FOCUS

Dear Q: I understand.........:o)

 Q:  So I was talking about "arriving" on this thread, not the entire

      site. But even there, I think Jamshid preceeded me. 

 Sasha: I think there are a lot of people who may have preceded

            the both of us on Iranian.com.

Q: I fail to understand why you single out my responses to

          Jamshid, but not his original attacks

Sasha:  I have addressed Jamshid on this very thread among

                other threads through out the website.  However, I did

               notice I was rather harsh with you in comparison to

               Jamshid and for that I apologize.

I give you exhibit A:

by Sasha on Wed Dec 12, 2007 05:35 AM PST

 Jamshid you are only adding to the drama with Mojgan. Objectivity and clear thought, always our friends. :o)

by jamshid on Wed Dec 12, 2007 01:22 AM PST

Keep arguing against Mojgan. She'll give you a taste of what I warned you about IRI's version of Islam.

********************

Sasha: It is okay to agree to disagree on certain things, as long as we are objective thinkers. :o)

Mehdi: ever heard of "false disjunction" ?

It's a fallacy where you present that there are only two choices such as going to war with Spain or stop enriching Uranium.

You also forget that Iran did suspend the program for years and the Western powers openly assumed it would be permenant. None of them said Iran could "resume" later, even after all the cooporation.

My Conclusion

From Arezu's last post and Anonymoussss, what I conclude is that there is no such urgency in terms of economic or social standpoint for IRI to not back off on the enrichment issue. There is only the viewpoint that if IRI backs off, it will be a sign of weakness for her and it will encourage other bullies to then try to step over Iran's rights on other areas.

You are saying that if the IRI today went to the UN and said that they strongly disagree that they should stop enrichment because it is their right under international law but that in the interest of international peace and as a sign of goodwill and utmost respect for the international community, the IRI is willing to temporarily halt its enrichment activities and pursue the issue administratively within UN until such time that the UN allowed the IRI to have its legal right back, it would be so damaging to IRI that would be worse than risking a war with the US, Israel, Germany, England, Spain, Turkey and all other allied countries.

I am sorry, I just don't see how you reach this conclusion. Your viewpoint about the west and their influence on the international community reminds me of the viewpoint the MKO has about the IRI - extremely exagerated.

The reason I asked the question about this urgency of haviing enrichment tech at the risk of a war is that as a concerned Iranian I do not wish to see Iran destroyed, even partially. And I don't see any reason why this should be risked, despite what the US and Israel and others are doing. The reason is that I believe Iran has many very peaceful alternatives. As an example I brought up the question about Bushehr petrochemical plant, which if completed would satisfy the concerns you talk about in your comments about oil related problems in Iran. There are probably thousands if not tens of thousands of raw material that currently is being imported into Iran because Iran does not have the technology to manufacture them. The raw material, for example, for cleaning products, plastics could be produced if Bushehr project would finish. This would have such an immense effect on Iran from so many angles that is truly beyond imagination. It would make nuclear energy or even the enrichment look like a child's play. When Shah planned the Bushehr plant, it was supposed to supply the whole Middle East and beyond with petrochemical raw material. There is an interview of him talking about that where he antagonistically states that the "blue-eyed" people must understand that they will not be able to buy crude oil anymore and they have to cough up money and buy the refined material now at a much higher price. So why is it that the IRI doesn't pursue that goal instead?

I am sorry but your arguments seem to enforce the suspicion that IRI pursues enrichment only because it hopes to then obtain nuclear weapon soon after that. I, personally am not really concerned too much if they do. i just happen to think that the value of such weapons are way overrated. Pakistan has it, India has it; how has it benefitted them? I don't see it. It is only a false perception that it gives a country power - it doesn't. It is not even a real weapon as everytime somebody fires one of those damn thiings the radiation spreads across the whole world and causes cancer and other problems even in the country that blew it up. Even their testing is dangerous to everybody's health. This "weapon" is only good to someone who wants to commit suicide; someone who wants to take everybody else with him at the last moment of ultimate hopelessness when he sees he has lost. I just wish the IRI concentrated on more viable solutions than pursue a goal that is at best full of risk for no real reason.

SASHA: sorry about your name, it's just my typing fingers

But honestly, I fail to understand why you single out my responses to Jamshid, but not his original attacks? Is there a reason?

Your original comment was "I was wondering when I was going to add to the drama." So I was talking about "arriving" on this thread, not the entire site. But even there, I think Jamshid preceeded me. 

You're right, it's not worth talking about, which is why I don't respond to him directly anymore. But Jamshid's MO, like that of a vocal minority here, is to destroy debate by these lame, tired and hypocritical accusations that pop up all the time. My calling him out on this was a response him ruining this thread already. In fact, that's the way, I have always done it, by reacting to such BS when people like him attempt to word-bully someone else through mud-slinging.

The difference is crucial in my opinion and I feel strongly about it. I'm sorry if you disagree.

Q now we both know..........

 Q:  so, Shasha, if you don't like drama, take it up to the people

        who make everything about "IRI agents."

Sasha: Now we both know you have been around the website like

            forever. Way longer than I have. Good

             thing too because I have learned a lot from you too.

             However, as briliant as you are, you have not noticed

             how ugly things turn out whenever you and Jamshid

             get into a debate. Before you know it, it is no longer

             and intellectual debate but something terribly wrong.

             No one learns from it.

                I certainly hope you don't do

              it on purpose, it does not seem like the Q that

                wrote the articles/blogs that I read.  Just take a

               look at the title you selected for Arezu and Jamshid

               Arezu: Jamshid is calling you an IRI agent" Your own

                words. Now, was that really necessary? No, it wasn't.

               You know as well as I do that it will provoke the

                 wrong response from both Arezu and Jamshid.

                  Arezu is not a rotweiller that you can send to

                  attack Jamshid. She is an intelligent and articulate

                    woman with a mind of her own.  All you had to do

                    is post your comments to debate the issues. It is all

                      that I am saying.

I have also taken it up with those who make up the stuff about the "IRI agents". I have been doing so for several weeks if not months all over the website. :o)

PS: I was thinking of changing my name to S since some people on the web site can not seem to spell Sasha right. :o)

 solh

Drama was started long before I "arrived"

so, Shasha, if you don't like drama, take it up to the people who make everything about "IRI agents."

Mehdi: The issues are intertwined. You cannot seperate "risk of war" from "national rights." It doesn't work as neatly as you like it. What I said before applies perfectly.

If you yourself are saying that Iran is "risking war" for ENRICHMENT (which is Iran's right) that means you are blaming the victim for "the war". You also seem to forget that backing down means losing the right to enrich. Remember my example, your question is "why should we risk leaving the house, if the maniac is going to attack us?"

