Six Arab states join rush to go nuclear

[RamboLiberal]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2436948,00.html

Algeria, Egypt, Morocco, Tunisia, UAE and Saudi Arabia seek atom technology


THE SPECTRE of a nuclear race in the Middle East was raised yesterday when six Arab states announced that they were embarking on programmes to master atomic technology.

The move, which follows the failure by the West to curb Iran’s controversial nuclear programme, could see a rapid spread of nuclear reactors in one of the world’s most unstable regions, stretching from the Gulf to the Levant and into North Africa.

The countries involved were named by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) as Algeria, Egypt, Morocco and Saudi Arabia. Tunisia and the UAE have also shown interest.

All want to build civilian nuclear energy programmes, as they are permitted to under international law. But the sudden rush to nuclear power has raised suspicions that the real intention is to acquire nuclear technology which could be used for the first Arab atomic bomb.

“Some Middle East states, including Egypt, Morocco, Algeria and Saudi Arabia, have shown initial interest nuclear power primarily for desalination purposes,” Tomihiro Taniguch, the deputy director-general of the IAEA, told the business weekly Middle East Economic Digest. He said that they had held preliminary discussions with the governments and that the IAEA’s technical advisory programme would be offered to them to help with studies into creating power plants.

[tanyev]

1. Well, sure. They just got all the info they needed from the GOP.

Way to go.

[krkaufman]

2. Clinton's fault. n/t

[AlamoDemoc]

3. ....

"Tomihiro Taniguch, the deputy director-general of the IAEA, told the business weekly Middle East Economic Digest. He said that they had held preliminary discussions with the governments and that the IAEA’s technical advisory programme would be offered to them to help with studies into creating power plants."

I think the same program can be offered to Iran, no?

But since Israel is in the equation, anything Iran does is a threat to the Jewish state, hence there is no negotiations, but to attack Iran.


on edit: misspelled jewish

[kenny blankenship]

4. Is it REALLY Iran's fault? Or might it not have something to do with

United States invading two Muslim countries one of which is oil rich, and the other is key to an important natural gas pipeline?

[Ian David]

5. Curious that those countries have access to the internets and the google. n/t

[Kahuna]

6. Can't blame them for that when there's a crazed chimp on the loose.

:shrug:

[kestrel91316]

7. Ought to be a piece of cake given how Bush posted complete

instructions (conveniently in Arabic) for them and their terrorist friends on the INTERNETS!!!!!!!!!

:argh: :mad: :wtf: :puke: :grr: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

Guys, keep the guns out of my hands, and keep me out of DC.

[Gregorian]

14. Make that YELLOW CAKE.

Oh this whole thing is so ironic. We've reached heights of hypocrisy hitherto unknown.

If it were only funny.

[bemildred]

8. That's it! Invade them all! nt

[BattyDem]

9. Dear George

Thank you for the plans. It would have taken us many years and millions of dollars to obtain such detailed information. We never imagined that a decade's worth of R&D could be eliminated by The Google. Those Internets are wonderful!

Sincerely,
Algeria, Egypt, Morocco, Tunisia, UAE and Saudi Arabia


:eyes: :grr: :nuke:

[Psephos]

10. They're afraid of Iran

Iran with nukes becomes the regional hegemon. Iranians are not Arab. Arabs have long feared an unchecked Iran more than they fear the U.S. Ignorance of historical Arab mistrust of Iran seems to affect a lot of people here in North America. Arabs are also alarmed at Ahmadinejad's reckless provocations of Israel, which they see as seeding a potential maelstrom that will spill over their borders like floodwater.

Iran is Shia'a, but Middle Eastern powers tend to be Sunni. Sunnis do not trust Shia'a theocracy, and that's an understatement. Specifically, they do not recognize the authority of Imams, who of course, call the shots in Iran.

It's not so hard to see why there's a rush to the nuclear clubhouse. Add tribal, racial, and religious differences to the region's trillions of dollars worth of petroleum. Now destabilize by adding nukes. I'm sure the royal Saudis are shaking out their pantlegs nightly.

This, IMO, is the single biggest reason that unified international pressure must be applied to stanch Iran's ambitions. Nuclear ambition among the squabbling atavistic governments of the Middle East is a Pandora's box writ large. The probability of a nuclear detonation, or even a nuclear war, increases inexorably toward certainty with each new club member.

I'm disappointed the evil of nuclear proliferation, especially among dysfunctional states, seems lost on many 21st Century progressives. "No nukes!" used to be our rallying cry. Now it's just a shoulder shrug. If you think global warming is bad, try nuclear winter.

Peace.

[oblivious]

11. Do you have any evidence that Iran or these other 6 Arab states are seeking nuclear weapons?

I have seen none.

[Psephos]

12. Do you have any evidence that they are not?

I have seen none, either.

Is it your opinion that a nuclear aspirant would announce weapons intentions? I see multiple incentives to do exactly the opposite. Embarking on a "peaceful" nuclear program sends the message loud and clear.

Peace.

[oblivious]

13. Yes indeed. They are all signatories to the NPT and have applied to the IAEA for help.

That means transparent programs under the supervision of the IAEA to ensure nuclear research and power is for the peaceful generation of electricity.

This is why the NPT was set up.

[Psephos]

16. That didn't work so well in the case of Iran.

International supervision means little to most of the regimes involved here, except when it's associated with aid or P.R. benefits.

Consider the nature of these governments before trusting their conformance with law. Consider their historical records, too. The men who lead these countries are at best cold realists and at worst narcissistic and avaricious thugs. Neither analysis lends comfort.

We have no margin for error when it comes to the proliferation nuclear weapons.

Peace.

[oblivious]

19. Since 2003 Iran has gone beyond the requirements of the NPT....

...agreeing to intrusive inspections and voluntarily suspending enrichment activities to build trust. What did it get in return? Nothing but distrust, disrespect, threats of war and further sanctions.

The West should be encouraging strict adherence to the NPT as Iran was doing. Only when Iran realised the US and E3 were not acting in good faith did it cancel the additional protocol -- which was voluntary.

[Psephos]

32. If you don't understand why Iran wants nuclear weapons then we must disagree

No problem, reasonable people can draw different conclusions from the same situation.

My opinion is that international law has little enforcement behind it, and affords manipulative countries many ways to twist and interpret its obligations, leading to predictable results. I've noticed that on roads where there is no police enforcement of the speed limit, everyone speeds. The principle is simple.

Countries are selfish things, and always want more power. Nuclear weapons confer power. Diplomats and lawyers produce truckloads of words, but it's action that counts in this world. The governments that want nuclear weapons will pursue them if they conclude such things are within their grasp. They'll pay their lawyers, diplomats, and spies to provide as much cover as possible, and manipulate the press with solemn pronouncements and moralistic statements. It's all rubbish. Every country looks out for its best interests, and what's worse, usually only its short-term best interests. I believe it's in the collective best interests of world governments to stop aggressive theocracies such as Iran or corrupt monarchies such as Saudi Arabia or corrupt "democracies" such as Egypt from gaining nuclear weapons.

Unstable countries are subject to coups by extremists. The regimes change, the nukes remain. Meanwhile, countries whose governments snub the rule of law have multiple inducements to share their nukes with other rogues. This can only lead to one outcome, sooner or later.

I don't trust the literal fate of the world with the IAEA or other international legal bodies. Their record is dismal. We have one chance to keep this evil djin in the bottle. We won't get a second chance.

Peace.

[Nevernose]

15. Or an alternative/aligning threory

Perhaps the supply of light crude is less than what the oil companies tell us? Of course, we already know the answer to that question (yes). In that case, I can see the desire for relatively cheap nuclear power (probably cheaper than here in the US or Europe, because of a presumed lack of safety regulations).

Cheap, locally-produced electricity is also Iran's stated reason for wanting nuclear power, and there IS some justification for it. They don't produce nearly as much oil as their neighbors, they know that what they DO have won't last forever, and they produce virtually NONE of their own gasoline products. Iran isn't wealthy, stable, or far-sighted enough to invest heavily into renewables.

I can also see Arab nations producing and exporting power to both Europe and their neighbors, if they could produce it cheaply enough. The mining of uranium could be done incredibly cheaply in sub-Saharan Africa or the western African mountains where uranium is plentiful and mining is cheap. The difficult part would be establishing the power routes through Gibraltar, Greece, Bulgaria, and Georgia, but it might be less costly in the long run than establishing new plants in Europe.

Note that I'm not disagreeing with your post, just laying out some potential, additional economic motivations. The Sunnis, like most everybody else, know that Iran also wants a Bomb so it can bully its neighbors.

[Psephos]

17. Interesting points you make there.

Good point, too, about the lack of refinery capacity in Iran. Can't pour crude into a gas tank, that's for sure.

I'd like to see see some of the Arab states consider turning waste desert lands into solar farms, for export to the same markets you mention. No nuclear reactors needed, then. :-) One can hope.

