Reddit reviews Iran's Nuclear Program and International Law: From Confrontation to Accord

Actually the IAEA report you linked to very much does say that, as doe every IAEA report on Iran, beca use that's the applicable legal syandard.


>IR degrees

If you want to swing degrees, I can assure you that mine are very much bigger, thicker and hairier than yours. IR degree are fine for what they are but they hardly qualify you as qualified in intl law or arms Control treaty interpretation See, maybe if you had a law degree with some specializatiom, as I do, then you could opine.

Yes the IAEA report says it can't verify the "exclusively peaceful" nature of Iran nuclear program. If you had taken the right classes in your 2 IR courses you'd know that the same statement could be made about not just Iran but any number of other countries on the planet including Brazil, Argentina, Egypt etc simple because the IAEA does not and cannot verify that for any country unless a separate treaty called the Additional Protocol is in force. In the case if Japan, where it is in force, it took 20 years before the IAEA verified the exclusively peceful nature of their nuclear prorm.

So before you fart off with your uninformed opinions again, STFu, read, learn, then opine:



>The same words could be used by the IAEA Director General if he were producing a report on another state that has declined to bring an additional protocol into force, e.g. Israel, Egypt or Brazil. The phrase cannot, and should not, be taken to imply that the IAEA has (or has not) specific grounds to suspect the presence of undeclared material, or the existence of undeclared activities.
http://www.iranreview.org/content/Documents/Iran_IAEA_and_Nuclear_Myth_Making.htm


Note the author is the UK ambassador to the IAEA.

Educate yourself: https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0190635711/

>1 - 9 years old

They're from the relevant time period, when these accusations of a "Possible Military Dimension" (previously called "Alleged Studies") were being addressed by the IAEA.

2- Whatever nice distinctions you want to make, there was never any evidence that Iran had an active nuclear weapons program or a nuclear program with a military purposes or whatever other way you want to put it. Zero. None. And FYI Iran's enrichment program started before the 1979 Islamic Revolution with the encouragement and support of the US and not to mention that many countries have or will be devleoping the same technology of enrichment which is why most of the countries of hte world backed Iran in the dispute wit hthe US over the right to enrichment (not because they want to make nukes but because like Iran they too want to have an independent source of reactor fuel not dependendent on outsiders)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3983-2005Mar26.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/12/opinion/12iht-edferguson.2781236.html

http://www.nti.org/analysis/articles/bush-proposals/

https://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/non-aligned-summit-belies-isolation-iran

https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2006_11/NAFuel


3 again you're making nonsense distinctions. If Iran had a nuclear weapons program or anything about nuclear weapons, then it was the job of the IAEA to say so instead it had consistently stated otherwise. The worst it has said is that Iran had a program to develop technology that was "relevant to" nuclear weapons. Which is what the NPT is supposed to do -- requires sharing nuclear technology, Article V of the NonProliferation Treaty even requires the sharing of data from nuclear test explosions with countries such as Iran.


4
if You claim my statement has been "directly contradicted" then please cite the language instead of two entire reports. Also, please make sure you also have the legal qualification to understand and interpret what you're reading and versus the actual requirements of the NPT. May I suggest:
https://www.amazon.com/Irans-Nuclear-Program-International-Confrontation/dp/0190635711

5 Removing the possibility

Ten years ago, 40 nations were estimated to have the capability to make nukes quickly if they wanted to -- that's 1 out of 4 nations on Earth.
http://old.seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2002041473_nukes21.html

They don't because nukes are actually useless and cause more problems
http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/ten-reasons-iran-doesnt-want-the-bomb-7802

https://thinkprogress.org/colin-powell-nuclear-weapons-are-useless-4ab6657759c7/

The assumption built into your argument is that nukes are a universally-desired thing that any country would get to deter any other country that has nukes. Well if that's just not true and is very simplistic.

This is aside from the fact that Iran already has proven that it opposed to WMD when it refused to resort to chemical warfare legally and in selfdefense against Iraq's US-backed CW attacks on Iran. Iran instead accepted the casualties of 100,000 people. So when Iran says it opposes WMDs on principle, it has already proven it with blood.
https://web.archive.org/web/20030102224708/http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/programs/dc/briefs/030701.htm

At the time, the US was trying to shift the blame for gassing the Kurds from Saddam onto the Iranians ! https://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/17/opinion/halabja-america-didnt-seem-to-mind-poison-gas.html

The NPT requires the sharing of nuclear technology, all of which "could be" used for nukes. There is no way to "remove the possibility" from any country without violating that country's rights. Note that every country has the right to make nukes if they want. In fact the NPT Art X even allows signatories to legally withdraw. So who gave the US the right to "allow" who to do what? The US itself is in violation of its own NPT obligations, FYI.

>storage of high-grade uranium

Iran never produced any "high grade" uranium and FYI in the past the US gave Iran weapons-grade uranium along with plutonium. So no that's not the issue and never was.

The deal had nothing to do with any actual nuclear threat. There was none.

Iran conssitently made BETTER nuclear offers that were ignored by the US to maintain the regime-chage pretext