Talk:Nuclear program of Iran/Archive 1

Refactor Notice: ''These topics have been refactored. To view the original contents, please view the history of the talk page on the date before archiving (March 31st, 2006).'' C. Nelson

The Existence of this Article is Proof of a US Media POV
The whole point of bringing up the US is also irrelevant to an entry on Iran’s nuclear program, UNLESS you consider that the whole point of having this article in the first place is due to American culture as created by politics and media influence; then its existence makes sense. For example (on Feb 19, 2006) if I look up “China’s nuclear program” in Wikipedia, I do not get a hit, but if I replace the word “China” with “Iran”, I find an article on Iran. Why an entry on Iran but not China? Both Iran and China have entries on WMD, so why not one specifically on China’s nuke program? China’s is certainly more substantial than Iran’s. This seems to point to the existence of this web page as a cultural issue, not an objective one.

The real point is the national media will affect our bias. There is no institution on the planet that is more widely discussing (and therefore creating) the discourse on Iran's nuke program than the major media of the USA. So it seems that since that is THE informational source for the majority of Americans (or the world), discussion of POV seems relevant.

From what I can tell, these are all facts - empirically based, not biasedly based. We (the US government, media personalities, etc.) are contemplating about invading Iran due to their “weapons,” at least, they say, “the military option is still on the table.”

Most TV stations are not disclosing all facts with respect to many different issues, including Iran. The media could keep the public in the dark, and thus enable warfare. This is of course not a new practice in America, and it has been well documented during many eras of our history (just pick up Chomsky’s “Necessary Illusions”, for example—another empirically based researcher accused of being merely politically biased).

Consider this slippery slope:
 * 1) I never see the sort of information that I have placed in the Wikipedia entry hardly anywhere that the public might see unintentionally, including Wikipedia.
 * 2) Following 1, such information is kept out of Wikipedia and everywhere else (except select books, etc.)
 * Therefore: this information in my entry will be kept out of everywhere, including wiki (except select books, etc.).

-- Atomist

Protecting Iran, Neglecting Israel
I see a bias in this article. This entry stated that Israel obtained nuclear weapons in 1968. Later, the entry states that Israel has denied the possession of such weapons, and goes on to claim that the possession is "officially denied, but very widely believed to exist." I mention this inconsistency partly to put in perspective that WMDs were widely believed to exist in Iraq. It seems to be acceptable for a country to have such weapons, as long as they are acceptable according to your worldview.

The entry also bends over backward to be sure to point out parts of the subsection titled "U.S. Claims" are shown as potentially misleading:

My point is, therefore, that while effort has been made to protect the Iranian side of the story, no effort at all has been made to point out that the Israeli weapons are merely "widely believed to exist," although the entry simultaneously states the possession as factual.
 * 1) "Also, in testimony to Congress in 2003, John Bolton claimed that natural gas currently being flared (burned off without being used) by Iran, if used for electricity generation, could be used to generate 4000 megawatts of continuous electricity - as much as all four Bushehr reactors [12]. ‘’’(This may be a misleading statement if intended to point out an inconsistent energy policy; flaring of natural gas is common practice in the oil industry since recovering the gas can often be uneconomical or infeasible - on the other hand, Iran is developing its South Pars gas field for export [13]).’’’"
 * 2) "Since 2002, the U.S. has countered that Iran does not need nuclear power due to its abundant oil and natural gas reserves since oil power is cheaper to produce than nuclear power. ‘’’(This may be a misleading statement if intended to compare the cost of nuclear power to the cost of oil power as oil not used to generate electricity can be exported potentially more then making up for the higher price of nuclear power).’’’"

Actually, it seems to me that there was a large portion of people who didn't believe that there were WMDs in Iraq. They just happened to be drowned out by the humming buzz of an incompetent media and a placid public.

-- Subbevil

US Claim about Cost of “Oil” (Gas) v. Cost of Nuclear Power
Perhaps I could clarify this. As a consultant in the power industry for several years now, I am familiar with the costs and applications of specific power generating technologies. Here is a good rule of thumb breakdown for construction costs:


 * Nuclear: 2500-4000 $/KW of installed capacity
 * Nuclear: 2500-4000 $/KW of installed capacity
 * Coal: 1100-1300 $/KW of installed capacity
 * Combined Cycle Natural Gas: 350-450 $/KW
 * Simple Cycle Natural Gas: 225 $/KW of installed capacity

Fuel costs vary wildly but Iran can do very little with most of its natural gas. LNG is cost prohibitive (although Iran does export LNG and has plans to do more) and Iran has such large gas reserves that even if export of LNG increased ten fold, there would still be more than enough to power a domestic utility grid.

Generally speaking, without constant ongoing litigation during planning, engineering, design and construction, one could build a nuclear power plant in the United States for about 2000 $/KW of installed capacity. This price would tend to hold true almost anywhere in the world +/- less than 10%. Naturally, this will vary with a number of issues such as geographic location, availability of water, distance to transmission grid etc…

As far as operational costs go, nuclear operational costs tend to be much higher than gas which is higher than coal. For fuel costs, gas is about 5-7 times higher than coal and nuclear is virtually free, less than one penny per Therm. It should be noted that fuel costs vary wildly by location. Gas is relatively expensive where there is no local supply (Japan and South Korea for example) and is very cheap where it is abundant (anywhere there are large quantities of oil to be found). Fuel is by far the highest cost for any plant, outside of initial construction.

It should also be pointed out that when people say Iran does not need nuclear because they have so much oil, what they mean is natural gas, not oil. No one is suggesting that Iran use oil to produce power. No one still builds oil fired utility boilers, and those that are still in use are being converted to natural gas. There probably will not be a single large (over 1,000 KLb) oil fired boiler left in operation after 2015.

-- TDC


 * With nuclear power, unlike other power sources (unless you could Carbon tax), the costs of ‘’’spent fuel and decommissioning the plant’’’ must be counted.


 * Boud

Media
At the moment, this article gives the reader little information about the strategic realities of the situation. Having it this way simply devalues Wikipedia. I have always thought that questioning every established fact is an inherently radical way to run Wikipedia.


 * Despite the fact that everything was referenced, the previous version of the article only had US/UK sources (the only exception being Payvand - an Iranian paper which was used to source some trivial info).
 * If anything, I would like to see a more balanced approach to the issue. The previous version effectively painted Iran as a violator of the NPT. However, like it or not the IAEA still hasn't done that, and according to recent news the IAEA is actually supporting more of Iran's case v. the US’s case.

This article is written in a childish way, without much useful information, in the style of Reuters or Associated Press, which we read almost every day, with a coordinated and well-orchestrated plan to hype up Iran's nuclear program. There is zero impartiality or even a pretense of that in this article. After three years of almost daily controversy about Iran's supposed "weapons program," how come there is not a smoking gun or a shred of hard conclusive evidence? How come the article doesn't mention that so far, 14 times US/Israeli claims have turned out to be lies and big eggs in their faces? The long list of daily media reports in this article is truly pathetic, given the fact that the media (in particular, Reuters, Associated Press and AFP) have been hyping up this topic on almost daily basis for more than three years -- so far, without any credible evidence. Why don't we just make this article a daily log of Reuters "Iran nukes reports" then?

-- Amir

This Article is NOT about Iranian WMD
Please see the article Iran and weapons of mass destruction to edit

WMD Template
I took out the WMD template. It shouldn’t be here. The article is about Iran's nuclear program, not about Iran's WMD program. There's a big difference. If you’re going to put the WMD template here, then you should also put it on the United States Department of Energy National Laboratories page or any and all DOE pages, which supervise US nuclear weapons projects.

-- Zereshk

You would also want to put it on the pages devoted to several other military and civilian agencies in the USA, France, China, Russia, etc. Not all WMD are nuclear, and in the USA non-nuclear WMD are handled by different agencies (primarily the US Army). The Army has hired a civilian contractor in my state to turn old Cold War poison gas artillery shells into inert chemicals, so there would be civilian companies involved as well. The civilian CDC has some stocks of frozen smallpox samples in its vaults, which are not WMD, but could be weaponized if the political will existed. The whole thing gets rather complicated.

-- Jpbrenna

Zereshk has a point. Even if there weren't any allegations that Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons, a civilian nuclear power program there would still warrant a Wikipedia article. The WMD allegations (and I am not an "apologist" for the Mullah's regime or their desire to go nuclear) while relevant, are not the whole story, and they are not the sole reason that this article "...is of any relevance." For a lot of people in Iran, having a nuclear program is a sign of national accomplishment and a source of pride, which it is not in the US, or France, because we in the West have had nuclear power for so long that we either take it for granted, or -- unimpressed by its novelty since it isn't new anymore -- have become wary of its drawbacks. There really should be a separate article about the alleged weapons program. It should be mentioned here, but it shouldn’t be sole focus of this article.

-- Jpbrenna

Creation of “Iran and WMD” Article
I finally did it. And there's something for everyone here. Wanted a separate weapons article to distinguish from atomic energy programs? You've got it! Fan of the WMD template? It's back! That's right, folks, it's Iran and weapons of mass destruction --- hopefully not coming to a city near you!

Now everything conforms to Wiki-WMD standards and Iran won't be the odd man out on the template. But the article will obviously need some modifications. Does Iran have any chemical weapons? I'd venture to guess they do -- a legacy of the Iran-Iraq War. They are probably sitting around leaching out of their containers posing more of a hazard to their owners than to foreigners, like most other countries' stockpiles. But they should be mentioned. Biological? None that I've heard of, unless you count kebabs that have been left out too long -- but maybe they are working on them. I haven't heard any allegations, but maybe I'm just that out-of-the-loop. And we'll need an article on Iran's Ministry of Energy if there isn't one already. So get to work, Wikipedians! I'll help out when I have time, but I really should be focusing on my paper and an upcoming exam.

-- Jpbrenna


 * Kebab's are generally considered a Turkish food


 * -- Nil Einne

We Don’t Know the Truth
I made some slight editing touches to the article to address the claim of partiality raised by Amir. Hope it helps.

However I must add myself that nobody here can really claim to know the truth. What is known is that Iran to date has not been proven to have a weapons program. Iran hasn’t been acting so transparent either; Even the locals joke about it.

I also added two photos I took myself from a public display in Tehran.

~ Zereshk

AQ Khan
I do not understand how we can even have this article without mentioning AQ Khan. The apologists are out in full force today.
 * This article is about Iran's nuclear program, not Iran's nuclear weapons. They are totally two different things.  I suggest you post AQ Khan on a page specifically about Iran's nuclear weapons program.

Are not the two one in the same when it comes to this article? This article is a branch of the WMD program. The only reason that Iran’s nuclear program is of any relevance is because they are using it as a cover to produce nuclear weapons. Khan provided, allegedly I suppose, not just bomb design info, but centrifuge info as well. -- 68.254.64.3
 * The two are not the same. Iran's WMD program would be related to the military. The "nuclear program" operates under the Ministry of Energy.

That Iran's nuclear program is being used as a "cover-up" is an allegation, not a proven fact. If you’re going to talk about WMDs here, then you should also talk about WMDs on the United States Department of Energy National Laboratories page or any and all DOE pages, and even power generating facilities like Tennessee Valley Authority.

-- Zereshk

I would agree that the cover up is an allegation, although an allegation supported by the vast majority of the intelligence community, with mountains of evidence supporting that allegation, according to briefings at CIA.gov (including the Heavy Water Reactor Nuclear Power Plants and Uranium Enrichment Facilites, none of which are required for civilian use, but sure make a great recipe for WMD). However, the mere fact that there is a link to this article under the "See Also" section of the NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION page of Wikipedia.org would suggest a concurrence with the statement that the Abdul Qadeer (A.Q.) Khan - Iran link should be established on this page, since Abdul Qadeer Khan is the ring leader of the global underground NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION movement. I think wikipedia should continue to seek the facts of everything it posts, but at least be consistent with its links and references to other topics and pages as well. With a number of artciles already "accusing" Iran of being a beneficiary of nuclear proliferation, it might as well mention it on this page for consistency. If anyone wants to read CIA briefings on this topic, feel free to go to http://www.odci.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/2004/tenet_testimony_03092004.html where it says in the middle: "IRAN is taking yet a different path..."

