Out of the question?

It is Israel that does not want even the possibility of a nuclear Iran


Out of the question?
by EDS

The nuclear issue has dominated the relationship of the west with Iran over the past several years. The issue is still unresolved and it threatens to get worse and lead to military confrontation. Many Iranians find themselves torn in between siding with either. Siding with the west means siding with an obviously hypocritical unjustifiable position against Iranian sense of nationalism and pride.

Siding with the Islamic Republic means siding with a tyrannical regime that is severely oppressing Iranians. What is one to do? I believe there is a solution that all individual Iranians and Iranian organization striving for freedom for Iran and Iranians should campaign for. This is the proposal that should be on the negotiating table. The fact that such an obvious solution has not been widely and lucidly pressed for is unfortunate.

The position of the west spear headed by the US is that they will not allow Iran to reach a point where it has the ability to build an atomic bomb.

This has not always been the explicit position of the west but it has always been its implicit position. What they explicitly have stated has shifted since the beginning of the crisis to its current form as they have failed to win in their more justifiable positions.

The position of the Islamic Republic of Iran has been that they do not want the nuclear bomb but it is their right under the NPT and international law to mine and enrich their own uranium for peaceful purposes.

Both sides are entrenched in their positions and this drawn out crisis continues to worsen. The reason that these positions have been unshakable for either side is that they have motives and serve purposes far greater than their stated objectives. If there weren’t other motives, why would the US or the west care if Iran enriched uranium under the safeguard measures of NPT that Iran has already accepted? And this is at a time when the whole world is calling for new nuclear plants all over the world to alleviate the global warming problem! It is an utterly impossible position unless there are ulterior motivations.

On the flip side, with inexhaustible natural gas sources for at least 75 years, why on earth is Iran interested in industrial scale enrichment for nuclear power production at many times the production cost?

For the west and in particular the US, the real driving force is Israel. To be precise, it is Israeli conservatives and their Zionist supporters in the west. I will refer to them as Israel from hereon. It is Israel that does not want even the possibility of a nuclear Iran. They were against the nuclear ambitions of the Shah, a friend of the west and the state of Israel, and worked to undermine it. How do you think they feel about the situation now?

In addition to using their vast lobbying resources in the US and other western nations, they are pressuring the west and indeed the world that should the west not resolve the situation to their satisfaction then Israel is ready to attack Iran at any cost, knowing full well that the price of such an attack is nearly unbearable for the US, the west, and many other nations, in the ensuing chaos in oil markets and in the prospects of messy turmoil throughout the Islamic world.

For the Islamic Republic, or more accurately the Revolutionary Guard wing and their ultra conservative allies, the nuclear issue has become the nucleus around which they have consolidated their power. They have used the nuclear issue to stir up nationalistic fervor on their side to justify greater central power at the expense of even the miniscule freedom that was gaining ground with the reform movement. They have used it to drive a wedge between the west, framed as the unjust oppressors of Iranians, and Iranian nationalism to present themselves as the true Iranian patriots. It may be that many Iranians have not fallen for this ploy but sufficient numbers to help the ultra conservatives consolidate power have.

The side more eager to resolve the situation, the west, has put forth progressively more generous proposals. The proposals have all centered on mechanisms to prevent Iran from obtaining the expertise and industrial scale for enrichment. The Islamic Republic has rejected these. They have gladly done so as the proposals and their rejection serve the real objective of the Islamic Republic’s nuclear program. Such proposals are absolutely and obviously unjust and frame the west as imperial oppressive powers.

Why on earth should the west wish to keep enrichment to itself and prevent Iran from achieving it, even for peaceful purposes? If you press conservatives in the west on this issue they do provide the only possible morally defendable reason that there could be, that the Islamic Republic is not a state based on freedom and that they do not trust such a fascist tyrannical regime. This is indeed a valid ethical and moral position.

Iran’s nuclear program is not a national program but it is under the iron-clad control of a terrorist militant organization, the Revolutionary Guards or Sepah. Note that the Sepah is indeed a terrorist organization not so much for its activities abroad but for its terrorizing of tens of millions of Iranian people. Such a terrorist military organization is not trustworthy as their record of constantly breaching international agreements proves. The Sepah may very well behave destructively against the interests of the Iran nation. The strongest safeguard against the abuse of nuclear technology is the expectation of the natural behavior of a nation to preserve its own interests.

Therefore, it is absolutely reasonable to place limitations on such an organization and a regime that is based on such an organization, unless such a regime implements major reforms. What should be on the table is that indeed Iran can enrich uranium under the NPT inspection regime but only if the regime implements certain major reforms to establish that the nuclear program and the regime safeguarding it are a national and not an exclusive program and organization.

While there are many legal and diplomatic issues associated with such a proposal they are not insurmountable as long as the political will exists. This is what Iranians who wish for freedom for Iran and Iranians should have been and should be pressing for. Even if such a proposal is not fully developed or if it is rejected by the Islamic Republic, as is initially expected, the mere publicity of such a proposal blunts the ability of the Islamic Republic to use the nuclear issue as a tool to consolidate its power as it has.


Recently by EDSCommentsDate
Impressed by the new Iranian.com
May 28, 2008
Milestone Reached: Iran's Oil $ Highest Ever
May 23, 2008
more from EDS

Very nice poem

by Zion on

Thanks poet. So true.


Statistical whatism???

by Joe_Average (not verified) on

You must be kidding, right? Let's read again what you said (and I agree with)
"Ideologically based analysis invariably leads to deception in order to justify the given dogma. "

And you did try to justify your dogma.

Let's pick up on your own example and make it more relevant:
The drunk-wife-beating chap is surrounded by neighbors, one of which was a former villain. The former villain’s house was run down and many innocent people in his house killed on the suspicion that he had bad intentions (And that was proven wrong afterward).

Three house down the road there is a corrupt police-pretend armed to the teeth that has gunned down many people in the past with the self defense pretext. He has occupied surrounding houses and killed people there too. And the original wife-beating chap you mentioned is not asking for a machine gun, but a Prius. And the corrupt police is saying you could run-over people with your Prius, or turn it to a tank so you cannot get one even if you agree that a monitor sit beside you in the Prius... etc. etc. etc."

In short, my dear Fred, your dogma justifies Hezbollah and IRI's dogma and vice versa. I would have said to both of you have fun killing each other, except that both of you are these MF'ing SOBs that kill and take hostage and fence in innocent people. So, both of you must be stopped.

By "you", of course, I mean the side you are defending not you personally. As quite possibly you are a nice guy notwithstanding your dogma.

The common guy who doesn't understand big words,

Joe Average


"This kiss she gave is never gonna fade away" |OR| ~!! OMeeD !!~

by Joubin Houshyar (not verified) on


Background music for you, dear class, while you are taking the test:





O ye who believe!

Bow you down and prostrate yourselves

. in Prayer


. Worship your Lord

And do Kerdaareh Neek

. That you may be ENRICHED!

And Strive in the Cause of ALLAH

. as it behoves you to Strive for it!


. HAS Chosen you


. HAS Laid __no hardship upon you__
. in the matter of Religion!


. Follow the Faith of your Father
. Abraham!


. HAS Named you Muslims

. both before
. and in this Book

So that

. The Emissary may be a Witness over you,
. And you may be Witnesses over mankind.


. Observe Prayer
. and pay the Zakát,
. and hold fast to ALLAH!

HE IS your Protector

. And an Excellent Protector !
. And an Excellent Saviour !!



Take back your Mind
Take bake your Home
Take back your Land

And take back

. Your Religion!

For your Father Abraham (SAWS) Says:


Our Lord

Raise up among them an Emissary from among themselves
who may recite to them Thy Signs
and teach them the Book
and Wisdom
and may purify them

[For] Surely THOU Art

. ~!!! AHURA MAZDA !!!~

/& Salaam!


Nafteh Melee va Sheereh Maalee |OR| "enRICHment"

by Joubin Houshyar (not verified) on




Meanwhile, back in the ranch:


(get it?)

Class! Pop Quiz:

Q: What were the plans for Iranian Oil Industry in the 70s?

Q: Where are the FAT profit margins in the Oil business?

Q: And who is getting that, class?

Q: Has the Islamic Revulsion of Iran achieved self sufficiency in the Energy sector?

Q: Do cars, tanks, airplanes, etc., run on nuclear energy or Petroleum products?

Q: Which of the following is more challenging to undertake?
a) Building refineries
b) Cloning and assembling Chinese rockets and other doodads
c) Spinning hexafluoride gas

Q: Which of the following is more challenging to anti-Iranian interests?
a) Iran Building refineries
b) Iran Cloning and assembling Chinese rockets and other doodads
c) Iran Spinning hexafluoride gas

Q: How pervasive is the integration of the Islamic Revulsion of Iran in the 'International Order". (UN, IMF, World Bank, WTO, FATF, FITA, and the rest of the alphabet soup?)

