I appreciate that Israel is your main interest in all these things, Flash, but dare I say it, Israel is a pawn in the bigger picture. This is about the end of the Petro Dollar.
From CNN.
Larijani said it is "logical that every country be in charge of its own fate regarding energy and not put its future in the hands of another country, even if that country is a friendly country."
Moscow had offered to enrich uranium in Russia for nuclear fuel and have it sent to Iran. The offer was backed by the United States and by Britain, France, and Germany, which have tried to negotiate a solution to the Iranian issue.
Iran and Russia have substantial economic ties, and Russian President Vladimir Putin has openly disagreed with U.S. President George W. Bush about Tehran's intentions with its nuclear facilities.
Larijani said Tehran is willing to discuss having some nuclear fuel created outside the country. But he said his nation must operate some of its own reactors to produce nuclear fuel "at our own disposal, without having to rely on another country."
Oh my, a policy of energy self-sufficiency - whatever next
Energy self sufficiency without the once mighty US$. Remember Saddam threatened to trade Iraq's oil in Euros, now the world's most powerful economy. Silly man.
And please don't try to say that the Russian nuclear fuel, and the EU offer before was free, they (we) stood to make Billions out of Iran. They are choosing to do it themselves. Yes they may be tweaking the West, but it's time to get those old imperial and modern economic Imperial notions out of your head.
So, should we trust the US?
1. The United States is my main interest, not Israel. Israel is my secondary interest.
2. Israel may be a "pawn" to others...but a pawn can still kill a king...and when the pawn has 200+ nuclear weapons at its disposal, and is being threatened with being taken off the chess board forever, I assure you, they do not take the approach of a pawn.
3. This is not about the end of the petro dollar. This is about a rogue islamofascist nation, Iran attempting to obtain nuclear weapons. NObody is saying they cannot have nuclear power plants or nuclear energy. What is being said is that they cannot have ENRICHMENT programs. PRe-enriched nuclear fuel will be provided to them by an established economic partner and ally (Russia) and its use and disposal will be monitored at every turn by internationally agreed upon monitors.
Big difference between saying they can't have nuclear power for energy and they can't have a uranium enrichment program for nuclear power that CAN be used to make weapons grade nuclear material.
4.
"logical that every country be in charge of its own fate regarding energy and not put its future in the hands of another country, even if that country is a friendly country."
Iran is in fact in charge of its own fate regarding energy. Iran has the second largest proven oil reserves in the world since Canada's shale/and non-conventional is discounted.
Since Iran has not bothered to develop its oil refinery capacity, it is the second largest oil importer in the world.
Iran also has the second largest proven natural gas reserves after Russia, with massive potential for more.
5. Irrespective of Iranian and Russian economic ties, irrespective of George W. Bush, Iran is not a country that has an energy problem. Iran is not a country looking for a program of "oh my" energy self-sufficiency...they already have that.
They are looking for nuclear weapons.
6. Their energy self-sufficiency would be guaranteed without the US $ anyway. They need to spend more of their money on refinery, exploration and production of their good fortune in having such massive petroleum reserves, instead of spending it on trying to make a Shiite nuclear power that can dominate the region.
"Some skeptics also argue that energy and economic considerations would not justify Iran's nuclear power program, since "if Iran really were short on energy, it could build gas-fired power plants at much lower cost, or make better use of its vast hydraulic resources;" and that the huge investment needed for nuclear power would pay greater returns if used to maintain or upgrade Iran's basic oil industry infrastructure.
In another story the Economist magazine argued that "learning to enrich uraniuma hugely costly venturestill makes questionable economic sense for Iran, since it lacks sufficient natural uranium to keep them going and would have to import the stuff."
Another analysis of the economics of Iran's investment in nuclear fuel cycle activities, including mining, conversion, enrichment and fuel fabrication, condludes that they are poor energy investments compared to capturing and generating electricity from natural gas that is currently flared from oil fields.
Skeptics also argue that other countries, such as Russia and France, have offered to provide uranium for power generation, and that Iran is fully capable of having nuclear power without needing to enrich its own uranium."
7.
"And please don't try to say that the Russian nuclear fuel, and the EU offer before was free, they (we) stood to make Billions out of Iran."
Indeed the initial offers of nuclear fuel for the Iranian program were contingent on gratis free shipments to begin the initial phase of development.
Once again you are wrong about how much money could be made out of it, since the deal would be with the Russians, and the EU would make nothing from it. Coal and NAtural gas are both more expensive fuels then nuclear fuels, and that is a fact. The Iranians have already said they don't trust wester europe to provide them with nuclear fuel, so how exactly are you going to make money off of it, Chancellor of the Exchequer?
8.
"Yes they may be tweaking the West,"
Only a lunatic like yourself would consider the constant threatening of existential destruction of a UN member state "tweaking". If you consider that to be "tweaking", you won't want to be around when the object of that tweaking decides that tweaking one about their very existence, is in fact not something to be taken lightly anymore.
9. "
but it's time to get those old imperial and modern economic Imperial notions out of your head."
Yeah...coming from you, a citizen of a country that perfected the " Old Imperial" model...it is also amusing that we have some "modern economic imperial notions" in our heads about Iran when we have not had virtually any relations with them economic or otherwise in nearly 30 years.
10. "
So, should we trust the US?"
Frankly, I don't care. Every nation makes foreign policy on what is good for them. The Untied States has no obligation or care whether you trust our government. That only happens when allied countries act in concert for shared goals...when those goals are not consistent, nations act in their individual best interests
Should you trust the French? People in Francafrique might say no. Should you trust the Chinese? The Tibetans and Taiwanese might say no. Should you trust the Turks? The Greeks might say no. Should you trust the Spanish? Catalonia and the Basque country might say no. Should you trust the South Koreans? The JApanese might say no. Should you trust the Australians? The aborigines might say no...
As it is, this is just another America bashing thread from you. Hardly unique.
But whatever your view, Iran ha the ball in its court, and with stuff like this being said, it would be wise for them to back off:
Robert Joseph, the Under-Secretary of State for Arms Control reportedly told IAEA director Mohammad ElBaradei: "We cannot have a single centrifuge spinning in Iran. Iran is a direct threat to the national security of the United States and our allies, and we will not tolerate it."
but know this...when even France is against what you are doing, it is a safe bet, that there is going to be trouble, and that is certainly not the fault of the US alone.
French foreign minister Bernard Kouchner warned that the international community had to be prepared for the possibility of war in the event that Iran obtains atomic weapons. "We will not accept that such a bomb is made," Kouchner said. "We must prepare ourselves for the worst," he said, specifying that that would be war. He did not elaborate on what kind of preparations that could entail. "We have decided, while negotiations are under way ... to prepare for eventual sanctions outside the United Nations, which would be European sanctions," he said.
Kouchner was not specific about what penalties Europe might impose, other than to say they could be "economic sanctions regarding financial movements." "Our German friends proposed this. We discussed it a few days ago," he said. "The international community's demand is simple: They must stop enriching uranium," Kouchner said. "Our Iranian friends want to create, they say, civilian nuclear energy. They have the right to that, but all that they are doing proves the contrary. That is why we are worried," he said.
