Why is Iran not backing down in their position of creating nuclear fuel?

[IsItJustMe]

This makes no sense to me. I know, if Iran wanted to, could go ahead and make nuclear fuel and play the diplomacy game thus stringing this process along for years.

That’s not what they are doing though. Iran is just straight out saying that they will be in charge of making their own nuclear fuel for their reactors.

There has to be something I am missing, but then again, most of my info comes from the msm, so I can understand my own ignorance on this issue.

The only conclusion I can come up with for Iran’s position is:
1) They don’t believe chimp is serious (The boy ain’t right) AND/OR
2) They just don’t give a shit

Anybody have any other theories? I would be interested in hearing them.

[Junkdrawer]

1. They looked to N. Korea and decided they don't want invaded either. n/t

[MadMaddie]

2. They know that the chimp has a child like response to

provocation...I think they are trying to goad him into war.....

Condi and Bolton have been out stumping about preemptive strike capability against Iran....

[DinahMoeHum]

3. Bush's new nuclear deal with India just gave Iran more motivation

to go nuclear.

:evilfrown:

[infogirl]

4. I think they have compromising pics

of members of our government...given to them by oh...let's see....Gannon (male whore in DC), the CIA...or even Rusty Nelson (Franklin photog)

google is your friend!

[stop the bleeding]

6. Welcome to DU infogirl!!!!

:toast:

[cliss]

5. Answer =

they know the U.S. is overextended. We are stuck in the mud in Iraq and Afghanistan, spinning our wheels getting nowhere.

They also know we are broke. We are an late-stage Empire which is in a massive state of decay.

Why, just the other day Ahmadinejad said, "The U.S. is a hollow superpower". That should tell us everything. On the LBN, Rep. Murtha said, "we're overextended and N. Korea knows it, Iran knows it."

[htuttle]

16. I think that's the reason

It's not the first time Persians have seen an Empire expend itself into dust in their neighborhood.

In fact, historically it seems to happen even more often in Central Asia than it has in the wintertime in Russia.

They see the signs.

In addition, keeping in mind Iran's own internal power struggles, the more Bush barks at Ahmadinejad, the stronger Ahmadinejad gets within the Persian government against more moderate reformers.

[HereSince1628]

7. Despite the greatness of fasciochristocapitalism there is nationalism

rejecting the malleability that the hegemoists push at it.

Human nature produces a percentage of humans that reject all attempts at being bent to the will of authority. It's a natural consequence of the competitive nature of gregariousness.

Why do we expect that leaders of some nations/regions should not manifest the same human traits? We have no real reason to expect nations to lay down in front of our imperialistic impositions on them. Particularly when the hypocrisy of our position is so obvious.

[FloridaPat]

8. If we attack, we will destroy ourselves. Everyone will be against us

because the price of oil will got sky high. They destroy us with the oil bourse or our own stupid invasion. They are heros and we are the scum of the earth - if that is lower than where we are now.

[BeerIsClear]

9. I'll take #2

It's because they just don't give a shit.

Why should they?

[newyawker99]

30. Hi BeerIsClear!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[BeerIsClear]

34. Thanks!

Thanks Thanks Thanks!

[Sir Jeffrey]

10. My theory (based on what I have read)

Iran is developing nuclear material for electrical power, much like France. They have allowed the IAEA to inspect them thoroughly, but the US is still trying to stop them from creating anything that will better their population. After a while, a country that we have messed with for decades, like Iran, will eventually realize that no matter what they do the US is going to find fault with it.