How you approach a problem is very significant and indicative of your own position. You are presuming Iran's guilt by asking it this way, even though you say you are not interested in "rights." Tell me, why isn't the question you are asking this: "Why is ENRICHMENT technology so urgent for the West that they are willing to go war over it?" Why aren't you asking this question? I can tell you why. It's probably because the way you understand the problem is actually the way most people in the west understand the problem and that's because of how it's framed by the western media and opinion itself: in a western-centric biased way. In this way of thinking people who have been portrayed negatively in the media must have sinster motives; Western lives, that is "security", is more important than Eastern security, "our" (meaning western) concerns are superior to that of Eastern ones; and finally the west has a right to go to war over perceived or potential threats, while others must live with actual violence. In a nutshell, it is a racist policy. You can see it with Iraq war, Vietname war, Latin America, the Israel/Palestine conflict, Lebanon and now Iran. It's exactly the same root-problem. You convey this attitude simply by asking the question the way you do.

 There are many many good reasons to not give up the national right of enrichment. I will list a few "answers" here just so people don't accuse me of avoiding the question. But the real issue is not the answer to your question, that is just a side-show. The real issue is why you are forced to ask it to begin with. But I do ask you to please read carefully.

Reasons not to give up national right of enrichment:

The most important reason is economic self-sufficiency. Economically it's not a secret that Iran can make a lot more money by selling it's Oil on the open market rather than giving it away domestically. Oil is running out, and the energy sector in Iran must diversify like every other country who wants to survive the post-Oil era. Iran imports nearly half of it's gasoline because it does not have large-enough refining capacity. A decision has been made to invest in new sources of energy, rather than building additional refining capacity which is A) controlled by Western manufacturers and B) the return on investment is low, because you may only get at most 10 or 15 years out of it before oil runs out. It's a better investment to find longer term solution.

But most importantly, the entire oil sector, including refining capacity is vulnerable to a blockade, a tool which the west uses against Iran over and over again. (Ask yourself why America, which keeps saying "Iran has lots of oil, so it doesn't need nuclear energy", regularly blocks Iranians OIL deals with other countries like India and central asia?) The reason is that it wants to be able to bring Iran to it's knees by blockading the energy flow. This is one of the most important reasons why nuclear energy is important: it's a closed loops since Iran has significant deposits of Uranium. This means it is not vulnerable to a blockade. Therefore, it makes sense to develop native enrichment capacity even if it's not cost-efficient at this moment, as NO technology is when it is first developed in small scale.

Mehdi, you do have a good

Mehdi, you do have a good point but please bear in mind that if it's not the nuclear energy excuse, it would be something else by the neo-cons to try to have Iran attacked (and by the way not all major military powers have been supportive of the neocons in power as you mentioned, quite to the contrary). Well, looks like some in the country and in all places and positions, are fed up with all the lies and damage caused by the neocons to the country, 500 billion and counting, and all the lives ruined for nothing, and America's image taking a very big and unnecessary blow for nothing, only for lies and self-interests. They decided to stop them. But we do see the neoconists parading at Iranian. com. They are very concerned for the wellbeing of Iranians now, the same people who were very happy when Iraq attacked Iran and who strongly wanted Iran to be attacked again. Wishing for the sake of peace (when bombs fall they don't interview who they are going to explode in advance, "collateral damage"), and a bit more sanity and wisdom, for everyone's sake.

Re: Arezu you did not answer my question

Arezu,

In my last post, I asked you a question regarding a choice between two option. 1. Confronting the west/Isarael at the cost of short and long term misery for the poeople of Iran, or, 2. Allowing Iranian people to have better, happier and more prosperous lives, at the cost of a none-confrontational policy toward the west/Israel.

Instead of answering this simple question, you talk about your "correction of misstatements by others". Then you accused me of character assasination. You also talked about websites filled with hatred towards the IRI.

But none of these are relevant to my question. Read the question again and answer it if you want. But don't please don't reply to this post UNLESS you are willing to answer the question I am asking.

Q: I Will Ask One More Time

You seem to be replying to me in your last comment. In any event, I will repeat again, my question is NOT who has created the threat of war. I am also not asking whether it is IRI's right to have enrichment tech or not.

My question is why ENRICHMENT technology is so urgent for people of Iran that their assumed leader must risk a war with US/Israel and practically all major military powers in the world - aside from whether it is their right or not and aside from who has created the threat of war in the first place?

Q .........I was wondering when you......:o)

 I was wondering when you would come and add  to the drama "As the World Turns on Iranian.com".  Could it be just possible if for once we really stuck to the issues without adding to the flames of hate, resentment and regrets?

I was actually learning  a lot on the issues from most of the people on this thread without the drama. I was enjoying the intellectual debates.

solh

Arezu: Jamshid is calling you an IRI agent

That's what he does. If you disagree with him, you're "defending IRI", it's that simple. Everyone who has ever contradicted him has been called the same. You won't get anywhere using logic with this guy. Unfortunately, there are many others, blinded by ideology, who are just like him.

As for the substance of what is argued here. It's fundementally flawed because of two reasons:

1. It completely absolves the west of any responsiblity. By saying that "Ahamdinejad is risking war", it makes it OK to threaten war for any reason, and it puts responsibility on the victim (Iran, in this case) to "avoid it" by foregoing it's rights. It's like sayin, there's a crazy maniac who will kill you if come out of your house, so you should do the "right thing" and not come out. No, the right thing is to contain the crazy maniac, not to imprison yourself. This especially hypocritical for Iranians who actually live here in the west and actually have a (nominal) say in the affairs of American foreign policy. Iranians in Iran ultimately may not have a choice but to pressure their own government to capitulate to western bullies. But Iranians here have the opportunity to stop the western governments from taking away Iran's rights. Yet dispite the "freedom" they enjoy in this "democracy", none are willing to use it. It's truly disgusting that even after Bush's claims turns out to be all lies (as myself and others have been saying for years) these people still put the blame on Iran.

2. Dispite what some people here (wishfully) think, Iran's rights, nuclear or otherwise, are FOREVER. Iran is stuck abiding by NPT and UN agreements from before IRI. The fact that regime has changed does not mean Iran can forego that responsiblity, even if it doesn't like it. Similary, if Iran loses its right to enrich Uranium, it will be gone forever, even under a future Government of whatever-the-hell variety people here are pushing for. No one is going to bring back those rights, just because some angry exiles think "rights" go with "governments." "Rights" go with "countries", no matter what government. If you lose it, you lose it forever. That's how international law and precedence works.

