Talk:Iran and weapons of mass destruction

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
WikiProject Iran Iran and weapons of mass destruction is part of WikiProject Iran, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Iran-related topics. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of objectives.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's quality scale.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's importance scale.
After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 11 April 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

Contents

[edit] International Response - Israel

Discussion moved from Talk:Iran's nuclear program --Uncle Bungle 20:39, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please no "quotes" from a tertiary source, edited by a secondary source with an obvious political agenda.[1] [2] [3]

Frankly, I don't think either of them are needed. A simple reference to the pressure on the USA by Israel has ballooned in size but not at all in substance. I would prefer to remove the quotes and replace them with something about the photos and evidence provided by Sharon at camp david, [4] or the pressure being put on Sharon by the Israeli military establishment. [5] [6]

Either way, the edited quote from Gerald M. Steinberg is unnecessary and fragmented. If it is essiental to point out the Iranian political leaderships hostility towards Israel, can we please keep the complete and unedited quotation from the Iran News Service.

Thank you. --Uncle Bungle 22:31, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi Uncle. Since you're the person who insists that pressure by Israel on the U.S. is actually relevant and significant in this case (when in acutality it is not), the information will have to have some sort of context about it. As for the Iranian Press Agency, that particular arm of the Iranian government has far less credibility than the source I've provided, but I've included both for balance. Jayjg (talk) 22:57, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Given the clout that (the government of) Israel has with the United States, their nuclear deterrent in the region, published hostility towards the current Iranian government and their unique position of being an International party pressuring the US on the matter, noting the pressure that Israel is exerting on the US in the matter is extremely relevant in a section titled "International Response". As for the credibility of the sources, Rafsanjanis comments have been published in The Washington Times [7], The New York Daily News [8] and The Jerusalem Post [9]. The edited version as presented by Steinberg fail a simple Google Test [10]. Furthermore, while Steinberg provides sources, "Iran: Rafsanjani Blames U.S., UK for Israel's 'Crimes,' Says Intifida Will Last" and "Iran: Hashemi-Rafsanjani's Office Says Zionists Distorted His Comments" these also do very badly in a Google Test [11] [12] Now, while I understand that a Google Test is certainly not binding, the poor results are relevant given that the source your provided easily fits your own description of a dubious source A tertiary source providing a "quote" edited by a secondary source with an obvious political agenda is a "dubious source". Jayjg (talk) 17:28, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC). Since all your have provided is a tertiary source, edited by a secondary source with an obvious political agenda, whose comments can not be easily verified, there is no reason whatsoever to continue including Steinbergs comments. Please do not readd Steinbergs "quote" until you have found a more credible source. --Uncle Bungle 02:54, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Los Angeles Times and National Post; see references in the article. I've also clarified Israel's position on an attack on Iran (which is that it won't). Jayjg (talk) 23:37, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I read the wiki articles about the papers, but I missed the external links you provided which verified your source. Steinberg is clearly dubious by your own definition, I must insist on an original, unedited quote only please --Uncle Bungle 01:21, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The external links are there, articles from the LA Times and the National Post. Also, you removed all sorts of other material on Sharon. I have provided three separate sources for each claim; from my perspective your edits are now verging on vandalism. Jayjg (talk) 01:50, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)


You have provided three sources for your version of the comments. The first, the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, provides a piece by Gerald M. Steinberg, dated April 1, 2005, in which he claims two versions of the comments were released. The second, an LA Times piece, isn't a report on the original event, but a broader article on Iran. I was however, able to verify that article as having been printed in the Times.
In response, I cited a different version of the quote and provided four sources. The first, the Iran Press Service, you called an "arm of the Iranian government" and suggested it was not credible. The second, the New York Daily news, ran a piece much like the LA Times.
The third source you provided was from "The Coalition for Deomcracy in Iran" which cited a National Post article dated July 14, 2004. The CDI didn't note the author of that article, however, the Australia/Israel and Jewish Affairs Council did [13] and that author is Gerald Steinberg. The National Post, a major news publication in Canada (and by all means a legitimate source) ran a piece which clearly quoted Rafsanjani as saying "one bomb is enough to destroy all Isreal".
My third source, the Jerusalem Post, ran a piece of Dec. 22, 2003, which makes no mention of the "one bomb" comment, and lends credibility to my "produce damages in the Muslim world". The author of that article is, no less than Gerald Steinberg. In two different articles he used two different versions of the quote. Mine first, yours second, and suggests two different articles last. Which are we supposed to believe?
Jayjg I would like us to settle on my fourth source, a Washington Post Op-Ed from May 16, 2004. It stresses the hostility towards Israel from Rafsanjani, quoting him as saying "Jews shall expect to be once again scattered and wandering around the globe the day when this appendix is extracted from the region and the Muslim world" while emphasizing that he understands the consequences "...just produce damages in the Muslim world". The scattered and wandering statement is also farther down in the Iran Press Service article. Since it seems Steinberg can not settle on any particular account of the events, I think this is a good substitute. Agreed? --Uncle Bungle 23:17, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It seems there are two version of the same quote; each is cited in various places. What is the issue with quoting both? I note that the additional source I have linked notes that the quote itself is a controversy, stating: The Iranian broadcast agency released two versions of Rafsanjani's remarks, which were made during a Friday sermon (on "Quds" or Jerusalem Day) at a mosque on the campus of Teheran University. See "Iran: Rafsanjani Blames U.S., UK for Israel's 'Crimes,' Says Intifida Will Last," IAP20011214000069 Teheran, Voice of the Islamic Republic of Iran Radio 1 in Persian 1130 GMT 14 Dec 01 [Excerpt from Friday prayer first sermon delivered by Ayatollah Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani, head of the Expediency Council at Teheran University on 14 December] FBIS translated excerpt; and "Iran: Hashemi-Rafsanjani's Office Says Zionists Distorted His Comments," IAP20020120000016 Teheran, Nowruz in Persian 02 Jan 02, 16 [Letter from Hashemi-Rafsanjani's office and response by Nowruz] FBIS translated text. I don't think it is for us to decide which version released is more accurate. Jayjg (talk) 03:59, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
"when in acutality it is not" -- because, of course, you have direct access to what is actually the case. It's fascinating to see how some editors don't even hide the "completely biased ideologue" tattoo on their foreheads. -- 71.102.136.107 22:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
This prase has been deleted, I would like to know why? Even if it might not be plausable, it has relevance since people are quoting it, and it might become a deciding factor in Israel considerations to attack soon or not? And in reality you do not know if Mossad really is the source behind it, they haven't denied it. Something that speaks for it being from Mossad is the uttering some months ago that Iran is only ½ year away from the bomb.
Jan. 19, 2006: The U.S. based dissident Foundation for Democracy in Iran claims on their website: "Separate sources in the U.S. and Iran have told FDI recently that the Iranian regime is planning a nuclear weapons test before the Iranian New Year on March 20, 2006." http://www.iran.org
A human 20:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
And how did that work out? -- 71.102.136.107 22:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed nuclear weapons timeline cleanup

The timeline links heavily to wikipedia articles. There are repeated links to Iran, International Atomic Energy Agency, and various countries like the US, UK, EU (yes I know thats not a single country). I think it's excessive, shouldn't links be saved for points of interest? Honestly, if you're reading this article odds are you've heard of the United States.

I'll clean it up as I see fit in a day or two unless someone objects or does it first. --Uncle Bungle 02:14, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Content Cleanup Guidelines

Like I suggested in Talk:Iran's nuclear program, we need to discuss content cleanup for this article. The whole background section, in my opinion, ought to go, it doesn't mention WMD or NPT, and focuses on the civilian program. I'm going to start chopping in a few days. --Uncle Bungle 02:41, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Merge with Irans Nuclear Program

I think we are inadvertently allowing a major bias to form in this article. By removing the article on "Iran's Nuclear Program" and merging it into "Iran and Weapons of Mass Destruction" you are assuming that the program is millitary. Needless to say, this hasn't been proven by anyone. And concequently, it would be incorrect to merge the entire "Irans nuclear program" article into this one as this creates a NOT SO SUBTLE BIAS.

I think The iran's nuclear program should continue to exist with the bulk of the information. and since it is still totally unproven that iran is developing nuclear weapons- this article should have a short summary and a link to that article.