Q: How would you characterize the eagerness of the Qom Inc. to integrate with the "International" order:

a) Revolutionary rejection
b) Strategic continuity
c) "Orchestral movements in the dark"

Write an essay on the subject of "enrichment" of foreign corporations and governments off of the Oil of the Iranian People, during the last 30 years.

Extra Credit:
connect the dots.

/& Salaam


open your eyes

by The Poet (not verified) on

this institute of crime
has run out of time

open your eyes and mind
the truth you will find

naive, naive you are
further from the truth you are

you say you love peace
yet its the regime that you please

you say you rather die slowly
than live forever freely

you fear is your downfall
so please try and stand tall

stand up against this regime for once
because force is the only response

believe me when I say I too want peace for iran
but the only way is with a regime on the run



by EDS on

Mehdi jaan there are many bad people around the world. There are many who constantly wish to ignite the flames of war, ironically to feel secure. Before we look others, just witness Ahmadinejad. However, such people are not omnipotent. In fact their scheming is weak. However that scheming will always win against inaction. Some optimism, activity, planning, and perseverence will beat them.


some explanations

by EDS on

Thank you Zion jaan for your explanation. Yes we do agree on the main point, and that is a victory!

Not to take away anything from that but on the more minor point, here is the explanation. Note that I did point out that it is valid for the world to be concerned about a nuclear Islamic Republic. However, they should be just as concerned about and in fact more concerned about global warming, Russia reverting to fascism, among a host of other issues. In other words it is about the level of concern. And no country is as concerned about this issue as Israel. Furthermore, it is not all of Israel that is shaping the policy of the US and the west. The prime player is Israeli far right and israeli lobby in the west, what I just referred to as Israel for brevity. Let me be specific: Europe would more likely than not have already accepted enrichment by Iran with the extra safegaurd measures in return for some economic give aways from the Islamic Republic had it not been for Israel per above. In other words they are concerned but not really that concerned. It is Israel who has drawn a line in the sand and are going around the world lobbying on this issue. It is right there in the open. When the US President and presidential candidates echo this and make promises who are they addressing? It is obvious, it is every time they are addressing some Israeli lobby group or Israeli audiance. And note that I did acknowledge that the west has its own interests on the issue. The bid on Israel was on what else besides the obvious western interests is behind the stance of the west. It is a statement of fact that it is Israel.



by Shadooneh (not verified) on

Repeating the canard that Iran is a threat to all frew(?) world shows you are just regurgitating what the rules of Zionistan want others to believe. Their goal through minions like you is to divert attention from their own war and other kinds of crimes. Fortunately since Iran has not occupied anyone's homeland, and Iranians are not grabbing other people's land to "settle" claiming god was their real estate agent and HE gave them the land, your brain farts are just that, brain farts with no real substance. There's nothing "given" about Iran being the "hub of world terrorism" other than the fact that AIPAC wants others to think so and you seem to be carrying out your duties diligently.


I am suspicious

by Mehdi on

I think there is one factor you have missed here. There are those who are not interested in a peaceful solution. What you are saying makes sense and we should promote such ideas but I think that the main reason efforts fo a war are moving forward is primarily because certain elements want a war, not a solution or peace etc. Nuclear issue is just an excuse. I suspect that these elements even have spies inside Iran to push the hardliners towards demanding enrichment just so that a war will in fact take place. These elements are weapons manufacturers, oil cartels, and what is generally known as Imperialists, corporate America, or ZioNazis, etc. Otherwise solving this issue is very easy. The idea that two sides must not talk is sponsored by those who are working very hard to get a war going - otherwise there is no real and valid reason ever given why the West refuses to truly talk with Iran without any precondition.



by Zion on

Well, it is not accurate to think the West is involved in this nuclear dilemma because of Israel. The safety of Israel is of course a principal concern of the West, as it should be, but there is so much more. Nuclear Iran is a threat to all of the free world. Definitely a direct threat to Europe. Given that Iran is the hub of world terrorism, a nuclear Iran is the number one threat to anywhere in the globe in our post 9/11 world. Then there is the concern of arab states who are more concerend with a nuclear Iran than you might expect, and the horrifying image of a nuclear race in the Middle East. There is the issue of the sensitvity of oil flow and so on.

