Yes ^^ and they are threatening the west.....US and israel to get aid in the end from the west, to make iranian economy more viable in the future. guess what, the middle east has realized that oil will run out. too bad fundamentalist islamic govs have to treat people like crap.
- By: whatutsi on June 17, 2006

I am more than a bit skeptical about people like Lynne, Sir Glubb and Mr. Kaine having any peaceful thoughts behind their comments. I think it's not only your dilemma,hoder, but the dilemma of all Iranians who are against the Islamic Republic but also against a world after the ideas of the Bush-Police: to be attacked both by ignorant outsiders and by those iranians who dont want to dissociate from the islamic republic. Mr. Glubb, unlike you hoder was in tehran and (as i assume) left it for good reasons. and it's not you or the americans who suffer from this regime but millions of iranians. and for good reasons most iranians, at home or abroad, do not believe that a bush-police-regime-change is the solution, as they give a sh.t on the iranian people as much as (for example)on the nicaraguan people during their "contra-campaign".
- By: shapour on June 17, 2006

If it was possible I would put politicians like Bush and Ahmadinejad in a boxing ring to fight each other with fist and solve their problems in a way they both can understand without any need to drag their nations into a hostility. Unfortunately West and particularly USA claim they are defender of freedom but never allowed people of Iran and middle-east to have thier own democracy and always interfere in their internal affairs for pursuing their. Was not it once former US presidents who saw interest of USA in backing autocratic regimes in the midle east and now Bush is saying that policy was wrong and the right policy is spreading democracy in the region even forcefully? what gurantee is there, the next president will not reverse this course? Democracy is not like a car to import to a country. It has to grow and arise from within.
- By: David on June 13, 2006

I agree with most of your posts, Hoder, but this one is really misguided. You should learn a bit about our cold-war history to realise why nuclear arms is always bad for everyone. For one thing, nuclear power is useful and relatively safe, also, it is a very bad idea to rely on a small number of energy resources, and especially fossile fuel. Iran's interest in nuclear energy is legitimate and valid. Besides, the EU offer of a light-water reactor is a very good one. I'd take it and run with it if I were them. The devastation from a nuclear weapons attack is so severe, in it itself a war-crime, as it kills an enormous number of innocents, decades after the bombing. Furthermore, an attack is likely to be retaliated, and so, the protection from it is none, it will get back to you. I have spoken with Josef Rotblat, who were among the physicists who worked on the Manhattan project, and he said that he never thought it would be used, it should only be there for deterrence. However, is was proved soon thereafter, in a desparate enough situation, it will be used, so the question is "how stable are your leaders?" Also, it is no deterrence against people like Hitler, he would be crazy enough to use it, regardless of repercussions. Many, including cold-war generals who had their thumb on the button, points out that the reason why the cold-war didn't evolve into a war was not the deterrence of nuclear weapons, but rather that in this relatively short period in history, there were none who rose to power who were crazy enough to use it. So, if you think that Iran's current leaders are not crazy enough: Can you guarantee that no future leader in the region is crazy enough to use nuclear arms? If you cannot provide that guarantee, I believe you should be firmly against nuclear arms, against profiliation, and instead help the world getting rid of it all. I think the IAEA has the most reasonable voice in the world, working towards true disarmament, while still being capable to ensure that nuclear technology cannot be used for arms. I think that if you grant IAEA access to all facilities, then there is no way Iran can hide a nuclear weapons program. I say we trust IAEA.
- By: Kjetil Kjernsmo on June 11, 2006

Nuclear power is not really an alternative. You get dangerous atomic waste with a half-life period of up to 24000 Years (Plutonium, remember how old the pyramids are). A big and expensive mortage for future generations. Would you put it in a sanctuary, declare it as "evil god" and create a new religion to keep your grandchild from it? Nobody will remember about it in 2000 years. I don't know any country which has a working concept (who should check it?) to handle this waste and i think it isn't a good idea to generate more waste without a concept - regardless to political systemes, which sometimes could change entirely within a decade.
- By: 42 on June 9, 2006

