Russian logic: someone's going to get the money and it might as well be us.

__________________
You can't always be first .... but you CAN be NEXT

It is a funny thing, this criticism of Iran for not listening to the international community. I would be surprised by the leader (or public face) of a nation that did NOT want energy sovereignty these days. A deal whereby you get your power from another nation seems foolish when you can create your own power legally - even if the West's rhetoric gets annoying. The main problem for the West is that Iran has a solid right to create and use nuclear power. The other problem is the nobody has a right to say otherwise (with any sort of legal potency).

__________________
Freedom is free - oppression costs money.

The problem with Iran is one of credibility. Besides being a terrorist state and dictatorship they are oil rich. They could much more easily invest in refinery technology to refine their own oil and become energy independent. So there is no need to develop nuclear power, especially when doing so is so much more difficult for a country with the extremely limited scientific capital a backwards, 10th century, islamofascist state typically has....

You are mistaken. I do not criticise Iran for not listening to the international community. I criticise the international community for being a paper tiger.

Y'all need to shit or get off the pot. Is there an international community or not? And if so, is not that international community responsible for protecting its members against irresponsible behavior? If it is not, or cannot, then we can just sit back and wait for you to eat your words when Iran starts making demands at the tip of a nuclear sword.

Not much consolation, that.

__________________
You can't always be first .... but you CAN be NEXT

Well, the thing about that is saying they have 'no need' is irrelevant. It is up to them if they want to create nuclear power. One could argue many nations have no need to do things they do - but we have no right to stop them.

And there are few dictatorships being so targeted as iran - also, 'terrorist' state is a tough sell, when you consider they aren't invading or attacking anyone, and selling arms to other groups involved in armed struggle is common practice by Western standards...

__________________
Freedom is free - oppression costs money.

I wasn't referring to you (or anyone in particular) about criticizing - but as for the international community, the UN needs to be democratic if it is to be relevant, having 5 nations with all the power is ridiculous. As for making demands at the tip of a nuclear sword, Iran would be one of quite a few nations with nukes who act aggressively - and would also be by far the weakest in terms of nuclear capability and technology (IMHO).

Really though, if your nation was constantly threatened by other nuclear armed nations - you'd be a fool not to try and level the playing field.

__________________
Freedom is free - oppression costs money.

I don't question Iran's motives. They're patently obvious.

I question the motives of those who put blinders on and purposefully refuse to accept that the obvious -- Iran's motives -- exist simply to toss more partisan rhetoric and/or accusations around.

I question an intenational community that has no common goal, and cannot accomplish even the most simple of tasks for the bureaucracy. They won't be finished debating in the US until they're interrupted and forced to look up the TV where President Alphabet or Kohmeini will be announcing they have nuclear armed ICBMs.

The fact that "others" posess nukes, IMO is irrelevant. An Islamic regime that supports Islamic terrorist organizations that are willing to use suicide as a means to bend an enemy to its will is the FAR more dangerous regime to posess them.

__________________
You can't always be first .... but you CAN be NEXT

Iran will NEVER be allowed to have nuclear weapons as they are a proven international sponsorship of global terrorism and are an irresponsible state (calling for the wanton destruction of another state is only one example). Just like Syria last year, Iraq back in 1981, North Korea, if we or any other reputable intelligence agency has verifiable evidence of a nuclear weapon production site, it WILL be taken out, period.

And yes, the international community has every right to tell a non-compliant state how to behave and impose sanctions if it doesn't, or, in the extreme, take military action to remove the leadership.

One sees this all the time. Point to the verifiable evidence that the US, Russia, France, UK, China, India, Pakistan, or North Korea had nuclear weapons production sites before they actually exploded test devices. Of course there was no verifiable evidence. And unless the Iranians are complete idiots, which they are not, there will be no verifiable evidence from them either. If Iran is to be prevented from obtaining nuclear weapons, their facilities will have to be taken out on the probability that they are nuclear weapons production sites. Big difference from "verifiable evidence."

