Iran Says U.N. Can Visit New Nuclear Site

But says details of inspections would have to first be agreed upon

  • Share
  • Read Later

The spokesman for Iran’s nuclear department said Tuesday that United Nations inspectors can visit the country’s new heavy water nuclear reactor before a new round of talks next month.

But Behrouz Kamalvandi was quoted by the official IRNA news agency on Tuesday as saying the International Atomic Energy Agency would first have to agree to details of the inspections for the facility in Arak, without elaborating on what those details would be, the Associated Press reports.

Officials from Iran and the IAEA will meet Dec. 11 for a new round of talks.  Negotiations between Iran and world powers stalled over the weekend, but Iran promised more information and access to its nuclear sites on Monday.

[AP]

7 comments
AjaxLessome
AjaxLessome

Iran has only offered access to sites where there is no suspected nuke arms development. The sites identified as potential weapons development sites are off limits to UN Inspectors. Yet another example of empty promises to get sanctions relief in order to buy time and get funds to complete weapons production

Icansee4miles
Icansee4miles

The U.S. has an ugly track record of abandoning its foreign friends in tribal nations in the name of implanting a "one election democracy" which leaves these countries in the hands of religious fanatics that are hostile to Western ideals, or in chaos as a breeding ground for terrorists.

Israel-and Saudi Arabia-are concerned for good reason at the U.S.’ fecklessness. Take a good look at  Iran's creation of the Shia Crescent; Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Iran. Look at the populations of the oil fields of the Arabian Gulf; Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Qatar; significant populations of Shia Muslims.

Review the primary tenet of the Shia; not to recognize any sovereign authority except that of the Shia religion. The Head of the Shia; the Grand Ayatollah in Iran. Not to mention the Shia spreading their subversive tenets in South America, to Mexico and the borders of the U.S.A.

Once it gets its nuke, Iran will hold a knife to the throat of the Arabian Gulf's oil producing countries; it will be an existential threat to the entire world. The Bahrain Protocol, Amazon Kindle's new thriller spells out the truth in a gripping novel about the U.S.' withdrawal from the world stage; and if the U.S. won't protect the world, Israel will-with a surprising new partner, Saudi Arabia.

Karl
Karl

I remember I cheered in the early 80's when the Israelis took out an Iraqi facility that was said to be working on the bomb. But Iran is a different animal. Iran is 636,372 sq miles, Iraq is 168,754 sq. miles, by comparison Texas is 268,820 sq. miles. Iran is 2 1/2 times the size of Texas. It has 76 million inhabitants. We can sanction Iran, that didn't work on Italy before WWII when it invaded Ethiopia, it may or may not work today. Is anybody besides Israel (whose wars are always paid for by the USA) willing to invade Iran and conquer it and administer it? Not France, that is for sure. It might sound like an easy proposition to a country like the United States, that can fight with drones, cruise missiles and has the A-bomb, but our recent wars while starting out as cake walks have turned into dismal failures. Yes we can throw trillions around and install a government, but we can't change the realities on he ground, in fact we may be making them worse. I honestly think that a war to prevent Iran from getting the bomb would be worse than their getting it. It would not be winnable at any cost politically acceptable to the American people, we would have to destroy Iran in order to "save it" and the collateral damage to the world's oil supply from Arabia and Iran is incalculable, because we can't calculate what they might do or be capable of doing. It would be a war that would stretch from Lebanon and Israel's border, across Syria and Iraq and into Iran and possibly on into Afghanistan and Pakistan beyond. The whole region is primed for letting the dogs of war loose. And in the face of complete upheaval in an area that size I would worry about the political stability of the gulf monarchies. I mean what if we gave a war and lost or won it badly. Sometimes winning a war isn't all that, look at the British Empire, oh sorry, it's gone, right after its' victory in WWII. Wars happen all the time but sometimes you can smell that everything is on the brink of a game changing war, one in which the region at least will look different afterwards, and given our resume in Afghanistan and Iraq and our one visit to Lebanon under Reagan that cost 250 marines their lives and ended our mission pronto, I don't think that this is a smart road for the USA to take, either on its' own initiative or at the prodding of Israel or Arabia or a somehow interested France. We are the world power with the most to lose here and by far the least to gain. Anyone up for ruling a sullen empire from Lebanon to India that breeds suicidal assassins? 


JoeJoejoe
JoeJoejoe

yeah, like that gesture means anything at all.

"Oh hey check out our new (non weapons grade producing) nuclear plant!  see we're not making any silly nuclear weapons!"

 Iran has been stalling for years.  We know for a fact Iran was working on neutron triggers, which can ONLY be used in nuclear weapons.  

 



Vinayprasad
Vinayprasad

Israel will protect the world? You have gone off your mind Icansee4miles. If Israel could protect the world why isnt Israel finish off Iran's nuclear ambitions RIGHT NOW? Iran dosent have the bomb. So why isnt Israel attacking? I tell you what. Stop reading novels and all that crap. Join the armed forces. Get trained. You will mature.

Icansee4miles
Icansee4miles

@Vinayprasad Come to the Arabian Gulf to learn the truth Hindi, and lay off the chutney; it is blocking your brain cells.

Vinayprasad
Vinayprasad

You are writing everything else except answer to my point. Entire Israel is of the size of two Tehrans. Its a mosquito. Yeah, mosquito can day dream too.