Russia Ships Nuclear Fuel to Iran
By MICHAEL SCHWIRTZ
Published: December 18, 2007
MOSCOW — Russia made its first fuel delivery to Iran’s Bushehr nuclear power plant on Sunday, a spokesman for the Russian company overseeing the project confirmed Monday, although it remained unclear when the controversial station would begin operating.
“The first phase of delivery has been completed,” said Irina F. Esipova, a spokeswoman for Atomsproiexport, the Russian contractor on the project. “A small amount of fuel is already on the premises of the Bushehr station in a special storage facility.” The company plans to deliver about 80 tons of nuclear fuel to Iran over the next two months, she said.
The Russian Foreign Ministry said in a statement that the fuel would be under the control of the International Atomic Energy Agency and that Iran had given written guarantees that the fuel would only be used for the nuclear power plant.
“All fuel that will be delivered will be under the control and guarantees of the International Atomic Energy Agency for the whole time it stays on Iranian territory," the Foreign Ministry said in a statement. “Moreover, the Iranian side gave additional written guarantees that the fuel will be used only for the Bushehr nuclear power plant.”
The statement added: “After the Russian fuel is processed at the Bushehr nuclear power plant, it will be returned to Russia for further processing and storage.”
The power station is at the heart of an international dispute over Iran’s nuclear program. Iran insists that Bushehr is part of a civilian nuclear program. However, critics, particularly in the United States and Western Europe, have accused Tehran of secretly developing or planning to develop a nuclear bomb.
Iran confirmed that it had received the shipment, the official Iranian news agency IRNA reported, The Associated Press said. “The first nuclear fuel shipment for the Bushehr atomic power plant arrived in Iran Monday,” IRNA quoted Iranian Vice President Gholam Reza Aghazadeh as saying, the A.P. said.
Construction of Bushehr has been hindered by repeated delays. Earlier this year Russia delayed a fuel shipment expected in March, accusing Iran of iness in making its monthly payments of $25 million. However, Western officials said that Russia made the decision in part to help the West to pressure Iran into more openness on its nuclear program.
Last week, Sergei Shmatko, the director of Atomstroiexport, announced that Russia and Iran had ended their financial disputes over the project, though he failed to indicate a date for when the long-awaited opening would occur.
Ms. Esipova said the plant will be technically ready to operate no sooner than six months after all the uranium fuel rods needed to power the station are delivered.
The United States released a National Intelligence Estimate two weeks ago concluding that Tehran ended its nuclear weapons program in 2003, undermining earlier claims by the Bush Administration that Iran was actively developing a nuclear weapon.
Officials in Washington have nevertheless continued to insist that Iran remains a threat, sentiments which have been echoed by some European leaders. Iran considers itself to have been vindicated by the intelligence report. On Sunday President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called the nuclear issue his "toughest battle and challenge" in recent years, but said the intelligence report had boosted Iran’s international status, a statement on the website of Iran’s Foreign Ministry said.
The power these two countries have gained under the Bush administration is amazing.
I don't understand... is Iran building nuclear weapons or not?? Are they solely interested in developing nuclear energy?? and if this is true, why should the US have ANY say in this?
P.S. This is a legitimate question, please refrain from the usual insulting responses, they just make you look like an idiot.
Iran has every right to build nukes. After all, Iran's self-proclaimed mortal enemies, Israel and USA, have nukes. even if that right is in self-defense.
Iran could calculate that dubya didn't attack NK because NK supposedly had nukes.
dubya/ head are trying to prevent Iran from defending itself, similar to USA stopping homeowners from owning guns.
This Russian angle, and probably a similar Chinese angle, as the Chinese need Iran's oil as much as dubya and head covet Iran's oil, indicates the USA cannot stop Iran from obtaining nukes.
M.A.D. kept USA and Russia from using nukes, much the way M.A.D. keeps Pakistan and India from throwing nukes at each other.
M.A.D. is really the only realistic hope that nukes won't be used.
If dubya/ head attack Iran in the next couple months, it will be to "regime change" Iran to try to get access to Iran's oil, using nukes as a pretext, just like in Iran. Their own calculation might be that dubya should attack/"regime change" Iran before Iran is capable of returning the favor with a nuclear response. I figure dubya and head will get the calculation wrong yet again, since their math has been so bad since taking office.
Last edited by boutons_; 12-17-2007 at 04:23 PM.
Why is this news. It has been in the making for months. Don't
you folks read anything but the blogs.
but they fail to discuss the powers these countries have acquired under the bush administration. they ignore the fact that countries are forming alliances to counteract our current behavoir towards the world. you see, ray, they've recognized their need to stand against us.
try not to say something stupid like "bring'em on".
WHat is Iran defending itself from? Nukes that aren't to be used for offensive purposes.
S
Bring'em on. Hmmm. And you regurgitate the same old
liberal junk. "Our current behavior" indeed. Just what
has our "our current behavior" gotten us. 9/11. Which
period of "our current behavior" are you referring to?
Try and step outside yourself for a moment, please.
Pretend for just a brief second you are not American.
Make believe that you were Arab, just for a second.
.
.
.
.
.
Ask Saddam why he would need nukes.
.
.
.
Qualifier: Saddam was a head. That he was hung in some basement was a disservice to those he killed. He, of all people, deserved to be stoned like so many are under Arab/Quran rule.
But, if I were Iran (ie Ahmajejdejedjddjaaa), I certainly wouldnt rule out the need for nuclear weapons. Seeing as America feels it necessary to remove anyone it deems unsuitable, I'd be looking around for a deterrent.
There is none better....yet.
I see your sense of reasoning is right on line......America
is wrong. Iran is right. Yeah, makes sense to me.