Peace.

[Nevernose]

18. The desert is not a wasteland.

A study was done 15 or so years ago that showed that if the Nevada Test Site were to be covered in 1970s era solar power cells, it would produce enough electricity to power the world.

That would be a huge sacrifice, though, since it would require the complete destruction of thousands of square miles of extremely fragile, extremely life-filled desert lands. Just because there aren't any trees and the animals that live there are rarely cute and cuddly doesn't make the desert any less valuable. If you screw up a forest, it'll come back in 50 years. If you screw up a desert, it might take 10,000 years to correct itself.

The technical and logistical difficulties of operating so large-scale in such a forbidding environment as the Sahara are also a consideration.

A better soultion would be to install solar collections in already developed areas. Every government or commercial building, every road sign, every home. Why solar collectors aren't already MANDATED for every school and county government center, I don't know. Production would be locally controlled, no environmental disasters would occur, and the air in Southern California might be breathable again. The primary petroleum expenditure in solar, by the way, would be in natural gas, since that's what most plastics are made from, and we still have a pretty good supply of natural gas worldwide.

[Chulanowa]

20. So what?

Personally I don't see any issue with these countries wanting nuclear power - or even nuclear weapons capabiltity. I can't foult them for either one. On the first, nuclear energy is quite cheap, and it beats the hell out of burning all their own oil. On the second... Well, on one hand you have a guy who's running the most powerful Military on earth who thinks he's on a mission from Jesus to kill as many Muslims as possible, and on the other you have a dumbassed Persian who's doing his best to piss the crazy dude off. If I were Saudi Arabia, nukes would be looking pretty good to me, too.

Regarding the power... They need ot. Show of hands, how many people want to see a liberated, peaceful middle east? I know I do. Well, you can't accomplish that without cheap energy. Might sound odd, but it's true.

[Vidar]

21. Bush has succeeded in spreading something, & it ain't democracy.

[Heidi]

22. Kick.

:kick:

[lanlady]

23. Six Arab states join rush to go nuclear

Another catastrophic foreign policy failure by the Bush misadminstration:

Six Arab states join rush to go nuclear
By Richard Beeston, Diplomatic Editor
Algeria, Egypt, Morocco, Tunisia, UAE and Saudi Arabia seek atom technology
THE SPECTRE of a nuclear race in the Middle East was raised yesterday when six Arab states announced that they were embarking on programmes to master atomic technology.

The move, which follows the failure by the West to curb Iran’s controversial nuclear programme, could see a rapid spread of nuclear reactors in one of the world’s most unstable regions, stretching from the Gulf to the Levant and into North Africa.

The countries involved were named by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) as Algeria, Egypt, Morocco and Saudi Arabia. Tunisia and the UAE have also shown interest.

All want to build civilian nuclear energy programmes, as they are permitted to under international law. But the sudden rush to nuclear power has raised suspicions that the real intention is to acquire nuclear technology which could be used for the first Arab atomic bomb.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2436948,00.html

[Vinca]

24. Well, at least we know where they got the plans. nt

[DRoseDARs]

25. Yeah, from Clinton. Just wait for the spin... n/t

[lanlady]

26. connection

I was wondering, too, if there's a connection between this announcement and the Busheviks posting nuclear weapon blueprints on the Internet.

[sugapablo]

28. Nah...

The information had been out there for some time.

The reason many states didn't pursue this, is because they feared retribution from forces such as the US.

But since GWB blew his wad in Iraq and is now unable to do anything against Iran and NK, other countries realize that they might as well get in on the game, or risk being left behind and vulnerable.

[Kolesar]

27. At those latitudes, they could go solar

and avoid the competition for uranium in the coming decades. Those arid states also don't have to worry about cloudy weather. Like us.

[sugapablo]

29. We're fucked.

Ok...This is what will start WW3.

If 6-7 middle eastern states have nuclear technology, and we get hit with a dirty bomb in NYC, fundies across the land will demand that we simply attack the entire middle east (sans Israel) and be done with them once and for all.

And I'm not talking Iraq style occupation and regime change, I'm talking just leveling their cities to the ground from the air and being done with them.

Think I'm wrong?

I just hope the dirty bombs stick to NYC, DC, and LA and skip little old Pittsburgh. Cause they'd be a'comin'.

[JCMach1]

30. UAE...

NOT!!!


I really question the veracity of this report!

[bushisdirt]

31. Thank you, Mr. Chimp.........................

[NVMojo]

33. the American imperialism is getting kicked in the arse bigtime