Iran Opposition: Nuclear Program Resumed

[GaryC 7]

Iran Opposition: Nuclear Program Resumed

By PAUL AMES – 11 hours ago

BRUSSELS, Belgium (AP) — An exiled Iranian opposition group on Tuesday contested a U.S. intelligence report that said Tehran halted a nuclear weapons development program in 2003, insisting the bomb-making program resumed the following year.

"We announce vehemently that the clerical regime is currently continuing its drive to obtain nuclear weapons," said Mohammad Mohaddessin, a spokesman for the Paris-based National Council of Resistance of Iran, or NCRI.

In Tehran, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad rejected the group's assertions.

"Wrong information from non-credible sources has led them (the Americans) astray (in the past)," he told a news conference in the Iranian capital. "You should not bank on information from non-credible sources."

The International Atomic Energy Agency declined to comment on the NCRI's allegation.

The U.S. National Intelligence Estimate released last week said that Iran halted a nuclear weapons development program in 2003 because of international pressure. Mohaddessin told a news conference that Iran appeared to have duped U.S. intelligence into that conclusion.

"The clerical regime leaks false information and intelligence to Western intelligence services, through double agents," Mohaddessin said.

He said Iran did shut down a Tehran weapons program center known as Lavizan-Shian in 2003 under international pressure and demolished the site. However, Mohaddessin said the Iranian authorities shifted their weapons program to other sites, which resumed the work in 2004.

The NCRI is the political wing of the People's Mujahedeen of Iran, an opposition group that advocates the overthrow of the government in Tehran. The NCRI has been designated a terrorist group by Iran and by both the United States and the European Union.

"This group can't be the source of correct information," Ahmadinejad said, pointing to past attacks by the group that killed Iranian civilians.

It was not possible to independently verify the NCRI claims, which Mohaddessin said came from sources within Iran, including some among staff at covert nuclear plants.

Four years ago, the group disclosed information about two hidden nuclear sites that helped uncover nearly two decades of covert Iranian atomic activity. But much of the information it has presented since then to back up claims that Iran has a secret weapons program has not been publicly verified.

Mohaddessin said Iran was developing nuclear weapons technology at a site near the original plant in the Tehran neighborhood of Lavizan and other units around the country. He said the group had checked with its sources in the past week and discovered that the centers were still working.

"These centers are working just now for producing nuclear bombs. This is contrary to the United States' National Intelligence Estimate," he said.

Iran claims its nuclear development is peaceful and aimed at producing energy.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gas-E3f...gdzA2AD8TFB3100

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Ahmed Chalabi, anyone? Listening to the exiled Iraqi opposition didn't exactly serve us well.

[eric&gen 0]

Bush is finding another excuse to start another war lol.

[GaryC 7]

Ahmed Chalabi, anyone? Listening to the exiled Iraqi opposition didn't exactly serve us well.

Ignoring evidence that you don't like doesn't serve us well either.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Ahmed Chalabi, anyone? Listening to the exiled Iraqi opposition didn't exactly serve us well.

Ignoring evidence that you don't like doesn't serve us well either.

Those guys have a pretty clear agenda, no? Just like Chalabi and his ilk did. I'd rather listen to the experts than to those that seek to utilize the US and it's armed forces along with our tax dollars to further their own purpose. We've gone down that road before and it wasn't a good road to go down. Unless we learn from history, it's bound to repeat itself.

[SqdnGuns 21]

Ahmed Chalabi, anyone? Listening to the exiled Iraqi opposition didn't exactly serve us well.

My first thought too.......

[Dr. A ♥ O 203]

We just did this three week world simulation in my International Laws class and one of the interesting things that came out of it was with Iran moving forward in their nuclear program this allowed them to share their technology with the Arab Leauge. Egypt was the next to develop the nuclear program. Then today in the news I read this article.

Egypt won't sign nuclear deal protocol -minister

Tue 11 Dec 2007, 15:39 GMT

CAIRO, Dec 11 (Reuters) - Egypt will not sign on to a nuclear non-proliferation agreement which gives the U.N. nuclear watchdog the right to make intrusive short-notice inspections of nuclear facilities, the foreign minister said on Tuesday.

Egypt, which said in late October it would build several civilian nuclear power stations to meet its growing energy needs, ratified the Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1981, but has not signed on to the additional protocol.

In a speech delivered on Tuesday, Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit said Egypt would not go beyond its existing commitments on monitoring of its nuclear program.

"It's necessary to adhere to the principal of not linking the provision of nuclear energy with the acceptance of obligations not specified in treaties and agreements," Aboul Gheit said in the remarks, distributed by his ministry.

"Egypt will not accept any additional obligations in this matter."

Aboul Gheit said developing countries found themselves facing constraints beyond those set down in international treaties, which could make such countries "permanently dependent on developed countries" for nuclear energy needs.

"There are attempts by some to make accession to the additional protocol a precondition to supplying nuclear technology," he said, but emphasised "the protocol remains in reality a voluntary instrument that cannot be imposed."

He added that the Non-Proliferation Treaty did not deny states the right to enrich and reprocess nuclear fuel, so long as such activities were for peaceful purposes.

Egypt already has nuclear cooperation offers from China, Russia and Kazakhstan.

Experts on the issue have suggested that the United States could be willing to help Egypt develop its nuclear program if Egypt gave up its right to enrichment and reprocessing and signed the protocol.