Russia, China, France and the UK are irrelevant. They all obtained nuclear weapons long before there was technological means to detect or verify anything. All we had back then was HUMINT. In the case of the UK and France, we gave it to them to counter the Russians. Now in the case of India and Pakistan, the problem there was we never really suspected they were even trying very hard so we weren't even looking.

However in Iraq in 1980 and Syria last year, we were sure and the evidence was verifiable and the Israelis did the dirty work. We will be able to tell if Iran is getting too close for comfort and at that time we will use the military option if we have to. So far in N Korea, we've been able to thwart them by simply cutting them off of basic food aid and other necessities over the years.

I have seen suppositions in the press that Syrian installations were nuclear in nature. But I have never seen proof that they were nuclear weapons facilities. Do you have a link to that? Even if it was just an educated guess that the Syrian installations were nuclear weapons facilities, I support their elimination. But none of what you have said negates the point that there never has been, or will there ever will be, verifiable evidence (and by this word I mean proof) of nuclear weapons production facilities unless the those involved are colossal idiots. When the orders are given to take out Iran's nuclear weapons production facilities it will be based on probability and not proof. To refer to verifiable evidence, i.e., proof, being necessary only plays into the hands of those who do not want to take out such facilities under any circumstances; especially those who would like to delay action until Iranian nuclear weapons are fait accompli.

Well looks like the Kremlin is playing the Cold War card here. Moscow is clearly upbeat about building Iran's nuclear power plants. Russia is no longer a diminishing military power(Was it ever?). The Russian defence budget is becoming 'fatter'.New generation of warheads , new SLBM's , subs etc.
Looks like Russia is trying to bring Iran into its sphere of influence. Russia superbly pulled of a diplomatic coup by offering Iran uranium supplies and civilian nuclear technology(God knows what this 'civilian' techonology will become under the Mullahs!)

In short the Russian Bear is indirectly threatening Washington. If you guys are in Iraq we are in Iran.Status quo.

__________________
"You know the world is going crazy when the best rapper is a white guy, the best golfer is a black guy,the tallest guy in the NBA is Chinese, the Swiss hold the America's Cup, France is accusing the U.S. of arrogance, Germany doesn't want to go to war, and the three most powerful men in America are named Bush, Dick, and Colon.
--Comedian Chris Rock

We have all the means necessarily to determine the purpose of most facilities and no, we DO NOT allow those means into the media as they would compromise techniques and capabilities. Bottom line, if we say so, that's all the proof anyone on the planet needs.

That's utter nonsense. The Russian military is a basket-case. It's equipment is dilapidated, it's troops are very poorly trained, their living facilities are deplorable by western standards. Quite frankly, the Russians were never anywhere nearly as capable, even in the height of the Cold War, as the public was lead to believe. Their only valid card is they still have a sizable number of functioning nukes.

Wait a minute. You said this: "However in Iraq in 1980 and Syria last year, we were sure and the evidence was verifiable and the Israelis did the dirty work." But you have never seen such evidence. So how do you know it was proof, that it was verifiable? This is an important point whether you want to admit it or not. If we are going to get other nations to act against Iran with us, in the face of what is sure to be opposition from the Russians and Chinese, then we are going to have to be prepared to act on probability, not proof. Above, you blithely dismissed my examples of nuclear weapons programs that were never proven until test devices were exploded. But that is precisely the point. Do you not get that? There has never been, nor will there ever be, definitive proof of nuke weapons programs until devices explode. So stop talking about verifiable evidence (proof) as though it actually exists. And start addressing reality. We will be forced to make a case based on the probability "X" that such a program exists. And based on that approach we will get next to zero in terms of cooperation from the UNSC if we request sanction for an attack. If Iran's nuke facilities are taken out, it will be with yet another coalition of the willing and with no help from the UN, where countries will hide behind the fact that there is no proof, as though there ever could be.