Dear Steven,

Let me answer your question in this way.
As a librarian, I've been trained to look
at more than one source. And the evidence
is not quite as overwhelming as you seem
to believe. According to one website that
I read:

http://news.antiwar.com/2010/04/22/pentagon-claims-iran-continues-nuclear-weapons-program/

According to this website the Pentagon claims have no evidence
attached and they're guilty of "sensationalism."

The website tells us that:

"Iran's been working to expand their civilian nuclear
program for quite some time and it is this program which
is being cited excluisvely in the claims about Iran's
non-existent "nuclear weapons," ambitions. Yet the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) continues to
verify the non-diversion of nuclear materials from this
program, and none of this uranium is bein enriched beyond
20%, with most only being enriched to 3.5%.
Nuclear weapons, to compare, would require 90+% enriched
uranium..."

"This report also speculates about Iran trying to develop
long range missiles that could hit the US, something
Iranian officials insist they aren't even considering.

Currently the best Iranian missiles have a range limited to
the MIddle East and a tiny portion of SE Europe, and the
ability to literally cross half the planet to hit the
continental US would be an enormous undertaking...
Even the Pentagon concludes that Iran would not lunch
a pre-emptive attack for fear of retaliation.

It therefore does seem ridiculous to imagine that Iran
would commit so much of their limited resources to such
a long-range offensive weapon..."

Read the website. It just may give you a different
perspective on things.

Foxy wrote:

"From my understanding, Iran is developing
nuclear power plants not weponry,..."

Trying to figure out what states do always involves a degree of speculation. Usually you cannot prove something is true beyond all reasonable doubt. Usually you need to do certain amount of connecting the dots.

Now, given the NATURE OF THE IRANIAN REGIME and the following facts:

--They continue to devote huge resources to developing the capability to enrich uranium to weapons grade.

--They are known to have enriched uranium beyond the point that is needed for electricity generation though not up to weapons grade

--They are developing missiles which are capable of delivering nuclear warheads – though not as yet to the US

--The ability of the IAEA to monitor their activities is doubtful which makes their "non diversion" statement of little value. And, of course, they may not have diverted any uranium YET.

It is thus beyond doubt that they continue to devote huge resources to developing the CAPABILITY TO DEPLOY NUKES.

Have they actually taken the decision to assemble nukes yet?

I don’t know. There is no way anyone can know. But given the capabilities they are developing we have to act AS IF they were going to take that final step.

But here is my question to you Foxy. It is one you need to think about carefully.

If it were Stalin saying "What, me develop nukes? All I want is nuclear power to benefit the proletariat." you would dismiss his protestations of innocence with CONTEMPT. You would say we have to treat a Stalinist regime in Iran's position as if it were about to acquire nukes.

But you are prepared to give the Murderous Mullah Mafia (MMM) that runs Iran the BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT.

I find that interesting to say the least. I wonder why you are prepared to give MMM the benefit of the doubt.

The question of what we do about it is another matter. As I said, I think the MMM can be deterred just as were Stalin and his successors

Congress has just voted 400 to 11 to bring harsh sanctions on Iran.All this will do is increase tensions and pave the way for a serious conflict.Israel is pushing for this via their powerful lobbly group AIPAC.In my view they virtually control Congress.

Iraq was a lie and so is the threat of Iran.It is all about the oil.

Dear Steven,

It is the International Atomic Energy Agency
that as I cited in my earlier post, continues
to verify the non-diversion of nuclear materials
from Iran's program... And as the agency quite
clearly stated none of the uranium is being
enriched beyond 20%, with most only being enriched
to 3.5%. Nuclear weapons, to compare, would require
90+ percent enriched uranium...

I'm somewhat perplexed why you insist on connecting
the wrong dots. Iran has no water, wind, they're looking
for alternative means to generate power - give them a chance
to prove themselves. As Richard Dawkins tells us in
"The God Delusion, " there is a dark side to absolutism.
The Christians who blow up abortion clinics, the Taliban of
Afghanistan, whose list of cruelties, especially to women,
is far too long to mention here. Iran under the ayatollahs,
or Saudi Arabia under the Saud princes, or the American
"rapture" Christians whose powerful influence on American
Middle-Eastern policy is governed by their biblical belief
that Israel has a God-given right to all the lands of Palestine.
Some rapture Christians go further and actually yearn
for nuclear war because they interpret it as "Armageddon'
which, according to their bizarre but disturbingly popular
interpretation of the book of Revelation, will hasten the
Second coming..."

Blaming Iran for it's religion - you may as well look at
the bigger picture - and blame all the various religious
examples that Dawkins cites. You quote Stalin - how
about Tony Blair and George W. Bush? What about the
problems in Africa and South America? You're tending
to focus on Muslims that hypothetically appear to be a threat,
to Israel. The threat to Israel will come from within
by their own doing. Already world governments are questioning
Israel's actions.

I shan't be responding to anything further on this topic.
No matter how provocative you will be. As I don't see
anything constructive coming out of this discussion.
Your mind is made up - so there's nothing more to be
said.

Arjay,

"Under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty,is Israel allowed to have 200 nuclear weapons?"

Firstly: while Iran was signatory to the treaty Israel was not.

Secondly, while it is widely believed that Israel has nukes, as they were not subject to the inspection regimes, the number or nukes, (or even if they have any) is largely conjecture.

Finally, if Israel has 200 nukes, this simply raises the risk that Israel will deploy them. Israel could never have got away with using nukes against non Nuke countries unless facing military obliteration, now the first strike to destroy Iran's nukes (using nukes) is a likely and quasi legitimate scenario. Given that Iran continually threatens to obliterate Israel.

A few facts:

Iran has signed the non-proliferation treaty and has no nuclear weapons.

Israel has not signed the non-proliferation treaty and does have nuclear weapons.

Iran threatens to attack.

Israel does it, repeatedly with impunity.

Very strange.