Obama: Iran Has the Right to Nuclear Power

[Purveyor]

Source: Associated Press

Tuesday, 02 June 2009

President Barack Obama suggested that Iran may have some right to nuclear energy _ provided it proves by the end of the year that its aspirations are peaceful.

In a BBC interview broadcast Tuesday, he also restated plans to pursue direct diplomacy with Tehran to encourage it set aside any ambitions for nuclear weapons it might harbor.

Iran has insisted its nuclear program is aimed at generating electricity. But the U.S. and other Western governments accuse Tehran of seeking atomic weapons.

"What I do believe is that Iran has legitimate energy concerns, legitimate aspirations," Obama said, adding that the international community also "has a very real interest" in preventing a nuclear arms race.

The president has indicated a willingness to seek deeper international sanctions against Tehran if it does not respond positively to U.S. attempts to open negotiations on its nuclear program. Obama has said Tehran has until the end of the year to show it wants to engage with Washington.

Read more: http://macedoniaonline.eu/content/view/6970/53/

[Ian David]

1. He is correct, but this will not be popular. n/t

[phantom power]

2. I agree with this approach. Treat them like fucking adults.

If you want to pursue nuclear energy, that's legitimate. If you want to build bombs, you're going to have problems.

I would actually go one step further, and ask why it's so wrong for them to want a nuclear arsenal. I continue to think it's bullshit for us to have thousands of warheads, that can be delivered to any location on planet earth, while we sanctimoniously threaten other countries for the reasonable response of maybe wanting a few of their own.

[SpartanDem]

4. You want more nukes?

Just because we have nukes of our own wanting to stop the spread of these things doesn't make us sanctimonious. Especially, when you consider that we've reduced our stockpiles and Obama is already working with Russia to reduce them even more.

[Boswells_Johnson]

7. Supporting and (probably) subsidizing Israel's stockpile does...

tend to look rather "selective" though.

[Wizard777]

10. Iran has far more open about it's nuclear ambitions than Israel has been about it "Textile Program."

So the next hurdle to clear is that we oppose Iran's nuclear ambitions to keep them at a strategic disadvantage and subjected to the dominance of Israels Nuclear Program er um Textile Program. So that's another issue we need to confront Israel on. We not only need to recognize the legitimacy of their rights to Nuclear energy. But also the legitimacy of their fears of a Nuclear Israel. Because that's exactly where that wiping them off the map comment comes from. Their fears of a nuclear Israel.

[ronnie624]

8. Well,

the U.S. does have a history of attacking countries in that region, both covertly and overtly. Our government also likes to sow conflict there, like when it encouraged Iraq to attack Iran, and then supplied both sides with weapons, which makes this quote in the article a real hoot: "And, obviously, there are some big misapprehensions about the Muslim world when it comes to those of us in the West."

It isn't a matter of wanting more nukes, but instead, understanding why a country like Iran might want a deterrent to a U.S. (and Israeli) penchant for aggression and domination, which so far, shows few signs of relenting.

[Idealism]

14. Nuclear power does not equate to nuclear weaponry, first off.

Two different processes and equipment for making power or making a bomb. A bomb is very costly and hard to do which is why so few countries have accomplished the feat. Iran should be allowed to have Nuclear power, which is what the article is saying. They've been ostracized for years due to the fallout from their revolution from our installed dictator, the least we can do is treat them like grownups.

[John Q. Citizen]

6. Obama has actually linked our arsenal and made the point that he wants steep reductions with

those countries who have large arsenals, us and Russia.

He has also made the point that it's not just Israel, but other countries in the region who are concerned (that would be the Saudis for sure) and that if Iran were to get a nuke it could lead to a regional arms race.

[John Q. Citizen]

5. I disagree. i think the truth is always defensible and is more popular than many people imagine.

This allows Iran to completely save face internally. It also encourages international cooperation.

[shadowknows69]

3. Chickenhawk heads exploding all over the place today,

[terrific]

9. How Would We Really Know if Their Aspirations are Peaceful....

hmmmmmm I think Bibi will take them out before this time next year.

[Wednesdays]

12. Rah! Rah! Rah!

Go get 'em, Bibi!

:eyes:

[Hardrada]

15. hmmmm yourself you warmongers!

Go straight to Hell and do not collect your 30 pieces of silver!

[hunter]

11. If Iran has nuclear power they will burn less oil and gas.

All else being equal (a.k.a. the economist's fallacy) this will increase the amount of oil and gas available in the world market.

[dvdaves75]

13. I agree with him but...

The stipulation here should be, you have the right to nuclear power when you stop funding Hamas and Hezbollah suicide bombers. I keep wondering if Obama is doing this so Israel just goes ahead on its own hook and bombs the reactors by themselves, and leaves him off the hook.

[Turborama]

16. Isn't Iran in a perfect location to harness solar power?

I understand that they might want to sell more oil and gas rather than burning it for themselves, but surely the cost of building a nuclear reactor makes the cost of erecting a huge solar farm pale into insignificance?

Just a thought.

[Tim01]

17. Perfect.A religious zelot with a nuke.

You know they don't have any homos in that country? He said it is because they are a Muslim country. I figured it was because the government hangs from a crane in the town square.