I also believe that putting all of Iran's nuclear program under the WMD section doesn't make a lot of sense. Most of the nuclear section is about civilian uses; they have no known nuclear WMD at this point in time. A short summary about Iran having the capability to produce weapon's grade plutonium and a link back to Iran's nuclear program seems like a better choice. Have a look at the United States and weapons of mass destruction#Nuclear weapons section. Iran's section is currently the equivalent of including all of the US's civil nuclear programs, atomic research centres, and nuclear power plants under the heading of WMD. --Farnkerl 20:22, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
do not merge they were separated for the above reasons. While in need of cleanup, the articles should remain apart. --Uncle Bungle 16:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Point made. Shouldn't be merged. However, the nuclear part here should be transfered to Iran's nuclear program, with just a resume left. Tazmaniacs 19:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I also vote for do not merge due to the reasons you states. A human 22:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Also agree - do not merge - article would be too big, and both would be better served by concerted cleanup. mervyn 11:26, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Agree - do not merge - it's true that civilian and military nuclear research and industry overlap, nevertheless the whole basis of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is that in principle, with sufficient controls and information exchange and confidence and security-building measures etc etc they can be separated (in every State around the world) and we can stop the whole of civilisation being blown up. Boud 14:06, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Agree - do not merge - but we do need to remove the overlap. If nothing else, having to make updates in two places is annoying, and eventually risks introducing contradiction. Rwendland 09:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Legal foundation of claims of Europe IAEO and US

What are the legal foundations on the pressure which is put onto the Iran? They only try to push their uranium enrichment program which is absolutely OK with the NPT. The risk of getting WMD out of this programm is encreased, but the stuff could also be used in normal reactor. To call the UN to stopp Iran is OK, but if nothing prohibited is done could the UN put sanctions or military power threats against Iran? With the Irak everything was OK in the legal way.

Irak: US: They have WMD! UN: Sanctions! (Other countries also have WMD I know!) Iran: US: They start enrichment! (Alot more countries have enrichment plants!) --Stone 14:14, 17 Aug 2005 (MEZ)

Enrichment is allowed for peaceful purposes, but not for weapons development. The US position is that Iran's intentions are not entirely peaceful. --noösfractal 17:27, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
This makes everything really difficult intentions of others are really difficult to prove. Which will make the UN the same playground for plots and accusations like in the Irak crisis.

--Stone 14:14, 19 Aug 2005 (MEZ)

Yep. --noösfractal 08:14, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

The argument seems to be that Iran broke its NPT "Safeguards Agreement" 2.5 years ago, which made them candidates for referal to the UNSC at that time. Referal was suspended while Iran froze enrichment research and negotiated with EU. Now Iran has resumed research the suspension is terminated. This is from a radio interview with UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw on the Today programme (audio). Rwendland 23:29, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] sorting out different pages

It seems to me that we need at least five different pages, with just summaries and crosslinks in order to avoid overlapping work:

  1. Nuclear program of Iran - for civilian program - page exists
  2. Iran and weapons of mass destruction - page exists - includes bio, chemical and nuclear summaries
  3. [[Iran's alleged and possible future nuclear weapons program]] - no page so far
  4. U.S.-Iran relations - page exists - general history of US-Iran relations
  5. # '''[[2005-2006 US-Israeli alleged threats to attack Iran]]''' - no page so far
    2005-2006 US-Israeli threats to attack Iran - page now exists and seems stable Boud 01:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Page #3 is necessary IMHO because Iran and weapons of mass destruction is already 23k in size and there's a lot more likely to be put in here.

Page #5 is necessary IMHO because so far there's no encyclopedic synthesis of the numerous claims that US and Israel have threatened to physically attack Iran, and that, moreover, this may (understandably) motivate Iran to really go into developing nuclear weapons - here's just one URL, though there's a lot more - [14]

i've nowiki-ed the proposed names for #3 and #5 because i'm not sure what reasonably NPOV names could be.

page #3 So far, there's no evidence that Iran has a nuclear weapons program, so it's only alleged, but the way things are going, it could become likely so possible future would probably be NPOV. The name is a bit long, but wikipedia prefers long NPOV names to short POV names - IMHO this is a good policy.

page #5 - i'm thinking of analogies to 2003 Invasion of Iraq. i'm not sure if alleged is really necessary. i'll have to read up the sources, but AFAIR, the threats are fairly overt. What's POV is whether or not the threats are morally (politically?) justified.

Anyway, what do people think of this 4-page proposal? Any better ideas for names of #3 and #5?

Boud 15:35, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

add US-Iran relations page Boud 21:29, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

i haven't seen any comments, so i'm starting #5 - the idea of creating a separate article #3 can still be done later, i don't think that would interfere. Anyway, here goes #5 first draft: 2005-2006 US-Israeli threats to attack Iran. Boud 14:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

  1. 3 would fall under WP:NOR and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. For that matter, this entry on "Iran and WMD" itself is POV, as it leads to the automatic conclusion that Iran does dispose of such WMD, of which we have no proof to date. This is why I listed it for AfD. If you're thinking of "analogies to 2003 Invasion of Iraq", first think about all the US propaganda that prepared it. Satyagit 16:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Just the facts please

An encyclopedia should confine itself to the facts. If this maxim is followed the nuclear section of this page would be short and simple:

"Iran does not possess nuclear weapons and is a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty."

In a factual article about weapons of mass destruction that is all that can be said about nuclear weapons in Iran.

A discussion of the dual use of civilian nuclear technology is not relevant to the article. Those who claim it is should consider writing about the dual use of industrial chemicals in the chemical weapons section, or the dual use of pathology laboratories within the biological weapons section.

I would suggest the article stay in place but with all speculation and political comment removed.

