Iran refuses EU's nuclear offer

[Mr. Blonde]

Latest news (from Austrian Press Agency and Reuters);

The coming IAEA resolution demands form Iran to stop all nuclear activites.The IAEA further states that it can not confirm that the Iran revealed its Nuclear program completely to the IAEA. A request to transfer this conflict to the UN security council is not contained, though.

I think it is safe to say that they want to build nuclear weapons, as also the EU and US offer to purchase enriched Uranium for civil use under special conditions was refused. The new president it seems goes hard on conflict course with EU and US. What will happen if there follows a resolution from the UN security council (I consider this to be likely as none of the Veto powers is allied with the Iran)? Will the Iran give by and allow unlimited inspections? And if not, are there enough resources left to start a military operation to stop the nuclear program of Iran?
For me it seems likely that the international community (UN + sub organisations)will face a major (or even final) blow as its impotency becomes evident one more time.
Side remark: It should be clear that the US war on Iraq massively helped the mullah regime as one of their most dangerous foes was eliminated. The current situation makes the transformation of the Iraq to a shia islamic republic likely - a naturally ally for the Iran.

 

[Winner]

Latest news (from Austrian Press Agency and Reuters);

The coming IAEA resolution demands form Iran to stop all nuclear activites.The IAEA further states that it can not confirm that the Iran revealed its Nuclear program completely to the IAEA. A request to transfer this conflict to the UN security council is not contained, though.

I think it is safe to say that they want to build nuclear weapons, as also the EU and US offer to purchase enriched Uranium for civil use under special conditions was refused. The new president it seems goes hard on conflict course with EU and US. What will happen if there follows a resolution from the UN security council (I consider this to be likely as none of the Veto powers is allied with the Iran)? Will the Iran give by and allow unlimited inspections? And if not, are there enough resources left to start a military operation to stop the nuclear program of Iran?
For me it seems likely that the international community (UN + sub organisations)will face a major (or even final) blow as its impotency becomes evident one more time.
Side remark: It should be clear that the US war on Iraq massively helped the mullah regime as one of their most dangerous foes was eliminated. The current situation makes the transformation of the Iraq to a shia islamic republic likely - a naturally ally for the Iran.

Well, in some respect, I am looking forward for that. The international relations are too calm in these days

(I don't mean this seriously, of course)

 

[Jorge]

One thing is certain, if Iran really manufactures nuclear weapons the world will be a more dangerous place.

What about people of Iran? They have been placed in the axis of evil by Bush, so they might think that having nuclear weapons is actually making his country safer. I would not like Iran developing nuclear weapons, but I can understand them.

 

[Jorge]

Iran is way to dangerous to have nukes. Personally I think that bombing the nuclear plants, whatever the consequences, is a much safer option than allowing them to posses nuclear weapons. The thought of a mushroom cloud appearing above one of the worlds major cities is far from appealing plus if Iran does it other dangerous states may follow.

However I'm sure that the Iranian leaders aren't completely suicidal and will be willing to reach a compromise when the US and EU turn the pressure up.

We should only bomb their facilities if we are 100% sure that we can delay Iran building nuclear weapons for ever. If we bomb, and they manage to build the bomb anyway, they will have a reason to attack.

 

[Hitro]

What about people of Iran? They have been placed in the axis of evil by Bush, so they might think that having nuclear weapons is actually making his country safer. I would not like Iran developing nuclear weapons, but I can understand them.

Yep. If I was them I would do everything to get my hands on nuclear weapons. And that not to attack anyone but to prevent from becoming the next victim of a neocon "liberation".

 

[luiz]

What about people of Iran? They have been placed in the axis of evil by Bush, so they might think that having nuclear weapons is actually making his country safer. I would not like Iran developing nuclear weapons, but I can understand them.

Building nuclear weapons is understandable. It could lift a country like Iran from the status of an annoying rogue nation to a power to be reckoned with. Considering that they're already under an economic embargo and that the international community is presently unable to carry on a large scale military action, I think it's fair to say that making nukes is in the best interests of the ayatollahs.

 

[Winner]

Building nuclear weapons is understandable. It could lift a country like Iran from the status of an annoying rogue nation to a power to be reckoned with. Considering that they're already under an economic embargo and that the international community is presently unable to carry on a large scale military action, I think it's fair to say that making nukes is in the best interests of the ayatollahs.

