Talk:Nuclear program of Iran/Archive 2

message: What does a 1956 Hubbart hypothesis, which failed on top of it, to do with Iranian nuclear program, which started 11 years after that? 
Does anyone seriously think that it had anything to do with it, in that time, when Hubbert's prediction was at best a fringe hypothesis that few experts in th US knew about? A notion that Timeline of Iran nuclear programs starts with Hubbart peak is at best not true. 
IMO it is clearly misleading and missplaced propaganda and therefore I've removed it.
I just replaced the Hubbert peak oil prediction in the timeline. Please read the article and you will see that Hubbert made his prediction in 1956, the Iranian nuclear program began the very next year, in 1957, not 11 years later. Major developments in the Iranian nuclear program have coincided with each of the production peaks (OPEC countries typically follow a two peak model). The two peaks are each listed in the timeline. Not to include the Hubbert prediction removes valuable context and may limit the reader's ability to understand why nuclear decisions were taken when they were. --Dave 09:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peak Oil in the timeline - please be reasonable 

message: At least with US and Iranian sources you know everyone is probably lying.  Maybe that makes their content a little less useless somehow?  I think we should all accept two pragmatic assumptions:  1.) given a reasonable chance to pull it off, Iran would pounce on WMD in a second (most states would?), and 2.) everything the US says about Iran, and Iran about itself, is patently false.  Worth quoting, maybe, but seriously.  Anyone who believes a government newsbriefing on the subject of its own or others' nuclear weapons must have just fallen off the turnip wagon.  That's the point of NPOV, right?  The contradictory intuitions that all news information about Iran is probably wrong, and that Iran probably is seeking nukes are not that hard to reconcile.  Tooraloom
"Everything the US says ... is patently false"? Please think before forming an opinion rather than dismiss something outright. BushidoWarlord
:"The perfect lie is a semi-truth" and "Nobody needs lie, — there is too much of truth in the world". (approx. quote of Lukyanenko). You are a bit of kiddish: lie, truth.. You don't understand that a semi-truth is more efficient than direct lie. ellol 10:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV and US vs. Iranian sources

message: Any time the Words Weapons of Mass Destruction cross a nation in the middle east, opinions will arise...Neutrality issues will come into question on a current event of this matter due to third party 'reporting' of facts. Unless one is actually dispatched by a credited news service or actually there in the first person, we must report fact citing referencee in a past tense. Since nobody knows what Iran is capable of or even what they possess, WMD tags are 100% speculation. The UN security council accused Iraq of this exact same thing a few years ago and as reported in the March 19, 2004 edition of the Chicago Tribune, the Final Report from the UN states No WMDs were found in the whole of Iraq.
This seems like a deadly pattern. UNSC accuses a nation of WMDs. Said nation doesn't allow the UNSC to case their country, we threaten sanctions and a possible invaion. 
It's quite hypocritical that the nation which possesses by far the most nuclear weapons becomes quite pontifical when even the speculation of another nation having the same weapons. Then, factor into this deadly mixture that the technology and intelligent behind the alleged proliferation was in many cases sold or given to these nations by the same government now trying to take them back.
However, Iran differs from the United States in that it is NOT a democratic society, the highest authorities believe in a religion that considers jihad part of their doctrine, and it has diplomatic and trade ties with other nations which are not free societies.  the_paccagnellan 17:08, 4 February 2006 (EST)
These current events need to be seriously policed for neutrality so as to not spurn a fruitless battle of opinions to clutter this site further. chaz171 14:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Calls for Speculation. 

message: a credible Iranian nuclear deterrent would make impossible the kind of forcible "regime change" imposed on Iraq in 2003.
:"Nuclear weapons would allow Iran to preserve its territorial integrity and sovereignty, and we can't have that."—Is any U.S. government official stupid or arrogant enough to say something like this openly? (yes, we all know they're thinking it.) Or is this just a view expressed by right-wing jingoist pundits? Can we get some idea of who said this? --anon
Probably a W.A.S.P Right-Wing Human Parasite who forgot to attend "Diplomacy 101" lessons.--85.97.76.234 15:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A credible Iranian nuclear deterrent 

message: In fact, Chirac's speech did not mention Iran, though many mainstream media interpreted it as such:  therefore I removed this paragraph, which is in any case not a good summary of the speech. Mark K. Jensen 09:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chirac didn't mention Iran 

message: Alireza Jafarzadeh, a [...] and critic of Tehran, [...]
Someone can be a critic of a political system, but saying someone is a critic of a city can be misunderstood and sounds vaguely. --Abdull 19:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe he means he's from Tehran...:) --Zereshk 01:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No it means hes a critic of the Government of Iran. Capital's and Regieme's are often interchanged when talking about a foreign power. ex "The United States and Great Britian were often at odds with Moscow." Learn more english this Saturday on Adult Swim--AdultSwim 05:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ? 