The US is weakened right now, the Bushies are unpopular everywhere, and the economy is in the tank. Iran perceives that what they are doing is what the non-aligned movement did during the Cold War i.e. play the situation to their advantage. They are driving the Bushies to choose between three outcomes:

1. The US backs off, lets Iran develop peaceful nuclear material, and Iran begins trading oil in Euros which undermines the Petrodollar standard and ruins the US economy

2. The US launches full scale war complete with nukes, completely disrupts the world's oil supply thereby ruining the global economy, and unleashes a human rights catastrophe worthy of NAZI Germany

3. The US stays "vigilant", gets sanctions imposed on Iran, then everyone (including US corporations) goes behind the UN's back to trade illegally with Iran in whatever currency Iran dictates (probably Euros) and ruins the US economy

As you can probably guess, Iran is banking on #1 or #3 based on the fact that other countries will eventually realize that it is no longer in their interest to tow the line with Washington if it bankrupts entire nations.

The Bushies are banking on #2. Why? Because they think that by eliminating the population en masse through large numbers of nuclear missiles, they can avoid the "pitfalls" of Iraq that spawned the insurgency. Send in the troops to clean up the fallout and man the oil rigs, everyone takes a bath in oil to wash off the blood and the world can thank our savior Bush for saving us from a nuclear holocaust.

They are maniacs.

[KAT119]

22. Wouldn't nuclear war 'fallout'-radiation in Iran end their oil industry

for centuries w/ its lethal contamination of surrounding lands w/ winds/rain etc. etc. I recall reading that 1/2 life
of nuclear lethal/ toxic contamination lasts approx 100,000 years!!

I agree, Bush would do it anyway...saying who Knew!

[Sir Jeffrey]

23. Good question...

but from what I have read, "Bunker buster" nukes will be used to eliminate certain heavily populated areas. These are less powerful nukes that are designed to burrow into the ground to minimize radiation deaths. The idea being, almost certainly, to drop a number of these bombs in Tehran and other major cities far enough away from the oil fields to avoid such an issue as a pesky insurgency blowing up the pipelines or setting the fields ablaze. Kill the innocents immediately with the blasts, minimize radiation, and destroy the infrastructure with conventional bombs. I read something a few days ago that indicated a major "selling point" of the new wave of nukes is that they are designed to minimize civilian deaths...a "safe nuke", if you can believe it. Orwell turns in his grave AGAIN.

Tehran will most likely be nuked several times as it remains THE center of Iranian culture...and also the most populated area by far. IMO the target for occupation is the oil fields in the Khuzestan province. Khuzestan borders Iraq, could be shittily occupied by US troops with little re-routing of resources, and by "decapitating" the regime in Iran (sound familiar) via nuclear holocaust US forces could easily eliminate any forces stationed there.

When this attack begins, watch where the nukes are dropped and compare it to where the conventional bombs are used to saturate an area. Wherever our insane leaders want to occupy, no nukes will be used. Wherever there is no compelling US interest to station forces, nukes will be dropped.

And, quite frankly, these idiots don't believe in science...so any calls for taking into consideration such things as "climate shifting the radiation via rain or wind" have probably fallen on deaf ears if they were even raised. Remember, they think Jesus wants them to do this.

I would guess the radiation will spread slowly if bunker busters are used, and then you'll have what happened in Vietnam with napalm vis a vis the birth defects. But that won't happen until this group has long since retired. I mean, how is Kissinger doing these days?


As a sidenote, if you are not familiar with the US' "oil-denial policy" with respect to Iran, you may find this author of interest:

http://www.brookings.edu/press/REVIEW/spring2002/telhami.htm

It has been official US policy in the region for decades and may shed some light on why Bush is willing to risk what you mentioned if it goes "bad" as far as ruining Iranian oil production for 10K years. And, quite frankly, anything by Telhami is worth a read right now.

[Just Me]

27. How freakin' depressing.

I don't think I am capable of fully digesting how callous and inhuman these fuckers really are. ;(

I also do not believe the rest of the world will tolerate this kind of behavior, anymore. This leadership along with us and our nation will surely be "restrained".

[Sir Jeffrey]

28. Yes, it is quite depressing...

and it is tough for those of us who aren't sociopaths or psychopaths to understand.

I hate to say it, but I am afraid that much of the world will probably go along with it. I don't fully understand why, but I would guess that petrodollars have a lot to do with it. It just seemed odd that France and Germany would be so quick to jump on this given their previous opposition to the Iraq policy of invade and fuckup. I mean, the potential for petroeuros as the new standard would undoubtedly shift us away from a unipolar system to a mutlipolar system with France and Germany once again featured prominently on the world stage...especially after the US economy crashes and burns.

Really, at this point, China, Russia, and Venezuela are our best chance for avoiding nuclear war. China owns much of our debt, Russia has always had a special relationship with Iran and has veto power on the UNSC, and Venezuela could always turn off the spicket and sell oil to China and Japan.

ON EDIT

I changed the word "had" to "hate" in the first full paragraph

[Sir Jeffrey]

33. I'm sorry it took me so long to find this...

I read it and forgot where it was. This report summarizes many of the things I said in my initial post.

http://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/publications/briefings/IranConsequences.pdf

On page 15 is a map of the region with the Iranian nuke sites as well as US military bases that will be used to send in forces. I'd say Tehran, Natanz, and maybe Esfahan will be nuked while Arak and Bushehr will be saturation-bombed because of their location.

[BR_Parkway]

11. They think Shrub is rattling an empty saber - China needs Iranian

oil and isn't about to sit out on the side of any strikes by the US. And since they (and Japan) own so much of our outstanding debt - they can crash our economy at any point they choose simply by not bidding at the next T-Bill auction. The market panic would be instantaneous here in the US and among allies. Meanwhile, China gets access to oil and a potentially huge market in the Mid east for their quickly growning manufacturing economy - they will look like a savior to those nations for preventing another US agression.

It's not like they can count on a financially overextended US gov't with all of it's financially overextended citizens to keep buying all the stuff they make. They have to develop new markets.

China is a nation that plans in centuries, while here in the US we've been planning in terms of the next quarterly profit statement.

[warrens]

12. They might feel that since Pakistan, India, Israel and N. Korea...

Got away with it (and probably others we don't know about), who gives a fuck?

[MadHound]

13. Why should Iran, or any other sovereign nation for that manner

Abide by the wishes of another country in this regard. I mean really now, it isn't like the US has been a shining light of morality on this matter to begin with. We are the only country who has dropped the bomb. And currently, while waging an illegal, immoral war right next door to Iran, we're contaminating the entire region with DU dust, a slow motion killing machine in and of itself.

And again, let me stress this, Iran is a sovereign nation. They want to persue nuclear enrichment for their own energy purposes. Granted, they probably want to pursue the building of an atomic bomb also, but can you really blame them? After all, they were part of Bushco's "Axis of Evil", and the one country that Bushco isn't rattling their saber at is the one *with* a nuclear bomb. Hmmmm. I think I might be in the market for one too if I were them.

And gee, then again, they could be telling the truth(much like Iraq was when they were stating they had no WMDs) and NOT be persuing a bomb, just enriching uranium for electrical generation. It is much cheaper for them to do it theirselves rather than pay for it on the international market.

Oh, and one more time, Iran is a sovereign country. What gives us the right to determine what they will or won't do?

[MadMaddie]

21. But...but...* can't even define what a sovereign country is....

He is stupid!!!

[in_cog_ni_to]

14. They're calling the US fascist's bluff.

Little do they know they're dealing with true psychopaths. The idiot is just chomping at the bit to use his "NUCULAR weapons" and will.

[endarkenment]

15. They have national pride and refuse to submit.

I think it is that simple. More or less a combination of your choices plus nationalism plus the rational belief that only a credible deterrent will immunize them from our beligerence.

[Sensitivity]

17. Why should they accept that their knowledge be constained by

a new european empire. The persians have pursued knowledge and empire for thousands of years before the history of Europe began.

[tjwash]

18. They have the backing of China and Russia .

For starters.

Besides, what gives us the right to dictate who gets to have their own nuclear program and who doesn't? The fact that we've already nuked someone else?