1) Even if oil price goes up to 150 dollars per barel, and even if Iran discovers the largest oil reserves in the world, I still think working towards alternative sources of energy *is* the path to go, as we can not burn fossils for energy forever. There are 1001 reasons why burning fossil is bad for us and everyone else. Nuclear power is one major alternative, and it's very unfair that the technology is denied to iran. 2) Iran does not threaten Europe and soon, after Turkey joins the EU, Iran and Europe will become geographical neighbours. That means more trade and more interaction that ever before. 3) Eventually having a nuke won't make any difference. No one is going to use a nuke.
- By: Dara on June 7, 2006

I think that your assumption that other nations are interested in suppressing a free Iran is a bit misguided, although I have enjoyed your other posts. There is no history of warfare between Pakistan and Iran, so Pakistan does not pose a threat to Iran. However, Iran has imperialistic designs on Syria, Lebanon, Israel, and the Palestinian territories, and has committed terror activities against America. It also interferes with the internal affairs of Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Iraq, provoking Shiite minorities. I think that the US would be happy to leave Iran alone, having no commercial or cultural contact, provided that Iran stop its aggression against the US
- By: Herbert Kaine on June 7, 2006

Pakistan may be considered well the next political "bomb" of the world. And, in my humble opinion, a real threat: as you said they got nukes, a puppet president... and a complete "failed state" not much different from Somalia or Sudan concerning the complete lack of control on the territory. Bush during his "war on terror" was stupid enough to support Musharraf, among all world leaders (?!). He even sold a bunch of F16 to Islamabad. Like Pakistan was less of a threat to the world security than, guess, France.
- By: Bruco on June 6, 2006

Hoder: I question your moral equivalency vis a vis Bush's "moral authority". Abu Graib wasn't US government policy and neither is Haditha, the facts of which have yet to have been proven. More importantly, I question whether a country whose leader holds conferences dedicated to wiping another country off of the globe and funds groups such as Hezbollah to act as their proxy in Lebanon and chums up with Bashi Al-Assad should be entrusted with nuclear weapons. Further, there are the implications of building nuclear facilities in a part of the world that experiences earthquakes of the magnitude that Iran does. As for what is actually going on behind the extracting activities, I understand that Iran has about 250 years' worth of oil reserves for domestic purposes, but scarcely 7 years' worth of uranium for the same purpose. Consequently, I am more than a bit skeptical about the Islamic Republic having any peaceful purposes behind its activities.
- By: Lynne on June 6, 2006

Hoder: You speak of Iranian rights but fail to mention the rights of the countries that Iran threatens. And please spare us the drivel about your job being so difficult because of the Bush administration. Try moving to Tehran and doing your job there – that would teach you the true meaning of difficultly.
- By: SirGlubb on June 6, 2006

Hi HoDer, welcome in Amsterdam! In a way Iran now is similar to germany before World War 1. They both impressed by their rapid growth (industry and intellect and raised fearamong its neighbours. Germany was a potential superpower, and dangerous as any other ambitious young nation state. Germans saw it differently: they close us in, they block our expansion, they keep us down. I guess in the case of Iran, all possible means legitimate the aim of survival, dignity and ambition. I hope for Iran and the world that ignorance and war in dustry will gave way to understanding. different perspectives and perceptions
- By: jo on June 6, 2006

ps, disapprove my comment if you like. I used to take you seriously, now I know you're just another web crank. how sad.
- By: J. Markov on June 5, 2006

The NPT Is so 1973. Now that Iran has access to Pakistani centrifuges, it's outlived its usefulness and needs to be unsigned. The motherland must be preserved and international law has no meaning. george bush bad.
- By: J. Markov on June 5, 2006

Hossein, I cannot agree with you more. The United States really have no right to police the world when, they condone torture, illegal wire tapping and take part in sneaky deals with (in their own words) 'axis of evil nations', remember the covert assistance operations in the Iran Iraq war and even supporting the use of chemical weapons (NY Times 18th Aug 2002)?Isn't it amazing that the nations with 'weapons of mass destruction' appear to be those with plentiful supplies of oil?! Israel and India and Pakistan all are very open about the fact that they actually DO have nukes, but does the Bush administration care? No. It seems like everyone in charge of Iran is hell bent (with the exception of the late Dr Mossadegh) on trying to get Iran into some kind of international war and those outside of Iran are hell bent on trying to govern Iran.
- By: Arash on June 5, 2006