--Dave 14:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The speculation and political comment can exist quite perfectly but it should all be sourced and attributed. Simply saying it does not have nuclear weapons and is a NPT signatory does not even begin to capture the discussions about Iran's potential nuclear ambitions, and would make this quite a useless article. --Fastfission 15:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a disseminator of rumor. Your position is directly contrary to Wikipedia policy. This article ought to be retitled "unfounded speculation that Iran has WMDs, fostered by the U.S. as part of its Middle East foreign policy". -- 71.102.136.107 22:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Referencing speculation does not turn it into fact. We saw what happens when speculation is given undue weight before the US invaded Iraq. It turned out there was no credible evidence of weapons of mass destruction, but professional intelligence analysts produced carefully referenced reports which concluded otherwise, all based on each other's speculation. The title of this article is Iran and weapons of mass destruction. They don't have any. Thats the end of the known facts and where the article should end. Leave the speculation to the popular press. --Dave 16:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
You're clearly not interested in providing a useful article. There are discussions in the UN and in every newspaper in the world over whether or not Iran is developing WMDs. It is completely within the grounds of Wikipedia's purpose, as well as WP:NPOV, to have a discussion of this, properly sourced, attributed, etc., with the opposing viewpoint as well, etc. I also think you are a bit off in what you are counting as "known facts", at least to the standards that any other facts are held on Wikipedia. What you're advocating is silly and ridiculous. I do not know if Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons, but I am more than happy to have an article which properly discusses the allegations, the rebuttals, etc. It is a "fact" that the US and other countries have expressed concern that Iran's nuclear program may be intended for weapons use, and that "fact" should be included in any "just the facts" approach as well. --Fastfission 22:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
On the contrary, I believe articles about the Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) status of many countries are worthwhile and useful. Its just that Iran doesn't have any nuclear weapons, something everyone in the International community agrees on. If we are going to include speculation that a country might develop nuclear weapons in an article about WMD to avoid bias we would have to list every developed country in the world. Any country might develop nuclear weapons. Do you advocate we do that, or do you single out Iran for special treatment? I believe the expanded section on chemical weapons is relevant because Iran is one of the few countries that has actually suffered chemical attacks. Where the chemicals used were sourced is not particularly relevant to an article on WMD however. WMD is a highly politicised topic so it is very difficult to write objectively about it. The only way to achieve objectivity is to stick closely to the topic and record only known facts. That is what I suggest. --Dave 00:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Any country which has notable sources, including the United Nations, alleging it is developing nuclear weapons should have an article about such, yes. In this respect it would be the deliberate omission of any information relating to such a major discussion which would be the "special treatment". Again, the fact that there are many countries questioning Iran's nuclear intent and alleging that it has, in effect, a nuclear weapons development program is a fact that sticks closely to the topic and should be included here. Pretty straightforward approach. --Fastfission 01:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
This gets back to my point about recording speculation rather than fact. In an encyclopedia article about WMD it does not matter in the slightest what this or that country suspects or believes. The only things that matter are the facts. Notable sources believed Iraq had WMD before that country was invaded. All the notable sources quoted each other's speculation in well referenced reports and articles, yet the fact was Iraq had no WMD, nor was it building any. Had the notable sources stuck with the facts the Iraq invasion may not have occurred. Allowing excessive speculation to creep into factual reports is not only academically lazy, it can be downright dangerous.
If it seems necesary to include speculation for context the nuclear section of this article would be as follows:
"Iran does not possess nuclear weapons [1]. Iran signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty on 01 July 1968 and ratified the treaty on 02 February 1970. [2] Iran signed an additional protocol which allows IAEA inspectors access to individuals, documentation relating to procurement, dual use equipment, certain military owned workshops and research and development locations.[3] Iran's political leader, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad , has publicly stated Iran is not developing nuclear weapons. On August 9, 2005 Iran's religious leader and Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, issued a fatwa that the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons are forbidden under Islam and that Iran shall never acquire these weapons. [4]
After three years of intensive inspections, and the voluntary suspension of uranium enrichment from November 2004 to January 2006, the International Atomic Energy Agency found no evidence that Iran had a nuclear weapons program or nuclear weapons. [1] The United States of America and some of its key allies continue to claim that Iran has a covert nuclear weapons program.
In June 2005, the US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice said IAEA head Mohamed ElBaradei should either toughen his stance on Iran or fail to be chosen for a third term as IAEA head. [5] On 4 February 2006 the IAEC resolved that Iran should adopt measures additional to those required by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and referred the matter to the UN Security Council. [6] On 29 March 2006 the UN Security Council President for the month, César Mayoral, stated on behalf of the Council that Iran should comply with the requirements of the IAEA resolution and requested the agency report on the level of compliance in 30 days time. [7] "
A detailed discussion of who in the US suspects a covert program, or why, belongs in an article about US foreign policy, not one about WMD in Iran. --Dave 06:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC), 17 April 2006.
You are welcome to your opinion, but that is not the standard of evidence or standard of documentation used for other potential nuclear nations in the article series. Reasonable consensus exists among both governments and independent proliferation experts that Iran's efforts are part of a covert weapons program. That consensus is clearly, widely, and unarguably verifyable, and thus reaches the criterion for inclusion in WP.
Disclaiming that consensus as communal speculation, about which hard factual evidence does not exist beyond the now-known formerly-covert Uranium enrichment program, is fine. There's also widespread consensus that there is no such hard factual evidence of a program publically released by anyone. Georgewilliamherbert 06:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm sure my opinion is always welcome, but I would hope that my factual content is even more welcome. As I have repeatedly pointed out, reasonable consensus is not a substitute for factual content. All my enemies may well agree I am not a nice person but I may be a good fellow nevertheless. You might notice the the statement of facts in my suggested section above does not constitute my personal opinion at all. It is merely an objective narrative of verifiable facts. If you want my opinion, it is that Iran would be insane not to be developing nuclear weapons in light of what recently happened to neighboring Iraq, and how quickly the USA backed away from a military option when North Korea declared it had nuclear weapons. But that is only my opinion, which has no place in a NPOV article. --Dave 06:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Again: The criterion for information being acceptable and appropriate to include in Wikipedia is not that it is beyond a doubt proven factually / scientifically / in court / however. It's that the information is verifyable and from credible sources.
It is unarguably true that it is verifyable and from credible sources that nuclear proliferation experts and the US government, UK government, French government, Germany government, and others believe Iran has a covert nuclear weapon program. That belief is not factually proven, but that belief is notable and verifyable, and is and should be included.
Since it's not factually proven (and could be wrong, though I personally agree with it) it needs to be stated in a neutral manner that clearly identifies it as an opinion or conclusion and not established fact. But that's all. That's what the article does now. That's all WP policy requires. Your position lies outside WP policy. WP policy allows us to include people's opinions, as long as they're verifyable and notable and labeled as opinion and not objective fact. WP policy encourages us to do that, as many opinion and conclusion based things which are not factually verified (or verifyable) are still highly notable and encyclopedic.
Fair treatment for Iran requires that we label these as speculations and opinions and conclusions, and not fact. That's been done. WP policy says we should keep them there. And we should. They're important, and a lot of people are highly interested in what's happening there, and having the basic information about what the dispute is about (both known facts and opinion positions of all sides) is important. Georgewilliamherbert 07:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Dave: there are articles such as Brazil and weapons of mass destruction, Poland and weapons of mass destruction, Netherlands and weapons of mass destruction, though i guess there's no article Palau and weapons of mass destruction, despite the fact that Palau is one of the few nations which most often votes with the United States against United Nations General Assembly resolutions on disarmament, for control of distribution of fissile material, etc., and could be suspected as harbouring WMD. Anyway, i think your proposed text above of 06:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC), 17 April 2006 looks fairly good, but if putting it into place would require removing any substantial amounts of previous text (which i think it would, though i don't know this article that well), then it would probably be good to show your proposed changes here on the discussion page first and get some consensus. Best not to remove other people's contributions lightly, do it step by step and maybe there'll be consensus that many are in fact referenced, others not. If we get to concrete work on the text, i think it would be better than just discussing general principles - WP:NPOV + WP:NOR - which are already accepted by wide consensus in the wikipedia community. These principles are not perfectly neutral - they depend on the neutrality of where people find references and the pool of references available - but they're the best that can be done in wikipedia. Anyway, if you copy/paste text from the article here - for a "working copy", you could stick {{fact}} against unreferenced[citation needed] claims/speculations rather than removing them. My two cents... Boud 22:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
2c buys quite a lot nowadays. I bow to the consensus on the talk page that well referenced opinion has a place in the article, so long as it is clearly marked as opinion. You may have noticed I copied a section of my proposed text into the head of the nuclear section by way of an introductory paragraph. I don't think I can work my rather succinct phrases into the main article without rendering much of the good work done by others redundant, so I will hold back and have a think about how it might be accomplished. You may also notice I have expanded the article with the addition of some data on biological agents and delivery systems. I truly hope no-one with influence makes a circumstantial case out of this capability as a justification for a pre-emptive military strike. That was certainly not my intent in cataloging the capability. It is possible to add a lot of material about alleged Iranian attempts to purchase bio and chemical dual use materials by following the references I cited, but I will leave that to others. The article now has much material on its title topic that is not found elsewhere in the wikipedia. I am pleased to see the article is no longer tagged with RfD. --Dave 10:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Dave 14:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC) Is absolutely correct. The rest of the article is a debate about if Iran has the intention to create WMD by stringing together hacked up quotes from various participants in the debate in order to produce some kind of statement that is very vague, and seemingly biased. I suggest the article be split into a page for Iran's actual WMD capacity and then another page that covers the debate over Iran's intentions, and that the debate use quality references.Dimensional dan 01:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bio agents that can theoretically be weaponised

I restored the deleted list of biological agents that can be theoretically weaponised because I believe it has a valid place on the page.

The list was deleted because the editor claimed everything can be weaponised. That is not true. Another, longer list exists of biological agents that have no value as weapons but are used to simulate a biological attack. A list even longer still could be made of biological agents which are of no use to a biological warfare program.

The "theoretical" list is not just an ad-hoc list of biologicals, it is one of organisms known to be held by Iran that are considered by experts to be useful biological warfare agents, but which have not so far been weaponised. You might notice cholera is on that list. Cholera has been used as a biological agent since historical times, but has not so far been used in a missile, or artillery system, nor by aerial bombing or spraying.

Please leave the lists of biological agents known to be held by Iran alone unless you intend to improve it. --Dave 13:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b Introductory Statement to the Board of Governors by IAEA Director General Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei (2006). Retrieved on 2006-04-17.
  2. ^ Signatories and Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Retrieved on 2006-04-17.
  3. ^ Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement in the Islamic Republic of Iran. IAEA. Retrieved on 2006-04-17.
  4. ^ "Leader’s Fatwa Forbids Nukes". "Iran Daily - Front Page - 08/11/05". Retrieved on 2006-04-17.
  5. ^ US agrees to back UN nuclear head. BBC. Retrieved on 2006-04-17.
  6. ^ Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Retrieved on 2006-04-17.
  7. ^ SECURITY COUNCIL, IN PRESIDENTIAL STATEMENT, UNDERLINES IMPORTANCE OF IRAN ’S RE-ESTABLISHING FULL, SUSTAINED SUSPENSION OF URANIUM-ENRICHMENT ACTIVITIES. Retrieved on 2006-04-17.