Especially since they have just about done everything
possible to defeat us without openly declaring war on
us. Openly may be a little wrong, they really have
openly declared war, just haven't backed it up with
open warfare. They have told us what they are going
to do, you just want accept the facts.
Hmmm, expected a little more from you.
As it were, I never lent my opinion on the scenario.
I asked you to put yourself in their shoes. If youre incapable of doing so, then your opinion on my post means little to nothing.
You'd make a terrible field officer.
about this and current behavoir.........we have informed the world that fighting terror is #2 on our list, therefore encouraging other countries to form their own plans regarding our #1.
Russia is smart. It only makes sense to be nice to nuclear-sooner-or-later countries, especially when they are on your border. Oh, yeah, there's that oil thing, too.
You're right. It is a legitimate question. If they truly want to use enriched uranium for power production, nobody should try to stop them. The problem is, there is plenty of evidence to show high confidence that they want to produce weapons grade uranium. If you read the intelligence estimate through, it points out that Iran already has developed all the technology they need to enrich uranium. No more technical research is needed, that is why it is easy to see no development in progress. If they manage to keep any development secret from the intelligence agencies, we simply wouldn't know if they are continuing to move closer to making nuclear bombs.
We haven't denied them from making non-breeder type reactors for power. The UN and USA just want to see and be able to verify inventories of nuclear materials.
I still think the US and Sudan's friendship is much worse, if not disgusting.
It's kinda ironic how this is yet another ambiguous development
it simultaneously bolsters and breaks down bush's strategy and will really just end up polarizing opinions even further
perhaps that is what russia wants
So Iran is worried that we'd nuke them. But we didn't nuke Iraq?
Don't lie to yourself.
Sadaam wants nukes to bully everyone in that region. THere is no self defence here. Same thing with Iran.
You are talking as if pursuing nukes has never been considered a defensive strategy
Trivia question:
Which countries are in violation of, suspected to be in violation of, or have chosen not to be party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty of 1968?
Next question: When said countries are allowed to be in violation with the rest of the world chosing to turn a blind eye, how can the treaty be expected to be held with any respect by anyone else?
Next question: If you are a nation that feels endanged or potential endanged by one of the 8 nations who possess nuclear weapons, what incentive do you have to obey the treaty?
India comes to mind as a non-signee
Because we're coddling their nutsack in return for them squandering their economic opportunities and losing bids to china
none
oh yeah, lol, israel
Last edited by LaMarcus Bryant; 12-17-2007 at 11:55 PM. Reason: mah bad
Saddam wanted nukes. Past tense. And where did I say "theyre afraid we'll nuke em"? I didnt. No, nuclear arms are more a deterrent than anything else. If it was the US's goal to invade and depose Iran, you dont think the WH would seriously reconsider knowing they had nukes? Tell me, whens the last time we went to war with a nuclear power?
I never lied to myself. I was putting myself in their shoes. Obviously, the new US foreign policy of "preemptive war" is a boon to the third world. Especially those rich in natural resource.
So, if I were a third world country (ie N.Korea, Iran, etc), I would be looking for a way to elimnate the West's ability to bully me.
There is only one way to do that. Nuclear arms.
Sure, there is the added benefit of being able to strongarm your neighbors, but its a better question to ask "What incentive does Iran have NOT to aquire nuclear arms?"
They dont have one, except for UN sanctions, possible invasion....look how that turned out for Iraq (Oil for Food, subsequent overthrow).
My underlying point to the quandry is certainly not some compassion for Iran/N.Korea, so much as it is an exercise in seeing it from the other side.
Its quite obvious most Americans cant do that. We think because we're so bad-ass that when we say jump, the 3rd world wannabes ask how high.
When in reality, they have no incentive to follow our mantra. Fine, some here think America is infallible and always right. Wonderful.
Truth be told, the rest of the world doesnt give a if youre right, or even if theyre wrong. Its a "what have you done for me lately" world, and America has done nothing for Iran. Therefore, if I were Iranian, I'd tell the US to get ed and do what I do. Find willing partners in the anti-US crusade (such as Russia, China).
Foster those relationships, not the US/UN relationships. Working with the US is more about being a good little vassal moreso than a partnership (at this point). So find others willing to work evenly with you, not publicly threaten your sovereignty.
If you cant see the Iranian perspective, or any other country's perspective for that matter, then youre quite useless. The days of "America's way or the highway" are in their final years. Using a loose tongue and a tough facade are no way to do business.
DISCLAIMER: I use "you" in the 3rd person sense, not you particularly Ignignokt.
excellent post. you are now included in the Axis of Evil.
For Iran there's ample evidence they would be on the offensive with the nukes.
Iran possessing nukes increases the chances of a full scale nuclear war 10 fold IMO.
We want less of a chance of a nuclear war than more so. Now to some on this board they think eliminating the US would decrease the chances of war.
"For Iran there's ample evidence they would be on the offensive with the nukes."
oh really? where?
Where would they drop a nuke and NOT get massively retaliated upon by Israel, USA, and maybe France and UK?
What evidence do you have that they are not aware of such retaliation and don't care about Iran's infrastructure being destroyed and millions of Iranians killed?
With help from Russia and China and time, Iran will get nukes.
The USA has no right to deny nukes or anything else to any other nation, just as any other nation has the sovereign right to run their country however they want, EXACTLY the same sovereign right the USA has.
How would you right-wing war-mongers react if Russia decided that the USA's nukes stationed around the planet and USA's missiles in Eastern Europe was risk to Russian security, and decided to launch a nuclear attack on USA? Don't think they can? Don't think they would?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