-- BScharlach

Removal of word “consensus” from IAEA’s Aug 11th Timeline
‘’On August 11, 2005, the 35-member governing board of the IAEA adopted a resolution by 'consensus' calling upon Iran to suspend uranium conversion, and instructing director general Mohammed El Baradeil to submit a report on Iran's nuclear program by September 3, 2005. The resolution is considered by many to be weak since it does not include the threat of referral to the Security Council.’’

Removed the word consensus from the sentence above for the following reasons;

1. All IAEA board resolutions are adopted by consensus, there is no voting. A draft proposal is set forth and is negotiated upon until all members agree upon a text. Thus the expression "by consensus" does not convey any more information than simply stating that the resolution was adopted.

2. The purpose of the timeline is not to comment upon the mechanisms of IAEA draft resolutions. By including the word "consensus" the lay-reader will be left with the impression that the resolution must have been one with broad support, thus pushing a POV. It can equally easily be argued that this is not the case, the resolution was produced after heavy negotiations between the NAM-countries (14 countries) and the EU-3 + USA + Canada. Some argue that if Singapore hadn't broken the ranks in the NAM a second round of negotiations would have been called for.

3. Even if it were so that many countries in the NAM would be quite happy with not admonishing Iran at all (and it is a common view that such is the case) a compromise-resolution would be adopted in the end with some degree of "suspension calls" followed by weak threats. In fact this is the type of resolution that was passed in the end. The expression "adopted by consensus" does not convey this to the lay-man reader.

Again, I believe the purpose of Wikipedia articles are to convey facts formulated in such a manner that is not misleading to the lay-reader. If "adopted by consensus" is to be included, an explanation of what this means is warranted for. The timeline is meant to be a short summary of events thus not suitable for any such explanation. Hence the word must be removed.


 * All IAEA board resolutions are adopted by consensus,? Apparently the meeting a few days ago (today is 01:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)) made what is claimed to be only the third time that the IAEA has not made a consensus decision - in other words, i agree that the consensus aspect should not be written with an implied consensus without controversy, but rather the decision-making method should be explained - this would make the Feb 4(?) decision all the more bizarre, since not only was it made without waiting for El Baradei's March report, but it was also made more as a political struggle (majority vote) rather than an attempt at mutual understanding - in which case consensus decisions are possible....

-- Boud 01:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Semitic claim
The article says "Iranian leaders such as the new president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad ... engaging in publication of anti-semitic propaganda", giving the source. The source is not a single article but an article list (which changes over time), and I cannot find a source for the anti-semitic claim. In fact the current top article says:
 * Ahmadinejad: "As the representative of the great Iranian people, I call upon all free people of the world - Christians and Jews - to rise together with the Muslims and not to let a handful of shameless Zionists, who have been defeated in Palestine, to harm the sanctity of the prophets."

-- Mikkerpikker

This is anti-Zionist/Israel but clearly not anti-semitic. I will remove the anti-semitic claim from the article, unless someone can provide a solid source for it.

-- Rwendland

Short of MA saying "I am anti-Semitic" the only way to reference (the, I'm sorry, pretty obvious) fact that he's anti-Semitic is to infer this propositional attitude from several of his statements. Many of these are already included in the article and are adequately referenced. So please don't remove the statement, discuss first.

-- Mikkerpikker Anti-semitism is a strong claim; here in the UK a publisher making such a claim could easily face a libel action, and have to demonstrate the truth of the claim in the courts. This claim calls for the full rigor of the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy: "Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources" and "Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor".

We should not be inferring anything (Wikipedia:No original research), we should be reporting reputable sources that have done such analysis, and preferably been subject to a reasonable review process.

Also this claim isn't central to this article, articles that focus on this issue (Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad) make no such "anti-semitic propaganda" claim.

Therefore in accordance with Wikipedia:Verifiability I will delete the claim, leaving the copy above for any further discussion.

There is a huge difference between Anti-Zionist and Anti-Semite (or Anti-Jew). Zionism is a political, not religious order. Therefore Anti Zionists are against a political entity, not a whole people. This is just like being Anti Islamic Republic is not Anti Islamic, as some opponents of the Iranian Regime are Muslims (and some opponents of the state of Israel are Jews). If he was truly Anti-Semite then wouldn't there be a massacre of the thousands of Jews living in Iran? And, being Anti-Semite, why does he specifically address Christians and Jews in his statement against Zionism?

-- Rwendland