Arezu: Still No Answer To My Question

My question was NOT whether iran needs nuclear power or not. My question also was NOT whether US policies are correct with regards to Iran or the Middle East. My question was and is where is the case for such urgent need for "-------------ENRICHMENT-------------" technology. Why is Ahmadinejad risking a war for it? Would Iran die if it didn't have enrichment tech in the next 10 years? Please note that enrichment tech is different from nuclear tech. Don't tell em about nuclear tech nead. I am not arguing that.

I don't want to change the subject to the history of US-Iran conflict or Israel's involvement or anything else. The subject of this article is people's priority and what I am asking for is scientific proof that the ENRICHMENT tech is such a high priority for Iran that it should risk a war for it. Where is that case?

Arezu

To: Jamshid - Are you disputing facts or saying they benefit IRI

Dear Jamshid:

My arguments and counter backs have been to correct misstatements made by others. They have been in response to specific subject matters that have been raised and I have reciprocally responded back with arguments and provided sources to justify my comments.

Are you stating that just because individuals correct such statements and point to sources which contradict the arguments that we are assisting the IRI? Should we forego the truth regardless of who it may benefit, and pass alone wrong information, or keep our mouth shut? Which one of these are you advocating?

I have definitely not gone over my head. It also seems that every time we discuss a specific subject matter the reply back is not on that subject but character assassination, and raising a whole host of issues diverting away from the subject of the discussion.

Many on this web-site are so filled with hatred about the IRI, that any mention or discussion on issues that contradict the misinformation is considered a taboo!

Regards

Re: Arezu

You go over your head with your arguments to defend the IRI. But you are forgetting two things.

1. The IRI is HURTING Iranians by insisting on its confrontational ideology.

You defend the IRI regarding the Iraq war. We would have had NO war in the first place, had the incompetent IRI regime not been in charge. Why didn't Sadam attack Iran during the Shah's reign?

You defend the IRI regarding nuclear energy. We don't have a modern nuclear technology BECAUSE of the IRI. Again, remember that before the revolution, Western countries, including the US, were competing to sell their most modern nuclear technology to Iran. This is proof that they don't object to Iran being nuclear in principle. It is the IRI that has isolated Iran from the rest of the world.

2. The IRI is imprisoning, torturing, executing your fellow countrymen with impunity. You can't turn your head the other way, just because the IRI is satisfying your hatred towards USA and Israel with its policies.

At some point you have to sit down and decide which is more important? To put the US and Israel in their place at the cost of Iranians, your fellow countrymen, suffering so miserabley in every aspect of their lives today and in the long term future.

Or, is it more important for Iranians to have better lives, a better democracy, more happiness and joy of life, more money in their pockets, even at the cost of having a none confrontational and even good relations with the USA and perhaps even Isarel?

Look at Spain, South Korea and many other countries who have chosen #2. Then look at Iran.

I would choose #2 anytime. The well being of Iranians is far more important than putting USA and Isarel in their place.

To: Sohrab_Ferdows

First - I don't need Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as an example of the type of statements I use - this is in response to my comparison of the current nuclear issue vis. the 1953 event. I would greatly appreciate it for those including yourself who are proponents of Revolution in Iran to stop using my arguments or those of other individuals in order to make a subliminal connection to IRI's views.

2. With respect to Iran's nuclear need, I think I have provided ample facts/sources from experts in this field (which I don't suppose you are) to argue your statement about Iran's nuclear energy needs.

3. With respect to Iran's undermining the trust of the international community you are absolutely incorrect. U.S. itself is the greatest violator of the NPT, and Israel is the greatest violator of UNSC Resolutions and a non-signatory to the NPT while it has developed its clandestine nuclear weapons program.

There is absolutely not one shred of a nuclear weaponization program by Iran. This is a fact asserted repeatedly by the IAEA. However, the U.S./U.K./France want Iran to prove a negative which is impossible for any country to do. It is the same
demands that the U.S. asked of Saddam which finally ended in an illegal invasion of that country.

WESTERN HYPOCRISY
• The UN resolutions against Iran , in contrast to the treatment of the US allies, South Korea , India , Pakistan , and Israel , smack of double standards. For example, in the year 2000, South Korea enriched 200 milligrams of uranium to near-weapons grade (up to 77%), but was not referred to the UN Security Council.
• India has refused to sign the NPT or allow inspections and has developed an atomic arsenal, but receives nuclear assistance from the US in violation of the NPT. Another non-signatory, Pakistan , clandestinely developed nuclear weapons but is supported by the US as a “war on terror” ally.
• Israel is a close ally of Washington , even though it has hundreds of clandestine nuclear weapons, has dismissed numerous UN resolutions and has refused to sign the NPT or open any of its nuclear plants to inspections.
• The US itself is the most serious violator of the NPT. The only country to have ever used nuclear bombs in war, the US has refused to reduce its nuclear arsenal, in violation of Article VI of NPT. The US is also in breach of the Treaty because it is developing new generations of nuclear warheads for use against non-nuclear adversaries. Moreover, Washington has deployed hundreds of such tactical nuclear weapons all around the world in violation of Articles I and II of the NPT.

CONCEALMENT

• Iran 's earlier concealment of its nuclear programme took place in the context of the US-backed invasion of Iran by Saddam. Not only the U.S. , Germany , and the UK were complicit in the sale of chemical weapons to Saddam which were used against Iranian soldiers and civilians but Israel 's destruction of Iraq 's Osirak reactor in 1981 was treated with total impunity. Iranian leaders then concluded from these gross injustices that international laws are meaningless.

But the most direct reasons for Iran 's concealment were the American sanctions and trade embargo on Iran and Washington 's organized and persistent campaign to stop civilian nuclear technology from reaching Iran from any source. For example, in 1995 Germany offered to let Kraftwerk Union (a subsidiary of Siemens) finish Iran 's Bushehr reactor, but withdrew its proposal under US pressure. The following year, China cancelled its contract to build a nuclear enrichment facility in Isfahan for the same reason. Thus Washington systematically violated, with impunity, Article IV of the NPT, which allows “signatories the fullest possible exchange of equipment, materials and scientific and technological information for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy”.
Nevertheless, Iran 's decision not to declare all of its nuclear installations did not violate its NPT obligations. According to David Albright and Corey Hinderstein, who first provided satellite imagery and analysis in December 2002, under the safeguards agreement in force at the time, " Iran is not required to allow IAEA inspections of a new nuclear facility until six months before nuclear material is introduced into it."
• Iran has given unprecedented concessions on its nuclear programme. Unlike North Korea , Iran has resisted the temptation to withdraw from the NPT. Besides accepting snap inspections under Additional Protocol until February 2006, Iran has invited Western companies to develop Iran 's civilian nuclear programme. Such joint ventures would create the best assurance that the enriched uranium would not be diverted to a weapons programme. Such concessions are very rare in the world, but the U.S. and its allies have refused Iran 's offer.
• Enrichment of uranium for a civilian nuclear programme is Iran 's inalienable right. Every member of the NPT has the right to enrich uranium for a civilian nuclear programme and is entitled to full technical assistance.

But with the US as the back seat driver and in violation of their assistance obligations, France , Germany , and the UK insisted throughout the three years of negotiations that Tehran forfeit its right, in return for incentives of little value. Some European diplomats admitted to Asia Times Online on 7th September 2005, that the package offered by the EU-3 was “an empty box of chocolates.” But “there is nothing else we can offer,” the diplomats went on to say . “The Americans simply wouldn't let us.”
• The Western alliance has not tried true diplomacy and relies instead on threats. Iran refuses to suspend its enrichment of uranium before bilateral negotiations begin, as demanded by the White House, because it suspects Washington will stall with endless doubts regarding verification of suspension. THIS OBVIOUSLY HAS PROVEN TO BE A CORRECT ASSESSMENT BY IRAN.

WHY IRAN NEEDS SECURITY GUARANTEES: YOU MUST BE KIDDING IF YOU CAN'T UNDERSTAND THE REASONS FOR THIS:

1. Iran is surrounded by nuclear armed countries
2. The U.S. has its fleets in the Persian Gulf and its military bases surrounding Iran; along with 160,000 soldiers in Iraq and the NATO forces in Afghanistan.
3. Iran just evidenced invasion of two of its neighbours.
4. The U.S. and Israel are continuously threatening Iran - with military attack if it does not stop enrichment and forced regime change to supplant a puppet regime.
5. The U.S. is supporting terrorist organizations suh as the MEK, Jundallah, PJAK to infiltrate Iranian territory which have already lead to many deaths of both civilians and Iran's Revolutionary Guards, and they are in constant effort to pit the ethnic minorities against the central government of Iran in order to create havoc and chaos.

So you Mr. Smart guy tell me why Iran would not want a security guarantee against the super-power when it is being threatened?

Give me a break please. You hate the IRI, you want a Revolution that is all fine and dandy, but don't come up with ridiculous statements and typical saber-ratelling that is common among the hawks and neocons in the White House and the biased media in this country. Just simply say, I WOULD LIKE REGIME CHANGE AND A REVOLUTION BY OPPOSITION FORCES FROM BOTH OUTSIDE AND INSIDE OF IRAN TO GET RID OF THE MULLAH'S; instead of coming up with statements which can easily be proven to be misleading and false.

Regards

Arezu

Your comparison of the nuclear row between Islamic Republic from one side and the rest of civilized world from the other side with the issue of oil dispute between Iran and British during late Dr. Mosadegh is totally out of place and reminds me of the same comment made by Ahmadinejad on the same issue. There is ample amount of evidence to support this argument that Iran has no real urgent need for any source of energy other than what she already has in her possession in huge amounts.

Magnifying this arguement that "development of nuclear power generation industry is a national priority" is absolutely misleading and has no real logical basis. There is no doubt that Iranians like any other nation should have the right to development of any kind of technology that they wish within boundary of international agreements but what Islamic Republic has done by abusing the trust of international community thorugh its covert operation to make and obtain A-bomb has been in violation of international agreements for peaceful use of technology. Islamic Republic has undermined the national rights of Iranians in every field and one may wonder why this regime which has no respect for most basic rights of Iranians in their own homes is insisting in development of a technology which has no real urgency and no real importance as a national agenda?

Islamic regime in their direct and indirect communications with American administration have made it clear more than once that they are ready to abandon the nuclear fuel enrichment in exchange for "guaranees on their security" from American government! It is interesting to know that Islamic government is always claiming that they are elected and most liked by Iranian people and also most democratic government on this planet but they are seeking guarantee from others! What kind of national agenda or national pride is it that can be abandoned just by guarantee from Americans for the security of Islamic republic system?! One of the links that you provided earlier provides some "conservative" figures about Iran's oil and gas reserves and even though those numbers are very low estimates (according to available facts and figures from reliable sources), they still indicate that Islamic Republic's rush to obtain nuclear capability for "peaceful" use does not make sense and this is exact conclusion that you can read in that same article!

To: Sasha

Dear Sasha:

There are no specific blogs just for Iran's nuclear energy program, that's true. However, articles on this subject from major energy research institutes as well as other internet sites are abundant. But one thing which is crtical to understand is that there is absolutely no legal basis besides being a bully for the U.S. and other countries in attempting to deprive Iran to give up its right to nuclear energy as a signatory to the NPT. The current situation is somewhat similar to the events of 1953 when Dr. Mohammad Mossadeq aimed at nationalizing Iranian oil and the super powers (the U.S./U.K.) aiming to deprive Iran from its own resources conducted a CIA Coup to overthrow the Gov. of Dr.Mossadeq. The U.S. is in control of Iraq's oil, is in control of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the Persian Gulf States, the only country left in the region who has not yet succumbed is Iran - something which these countries cannot tolerate.

Second you should know the sentiment of the Iranians in Iran about whether they should give up this right or not. The concensus seems to indicate that are not willing to give up this right!!

So, it is great for some of us sitting here and requesting that Iran should suspend, give in, appease, use whatever word one wishes to ascribe, but the final vote is that of the Iranian people and Iran's sovereign rights.

I HIGHLY RECOMMEND THAT YOU LOOK AT THE FOLLOWING RESEARCH REPORT CONDUCTED BY a U.S. Organization: The World Public Opinion Org: A joint program of the Center on Policy Attitudes and the Center for International and Securities Studies at the University of Maryland - January 16, 2006.
THIS IS A PUBLIC OPINION POLL OF IRANIANS IN IRAN ON MANY ISSUES (including nuclear energy). YOU CAN ALSO RELAY THIS TO THE OTHER ARTICLE POSTED ON IRANIAN.COM WHERE CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS ARE SPEAKING ABOUT REVOLUTION WITHOUT HAVING A CLUE WHAT THE IRANIAN PEOPLE ACTUALLY WANT!

THIS IS WHAT I CALL DANGEROUS PROVIDING ADVICE WHEN ONE DOES NOT HAVE A CLUE ABOUT THE MAKE-UP AND VIEWS OF THE IRANIAN PEOPLE IN IRAN!!

//www.usip.org/iran/iran_presentation.pdf

FOR MORE INFORMATION ON IRAN'S ENERGY AND GAS SECTOR AND ARTICLES ABOUT THE NEED FOR NUCLEAR ENERGY YOU CAN TAKE A LOOK AT THE FOLLOWING WEB-SITES:

Energy Information Administration (EIA) of the U.S. Department of Energy (DoE), Country Profile: Iran:

www.eia.doe.gov/cabs/Iran/Oil.html
www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/IranBackground.html

Does Iran Really Need Nuclear Energy?
//www.mideastweb.org/log/archives/00000078.ht...

Also look at the web-site of the National Academy of Science://www.pnas.org/

//www.parstimes.com/Ioil.html

There are tons of information besides the above as well.

Arezu .........I have read

 I have read several of your posted comments in which I can tell your own style of writing. Not the ones where you copied and pasted. Now, you can write well. How about you put together a blog or article in which you express your views on Nuclear energy. You can provide web links that lead to the information and that way you will not need to copy and paste much. If you want to quote something extremely important to your argument then do so. I have not seen many articles/blogs that are for Nuclear technology in Iran. I think it is important for the readers of iranian.com to see both sides of the issue.

solh

To: Mehdi - Why Nuclear Tech (Con't): THIRD SET OF COMMENT

On the supply side, while the government has been able to maintain oil production capacity at about 4.2mn b/d in recent years, it has been unable to reach its planned target of 5.6mn b/d due to lack of access to modern oilfield technology, and insufficient investment. Not only has Iran lacked access to up-to-date oil drilling and recovery methods, but the country’s natural gas output has also been insufficient to meet the normal injection requirements due to rising domestic demand, exports’ commitments, and inadequate load-factor management.

Consequently, the country has become short of gas in cold winter months, and a net overall gas importer on an annual basis.

Countries with vast oil reserves also have large reserves of natural gas sitting on top of those reserves. Some years ago, the natural gas was regularly burned off to get at the oil beneath. However, technological advances today make it feasible to use this gas for power generation.

Even so, nuclear power still makes sense in a country with vast amounts of natural gas, particularly given the unusual circumstances in the Iranian hydrocarbons industry. There are needs for gas in Iran that command much higher priorities than the construction of gas power plants.

First, gas is vitally needed for reinjection into existing oil reservoirs (repressurizing). This is indispensable for maintaining oil output levels, as well as for increasing overall, long-term recovery of oil.

Second, natural gas is needed for growing domestic use, such as in cooking fuel and domestic heating (Iranians typically use kerosene for both), where it can free up oil for more profitable export. New uses such as powering bus and taxi fleets in Iran's smoggy urban areas are also essential for development.

Third, natural gas exports -- via pipelines to Turkey or in liquefied form to the subcontinent -- set an attractive minimum value for any available natural gas. With adequate nuclear power generation, Iran can profit more from selling its gas than using it to generate power.

Fourth, the economics of gas production in Iran are almost backwards, certainly counter-intuitive. Much of Iran's gas is "rich" -- it contains by-products, such as liquid-petrolem gas (LPG, better known as propane), which are more valuable than the natural gas they are derived from. Iran can profit by selling these derivatives, but not if it burns the natural gas to generate power. Furthermore, Iran adheres to OPEC production quotas, which combine oil and natural gas production. Therefore Iran cannot simply increase natural gas for export to make up for what it burns at home.

Overall, therefore, it can reasonably be argued that natural gas in Iran has economic uses that are superior to power generation, in spite of Iran's much-touted large reserves. The economic rationale is therefore plausible -- the costs of gas versus nuclear power generation are sufficiently close that the choice is a standoff, especially given the reported bargain price for the Russian reactor.

The great irony in America's accusations is that Iran's nuclear program was first developed on the advice of American specialists, who urged the government of the Shah to begin producing nuclear power in order to save oil reserves for more lucrative purposes than fuel. The prospect of an industrial base built on petrochemicals and pharmaceuticals never materialized, but the nuclear power program continued unabated.

Now, to have American officials express alarm over the exact same program is illogical at best and utterly disingenuous at worst. Much of the criticism of Iran's nuclear program comes from the same people who insisted that Iraq had an active nuclear weapons development program before the American invasion of that nation on March 19. That fact alone should raise severe skepticism throughout the world.
______________________________________________

SOURCES:
(1)Dafna Linzer: “Past Arguments Don’t Square with Current Iran Policy” Washington Post, March 27, 2005; page A15,
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3983-2005M...

(2)Stanley Reed, “Surprise: Oil Woes in Iran”, Business Week, Dec. 11, 2006, issue, pages 48-49

(3) Kate Darian, “Iran could be net importer by 2016: PFC “Platt Oilgram News Volume, 84, Issue 209, Oct. 31, 2006

(4) Mohammad Sahimi:(the above are excerpts from a publication named: Iran’s Nuclear Energy Program: Economic Analysis of the Program written by Professor Mohammed Sahimi, Professor & Chairman of Chemical and Petroleum Engineering at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles.)

(5) Mohammad Sahimi, Pirouz Mojtahed-Zadeh and Kaveh L. Afrasiabi: Energy : Iran needs nuclear power Published: TUESDAY, OCTOBER 14, 2003
//www.iht.com/articles/2003/10/14/edsahimi_ed...

(6) Professor Tom O’Donnell, PhD Univ. of Michigan: “The Political economy of the U.S. – Iran crisis: Oil hegemony, not nukes, is the real issue” June 2006

(7) Mohammad Sahimi:(the above are excerpts from a publication named: Iran’s Nuclear Energy Program: Economic Analysis of the Program written by Professor Mohammed Sahimi, Professor & Chairman of Chemical and Petroleum Engineering at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles.)

I would also recommend that you read the following:

- “Hysteria Over Iran and a New Cold War with Russia: Peak Oil, Petrocurrencies and the Emerging Multi-Polar World” by William Clark: December 22, 2006
- “Political, Tech Hurdles Muddle Iran Oil Industry”: Date: 09/15/2006 09:10:08 David J. Lynch USA Today
- For typical arguments see Roger Stern, “The Iranian Petroleum Crisis and United States National Security,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, December 26, 2006; Stanley Reed, “Surprise: Oil Woes in Iran,” Business Week, December 1, 2006; and Paul Rivlin “Iran’s Energy Vulnerability,” MERIA, December 22, 2006.
- William Beeman: “The Iranian Nuclear Crisis”--Portland OR October 29, 2006; //www.wbeeman.com/

To: Mehdi - Why Nuclear Tech (Con't): SECOND SET OF COMMENT

WHAT IS THE CURRENT STATUS of IRAN’S Energy Requirements and why the NEED FOR NUCLEAR ENERGY:

Iran's present electrical requirements are far larger than had been predicted. With an annual growth of 6 percent to 8 percent in demand for electricity and a population estimated to reach 100 million by 2025, Iran cannot possibly rely exclusively on oil and gas. The aging oil industry, denied substantial foreign investment largely because of American sanctions, has not been able even to reach the pre-revolution production level of 5.5 million barrels per day. Of Iran's 60 major oil fields, 57 need major repairs, upgrading and repressurizing, which would require $40 billion over 15 years. Iran's current production level of less than 4 million barrels per day is increasingly geared toward domestic consumption, which has grown by more than 280 percent since 1979. If this trend continues, Iran will become a net oil importer by [2010 or 2016 depending on which estimates you look at], a catastrophe for a country that relies on oil for 80 percent of its foreign currency and 45 percent of its annual budget. (See footnote 5)
EFFECTS OF U.S. SANCTIONS ON IRAN’S OIL AND GAS SECTOR:

The U.S. has been enforcing unilateral sanctions to block foreign direct investment (FDI) in Iran’s oil and natural gas sector for 12 years, with devastating effects on Iran’s output and Iran’s internal economy.