I think it is unnecessary to reproduce the list in full here (Its in the links anyway). There is no evidence that Iran has taken any steps to weaponize these pathogens. No other national WMD article has such a list, even Russia and the US, who are known to have developed such weapons. Finally, having such a long list of unknown information is distracting (The table take up about 20% of this article) from information that is known. The list basically just lists all the things that are possible, and has no real connection to Iran. I'd like to remove it, or transfer it to the Biological warfare article. Seabhcán 11:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree for the most part. I don't think its necessary to list the pathogens -- just note that they have some pathogens which could be potentially weaponized and link to the document that has the list. --Fastfission 15:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Iran and nuclear weapons

I have created the following article. For the time being, there still hasn't been consensus on how "Iran and WMD" should be coordinated with Iran's nuclear program (falsely named here "Iran civilian nuclear program"). Anybody who's read one article about nuclear technology knows it is not possible to clearly distinguish a civilian nuclear program with a military one. The actual crisis, which of course has a history, principally focuses on Iran's will to be able to enrich uranium, which is needed both for civilian and military technology. Furthermore, the term itself of "weapons of mass destruction" is an unstable category which gathers different kinds of weapons. Iran has not been accused of having chemical weapons by the US, only of wanting to enriched uranium in order to create the atomic bomb. We should'nt mix everything up. I'll add that I was prone to create this article because of a recent comment on the "Iran's nuclear program" talk page, where someone considered that military nuclear aspects didn't belong to this entry. Needless to say, this opinion is not shared by anybody. If some place is to be reserved to discussion of Iran and nuclear weapons, well, let's be precise and call it this. We are obviously not dealing with the same situation as in Iraq, where Iraq was accused of past use of chemical weapons (Halabja 1988 attack) and of wanting to develop all kinds of "WMD". Satyagit 18:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

In international law, the term Weapons of mass destruction refers specifically to the topics of nuclear, biological, chemical, and radiological weapons taken together. There are some local uses which don't meet the international definition, however the international category is consistent and well documented.
The whole series of Nation and weapons of mass destruction has the same format: entries in the article for all of the internationally recognized WMD categories in which that nation has any activities. This article is consistent with the others.
There's no good reason explained above to split it out from the main article. Georgewilliamherbert 18:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CW section trimmed

Today I commented a significant amount of text out of the Chemical Weapons section of the article. I believe most of the material was not directly relevant to chemical weapons and Iran as it dealt mostly with chemical weapons and Iraq and how they were acquired. I commented rather than deleted the material so that others can more easily move it to a more appropriate page, or even restore it exactly if that is the consensus. I believe the reference remaining to CW use during the Iran-Iraq war is sufficient to cover that issue and anyone interested in specific details of CW use during the war can follow the link and read about it in context. I'll leave it a week before I delete the section currently commented out. --Dave 08:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

My two cents: looks good. Georgewilliamherbert 19:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Israeli Stance Section Added

Israel is a major player in the subject of Iran's perceived nuclear weapons program, and a major part of Iran's security and foreign policy. This is directly connected to any possibility of Iranian WMD or affiliated programs. Thus I have added the Israeli Stance section. It is very similar to the section I put up in Iran and Nuclear Weapons, but as this is also relevant here, and the vote has gone up not to merge the sites, I believe it has a place in the article. R_Z

[edit] Deletion

Please notice that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2005-2006 US-Israeli threats to attack Iran has just been deleted. The article hasexactly the same condition as this article, covering the other side of the coin. --Mitso Bel18:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Um. No. There is an article "X and weapons of mass destruction" for every country which is, or is reasonably (verifyably, by professionals) believed to be in posession of or developing nuclear weapons. There are 23 articles in the country-WMD category, all with similar types of content and format. The Iran article is entirely consistent with the others, and the category is clearly notable and of interest, and the articles are all encyclopedic. Deletion suggestions are not a positive contribution to Wikipedia. Iran's policy and statements need to be fairly treated in this article, which I think they are. If you think not, then we can work on including a more fair view of Iran's viewpoint on the situation.
But deleting the article is the wrong solution. Someone tried it a couple of months ago, and got shot down completely. These country articles are here for a reason. Georgewilliamherbert 23:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you think this article has "exactly the same condition as this article" -- the nuclear section could be shored up in this one, true, but much of this article is entirely different, well-sourced, and descriptive. As User:Georgewilliamherbert points out, we have "X and WMDs" article for two dozen countries, so it is not a case of singling Iran out for treatment. --Fastfission 02:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quote from Yahoo

[15] "Iran heightened international worries by announcing on April 11 that it had enriched uranium with 164 centrifuges. Experts estimate that Iran could produce enough nuclear material for one bomb if it had at least 1,000 centrifuges working for more than a year." Simesa 01:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I deleted the uncited line saying that more plausible schemes indicated a decade - even if Iran only has the 164 known centrifuges, 1000 / 164 = less than 7 years. Simesa 06:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] OR

This section strikes me as most likely violating WP:NOR:

A potential reason behind US resistance lies in Middle Eastern geopolitics. In essence, the US feels that it must guard against even the possibility of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapons capability. Some nuclear technology is dual-use — i.e. it can be used for peaceful energy generation, but the same technology, it is argued, could also be used to develop nuclear weapons, the same sort of situation which resulted in India's own nuclear weapons program in the 1960s. A nuclear Iran in the region would severely change the balance of power away from the West and into the hands of a known sponsor of terror. A nuclear Iran could also potentially act as a catalyst for other middle eastern nations to develop weapons of their own to defend against it.
Although the US and, occasionally, the EU countries are often accused of maintaining a double standard between Israel and the Muslim countries, a common belief in the West is that Israel is far less likely to initiate a war with Iran than Iran is with Israel. Iran does not formally recognize Israel's right to exist, and Iranian authorities have openly called for Israel's destruction [16]. Iran is also thought to constitute more of a proliferation risk. Accusations that Iran supports Hamas and Islamic Jihad, organizations which many Western countries categorize as terrorist, have been common in the US [17], and there are accordingly fears that Iranian nuclear weapons could eventually find their way into the hands of Islamic militants.

Either we have to cite specific people who make these specific analyses, or we need to cut this. Wikipedia is not a place to speculate about motivations and geopolitics, but to report what others have speculated about them. --Fastfission 03:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I can confirm seeing stuff like this in numerous nonproliferation and geopolitics related publications and journals, so I don't think it's WP:OR. It is unreferenced for the most part, and should be referenced... Georgewilliamherbert 03:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
This paragraph suffers from generalization using weasel words. Who is the west? The USA? Israel? New Zealand? There is no clear definition of who "the west" is and if you can't specify the authors of the claims then you shouldn't include the material. The other point is that while there might be a great deal of agreement between the USA and Israel there certainly isn't a widespread consensus on the issue. If the claims you heard on CNN or Fox News then you should say so. This paragraph should be removed until the authorship of material is clarified.Dimensional dan 02:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
"seeing stuff" is OR. What editors have "seen" is irrelevant; what they quote and cite is. -- 71.102.136.107 23:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Missiles

I was going to delete the statement that both countries had missiles that could reach each other, per [18], but poking around indicates that the Jericho missile has been tested at 1,450 km and Tehran is only 1,566 km from Jerusalem. See also [19]. Simesa 06:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A lot of incorrect information

A lot of incorrect information is presented on this page. Just to name examples, the number of missiles in inventory and range of missiles. The range of Shahab-3B is 2000KM, not Shahab-4, etc.

If you believe facts in the article to be inaccurate you are welcome to make changes, citing the references you believe justify the changes. I was the person who introduced the delivery systems section to the article. At the time I cited the reference and reviewed a number of others to confirm. The design specification of Shahab-3 was 1300km but none of the test flights had actually completed that distance. The Shahab-3 article claims a greater distance now but fails to cite a reference. If the 2000km+ distance is verified I would be happy if someone provided a checkable reference. In fact if someone provides a URL here I will format the reference myself. --Dave 14:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I do not care what these American websites tell you. Shahab-3A's initial range was ~1300km, they then managed to make it reach ~1500km. Shahab-3B then had a range of nearly ~2100km, and no information on the range of Shahab-3C and 3D are available. Iran then, in 2005, made a solid fuel two stage version of Shahab-3, with a range of ~2000km. [20] User:ArmanJan

[edit] Suggestion of whether to change wording to opening paragraph

"As of 2006, Iran is not known to possess weapons of mass destruction..." Hello32020 02:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind I'll just be bold and change it. Hello32020 02:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I thought this suit this article

"What next in Iran nuclear stand-off?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.202.88.212 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Bullshit

Israel has very few options to deter an Iranian nuclear attack, should Iran acquire such weapons

This is of course complete bull. Israel has nuclear weapons and the ardent support of the US. They could easily wipe Iran along with Syria, Lebanon and others in retaliation for an attack. There is no evidence, that anyone has presented that I've seen that any of the Iranian leaders wish for the destruction of their entire country therefore it is quite a strong deterent (incidently, this is also one of the reasons, some argue Iran should have nuclear weapons, it would discourage any foolhardy attempt by Israel or the US to invade Iran). Not to mention most evidence suggests that does in Iran who don't believe Israel should exist believe it should be primarily occupied by the Palestinians and therefore turning the country into a nuclear wasteland won't help them achieve that goal. (Indeed from what I can see the country that appears to be most seriously considering using nuclear weapons is the US with all their talk of mini-nukes not to mention their threat to potentially start a nuclear war in retaliation for the prescence of nukes in Cuba, and of course, the US is also the only country to ever use nuclear weapons. Israel likewise seems the second major threat with their apparent mentality that it doesn't matter if they risk the destruction of their entire country and destablising the world, provided they get to kill a few enemies and their likewise apparent mentality that the only way they can survive is to destroy everyone who opposes them rather then reaching a constructive solution) Nil Einne 15:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Allah" or "God" ?

