Iran has every right to refine fuel for nuclear power generation.

Iran signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) on [link|http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/npt/text/npt3.htm|July 1, 1968]. AFAIK, even with the recent controversy, they still are a party to the Treaty.

The NPT [link|http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/npt/text/npt2.htm|says]:

Article III

1. Each non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes to accept safeguards, as set forth in an agreement to be negotiated and concluded with the International Atomic Energy Agency in accordance with the Statute of the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Agencys safeguards system, for the exclusive purpose of verification of the fulfillment of its obligations assumed under this Treaty with a view to preventing diversion of nuclear energy from peaceful uses to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices. Procedures for the safeguards required by this article shall be followed with respect to source or special fissionable material whether it is being produced, processed or used in any principal nuclear facility or is outside any such facility. The safeguards required by this article shall be applied to all source or special fissionable material in all peaceful nuclear activities within the territory of such State, under its jurisdiction, or carried out under its control anywhere.

[...]

Though there is some [link|http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2003_12/CirincioneandWolfsthal.asp|problems in the language of the NPT], the clear reading of the text is they only have rights under Article IV if they comply with the rest of the treaty - including Article III.

Iran was getting unmonitored equipment and technology from [link|http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4583793.stm|Pakistan ] and maybe North Korea. They had a clandestine research program. They weren't living up to the treay obligations.

I heard someone on a news show (maybe on the BBC) say that it only makes sense for a country to have its own uranium reprocessing facilities if it has more than 40 reactors. The facilities are expensive to run, and it makes much more sense to buy/lease uranium for power reactors from other countries. Iran is building a reprocessing plant before it has [link|http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/bushehr.htm|one operational power reactor]. That certainly gives an indication that the reprocessing is not for power generation purposes.

It's clear to me that Iran wants the bomb, despite their protests to the contrary. Iran has been flouting the NPT and they should be called to account for it.

Cheers,
Scott.

1) Agree with Iran that they can do whatever they want. Let them become a uranium exporter under whatever terms they want. Let them build reprocessing plant and bombs if they want.

In short, do nothing because it's 'too dangerous' and, after all, 'nobody trusts Bush anyway' (as some have said).

2) Work through the IAEA and the UN to try to ensure that Iran follows its obligations under the NPT. If it's determined that they haven't, then refer it to the UNSC. If a consensus is reached that Iran must be called to account, then impose sanctions.

This is the "called to account" that I was referring to (at this point). This is where we are now, but the IAEA seems to be strongly divided so it's not clear that they will take any action. And if it reaches the UNSC via a divided vote rather than a unanimous recommendation, it's not terribly likely that they'll impose sanctions. It's not clear whether the East/South and West can come to an agreement on what to do about Iran soon.

This could default to #1 if a consensus for action to have Iran honor its commitments can [edit:]not[/edit] be reached.

3) Give Iran a short deadline to accept full, unconditional inspections and a total cessation of nuclear reprocessing activities. If they don't comply, prepare for military action.

This would be extremely difficult unless the military action was restricted to air strikes. Action like this, reminiscent of Israel's attack on Iraq's reactor, might solve the immediate problem, but the Iranians apparently have buried a lot of their nuclear facilities so it would not be easy.

Many believe this is Bush's preferred alternative. I don't, but it's hard to tell whether it will happen if things don't improve. It's clear that some do prefer this approach though.

4) Invasion of Iran to remove the mullah's from power and to end Iran's nuclear programs.

I don't think anyone is seriously contemplating this, except for a few people at the Pentagon and military think tanks and universities whose job it is to do warfighting scenarios.

I read you as advocating #1 because we have no moral standing to tell Iran what to do. I think that is a dangerous position given Iran's governmental support for foreign organizations that preach and commit violence.

Iran has no legitimate need for uranium reprocessing facilities at this time. They've demonstrated that they will skirt safeguards so even a civilian power program is a hard sell with me unless they have a change of heart. So far, they haven't.

Yes, the rules are different for the bomb-holding powers that drew up the NPT and offered nuclear power to others under nonproliferation conditions. Them's the breaks. Life's like that sometimes.

My $0.02.

Cheers,
Scott.

Yes, I'm aware that under the NPT and various other treaties we're under obligations to eliminate our nuclear weapons. The preamble to the [link|http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/npt/text/npt2.htm|NPT] says:

Declaring their intention to achieve at the earliest possible date the cessation of the nuclear arms race and to undertake effective measures in the direction of nuclear disarmament,

While it's a noble goal, the text there is a bit nebulous as to what needs to be done and when.

Iran has drawn the rational conclusion that a known bully and coward will be most reluctant to assault a nation with the means to make an attack very, very costly.

There's no doubt that that's part of their calculus. And there is a logic to it if one doesn't want to work with the existing world order. (They'd advance a lot further a lot faster if they cooperated with the West more, IMO.) However, remember that North Korea and Pakistan and Iran started their nuclear activity long before GWB was in office. Iran's apparently had a covert nuclear program [link|http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2003_11/Shaffer.asp|since the early 1970's] - one that continued after the Shah's demise.

[Begin tongue-in-cheek:]

Given that, we yet again see that it's all Jimmy Carter's fault.

[image|/forums/images/warning.png|0|This is sarcasm...]


Cheers,
Scott.