[Tyler Durden]

19. How about it's their legal right under treaty?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but as a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, they have the legal right to enrich all of the Uranium they want.

They say they aren't making bombs. All the current Conventional Wisdom other than the neocons says that even if they started today, they're roughly 5 years away from a Nuclear Device.

They could make a "Dirty Bomb" TOMORROW if they wanted.

Hey, it's only OIL again. Iraq didn't work out.

[wiggs]

20. Could be many things

1) They could believe that nuclear power plants are important for future energy needs. After all, previous nuclear non-proliferation agreements gave countries the right to develop peaceful nuclear technologies. In 30 years, nuclear energy may be important for most countries.

2) They could want to not fall hopelessly behind in basic nuclear technology in general, in case future circumstances dictate a need. After all, their neighbors all have it.

3) Like this US administration, they may be spoiling for a fight (various reasons)

4) We don't get the whole story on what Iran is really saying or doing. Reports may be incorrect, inaccurate.

5) They may see the development of nuclear technology as leverage for better negotiations

I don't know about Iran's motivations. But more importantly it certainly seems like B*sh wants to provoke Iran and hasten a conflict, even though there is no conceivable imminent threat. Our public posturing, Rice's statement saying that the time for talking is over, Bolton's statements that we could hit Iran (why announce that in public unless designed to raise blodd pressure?), our recent nuclear agreement with India, our free pass to Pakistan even after they were caught dispersing nuclear technology, our publicized 75 million request for regime change in Iran, Newsweek's changing of Iran's statement (from "pursuing nuclear energy" to "pursuing nuclear WEAPONS"), early disengagement in Iran and North Korea and Israel until problems boil over....all tell me that we aren't interested in peaceful resolution.

The situation is complex and unclear. Why congress doesn't step in and demand a seat at the table on Iran is beyond me. Rather, they seem willing to let the both administrations muddy the waters until one or another makes a move.

[ContraBass Black]

24. They're not going to roll over and play dead just because

America says so, and they know that there's no way an invasion could be good for us.

[Just Me]

25. They have powerful allies against PNAC. n/t

[Pavulon]

26. NATO

Will be behind any attack. Russia and China will not approve, but will not fight all of western europe.

Iran can be economically isolated. If they attack first they will lose. If they do not comply with a european led force they will be attacked.

The US would play second fiddle in this. Using black jets to poke their eyes out.

There is NO reason to enrich beyond 30 or 40%. They were caught with 90% enriched uranium.

The French have threatened them with nuclear weapons, and germany has stated their position.

They would not be where they are now without Russia and China allowing them to be reported to the security council.

My 2 cents

[Random_Australian]

29. Iran is not considered

the only nation threatening the world with nukes. The other main powers are controlled by, perhaps by the callous or cold-blooded but certainly not by fundamentalists, and everyone expects the same of America... so most will co-operate for a while, but if the somewhere above's scenario about the using bunker-busters is right, lot's of people will go completely ape-shit-a-rooney...If the U.S. starts nuking people, the 'World's Only Superpower' may have unpleasant things happen to it.

Sorry guys, but that would include you all too. The dogs of war strike down all alike.

[PRETZEL]

31. I think Iran has wanted nuclear power for some time,

I remember a few years back where the Iranian position was that it is more economically feasable for them to use their oil as a marketable commodity and take those proceeds to develop their nuclear generation capacity. I'm sure it's no doubt that as a side line they would also develop nuclear weapons at the same time and try their level best not to get caught.

But the fact that Iran is planning to go to the euro as their base has to be of great concern to the US. I'm not sure if Iraq was planning the same around the time of the invasion, but that seems to be in the back of my head.

Truthfully, this wouldn't be the first time a country started a war for economic preservation. You can call it anything you want, but it's still the same.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

32. Same reason that Israel won't even acknowledge it's nukes.

Using the same argument. The live in a "rough neighborhood".