| Kasz216 said: If Iran was a stable democracy mostly free of corruption (Say one that would be listed a "Full Democracy" in the Democracy index) fine. |
Out of the 9 countries that definitely already have the atomic bomb, that criterion only applies to two - and yet one of those two countries is the only country that has ever actually used one. So that does not seem like a good criterion to me.
| Kasz216 said: I thought they'd been offering that deal forever though? We'll let you build your Nuclear Plants, and we'll supply you with all the Uranium you need at discount prices,(through russia) and remove it when it's finished. |
From the iranian point of view, this is simply not an acceptable solution.
After the islamic revolution in 1979, when the iranians got rid of the oppressive shah, the west thought it was a clever idea to impose tough economical sanctions on Iran. The usual "if we ruin their economy, the people will be angry and revolt" logic. For decades Iran has now suffered from very tough sanctions, but unfortunately that didn't have the effect we were hoping for. Quite the contrary, they got pissed of the USA and now they're proud for what they've reached. Over the decades, Iran learned the hard way that it's best not to be dependant on others, because whatever product they were severely depending other countries on, that product would be sure to be sanctioned in order to put pressure on them.
With the long history of the iranian energy sector (which is critically important to their economy) being a target of embargos, their whole wish for nuclear power was in the end the result of the west's own stupid behaviour. What they want is their energy sector to be independant from other countries, and since Iran is uranium-rich, atomic energy is a obvious choice. But if they would have to rely on other countries for whatever step in the nuclear process, their whole point of having nuclear power would be gone, because then they would be just as vulnerable to sanctions for pressure as before.
