And I’m outraged at the pace of iran’s tech developments, I know they are under sanctions but come on, they have been under siege for the past 30 years,

They should have learned to ban in their school curriculum up and down the country anything at all that’s not related to science and engineering by now

Also what they need to do is send out covert special forces out (known as QUDS) to topple puppets such as the king of jordan & saudi arabia in particular, bahrain ect

They should do it just for fun, that’s the only way to engage the west, topple US backed puppets (they’re all hanging on to power by a thread anyway)

Because even their new generation spinners are still not fast enough

This is totally unacceptable, and they should outlaw and execute without trial any of their students who study anything other than science and engineering at school, these useless students can redeem themselves by researching maraged steel techniques

There was never any diversion of nuclear material in Iran either.

Can you name another nuclear powered sub that does NOT have nuclear missiles?

Why is the IAEA not “concerned”? Because Brazil is a US-ally or at least US-approved nuclear technologist.

Iran is not.

This is a bias from the US: it’s greater funding of the IAEA has led to politicization.

The IAEA is outside its mandate — its “concerns” are well, its concerns. That is fine. It is not illegal though.

See:

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/2011/11/dan-joyner-iaea-report.php

The law supports Iran: so people who advocate for the law are now also known as Iran apologists.

Great. I take a bow.

- “Building nuclear powered subs which typically mean they are intended for use with nuclear missiles”. What is the evidence for that? SSNs are not SSBNs.

- Brazil has a much better rationale for nuclear enrichment than Iran has.

- The IAEA has never found or had any evidence of weaponization work by Brazil. To call Iran’s activities in that domain “research” is to adopt an extraordinarily extensive definition of that word.

- At least some of these activities have continued AFTER 2003. In the absence of a structured program post-2003, such activities become more difficult to discover.

- One cannot have it both ways: claim that the IAEA reports are “politicized” and emphasize that the IAEA has never discovered diversion of nuclear material (which is true, though only valid for nuclear material under safeguards).

Finally, the US gives much more money to the IAEA than Iran does because it is a much richer country. Duh.

Iran would probably prefer that war with the US and Israel not result in too much destruction of Iranian infrastructure, let alone the demise of the regime, but they would certainly retaliate and try to impose as high a price as possible on the aggressors. This is human nature, after all. Iran’s religion says that martyrs go to Heaven, but if they were Americans they might say they’d see us in Hell before accepting that anyone has the right to attack them with impunity.

The Israeli cabinet are fooling themselves if they think they can calculate where this would end, or that the outcome would be favorable to the security and interests of Israel. The same can be said of Iran or of the US, but only one of these three is currently seen as likely to initiate a major war. I find it bizarre that anyone can speak of the Israeli government possibly opting for war out of a “burden of responsibility.”

Some of the commenters here fall into the same trap — ‘No need to worry about the Straits and the oil flow, no ground war, just a nice clean bombing campaign and maybe some trouble in Lebanon.’ Uh-huh. But of course, that is the kind of thinking that has led to so many wars that have ended disastrously for those who initiated them.

I’m not really seeing why you think Iran would respond to a conventional attack with a nuclear one – assuming they have a limited number of warheads and a means to deliver them with reasonable accuracy. Why would they invite a massive nuclear retaliation by Israel, who they know to have both the weapons and delivery systems? Even were the Israelis to destroy some portion of the current Iranian nuclear program, it would not be long before it was reconstituted more securely.

I think it would take far more than a few bomb runs by Israel to provoke a nuclear retaliation.

You — and many others, including the ACA — have lost all sense of proportion.

Arms Controllers — like in Iraq ca. 2002 — are being useful to war hawks.

If anything the US and Israel should be sanctioned for the threat of use of force — illegal under Chapter 7 of UN Charter.

What do you mean by recently? pre-2003 RESEARCH activities that Iran did that involved no diversion of nuclear material?

That is neither _recent_ nor an abrogation of the NPT.

It is all politicized propaganda from IAEA.

Check the relative amounts of funding for the IAEA from US vs. Iran and you will have most of your answer.

What is Iran doing now that is against the NPT?

What is Brazil doing? e.g. Building nuclear powered subs which typically mean they are intended for use with nuclear missiles.

A US Naval Institute proceedings magazine article ponders why Brazil desires such submarines:

http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2009-06/why-does-brazil-need-nuclear-submarines

It concludes that:

“The National Defense Strategy the government of Brazil released on 17 December 2008 provides little plausible military justification for the recently accelerated nuclear-powered submarine project.”

In 2009, then vice president Jose Alencar – who also served as defense minister from 2004 to 2006 – said in an interview with Brazilian news media that while Brazil does not have a program to develop nuclear weapons currently, it should in the future: “We have to advance on that….The nuclear weapon, used as an instrument of deterrence, is of great importance for a country that has 15,000 kilometers of border to the west and a territorial sea”

Brazil is merely a political decision away from going nuclear.

Brazil has still not accepted the Additional Protocol in relation to its safeguards agreements with the IAEA. This is mainly due to its naval nuclear propulsion program: enriched uranium (beyond power reactor levels) may remain outside safeguards while it is being used in a vessel at sea. According to a 2004 Science magazine article, Brazil’s nuclear enrichment facility at Resende has the potential to separate sufficient 235U for ~28 implosion type warheads per year. This is forecast to rise to ~58 such potential warheads per year by 2014.

Two years ago, the Brazilian army’s Military Institute of Engineering published a thesis by the physicist Dalton Ellery Girão Barroso titled “Numerical Simulation of Thermonuclear Detonations in Fission-Fusion Hybrids Imploded by Radiation” (“Simulação Numérica de Detonações Termonucleares em Meios Híbridos de Fissão-Fusão Implodidos Pela Radiação”)

Please let me know if I can clarify anything else in the comparison.

If Iran did anything remotely as provocative as Brazil RECENTLY has, it would be bombed — in flagrant contravention of UN Charter.

Brazil wasn’t particularly forthcoming over what they were installing and preparing to operate there. It’s all under SG now but there may still be some issues.

There is a problem between Iran and the IAEA on access to design information, pertaining to the Arak reactor.