message: I could be wrong, but I seem to remember that the US had a strong incentive to fund the Iranian monarchy in the context of the Cold War, pursuant to the doctrine of Domino theory. Perhaps this point could be made in the History section by someone more competent than I am? Thanks. DomQ 18:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cold War motivation? 

message: Has anyone brought this into light?
"Regarding atomic energy, we need it now... Our nation has always been threatened from outside. The least we can do to face this danger is to let our enemies know that we can defend ourselves. Therefore, every step you take here is in defense of your country and your evolution. With this in mind, you should work hard and at great speed."
Gordonf238 11:29, 09 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ali Khamenei's statements in 1987 

message: I was startled to read this large amount of radical anti-Western and anti-American points of view (bordering on propaganda). It seems to be a replay of the 1970's and 1980's, when so many "Balanced", "Just" and "Righteous" people, much like most of those writing above, were publishing enthusiastically on behalf of the Soviet Union. These people can twist and turn treaties (like the NPT), foreign diplomacy (U.S. relations with India, Israel) and declarations (by El-Baradei, Bush, and Ahmedinajad). They can quote and mis-quote out of context, and point out how much Iran is justified, o.k., and generally a peace-loving and friendly country reeling under U.S. dictations to the world. This is very upsetting, since this is exactly the kind of truth flip-over that allowed the USSR to keep millions in the gulags, that allowed the Nazis to rearm quietly right up to 1939, and that today denies the Holocaust. The writers above should understand that the weaker party is not always right (Anyone mention suicide bombers?), that letting radicals with idealogy get what they want is not good (see Stalin, Hitler, Pol-Pot, Khomieni), and that letting the free Western Democratic nations have a lead in weapons technology and nuclear technology is necessary when keeping the bullies of the world at bay is required. The tens of millions of the dead and murdered across Europe, Russia, Cambodia and Africa cry a mute warning to us across the vastness of history on this subject. We cannot allow these things to happen again, even if Iran's energy market has slightly slower growth. No amount of number playing and legal wrangling can change this basic truth.
With regard to Israel's nuclear program - the reasons pointed above are exactly why the two programs are not equated by either the U.S. or Europe, or any other western country.
Israel's program was born out of the horrors of the Holocaust, to deter and prevent any future destruction of the Jewish people in any circustance. Even when engaged in wars on two and even three fronts - Israel has never used its arsenal. Israel has never called for any country to be "Wiped off the map". Israel's security services answer to laws and parlimentry commitees (altough this has, sadly, not yet led to a withdrawl from the West Bank). Israel has Jewish characteristics, but is by no means a theocracy. The leaders are for the most part secular, and the country has a reasonbly well defined command and control structure. In fact - Israelis feel that anyone calling for a "Middle East free of nuclear weapons" is actually trying to open the door on their elimination again, by making another Holocaust possible.
To sum up what I want to point out in all of this - letting Iran have nuclear technology is bad, since they are a radical theocracy, with defense and intelligence bodies that are unaccountable to the public, that has called for the destruction/elimination of some of its neighbors, and that it cannot be trusted to abide by international diplomatic and humanitarian norms. Iran simply cannot be trusted to keep any peaceful nuclear technology is obtains  as such without turning to weapons production. Iran has considerable contacts with the Lebanease group Hizbullah, which has carried out international terrorist attack in the past 15 years. To further the point, Iran cannot be trusted not to use any weapon it does obtain for "The Glory of Allah" - no matter the price. The combination of terrorists with Nuclear weapons is so dangerous that it cannot be risked, even if the risk is small.
This is why the international community responds as it does, this is why the righteous post-modern comments posted above are false, and this is why national nuclear programs must be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.152.128.44 (talk • contribs) 
: Well no one can really know for sure if Iran will use the program for developing nuclear weapons. I do agree that the article should provide both points of view. Regarding your opinion, I must disagree, since we shouldnt be so quick to condemn something and get over paranoid so quickly. There is nothing we can do since its their country and they can do what ever they please. Trying to be hostile towards a country based on paranoia and conspiracy theories is just silly. Also United States still has nuclear weapons and it is one of the most war-active countries in recent history. Tutmosis 02:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're going to discuss the merits of each side's case, I suggest you do so on a forum other than this one. Wikipedia talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article so whether or not the US or Iran is "right" is moot. What we need is discussion about how to present both sides cases in a neutral manner. Mikker ... 10:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-Western sentiment in discussion 

