IIAEA Report on Iran’s Nuclear Program – NYTimes.com

The IAEA appears ready to increase Western concerns over Iran:

An imminent report by United Nations weapons inspectors includes the strongest evidence yet that Iran has worked in recent years on a kind of sophisticated explosives technology that is primarily used to trigger a nuclear weapon, according to Western officials who have been briefed on the intelligence.

via U.S. Hangs Back as Inspectors Prepare Report on Iran’s Nuclear Program – NYTimes.com.

Advertisements
Tagged

7 thoughts on “IIAEA Report on Iran’s Nuclear Program – NYTimes.com

  1. lrav says:

    It has been said the Iran has been using nuclear energy as a coverup for nuclear weapons building. And that might be a possibility. Iran has limited who can come in and inspect what they have been doing and because of this limitation it is difficult to really see what is happening here. I think it is very interesting that the US is hanging back in this scenario, after seeing what happened in a similar circumstance with the Bush administration. I wonder if this “hanging back” will play in the favor of the Obama administration or if it will just leave them out of the loop. After reading this article, I can’t help but wonder what Iran is working on over there?

  2. claracompare says:

    Although the mysterious-ness of Iran’s nuclear program has been discussed a lot in the past, it is an interesting topic to readdress, especially with last weeks discussion of transparency. The world is concerned about what Iran might actually be doing with their nuclear testings, are they really developing a source of nuclear energy or are they building bombs? Iran being a nuclear state poses a substantial amount of threat to its neighbors, it is obvious why everyone is so concerned with this issue. This situations is a good example of why government transparency is so important. But understanding its importance doesn’t answer the question of what the world can do to solve this issue. Looking at the example of the United States under the Bush administration, we know that intervention does not always gain the desired results. I think it will be to the advantage of the Obama administration to not just into the middle of this situation. Sure, there is a chance that they could end up “out of the loop”. But, I think at the present time, our government finds itself in the middle of a lot of international situations, especially with the inflamed Israel-Palestine conflict, and we can’t stretch ourselves too thin.
    Here’s an article talking about how Iran is giving the United States a lot of pressure not to get involved: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/17/world/middleeast/iran-warns-america-against-trying-to-pressure-it.html?scp=1&sq=Iran%20and%20U.S.&st=cse

  3. In this article, Iran keeps using the viewpoint that it will not let the “bullies” of the world tell them what to do, but it will keep pursuing its own interest. I feel that they are completely flawed in this statement, because in all reality they are the aggressors with the threat of disturbing international peace and causing trouble. Iran’s President loves to feel like he is the victim in the situation and that he is being wronged to justify his wrong doings.

    Furthermore, I have discovered that many people believe that we should give Iran some space and let them act to their own free will. I disagree, and I think that we need to impose tighter sanctions in order to protect and limit the potential of a nuclear strike from Iran. They are too dangerous of an enemy to be left alone to their own free will. This would be a matter of self-preservation for the American people, because we are one of Iran’s top enemies. Also, this would action would protect many other smaller countries in the Middle East, like Israel, that do not get along with Iran. We could further institute sanctions that limit Iran’s energy program funding and nuclear production so that they will not be able to continue to produce these “mystery weapons” that they have recently been producing.

    I am also of the opinioin that the IIAEA is doing a good job and needs to continue to keep Iran in check and keep sending inspectors into Iran. This article further discusses Iran’s plans for a new nuclear weapon.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/08/us-nuclear-iran-iaea-idUSTRE7A75N420111108

  4. jharvey says:

    The Obama administration’s decision to allow the IAEA to lead out in the public inspection and reporting on Iran’s nuclear activity is both tactful and wise. As the article mentioned, Secretary Powell and the rest of the Bush administration embarrassed the U.S. internationally with the fiasco in Iraq and the veritable lack of WMD’s there. Allowing the UN to be the point-man for this project protects the Obama administration from falling into the same 2003 blunder. So, if and when action needs to be taken against Iran, there will be international support and impartial justification for that action. Learning from past mistakes is the only way to safeguard the nation’s interests, both at home and abroad.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSN-Kku_rFE

  5. bronsonc says:

    I sat here for a while trying to think of an arguement I could make opposing what those above me wrote, just to spur good debate and be the devil’s advocate. I couldn’t come to any such conclusion, and I entirely agree with those above me. As a freshman in debate I learned about Iran’s nuclear capabilities and its leader, Ahmadinejad. I became almost instantaneously desensatized to the thought of Iran proliferating. As a sweet little 14 year old I began to debate each weekend on the premise that Iran’s nuclear proliferation would cause nuclear war and armageddon. Silly, I know, but this was my thought process. Fast forward a few years, and a bit more insight into world politics, and as a senior I found myself debating the same things. Iran has been a hot bed for political upheveal since, heaven knows when. The more I come to learn about Iran, the more intrigued I become. As Iran continues to deny their nuclear capabilities, and the issue is exacerbated with time, the more I begin to see my freshman “impact analysis” played out. Iran is dangerous. America’s idealistic attempts to survey and stop Iran’s nuclear power, has yet to come to fruition. My thoughts are that we have to take multilateral action immediatly. To put it simply, Iran keeps me up at nights.

    Good article released on the issue, today.

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/story/2011-11-08/Iran-nuclear-weapons-treaty/51125744/1?csp=34news

  6. bmatthias says:

    @jharvey is spot on, in my humble opinion. The Obama administration is correct in sitting back on this one and not coming out with an aggressive response. We have made that mistake in recent history and we all know how that turned out for us. The IIEA is a competent organization and the fact that they are coming out with this announcement only reaffirms the US policy and opinion on Iran. We are correctly sitting and waiting, as the article states, to see how the rest of the world responds to this finding. Most of the world already believes that Iran consistently behaves erratically and irresponsibly, and this is only going to confirm prior beliefs. This announcement is also comes as no surprise. I read a book called “Spying on the Bomb,” by Jeffrey T. Richelson that walks us through US nuclear history, and the world’s development of nuclear arms. Richelson goes through each country that has developed a nuclear program or has been suspected of having a nuclear program and explain the intel gathered about each and every process leading up to nuclear arms. The news that has been released about Iran over the past couple years points to every indication that they have been well on their way for years. It’s an interesting read for anyone interested in US intel and nuclear arms. I highly recommend it. It gives us a more unbiased and factual basis for the development of nuclear arms. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/26/books/review/26holloway.html

  7. nbdriggs says:

    Obama faces a tough choice here. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/nov/08/iran-attack-barack-obama-presidency. The United States is so war weary that military action against Iran would be political suicide. Nobody wants another Iraq to happen. But I don’t know if I can buy the argument that military action against Iran will be just like Iraq or Afghanistan. Yes, Saddam Hussein was scary and hated Israel, but he wasn’t like Ahmadinejad who calls for a Jewish genocide. Iran is bad news: the concept of mutually-assured destruction may not be deter their radicalism.

    The United States should avoid the unilateralism of the Bush administration, but it should definitely increase its lobbying efforts in the U.N. to take Libya-like military action against Iran.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: