241 comments on World Nuclear Panel Refers Iran to the Security Council
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
241 comments on World Nuclear Panel Refers Iran to the Security Council
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
Search The Oil Drum with Google
Support The Oil Drum
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Campfire
- What "Lower Consumption" Means
- Tricking and Treating the Future
- Meeting Energy Decline Part-Way - Potatoes?
TOD:Europe
- The Future of Nuclear Energy: Facts and Fiction - Part IV: Energy from Breeder Reactors and from Fusion?
- The US stimulus and "green jobs"
- EROWI - energy return of water invested
TOD:Canada
- In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!
- The Round-Up: October 24, 2008
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
TOD:Australia/NZ
- The Bullroarer - Saturday 7th November 2009
- The Bullroarer - Friday 30th October 2009
- Details of Solar Flagships Released
TOD:Net Energy
Blogroll
Energy Sites
- The Coming Global Oil Crisis
- Die Off
- Dry Dipstick
- Energy Bulletin
- From the Wilderness
- Life After the Oil Crash
- Peak Oil Crisis
- Peak Oil News and Message Boards
- Powerswitch
- Rigzone
- Matthew Simmons
- Wolf at the Door
Environment & Sustainability Sites
- The Daily Green
- EcoGeek
- Eco Street
- Green Car Congress
- Green Options
- green.alltop.com
- Gristmill
- RealClimate
- Sustainablog
- Treehugger
- WorldChanging
Blogs
- The Big Picture
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- David Strahan
- The Energy Blog
- Entropy Production
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- Health After Oil
- jeffvail.net
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Finance & Economics Blogs
- Calculated Risk
- The Crash Course
- Ecological Economics
- Econbrowser
- Environmental Economics
- Infectious Greed
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
Organizations
Peak Oil Primers
Beware email scams!
Beware email scams claiming to be from this site. We do not have any job openings. If anyone contacts you about a job at The Oil Drum, do not reply to them, and definitely do not give them any personal information or send them money. Read more here.
“Every time I see an adult on a bicycle, I no longer despair for the future of the human race.”
—H. G. Wells, 1904
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Nate Hagens, Gail the Actuary, Prof. Goose
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Engineer-Poet, Heading Out, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Sam Foucher, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Campfire: Glenn, Jason Bradford
- TOD:Europe: Chris Vernon, Euan Mearns, Francois Cellier, Jerome a Paris, Luís de Sousa, Rembrandt, Rune Likvern, Ugo Bardi
- TOD:Canada: benk, Libelle
- TOD:ANZ: Big Gav, Phil Hart, aeldric
- Emeritus: Stuart Staniford
- Technician: Super G
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
http://tinyurl.com/83w7l
The US Navy and Marines would have to occupy the Iranian islands that guard the strait of Hormuz
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strait_of_Hormuz
I still think we should invade Iran, but there is no need to for us to lie about it.
Which country is Iran threatening to invade ?
These are artifacts of history, events, conflicts,etc... What wkwillis refers to as Iranian occupation are the remains of the old Persian Empire -- which started long before there was ever a modern Iran.
From my Iranian friends, I know very few that are true pure blooded Persians, but my friends all consider themselves Iranians --whether ethnically Azeri, Armenian or Kurdi. 'Iran' is essentially is non-ethnicly linked name for the country.
Doesn't this all sound eerily current?
There is an active Kurdish resistance movement active in Iran. Kurds are concentrated in the north-west side of Iran and are about 7-8% of the population. The Azeri people (24-25% of Iran) have been resisting an "Iranization" of their provinces for decades. There is also a Baloch movement in the south-east corner, but right now it is mostly directed towards Pakistan. They are a very small minority.
People of Persian decent number about 50% of the population in Iran.
If this is your position I'd like to hear the arguments, especially what are those long-term contributions to the peace and prosperity this would bring.
The idea that nations are not divided on ethnic lines is a fault line that has impacted the modern world heavily. That is why it was so cool when Czechoslovakia simply became two separate states with no real problems. Unlike Yugoslavia. The Balkans is made even worse with little pockets of this or that person scattered haphazardly across the mountainous terrain.
Nigeria is another one. Not only does it include, because of colonial decisions made in the 19th century, different tribes, but you can throw in different religions too.
Personally, a Kurd nation state makes sense to me though Iran and Turkey would not be happy campers. That there are more Azeri's in Iran than in their home country is simply a problem waiting to happen.
We see it in the so-called progressive EU with the Basques, Catalonians, Corsica, Irish, etc. Heck, 10,000 Germans living in Denmark caused problems in 1933 and again in 1940.
In the meantime Slovakia's development basicly stalled and the country started lagging behind. Slovakia has much less of an industrial base and resources than the Chechs and goes by with agriculture, tourism and services.
Both countries have high unemployment though lower than Poland. High unemployment seem to be a marking sign for countries that have been separated one way or another and could not attract foreign investments (mostly due to the instability, crime and corruption following the split). For example in Bosnia and Kosovo, unemployment is close to 40% and the most profitable (and wide-spread) business is drug and weapons traffic.
Considering the level of development of ME countries, splitting Iraq/Iran in pieces would be the mostly disastrous scenario for the people of these countries (well for Iraq it might be already too late). First they'll be shooting themselves over oil for X number of years. After they get tired of that (being quite below their starting point) they will probably have installed some much more despotic governments (remote-controlled by Washington or not) than their current ones. In other words the only thing worse than a despotic and corrupted government are 3 or 4 despotic and corrupted governments.
People make decisions that are not economically based. The two people, Czechs and Slovaks, wanted a country apart and they had a "history" going back to World War I. Certainly they were on opposite sides in World War II when one was occupied and the other a supportive puppet. I agree that they have had problems since, but for the most part they are doing O.K. and now belong to the EU.
I agree splitting Iran (and others) would cause chaos and impact the oil price/supply. But I wonder if we are simply puitting it off? It is not like there has not been strife there in the region that has little to do with the USA. The best time to do it would be at the end of some successful major watershed on the world stage. Maybe the end of a big war, or the day the USA declares it is not importing any oil except from North America?
If balkanisation is promotion of homogeneous societies, it is great way to create intolerant societies. I can't agree it is a good thing. I know too many people from the former Yugoslavia, and too many ruined lives.
I see balkanisation as cultural ignorance and intolerance.
Balkanisation is, as you say, "cultural ignorance and intolerance". Your right.
But the older I get, the harder it is for me say that this person or that person should do this or that. The operative word there is should.
I think they should do what they want to, and nationalism is still a strong drive, mixed with that region's tribalism. It is hard for me to see how anyone (living in California) could object to blacks or latinos or whites together as friends and relatives, but they have a hard time in much of the Middle East to get along with the family in the next valley over who spells their name differently. I agree they are not smart thinking this way but "live and let live".
Also, what we are looking at are really small nations, and what is the practical result? The Basques and the Spanish have been fighting for going on 3 decades and with roots going much further back. And the Basques are not even Spanish by decent, but belong to the oldest race in Europe.
I guess when in doubt I come down on the side of freedom of choice.
So, much for being ethnically more neutral--thanks for clarifying the origin of the name.
Iran doesn't have a common border with Saudi Arabia; how can they occupy a piece of it?
Baluchis live in Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Also Saddam tried to snatch Kuzestan away from Iran but the Iranian Arabs fought against Saddam.
Baloch's resistance is primarily in Pakistan where they have been blowing up fuel lines. But 2% of the population of Iran is Baloch.
From their web-site:
This is a Baloch site we are trying to tell the world about the inequality and oppression of the Baloch people by Pakistan and its tyrant Punjabi institutions.
To the dominant Punjabis in Pakistan, who make up 58 percent of the population, it is unthinkable that the Baloch Nation should have special claims to Balochistan, which represents 48 percent of the land area of the country.
Both Islamabad and Teheran view the sparsely settled expanses of Balochistan as a safety valve for surplus population, a source of badly needed materials, and an area of vital strategic importance over which the central government should rightfully hold undisputed sway.
Baloch and other less Populace Nations will not be permitted to stand in the way of Punjabis so-called modernization programs, though it means the plunder of the Baloch National wealth.
More Azeri's of Ajerbaizan live in Iran than in the country with Baku as its capital.
Iran does not have any Saudi territory, but they do support the Shias who live predominately in the oil well areas of Saudi Arabia. One of the Gulf States is still upset over some minor islands in the Gulf that the Shah seized in the 1970's or so.
Kuzestan has had a series of bombings, the two latest being blamed by the Iranians on Britain (!). It is indeed Shia Arab.
Now Hawaii would be interesting.
Or California. I'd vote for independence.
The oil capacity has nothing to do with it. It's the fact that the Mullahs of Iran are not under US control and they are threatening a real problem for the US ruling class: the oil exchange based on the euro. All of this hysteria about the threat of an Iranian nuclear program is propoganda aimed at convincing the American people (Yet again) that there is some crazy brown people that want to destroy their happy driving utopia because they "hate our freedom."
The biggest threat posed by an Iranian nuclear program is an effective deterrant against US aggression.
Every country either wants the bomb or wants to be a close ally of someone with the bomb.
If the mullahs hadn't already sworn to use nukes against Israel, you might have a point.
Easy. Independence. Iran has gobs of uranium ore. They want to have a 'closed cycle' so they are not dependent on another country for their energy. Being 'in the energy supply business', like they are, they understand the control that is lost when you do not own all parts of the process.
Iran's problems in this area are caused by its own belligerence and intransigence. Oh, and murderous mullahs who hang teenage girls for having sharp tongues.
If they wanted to prove to the world that they had no intention of building nuclear weapons, Iran could do it in a minute. They have done the opposite. This speaks volumes.
And as for the mullahs being murderous bastards, I'm sure they are. I defy you to look at what we're doing in Iraq with open eyes, especially in places like Fallujah, and reach any other conclusion about the US. And the same goes for Israel's treatment of the Palestinians. And Russia and China are no better. I can think of several counties whose problems are caused by thier own belligerence and intransigence.
There is no high ground here, we have no moral superiority anymore - it's just us vs. them.
Doesn't excuse Iran for using the loopholes to make weapons they've sworn to use.
If that's so then we should just do what we have to do to stop Iran from carrying out its threats, because it would be even worse if we let it happen. If it's not so and we do have moral superiority, we should do the same.
Either way, Iran would instantly be off the intervention list if it farmed out its enrichment to a nation which is not a proliferation threat. Like France, or China, or Russia.
Russia volunteered. Iran said no. That says it all.
Iran has not threatened the US. They have threatened Israel, which has nuclear weapons and can defend itself if attacked, but in the context of reacting to news reports that Israel was planning a preemptive strike on Iran. That's providing you believe the recent statements were meant for more than whipping up the locals.
The fact is that Iran has the right to develop the complete nuclear fuel cycle under the NPT. If we say that they can't, then the NPT means nothing - in which case there are no rules, and they have as much right to nuclear weapons as does anyone else, including the US and Israel. Because there is no evidence that they have a weapons program, only speculation. Tell me - what would be required for you to accept that Iran be allowed to do the things that the NPT says it can? What nations have gone as far as Iran has in allowing the IAEA to monitor their activities?
For me, when one has no moral right to do something, especially a military action that will cost many lives, then one should not do it. Apparently others feel that one should do whatever one feels like, as long as one is strong enough to get away with it. Might makes right I guess.
If there's anything we should know about the fanatics in that part of the world, it's this: when they say they intend to kill you, BELIEVE THEM! Their intent is given; the only way to prevent it is to deny them the means.
FWIW, Osama bin Laden is believed to be hiding in Iran.
90%+, a considerable effort.
But we could also upgrade fuel to ten percent and build fast neutron gas cooled reactors. They would be neutronically and thermodynamically efficient. And less likely to take out a state.
At Davis-Besse and STP the borates leaked and formed a concentrated solution at a point on the reactor pressure vessal. The concentrated solution corroded a "pinapple sized" hole in the pressure vessal all the way through, leaving only a thin sheet of corrosion resistant stainless steel between the pressurised water and the outside of the pressure vessal. If the stainless steel had ruptured, it would have been like shooting a hole in a steam boiler. Very, very, messy.
They are replacing all the reactor heads with stainless steel to make sure that it doesn't happen again. They shut the reactors till the pressure vessal heads were finished, and it took some time, like years. Expensive.
I believe they are prosecuting someone for falsifying inspection reports. The investigation turned up someone not doing his job. It's not his fault that the reactors almost blew but they were talking prison terms. Not sure what happened to him.
Or they may want us to think they have them, just like Israel.
What is the consequence? Are they going to start using them? Hmmmm don't think so, unless they are lunatics, which they obviously are not (observing how they play their cards). Iran and Israel exchanging nukes is thousand times more unlikely scenario than Israel or USA nuking Tehran unilaterally.
What is the logical conclusion from that? All the fuss is about us keeping the nuclear option for ourselves. So that we could nuke them if we want, to not fearing a retaliation. Gosh if I was an iranian, how I'd want nukes. And the more we're pressing the more they'd want them. Cause and effect.
They've been doing various shenanigans against the USA and haven't been nuked. They've also been financing Hezbollah to commit terrorist acts against Israel (numerous acts of war), and haven't been nuked. They have no reason to want a nuclear deterrent except to get even more out of hand than they are.
My experience and common sense tell me to be afraid of those [who think] that are sronger.
Is there a good source for this claim?
This is an important point. We should be clear on exactly who said what and when, and to evaluate such statements in terms of how likely they are to be applied.
My guess is that if an extremist wants to attack Israel with nuclear weapons they would be able to obtain them or the materials to make them without necessarily runnin their own nuclear power plant.
Pakistan's nuclear program was a key source of info and supplies for Korea, was it not? The FSU has lost a variety of materials un-accounted for. Somehow, this "nuclear threat" seems to convenient to me.
Has Iran been complying with the same agreements other nations are subject to with regard to development of "peaceful" nuclear power? My understanding is that Iran is being asked to go further than other nations.
Any info out there that others have run across on this?