Not all Islamic scholars translate "Allah" as "God" (and some would be offended.. see Allah for a brief discussion). More importantly, the quote in question specifically refers to "Allah" and is from a Middle-Eastern news source, so this isn't a case of Western "scare-mongering" in using the more foreign-sounding word. --Wclark 18:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

From the page on Allah:
"The emphasis in Islamic culture on reciting the Qur'an in Arabic has resulted in "Allāh" often being used by Muslims world-wide as the word for "God"".
Since the use of the word Allah to mean God is so common throughout the world, and that Muslims believe there is only a single God, it is quite appropriate to use the word Allah when speaking of the Muslim God. It is precise, understood by everyone concerned, and not insulting to anyone. --Dave 22:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I guess I was being vague about my point. I was referring to this quote in the article, from the "Opinions in the Arab and Islamic world" section:

Allah willing, we expect to soon join the club of the countries that have a nuclear industry, with all its branches, except the military one, in which we are not interested. We want to get what we're entitled to. I say unequivocally that for no price will we be willing to relinquish our legal and international right. I also say unequivocally to those who make false claims: Iran is not pursuing nuclear weapons, but it will not give up its rights. Your provocation will not make us pursue nuclear weapons. We hope that you come to your senses soon and do not get the world involved in disputes and crises. [21]

An anonymous editor at 64.12.116.66 changed "Allah" to "God" a few days ago, and I was simply explaining why I was changing it back. I'm not sure if you're in agreement or disagreement with that change, or if you thought I was talking about something else entirely. I hope this clears things up. --Wclark 00:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Even Christian and Jewish Arabs use the Arabic word "Allah" to refer to God. -- 71.102.136.107 23:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Facilities- facts incorrect/POV violation

"It was not until 2002 that the USA began to question Iran's nuclear intentions after the MKO (a now US controlled terrorist group[1]) revealed the existence of the Natanz and Arak facilities."

First, this is inaccurate. Concerns about Iran's nuclear program were expressed long before 2002.

Second, it's a clear POV statement. A "US controlled terrorist group" is absolutely a POV statement, nor is there reliable evidence to support such a claim (see below.)

Third, Raw Story Media? Is that a valid source for Wikipedia entries? IMO, sounds like a fringe group. Find me the AP, AFP, Reuters, CNN, FOX, something! Wikipedia should be for facts and nothing but facts. Speculation on the part of "alternative media" should be left out.

Anyway, I've removed this statement (and the "source") until someone can give a legitimate reason for having it put there.

Edit: oops, forgot to sign it! Rmsharpe 04:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I reverted your Edit Mr Sharpe. If you check the history of this file you will see it has been whittled down from a far wordier version. The facts is the MEK is a terrorist organisation and it is currently controlled by the USA. The revealations about clandestine nuclear facilities were made by their US spokesman, Alireza Jafarzadeh in 2002. If you do not like the quality of the reference, it would be more helpful to find a better one than simply to delete the content. --Dave 12:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bogus allegation

I just removed the following from the introductory paragraph:

The Jerusalem Post newspaper reported in 1999 that Iran has up to 4 nuclear bombs in its possession already, citing sources within the US Government as early as 1992; but these allegations have not been officially confirmed nor denied by the Iranian Government. [22].

The material cited actually stated it had recieved reports about Iran possessing nuclear weapons, but had discounted the reports:

"I didn't give these reports credibility at the time," said Shai Feldman, director of Tel Aviv University's Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies. "It seemed like the kind of information that the Iranian opposition put out. There were specific queries made and everybody said there was no evidence of a warhead transfer."

Iran has publicly stated on many occassions that it does not possess nuclear weapons. The entire content of edit would therefore seem to be inaccurate, so I have deleted it. --Dave 16:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

"At this point, we can't say for certain whether these are genuine," a senior Israeli source said. "But they look awfully real."

    • From the same document cited above:
      • "A US government consultant said he is certain of the authenticity of the documents. "They are real and we have had them for years," he said."
      • "The documents appear to bolster reports from 1992 that Iran received enriched uranium and up to four nuclear warheads from Kazakhstan, with help from the Russian underworld."
      • "A detailed account of the Iranian effort, released on January 20, 1992, by the US Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare of the House Republican Research Committee, asserted that by the end of 1991 there was a "98 percent certainty that Iran already had all [or virtually all] of the components required for two to three operational nuclear weapons [aerial bombs and SSM warheads] made with parts purchased in the ex-Soviet Moslem republics.""
Riiight. No sources named, and supposedly they've had smoking gun documents for over a decade which nobody has ever mentioned with their name attached to them. Riiight. --Fastfission 19:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that is right. Perhaps you don't know what a source or a name is. -- 71.102.136.107 22:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Quoting from said source: "The intelligence finding is based on interviews with relatives of Iranian scientists staying abroad and Iranian diplomats who have defected in the past". Sounds like media code for NCRI to me. Or, as Shai Feldman put it "It seemed like the kind of information that the Iranian opposition put out." --Dave 09:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Calling that page at india-defense.com a "source" is an abuse of the term. -- 71.102.136.107 22:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Condemnations of Iran

The list of countries that accused Iran of pursuing nuclear weapons needs to be cited. I am not at all sure if Russia has actually said that it believed Iran is trying to obtain nnucleat weapons - if yes, a citation is definetly needed.

[edit] Careful with the cites!

This article is extremely contoversial, particularly for loyal Iranians and members of anti-Iranian resistance groups such as the MEK. With this in mind it pays to be very careful when citing references. it is an easy task to find something written about every allegation and POV on this issue, but seperating the facts from the propaganda is tremendously difficult.

For instance, today User:Amoruso was challenged to provide a reference to show "Iran maintains a close relationship with the Hezbollah organisation". He chose an article on the Iran Focus website by Jeannine Aversa. (see article here) The trouble is, Ms Aversa quotes Stuart Levey of the US State department as her primary source, but Mr Levey is never actually quotes as saying "Iran maintains a close relationship with the Hezbollah organisation" in the article. Of course Iran Focus, a well known MEK propaganda outlet immediately siezed on the anti-Iranian article, as did many other news agencies.

Personally I think Iran probably does "maintain a close relationship with the Hezbollah organisation", but I would not be willing to say so categorically without a good reference. So far no-one has been able to provide one.

So be careful with the cites, especially in this article. On this issue we have to sift through professionally seeded propaganda from Iran, the MEK and even the USA in our search for the truth. --Dave 08:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A Boost to Article: Section Stating Case For and Against the Existence of an indigenous Iranian Nuclear Weapons Program

There's not really much scrutiny in the article regarding specific evidence or activity that indicates an Iranian nuclear program (for or against). I think this should be given a seperate section. Currently, there's no "smoking gun" as we are all aware. However, there has been enough questionable activity that has concerned proliferation experts. The key question is what are the points of evidence to suggest Iran runs a parallel weapons program in secret alongside the civilian program. If so, what time period did it cover (or is it continuing to this day)? It'd be nice to complile sources. I will try to post them here in the Talk section. Prospero74 14:29, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

For example, the CIA claims to have confiscated a laptop in 2004 that's often cited as a lead in the weapons program. One counterargrument could be that it's planted evidence. Here's a report from the Washington Post. [23] It should be further noted that much of this was presented to the IAEA but they apparently did not feel it constituted a program. Prospero74 14:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
There is also the issue of spot access to Iranian nuclear facilities by IAEA and remaining uncertainty if all facilities have been disclosed due to previous concealment.Prospero74 14:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Generally we do not do "for and against" sections. They usually invite original research and the worst sort of unabated POV pushing. However integrating the arguments of others into the article is of course always welcome. --Fastfission 15:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Fast, that's fine. I just think the article lacks an exploration on what the allegations stand on. So we could say, 'According to the US Dept. of State, CIA, Iranian General, Think-Tank Expert, etc'..cite the source and the appropriate section, and that would get us started.Prospero74 15:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not a backtrack

Regarding this text:

If one day, the Islamic world is also equipped with weapons like those that Israel possesses now, then the imperialists' strategy will reach a standstill because the use of even one nuclear bomb inside Israel will destroy everything. However, it will only harm the Islamic world. It is not irrational to contemplate such an eventuality.
However, years later on 3 December 2004, he backtracked:
Allah willing, we expect to soon join the club of the countries that have a nuclear industry, with all its branches, except the military one, in which we are not interested.

If he did backtrack then the surrounding text fails to illustrate it. The reader must infer something in the first quote which is not stated, and which needs to be taken out of context (as it is quoted here), to believe that it is a backtrack. The statement fails to be NPOV because it relies on that inferrence.

Indeed there is no backtrack there, in fact in the first quote he gives no statement about Iran's nuclear policy and such should be removed from this section of the article. It is not relevent.Dimensional dan 11:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Few countries have experienced chemical warfare?

Iran is one of the few countries in the world that has experienced chemical warfare (CW) on the battlefield

This is an odd statement. It needs significant clarification if it's going to be made consistent with this.