It is also not correct to limit the concern to conservative forces in Israel. All Israelis are worried. Besides the supporters of Israeli security are not automatically Zionists. Israel is a key Western ally. Any rational US or West European politican is concerend about the safety of Israel if only for their own national interests, and zionists are not all conservatives... .

Anyway, it was not a very important issue and I would not have brought these little details up if you hadn't asked. As I said, your logic and main points are all valid and I support them. The rest are details. We don't need to agree 100% on everything. that is not possible and it is not even a good thing.



by EDS on

Thank you for reading and following the point of the article.

You mentioned that the article takes the usual shots at Israel. By shot, I would imagine you mean false allegations. What do you find to be false?


Even More So?

by Zion on

Niloufar, as Fred correctly pointed out, the regime in Iran had very little in common with Iranian history. They are the creators of terrorist organizations and their main backers. Hizballah, Islamic Jihad... You understand what terrorists do? They have opnely called for the destruction of Israel. Their moderate Rafsanjani has openly mused with the idea of nuking Israel and that such a decision would not be irrational. Do you comprehend what this means? IRI has been engaged in bombing Jews as far away as Argentina. Peaceful? They are the ones who introduced suicide attacks-martyrdom- into the region. Nuclear bomb in the hands of principal ideologues of suicide attacks, the world should just ignore all this?

My question to you is simple: Is it necessary for an atheist peace activist to parrot the specific proaganda lines of the Islamist regime in Iran? Is that really necessary?



by Zion on

Niloufar, where did EDS promote an attack? He only adds a crucial element to the equation. To have a worldwide pressure on Iran to democratize, to take clear steps towards opening the society. You disagree? You think the world shouldn't do this? Should just leave the regime alone to do what it pleases inside?
If not, then what are you arguing about with EDS?

Niloufar Parsi

The Point EDS

by Niloufar Parsi on

is preciselty that the best way for this regime to be removed is through dentene with the West, not war with it. The Iran-Iraq war consolidated the Islamic Regime. The US-Iraq war elevated the Regime to a significant world power status. Evil begets evil. A war with the West would likely also set back the chance for democracy in Iran. 

Americans are still denied a proper national health care system because of all the wars their leaders get involved in. All the foreign 'enemies' they keep creating for corporate interests and economic imperialism. There is ALWAYS one. 

Every single other industrialised or developed nation has a better public health and education system. You HAVE to pay attention to domestic issues at times of peace and rich countries that have avoided war the longest have really served their general population.

The regime in Iran is fundamentally based on the foreign 'threat'. After all, the revolution was fundamentally based on anti-imperialism. It feeds on it, and uses it to suffocate freedom in Iran. Once this excuse is removed, once peace is made, they will Have to deal with internal problems, and cannot silence opposition so much without Totally losing face inside Iran. This would lead to immense pressure for regime change inside Iran.

Now, THIS is one of those rare areas where WE can really make a difference. Iranians abroad and our friends could help avoid a war. Peace is needed in order to help remove the regime. Shirin Ebadi recently told the West very directly: 'If you want to help Iran, do not attack'.


kaleh dar

enriched uranium

by kaleh dar on

Poor Iranian don't need Bomb ! ,They need some Basic freedom ,Basic Economical Security and a chance to decide future of theire country including nuclear power.By the way, don't you think , for a regime that cannot provide the very basic needs of its people , ie, food and housingor, and after 30 years ,cannot add another Oil Refinery to its antiquated " Palayeshgahe Abbadan",Having Nuclear Power is little bi Premature.


Statistical syllogism

by Fred on

Ideologically based analysis invariably leads to deception in order to justify the given dogma. Lets dissect this statement:” The most rational criterion for deciding who can be trusted with a nuclear weapon is a country's propensity to launch into unprovoked wars and violent foreign conquest. On that count, Iran is among the most trustworthy over the past 200 years. Israel and the US are among the most dangerous in the world for the past 60 years. Both have made indiscriminate use of deadly weapons on civilians on numerous occasions.”  Besides being a more or less verbatim repeating of the Islamist republic’s line of reasoning it commits the cardinal sin of statistical syllogism.  In another word never mind that the Islamist republic has not been in control of Iran for the entire 200 years mentioned or that it regularly and openly threatens others with being wiped off the map or that it bankrolls half a dozen active terrorist organizations acting as its proxy in foreign lands or even its atrocious human rights record. Putting it simpler, since Joe the wife beating chap who is not running on all cylinders has not killed anyone and wants to have a submachine gun with gazillion rounds it should be delivered to him regardless of his public vow to mow down the people.  The Islamist/Anti-Semites and their likeminded lefty allies have got to be more carful with this sort of sloganeering.


