"The envoy, Ali Asghar Soltanieh, said Iran would consider "other options" for enriching uranium deal but would not pull out of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)."

Do you understand that as a signer of the NPT they have the RIGHT to enrich uranium. Do you understand that fact is surpressed in this article and made to seem like merely a position Iran is taking for itself and by itself. Fuel for their reactors has to be enriched to between 5 and 8 percent to provide a good burn. Bomb grade uranium is 99percent. There is a big difference between the two and that is were the Bush-wanabe-fear-mongers step in to profit. They manipulate language to spread disinformation and then in elitist fashion don't answer direct questions that would allow us to see through it. Even if they did answer direct questions they would feign stupidity ala Bush-butt.

"UN watchdog censures Iran on nuclear drive"
"drive" sounds like Iran is 'going somewhere'. The Iranians just say they want to make electricity. All we have is government-sponsored fear.

"He complained that the agency's efforts to verify the peaceful nature of Iran's atomic programme had reached a "dead end"." Hey that's the same level of diplomacy we had with Bush-butt. I guess its time to invade and polute their country with Depleted Uranium.

Nobody even talks about history. They might find that the reactors were built by some American firm? I remember, I think in the '80s that the news reported that the Iranians thought that the oil would be more valuable in the ground in stead of burnt for electricity. They could use the oil to make plastics instead.

"Western powers(Bush!) have long(since 2000) suspected(fear mongered) Iran is trying to build a nuclear bomb but have struggled to get diplomatic backing from China and Russia.(fool me twice, shame on me"


(Highly) Enriched uranium is at the heart of the West's concerns(fear mongering) about the Iranian nuclear programme. Uranium is used to make fuel for nuclear power plants but also the fissile material for an atomic bomb.

Iran has been enriching uranium at a bigger plant in Natanz for several years, in defiance of UN sanctions to halt all such activity.(NPT gives them the right)

Iran insists(states) its nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes and to supply energy.
(but our government isn't listening)

Finally, Raw Story is a part of the governent-sponsored fear mongering by refusing to do itsown analysis. (I know you are not Nuclear Engineers like I am, but try) But fills its pages with propaganda to keep its publishing costs down. Next, I guess, we will be served cartoons!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of...
The nuclear program of Iran was launched in the 1950s with the help of the United States as part of the Atoms for Peace program.[1] The support, encouragement and participation of the United States and Western European governments in Iran's nuclear program continued until the 1979 Islamic revolution that toppled the Shah of Iran.[2]

1950s and 60s

The foundations for Iran's nuclear program were laid after a 1953, CIA-supported coup deposed democratically-elected Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh and brought Shah (King) Mohammad Reza Pahlavi to power.[33]

A civil nuclear co-operation program was established under the U.S. Atoms for Peace program. In 1967, the Tehran Nuclear Research Center (TNRC) was established, run by the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI). The TNRC was equipped with a U.S.-supplied, 5-megawatt nuclear research reactor, which became operational in 1967 and was fueled by highly enriched uranium.[34]

Iran signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in 1968 and ratified it in 1970, making Iran's nuclear program subject to International Atomic Energy Agency verification.

Advertisement from the 1970s by American nuclear-energy companies, using Iran's nuclear program as a marketing ploy.

1970s

The Shah approved plans to construct, with U.S. help, up to 23 nuclear power stations by the year 2000.[35] In March 1974, the Shah envisioned a time when the world's oil supply would run out, and declared, "Petroleum is a noble material, much too valuable to burn... We envision producing, as soon as possible, 23 000 megawatts of electricity using nuclear plants."[36]

Iran, a U.S. ally then, had deep pockets and close ties to Washington. U.S. and European companies scrambled to do business in Iran.[37] Bushehr would be the first plant, and would supply energy to the inland city of Shiraz. In 1975, the Bonn firm Kraftwerk Union AG, a joint venture of Siemens AG and AEG Telefunken, signed a contract worth $4 to $6 billion to build the pressurized water reactor nuclear power plant. Construction of the two 1,196 MWe nuclear generating units was subcontracted to ThyssenKrupp, and was to have been completed in 1981.

The joint stock company Eurodif operating a uranium enrichment plant in France was formed in 1973 by France, Belgium, Spain and Sweden. In 1975 Sweden’s 10% share in Eurodif went to Iran as a result of an arrangement between France and Iran. The French government subsidiary company Cogéma and the Iranian Government established the Sofidif (Société franco–iranienne pour l’enrichissement de l’uranium par diffusion gazeuse) enterprise with 60% and 40% shares, respectively. In turn, Sofidif acquired a 25% share in Eurodif, which gave Iran its 10% share of Eurodif. Mohammed Reza Shah Pahlavi lent 1 billion dollars (and another 180 million dollars in 1977) for the construction of the Eurodif factory, to have the right of buying 10% of the production of the site.