And don't forget the new Iranian president isn't exactly pro-western guy. He now want to show its voters he is a strong leader. Know better way than to oppose the West (=USA)?

 

[Azadre]

I shall repost this, and I hope everyone reads it.

The Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, has issued the fatwa that the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons are forbidden under Islam and that Iran shall never acquire these weapons, IRNA quoted from the statement.

 

[Winner]

I shall repost this, and I hope everyone reads it.

So what? Soviets claimed they don't violate human rights...

 

[Hitro]

So what? Soviets claimed they don't violate human rights...

WMD in Iraq would have been the better analogy...

 

[Winner]

WMD in Iraq would have been the better analogy...

Yeah, that's right!

 

[Azadre]

So what? Soviets claimed they don't violate human rights...

Well, it would be like the pope saying it. If it is said, it is to be followed by the Iranian Shi'a.

 

[Mr. Blonde]

Originally Posted by IRNA
The Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, has issued the fatwa that the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons are forbidden under Islam and that Iran shall never acquire these weapons, IRNA quoted from the statement.

Is it possible to issue another fatwa with the opposite meaning later?
If this was meant serious (and not only as political signal to the west) why then does the Iran not want to cooperate with the IAEA and risks a serious conflict? Imo, the behaviour of the new president speaks another language than this fatwa.

 

[anarres]

AFAIK (and my knowledge is very limited), a fatwa is a religous ruling based on an interpretation of the Koran and the Oral laws (sorry, I know it's got a name...).

Also AFAIK, to Iranian Muslims, a fatwa by Ayatollah Khamenei is the equivalent of God telling them something, it is infallable.

To suggest he is lying really is like calling the pope a liar when he issues an Ex-Cathedra statement...

Edit: Even if you think he is lying, like Azadre says, ALL Iranian Muslims are duty bound to obey the fatwa. To disobey is to go against God.

 

[MarineCorps]

What will happen if there follows a resolution from the UN security council (I consider this to be likely as none of the Veto powers is allied with the Iran)?

Russia probaly will want to veto it.

@Azadre: The pope said not to invade Iraq. Yet we still did.

 

[classical_hero]

AFAIK (and my knowledge is very limited), a fatwa is a religous ruling based on an interpretation of the Koran and the Oral laws (sorry, I know it's got a name...).

Also AFAIK, to Iranian Muslims, a fatwa by Ayatollah Khamenei is the equivalent of God telling them something, it is infallable.

To suggest he is lying really is like calling the pope a liar when he issues an Ex-Cathedra statement...

Edit: Even if you think he is lying, like Azadre says, ALL Iranian Muslims are duty bound to obey the fatwa. To disobey is to go against God.

When has man ever disobeyed God?

 

[Mr. Blonde]

originally posted by anarres
AFAIK (and my knowledge is very limited), a fatwa is a religous ruling based on an interpretation of the Koran and the Oral laws (sorry, I know it's got a name...).

Also AFAIK, to Iranian Muslims, a fatwa by Ayatollah Khamenei is the equivalent of God telling them something, it is infallable.

To suggest he is lying really is like calling the pope a liar when he issues an Ex-Cathedra statement...

Edit: Even if you think he is lying, like Azadre says, ALL Iranian Muslims are duty bound to obey the fatwa. To disobey is to go against God.

So neither he nor a future Ayatollah can overrule this fatwa? I am curious because I am rather positive that the catholic church overruled some of the ex-cathedra statements during their history.

How do you explain then the behaviour of the current president? Does he just want to get more concessions from the EU and US in future negotiations?

 

[Hitro]

@Azadre: The pope said not to invade Iraq. Yet we still did.

Since when is the pope the leader of the United States?

Although that could explain alot...

 

[wit>trope]

A nuke-armed NK ist not much more desirable than a nuke-armed Iran. With nukes NK has some kind of card blanche to attack SK! NK is way worse than Iran and Iraq together! Their soldiers are fanatics, their leaders are lunatics and its govt is as ruthless as the govt of Nazi Germany!
Iran may not use a nuke just to save the lifes of other Muslims 'cause I think Irans govt is some kind of more reasonable. But Kim Jong-Il is another case... He doesn't bother to let his own people starve to death, and doesn't care if 'criminals' (their crime was to think different) are sent to concentration camps where biological weapons are tested on 'em... Do you think he woul hesitate to use nukes against Seoul, Japan or U.S. Soldiers?

