It's obvious that Iran is not in favor of regulatory IAEA design safety reviews and among the talks she is firm that the nuclear program is merely for "peaceful purposes."

Is there a legitimate reason they have offered as to why they should not be inspected? How can we believe that their nuclear program is only for energy?

  • 2
    Do you mean "legitimate" (endorsed by the law) or "genuine" (real) or "plausible" (possibly believable)? – Jasper Feb 10 '15 at 4:26
  • Wow I never considered the difference. Let me rephrase: is there an open and public reason that the UN and EU should believe that relinquishing control to Iran would only lead to peace? So a combination of "genuine" and "plausible." It seems inconsistent at best so if the argument has stood for this long there must be a good case they are providing. – Script Kitty Feb 10 '15 at 5:22
  • Regardless of how good the "case they are providing" is, the argument can stand for a very long time when it is backed by a realpolitik argument: "You can't make us give up our nuclear program, unless you conquer us. And you aren't willing to spend the blood and treasure to conquer us." – Jasper Feb 10 '15 at 6:09
  • Brilliantly summed into one concept. I didn't think they would propagate that unspoken argument in a UN meeting. – Script Kitty Feb 11 '15 at 4:14
  • 1
    As you say, the realpolitik argument is unspoken. – Jasper Feb 11 '15 at 5:13

Iran does have genuine reasons for developing a civilian nuclear power industry. Iran's oil production is comparable to that of Iraq or Kuwait, but Iran has a much larger population. Between declining production and increasing domestic consumption of subsidized gasoline, Iran risks becoming a petroleum importer in a few years. Nuclear power (especially using Russian technology) is relatively cheap.

Iran also has very strong reasons to develop a nuclear weapons program. An obvious reason is that "the West" (including the United States and the United Kingdom) have not honored the agreements they made with two countries that gave up nuclear weapons programs -- Libya and the Ukraine. Iran also knows that an American threat of nuclear war was what forced the Soviets to leave Iran after the end of World War II.

If Iran was (hypothetically) willing to allow their (future) nuclear energy sector to be controlled by another country (such as Russia), Iran could build nuclear plants that would not be worrisome to the Europeans. (Bangladesh has made such a deal with the Russians.) An obvious reason for the Iranians to not do this is that Russia has repeatedly used its natural gas industry to try to exert political power over both Eastern European and Western European countries.

  • Cheers I'd +1 if I had the rep. – Script Kitty Feb 11 '15 at 4:20
  • 1
    The second paragraph is particularly interesting I didn't know the West shortchanged Libya and Ukraine which is really interesting. Through my limited research I understand Iran really does want 20% enriched Uranium so that some speculate should the need arise they can upgrade to the required 90% and fire off at Israel... some say their intentions are purely for deterring, others say its only for energy, but they really are struggling against Western inspections at the Nuclear Summit. Right then, avoiding dangerous political influence from stronger nations is another reason. – Script Kitty Feb 11 '15 at 4:24
  • 1
  • 2
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_Ukraine has a copy of the public portion of the agreements guaranteeing the Ukraine's territorial integrity in return for it not taking ownership of the nuclear weapons left behind by the Soviet Union. Deals like this typically also have non-public terms. In the past year, Russia has annexed part of the Ukraine, and the West has told the Ukrainians to find a modus vivendi with the Russians. Modus vivendi literally means, "live with it." – Jasper Feb 11 '15 at 5:07
  • 1
    politics.stackexchange.com/questions/7899 discusses the agreements guaranteeing the Ukraine's territorial integrity. – Jasper Jan 25 '16 at 23:24

Iran does not oppose nuclear inspections. there are many things that can be discussed about Iran's nuclear program, as my friend Jasper talked about, that I thought are off-topic according to your question, but apparently not. it'd also be good if you could provide some evidence for your statements.

IAEA are welcome to visit Iran's Nuclear program's sites, however, they have themselves refused the offers. recently, Iran invited (International Atomic Energy Agency)IAEA to have a one managed access to Marivan, a region mentioned in an IAEA report in 2011 on suspected activities by Iran that could be relevant for developing nuclear weapons.

