If mass enriching of uranium isn't part of 'nuclear weapons program', well, it's a funny definition you have.
>just you think they must really want one because they keep getting attacked by a nearby nuclear power.
It's the Iranian government calling 'death to [far away nuclear powers]' not the other way around.
There is absolutely zero evidence that Iran is enriching uranium to weapons grade levels.
>t's the Iranian government calling 'death to [far away nuclear powers]' not the other way
Ignoring how the phrase "death to x" is an aggressive translation of "down with x," how is that worse than actually using weapons to attack Iran? Killing people is worse than saying they should die.
They're just collecting it since it looks shiny. Not because it's a shorter step to weapons grade from there.
>Ignoring how the phrase "death to x" is an aggressive translation of "down with x," how is that worse than actually using weapons to attack Iran? Killing people is worse than saying they should die.
A translation often used by the government itself. Which isn't shy about supporting 'resistance' killing people.
Or for the civil nuclear program.
>A translation often used by the government itself. Which isn't shy about supporting 'resistance' killing people
You haven't answered why saying it is worse than killing people.
That said, the Iranian government generally translates it to "down with x," and had further elaborated that they are calling for an end to policies that are imperialist and hostile towards Iran. Similar statements are common in US politics regarding Iran.
Sure, right.
Iran already receives nuclear fuel from Russia. It makes 'perfect' economic sense to risk massive sanctions to enrich 100x times the amount of 'fuel' Iran needs for a single 1000MW nuclear generation unit in Bushehr just so they could ditch their supplier. In a country with nearly free gas and oil. Which everyone accepts has done nuclear weaponization work.
>You haven't answered why saying it is worse than killing people.
I'm saying the Iranian regime kills people too, just with a slightly different cover.
>That said, the Iranian government generally translates it to "down with x,"
"Generally". Weasel wording doesn't impress.
>Generally". Weasel wording doesn't impress.
I can't say that every use of the term over fourty years has been translated as "down with," but that's hardly "weasel words." They've made very clear what they mean by the statement.
1) The country was far less sanctioned before the nuclear program.
2) Iran has a huge oil glut, no need to divert.
3) It's absurdly without economic sense even then. The expenses due to sanctions and diplomatic conflict are 1000x of any profit. If there's any profit compared to available imports from Russia.
4) It's a country with past weaponization program.
We know what it's really for.
>They've made very clear what they mean by the statement.
Yep, very clear. Just examine their attitude to Israel which gets the same statement.
>Just examine their attitude to Israel which gets the same statement
Disliking the imperialist policies of a state that regularly bombs you makes sense.
>four shows nothing
We have very different definitions to 'nuclear weapons program'. My definition includes creating massive stockpiles of enriched Uranium, especially for countries with acknowledge weaponization programs and no other reasonable motive.
According to your definition, if someone built an empty bomb, set it aside, and started working on creating some explosives that someone 'suspended the bomb program'. Perhaps the explosives are just for fireworks! Right.
>Two ignores Iran's status in OPEC
That only strengthens my point. OPEC gives a maximum export quota which most states are easily capable of exceeding. Might as well use it for internal purposes given the marginal price of extra production is zero.
>Disliking the imperialist policies of a state that regularly bombs you makes sense.
It's usually Iran which inefficiently does the 'regular bombing'. It's Iran that supplied EFPs to insurgents during Iraq war, and whose sellswords fire rockets at the Green Zone regularly. A rocket killed an Iraqi child just yesterday.
Something this thread seemed to agree restarted in 2019.
>OPEC gives a maximum export quota
Production quotas.
>It's usually Iran which inefficiently does the 'regular bombing
It is a fact that Israel regularly bombs Iran. What Iran does is a separate matter I am not defending, though if you blame them for weapons sales I hope you similarly blame the US and Israel for the results of their weapon sales.
Your argument was "Iran suspended their nuclear weapons program for a decade". That would put it in 2011 - exactly when Iran did mass enrichment, so I found it very odd.
>Production quotas.
You're right on the name. However, the intent is to control the market by controlling supply in the market, not to limit domestic use of oil. Nobody in OPEC cares about domestic use since it doesn't come at the expense of other member nations.
>It is a fact that Israel regularly bombs Iran
I suggest looking in a map. It's Iran that has troops and supports 'resistance' on Israeli border and not the other way around, and every once in a while these 'militants' fight with Israel.
So still zero evidence that they've had a nuclear weapons program post 2009, just you think they must really want one because they keep getting attacked by a nearby nuclear power.
>What's your point?
That your reason for wanting Iran to be forbidden from refining uranium is basically a fear that someday they'll be able to treat the US (or other western ally) how we treat them. If you object to that treatment, stop treating other countries like that with labels like "rogue state."