message: John Mearsheimer  from the University of Chicago's political science department and Stephen Walt  from Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government, just published a lengthy study (March 13, 2006), claiming the U.S. Iran policy is not in America's national interest and is motivated primarily by the Israeli lobby, the AIPAC.
:"No lobby has managed to divert U.S. foreign policy as far from what the American national interest would otherwise suggest, while simultaneously convincing Americans that U.S. and Israeli interests are essentially identical". 
:"The core of the Lobby is comprised of American Jews who make a significant effort in their daily lives to bend U.S. foreign policy so that it advances Israel’s interests". 
:"American Jewish leaders often consult with Israeli officials, so that the former can maximize their influence in the United States". 
:"Washington would not be nearly as worried about Iran, were it not so closely tied to Israel". 
:"Iran’s nuclear ambitions DO NOT pose a direct threat to the U.S. If Washington could live with a nuclear Soviet Union, a nuclear China or even a nuclear North Korea, it can live with a nuclear Iran. And that is why the [Jewish] Lobby must keep up constant pressure on politicians to confront Tehran". 
*Mearsheimer-Walt. The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, John F. Kennedy School of Government Faculty Research Working Paper Series, March 13, 2006. 
*Mearsheimer-Walt. The Israel Lobby, London Review of Books (LRB), March 23, 2006.
:Fascinating, but not about Iran or its nuclear program; there's a whole article on the study. Jayjg (talk) 22:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  March 2006: Mearsheimer-Walt Study 

message: The existence of an Iranian nuclear weapon would also pose a potential threat to other US allies, such as Saudi Arabia.  Finally, a credible Iranian nuclear deterrent would neutralize attempts at forcible "regime change" such as the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. Those forcible "regime change" have been formalized in the Bush doctrine and the concept of a "Greater Middle East".
This is from the "stance towards Israel" section.  What does any of this have to do with Israel?  The comment about regime change is especially out of place. --Mr. Billion 21:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed section 

message: I changed Western Viewpoint to US Viewpoint as this section currently contains only a US viewpoint and a partial rebuttal by the UK, one of the other leading Western nations. It does not currently express a coherent western viewpoint.
I suggest the title remain as modified until the views of several othewr western nations are incorporated. The US view would then become a subsection under the newly titled Western Viewpoint.
--Dave 13:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Take a look at the Beijing and Moscow warm to Tehran and the The new geostrategic alliance sections of http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/GF04Ad07.html. --Dave 12:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

text: See http://www.nti.org/db/china/nca.htm --Dave 00:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Changed section title

message: Because it is certain that the United States and other Western media will downplay any nuclear activity in Iran (i.e. explosions), it would be a good idea to report any seismologic events that occur that could indicate that there may have been an explosion.
Nuclear explosions do register on siesmograms, but just to make sure that records at the United States Geologic Survey are not tampered for "national security reasons", it would be wise to post events from other Geologic agencies.
The war has undoubtedly begin, but the Department of Defense will not acknoledge the event.--Bushido Hacks 03:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The USA is not the only country to have a geological survey system. Russia and china also use seismology, which can detect the launch as well as the detonation of ICBMs. First use of nuclear weapons would be public knowledge within miminutes of an explosion. --Dave 00:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I see. I totally misunderstood what he was implying (I thought he was implying that Iran would be testing a bomb, not that the U.S. would use one against Iran). I don't think the U.S. would try to covertly use nuclear weapons against Iran (there is very little military reason for them to; the entire effect would be a political one, and doing it covertly would ruin the effect), and yeah, it would be pretty easy for the Iranians and other countries to verify if that had been done. --Fastfission 01:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There has been some speculation the US may use nuclear bunker busters on hardened targets in Iran that are impossible to destroy with conventional weapons. A few years ago most people would have scoffed at the idea but the US has since developed a [doctrine of joint nuclear operations] that lends it credibility. --Dave 01:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I've seen, it is unlikely that there are many targets in Iran that the U.S. would be unable to destroy with their conventional bunker-busters, but yeah, I know they've been talking about it. I don't put it against the Bush administration to do it, I just don't think they'd do it covertly.--Fastfission 01:26, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The only winning move is not to play 

message: Why is this place turning into an opinion forum? Is that why we're here?--Zereshk 12:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ???