The EIA’s latest report on Iran’s oil sector says “[Iran’s oil] fields are in need of upgrading, modernization, and enhanced oil recovery efforts… with current recovery rates of 24-27 percent (compared to a world average of 35 percent).” And, although Iran is believed to be rich in offshore oil, it had “only a few exploration wells being drilled in 2005. In fact, Iran’s domestic oil-refining capabilities have deteriorated to the point that it now actually has to import about one-third of the gasoline its citizens consume. This widespread degradation of what was once a world-class oil infrastructure under the Shah is the intended RESULT OF U.S. SANCTIONS STARVING IRAN OF INVESTMENT AND DENYING IT UP-TO-DATE TECHNOLOGY. The American sanctions have methodically reduced Iran’s oil sector to its miserable state in order to prevent Iran from gaining influence in the Persian Gulf, from undermining U.S. HEGEMONY there or in the larger GLOBAL OIL ORDER.

THESE SANCTIONS ARE NOTHING MORE THAN ECONOMIC WARFARE. Iran is in such internal economic difficulties due to the effect of sanctions undermining its oil and gas sector, that at a time when their neighbors in Saudi Arabia have a national stock market which actually exceeds the size of the Chinese stock market, IRI has been forced to dip into the state’s long-term oil-emergency funds, taking out almost $3 billion which was set aside for times when the price of oil might collapse. So the American sanctions have been devastatingly effective. (See footnote 6)

TO SUMMARIZE WHY IRAN IS ADAMANT ABOUT NUCLEAR ENERGY (See footnote 7):

• Iran’s energy needs over the next two decades when its population may reach 100 million, and the resources that it will and must have in order to secure adequate energy supplies.

• It is universally recognized that energy security, which includes securing adequate and DIVERSIFIED energy resources, is highly important for any nation’s national interests, which by their very definition, transcend the political system that governs a nation.
• Iran as a sovereign nation has a fundamental right to diversify and develop its energy resources – the engine for its economic resources and social development.

• Why Iran must stop relying on oil and natural gas as its main sources of energy, and begin developing alternative sources? In addition to being in the long-term national interests, there are compelling economical, environmental and technological reasons for Iran to seek out alternative sources of energy, instead of relying so heavily on the fossil fuels. Moreover, nuclear program has many other benefits for Iran in terms of the necessary technology that must be imported into the country, and the educated class of people that will run Iran’s nuclear industry.
• Iran’s population is currently estimated to be close to 70 million, about 70% of which is below the age of 30. This should be compared with Iran’s population of 30 million when the Shah started Iran’s program for building NPPs in 1974. Most estimates indicate that Iran’s population may reach 100 million by 2025.
• Between 1977 and 2003, Iran’s rate of energy consumption has on average increased 5.5% per year. Moreover, since the end of Iran-Iraq war in 1988, Iran’s oil consumption has had an annual growth rate of about 8%, while the supply of energy from all of its sources has had an annual growth rate of 6%, hence barely keeping up with energy consumption.

• Between 1977 and 2001, the electricity production has been experiencing an average annual growth rate of 8.5%. Iran currently produces 31,000 megawatt (MW) of electricity. Most importantly, in 1977 Iran consumed 29.6 MB of crude oil to generate electricity, whereas 265 MB of oil were used in 2003 for the same purpose, representing an average annual growth rate of 8.8%.

• If the above trend continues and crude oil is not replaced by another energy source, and if Iran does not increase its oil production significantly. It may become a net IMPORTER of oil over the next decade, a huge catastrophe for a country that obtains 80% of its total export earnings, 45% of its total annual budget, and about 15% of its GDP from exporting oil.

• Iran wishes to generate at least 10% of its electricity by NPPs. However, constructing the NPPs is only one part of the plan.

• Iran also wishes to possess the full nuclear fuel cycle for producing enriched uranium as it has the largest reserves of uranium ore in the Middle East.

• It is estimated that Iran’s known uranium ore reserves can produce as much electricity as 43 billion barrels of oil. This is a huge amount by any criterion, but particularly so if we only recall that if we extract ALL of Iran’s known recoverable oil reserves (a remote possibility)! And use fully one-third of them only for generating electricity, we will generate as much electricity as what Iran’s presently-known uranium deposits can produce!
• It should be noted that currently over 20 countries around the globe are active in uranium enrichment.
• Further more the ECONOMICS of NUCLEAR ENERGY is much cheaper enabling Iran to use the additional funds for development of its economic infrastructure.
• Burning OIL to generate electricity also creates severe ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS, as it has been doing in Iran, with very significant economic consequences.
• Iran can also benefit from NUCLEAR EXTERNALITIES – technological advances:
Development and nurturing of new and unprecedented capabilities for building technological infrastructures;
• cross-fertilization and diversion of nuclear-related know-how, research development, supply chain to Iran’s other industries, and other branches of science, such as medicine and agriculture;
• Added-value and versatility of nuclear-technology related training; and
• Creation of new cadre of managers of technology, technocrats, and organizational system culture.

Nuclear externalities alone justify a nuclear energy program for Iran.

CONCLUSION: Iran’s goal of generating by 2021, 10% of its electricity by NPPs, 20% by hydroelectric, 65% by natural gas, and 5% by other sources is rational and economically justified. The benefits of diversifying Iran’s energy sources, and in particular resorting to nuclear power plants for a fraction of Iran’s needed electricity, far outweigh any possible drawback that it might have. THESE ARE THE REASONS THAT IRAN IS QUITE ADAMANT IN NOT GIVING UP ITS RIGHT UNDER THE NPT. GIVING UP THIS RIGHT WILL BE DETRIMENTAL FOR THE ECONOMY AND PEOPLE OF IRAN. THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE POLITICAL SYSTEM ANY OTHER REGIME WOULD REQUIRE THE SAME RIGHT.

To: Mehdi - Why Nuclear Tech: FIRST SET OF COMMENT

Dear Mehdi:

I am going to send this to you in a couple of commentaries. Unfortunately, I do not know how to format on this site, and the info. may be just too much "mumbo jumbo". I apologize in advance, and I hope that the information provides you with the answers you are seeking. So here goes the first set.