  • 3
    Thanks, I am not well versed in the whole controversy and while I was looking for the source that said that, I found another one that recently said Rohani allowed it. Thanks for clearing that. Also I found something for the followup: washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/12/02/… – Script Kitty Feb 11 '15 at 4:30
  • 3
    Israel has not signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, so the IAEA has no authority to restrict its ability to make nuclear weapons. Iran signed the non-proliferation treaty as a non-nuclear power. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/… – Jasper Feb 11 '15 at 4:56
  • 2
    "Managed access" to one out of many sites is not the same as random inspections. "Managed access" allows "dog-and-pony shows", where the inspector sees what the inspectee wants him to see. Random inspections might not find anything either, but they have more of a chance (if there is anything to find). – Jasper Feb 11 '15 at 5:22
  • 2
    @Jasper yes for whatever reason Iran did sign that but IAEA have no hard feelings about Israel not signing that. i'm wondering if this whole nuclear thing did not exist, what other reason did US have for their sanctions. would they explicitly say that they're just afraid of Iran becoming a super-power in middle-east and their resources in there get threatened? and you're right, i don't have any more clue about that. – user2977 Feb 11 '15 at 5:31
  • 2
    @Saeed, you response could be considered as indeed a right answer. Actually as you mentioned "Iran does not oppose nuclear inspections.", but unfortunately some states endeavor to indicate it like that in order to increase the pressure to Iran y some unreal propaganda ... Well done. – Shia_Sunni___________UNITY Jun 9 '15 at 8:09

How would the people in US, especially those who most like to pillory Iran for not being docile and compliant, react if a bunch of foreigners, led by Iranians, wanted to come into the US and, completely at their own whims, go to any facility, unannounced, to poke around and inspect them? The howls of outrage would be heard half way across the globe, which means they'd be heard all around the globe, I guess.

Issues of sovereignty, security and prestige/image would make any country at least partially resistant to that kind of intrusion. That's why so many found it notable that Iran agreed to a level of inspections and deference to an inspection regime that has never been achieved before.

Debunking the Myths... - Center for Arms Control and Non-proliferation

Downvoters - please read what I actually say in my answer. I'm not even stating that Iran DOES oppose inspections. I'm pointing out that some wrangling or desire to mitigate access is a normal reaction from any nation.

  • 1
    Iran is a party of the Non Proliferation Treaty since 1968, and this treaty includes the need to prove that nuclear installations are not used for the production of weapons. This is done mostly by inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (not by the USA). So, the inspections were accepted by Iran government and are not a breach of its sovereignty. – SJuan76 Nov 18 '16 at 14:06
  • 1
    @SJuan76 - I'm not saying that they are a breach, and I never said so. Straw-man. I'm saying that critics of what was agreed to are unrealistic in what they think any country would/should agree to. Again, is there an equivalent inspection regime going on in the USA, with the level of access that Iran agreed to? Yet we are also a party to that agreement. And agreeing to verification doesn't mean carte blanche agreement to anything and everything anyone wants. Please respond to what I actually write, not what you want to infer from it. I never even state that Iran is against inspections. – PoloHoleSet Nov 18 '16 at 14:15
  • 2
    You said "issues", with the same practical meaning. And the USA is a party to the NTP too, but as a nuclear weapon state, while Iran is in the non-nuclear weapon state category (whatever it is fair or unfair is out of scope, the fact is that Iran and USA have different rights and obligations with respect to the treaty). en.wikipedia.org/wiki/… – SJuan76 Nov 18 '16 at 14:48
  • 2
    @SJuan76 - No, not the same practical meaning, at all, unless you WANT it to be so for your convenience. Saying something might naturally make someone uncomfortable or cause some initial resistance is not the same, at all, as the meaning you created. Iran agreed to major concessions. They have willingly put themselves under inspection. So what is it, exactly, that you are quibbling about and what, exactly, is it that you seem to think I'm saying? I'm merely saying that some initial resistance and a desire to minimize what might be viewed as a bit of an intrusion is not abnormal. That's all. – PoloHoleSet Nov 18 '16 at 14:54

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .