If Iran is only seeking nuke power, why did they reject the EU's offer which included a power reactor?
595842
AA my good friend, I think we may AGREE on this one. Iran's primary motivation is to construct nuclear weapons, nuclear power would be a secondary benefit and of course like any good sociopath, Iran is playing the "energy end up" while minimizing (to the outside world) the thought of developing nuclear weapons.
632449
If it is peaceful nuclear energy then there would be no argument; but no body believes that it is purely for power needs.  this is also borne out by the fact they have never agreed to a system whereupon Russia would process the uranium and then deliver it to Iran for use in a nuclear reactor.  This would give them there power without the possibility of making a bomb, the have not accepted this as a alternative. They also refuse the inspections needed by the UN to confirm that it is only for power generation. So with both of these things in mind then it does not seem that they do want it just for peacefully power production.\n\nAs for India and Pakistan - go back a few years and you will find that the world community was not to happy with them either!  But neither government has a large tract record in sponsoring terrorism.
1159578
I think Iran will shamelessly gouge the West for all the money and concessions it can get.  But in the end, Iran will probably accept the offer.  They have nothing to lose.  They can always resume their research in the future.\n\nIran may say developing nuclear capability is a part of national pride and political independence, but from our perspective, it is just blackmail.  \n\nI sincerely believe that most international relations are based on faulty images of the other side.  Iran should know the West cannot accept weapons of devastating destruction in the hands of a volatile religious theocracy.  However, Iran probably doesn't see itself that way.\n\nOn the flip side, the West probably doesn't appreciate the level of national pride they pin on achieving nuclear power.  For Iran, it is a matter of national honor and a symbol that they are a world power.\n\nHowever, someone has to level with Iran:  they are not a stable enough country to handle nukes.
118975
The biggest 'good news' thing is that Russia said they'd build some Nuclear Reactors and pipe the power to Iran so that it couldn't build bombs but still have the energy. (which is what Iran says it's concerned with.)\n\nIran initially refused but now is saying it'll 'consider' the option.
125188
It's delicate. My guess is that Iran will take Russia's offer for enrichment at least for now. I'm quite sure their research will go on, which means sooner or later someone's gonna call their bluff and then it won't matter whether they've been onest about the purpose of their program.\nThe sad thing is Iran still has the NPT and international law on it's side since none of the accusers managed to prove its program is -not- entirely civilian. \nWar right now would be damn inconvenient for US since to most neutral countries it will appear and incessant bullying and some might rally behind Iran, Syria and Venezuela.\nUS can't exploit Iraq oil just yet. Of course US companies will be preffered for drilling and/or refining Iraq oil but they have to wait for the situation in Iraq and give the appearance of elections.
1062670
Minimal. Iran think about possibly looking to get a nuclear power station and threats are made. N korea displays that it has intercontinental capabilities and US says they want to negotiate.\n\nN korea would never use a nuclear weapon. Their weapon just gives them a chip to bargain at the big boys table
644008
In my view,Iran is as entitled to develop a nuclear program just as much as anybody else,regardless of whether it's for energy or military use.Iran has a hostile neighbour that is bristling with nuclear weapons,so who can blame them if they're trying to develop an effective defence system.Israel is a country which is founded and run according to religious fundamentalism and in my view they are the most likely to be the protagonists for the next nuclear war but nobody is prepared to try to disarm them or halt any nuclear research and development.I am from the czech Republic by the way.
355622
Because bothe US and Israel are run by and conrolled by the same people, and they think its ok for them to have all the power and Nuclear weapons .. while any other country is not allowed to have such power even if it's to defend itself.\neven if Iran isn't planning to use its nukes that won't stop the US from disarming it and everyone else! Double standards and hypocrisy and whatever lame excuses they can come up with to justify WAR with anyone who opposes them!!
132477
Interesting question.  \n\nOn the one hand, the US and other nations rightly perceive Iran as a threat, and don't want Iran to have the power to build nuclear power plants, as this could lead to nuclear weapons.\n\nOn the other hand, Iran rightly perceives the US as a threat, and the Iranian leadership is responding to that with tough talk, and refusal to back down.  Which then feeds into other countries perceiving Iran as a threat, and it's a vicious circle.\n\nPersonally, I'm not sure what to say.  I don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons, and it would be hard for them to have nuclear power plants without getting access to nuclear weapons technology.  The proposal that Russia refine the uranium that is used in Iranian power plants completely misses the point of the issue, which is independenc/autonomy.  \n\nUnfortunately, I think the short-term answer is a lot of behind-the-scenes diplomacy, ending in face-saving measures for all sides, and a lot of backing down.  Perhaps something like Iran stops trying to develop nuclear power, and other nations help them develop sustainable, clean energy from other sources.  Bet solar panels would be very effective over there.  In private, meanwhile, Western nations would perhaps agree to stop developing new nuclear power plants or nuclear weapons, and claim publically some other reason.  It sounds like we're giving up a lot there, but really we're only giving up things that put us at danger anyway, because it's impossible to make a nuclear plant _completely_ safe from terrorist attack, and the development of new nuclear weapons just leads to proliferation.
488035
I would also have to agree.\nAlso it is presumbly part of a ploy in order to get Iran to operate in a way that is more acceptable to the West.
331570
It is evident that Iran's efforts are focused both on uranium enrichment and a parallel plutonium effort. Iran claims it is trying to establish a complete nuclear fuel cycle to support a civilian energy program, but this same fuel cycle would be applicable to a nuclear weapons development program. Iran appears to have spread their nuclear activities around a number of sites to reduce the risk of detection or attack. \n\nIran does not currently have nuclear weapons, and would appear to be about two years away from acquiring nuclear weapons. By some time in 2006, however, Iran could be producting fissile material for atomic bombs using both uranium enriched at Natanz and plutonium produced at Arak. The Natanz facility might produce enough uranium for about five bombs every year, and the Arak facility might produced enough plutonium for as many as three bombs every year.
78863
Good question, why countries prefer to use oil products instead of coal?\n1. oil isn't ready to use in plants and needs to be refined several times,\n2. Other oil products are really more valuable that let Iran burn its oil in order to make electricity.\n3. Iran will have oil for about 20 years, it is not a long time for a country\n4. Iran is using its maximum speed of oil production right now, no place for extra use\n\nAlso I think you may know that after decomposition of USSR there was a rich black market on military equipment consist of nukes in middle east and iran probably have bought the Uranium it needed.\nAlso blueprints for a nuke was given to iran by CIA so Iran has the nukes right now.\nEdit:\nAbout military presence you must know that Afghanistan is east of Iran, Turkey have been US ally from long ago and US uses its airports for military purposes, US fleet have been in Persian Gulf since 1988 (I think), so still you think US captured Iraq because being near to Iran?\nAnd about Vietnam-like experience, do you know that US had an operation in Iran in 1980 (very funny operation,Iranian was asleep,us troops came, hit each other, burnt themselves,ranaway,Iranian wokeup and saw the mess)? I will give you the link in Sources.\nI must add that Iran is not like Afghanistan(with USSR and then Civil war between Taliban and Iran related groups) which was at war since I remember or Iraq which also was at war since I remember [Iran, Kuwait,US(91),US(92-2002 limited operaions),US(Last attack)]\nA simple economic surround will easily do what you a military attack probably cant.\nAlso I think if I had a nuke I wouldn't put it in a place that missles can hit it. there are cool mobile rocket launcher and Iran have many.
1022988
I think no country should do this.But as long as there are several countries who are allowed to use nuclear energy,Iran has also every right to.
578990
Iran has oil.  Oil can be used to produce electricity.  Iran claims that they only want nuclear power for electricity.  It doesn't add up.\n\nNorth Korea has no oil and wants nuclear power for electricity.  It is a more realistic claim on its need.
549897
Iran only has the capability (at the moment) to make a dirty bomb rather than a full nuclear device.\n\nWhy wont use one if they get it is that pretty much the rest of the world will turn Iran into a crater - the nuclear taboo would galvanise the world against them to immense proportions. Anyone they are likely to launch against is also likely to be a nuclear power.\n\nThe leaders in Iran are on to a good thing and are unlikely to risk losing this.  Aggressive rhetoric has been part of Arab/Islamic culture for decades - the very definition of sabre rattling.\n\nPeace out
471832
Interesting question.\n\nAt the moment the truth is that Iran is stating absolutely that it doesn't want 'Nukes', instead it is claiming a right to develop a nuclear capacity for peaceful power generation. With the price of oil rising globally this seems a sensible strategy.\n\nOf course the problem is that this could be masking a drive for the development of nuclear weaponry.  \n\nIs this justified?  Well there are two schools of thought.  \nThe first is that for defence purposes it is.  Iran is a developed nation in the Middle East and one of its neighbours, Israel has a nuclear capability.  Iran could justifiably argue that it requires a nuclear deterrent to counter that of Israelis.\n\nThe second is that no, it's not.  Iran has been explicitly threatening to the West and Israel (whom it said it intended to 'wipe off the map') and whilst the rest of the world are looking to dismantle nuclear stock piles, it is incongruous for a nation to be building a nuclear capability.\n\nNot sure of the answer, but hope this helps.
42168
I don't understand. US suggests they want to attack Israel. But Iran has already tons of WMD's and an outstanding army (nothing to do with the Taliban Afghanistan, or the isolated Sadam), besides the great power of being the fourth reserve of oil, and the economic power it represents.  \nIran says they want nuclear power, to be a developed country. But it's not necessary to have nuclear power to develop. Many European countries or the neighbour Arab Emirats, are more than developed wihtout nuclear power. \n\nA military strike would be the worse option. If they want to have nuclear power or even nukes, they should, like many other countries, even with dictators do. Only because they don't have a good relationship with Israel or US, it shouldn't be banned. \nIf in 10 years they dare to attack someone with nukes, they will be easily smashed back. \nI mean they might be extremists, but they're not suicides.