He may use them against Japan but I doubt he would use them against his fellow Koreans.

 

[wit>trope]

AFAIK (and my knowledge is very limited), a fatwa is a religous ruling based on an interpretation of the Koran and the Oral laws (sorry, I know it's got a name...).

Also AFAIK, to Iranian Muslims, a fatwa by Ayatollah Khamenei is the equivalent of God telling them something, it is infallable.

To suggest he is lying really is like calling the pope a liar when he issues an Ex-Cathedra statement...

Edit: Even if you think he is lying, like Azadre says, ALL Iranian Muslims are duty bound to obey the fatwa. To disobey is to go against God.

annares, you make a good effort there but there is a crucial distinction between the Christian and Muslim religion. Christians are not allowed to lie, especially not about their faith (that's why Christian martyrs died rather than denying their faith). However Muslims are allwed to lie, including specifically about their faith.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taqiyya

In Shi'a Islamic tradition, Taqiyya (التقي&#1577 is the dissimulation of one’s religious beliefs when one fears for one's life, the lives of one's family members, or for the preservation of the faith. It is most often used in times of persecution or danger. Some Sunnis assert that Taqiyya is an act of hypocrisy that serves to conceal the truth. According to them, Taqiyya constitutes a lack of faith and trust in God because the person who conceals his beliefs to spare himself from danger is fearful of humans, when he should be fearful of God only.

The practice was a method of self-preservation for the Shi'as who historically were the minority and persecuted by Sunni Muslims. Sunnis would sometimes force Shi'as to curse the House of Ali - believing that no devout Shi'a could commit such an act. As a result of this persecution, the idea of Taqiyya emerged. In other words, if a Shi'a Muslim's life is in danger, he may lie as long as he holds his faith true in his heart.

Shi'as justify the practice using the following verse from the Qur'an:

Any one who, after accepting faith in Allah, utters Unbelief,- except under compulsion, his heart remaining firm in Faith - but such as open their breast to Unbelief, on them is Wrath from Allah, and theirs will be a dreadful Penalty. Sura 16:106
And the following

[Shakir 3:28] Let not the believers take the unbelievers for friends (awliyaa) rather than believers; and whoever does this, he shall have nothing of (the guardianship of) Allah, but you should guard (tattaqoo) yourselves against them, guarding carefully (tuqatan); and Allah makes you cautious of (retribution from) Himself; and to Allah is the eventual coming.
According to Shi'a interpretation of these verses, 3:28 is telling that believers should not take unbelievers as Walis rather the believers, those who do it will lose the wilayat (5:55) of God, that is unless they are using taqiya/protecting them self, and doing so with caution. And God knows what is in your heart, so fear his wrath, for nobody escapes God.

Taqiyya, like any other Islamic tenet, has guidelines and limits. According to many Shi'a Muslims, Taqiyya can only be legally used by a Muslim verbally when he or she is being wrongly persecuted. The situation may be when no matter whichever course of action an individual chooses he has to commit an evil. In that case, he should select the lesser evil.

Shi'as cite the first use of Taqiyya historically during the time of Muhammad when Muslims were beginning to be tortured by the Qurai****es. Ammar ibn Yasir, a follower of Muhammad, whose friends had been killed for being Muslim by the Quraish, was confronted by a Qurai****e. 'Ammar pretended to renounce Islam and thus saved his life.

Many Sunnis criticize Ammar for his actions or question the reliability of the story. Sunnis cite the examples of many Muslims who were tortured and murdered merely based on their belief during the time of Muhammad, Umayyad and Abbasids but didn't renounce their faith. Sunnis believe that God decides when someone is going to die. Therefore, it's wrong to deny the faith in order to escape torture or death. By contrast, the Shi'a believe that life is a gift from God and should be preserved. In a life-threatening emergency, the preservation of life takes precedence over anything else.

Critics of the Argentinian president Carlos Saúl Menem of Syrian descent have dismissed his early conversion to Christianity as taqiyya.

The Druze, a Levantine religion influenced by Islam, allow disguising their Druzeness and the simulation of being Muslim or Christian to avoid the frequent persecutions by the local majorities.

And besides this, if the fatwa or whatever really had any umph, then that would mean Pakistan, a Muslim country, would give up its nukes. Obviously they are not doing that and will not do that ... so the fatwa doesn't have any umph to it even if it is true.