Would exerpeicned modern chemical warfare be more apropriate? It would be in line with Although crude chemical warfare has been employed in many parts of the world for thousands of years, "modern" chemical warfare began during World War I. Maybe Iran has experienced some of the highest battlefield casualities from CW since "modern" chemical warfare began. Your cited article indicates 1 million in WWI and 100k in Iran-Iraq. --Uncle Bungle 22:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citation 9 is not consistant with the comment it supports

Nowhere in the article at the BBC does it state the US threatend his re-elections. The only comment referenced to Ms. Rice was: "Condoleezza Rice indicated earlier that the US could back him if he toughened his stance on Iran" and further the only actuall quote on the page reads ""We expect that when the vote comes up in the (IAEA) board of governors on this issue we will join the consensus," US state department spokesman Sean McCormack said."

I think this should be changed to state that the US had called for his resignation but later was quoted as stating they would support a consensus amongst the other members. 70.69.57.33 02:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inventory of Iranian Air Force

I added the Iranian Air Force Inventory (Fighter/Attack) from Global Security. I was not able to ascertain which of these were nuclear capapble. Also, I am not sure the references were done correctly. N i g h t F a l c o n 9 0 9 0 9' T a l k 17:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Though all of the planes could carry WMD of some sort. N i g h t F a l c o n 9 0 9 0 9' T a l k 17:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pro-Iran bias

I added a lengthy comment to the article on Iran's nuclear program, noting the heavy bias in that article. This article has the same problem. It would take a lot of work to make it more balanced. NPguy 21:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding my earlier complaint of bias, it is noteworthy that the Iranian position is reported in some detail both in this article and in the separate article on Iran's nuclear program. However, the position of those who believe Iran's enrichment program is mainly intended for development of a nuclear weapons capability is not reported in either article. Instead of presenting the U.S. position on Iran's nuclear program, the relevant section of this article instead describes U.S. concerns about other aspects of Iran's policy. This seems to imply -- falsely -- that the United States has presented no real basis for concern that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons capability. Whether or not one agrees with the position of the United States and others, that position should at least be presented. NPguy 22:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
As far as I know, there's was no "real basis" for the accusations. Kinda reminescent of the Iraqi WMDs. In fact, the US position is that if Iran gets the knowledge and ability to make nukes, it will bombard Tehran. Anyone with half a brain, knows that it only takes a lab, educated people and lumps of Uranium or heavier stuff to make a bomb. However, for the sake of a good Wiki, I think any evidence presented by the US belongs indeed in here. Let me know when you find anything solid. Lixy 23:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the false U.S. allegations regarding Iraq's nuclear and other WMD programs have undermined the credibility of the United States in criticizing Iran's nuclear program, which is a much bigger problem than Iraq's. The basic case is essentially circumstantial. Iran cheated -- violated its NPT safeguards agreement and by extension the NPT -- for nearly two deacdes by secretly pursuing research and development on fuel cycle technologies that are well-suited to a weapons program and not well-suited for Iran's civil nuclear program. In particular, it pursued uranium enrichment, which will give it a capability to produce nuclear weapons without any real prospect of providing a secure nuclear fuel supply.
Every other country that has pursued enrichment at this embryonic stage in its nuclear program has done so for a weapons program. Every other country that has cheated on its NPT obligations (Iraq, Romania, Libya, North Korea) has been expected to stop the activities it had been pursuing in violation of the NPT. Yet Iran has refused to halt its enrichment program, and has rejected the offer by P-5 + Germany to support a growing nuclear power program for Iran. The NPT cannot endure if countries are allowed to cheat with impunity, continuing to pursue in the open a previously secret program that would give them the capability to produce nuclear weapons.
I cannot let pass the comment that "it only takes a lab, educated people and lumps of Uranium or heavier stuff to make a bomb." This is not true. It takes a major industrial and technological enterprise to enrich uranium or produce plutonium. Of course, if you have weapons-usable fissile materials, producing a weapon is a relatively easy step. Enrichment and reprocessing are the key choke-points for a weapons program, and that is why it is essential for the international community to respond effectively to Iran's clandestine enrichment program. NPguy 00:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Wrong. Japan and Germany both enrich uranium. Neither has developed a nuclear weapons program.
This demonstrates my point. Both Japan and Germany (or more broadly speaking Euratom) had a number of power plants in operation before they began to pursue enrichment. Iran has yet to have a single operating power plant, yet it began pursuing enrichment - and violated its safeguards agreement by doing so in secret - over twenty years ago. Iran is an anomaly. NPguy 03:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Do you actually have a citation for that, or is it just your personal opinion? It might seem unlikely that every single one of the 20-odd nations that have enriched uranium first did so in order to make nuclear weapons, so if you have a citation for that, then say so.172.188.59.8 10:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
My point is that one way to distinguish between a peaceful enrichment program and a weapons program is to ask whether the claimed peaceful use makes sense. Is there a nuclear power program that needs enriched uranium? The record on that point is mixed. The first enrichment program, in the United States, was clearly for weapons. The United States didn't have a nuclear power program until long after it developed gaseous diffusion enrichment during World War II. I think the same is true of every country that built uranium-based nuclear weapons, e.g. Pakistan and South Africa. Germany and Japan are examples of the opposite phenomenon enrichment programs established to and existing nuclear reactor fleet. Iran looks more like Pakistan than Germany in that regard.
Do I have "a citation"? No. This is all pretty well known history, but I don't know of one place where it is gathered together. It would take some digging to document. If you want to dispute the claim, feel free to look for counterexamples. NPguy 02:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
The point here is that your argument as to whether something makes sense is factually and logically bogus. As always, the burden is on one who makes a claim, not those who dispute it. And here at Wikipedia, editors shouldn't be making such arguments about what makes sense as a distinction in the first place -- they are OR (and in this case, blatant bias). -- 71.102.136.107 22:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Back to my original posting here, a recent series of edits has made the pro-Iran bias even worse. Lots of self-serving interpretations on one side without any balance. It certainly exemplifies the worst of Wikipedia. NPguy 01:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Specifically? 172.188.59.8 10:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I was specifically looking at a series of changes on July 29, mostly the ones referring to the U.S. position. That section was already pretty bad, as it mischaracterizes the current U.S. position. Specifically, the United States does not oppose an Iranian nuclear power program per se, but in fact supported the EU-3 proposal to support Iran's nuclear power program and provide fuel guarantees if Iran gave up enrichment. Thankfully, John Bolton no longer works for the U.S. Government. The recent changes had the effect of making this section even worse by criticizing - rather than presenting - a position that is not the United States no longer takes. The net effect of presenting apologies on behalf of Iran and critiquing a strawman of the U.S. position is, as the title of this thread says, a pro-Iran bias. NPguy 02:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Such hypocritical claims by blatant POV grinders exemplify the worst of Wikipedia. -- 71.102.136.107 22:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] US POV

Almost all of this article is based on US accusations...Um...havent we learned nothing from the Iraq situation? The US is almost completely unreliable in any of these matters, especially with nations that they have motive to lie about.Azerbaijani 02:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Care to cite any examples? The parts I've edited are sourced to mainly to IAEA reports. U.S. reports are cited as analyses of facts reported by the IAEA. I've only edited through late 2003. The later content still strikes me as having a pro-Iran bias. For example, it fails to note that Iran twice reneged on pledges to suspend its enrichment and reprocessing activities, pledges made in October 2003 and November 2004.
For what it's worth, I agree that U.S. false and irresponsible accusations about Iraq have led many to question the credibility of U.S. claims in general, even when those clames cite facts reported by the IAEA. But it is just as irresponsible to dismiss facts simply because they are cited by the United States. What I find most disturbing in this article is the selective use of citations from secondary sources to pretend that Iran has done nothing wrong when the IAEA reported systematic safeguards violations by Iran over nearly two decades. NPguy 02:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
This article is supposed to be about Iran and WMD. Whether "Iran has done nothing wrong" is utterly irrelevant if one does not beg the question of whether enrichment and reprocessing is for the purpose of producing nuclear weapons. The U.S. and Israel have also not "done nothing wrong", in many areas of international law, but that is neither here nor there. -- 71.102.136.107 22:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed comment of false allegation

The whole section of "Reasons for Israeli concern" begs the question "According to who?". Looks like a collection of POV to me... --Uncle Bungle 14:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

It was specified that "#Iran's President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and other Iranian leaders deny Israel's right to exist". This statement has been refueted numerous times, and the page specified by the user as a source in Yahoo News does not exist.

I removed the Hezbollah comment as well since the single cited article failed to relate a nuclear armed Iran with a threat to Israel via Hezbollah. --Uncle Bungle 14:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other countries that enrich uranium

Maybe it's worth mentioning Enriched_uranium#Global_enrichment_facilities? Acknowledging the existing members of the club Iran wants to join is relevant. 172.159.69.47 13:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What countries think Iran pursuing weapons?