"President Gerald Ford signed a directive in 1976 offering Tehran the chance to buy and operate a U.S.-built reprocessing facility for extracting plutonium from nuclear reactor fuel. The deal was for a complete 'nuclear fuel cycle'."[38] At the time, Richard Cheney was the White House Chief of Staff, and Donald Rumsfeld was the Secretary of Defense. The Ford strategy paper said the "introduction of nuclear power will both provide for the growing needs of Iran's economy and free remaining oil reserves for export or conversion to petrochemicals."

Then-United States Secretary of State Henry Kissinger recalled in 2005, "I don't think the issue of proliferation came up."[38] However, a 1974 CIA proliferation assessment stated "If [the Shah] is alive in the mid-1980s ... and if other countries [particularly India] have proceeded with weapons development we have no doubt Iran will follow suit."[39]

The Shah also signed a nuclear cooperation agreement with South Africa under which Iranian oil money financed the development of South African fuel enrichment technology using a novel "jet nozzle" process, in return for assured supplies of South African (and Namibian) enriched uranium.[40]

Chronology of Iran's Nuclear Programme, 1957-2007

http://oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/oxford_resear...

Is Iran really a threat?

Revealed: US spends more than $52 billion a year on nukesJohn Byrne
Published: Monday January 12, 2009

The United States spends more than $52 billion a year maintaining, upgrading and operating its nuclear weapons arsenal each year, a little-heralded study revealed Monday.

Outside of the hefty price tag, equally significant is the way the money is spent. The US devoted just 1.3 percent -- or $700 million -- to preparing for the consequences of a nuclear attack.

The amount of money spent on America's nuclear programs dwarfs the amount spent on diplomacy and foreign assistance (combined), effectively leaving US diplomatic efforts abroad in the long shadow of America's ballistic missiles.

"Nuclear security consumes $13 billion more than international diplomacy and foreign assistance; nearly double what the United States allots for general science, space, and technology; and 14 times what the Department of Energy (DOE) budgets for all energy-related research and development," the Carnegie Institute for Peace noted in a study posted to the Federation for American Scientists' Secrecy News blog Monday.

Nuclear weapons or related programs account for 67 percent of the Department of Energy's Budget. They also account for 8.5 percent of the FBI budget, 7.1 percent of the Pentagon budget and 1.7 percent of the budget for the Department of Homeland Security.

Most US spending on nuclear weapons programs is unclassified, Secrecy News editor Steven Afternood notes. But the amount spent is masked by the number of budgets that contain provisions for such programs, making a composite total difficult to ascertain.

Speaking of the $52 billion figure, Carnegie author Stephen Schwartz was quoted as saying, “That’s a floor, not a ceiling,” noting that it doesn't take into account classified nuclear weapons programs or nuclear related intelligence programs.

Most of the money doled out to America's nuclear weapons is spent on upgrading and maintaining the country's aging arsenal. According to estimates, the United States has a stockpile of about 9,600 nuclear missiles, including those kept in non active service.

“The disparity [in spending] suggests that preserving and enhancing nuclear forces is far more important than preventing nuclear proliferation,” Schwartz said.

The Carnegie Institute offered a series of recommendations as a result of their study. Among them:

* Require the executive branch to submit both an unclassified and a classified annual accounting of all nuclear weapons-related spending. Without an accurate understanding of the costs of nuclear spending, Congress and the executive branch cannot conduct essential oversight or devise the most effective policy.

* Place greater emphasis on programs that secure and prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons, weapons material, technology, and expertise.

* Develop better measures to explain and quantify nuclear weapons-related intelligence expenditures. Greater transparency and insight could lead to a more effective allocation of intelligence assets.

* Release an accurate accounting of the number of veterans who have received or been denied compensation and care for radiation exposure during atmospheric nuclear tests between the 1946 and 1962, along with the total cost of such compensation and care.

To read the full report, "Nuclear Security Spending: Assessing Costs, Examining Priorities," by Stephen I. Schwartz and Deepti Choubey, click here

Shah of Iran on Persian Gulf & the American Jewish Lobby

Even though Iran under the shah was Israel's best ally in the Middle East, even he could not explain the depth of control and power the Israel lobby had and has in America. He is speaking of historical context...nice clip.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQgZ3oLp_WY

Who controls the media today?