Iran welcomes US nuclear report

[islamirama]

Iran has welcomed a major US intelligence report which suggests its government is not currently trying to develop nuclear weapons.

The latest National Intelligence Estimate says it is now believed Iran stopped its weapons programme in 2003.

Tehran has always maintained its nuclear programme is being developed purely for peaceful purposes.

But the US and other Western powers say Iran is trying to build a nuclear weapons capability.

Iran is currently under UN Security Council and unilateral US sanctions.

But the BBC News website's world affairs correspondent, Paul Reynolds, says the question of sanctions remains active because Iran is still defying Security Council calls for it to suspend uranium enrichment.

The standoff is now likely to continue indefinitely but at a lower temperature, he says.

Iran's 'victory'

Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said he welcomed the change of opinion.

"It's natural that we welcome it when those countries who in the past have questions and ambiguities about this case ... now amend their views realistically," he said.

Iranian state TV hailed the report as a "victory". It said Iran was "honest" and had been "vindicated", while it said the report demonstrated flaws in US intelligence.

The International Atomic Energy Agency also responded positively. It said the report backed up its statements that it had no evidence of an undeclared nuclear weapons programme anywhere.

Earlier US Democrats called for a major policy rethink in the light of the NIE report.


Report @ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/03_12_07_iran_report.pdf

 

[MTAFFI]

I read this earlier today, I think this is a great bit of news. I am happy to see that the IAEA and the US reported positively that Irans nuclear weapons program is not currently up and running and that they do appear to be only striving for nuclear power for peaceful purposes. As long as they allow the IAEA to perform regular inspections and are capable of providing evidence that no such program is in existence then I say let them have the nuclear power. I just hope the Iranians stay on their current course with this and do not take another path to nuclear weapons otherwise I may have to call the Iranian government a deceitful one and wish for their immediate demise...

 

[islamirama]

I read this earlier today, I think this is a great bit of news. I am happy to see that the IAEA and the US reported positively that Irans nuclear weapons program is not currently up and running and that they do appear to be only striving for nuclear power for peaceful purposes. As long as they allow the IAEA to perform regular inspections and are capable of providing evidence that no such program is in existence then I say let them have the nuclear power. I just hope the Iranians stay on their current course with this and do not take another path to nuclear weapons otherwise I may have to call the Iranian government a deceitful one and wish for their immediate demise...

And yet, some people are never satisfied :rollseyes


Mr Bush said the report released on Monday was a "warning signal" and his view that a nuclear Iran would be a danger "hasn't changed".
The president stressed that Iran was still trying to enrich uranium and could restart its weapons programme.

Tehran has denied continued accusations that it is developing nuclear weapons.

This report proves Bush's statements - which always speak of the serious threat of Iran's nuclear programme - are unreliable and fictitious

Mohammad Ali Hosseini,
Iranian foreign ministry

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7127198.stm

 

[Fishman]

Every country should have the right, and the responsiblity, to use peaceful nuclear power, and none should have the right to use nuclear weapons. I would rather there be the certainty of another WWII than the possibility of a nuclear war...

 

[sudais1]

The only reason Bush won't change his stance is because by law if the United States in a bad situation like new war or w/e then the president has the power to cancel elections and go for another term. I'll post the written law in a bit. He'll wait, then attack Iran to save his presidency. He's going to play the same game as he did with Iraq. Then go back to a dinner ball and say "no weapons of mass destruction here" while thousands and millions of ppl die.

 

[MTAFFI]

And yet, some people are never satisfied :rollseyes


Mr Bush said the report released on Monday was a "warning signal" and his view that a nuclear Iran would be a danger "hasn't changed".
The president stressed that Iran was still trying to enrich uranium and could restart its weapons programme.

Tehran has denied continued accusations that it is developing nuclear weapons.

This report proves Bush's statements - which always speak of the serious threat of Iran's nuclear programme - are unreliable and fictitious

Mohammad Ali Hosseini,
Iranian foreign ministry

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7127198.stm

I agree with you here! Bush could just let it go now since Iran is allowing these regular checkups and if they cease to allow them or do something that would indicate that they are developing nuclear power for weapons purposes then act, otherwise just leave them alone. It seems in this case Bush is attempting to take on the role of Ahmadinejad and provoke the next dialog of trash talk out of Iran

 

[MTAFFI]

The only reason Bush won't change his stance is because by law if the United States in a bad situation like new war or w/e then the president has the power to cancel elections and go for another term. I'll post the written law in a bit. He'll wait, then attack Iran to save his presidency. He's going to play the same game as he did with Iraq. Then go back to a dinner ball and say "no weapons of mass destruction here" while thousands and millions of ppl die.

bush cant cancel elections because of any situations an 8 year term is the max allowed, what you are talking about is just plain crazy, 8 years is written in the constituition there is no exception.

