This thread is designed to illustrate the truth behind the Iranian nuclear crisis. Looking over the evidence that the IAEA, the United States government, and the Iranian government itself have provided, it is the undeniable truth that Iran is seeking to develop a nuclear weapon. There are many factors that lead us to believe this.

Allow us to compare nuclear weapons to a teenager’s car. Teenagers typically receive their first car from their parents based on certain criteria. The teen must be responsible, punctual, and trustworthy. Without such characteristics, a parent would have a difficult time handing over the keys to a machine that, if used improperly, could kill someone. There are currently five nuclear weapon states officially recognized by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). They include: the United States, the United Kingdom, Russia, France, and The People’s Republic of China. Each of these countries, while not without their own flaws, has demonstrated to be peaceful members of the international community. They have shown responsibility by participating in world-wide decision making under the United Nations, and have contributed to a global economy by participating in free trade and honest entrepreneurship. Iran has failed to demonstrate such characteristics.

On September 16, 2002, the Islamic Republic of Iran declared their desire to begin the construction of a nuclear reactor. Under the NPT, of which Iran was a part, they were well within their rights to construct such a reactor. Subsequently, the IAEA began the process of ensuring Iran’s nuclear program remained transparent and within acceptable parameters. However, as time went by, Iran’s promises of cooperation began to fade. In the words of IAEA Director General Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei on September 8, 2003, “information and access [to Iranian nuclear facilities] were in some instances slow in coming, piecemeal and reactive.” Now it is one thing to be slow in submitting information, but quite another to submit disinformation. Dr. ElBaradei continues: “information provided has been inconsistent with that given previously.”

Growing impatient with the IAEA’s vigorous oversight, Iran began to take action. Iran proceeded with its nuclear testing and rejected the IAEA’s demands to not introduce “nuclear material into its pilot centrifuge enrichment cascade at Natanz.” Expressing its concerns with Iran’s behavior of not only proceeding with nuclear testing without oversight, but also failing to declare nuclear material as required, the IAEA adopted a resolution demanding “Iran remedy all failures identified by the Agency and cooperate fully with the Agency to ensure verification of compliance.”

Iran rejected the resolution, proclaiming that by abiding to its “heavy-handed approach” it would present a “threat of hostile acts by the United States or its client Zionist regime.” Iran itself clearly makes the case that if they were to publicly release information regarding their nuclear program, or comply with a resolution calling for “Iran to provide accelerated cooperation and full transparency” towards its nuclear program it would place them at a militaristic disadvantage over their enemies, the United States and Israel. If Iran’s objective is to develop peaceful nuclear energy for its people, why would it be to any disadvantage, militaristic or otherwise, to disclose all information about their program?

Iran’s irresponsible behavior and disregard for the IAEA’s demands, as well as their inability to timely present full and comprehensive data on their nuclear program, in addition to its proceeding with unauthorized nuclear tests have demonstrated to the world that Iran falls short of the characteristics required to become a nuclear power.

While Iran plays cat-and-mouse with international patience, Iranian nuclear scientists have proceeded in researching nuclear power in the forum of weaponry. According to the CIA, Iran has sought “nuclear-related equipment, material, and technical expertise from a variety of sources.” Iran, in the past, has secretly enriched uranium far past the required level to be used for strictly nuclear energy. It is clear; Iran does not intend to peacefully develop nuclear energy.

Proponents for a nuclear Iran reiterate the argument posed by President Gerald R. Ford. In a strategy paper he 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.” Let’s look at this pragmatically. If Iran’s whole reasoning for developing nuclear weapons is to relive the stress on its oil production infrastructure so that it can produce and sell more oil, wouldn’t it be less politically hectic and less expensive if Iran simply increased its number of oil refineries? Doing so would have the exact opposite effect than attempting to develop nuclear energy. The international community would welcome Iran’s effort to put more oil into the world market, thus lowering the price of gas everywhere (having the least effect on the United States considering the U.S. is one of the only nations that does not purchase oil from Iran).

Allowing the Iranian regime to continue its development of weapons of mass destruction is dangerous. The international community has handed over the keys to the car, and an irresponsible, unpunctual, and untrustworthy driver is about to get behind the wheel.

Take 'em out. Take out those muslim clerics that run the country and free the people to run their country.

Oddly enough, the clerics are there because the people want them there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Revolution

We have nuclear weapons. It seems pretty hypocritical to tell someone else they can't have them when we have enough to take out the world a few times over.

Not at all. America believes in political equality, democracy, capitalism, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc. Iran does not. There's also the question of useage... America is far, far less likely to use them than a country with a history of suicide tactics. You should read about the Iran-Iraq War and the fountain in Martyr Square... It's pretty creepy stuff. Iran suffers from what can only be described as a culture of death that tends to be prevalent throughout the Middle East, unfortunately. Just to be clear, I am not claiming that the culture of death is inherent to Islam, or to Arabs, or anything like that. I am referring to the veneration of "martyrs" and the idea that people are only worthy of god if they kill themselves.

Of course, that's the religious side of things... There's also the political side, which is that we are fighting Iran in a new Cold War.

I think talking about "fairness" with nuclear weapons is somewhat ludicrous. I fail to see how it is hypocritical to have an advantage, or why everyone should have them, just because we do.

Tell that to the people of Japan... but your point is clear. How do you feel about Iran having nuclear energy? Is it just a front to produce nuclear weapons? What gives a country the right to refuse another country to persue nuclear energy?

Why would a country that is sitting on a lot of oil need nuclear energy? Don't tell me the Iranians are a bunch of tree huggers.

I think it's just a front for a weapons program.

If you read my post in its entirety, you would find that I addressed that point. Iran has not demonstrated the characteristics required to become a nuclear state. Reasons why are in my first post.

So you don't believe that nations have the right to persue nuclear power? I didn't realize they needed permission from Daddy.

The basic concept that guides any nation is that of sovereignty. The fact that americans can sit and say that they are a free nation, free of any sort of superior power ( besides god ) is because they are a sovereign nation.

It is a right of a sovereign nation to ensure that their sovereignty is not usurped by any outside force.

Iran is a sovereign nation. Therefore Iran must act in Iran's interest. The US was acting it it's own interest when it threw the bombs in Japan.

The US made use of its right when it started massive stockpiling of nuclear warheads.

Why then is it so inconcievable that any other nation make use of it's rights as a sovereign nation to do the same.

How can you deny them that right without following suit?

And if they are to be denied, then doesn't that mean that there is no such thing as sovereignty for any nation unless it's got nukes?