message: so i dont much about other countries veiws on this topic right now but iwill be adding info on here, and when i do this message will be deleted.  also i wanted to let anyone know that if they have any info on chinas veiw please feel free to add anything you like.
===Russia, article of May, 4===
This article was published at http://lenta.ru, one of the best known russian news sites.
The war is for sale (Russian) (bad computer translation). 
Correcting computer translation:
Iran will not refuse of its nuclear ambitions. It was declared repeatedly by its leaders who have total support of the population in this question. The USA, Israel and European Union cannot allow possibility of appearance of technical abilities in Teheran for creation of a nuclear bomb. This position is also absolutely precise and is not a subject to discussion. No compromise is possible in this situation, which is clearly shown by all last statements and acts of the opposing countries. Rigid collision of two totally opposite positions is inevitable.
Washington, which is the main inspirer of idea to punish Iran, utterly needs the corresponding resolution of Secutiry council of the United Nations. It should create at least visibility of international support for inevitable sanctions against Teheran. Washington don't want to do one mistake twice, beginning active actions against other country without approval from the international community.
Now it's an unique opportunity for USA to achieve such approval. Iran does all the possible to cause irritation from even potential defenders of its position. In addition, the majority of countries are really worried about possibility of appearing of nuclear weapons in unpredictable regime..
However while it's no need to convince Europeans of necessity of punishing Iran, USA will have to come to agreement with Russia and China, which pursue their own interests in this whole story.
Moscow needs approval of Washington to join WTO, guarantees of West's not interfering in events on the post-Soviet space and approval of legality of last changes in structure of the property of the Russian power companies.
 
Pekin is rather annoyed with US's reasonings about human rights, their persistent claims of valorizing yuan and position of the White House about Taiwan.
It's most likely, that these are the questions involved in the trading between Russia + China and USA. Moreover, positions of Moscow and Pekin concerning acceptance of the resolution, which "frees hands" of Washington, change with striking frequency. But agreements with texts, which are offered by countries of West, always drift aside. Obviously, the trading doesn't go unsuccessfully.
But it seems that Americans and Europeans got tired to persuade partners of correctness of their position. This explains that their representatives in the United Nations are intended to carry voting about text of the document before the 8th of May, the date of meeting of Ministers for Foreign Affairs of the countries of Security Council in New York. The West has reasons to worry that the head of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs Sergey Lavrov and his Chinese colleague Chzhao Sin will bring new conditions of approval of the resolution.
Anyhow, the sides will come to agreement and the resolution will be accepted. Certainly, the opportunity of sanctions or even military operation against Iran will not be stated there in precise and unambiguous manner -- Russia and China cannot so frankly "spit on their principles". But the final text will certainly have the places, open for further interpretations. A classical example of such a compromise is the formulation "serious consequences", which can cover everything.
The Iranian leaders have already declared, that they won't be intimidated by any resolutions and the nuclear program won't be stopped in any case. You may not doubt that they will make a similar statement after acceptance of the document.
George Bush, having waited for this act of Teheran, will make firm and anxious face and, laying on the table resolution of Security Council, will declare  economic sanctions against Iran.
Certainly, it may cause sharp growth of the oil prices, but Americans will suffer some time. Waiting will not last for long: a swaggering answer will immediately come from Teheran, written in the style of "you threaten us, and we are not afraid". This, in general, will be the perfect truth as inhabitants of Iran are traditionally ready to sacrifice everything for the sake of achievement of some superior aim. It's not casual that "battalions of martyrs" are very popular in Iran, tens thousand of people joining them, wishing to go to the best world, having blown up themselves with somebody else. Well, and for the local government sacrifices made by population are a mere trifle.
As a result, Americans will receive affirmation of correctness of their position from "first hands" and will carry more active planning of impact on nuclear objects, due to the economic will not bear for long extremely high oil prices. And presidental term of Georges Bush also comes to end.
As a result, the question with the Iranian nuclear program will be resolved rather quickly. Accorging to opinion of the majority of military experts, the bombardments will last for only some days. Ground intrusion is not planned, this will considerably accelerate and simplify the whole operation.
Indignation of the world community about "a barbarous act" of Bush will be short and not strong. Iran was warned about the danger in advance with the resolution. And the relief of not happened transformation of this country into a nuclear power will obviously be common for all.
by Yakovina Ivan.
What do you think about it? ellol 22:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: IMHO, one point is clear: the last thing Russia would do is participating in any global war conflict. (Due to still too big amount of inner problems.) Its political line might arise from this suggestion: at first trying to prevent the conflict... but if stopping the war gets impossible, yeah, "selling" the right to begin the war also fits the line (i will not explain, why). And the tone of this article towards Iran arises from trying to justify ourselves, due to obvious meanness of this option. --However, all of this is nothing more than my suggestion, based on a sole article. ellol 07:51, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

text: This actually belongs on the Iran and weapons of mass destruction page.  However, yes they could - if that's what they wanted. However, Russia has been trying to negotiate a compromise with the Iranians, unsuccessfully so far.  I haven't read what the Chinese want. Simesa 14:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  chinas veiw( or any countries veiw) 

