahead anyway and called the US's bluff. now with Obama in the White House the Us can afford a policy change without loss of face and Iran can claim a moral victory, squeeze out a few nukes, they already have a launcher. After that nothing, job done. If Israel howls so much the better as far as they are concerned. Neither nation can afford to nuke so the other problem is over.

Just because Iran is an Islamic theocracy doesn't mean it is lead by idiots, neither is the nation backward. Another fact they could then rub in the face of those who denegrate them.

**ShumaGorath**

An Iranian bomb is not in the same league as scary, for a start if you see the Arab mindset they have a pride which urges them to unwise action once humbled but once restored gives them a buffer against offence.

Given that a large percentage of middle eastern and asian political people were schooled in the US and other western nations you may want to drop the mindset thing. Mindsets are meaningless, current sociopolitical climates, economics, and religious beliefs are vastly more important than some twisted idea of a "mindset" of a region. There is no such thing as a popular regional mindset, especially in a region so split and varied as the middle east.

Just because Iran is an Islamic theocracy doesn't mean it is lead by idiots, neither is the nation backward. Another fact they could then rub in the face of those who denegrate them.

Iran is not an islamic theocracy.

**Orlanth**

ShumaGorath wrote:

An Iranian bomb is not in the same league as scary, for a start if you see the Arab mindset they have a pride which urges them to unwise action once humbled but once restored gives them a buffer against offence.

Given that a large percentage of middle eastern and asian political people were schooled in the US and other western nations you may want to drop the mindset thing. Mindsets are meaningless, current sociopolitical climates, economics, and religious beliefs are vastly more important than some twisted idea of a "mindset" of a region. There is no such thing as a popular regional mindset, especially in a region so split and varied as the middle east.

There are trends and patterns to detect yes, just as there are regarding peaople groups around the world. The larger scale you look the more appropriate they are. Its only the potentially negative ones that get criticised, noone accuses 'German efficiency' as being a myth, but if you compared the chances of say encountering official corruption say between dealing with either Nigeria or Norway you lay open to criticism of discrimatory thinking no matter how true your comments may be. Also while many middle eastern leaders and thinkers were western trained it doesnt mean they are the same as, 'us'. After all Obama Bin Laden was very westernised and at home, so to speak, in New York of all places. Crude example I know but there goes.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Just because Iran is an Islamic theocracy doesn't mean it is lead by idiots, neither is the nation backward. Another fact they could then rub in the face of those who denegrate them.

Iran is not an islamic theocracy.

Well the religious laws are taken very strongly there, I stand by my words. especailly in comparison to other Islamic countries such as Jordan. Also clerics do have a far higher measure of power than in neighbouring moslem countries such as Iraq and Pakistan.. Beside the point being made is that Iran is often painted as a backward country filled with narrow minded fanatics with robes. Some such people exist but the truth is far more complex than that and Iran is more foerward and cultured than some would prefer us to believe.

**dogma**

Orlanth wrote:
Orientalist, hmm not many now understand the orginal interpretation of the term. Yes, I like the Arab culture and I say so without shame despite having no faith in Islam.

I wasn't using it in the sense which indicates a fascination with the Orient. I was using it in the sense which indicates a tendency to over state the affects of culture on policy choices: Said light.

Orlanth wrote:
Much of the reason for that threat is because of their own attitudes. Israel has known a peace with Egypt and Jordan that has lasted for thirty years. Peace with Syria might finally be here. But as Israel believes itself under threat from other Middle Eastern states and people groups it pays to see why. By and large it is mostly because they either wont stop rubbing their noses in the dog gak, or support when the US does.

Yeah, that would be the standard chicken-and-egg logic that gets volleyed back and forth in the course of these debates. Israel started it! No, the Arabs started it!

Obviously the most cogent position is that fault is now so widely spread that any will to place blame is almost entirely counterproductive. Both sides are at fault, and so both sides must take steps to create a solution. Thankfully progress is being made on virtually every front. Israel has non-aggression pacts with most of its neighbors, and the Arab League is no longer enforcing its nominal boycott of the Jewish State.

Orlanth wrote:
As far as it goes with Palestianians after the atrocities the Israels caused in recent months if they feel threatened, well they have it coming. Or do you justify the bombing of several hundred children?

Do you justify false dichotomies? I don't believe in the sort of justice which you seem to be advocating here. You and Hammurabi can keep your code.

Orlanth wrote:
You are asking a lot to expect the rest of the Arab world to quietly forget such acts, they need some incentive to make that step and a US or Israeli boot is not the step they had in mind.

And you're operating under the false notion that there is something akin to a coherent Arab world.

**Orlanth**

dogma wrote:
Orlanth wrote:
Orientalist, hmm not many now understand the orginal interpretation of the term. Yes, I like the Arab culture and I say so without shame despite having no faith in Islam.

