Who's Telling the Truth About Iran's Nuclear Program?
Anti War.Com / Mohammad Sahimi
19-Feb-2009 (51 comments)

This is only a small part of all the lies, exaggerations, and distortions of the facts about Iran's nuclear program. All the sound bites about the West respecting Iran's right to peaceful nuclear technology are just that, sound bites. The truth is, the West does not want Iran to have access to advanced nuclear technology. Now that Iran has succeeded in setting up a domestic nuclear fuel cycle, including designing new centrifuges, the West wants Iran to dismantle them. Why should Iran give up its legal rights under the NPT and its sovereign rights to develop its uranium resources and indigenous nuclear industry?


Lies, Lies and Damn Lies!!!


This is a brilliant expose of lies and distortion about Iran's nuclear energy programme.  Our in-house 'nuclear experts' will no doubt have a lot to throw up as usual.     


Kaveh Nouraee


by Kaveh Nouraee on

By absence of transparency, I'm referring to the never ending games of cat and mouse the IRI plays with UN or IAEA inspectors with regard to full access to facilities, records, and personnel.

As much as I loathe the IRI, I believe that the Iranian nation and Iranian people have the fundamental right to create and operate an infrastucture that allows them to reduce domestic dependence upon petroleum as a source for generating electricity. There are certainly cleaner, more efficent methods, with solar, wind and nuclear power among them.

So, if the goons in Tehran say, "let's go atomic", all that needs to be done, in the interests of peace and goodwill in the region and worldwide, is for inspectors to be allowed to come and have free and open access to audit the books, review policies and procedures that are in place to ensure all universally recognized and accepted safety protocols are being followed, and to ensure that no one is in fact moonlighting and using yellowcake to make atomic warheads. It's really a quite reasonable concept when you think about it and it's certainly reasonable to ask and expect full cooperation. If you're being straight-up and above board, and doing everything legally and honestly there's nothing to hide.


anonymous-H jan,

by Hajminator on

That's brilliant, thank you for posting.

We are able to be the ones we were in the past, we have just to aim it.


Dear Mammad:

by Anonymous-H (not verified) on

If Iran has the ability to make the bomb on a short notice, it becomes unattackable. That is not something that the US and Israel can tolerate. They want to be the hegemone of the Middle East.”

How does that make Iran unattackable?? What if hypothetically, Israel or US did decide to attack. How is having a few nuclear bombs going to protect Iran in such a scenario?? Is the IRI going to use nuclear bomb in retaliation? How does Iran become "unattackable" by having a bunch of nukes? Please explain! Thanks.


Dear Hajmi, Here it goes: He

by anonymous-H (not verified) on

Dear Hajmi,

Here it goes: He strategically placed a few pieces of meat in different locations facing east, south, west, and north. Then visited those places after a few days had passed. He picked the location where the pieces of meat had spoiled the least, indicating existence of more aseptic environemnt devoid of germs and airborne microrganisms; a perfect place to build a hospital.



by Hajminator on

No, I don't know. How did he so?



by Hajminator on

In the light of what observation you came to the conclusion, that I'm an Islamist? The nuclear activities of Iran were conducted under the NPT treaty that Israel didn't sign till now. That makes who a clandestin?

For your notice when USSR collapsed, mullahs bought 9 to 10 nukes krom kazakistan. They don't know if these bombs work, but if as Shimon perez said that Israel doesn't fear Mullahs sending them bombs but she fears that they give radioactve stuff to the hizbullah or the guys in Fatah who can spread them in Israel. Don't you think that from the one tone enriched uranium that Iran has by its own, you have to calm down, else giz?



rosie is roxy is roshan

Fred, what difference does the question really make

by rosie is roxy is roshan on

ultimately? The statement is:

"If Iran has the capability to make the bomb on short notice, it becomes unattackable."

Not "it will attack."

"It becomes unattackable."

In this HYPOTHETICAL IF situation in the statement you are focusing on, presumably the only reason you would not want Iran to have a DEFENSIVE bomb would be so the US or Israel could attack them, but the only pretext the US and Israel are claiming now for attacking them would be because they say they are going to use the (hypothetical) bomb to attack first.  So why is this statement so mportant to you???

I am guessing, since I don't really know you, that you want the US or Israel to attack Iran surgically to topple the regime, not to ward off an attack from Iran. In that case you would not want them to have defensive weaponry either. Is this the case?


Haji, lying then, or now?

by Fred on

Haji you can insult me as much as you want, nothing else is expected from an Islamist. It just comes with the territory.

The question remains, in light of the Islamist republic’s two decades long clandestine and illegal full cycle nuke activity that you pass yourself as an expert in and defend it and consistently claim it to be for scientific and civilian purposes-how do you explain away this candid statement:

”The crux of the issue about Iran's nuclear program is, in my opinion, as follows: If Iran has the ability to make the bomb on a short notice, it becomes unattackable. That is not something that the US and Israel can tolerate. They want to be the hegemone of the Middle East.”

Again, no amount of reposting in the USA today or  all the sites in the world, nor all the insults that you Islamists are infamous for would be answering the direct and legitimate question, Lying then, or now?


Who tells the truth

by tsion on

Of course , your dear Mullahs that you bunch all speak for (and kiss ass while denying it) in this website! Who else?



Rosie: About transparency

by Mammad on

Let me explain the issue of transparency:

The transparency of the nuclear program of a signatory of NPT is at two different levels:

1. The NPT member state signs the Safeguards Agreement. Then, the International Atomic Energy Agency is entitled to inspect and monitor all the nuclear facilities of the member state THAT HAVE BEEN DECLARED to it. The Agency also safeguards the nuclear materials. At this level, Iran's nuclear program has been completely transparent.

2. After Iraq was discovered to have had a secret nuclear program in 1991, the IAEA developed the Additional Protocol of the Safeguards Agreement, which is an intrusive inspection program. A nation that has signed the AP must allow the IAEA inspect ANYWHERE in the country on a short notice, whether or not that place has been declared as a nuclear site.

Now, in October 2003 Iran signed an agreement with Britain, France, and Germany (EU3) - known as the Sa'dabad Agreement - according to which Iran agreed to sign the AP and to carry out the provisions of the AP, until the Iranian parliament ratified it. In return, the EU3 agreed to develop and present a proposal that would satisfy their concerns, but also addresses Iran's aspirations and ambitions for nuclear techynology. Then Iran and EU3 also signed the Paris Agreement of November 2004 that reaffirmed the same goals.

Iran carried out all of its part of the bargain. However, after the EU3 reneged on its promises and presented to Iran in August 2005 a ridiculous proposal that was long on demands and absolutely zero on anything tangible for Iran, Iran suspended the AP provisions in February 2006. Iran declared that it will no longer carry out the provisions of the AP on a volunteer basis, but has declared its willingness to start implementing the AP again, if Iran's nuclear dossier is returned to the IAEA, its rightful place.

So, ever since, whenever the warmongers and their supporters talk about transparency, they mean at the AP level. Iran has no legal obligation to carry out the provisions of the AP on a volunteer basis, nor does it even have an obligation to sign and ratify the AP. Signing or not signing an international agreement is a sovereign right of a nation.

Now, imbeciles, such as Fredo C, do not understand the difference between potential and actual, the difference between making the bomb and having the possibility of making it without actually making it (Japan, South Arfica, Brazil, Argentina, South Korea, Taiwan... Iran is not even close to that stage), and just try to rant and slander people like me out of their imbecility and hatred for Muslims, and bark in a deafening fashion. The imbecile Fredo C completely changed what I said about the crux of the issue between Iran, the US, and Israel, and has tried to use that to once again to rant, huff, and puff. He thinks that just because he is an imbecile, so is everybody else.

People like me do not give a hoot to such barking. People like me express their opinion, which is based on expertise, and let Fredo C and his Mafia bark, rant, scream, shout, huff, puff, ..... The article has already made its impact, just like last week's article. The article has already been reproduced by numerous sites, and USA Today also posted it on its site. So, who gives a hoot to what Fredo C says? Bark!




Ok, Hajmi, Ataash Bas! I

by Anonymous-H (not verified) on

Ok, Hajmi, Ataash Bas!