message: This article was published at http://lenta.ru, one of the best known russian news sites.
The war is for sale (Russian) (bad computer translation). 
Correcting computer translation:
Iran will not refuse of its nuclear ambitions. It was declared repeatedly by its leaders who have total support of the population in this question. The USA, Israel and European Union cannot allow possibility of appearance of technical abilities in Teheran for creation of a nuclear bomb. This position is also absolutely precise and is not a subject to discussion. No compromise is possible in this situation, which is clearly shown by all last statements and acts of the opposing countries. Rigid collision of two totally opposite positions is inevitable.
Washington, which is the main inspirer of idea to punish Iran, utterly needs the corresponding resolution of Secutiry council of the United Nations. It should create at least visibility of international support for inevitable sanctions against Teheran. Washington don't want to do one mistake twice, beginning active actions against other country without approval from the international community.
Now it's an unique opportunity for USA to achieve such approval. Iran does all the possible to cause irritation from even potential defenders of its position. In addition, the majority of countries are really worried about possibility of appearing of nuclear weapons in unpredictable regime..
However while it's no need to convince Europeans of necessity of punishing Iran, USA will have to come to agreement with Russia and China, which pursue their own interests in this whole story.
Moscow needs approval of Washington to join WTO, guarantees of West's not interfering in events on the post-Soviet space and approval of legality of last changes in structure of the property of the Russian power companies.
 
Pekin is rather annoyed with US's reasonings about human rights, their persistent claims of valorizing yuan and position of the White House about Taiwan.
It's most likely, that these are the questions involved in the trading between Russia + China and USA. Moreover, positions of Moscow and Pekin concerning acceptance of the resolution, which "frees hands" of Washington, change with striking frequency. But agreements with texts, which are offered by countries of West, always drift aside. Obviously, the trading doesn't go unsuccessfully.
But it seems that Americans and Europeans got tired to persuade partners of correctness of their position. This explains that their representatives in the United Nations are intended to carry voting about text of the document before the 8th of May, the date of meeting of Ministers for Foreign Affairs of the countries of Security Council in New York. The West has reasons to worry that the head of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs Sergey Lavrov and his Chinese colleague Chzhao Sin will bring new conditions of approval of the resolution.
Anyhow, the sides will come to agreement and the resolution will be accepted. Certainly, the opportunity of sanctions or even military operation against Iran will not be stated there in precise and unambiguous manner -- Russia and China cannot so frankly "spit on their principles". But the final text will certainly have the places, open for further interpretations. A classical example of such a compromise is the formulation "serious consequences", which can cover everything.
The Iranian leaders have already declared, that they won't be intimidated by any resolutions and the nuclear program won't be stopped in any case. You may not doubt that they will make a similar statement after acceptance of the document.
George Bush, having waited for this act of Teheran, will make firm and anxious face and, laying on the table resolution of Security Council, will declare  economic sanctions against Iran.
Certainly, it may cause sharp growth of the oil prices, but Americans will suffer some time. Waiting will not last for long: a swaggering answer will immediately come from Teheran, written in the style of "you threaten us, and we are not afraid". This, in general, will be the perfect truth as inhabitants of Iran are traditionally ready to sacrifice everything for the sake of achievement of some superior aim. It's not casual that "battalions of martyrs" are very popular in Iran, tens thousand of people joining them, wishing to go to the best world, having blown up themselves with somebody else. Well, and for the local government sacrifices made by population are a mere trifle.
As a result, Americans will receive affirmation of correctness of their position from "first hands" and will carry more active planning of impact on nuclear objects, due to the economic will not bear for long extremely high oil prices. And presidental term of Georges Bush also comes to end.
As a result, the question with the Iranian nuclear program will be resolved rather quickly. Accorging to opinion of the majority of military experts, the bombardments will last for only some days. Ground intrusion is not planned, this will considerably accelerate and simplify the whole operation.
Indignation of the world community about "a barbarous act" of Bush will be short and not strong. Iran was warned about the danger in advance with the resolution. And the relief of not happened transformation of this country into a nuclear power will obviously be common for all.
by Yakovina Ivan.
What do you think about it? ellol 22:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: IMHO, one point is clear: the last thing Russia would do is participating in any global war conflict. (Due to still too big amount of inner problems.) Its political line might arise from this suggestion: at first trying to prevent the conflict... but if stopping the war gets impossible, yeah, "selling" the right to begin the war also fits the line (i will not explain, why). And the tone of this article towards Iran arises from trying to justify ourselves, due to obvious meanness of this option. --However, all of this is nothing more than my suggestion, based on a sole article. ellol 07:51, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