Cairo suspended a peaceful nuclear programme after the Chernobyl disaster in 1986, but maintains two research reactors.

The United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) probed "failures" in reporting nuclear research in 2004, but concluded that the experiments were not weapons-related. (Writing by Aziz El-Kaissouni; Editing by Matthew Tostevin)

http://africa.reuters.com/wire/news/usnL11697190.html

And it's not so new news I guess.

http://www.businesstodayegypt.com/article....?ArticleID=7790

At the inauguration of the North Cairo Power Station on October 29, President Hosni Mubarak announced that nuclear power will become an integrated part of the local energy production system, with multiple new nuclear plants to be built, the first potentially operational by 2020.

President Mubarak stated that energy independence was a key condition for both security and economic growth, and that as a signatory to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT), Egypt would cooperate fully with the International Atomic Energy Agency, “within a framework of transparency and respect of commitments to the nuclear non-proliferation system.”

The president announced that the nuclear plants will be constructed using local expertise in cooperation with foreign partners, and that with a $1.5 billion (LE 8.2 billion) price tag per plant, foreign investment will be sought. He also stressed that legislative and structural modifications in the energy sector are forthcoming, in particular regarding the mechanisms and authorities related to nuclear energy production, supervision and supply.

The first step will be the issuance of a presidential decree, by which the Supreme Council for Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy will be given a more powerful role in setting policies and approving nuclear energy projects. As well as having enhanced oversight in the planning and approval stages, the Council will oversee the security and operational regulation of the plants.

In response to the announcement, Sean McCormack, a US State Department spokesman, said that it was “not a problem for us” when countries pursue peaceful nuclear energy programs in cooperation with the IAEA and the NPT. Almost a week later, during the ninth General Conference of the ruling National Democratic Party (NDP), Dr. Ali El-Saidi, head of the party’s Energy Committee, announced Egypt’s nuclear program had the full support of the United States.

The immediate reaction from Egypt’s closest nuclear-armed neighbor was less welcoming. Israeli Deputy Prime Minister and current Minister of Strategic Affairs Avigdor Lieberman, leader of the extreme right-wing nationalist Yisrael Beitenu (Israel, Our Home) party, told the Jerusalem Post that an Egyptian nuclear program could lead to an “apocalyptic scenario” for Israel and the world.

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has previously stated that he is not opposed to Egypt’s civilian nuclear program, telling the Jerusalem Post in September 2006 that he did not consider it a nuclear threat, saying that “[it’s] not similar in any form or manner to what the Iranians are trying to do.”

Hassan Younes, minister of electricity and energy, stated at the NDP General Conference that his ministry is still in the research phase regarding the best location for the proposed nuclear power plant. When Egypt’s intention to renew its nuclear program was first announced in September 2006, Younes stated that a fully operational plant could be completed within 10 years. Younes now believes that alternative energy — including wind, solar and nuclear — will account for 20% of total energy production by 2020

And a 2005 article.

http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed011105b.cfm

I guess my point is it's just a matter of time. Instead of aggresive manuvers in these regions it would be more diplomatic to establish better relations.

[GaryC 7]

Ahmed Chalabi, anyone? Listening to the exiled Iraqi opposition didn't exactly serve us well.

Ignoring evidence that you don't like doesn't serve us well either.

Those guys have a pretty clear agenda, no? Just like Chalabi and his ilk did. I'd rather listen to the experts than to those that seek to utilize the US and it's armed forces along with our tax dollars to further their own purpose. We've gone down that road before and it wasn't a good road to go down. Unless we learn from history, it's bound to repeat itself.

Don't you think that the leadership in Iran has an agenda? So who's agenda do you swallow? Remember that the NIE did say that they are still refining uranium and they can't say if they are going to a high concentration for a weapon. Basically the only thing that is really different between this one and the one from 2005 is the conclusion. If you omit the conclusion and just read the findings it's pretty clear that Iran is up to no good. It sounds to me like the people writing the conclusion are the ones with the agenda. So, pick your agenda.

ETA..

I'd rather listen to the experts than to those that seek to utilize the US and it's armed forces along with our tax dollars to further their own purpose.

You do realize that these are the same "experts" that said Saddam had WMD's don't you?

Edited December 12, 2007 by GaryC

[Marc and Olga 0]

You do realize that these are the same "experts" that said Saddam had WMD's don't you?

Perhaps, remember the claim that Iraq had mobile WMD factories (remember Colin Powell and the drawings of those little trucks?) AND (the big one here) a strong tie to AQ... both of which the administration touted as fact, both were proven wrong by the intel experts but remainded highly spewed by the administration and used as reasons to invade.

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

Ahmed Chalabi, anyone? Listening to the exiled Iraqi opposition didn't exactly serve us well.

Ignoring evidence that you don't like doesn't serve us well either.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I'd rather listen to the experts than to those that seek to utilize the US and it's armed forces along with our tax dollars to further their own purpose.

You do realize that these are the same "experts" that said Saddam had WMD's don't you?

I realize that those are the same experts that said that Saddam had no ties to AlQaeda. Bush went around the country regardless and made the very claim. I also realize that the experts were on the ground and in the process of ascertaining whether or not Saddam had WMD's when Bush told them to stop and leave. The bottom line is that Bush wanted his war and did and said anything he needed to to get it. It's quite well established.