I have a quiz for you. How did Abu-Sina pick the location for jondishapur's hospital?



by Hajminator on

The second choice is the good option. You're a real H-bomb, With you, mullahs don't need to make other bombs. Israel be aware we have it!



19th century and 18th

by anonymous-H (not verified) on

19th century and 18th century Iran was not a pretty place.


Just look at these pictures by Antoin Sevruguin:




by Hajminator on

You're good at what? Making safsates?

I've never said someone is dog. I'm myself french too and very proud of it. you're either doing it deliberately or you're really stupid.

If what all Iranians did these past years is nothing for you. Start by yourself smart a__.


You refused to answer the

by Anonymous-H (not verified) on

You refused to answer the rest of questions. Why?

Those 3 instances are irrelevant because they don't relate to the original topic of the conversation, which was how Iran became modernized and how the oil money helped build Iran with the help of "Dogs"(those good for nothing westerners)

I'm asking you again to read those questions and let me know their answers.

1. Who discovered oil in Iran in 1920 in Masjid Suleiman?

2. Who build the refinaries in Iran?

3. Who build the ifrastructure for extraction of oil?

4. Which Iranian pharmeceutical discovered vaccine?

5. Which pharmaceutical Iranian company discovered antibiotic?

rosie is roxy is roshan

Q is right International law.. PS

by rosie is roxy is roshan on

is international law. If Iran is a signatory of the NPT and is not in violation of IAEA regulations, it has the right to have the technology for peaceful purposes, period, Onlly if it can be PROVEN that they are planning on building a bomb would they forfeit this right. PROVEN.

So many people are arguing that Iran is dangerous, unstable, terrorist, threat to Israel, whatever. I don't want to argue whether these points are true or not because it's irrelevant to the fundamental issue. The issue is that international law is international law. It is not perfect but we're working on it, it's a work in progress and IMHO it is the only hope for the future, United Earth.

This being the case if Iran is inc ompliance and the rationale is she shouldn't have the energy because she is say "unstable" then the treaty must be renegotiated to say "nstable nations cannot have this energy". Specific criteria for what constitutes instability would have to be established and then applied equally to all other countries (eg Pakistan). Terrorist nation? What about Israel? I am not arguing here whether Israel is or isn't a terrorist state, I am simply stating a fact that many countries THINK it is. So, criteria and uniform appkication of them across the board to deprive countries of the right to the energy.

Til then, the law as it EXISTS is the law. Whether you think it sucks or not (like I think nuclear energy sucks anyway, but what can I do about it?)

Unless I have sorely misunderstood something in these discussions about compliance and that is why I asked Kaveh (or someone) below to explain what he meant by the lack of transparency."

Maybe I AM missing somethng because compliance was essentially what I asked about on my blog and no one here who seems to really know about it tried to explain it to me, then I noticed the feed and am trying to figure it out basically on my own.   But I am tenacious. I will prevail. ;o)

PS Okay so I just found this in the feed below from Javid:


So IAEA is "not happy" w/Iran's compliance but as the author of this feed on our thread mentions, it's about the past, not the present. Comments, please? I know f- all about this, I'm really just trying to learn. The ONLY thing I know is that I believe in International Law (and also that the system by which who gets to determine it needs restructuring, but that's another story...)


rosie is roxy is roshan

Kaveh (or someone), please explan (and/or refute) the

by rosie is roxy is roshan on


The question remains, if this nuclear program is strictly a civilian electrical program, why is there an absence of transparency by the IRI? What is it that they are trying to cover up?

To what absence of transparency do you refer?




by Hajminator on

You asked these 500 last years and I gave 3 RELEVANT examples just after the WWII and you dare call it Maghlateh!


Just pitiful. Learn me now things please, I'm all hearing.


I'm fully aware of Persian

by Anonymous-H (not verified) on

I'm fully aware of Persian history and the contribution we have made to the world civilization. I can actually teach you a few things that I'm sure you've never heard of.

Answer my questions instead of maghlateh and throwing out irrelevant information to derail the subject at hand.



by Hajminator on

In Iran or by the iranians?

You'll be surprised to know all that have been done by compatriots these last 50 years - just some examples

In Physics: Einstein's fave student was Dr. Hessabi an Iranian. His theory of "Infinitely extended particles" is well-known among the world physicists.