The 'Twenty-second Amendment of the United States Constitution sets a term limit for the President of the United States, providing that "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once."

 

[snakelegs]

this looks way too much like the build-up to iraq. it won't matter whether or not iran has nukes, allows inspections etc etc - if bush has already decided to launch an attack on iran, he will anyway, and it certainly looks that way.
seems like the same scenario all over again.

 

[wilberhum]

The only reason Bush won't change his stance is because by law if the United States in a bad situation like new war or w/e then the president has the power to cancel elections and go for another term. I'll post the written law in a bit. He'll wait, then attack Iran to save his presidency. He's going to play the same game as he did with Iraq. Then go back to a dinner ball and say "no weapons of mass destruction here" while thousands and millions of ppl die.

Knowledge is power.

Our Constitution makes no provision for an “emergency” that would let a
US President postpone Presidential elections.

 

[Jayda]

i'm glad that is over!

 

[wilberhum]

i'm glad that is over!

It isn't over, it is just posponed. :?

 

[NoName55]

another step towards paving the way for next spring alliance

 

[Keltoi]

The nation that is really against this report is Israel. If Israel isn't convinced by this report, then they may decide to take action on their own, which could harm relations with Israel and Iran at the same time.

 

[NoName55]

I'll believe Israeli intelligence before I would anything coming from Bush camp or any Lahnatullah! (but its guaranteed that Israel will tow the official US line more than 100%)

 

[Woodrow]

It isn't over, it is just posponed. :?

A few days ago, in one of these threads, there a brief discussion on the possibility of Iran and the USA becoming allies again. Although it seems far fetched at the moment. We can not rule it out as a possibility. I would not be surprised if this is a step in that direction.

Historically the US has consistently been allied with either Iran or Iraq and opposed to the other. Most often it has been Iran and USA vs. Iraq. This would be an excellent opportunity for the USA to get out of Iraq, and leave Iraq to Iran.

 

[wilberhum]

A few days ago, in one of these threads, there a brief discussion on the possibility of Iran and the USA becoming allies again. Although it seems far fetched at the moment. We can not rule it out as a possibility. I would not be surprised if this is a step in that direction.

Historically the US has consistently been allied with either Iran or Iraq and opposed to the other. Most often it has been Iran and USA vs. Iraq. This would be an excellent opportunity for the USA to get out of Iraq, and leave Iraq to Iran.

Allies again? The US and Islamic Republic of Iran have never been allies.

Now the US is known for making allies with anyone when we share a common enemy.

So often we find that when the common enemy is gone, we become enemies of our former allies.

We do it time and time again, so it could happen with Iran, but only when we have a common enemy.

 

[NoName55]

... only when we have a common enemy

That "honor" would be given to Pakistan (any day now)

 

[wilberhum]

That "honor" would be given to Pakistan (any day now)

I don't think so. But you could be right.

I assume that some day in the near future, militant extremists will take over.

I also assume that they will continue to support OBL and company.

My only conclusion is that if my first two assumptions are correct we will have to take out the Pakistani government or be nuked.

But then I hope I’m wrong on all three.

 

[Woodrow]

Allies again? The US and Islamic Republic of Iran have never been allies.

Now the US is known for making allies with anyone when we share a common enemy.

So often we find that when the common enemy is gone, we become enemies of our former allies.

We do it time and time again, so it could happen with Iran, but only when we have a common enemy.

I guess I was thinking too much of the 1960s-1970s when we were all palsy with the Shah

Prior to that the only real closeness would have been in 1910 or so when the old monarchy ended and Iran was attempting to adopt a US type constitution.

But, you are correct that a common enemy could be the cause of USA/Iran alliance. there is little historiacal love between Iran and Iraq.

Iran still has memories of this:

http://www.iranchamber.com/history/iran_iraq_war/war_pictures/war_pictures.php

Another potential common enemy could easily become Pakistan. either way I personaly believe that there will be an Iranian-USA alliance. But it will be at the expense of either or both Pakistan/Iraq

 

[Woodrow]

That "honor" would be given to Pakistan (any day now)

I believe we are close to an alliance with Iran and there is a strong probability Pakistan will suffer as a result.