I wasn't using it in the sense which indicates a fascination with the Orient. I was using it in the sense which indicates a tendency to over state the affects of culture on policy choices: Said light.

I now understand what you are saying, but it doesnt tally with a definition of Orientalism.

dogma wrote:
Obviously the most cogent position is that fault is now so widely spread that any will to place blame is almost entirely counterproductive. Both sides are at fault, and so both sides must take steps to create a solution. Thankfully progress is being made on virtually every front. Israel has non-aggression pacts with most of its neighbors, and the Arab League is no longer enforcing its nominal boycott of the Jewish State.

I wholeheartedly occur, much of the middle east is heading in the right direction.

dogma wrote: I don't believe in the sort of justice which you seem to be advocating here. You and Hammurabi can keep your code.

If I guess your comment right I dont either. However others do. The scripture of an eye for an eye runs deeply though a lot of current Israeli policy. Even when not there are a lot of fanatics on both sides with those sorts of agendas.

dogma wrote:
And you're operating under the false notion that there is something akin to a coherent Arab world.

Buried deep there could well be. Arabs are governmed by the same human condition that affects other people groups. While no people group is coherent there are trends and people groups can be manipulated. It is a bit like the swing voter dominating an election. Some people have one entrenched view, other have others those in the middle effect the demographic change by swinging a balance. Culture has so much to do with that, we see that in propoganda techniques, in election strategies and in world politics.

**Ironhide**

dogma wrote:
Ironhide wrote:1. Iran isn't as big as Russia.

And? You have to draw a conclusion from such a point.

Land-wise and population-wise, Iran is not as big as Russia. Which equates to less mouths to feed and less infrastructure. So Iran would not need to spend as much as Russia.

dogma wrote:
Ironhide wrote:4. Arabs hate Israelis. They stole their land.

Most Israelis are Arabs. They just aren't Muslims.

Israelis are not Arabs. Why don't you go and tell an Israelis (or an Arab for that matter) that they are Arabs.

dogma wrote:
Ironhide wrote:
5. Who has the majority of the worlds oil? Arabs and Persians, that's who.

Awesome. Good to see you read up on your geology.

Yeah, I do know my geology and geography to boot.

**ShumaGorath**

Yeah, I do know my geology and geography to boot.

In petroleum industry parlance, production refers to the quantity of crude extracted from reserves, not the literal creation of the product.

# Producing Nation 103bbl/d (2006) 103bbl/d (2007)
1 Saudi Arabia (OPEC) 10,665 10,234
2 Russia 1 9,677 9,876
3 United States 1 8,331 8,481
4 Iran (OPEC) 4,148 4,043
5 China 3,845 3,901
6 Mexico 1 3,707 3,501
7 Canada 2 3,288 3,358
8 United Arab Emirates (OPEC) 2,945 2,948
9 Venezuela (OPEC) 1 2,803 2,667
10 Kuwait (OPEC) 2,675 2,613
11 Norway 1 2,786 2,565
12 Nigeria (OPEC) 2,443 2,352
13 Brazil 2,166 2,279
14 Algeria (OPEC) 2,122 2,173
15 Iraq (OPEC) 3 2,008 2,094
16 Libya (OPEC) 1,809 1,845
17 Angola (OPEC) 1,435 1,769
18 United Kingdom 1,689 1,690
19 Kazakhstan 1,388 1,445
20 Qatar (OPEC) 1,141 1,136
21 Indonesia 1,102 1,044
22 India 854 881
23 Azerbaijan 648 850
24 Argentina 802 791
25 Oman 743 714
26 Malaysia 729 703
27 Egypt 667 664
28 Australia 552 595
29 Colombia 544 543
30 Ecuador (OPEC) 536 512
31 Sudan 380 466
32 Syria 449 446
33 Equatorial Guinea 386 400
34 Yemen 377 361
35 Vietnam 362 352
36 Thailand 334 349
37 Denmark 344 314
38 Congo 247 250
39 Gabon 237 244
40 South Africa 204 199

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration

**Ironhide**

My original comment said Arabs and Persians, and they do produce the majority of the worlds' oil.

1 Saudi Arabia (OPEC) 10,665 10,234
4 Iran (OPEC) 4,148 4,043
8 United Arab Emirates (OPEC) 2,945 2,948
10 Kuwait (OPEC) 2,675 2,613
15 Iraq (OPEC) 3 2,008 2,094
20 Qatar (OPEC) 1,141 1,136
25 Oman 743 714
27 Egypt 667 664
32 Syria 449 446
34 Yemen 377 361

All Arab or Persian countries. That's ten out of 40 of the top world's producers. Thanks for the info, ShumaGorath.