The name Algorithm is a distortion of Al-Khwarizmi, the Persian mathematician who wrote an influential treatise about algebraic methods. By now times, Zoubin Ghahramani is one of the most famous computer-scientist in Machine Learning (a branch of Intelligence Artificial) - His paper Building blocks of movement in the Nature is one of the references in the domain

In medecine: Dr. Ghanjbakhsh (at the hospital Pitié Salepetrier - Paris) invented a new method of heart surgery without cutting all the chest

There are n other examples that can be found easily. As long as you don't believe on what we are, you'll wait a solution from the others while it is just nearby your noise.
Hajmin, Prof. Dr. Ing.

rosie is roxy is roshan

Well I guess this answers my question on my current blog

by rosie is roxy is roshan on

about compliance, and more. And after I read up the thread I'm sure it'll just open up more questions.

Thanks for posting.



Hajminitor: Tell me about

by Anonymous-H (not verified) on

Hajminitor: Tell me about scientific advances of the last 500 years in Iran. Don't talk to me about Jondi Shapour, the first hospital in Iran opened by Aviecenna or abou-sina.

Are you suggesting those diseases were not eliminated by using Western medicine and vaccine?

Name one vaccine that Iranians have produced???

Name one anti-biotic that was produced in Iran??

Are you suggesting that oil was discovered and extracted in 1920 by Iranians? Are you telling me that the oil was extracted and refined using Iranian technology? Are you suggesting Iranian discovered electricity? Are you suggesting that the sewere system in Iran was not by the help of foreigners?

How long are you going to stay in denial by using our glorious past as a crutch to explain our dismal state of stagnancy as a civilization???

The first step to remedying our situation is to admit that we have fallen behind of the rest of the worlf whether because of Islam or some other reasons.

Once we acknowledge our shortcomings, then we might have a chance to join the 21st century.

anonymous fish


by anonymous fish on

bebeen... i totally understand what you're saying!!!  i couldn't argue with one word you've said!!  i was just trying to put it into perspective as it related to the article which is not about anyone or anything else but iran having nuclear capabilities.  maybe i wasn't clear.  i don't want ANYONE to have nukes.  not the US, not israel, not pakistan, not the friggin' north koreans... NO ONE.  i am simply saying that i don't believe an equal playing field is the answer.  that's one of the BIGGEST reasons mccain lost (in my opinion).  the US doesn't want another war and, in my opinion, ESPECIALLY with iran.  bush (via that monster cheney) would have done something stupid.  mccain is a republican.  he would have followed suit.  BECAUSE we have obama in the house now, i think globally there is a better solution via dialog.  i also don't take it as fact one way OR the other than iran is or isn't seeking further expansion of nuclear weaponry.  i don't think anyone knows for sure except those who are involved in it. 

the west spins it and iran spins it.  i don't think it's worth taking a risk one way or the other.

and to "word to the wise"... i appreciate the effort but as long as i'm treated with curtesy and respect and as long as it's understood that I respect everyone else's opinions, please don't create a "us" versus "them" situation.  there is far too much of that already and i'm already on probation as it is... :-)

EDITED... what happened to his comment?  this is the problem with moderation.  it leaves a big question mark (?) when comments are deleted for no reason.  jeez.



by Hajminator on

Do you know persian aziz? Do you know what the expression being somebody's dog means?


Well the topic wasn't that but as you brought it to the table, I don't want to pretend we know everything but iranians knew how to use the gaz and the oil they found on the soil before even that people in West knew what the materials are. For the medecine, did you know that in Montpellier in France they taught Ebn-Sina's book Shafa till mid 19th century! In Mathematics, Khayyam instaured the calender that Gregoire copied and the western calendar is based on the one of Khayyam ones. Still Khayyam solved second and third order equations. Razi was the one who discovered the Alcohol. And so many others

What, westerns brought were discord and division among our nation.

Now tell me a bit about fairness.


AF, You can't NOT discuss Israel!

by Mehrnaz (not verified) on

Dear AF

"iran having nuclear weaponry is a MAJOR concern to me as an american".