The text used to say that the United States, the United Kingdom and France had accused Iran of having a nuclear wepons program. I changed this to "several countries" because I'm sure many more contries think Iran is after weapons. Simply citing those three - or just the U.S. and France, as it now reads - is misleading. Until someone does the research to producde a comprehensive list, I think "several" is more accurate. NPguy 01:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

It's also original research. It's fine to signify that it is a group, but there has to be a way for the reader to know which 'several countries'. After all, are there not several countries also in favor of Iran's right to peaceful nuclear technology? What makes one group of countries more important than another? --69.210.14.42 15:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
I've decidd to put the whole thing out of its misery. Until someone does some systematic research on who does or does not think Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons, better to remain silent. NPguy 20:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
That of course is another option..
About the IAEA article you were citing, there were two articles about it here and here. The articles discuss Jack Straw saying "Iran is being given another opportunity to address the 'concerns of the IAEA' regarding Tehran's nuclear programs", and note that the resolution wasn't adopted by the customary consensus but rather adopted by a 22-1 vote, with 12 abstentions. The words "sanctions" and "secret enrichment program" also don't occur anywhere in the IAEA document, so it's hard to cite it for your analysis. I think a better way to describe the vote is as a valid (yet contentious) decision to (eventually) refer Iran to the UN Security Council. It would need to be quoted directly and in the proper context. --69.210.14.42 13:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
The page I cited is the IAEA Board resolution that found Iran in non-compliance with its safeguards agreement. It refers to actions described in the IAEA report of November 2003. That report cited numerous Iranian "failures" and "breaches" of its safeguards agreement and an 18-year "policy of deception," but left the word "non-compliance" for a Board decision. The Board put off such a decision in hope that the October 2003 Teheran agreement between the EU-3 and Iran would lead to a diplomatic resolution. But after that agreement broke down, and the follow-on Paris agreement also broke down, the Board finally made a non-compliance finding against Iran. The fact that the Board resolution was not unanimous is unusual (and in my opinion unfortunate), but does not detract from the validity of the decision to find non-compliance. The "opportunity" cited by Jack Straw reflects the fact that the Board did not immediately report the non-compliance to the UN Security Council, but rather set a deadline for Iran to act in order to avoid such a report. When Iran failed to take this opportunity, the Board made the report to the Council. NPguy 03:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I've paraphrased the source directly to address my concern. Iran may or may not have been found in violation because of "a secret enrichment program" as your analysis continually suggests, but it's original synthesis or interpretation if it doesn't occur anywhere in the IAEA document itself. --69.210.14.42 14:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I've put back the reference to enrichment as the main basis for the non-compliance finding, citing the original November 2003 report. I took out the reference to the need tor Iran to return to negotiations, because that has no antecedent. There was nothing "irregular" about the vote on this decision, but it was unusual. I believe your description of the vote is correct, but I don't find the vote count in the page you cite. Maybe it's in here, but that link doesn't work for me. NPguy 01:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
It's at the bottom of the ASIL reference right there in the article, but you can also find it mentioned here and here. Any of the references for the abstentions part is fine with me, and the wording you adopted looks fine to me. I also tried to shorten the IAEA sentence and paraphrase it as closely as I could. I still have a slight problem with only quoting a select part of the 2003 document, but I'm going along in the spirit of compromise.. --69.210.14.42 02:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
There it is in the footnote. NPguy 02:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Your change was quite wrong. The original -- factually correct -- statement was about accusations actually made. What countries may "think" (as if a country were the sort of thing that could think something) is irrelevant. -- 71.102.136.107 22:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "The United States' stance" section

The section "The United States' stance" reads as if it was written by an Iranian government ministry. Clearly, there are two sides to the story, but this section was clearly written or edited by someone pushing a pro-Iran POV.

The best example -- but only one of many -- is the claim that Ahmadinejad's infamous "wipe off the map" statement has been mistranslated. The wording used is "though Middle East experts assert that his statements have been intentionally mistranslated."

A few people say Ahmadinejad was mistranslated, but the Iranian president, when asked about it, as when he was interviewed by Anderson Cooper or questioned at Columbia, has not said he was mistranslated. In fact, Ahmadinejad's own website includes the so-called "mistranslation" (see Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel#.22Wiped_off_the_map.22_translation).

I don't intend to get into an argument over the translation debate -- I'm just pointing out that an unbiased writer would not discuss the issue as if it has been definitively settled in Ahmadinejad's favor.

This section needs to be completely redone by someone familiar with the issues but able to write in an unbiased manner. -- Mwalcoff 14:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely. This is one of the reasons I have complained about the bias of this article. It is noteworthy that this section essentially dismisses the serious concerns based on what the IAEA has reported about Iran's nuclear program and emphasizes various political issues that affect U.S. policy toward Iran in general but have nothing to do with the U.S. position on Iran's nuclear program. This is not the U.S. position as the rebuttal of that position by apologists for Iran. But try and fix it and chances are someone will make it even worse. NPguy 21:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree there are parts of it which definitely need to be rewritten. A balanced version would state the commonly used translation and mention that there have been a few other interpretations/translations.. It would not say it has been purposely mistranslated as the main part, it may mention it with an attribution.. --69.210.14.42 15:09, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] British or American spelling

Apologies for changing "programme" to "program." This article uses a mix of Brutish and American spellling (both "programme" and "program"). It is not this article but the companion article Nuclear program of Iran that has finally settled on the American spelling, after much silly bickering. I really don't care. NPguy 02:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it matters either, but I think it is important for an article to use consistent spelling. --69.210.14.42 15:10, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Minor cleanup in intro section

There is a line that begins "In a bombshell report ..." which runs extremely long, off the edge of the page in fact, in IE 6. I don't know enough about the mark up to fix this, maybe someone could fix this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.142.33 (talk) 13:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

There has been recent vandalism on this post with a user vandalising and posting very offensive content on the article, I am not very familiar with the procedure for protecting page, but this might be the correct decision. --80.253.137.5 (talk) 21:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Not necessary. It was a front page article, and the vandalism was reverted quickly. It will stop once it falls off the front page (and at least it seems to have been slowed down by now anyway)Kriscott (talk) 04:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh, and honestly, if you really were concerned about this you would create an account---you have been making "anoymous" edits for almost 2 years now and haven't bothered to create an account. Kriscott (talk) 04:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
    • My ISP is an Iranian ISP, it uses a transparent proxy and DHCP and many many computers share the same IP, I have done very minor modifications which are not even a year old. 80.253.137.5 (talk) 18:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Broken links

There are two broken links in paragraph 3, footnotes 8 (missing ref) and 9 (defunct). —Preceding unsigned comment added by NPguy (talk • contribs) 04:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] POV

This article seems to have a blatantly pro-Iran bias in both its content and its sources. One has to wonder whether this is the work of the propaganda wing of the Iranian governmetn.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.243.158.192 (talk) 14:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] False/Mistakable information

At the second passage is the sentence: "The November 2007 United States National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) judged with "high confidence" that Iran halted an active nuclear weapons program in fall 2003 and that it remained halted as of mid-2007". That sounds as if the NIE juged with "high confidence" that it remained halted as of mid-2007. This is contrary to the original NIE Document where stands : "We assess with moderate confidence Tehran had not restarted its nuclear weapons program as of mid-2007, but we do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons."[24] --Cknuth (talk) 21:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The detail you point out is important, but the specific confidence levels and methodology used should most likely be explained at a later point in the article. It has been reworded though.. --68.21.95.247 (talk) 03:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

this article is so biased it's not even funny. How about we avoid blunt opinionated sentences in the first paragraph? Iran is developing nuclear weapons...there - i said it - so it must be true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.77.184.211 (talk) 01:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The first paragraph does not seem so bad since it's basically true. The problem is that it is incomplete. Iran is suspected of seeking a nuclear weapons capability through its enrichment progam. But it is not believed to possess WMD and is one of the leading victims of use of chemical weapons. What would you suggest? NPguy (talk) 02:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What does it matter if Iran stopped violating its safeguards agreement?

Iran's nuclear program poses a question of enforcement of international law. Iran is a member of the United Nations and a Party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. For 18 years Iran violated its NPT obligations to accept IAEA verification (safeguards) on all its nuclear activities. According to the IAEA, this was the result of a deliberate "policy of concealment" and, because it dealt with "the most sensitive aspects of the fuel cycle" it was cause for "serious concern."

In effect, Iran was convicted of violating its international legal obligations. When a person is convicted of a crime, we don't talk about that person's "previous" criminal acts. So how is it relevant to say that Iran's violations were part of a "previous" policy of concealment? Does the fact that Iran appears to be no longer actively violating its safeguards agreement somehow mitigate the seriousness of the violations for which it was convicted?