Missing the point

by EDS on

I appreciate the thoughtful arguments posted. I do believe that many are missing the main point I tried to communicate.

The question of theorizing about what is fair or not is secondary. It is an interesting intellectual exercise, and I can engage in a discussion challenging some of the points made. But what is of prime importance is what can and should be done given the reality of the situation and that is the point of the article.

In the traingular relationship of the west, the Islamic Republic, and the Iranian people, on this issue the Iranian people are the loosers of the current direction. What the west has put forth on the negotiating table has strengthened the tyranny of the Islamic Republic and is against the long-term interests of the Iranian people. Just try to objectively evaluate the responses to the article. And certainly the Sepah and the ultra conservatives have tried to use the situation to their own advantage by using the crisis to consolidate their power and take away the miniscule freedoms that Iranians had.

What is abscent is the interest of the Iranian people. But is it a wonder? One first needs to identify his own interests and have the will to live and win in reality to claim them.


No enrichment for terrorists

by Arash Kamangir (not verified) on

To Anonymus5000+1,

- Or better to say kharmazhabi5000+1. You guys have not got the message yet. The free world will not allow that a shieh country in middle east to access nuclear technology/bombs.
- Sepah is a terrorist organisation that has suppressed the iranians for the last 30 years. Is is made of a bunch of cowards who don't dare to stand to USA or others and hide themselves behind others such as Hamas or hizbollah or sadrs army.

Payandeh Iran


A simple subject

by Arash Kamangir (not verified) on


I cannot understand where the problem is. If we all can agree that IRI a terrorist ultra regime is, then why the Iranians have such a difficulty to understand that a terrorist regime should not have weapons of mass destruction or a technology that can make that. A regime that has held his own people hostage for 30 years can not be allowed to have nuclear energy/bombs. The world has understood this and is on the right way to stop the IRI. Khamenei and co. can take this wish with them to grave.

Payandeh Iran

Niloufar Parsi


by Niloufar Parsi on

There are a few shortcomings in the article:

1. The most rational criterion for deciding who can be trusted with a nuclear weapon is a country's propensity to launch into unprovoked wars and violent foreign conquest. On that count, Iran is among the most trustworthy over the past 200 years. Israel and the US are among the most dangerous in the world for the past 60 years. Both have made indiscriminate use of deadly weapons on civilians on numerous occasions.

2. The Sepah has no known involvement in the nuclear programme. The programme falls under a civilian organisation per IAEA reports. Iran's nuclear programme is a national programme that was started under the Shah.

3. The dominant issue of the West with Iran is oil. It has been about oil for around 100 years.

4. It is too simplistic (even deceptive) to depict gas and nuclear energies as mutually exclusive types. Most countries that can are using both without 'explaining' anything to anyone.

5.  the nuclear issue is NOT the nucleus around which the regime has consolidated its power. Fighting against real and imagined foreign threats to Iran and Islam is what has consolidated the regime's power, starting with Saddam.

6. There is no link between internal suppression of opposition groups and Iran's nuclear programme. Nuclear weapons cannot be used against Iran by its own government.

7. It is absolutely unreasonable to place limitations on Iran's nuclear programme while other more violent and untrustworthy countries are in possession of nuclear weapons all around.

All of this in the context of there being no evidence of any nuclear weapons programme in Iran, per the IAEA reports.



You are right on annoymous 5000

by Anonymous 5001 (not verified) on

My friend, You are 100% correct. How could the west tell Iran not enrich. Who are they to dictate our policy for us. We no longer live under their puppet (Pahlavi).

And think about it. we have not attacked any countries for almost 300 years. And we watch daily when Israel and US are attacking Iraq, Syria, Palestine, etc. Any one in their right mind will seek nukes


EDS, I beg to disagree.

by Shadooneh (not verified) on

I disagree with your assertion that pollution was a "perception" as opposed to a reality. Just ask the people, who remember the thick smog hovering over Los Angeles that led to respiratory and other illness as well as air advisories every other day, if that was only a "perception". Why do you think we have unleaded gas and catalytic converter today? To catch all that mess before it is released in the air. One look at Tehran or Mexico city will convince any thinking adult that pollution is real, not a perception. You are dead wrong about the "perception" that nuclear power production was ever cleaner than any other type of energy including coal. That "perception" was a clever marketing ploy designed to fool the public to accept building nuclear power plants in their backyards in spite of all the contamination risks they present to the public's health - it seems those marketing ploys have worked on you. You are also woefully mistaken that "nuclear power production was cheaper than coal". The real cost of building and maintaining nuclear power plants were hidden because of the enormous subsidies paid by the tax payers. Iran's incentive to build nuclear power plant is not because it is cheaper than energy produce by burning natural gas. Only the ultra gullible would believe that nonsense. The real reasons, in my opinion, is to gain Uranium enrichment knowhow for civilian and military purposes just like any country with nuclear technology. The second, and even more important, factor is that the price of Uranium, enriched or raw, is skyrocketing as the choice fuel of the future beside natural gas. Iran is telling the world that it wants to participate in this profitable new market because it has raw Uranium reserves that it can mine and process. Last but not least, Iran will be able to sell its crude or processed oil products at much higher prices on the world market. It is a fact that it makes more economic sense to sell oil and oil products at hight prices on the world market, than to sell them on the domestic markets at heavily subsidized prices. As for you comment about Iran's "little" capability to export gas, your argument doesn't hold water either. May I remind you of the latest agreements with Switzerland, Austria and the IPI gas pipeline to India and so on.


Take Your Manipulative Articles Elsewhere

by Anonymous 5000 (not verified) on

Several points about your article:
1/. Nuclear issue IS a national issue for Iran. The most recent pole by foreigners indicate more the majority of Iranians support this issue at any cost regardless of their political preference.
2/. The Sepaah is the pride of Iran. Terrorist are those who kill millions of innocent people for a few drops of oil, few dollars of profit, and displace sever million others in the process. Sepaah will do anything it can to protect Iran. The only reason Iran has not been attached is because of the strength of the Sepaah.
3/. Who will be trusted with a nuclear weapon: NO ONE. But since you raised the issue here is a list of countries which SHOULD ABSOLUTELY NOT have it. Those countries which have used it twice and threaten others on daily basis are least qualified to have it. Those who started two world wars and conducted genocide are not worth of it either. Those who have colonized Asia and Africa and enslaved millions for centuries are also out of the question. Unfortunately, these countries have the larges stockpile of nuclear weapon. If you had an ounce of sense you would direct your article about these countries not Iran.
4/. You say enriching under NPT inspection is the solution. It seems you have been sleeping all these years. There are 24-hour cameras where the enrichment occurs in Iran.
5/. Now what is the PERFECT solution? Destroy all the nuclear weapon in the world.


I wish this was the case, but it's not.

by Shadooneh (not verified) on

I am not going to take issue with the author's personal opinion as appears in this piece because his views are to some extent rational. But I'd like to draw attention to what George Bush has said many times, although I haven't heard him say that recently, that he does not want the IRANIANS, not just the bad guys, to LEARN how to enrich Uranium, period. What Israel wants or does in this respect is irrelevant. Israel is making a lot of noise and I am sure most of it is for domestic consumption - one just has to look at the precarious state of the present government and the perennial crises that dog successive coalition governments in that country. The US has one major objective in the Middle East and that is a region TOTALLY under the control of the US corporate juggernaut which controls the US government - or the US regime as long as this court appointed president is in the White House. This level of control is not achievable with Iran "doing its own thing". Therefore the da'vaa is on mollah Nasredeen's lahaaf and not on who is in charge of the nuclear program in Iran. Of course Israel is scared shitless of any government in Iran that delves in nuclear programs because it knows if Iran has a nuclear arsenal, it will neutralize Israel's nukes. The result is Israel may have to be forced to choose peace with its "Muslim" neighbors and that is a tall order for the Zionist jihadis who still dream of the Eretz Yisrael Hashleimah - (Hebrew). "The Whole Land of Israel". In summary, although it is not far fetched to assume that Israel is pushing for war against Iran, but the real policy makers are in Washington and their plan is to have their hands on the spigots so the Chinese, Indians, etc. will have to come to them for their energy needs. That is the only way the US will have some assurances of being able to calibrate the economic and military expansion that is well underway in Asia in the 21st century and beyond. Iran would have been subject to the same pressures even if the "Guard" took up gardening or carpet weaving tomorrow.