According to the U.S. administration, Iran with its vast oil and gas reserves, does not need nuclear energy? Why is nuclear energy so important for Iran?

You have asked why Iran has an immediate need for nuclear energy, and why it should not suspend its program for a couple of years to appease the U.S. and other countries who have a “trust issue” with Iran.

Before you read the lengthy comment, I would basically summarize it due to the following reasons: (1) Iran’s oil and gas infrastructure has been under severe economic sanctions imposed by the U.S. to such an extent that Iran will be a net importer of its own energy demands within 5 to 10 years, if not shorter; (2) As such Iran needs to develop alternative sources of energy for domestic consumption while protecting its valuable natural resources (oil & gas) for exports; (3) The U.S. intention is regime change with installation of a pliant-puppet regime that will give the U.S./U.K. multinational oil and gas companies lucrative production sharing agreements of Iran’s oil and gas reserves, the real reason for U.S. pressure –not threat of nuclear weapons; (4) U.S. desire to further expand its empire bases thereby gaining strategic control of the vital oil pipeline routes from Iran into Central and East Asia; and (5) Thwart Iran’s international oil bourse that could threaten the status quo of the petrodollar system – these are the reasons. No amount of time will change the U.S. attitude unless it brings about a regime change. IRI knows this and sees no benefit in succumbing to U.S./U.K./France/Israeli pressure. Furthermore, the U.S. is impinging on Iran’s sovereign and inalienable rights to peaceful nuclear energy and going against all international norms. And finally when the U.S. is not willing to give Iran even a security guarantee what logical and rational reasons would Iran have to consider suspending its nuclear enrichment program and trust the U.S. as an honest party/broker? IRI IS NOT STUPID – THERE ARE ABSOLUTELY NO CARROTS FOR IT IN THIS PICTURE!!

A BIT OF HISTORY OF IRAN’S NUCLEAR PROGRAM:

Iran’s long standing desire to develop nuclear energy is that Iranian oil production peaked in 1974.

In fact in August 1974, the late Shah envisioned a time when the world’s oil supply would run out and declared: “Petroleum is a noble material, much too valuable to burn. We envision producing as soon as possible 23,000 megawatts of electricity using nuclear plants.” (see footnotes 1, 2)

Realizing that Iran’s oil supply was finite and that maintaining the standard of living of its people would require the construction of nuclear power plants, the Shah asked Washington if U.S. companies could assist Iran in building 20 nuclear power plants by the year 2000.

Ironically, under the Ford Administration, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld not only encouraged the Shah but formally obtained approval from President Ford to develop Iran’s nuclear power plants (NPP) including the full domestic enrichment of Iran’s large uranium ore deposits.

As Gary Sick, current professor at Columbia University and former head of nonproliferation issues under President Ford, Carter, and Reagan acknowledged that the same rational used by the Shah – Iran’s finite and declining oil resources in conjunction with its growing population logically necessitated the development of nuclear power in order to preserve Iran’s valuable oil resources for cash-earning exports.

IRI IS MAKING THE SAME ARGUMENT!!

Although Iran does retain a tremendous amount of natural gas ready for export; its oil production is in permanent decline. In fact the Washington D.C. based PFC Energy recently reported that Iran’s oil production is declining by 500,000 b/d per year; and without drastic change, it will become a net importer of oil by 2016 (see footnote 3)

LET’s LOOK AT THE FACTS:

Iran’s quest for nuclear energy picked momentum following a study in 1974 carried out by the prestigious US-based Stanford Research Institute, which predicted Iran’s need for nuclear energy and recommended the building of nuclear plants capable of generating over 20,000 megawatts of electricity before 1994. Now, 30 years later, Iran aims at reaching that level by 2020, which may save Iran 190 million barrels of crude oil or $10 billion per year in today's price.

At the time when the Shah made that statement, Iran’s population was less than half of the present 70 million; its oil production was about 5.5 to 6 million b/d compared to the present average daily production of 4 million b/d and its energy consumption was less than one-fourth of the present. In 1974 Iran exported about 5 million b/d day of oil compared to the present daily average of 2.6 million b/d; and unlike now Iran’s oil reservoirs were not in decline, needing re-pressurization by natural gas injection. (see footnote 4)

In fact the Shah’s government was burning Iran’s gas elimination, simply because it had no use for it. In short, Iran did not need AT THAT TIME to generate electricity using NPPs. This then begs the question: Why is it that, given its present conditions which can justify the use of NPPs for producing energy, the neo conservatives and their allies believe that Iran does not need nuclear energy, whereas the U.S. strongly pushed the Shah in the 1970s to build NPPs when Iran had no need for them?

The U.S. not only strongly supported the Shah to buy NPPs from the U.S., but was also willing to offer, the complete facilities for uranium enrichment if Iran agreed to buy eight U.S. –manufactured NPPs! This should be compared with the present state of affairs whereby the U.S. and the EU are trying to stop Iran from utilizing its uranium enrichment facilities and offer, instead, to supply Iran the enriched uranium for its NPPs or face further sanctions!

Boy, very idealistic

In an ideal world, I would agree with the writer. In fact, no one really needs nuclear tech. But, I grew up safe and sound in the West. Some of my relatives, however, were not so fortunate. I had relatives in Tehran that endured rocket attacks and fears of Saddam one day loading a Scud with a chemical war-head. But, I wonder if Saddam would have attacked Iran if Iran was already nuclear in the early 80's.

Thoughts?

Still No Case For Urgent Need Of Enrichment Tech

Some devious distracting tricks and application of psychology by some commentators here but still no case presented here why Iran so urgently needs "enrichment" technology - so urgent that we must risk a war with all the powerful forces in the world.

I agree with Ben that it would be great if "hamvatan" did an article on this based on info he has, maybe referenceing sources, etc. Hopefully we will see that article.