Considering the FACT that Iran does not have nuclear weapons and there is no evidence that it is developing one (Please read the article). can you possibly imagine the MAJOR concern on the part of Iranians (and indeed the rest of the world) about the FACT of the US's possession of the largest arsenal of nuclear weapons capable of destroying the earth many times over? Can you imagine the MAJOR concern about the FACT that US as the only perpetrator of a nuclear holocaust, has been consistently threatening Iran with 'pre-emptive' (sic) strike, including the use of nuclear weapons, according to your National Security Strategy? Have you considered our VERY MAJOR CONCERNS?

"particularly under the current regime",

We are still in early days of Obama regime, with the military option still ostensibly 'on the table', but did you have a MAJOR concern too about the US's possession of nuclear weapons with its constant threat of war against Iran, under the Bush regime?

You also say, "But we are not discussing Israel, we are discussing Iran". Israel is the country pushing for war against Iran!!! Israel is the only country in the ME with a huge nuclear arsenal, it has refused to join the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, is boasting now and again its possession of illegal nuclear weapons, and is the country threatening to attack Iran .... to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities. How is it possible to leave Israel out?!!!

Peace out.


How about a security pact or

by post (not verified) on

How about a security pact or a peace pact between Israel and IRI mediated by the UN?? Would that solve the problem!

But IRI does not recognize Israel. Would IRI be willing to sit down with the Israelis and solve their issues diplomatically?

anonymous fish

well then Q

by anonymous fish on

we're just going to have to agree to disagree.  i think iran having nuclear weaponry is a MAJOR concern to me as an american.  particularly under the current regime.  doesn't make me any righter than you... and certainly not any wronger...:-)

peace out.



by Q on

and i'm aware my opinion carries no legal weight. nor does yours.

Good. That's why I referred to the document that does have legal weight: NPT, and not my own opinion.

you seem to be making an absolute statement of fact that iran is NOT developing nuclear weapons.

IAEA has repeatedly stated that no evidence exists that Iran is diverting any effort to nuclear weapons. No evidence for any nuclear weapons development or program. In logic, and in law, unless you can show evidence, you can't make a claim like "Iran is developing nuclear weapons."

You can't prove a negative. You have to prove a positive.

didn't i say that she was entitled to civilian nuclear development? it's nothing that anyone would argue.

Actually, you are wrong. That is the very crux of the argument here. Bush was saying that Iran cannot be trusted to establish civilian nuclear development because of "suspicion" (with no evidence) that it might develop nuclear weapons. So, this literally means, Iran has no right to develop civilian nuclear energy.

why are you attacking my opinion as meaningless? because it differs from yours?

legally meaningless, as you yourself have admitted. At tims, I used "you" as in "someone" like saying "you can't fight city hall". No need to be overly dramatic, it wasn't personal.

you seem to think it's not a matter of concern to me as an american. please don't be so obtuse about whether or not this is a global issue. it concerns everyone!

The rights of Iran are a legitimate concern to you exactly as much as an average Iranian living in Iran has concerns about American national "rights." No more, no less.


Dejavu, its Iraq again

by Alborzi (not verified) on

Exact same tactics was used against Iraq, their own NIE says noway. Soon they will discover that a war would get them out of their economic situation too. There is not an iota of evidence and to boot the accusation comes from Israel and USA. Anyone who gives these characters credibility, they are either stupid or have an interest. Essentially USA has perjured itself in the UN, it should not be listened too. During the inspections, Hans Felix (former UN inspector in Iraq) wrote back, that in the field without access to sophisticated equipment he could see the fake documents. Yet USA presented those lies to UN. Do not believe lies.



by post (not verified) on

SO you say Westerners are Dogs?

Interesting. These westerner discovered oil and extracted the oil for you; otherwise, you would still be pa paty like the people in Afghanistan who have to grow poppies to put food on thier table.

They also modernized everything in Iran, entire swege system, plumbing, electricity, schools, education and so on. They build the entire infrastucture for the Iranian oil industry and hence the economy.

Brought vaccines of all sorts. Their medicine cured hundreds and thousands of malnourished, bacteria infested destitude Iranians; diseases such as kachali, saalak, aabeleh, sel, vabasir, kerme medeh, and so on.

Ensaf ham khoob chizeeyeh!