Russia and China agree Iran has every right to its domestic nuclear power programme. The dispute is not about forcing Iran to give it up.

I fail to see the efficiency of Iranian enrichment of LEU. I understand the elements of national pride and honour that are at work, but efficiency seems missing altogether. By diverting so investment funding and effort away from its oil and gas industries, into the nuclear power programme, Iran has significantly injured itself economically.

Israel has played a significant role in delaying the delivery of the S-300 missile systems to Iran. Perhaps France has also had a role (related to the Russian purchase of two high tech naval assault vessels.

If offered enough of their own primary interests by the US, sure they would. They’ve delayed the S-300 defensive missile systems, which is direct proof, despite the fact that they would make major money selling those systems to Iran.

“Is Iran’s enrichment of LEU really just a means of ensuring the nuclear reactors will not have to shut down because a scheme emerged to cut off Iran’s nuclear fuel supply?”

Essentially. Also, it’s obviously more efficient to do everything in house than to ship stuff all over the place.

“Why would Russia cut off nuclear fuel shipments to Iran?” See above. Iran is not a primary concern to Russia. Relations with the US, among other things, is.

Do you seriously think Russia would suspend shipments of nuclear fuel to Iran? Is Iran’s enrichment of LEU really just a means of ensuring the nuclear reactors will not have to shut down because a scheme emerged to cut off Iran’s nuclear fuel supply?

Why would Russia cut off nuclear fuel shipments to Iran?

Article II: Each non-NWS party undertakes not to receive, from any source, nuclear weapons, or other nuclear explosive devices; not to manufacture or acquire such weapons or devices; and not to receive any assistance in their manufacture.

Article III: Each non-NWS party undertakes to conclude an agreement with the IAEA for the application of its safeguards to all nuclear material in all of the state’s peaceful nuclear activities and to prevent diversion of such material to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.

Article II states that the part must not “manufacture of acquire” nuclear weapons and not to “receive assistance” from nuclear weapons states to manufacture them. This says NOTHING about actually knowing how, or having the technology, to build nuclear weapons. It just says in essence “Don’t MAKE them!”

Article III merely states the country must comply with the IAEA and prevent diversion – both of which Iran has done completely, except for one small technical violation. As Wikipedia states: “Iran was found in non-compliance with its NPT safeguards obligations in an unusual non-consensus decision because it “failed in a number of instances over an extended period of time” to report aspects of its enrichment program”

In other words, the decision was not clear, and the only violation was Iran didn’t report certain aspects of its program in a timely manner. EVERYTHING ELSE is a matter of ginned up evidence of a non-existent weapons program, which as I’ve said repeatedly, at worst could be considered evidence of an intent to acquire the knowledge and technology to build a nuclear weapon – not to actually develop and deploy them.

However, I will go further than that and say that quite frankly if the US and the other nuclear powers are not going to disarm their arsenals rapidly as they agreed to do under the NPT, and if nations like Israel, India and Pakistan are going to be allowed to develop them just by virtue of NOT signing the NPT, then really all the other nations should under international law be allowed to acquire the knowledge and technology to build nuclear weapons as long as they don’t actually do develop and deploy them.

That isn’t the question. The question should be: Should Iran have the freedom to have the KNOWLEDGE and TECHNOLOGY to enable it to build a nuclear weapons should it decide to do so?

The obviously correct answer is: Yes, they should have that freedom, just like every other country in the world should have that freedom, including even North Korea.

This is not what is under discussion, as Arnold has pointed out. The US wants Iran to stop ENRICHMENT and thus essentially place its nuclear energy program under the control of other countries, thus denying Iran a sovereign right and rendering Iran susceptible to pressure from other nations who could then deny it a supply of nuclear fuel. This is and should be completely unacceptable to any sovereign state.

Arnold’s position that Iran has a right to have the capability to perform a nuclear weapons breakout, or a stance of nuclear weapons “ambiguity”, such as Japan and Brazil have, isn’t even the issue under discussion by the US. The US and Israel want Iran completely unable to even have the knowledge and technology to build a nuclear weapons, let alone the resources to actually build one, and not even the resources to insure complete control of a peaceful nuclear energy program.

As I’ve said before, Iran very possibly had a military program to acquire the knowledge and technology to build a nuclear weapons. This is perfectly reasonable for any nation’s military to do, especially one threatened by not one, but TWO, nuclear powers (or even three if you count Pakistan). Under what theory of international law is it right for any other nation to interfere in a sovereign state’s internal military affairs, absent a specified threat to any other nation? There is none. The mere possession of nuclear weapons, let alone the mere possession of the technology to build one, is no where described in any international law that I am aware of as proscribed to any nation absent that nation’s previous violations against its neighbors under international law (such as Saddam engaged in with Iran and Kuwait).

Therefore there is ZERO legal reason for the US to be doing ANYTHING about Iran’s nuclear program.

Agree one hundred percent. He’s picking nits to put Iran on the defensive here when it is the US and Israel who should be on the defensive. There is absolutely NOTHING legal about the US – and the other members of the UNSC – is doing in the Security Council against Iran. There was no real legal authority to turn the IAEA Iran case file over to the UN in the first place, let alone get sanctions applied.

Eric continues to harp on “disclosure” – but he can’t even identify anything Iran needs to disclose. He ignores the fact that Iran DID comply with the Additional Protocol for several years without getting anything but a slap in the face. He also ignored the fact that there really is zero reason for Iran to comply with the Additional Protocol in the first place, since Iran can see clearly – if in fact it does not have any such program – that the entire crisis is made up. If that is true, and all the evidence indicates it is, then Iran gets nothing for complying.

Eric claims that if Iran did comply, it would be helping itself. But all the evidence proves the reverse – the more Iran complies, the more demands are made. The obvious intent, clearly stated by Obama during his Presidential campaign, is NO ENRICHMENT. This demand is ILLEGAL on the face of it under the NPT. Completely ILLEGAL. Obama has no legal authority to demand it at all, regardless of what issues the IAEA claims it may have about Iranian “intentions”. That’s the bottom line.

If Obama were to say to Iran, “Hey, let’s trade: you sign the Additional Protocol and whatever else the IAEA wants to do, we’ll agree to let you have enrichment and we promise to drop regime change.” Iran would jump at that in an instant. Does Eric have any notion that Obama is seriously considering such a deal? Of course not – but it’s not even conceivable that Obama would back off to that degree from the position Obama has established consistently up until now. So why the hell should Iran comply with US demands?

Eric just keeps harping on “more disclosure” on the premise that it would be helpful to Iran. It’s just nonsense.

Yes, hoax or colossal scam, or a combination, historically speaking. I find the history of the various migratory tribes in Central Asia and the adjoining European steppe to be very interesting.

So, many of the “Jews” living in Israel, are largely the descendants of a Turkish tribe. And the Palestinians, of course, are largely the descendants of the Jews and other people living in Palestine 2000 years ago.