by EDS on

Skeptic jaan, in the US, the industrial level expantion from early 60s to late 70s and then
slow down thereafter had everything to do with economics as well as pollution or more accurately the perception of pollution.
Initially when nuclear power plants expanded rapidly in the US it was
simply due to economics and the perception that nuclear energy was much
cleaner than coal. At the time nuclear power production was cheaper
than coal. Coal was more expensive than it is today relative to other
sources and nuclear energy was much cheaper because the regulation and
safety measures for nuclear power plants were much more relaxed.

regulations piled on and the cost of building nuclear power plants sky
rocketted. This indeed brought the pace of nuclear power plant
exapnsion to a trickle. Then after a couple of accidents and
environmental activism the whole thing came to a halt.

Currently, cost of production of gas including the initial capital costs is so low in Iran that there is no way that nuclear can touch it. This was not the case when nuclear power plants were being built all over the place.

Furthermore, Iran thank to the inept Islamic Republic has no where to go with all that gas. It has very little export capability.

In any case, that was not main point I was trying to get across in the article.


Gas & Coal

by Aziz (not verified) on

Natural gas burns into one molecule of CO2 and two water molecules and is cleaner than coal and releases less green house gases.
Coal burns into CO2 AND Sulphur oxides, (=Acid rain). Scrubbers for washing sulphur out of coal or out of the exhaust stack are expensive. Coal mining is not- overall- a pleasant industry. Natural gas is clean.

But burning natural gas is wasteful too. All the worlds petrochemical industries (=all plastics , polyesters and their derivatives) come from natural gas. Burning gas is like throwing away a noble resource mineral..

Nuclear energy is the way to go, but long term storing of nuclear waste produced is very real health issue. And while U235 is hard to separate by mechanical centrifuges, the byproduct of fission is a new element Pu - which is chemically separated and processed and stored for future use (= bombs). This is not good either.

There are no easy outs in this mess.


Your main point is correct

by Zion on

Despite a couple of usual shots at Israel, your main idea is very correct. It is indeed what should be the clearly stated position of the West. (Ironically it has been nearest to the position of the state of Israel among all states involved.)


Gas Reserves

by Skeptic (not verified) on

You state:
"On the flip side, with inexhaustible natural gas sources for at least 75 years, why on earth is Iran interested in industrial scale enrichment for nuclear power production at many times the production cost?"

Here is some info about the coal reserves in the US (source: //www.eia.doe.gov/kids/energyfacts/sources/no...)

"The United States has the world's largest known coal reserves, about 267.6 billion short tons. This is enough coal to last approximately 236 years at today's level of use."

With your logic, why would the US need any other sources of energy?


nicely done

by Abarmard on

There are issues that can be argued in your analysis. One problem is that a regime can rule according its own will and no other country should directly influence or interfere in its internal affairs. That has been the position of the Islamic Republic. Another issue is the definition of terrorism, which you have defined as a dictatorial regime. Saudi Arabia is now in talks to develop a Nuclear energy plan with the help of the United States.

I do agree with you as a concept of your argument, but the Islamic Republic won't agree! One large issue that you have not mentioned here is the influential factor of the IR. The West is not as concerned about the Iranian Nuclear plan as they are with its behavior.

The Islamic Republic tend to follow a path on her own regardless of what the world or the west want or require. They see it their Right to practice and operate the way they see fit. That makes the United States angry and nervous. The west is half way there: They enjoy the fact that Iran is not in the arms of the US and regard that as an opportunity to gain influential and economical advantage, but they also are aware that Iran is a lose dog who won't listen to them.

The ultimate solution therefore for an Iranian is to allow Iran to practice her independent Rights, as long as is in the framework of the international community. We know that the Iranians are fed up with the regime and they need less threat and more international recognition for their sufferings. Recently the west has issued more sanctions on Iran except the export of oil and gas, guess who are these sanctions targeted to?

Thank you for this thoughtful piece.


Pistache Diplomacy

by Professor Danesh (not verified) on

How about some pistache diplomacy to break the poltical deadlock? This is a route that has been travelled more often between Iran and Israel than the silk road between iran and china...

When there is a will... there is a way...

Hotty hot hotty ;)