text: This actually belongs on the Iran and weapons of mass destruction page.  However, yes they could - if that's what they wanted. However, Russia has been trying to negotiate a compromise with the Iranians, unsuccessfully so far.  I haven't read what the Chinese want. Simesa 14:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Russia, article of May, 4

message: Today I commented the following out of the page:
:Another potentially serious scenario envisaged with the Iranian acquisition of nuclear capabilities is upset of the current balance of power in the Middle East.  Iranian nuclear capabilities could in turn speed up and further develop the programs of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria, etc.
I doubt Iran's acquisition of a nuclear power generation capability would have much effect at all in an energy rich region like the Middle East. At least not until depletion of oil reserves starts to become noticeable. Nuclear weapons technology is another matter, but not one for a page about nuclear power. 
I believe that a brief statement about the dual use nature of nuclear technology is appropriate, but that material concerning Iran and weapons of mass destruction should be moved to the appropriate page. --Dave 07:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This question hasn't been solved yet and won't be either in the near future. If I do understand your concern, you might be aware that some may also consider POV the sole existence of an article named "Iran and WMD". Indeed, Iran hasn't, to date, any such weapons, so why make an article about it? The expression itself of WMD gathers different kinds of weapons, so moving like you did everything there is not so NPOV as you would think it is. Indeed, an article named "Iran and nuclear weapons" would be lot more precise than the current one. The atomic bomb is not the same thing as weapons of mass destruction, a term which, beside, has became a bit too much related to the US-Iraqi war (and therefore of all the propaganda that went with it). Furthermore, you should be aware that there is no clear separation between civilian and military nuclear technologies, as both need enriched uranium, and the current crisis deals with the question of Iran's right to enrich uranium or not. Satyagit 18:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt the issue will be solved within my lifetime regardless of whether Iran is bombed, invaded or occupied. I have private concerns over the issue, of course, but the concerns I raise here are some trivial concerns over what belongs where. I think a article about Nation X and WMD is appropriate even if Nation X does not have, has not had, or never intends to acquire, WMD. For some nations an outline of their campaign against WMD is appropriate. In fact I started an article recently about Australia and weapons of mass destruction with that in mind. Australia once covetted nuclear weapons and has a history of chemical and biological weapons research that is terrible to behold. Such things need to be recorded, despite the fact Australia is now a leading country in the campaign against these weapons. The Iranian WMD story needs to be told, but not in an article about nuclear power. Similarly the US Middle eastern policy needs to be set out, but not in an article on nuclear power in Iran. When you peel away the rhetoric the truth is plain: Iran has just as much right to enrich uranium as Australia, which is not being threatened at all over its SILEX program. Of course when POV is introduced, here as in the UN or the IAEA, things get murky. We end up with articles about nuclear power riddled with political text about nuclear weapons and vice versa. Hopefully the wiki will be easier to sort out than the middle east! --Dave 07:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving the WMD material to the appropriate page 

message: Shouldn't Iranian nuclear crisis be merged here? Satyagit 19:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably, and/or renamed. US-Iran nuclear confrontation seems a a more accurate title for the events. --Dave 23:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

text: At the moment the "crisis" page does not contain anything which this page does not have on it, and its "history" is very incomplete. Frankly I think a simple redirect would suffice, all of the info is already on this page. Personally I think the "facilities" on this page could be potentially split into a separate page (since only a few of them are really important) and ditto with the "timeline", but that's a separate issue. --Fastfission 02:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge [[Iranian nuclear crisis]] here 

message: This morning I reverted a series of edits made by Jrkarp. The edits cut a significant amout of material from The US viewpoint, some of which was properly referenced. Jrkarp claimed the material implied US hypocrisy and was therefore irrelevant to the article. In a NPOV article it is necessary to put both supporting information and opposing information. The information cut certainly opposes the US viewpoint, but it is factual and well referenced. It is neccessary to include such material in a balanced NPOV article. If the US viewpoint is relevant at all, that view must be subject to rigerous criticim. --Dave 00:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reverted edits by Jrkarp

message: I motion to have a few parts of the article, which I deem as unbalanced or improperly presented, to be changed:
1) "Dr. William O. Beeman also points out that....cannot produce weapons-grade plutonium. [22]" should have a minder that the changes in U.S. policy due to the Iranian revolution were policy change, and not shown as plain hypocracy.
2) Due to the presentation of the Brzezinsky speech on March 16, 2006, comparing Iran with North Korea, I wish to add a contending viewpoint why Iran's situation is different from North Korea's.
:I disagree with this. This section is interesting, due to it presents a view of situation by Brezinski. If you find an opposite POV in his speeches, ok to post it. But i think it's wrong to insert POV's of other people in that section. If Brzezinsky had other opinion, he would say other words; may be you hired out as secretary of Brzezinsky? I think the solution may be alike this: to put in the beginning of the section a note like this:
:Note that this section doesn't present NPOV, but is intended to show viewpoint of a politician Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski.
:This would make it more just than it's now. ellol 18:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Page change motion

