What will nukes achieve for Iran? Deterrence of Israel? Israel has not attacked Iran, shares no border with Iran, and the only thing which COULD cause an attack is the imminent existance of nukes in the hands of a Rafsanjani and his lunatic threats. The US has not attacked Iran (the reverse is true if anything). The only things today which could cause such an act is the imminent existance of nukes in the hands of a Rafsanjani and his lunatic threats, and the chance that the cat's paw of Hizb'allah beng handed a deniable weapon.
- By: epaminondas on October 24, 2004

I feel it is extremely important to distinguish between nuclear arms and peaceful nuclear reactors for producing electricity, medical supplies and research. Having nuclear weapons is in nobody's interest. Indeed, Iran having nuclear weapons will ultimately only be a threat towards the Iranian people. The young basiji's analogy is flawed, not getting nuclear weapons is not a discrimination, it is like not being allowed to get a plague. Nuclear weapons is a curse, not a blessing. Non-prolifiration is a very important cause, and one that should have the support of every peace-loving person on the planet. However, I do not agree with the assertion that countries rich on oil and gas do not need nuclear energy. Now, the ideal solution would be to reduce energy needs, but that is not happening anytime soon. So, we need practical solutions. For that reason, many physicists and in fact biologists have stated that with the prospect of a run-away global warning resulting from burning fossil fuels, the only practical solution is, in fact nuclear energy. For references, there were an article abou tthis in Europhysics News a few years ago, and the "Gaia" man (I have forgot his name), had a lengthy rationaly behind this recently. There are very valid reasons for a country like Iran to pursue nuclear energy. But as Hoder says, one wouldn't want that to happen in the current political situation. A democratic Iran could pursue that goal, but not the current administration. Also, with a US administration that builds their whole policy on irrational fear, we have currently a geopolitical climate where one has to step with wisdom and care. It would indeed be best for the people of Iran and the world if Iran suspended it's uran enrichment programme for now. However, it is also wise for us, for everyone who would like to see Iran reform, that the pressure is not put upon Iran from irrational fear, that will not bring us anywhere. The fact is that the International Atomic Energy Agency is a very competent agency, and they would be able to operate excellently and keep tabs on Iran's nuclear plans, to allow limited research on nuclear energy even in the current situation. The rational analyses of IAEA is easy to put aside among all the sacremongering and national interests, but they are the good guys in this mess. I would therefore like to encourage everyone to support the IAEA, and not let national interests or fear dictate policy.
- By: Kjetil Kjernsmo on October 24, 2004

Read this article about the topic : http://www.iranian.ws/iran_news/publish/article_4194.shtml A friend
- By: aghrab on October 24, 2004

If the religious fanatics who have enslaved the Iranian People develop atomic weapons,the Iranian people will be enslaved for decades to come in consideration of the fact that no country on earth including the United States will risk it`s own safety in order to liberate the Iranian people from the Religious Criminals who have tortured ,murdered, and enslaved hundreds of thousands.The primary victim of Iran`s auqisition of atomic bombs will be the Iranian People,but it is unlikely that they realize this.If Sadaam Hussien was in possesion of atomic bombs with the ability to deliver them,he would still be in power and oppressing,torturing,mutilating and murdering the People of Iraq.Good luck to the people of Iran. Johnnny Scottto
- By: Johnnny Scottto on October 23, 2004

I agree in part with Shahriar argument yet I am not pro nuclear power in the hands of any Nation. If history can teach us anything then it has told us that Nuclear power is a very dangerous thing, we only have to look at the environmental disasters of Chernobyl, and the devastating loss of life at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In Europe we have not built any Nuclear power stations in a decade I hope that we have learnt our lessons that in the short term solutions Nuclear power appears quite an efficient way to produce electricity, yet in the long term disposing of spent nuclear fuel rods is a much bigger problem, recycling or storage are all expensive activities. Finland is the first country in a decade to build a nuclear station, an option taken to avoid importing large quantities of gas from Russia, an option that England will have to consider as our dependency on power grows greater day by the day. I agree that it is hypocritical for a nation with this power to ask another nation not to gain it, and I do not stand behind my government in decisions of this kind. What we need to do is to continue research into clean, affordable, and environmental energy sources. We have known for years that fossil fuel is bad for the environment, yet we grow more dependant upon the oil companies to run our cars and heat our homes. To stock pile oil in the hope that in 30 years because of the simple laws of supply and demand it will make Iran an economic super power is the wrong road to take, what do you do when that oil has all been used? As less and less oil becomes available and the price rises, we will all have to remove our dependence upon it. It could be the case that in 30 years time that oil is virtually worthless as a new clean power source has been invented, this is something that every country has as a common goal and should work together to achieve and share. What needs to be done is to capitalise on the resource while it is needed and use that money to develop the country in another way that gives economic success. I personally do not believe that the current government in Iran have the capability for long term economic development nor do I believe that they truly have the best intentions for the population. Iran may not have democracy but it is the people who make a government and the people who can break a government, your history has shown this to be possible. Life is like a game of chess any move you make now will directly dictate the direction of the game. Be clear in your mind the long term results you wish to achieve and make the moves carefully to reach them.
- By: Nic on October 22, 2004

I'm an Iranian Journalist who has made the Photo Journal you mean for BBC Website . I have selected interviewed person by random type & told them they are free to tel their own opinion on this topic & they did , nobody forced them to tel anything or Censored their interiew also they knew their interview will be published on an Internaional Media . Regards
- By: Yek Irani on October 22, 2004

This is a tough one for Iranian people. All indications from official polling data to people-to-people contacts (such as my own contacts with Iran) show that Iranian people, despite their feelings about the ruling mullahs, support the pursuit and achievement of nuclear technology. I think this support is in large part because of the hypocricy and double standard that is evident in Europe and United States stance on this issue. It is no secret that Israel considers Iran its worst enemy at the moment. And Israelis have shown their willingness and capacity to attack countries they consider a threat, without provocation and pre-emptively! To that threat you add the presence of U.S. forces, the fact that Americans are developing newer nuclear weapons even today and that they have used nuclear weapons aginst civilian population centers, then it is understandable that the Iran's public opinion is for the Mullahs' side of this issue. In my view, the only effective non-proliferation effort will be the one that deals with dis-arming everyone in the region, starting with the ones who already have the most horrific weapons.
- By: Farhad on October 21, 2004

The issue you bring is important, but the fact remains, that regardless of how much oil reserves a country may have, in this age, every country must strive for nuclear power. If they want to get their hands on nuclear weapons, they will, one way or another. but having the non-military nuclear power will be such an asset, both in 30 years when there is no more oil, and also locally. for one thing if successful enough, it can be exported, and they would be the only country in the region with the economic capability. i don't the threat of nuclear weapons should deter any country from trying to produce nuclear power in it's non-military capacity.
- By: shahriar on October 21, 2004