• ARRSE have partnered with Armadillo Merino to bring you an ARRSE exclusive, generous discount offer on their full price range.
    To keep you warm with the best of Merino gear, visit www.armadillomerino.co.uk and use the code: NEWARRSE40 at the checkout to get 40% off!
    This superb deal has been generously offered to us by Armadillo Merino and is valid until midnight on the the 28th of February.

Iran ready to transfer nuclear technology to Islamic states

#1
http://www.irna.ir/en/news/view/line-17/0509155684135013.htm

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad here Wednesday voiced Iran's readiness to transfer peaceful nuclear technology to Islamic states.

The president made the remark in a meeting with Turkey's Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan on the sidelines of the UN world summit.

Referring to the decrease of fossil fuel reserves and the country's need to use at least 20,000 MW of electricity, he said, "The Islamic Republic never seeks weapons of mass destruction and with respect to the needs of Islamic countries, we are ready to transfer nuclear know-how to these countries."
The president touched on numerous grounds existing for promotion of Tehran-Ankara ties and said, "Tehran faces many options for gas export to Europe but the Iranian government prefers to establish this trade contact through Turkey."
He praised the stance adopted by the Turkish government on Iran's nuclear case and said, "Iranian scientists have acquired nuclear fuel cycle.

"We have firmly decided to use this technology for peaceful purposes within the framework of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), international regulations and cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)."
An irrational thought just struck me. Is Iran in fact making a bid to become the Islamic Superpower? Have the Iranian headsheds realised that Saudi Arabia will go back to being a nation of goat-herders when the oil runs out, and a technologically superior Iran will fill the void, in concert and co-operation with Pakistan? How will seeking technological superiority mesh with the current theocracy in Iran , or does the new Iranian President already display Borgia-like tendencies?

He makes the usual noises about Zionists and unnamed nations threatening the Middle East blah blah blah. But is he just doing that to play to the cheap seats?
 
#2
Probably the case, on all counts. Personally, I'm surprised more nations haven't openly twigged (a) that the black stuff will eventually run out and (b) that whoever has the best contingency plan in place - or is at least the least dependent on oil - will be top dog when it happens.
 
#3
PTP ya must be an old mid east hand
" Have the Iranian headsheds realised that Saudi Arabia will go back to being a nation of goat-herders when the oil runs out"
The old argument long belived by so many. I/we always reckond they did not want to progress for they knew where they where going back to.
john
 
#4
Of course they think that way. IMHO...

A Nuke or 3 is equally important too, not so much for aggression but as a deterrent against Israel / US, who in turn want to stop Iran ever getting to that position. Remember India's CDS' comments when asked what India learned from Gulf War 1? "only take on America if you've got an atomic bomb" or words to that effect. Note too the Iranians did not develop or deploy CW against Iraq during their hideous war, despite being on the receiving end of much of Saddams' poisons.

Iran's a very different place and culture to it's Arab neighbour. Tha Shah half bankrupted the place trying to computerise the entire NHS and DHSS equivalents, back in the 70s. Forgot to notice the folk starving in the streets. Nothing remotely stupid in that place. As always it took a charismatic hardline whako to start the revolution, but whilst they'd dearly love to nuke Israel today, they are thoroughly realistic and will find a compromise unless Isreal is left wholly undefended.

IMHO they want a future as top dog, and they want nukes as they are the biggest possible bargaining chips in every sense. Well what else is their shortest-cut to first-world status? But don't fo one minute extend the logic to making them less of a threat - they aren't going to become cuddly any time soon. They'll stone you to death for even thinking it.
 

OldSnowy

LE
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#5
In response to the original post, I don't think they've any pretention about being the Islamic Superpower - they'd settle for regional superpower, which is much what the Shah wanted.

Ccan't help but remember Kissinger's comment, during the Iran/Iraq war (gulf War -1 ?) that is was a pity that the ycouldn't both lose.
 
#6
Don't forget that they have been a superpower before, it was along time ago but they still blame Alexander - and Europe by extension - for spoiling it for them.
 
#7
Maybe the reasons for aqcuring nuclear technology is driven by internal rather than external objectives.

I don't get the impression that Iranians want to be the regional superpower when I talk to Iranians in Britain. Two different bunches of Iranians I spoke to see no reason why Iran shouldn't have nuclear technology. One co-worker of mine, a software tester, told me that for Iran, "Its like a knive. A good tool in the kitchen but it also deters the burglars". None of these are supporters of the regime. These chaps aren't analysts, but they are Iranians who discuss this with their relatives in Iran.

They say that its a good idea that Iran has nuclear technology.

1. Iran has been attacked on several occasions in the past.
2. They have hostile, dangerous or unstable neighbours with lots of weapons. (Israel, Pakistan, the US retoric)
3. They have something that other people want - oil.

They think the problem with the current government is that its corrupt and not that its about to export revolution. Its far too incompetent to do that sort of thing and too many people are lining their own pockets to want to fight.

So maybe a policty to acquire nuclear technology may be driven along as a populist policy within Iran. Even the opposition think its a good idea.
 
#9
The Iranians only want to take over the role vacated by the Pakistani Scientist AQ khan. :wink:
Actually I wouldn't be suprised if there wasn't some unoffical cooperation still going on between the Iranians and the Pakistanis.

Two years ago, I met the Iranian Charge to the UK, the Charge was adamant that the nuclear program was for civil use only.
No one believed him of course. There is no doubt that Iran want's the bomb for security purposes but I think they are also sincere in their claim that they want develop a civil nuclear program. Their population is booming, their infrastructure is growing and they are doing something that we are longer doing i.e. Planning for the future. .

The Iranians are a modern developing state and I think many in the west need to get out of the mindset that just because we have developed, other countries must already be at our stage of development or if they aren't its because they will nverver develop.
The Iranian program therefore in my eyes is dual use. I think if the West want to call Iran's bluff on the whole nuclear program why don't they offer nuclear aid and technicians to the Iranians?

There is also the theory of thought based on the Pakistani model, that if Iran gets the bomb. Iran may start to relax its attitudes both internally and externally as with defensive security ensured, a much more confident Iran can afford to relax and enage with the rest of the world.
 

OldSnowy

LE
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#10
Or it can carry on doing whatever it likes to its people, its minorities, Women, Homosexualists, etc., safe in the knowledge that no-one will do anything about it.

It's simply not a modern Nation-State, but a theocracy firmly rooted in the past, and hopefully only a temporary aberration.

They have stated their intention to destroy Israel, and given the means, and theat they probably don't care how manyo f their own citizens they lose (well, they'll go straight to paradise anyway, won't they?) could be mad enough to do it.

The current Iran with atomic weapons is a Bad Thing.
 
#11
OldSnowy said:
Or it can carry on doing whatever it likes to its people, its minorities, Women, Homosexualists, etc., safe in the knowledge that no-one will do anything about it.
Or the state secure in it's self will evolve and relax and human rights and what not will improve. No country was born a human rights utopia. The rights of the individual within the state develop over time.

It's simply not a modern Nation-State, but a theocracy firmly rooted in the past, and hopefully only a temporary aberration.
I think our definition of what constitutes a Modern Nation state differs but if you believe that Iran does not have a national consciousness or culture then you are mistaken.

They have stated their intention to destroy Israel, and given the means, and theat they probably don't care how manyo f their own citizens they lose (well, they'll go straight to paradise anyway, won't they?) could be mad enough to do it. The current Iran with atomic weapons is a Bad Thing.
I don't like Ahmadinejad and the clerics but even I recognise that they are not that mad. We could sit here and argue whether the death of Ali and the veneration of him as a martyr has left an inprint of the Shia consciousness, which makes the Shia more prone to martyrdom operations. Or we could recognise that even the most religious person, if they were honest would rather live, than face an uncertain after life.

Also given the history of Persian-Arab relations I don't think that Iranians would really feel that obligied to destroy their own country for the sake of the Palestinians, the only reason I could see them attack is if Israel or the West launched an attack against Iran.
 
#12
OldSnowy said:
Or it can carry on doing whatever it likes to its people, its minorities, Women, Homosexualists, etc., safe in the knowledge that no-one will do anything about it.

It's simply not a modern Nation-State, but a theocracy firmly rooted in the past, and hopefully only a temporary aberration.
I'm confused. Are you talking about the Iranians or the Spams now? :wink:
 
#13
I don't think any Muslim nation can be trusted with nuclear weapons.
During the Cold War the threat of MAD kept the Yanks and the Ivans from nuking each other and, more importantly, us.
But how do you deter Muslims who believe death is a magick carpet ride to paradise?
Letting the Iranians develop nukes is like giving a loaded handgun to some fat, spotty, bullied teenager who spends most of his free time playing GTA San Andreas.
It's just asking for trouble.
 
#14
According to Paul Reynolds, World Affairs correspondent, BBC News (I like to read his articles).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4258906.stm

Iran has so far outmanoeuvred Western countries in its determination to develop a nuclear fuel cycle.
...
Iran has cleverly exploited the weak link in the NPT - the fact that a signatory state has the right to make fuel itself.
Iran has strong arguments: why the West don't pressure Israel, why Pakistan was allowed to develop nuclear weapons while Iran is prohibited to develop 'peacefull' nuclear project?

The only alternative might be military action, but the Europeans are against that and so at the moment is the US. Even Israel says diplomacy must be the priority.
Let's accept obvious fact that the West is unable to do anything with Iranian ambitions. The West was unable to stop Russians, so the situation is not unique.
 
#15
Is he to be trusted???

Britain ruled out military action to halt Iran's nuclear programme yesterday on the eve of a diplomatic battle by the West to take Teheran to the United Nations Security Council for possible political and economic sanctions.

As hostile rhetoric between the West and Iran intensified, Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, sought to allay fears that the dispute would ultimately lead to war.

He said that an intransigent speech at the UN a day earlier by the Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had been "disappointing and unhelpful". But Mr Straw played down the prospect that referring Iran to the Security Council for failing fully to disclose its nuclear activities would lead to an Iraq-style escalation ending in war.

"This will not be resolved by military means, let's be clear about that,'' Mr Straw told the BBC. "It needs to be resolved by all facilities available to the international community.''
[C]Telegraph.co.uk
 

Latest Threads