In any case, Iran remains in violation of international law. As a member of the UN, it has a legal obligation to comply with UN Security Council resolutions taken under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. Its defiance of Resolutions 1696, 1737, 1747 and 1803. There is no specific enforcement mechanism specified in either the NPT or Iran's safeguards agreement. Rather, it is left to the discretion of the Security Council.

In short, Iran's NPT safeguards violations have not been resolved, as the use of the word "previous" seems to imply. NPguy (talk) 17:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The text should make clear that the "policy of concealment" is not on-going, unless you have a source to verify this. The word previous is not meant to say that the issue has been resolved, but rather to note that the "policy of concealment" is not considered to be on-going.
I think there are a number of ways to address this, including adding a brief timeline or mentioning that the issue is currently before the Security Council. The aim here is simply clarity.--68.72.46.218 (talk) 18:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I am not sure exactly where the "18 year" history originates, though I know this to be about the general timeframe. The timeline idea seems fairly objective, and if you are open to it then it might be useful if you could add a reference for when the program began. The current issues you mentioned could also be included after this. --68.72.46.218 (talk) 19:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Link added

Hi. I just added a link I found recently covering the latest view of Iranien policy. It's a video interview taken by students during the Non-Nuclear-Proliferation Treaty PrepCom 2008 (ended yesterday - Fri-09 May). Ali Ashgar Soltanieh was the head of the Iranien delegation and is stating his country's views on particular topics. Jossejonathan (talk) 08:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] israel

it seemed bizarre to me that "reasons for israeli concern" did not include the most salient fact, that iran has threatened to wipe israel off the map. i added this, and User:Smb deleted it, and simultaneously User:Sean.hoyland added "relevant context info":

which is not a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and is widely believed to possess nuclear weapons,[2]

imo the purpose of this info seems to be to discredit israeli concerns before they're even mentioned, but i've left it alone.

however, User:Smb's deletions are not reasonable. i have now added iran's threats back in, and sourced it to yesterday's NY Times just in case anyone plans to object that it isn't properly sourced, and rearranged the order to reflect the fact that this is the most salient israeli concern. please do not delete this again without first discussing in the talk page here why you think this fact doesn't belong. Benwing (talk) 06:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

You are stating as fact something that is not plain at all (i.e. Iran has explicitly called for the destruction of Israel). Wikipedia has a page that deals with this controversy and it describes other well sourced interpretations of the same remark(s). Your edit is pushing a single POV. ~ smb 11:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not trying to push any POV regarding that statement, but it needs to be mentioned. You keep deleting it entirely. Benwing (talk) 04:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Also, you got a bit trigger-happy and undid an unrelated change I made removing info about Ardeshi Hosseinpour. In the future it would be better if you made your changes by editing rather than hitting "Undo". Benwing (talk) 04:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
It was deleted entirely because your edit advanced a single point of view to the exclusion of others. The version we have now is an improvement, though it might be noted that the only country that has explicitly been threatened with destruction is Iran. ~ smb 10:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
sorry, this was clearly not my intent. i didn't realize until looking into it that there was any dispute about what exactly M.A. had said. but you must clearly realize that the assertion you just made is as subject to dispute as anything else. i wouldn't be surprised now to hear that some wikipedians object to even as (apparently) obvious a statement as "iran doesn't recognize israel's right to exist". Benwing (talk) 06:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, regarding my edit. It's not intended to discredit Israeli concerns and I'm not even sure I see how it would do that. It's just basic information which I think should be present. It would be a bit odd not to mention it. Israel, like India and Pakistan, isn't obliged to sign the NPT and decided to develop nuclear weapons which they are entirely free to do not being members of the NPT. Iran on the other hand signed the NPT so they are obliged to comply with the rules and will of course get into trouble when they don't. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

If you want to include the information, then attribute it to a third party source in a way which is relevant.--208.111.27.6 (talk) 00:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Sean, I deleted your info because it's not relevant in this section. The section is supposed to be describing Israeli concerns about Iran, not Iran's or anyone else's issues with Israel. No other section on any country in this article does anything comparable. Benwing (talk) 04:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
..and by removing that information does it help someone, a young student for example with no knowledge of the issues or opinions to get a better understanding of the Iran WMD issue and the context of the statements and actions of all parties ? Of course the information is relevant and should be on this page somewhere. The information is just that, information. It neither discredits Israeli concerns or gives Iran the right to break the NPT rules. I'm not sure why you would expect Israel to be treated the same way as other countries in this section. It isn't the same as other countries in this section. It isn't a member of the NPT and it has nuclear weapons. That isn't a biased political statement meant to make Israel look bad or make Israel look like brave defender of it's people and it's right to exist. It's simply the reality on the ground like it or not. If I added a section on India or Pakistan I would also include this important and relevant information. If you think there is a better way to include this information please do so but simply removing it doesn't really improve the page in my view. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Benwing's removal of sourced info [25], and unilateral rewording of the sub-section, has made the section in question highly one-sided/POV, so I have placed a POV tag, until the neutrality issues have been addressed, and the section has been re-written in a more neutral fashion.--CreazySuit (talk) 05:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Sean, what you did is called poisoning the well. imagine if I prefaced every assertion made by the US with something like "The United States, which has 6,666 ICBM's including several hundred pointed at Iran, asserts that ...". would that be reasonable? also, the whole point of country-by-country sections on "international response" is to present each country's pov. none of you seem to object, for example, to russia's "i see no problem" comment even though russia is actively assisting iran's nuclear program and has every reason to play down any concerns. after all, this whole article is about iran's nuclear program, not israel's -- anyone who wants to find out about israel's nuclear program can click on the link provided directly above. Benwing (talk) 06:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Creazy, what exactly is your complaint? deleting of sourced info is not a pov violation. which sourced info are you wanting put back? Benwing (talk) 06:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi Ben, my short answer is, I added the See also: links to the other <country> and weapons of mass destruction pages to make it easier to get to relevant background info on the basis that that was better than a complete absence of information. I'm okay with that approach and you don't seem to have a problem with it.
My long answer is, I understand how the placement of the text could be interpreted as 'poisoning the well' but I think that interpretation would require the reader to add non-neutral information that isn't actually present in the sentence when they interpret it. I don't think a neutral reader wouldn't interpret it that way and I guess many people would even interpret it the other way and object to the 'widely believed' terminology. I suppose it's like the Kanizsa triangle. Anyway, I haven't put the information back and I stand by my suggestion that you include the information in a better way if you can think of one. I can assure you that 'poisoning the well' is exactly the opposite of what I'm trying to do with my edits to this page.
Regarding the Russia section, with respect, you are drawing conclusions on the basis of the absence of information. It's difficult to reliably conclude anything on the basis that 'none of you seem to object' etc. There's a difference between the absence of information and the removal of information. Obviously that section needs to be expanded to include information about the relationship between Russia and Iran to provide context. It just hasn't been done yet. Same goes for China and Iran etc. Remember that the E3+3 (UK, France, Germany, US, China and Russia) have all stated that they will actively assist Iran's nuclear program. That's one of the key incentives in the ongoing negotations and it's entirely consistent with the NPT. By assisting Iran's nuclear program, Russia isn't doing anything inconsistent with international agreements. I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'has every reason to play down any concerns'. If you have specific examples with good references please add them to the Russia section especially if you can find examples cited by the IAEA.
Regarding "The United States, which has 6,666 ICBM's including several hundred pointed at Iran, asserts that ...". would that be reasonable? Perhaps not that exact wording :) That's not really a fair analog of 'which is not a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and is widely believed to possess nuclear weapons'. What would be entirely reasonable in my view what be something like 'The United States, a member of the NPT and one of the five states recognized by the NPT as nuclear weapon states (NWS) asserts that...": I think that would help someone get a broader understanding by providing neutral context information since the context is compliance with the NPT and WMD.
To help you understand my approach consider this analogy. Imagine you are a reporter and you are trying to write a balanced piece about a dispute where it's alleged by several parties that man A is trying to obtain a handgun when he has signed an agreement that says he will not do that. You are bound by contract to comply with NPOV rules and you are trying to give your readers a broad understanding of the issues and the background. Now, you are at the point in the piece where you are trying to describe the concerns of A's neighbour B who alleges that A is threatening him, wants to burn his house down, is secretly trying to obtain a handgun, will soon obtain one and is imploring the authorities to punish the man in the harshest way possible. Both A and B have a well documented history of using violence and it's 'widely known' beyond any reasonable doubt that the behavior and statements of A influences the behavior and statements of B and vis versa and that both of the neighbours have all sorts of disputes with various neighbours in the neighbourhood. Is the reporter 'poisoning the well' by including the facts that
- B hasn't signed an agreement to say that he will not try to obtain a handgun
- B is known to have a handgun beyond any reasonable doubt (in the same sense that the blood group of an accident victim in a coma is known beyond any reasonable doubt by medical experts despite the person neither confirming or denying their blood group) ? Sean.hoyland - talk 12:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)