The US and the Europeans encouraged and supported Iran's nuclear program during the Shah's time precisely because it made economic sense then, and now that Iran's population has tripled and oil is $70/barrel, developing nuclear energy makes even more sense for Iran and the world. For some interesting articles about Iran's nuclear program from the 70s see "Blast from the Past" at http://iranaffairs.typepad.com
- By: thela on June 5, 2006

a nuclear Iran is a threat to Europe. Not does Iran want to have the bomb , it also wants to share nuclear technology with the rest of the muslim world. The response to this must be to establish a common and credible European strategic nuclear deterent. Back to the good old days of mutual assured destruction (MAD).
- By: Mayor Tom on June 5, 2006

Iran was being straight and honest about its nuclear program up to the mid 1980's, when the US illegally intervened in Iran-IAEA cooperation and prevented Iran from obtaining enrichment technology in cooperation with the IAEA. You know this and you're pretending otherwise. You're being dishonest, frankly. What other "alternative, cheaper sources of energy" exists on your planet? Because here on earth, other than fossil fuels (which Iran has to export, to the extent that the fuels aren't running out) there are no other viable sources of energy. Iran has already invested heavily in hydroelectric, geothermal and even wind energy -- so your suggestion that Iran isn't exploiting alternatve forms of energy falls flat on its face. Second, I see your ploy: in the name of protecting Iran's "sovereignty" you're mouthing the justifications of the NeoCons for attacking Iran by suggesting that Iran has secretly decided to build nukes. In fact the Iranians are right -- nuclera weapons will not improve Iran's security. Iran can't realistically use nuclear weapons against other nuclear-armed countries due to reprisals, and the sort of threats posedt to Iran by non-nuclear countries/forces cannot be solved through nuclear force. Note that Iran has made repeated offers of compromise that would guarantee that Iran's nuclear program would not be used to make bombs -- which again discredits your theory about what the Iranians secretly want. I wish you'd be more honest -- we can see through this.
- By: hass on June 5, 2006

Nuclear armed Iran, would make it quite possible that Tehran will be under a mushroom cloud sooner than one would wish, what with Pakistan, but more so with Isreal and Iran facing each other off, with nuclear tipped missiles. all it will take is one mistake by one hot head to do it.
- By: Stephen Reeves on June 5, 2006

Very interesting post. But here are a few contemplations: 1-How has Bush administrations’ lack of moral authority to press other countries, made the independent activist’s jobs difficult? To me, only independent activists seem to get problems since USA’s policy is their standards for human rights and democracy. (As it may be the case for the other activists who try to find financial resources for their TV-channel projects) 2-Nuclear bombs are not the only alternative we do have to protect Iran’s independence and sovereignty against big powers. If so, why should other countries not consider such alternatives? Iran is not the only country with enormous resources of oil and energy in the area. What about Arab countries if they want to protect themselves against e.g. china? 3-The interesting point is that Hoder takes the future probable conflicts between Iran and China into his considerations, but oversees the present problematic conflict between Iran and Israel. How can international community put more press on Israel to destroy its nuclear weapons in order to have a middle east without nuclear weapons while Iran clearly threatens Israel? 4-How other countries in the Middle East area, especially Arab countries, can protect themselves against a radical government with a simplistic and violent reading of Islam which has always accused those countries to be a betrayer to Islam and Muslims’ ideals? That country is our country, Iran. No matter what the American’s problems with Iran are, it does not justify that Iran has the right to have nuclear bombs. After all we have North-Korea which can protect its independency and sovereignty but the independent activists have more problems for building an independent, open and accountable democracy.
- By: Mehdi on June 4, 2006

for a good primer on why Iran wants nuclear power, i think you should read this article in from the Harvard International Review. They obviously have other sources of fuel that are less expensive domestically, but none which that can sell internationally. so, they are making nuclear power because that way they can sell the oil and gas that they would otherwise use: http://hir.harvard.edu/articles/1294/ oh, and notice, it is more then one page
- By: joe on June 4, 2006