message: This article certainly does make it sound like only the U.S. is opposing Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions.  However, in  the U.S., Germany, Britain, France, Russia and China are said to be "Although the negotiators are categorically against Iran's developing nuclear weapons, they remain divided over what the next steps should be."  Somehow this article should be reflecting these other nations' views more clearly. Simesa 19:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that the situation is extremely complicated. Most nations that overtly oppose Iran's nuclear program do so to curry favour with the USA. France, Russia and China in particular have sold Iran nuclear technology in the past and hope to do so again in the future. Britain and the USA are the only two countries with an  oil bourse, currently trading in US dollars, and Iran is trying to open a rival bourse trading in euro. The whole issue is only peripherally about nuclear weapons, what it is really about is power and money. Political power in the middle east, economic control of oil reserves, and support for the current situation of the US dollar as the world's currency standard. The position of each country is dependant on their stance on these major issues, but putting that into a properly referenced article is a very difficult task. I guess thats why no-one has done it yet. --Dave 22:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you think so?!ellol 03:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Bizarre.  Do you really believe that either France, Germany, Russia or China are America's puppets?  Or that an oil bourse is a reason to go to war over?  The issue seems to be pretty clearly over the likelihood of the mad mullahs of Iran using those nuclear weapons against anyone they dislike. Simesa 05:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Simesa, that's a fairly simplistic interpretation of the situation.  All six powers have their own agenda on the issue; in general, they're not terribly impressed with nuclear proliferation, but there's a whole lot of other issues that may or may not be influencing what they'd be prepared to do about the issue.  If you want to get Machiavellian...Russia, for instance, is a big oil and gas exporter.  So the present tensions are making them a great deal of money... --Robert Merkel 06:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Big Six Meeting of May 2, 2006 

message: Just done a big clean up of this section, which was pretty shocking, frankly. Loads of unattributed stuff, bad english, POV, and the summary of 7 points had stuff which wasn't even mentioned in the section, along with spurious references to Hizbollah. Also, writing about countries as if they were people reads poorly  and is unrepresentative and non-encyclopedic. Avoid weasel words and use citations please.Felix-felix 07:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Stance towards Israel

message: If we're going to move all discussion of Iran's suspected attempts to develop nuclear weapons into the latter article, several sections will have to be moved.  Pending discussion, I'll do that tomorrow. Simesa 01:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Nuclear program of Iran]] vs. [[Iran and weapons of mass destruction]] 

message: Should this article be updated to reflect the recent package of incentives proposed by the E.U./U.S. and Condi Rice's declaration that the U.S. acknowledges Iran's right to peaceful nuclear power?  I would have thought these developments would be pretty important to this article, but I wasn't sure how to work them into the article's current structure.  --Nomenclaturist 01:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incentives? 

message: I was going to shore up the following paragraph when I realized that I couldn't find the documents mentioned on the site given:
:A number of declassified documents were found on the website of the President Ford Library and MuseumFord library museum Two documents in particular, dated April 22, 1975 and April 20, 1976, show that the United States and Iran held negotiations for cooperation in the use of nuclear energy and the United States was willing to help Iran by setting up uranium enrichment and fuel reprocessing facilities.Ford Administration National Security Study Memoranda
The only April 22, 1975 document that I found was this one which has nothing about Iran in it. There is no April 20, 1976 document. 
I found this document (March 14, 1975) which discusses Iranian atomic energy plans but does not say that the US would set up enrichment or reprocessing facilities (it is a request for a study about the possibility of the US selling Iran a reactor or Iran being able to use US enrichment facilities). I couldn't find any other documents relating to Iran and nuclear things. I've remove the above text from the article for now until it is substantiated. --Fastfission 22:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The documents do indeed exist. They are National Security Decision Memorandum 292 dated 22 April 1975 and National Security Decision Memorandum 324 dated 20 April 1976. According to 292, "the U.S. shall: Permit U.S. material to be fabricated into fuel in Iran for use in its own reactors." 324 states "The U.S. side should: Seek a strong political commitment from Iran to pursue the multinational/binational reprocessing plant concept." These documents clearly substantiate the text removed from the article. Cpeter 10:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ford library documents

message: Here are the names and positions of some of the highest ranking Iranian scientists in charge of Iran's secret nuclear program in the Persian Wiki fa:مدیران پروژه اتمی ایران, (that was not known before) so if someone knws Persian I thought is very interesting to make an article about it. --Kaaveh 06:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Names of Directors of Iran's Nuclear Program 