Arezu.........Thank you

 Thank you for your detailed comment and the web links you provided.

solh :o)

To Have or Not To Have

Once again the criminals of the Isl. Rep. have cornered themselves between a rock and a hard place, and once again are using that as excuse to scream for support from people so that they can distract and oppress them further and for longer. Unfortunately, this site is also infiltrated with people who have loyalty to other causes beyond the cause of iran and iranians, specially innocent children and desperate youth of iran. The loyalty to criminals of islamic republic, arabs of hezbollah, ommatte eslam, fanatic religion, or anti or pro esraeel, as different as they are, are all THE SAME, since all view the citizens of iran as second class to those loyalties. That makes any judgment biased and invalid since it cannot serve two possibly conflicting loyalties. I am really puzzled to see how an iranian can see his/her country men and women in such a dire situation and yet make a judgment based on their higher loyalty (perhaps unconsciously) elsewhere, while sitting comfortably in the west. If we place the welfare of iranians above all - let it be religion or ideology, few implications are not hard to come by:
(1) Criminals of I. R. have not done anything significant FOR people of iran in 30 years. All that they have done have been for their own benefit of retaining power and control of country's wealth, and perhaps for the benefit of their (fake version of) islam/arab-centered ideology. Therefore they deserve nothing and have a right to nothing at all - they are simply illegitimate by their track record and actions of 30 years.
(2) We need to separate people of iran from their criminal leaders to be able to make a judgment that is good for iran and iranians exclusively - the two, i.r. and iranians, are simply conflicting in interests. Let's not fall into the same trap that is laid everyday everywhere to manipulate people into submission by distraction and deceit built around an issue hyped. In view of that consideration, people of iran have right to sovereignty and self-determination on every matter, including those related to nuc. energy.
(3) Nuc. energy incorporates very dangerous and difficult technology in so many ways. Engineering and consideration for safety within iran is simply not to a level that can be trusted with nuc. technology. We have seen it already on TV on films from iran's plants how carelessly people work around radio active material and equipment. A simple accident can easily destroy a town and disease people with cancer, with this regime easily covering up the incident and leaving people in the dark. It is estimated that up to 70% of agricultural land in europe is unusable due to contamination with by-products of decades of sloppy use of nuc technology for energy as well as due to testings and experiments, e.g., numerously by french, from down in the ocean to up in the atmosphere [Ref. CSpan]. A similar situation down the road can be disastrous for iran.
(4) However, suspension at this stage has legal ramifications in the future: the precedence, which is prevalent in the western legal system. This is a serious matter too. A way should be found that would guarantee the legal rights of people of iran in the long run, hopefully when this regime is gone. Such alternative is possible if there is a will for it, and must be found. But alas that this does not serve the agenda of the criminals of the I. R.
(5) Future iran needs technology of any sort, but there is no point in allowing russians to milk iran indefinitely for their garbage technology. Iranians are intelligent but not confident and lack experience - let them build the technology on their own, even if it is on a much slower pace, and on a much limited scope, only for the purpose of development of the technology indigenously within npt. (surprisingly, this is what a tired cab driver was telling me in tehran)
(6) western data indicate that iran does not have uran. mines beyond what is needed for a couple of power plants. They have to import which may not be cost-effective or self-reliant. The I. R. disputes that, so who knows what the truth is.
(7) iran has huge potential for development of solar energy with plenty of sun across the country. With the new super-efficient thin solar panels, this can turn into a prosperous industry with lots of employment opportunities for iranian youth at any level of education. It is also very clean and available forever. That needs to be considered and developed instead of reliance on nuc. energy. There are also similar technologies that can be evaluated by a responsible government that we do not have - e.g., wind and ocean waves.
(8) finally, it is very dangerous for neighbors of iran to have access to nuc. technology - which is contrary to what the treasonous antarinejad has proposed (to share the technology with neighbors); despite the affinity of some for arabs on this site, our arab neighbors simply do not like iranians and we cannot trust them with nuc. technology - who knows maybe another saddam develops in that neighborhood in the future. everything should be done to deter those neigbors, even at the cost of limiting iran.
Just some thought...

Dear 'hamvatan'

Please do a thorough calculation and do your own article, because there is too little of us saying the facts about the myth of this nuclear stuff. We, the Iranians, have the duty to say the facts about these blatant lies that are destroying Iran and the future of Iranians... Please :) If JJ doesn't like your version then e-mail it to me and I'll edit it more to his taste ;)

PRO IRI LIKE AREZU & Nojgan ARE DEAD WRONG BECAUSE........

It simply does not make economic sense for Iran to pursue nuclear power at this juncture. Go ahead and call me zionists, jew, neocon (I am just an Iranian American Muslim who was born in Iran) and whatever lefty/IRI propoganda you can find. The numbers do not make sense. Its nuclear weapons they want and here is why.....

The question is if there is any economic sense to IRI's claim. Does that really make sense for IRI to use nuclear technology to get electricity? It will costs the IRI about $2 billion and 8-10 years to build a nuclear power plant with 1000 MWH capacity. The fuel (Uranium) cost is about $5 per MWH. Operating cost of that power plant is about $3 per MWH. So it costs about $8 to produce each MWH using a nuclear power plant.

However, everyone knows that the IRI has different and better options. What is their other option? IRI has a lot of natural gas associated with their oil reserves. Iran’s reserve is second only to Quatar.

This natural gas in Iran is stranded. Iran really does not have means to export it. It attempted to build a pipeline to India but it did not work out because it had to go through Pakistan. Iran does not have access to the only other exporting option which is liquefied natural gas technology. So what does IRI do with all these natural gas? Some of the natural gas that comes out with oil is typically pushed back into the oil wells to preserve the well pressure level. But the rest is just being flared.

It would cost about $0.75 per MMBTU for IRI to produce that natural gas and $100 million to bring natural gas to a power plant. A natural gas fueled power plant with 1000 MWH capacity would cost about $700 millions and it would have 7000 heat rate, which is the conversion rate from natural gas to electricity. This implies that the fuel cost is about $5 per MWH. If one adds $2 operating cost, the total cost of electricity would be about $7 per MWH.

This natural gas plant would only take about 2 years to build instead of the 8-10 of the nuclear plant.

So IRI is planning to spent 2.5 ($10 billion) times more and wait 6 extra years to produce the same amount of electricity at a 15% premium over electricity from gas. Does this make sense?

If nuclear power was such a good option, all of Europe and Asia would be filled with it. Guess what, Europeans have stopped building them.

Its amazing to see how people blindly will support any IRI policy just because they hate American policy. Its just like the revolution in 1979. People hated the Shah (I could care less for the Shah as well) so much that they got rid of him at all costs. Look what we have ended up with now? Child killers, sigheh promoters, holocaust deniers and nuclear weapons just around the corner. This is a great mixture. Go ahead, call me a zionist :)))))))) it has really lost its meaning- especially coming from Iranians.

Mehdi .....I think I misunderstood your earlier post.....

 I think I must have misread your following comment. It led me to understand that anyone can put together any figures to satisfy their point on need for such enrichment technology.

"Well I think it would be very easy for the IRI to compile a simple booklet with some numbers demonstrating this urgent need for the enrichment technology."

solh

Sasha: it is true.........

I do not quite understand the point of your last comment. But if you mean that presenting such data is not useful because it can be faked, my answer would be that I don't think we have given up hope completely. I mean if you look at it from a very pessimistic viewpoint, no, there is no solution because everything can be made to fail. But I am not sure why we should consider that. Maybe I misunderstood your comment.