message: I just heard Alan Dershowitz on OUradio.com say that Iran was putting some of its nuclear activities beneath hospitals so they wouldn't be bombed.  If true, this would be huge.
Is their any corroborating evidence for this at all?
NickDupree 12:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What Alan Dershowitz said on Iranian nuclear program 

message: Please divide the double references into a, b, c, d, ... etc.100110100 23:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: I’ve been told by Wikipedia administrators that I shouldn’t make external links on Wikipedia articles that are also debates on a wiki site I founded: www.debatus.com. This makes sense. I have been told, though, that I can see on the discussion pages if Wikipedia users other than myself would consider making such external links. There are a number of debates on Debatus about Iran, one of particular relevance is "Does Iran have the "right" to enrich Uranium for the production of nuclear energy?" If anyone is willing, consider assessing the value of the debate and making it an external link in this article. I think that doing so would fit the criteria of improving this article because Wikipedia does not seek to cover the entire scope of the arguments made on controversial issues, and traditional mediums that are provided as external links do not present all of the arguments of the debate in a kind of concise bird’s-eye way. In addition, Debatus, being a wiki, follows the same philosophy as Wikipedia and produces equally as refined debate content, which should be considered. Loudsirens 05:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Debatus.com Iran debate link 

message: I suggest moving the timeline to a separate article. Khodavand 09:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Timeline

message: کس نخارد پشت من جز ناخن انگشت من
This is an old Iranian saying and it means “You should not rely on anyone but yourself”.  Kiumars
:Is that essentially the same as the Arab one that goes, "I against my brothers, I and my brothers against my cousins, I and my cousins against the world."?  You have to understand that that seems an odd concept to societies that have prospered based largely on teamwork.  Simesa 21:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that expression is about teamwork.Felix-felix 00:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, according to Bedouin, the Arab quote (common to several countries) apparently refers to a mindset that the tribe is the largest unit of teamwork (this is echoed in the book The Arab Mind - however, the book says the quote also resembles the intent of the Iranian saying).  Simesa 04:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: کس نخارد پشت من جز ناخن انگشت من  

message: Please be careful of taking text directly from copyrighted material without placing quotes around it.  I found two paragraphs had been taken almost word-for-word from the Washoington Post.  You can rewrite the material so as to be non-offending.  See WP:copyvio. Simesa 05:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyvio 

message: Changed sentence to more accurately reflect reason for sanctions being sought.No breach of the NPT has ever been shown.Felix-felix 10:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sanctions and non-compliance

message: Ardeshire Hassanpour, a prize winning Iranian nuclear scientist has been assassinated last week by Israel's Mossad according to Stratfor.  See:
* http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2583167,00.html (UK newspaper)
* http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3360556,00.html (Israeli newspaper)
* http://www.stratfor.com/products/premium/read_article.php?id=283793&selected=Analyses (Stratfor)
* http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,250196,00.html (Fox News)
* http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1170359776805&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull (Another Israeli newspaper)
* http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=8511150571 (Iranian denial)
--64.230.125.182 17:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mossad assassination of Iranian nuclear scientist 

message: You keep deleting references to the fact that the EU-3 violated the terms of the Paris Agrement by submitting a proposal to Iran on Aug 5th that analysts called an "empty box" since it would only "consider" providing incentives to Iran, and the security guarantees it contained were only from the European states, and which still required that Iran permanently give up nuclear enrichment technology - despite the explicit terms of the Paris agreement that required the EU to recognize Iran's rights. Also, note that the EU3 dragged its feet in submitting even that proposal, trying to drag out Iran's "temporary" suspension.
See: 
http://www.basicint.org/pubs/Notes/BN050811-IranEU.htm  (EU offer was an "empty box")
http://www.spinwatch.org/content/view/209/8/  (who really "breached" the Paris agreement)
http://www.acronym.org.uk/docs/0508/doc03.htm  (Iran's detailed response to the EU-3 offer)
AND, Iran's decision to resume enrichment had no relationship whatsoever to Ahmadinejad's election, as you imply. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.26.54.10 (talk) 17:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you are right, but the sources you cite are not credible.  Spinwatch is an opinion cite, and basicint.org website states that it is committed to a particular point of view.  Try to find better analysis.  As to the election, it is to be expected that a new government would change policy.  If you think it's not the case, please provide sources. CDaMama 18:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the reply.  The fact that the websites cite the text of the agreement does not make them credible.  Please do try to find better sources.  However, I defer to your assessment of the situation, since you're probably more knowledgeable about Iran than I do.CDaMama 05:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who "breached" the Paris Agreement?