Slashdot Mirror
Iran Opens Its First Nuclear Power Plant
pickens writes "VOA reports that Russian and Iranian engineers have begun loading fuel into Iran's first nuclear power plant located in the southern city of Bushehr amid international fears that Iran will use the facility to make nuclear weapons, a charge both Tehran and the Kremlin vehemently deny. Officials say it will take about two to three months for the plant to start producing electricity once all of the fuel rods have been moved into the reactor. The production capacity of the plant will initially be 500 megawatts, but will eventually increase to 1,000 megawatts. Earlier this year, Washington criticized Russia for going ahead with the planned opening of the plant amid global disagreement and concern over Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program. Moscow did, however, back a fourth round of sanctions against Tehran, which called for Iran to stop uranium enrichment."
What has Iran ever done to us
It's not a nuclear plant. It's just a bunch of camels running on treadmills.
M.A.D. for a safer world! Today!
There are not international concerns over this plant. It requires uranium enriched by 3% (well below the 90% required for weapons grade material) and is operated by the Russians, who are both providing and disposing of the fuel. There are no proliferation concerns over this.
The concerns are over the other reactor, officially designated for medical research, which requires uranium enriched to 20%, which some see as the first step towards a breeder reactor for providing fuel for nuclear weapons.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Guess we're gonna get a global heads-up when they finish loading fuel, when they flick the switch, when it has run for a day, a week, a month and a year.
Call me when they've built a nuke and launch it at Israel in a religious hissy-fit.
I'm not sure if I should be happy that a more sensible energy source is being used, or if I should give into the fearmongering... so... I'll break out into song!
And Iran...
Iran's so far away.
I plus ran.
They claim they have no gays...
I don't know what to say.
Another 210 MWatt at max and they could go back to 1955!
That's 6849 barrels of oil per day they are going to save (the rough amount required to produce 500MW per day). At $74 a barrel that's about half a million dollars per day. Every day. Oil that they can now export to China and Russia that otherwise would have been burned up in domestic consumption. It doesn't take long before a plant like this pays for itself.
But oh, mention Iran and nuclear in the same paragraph and all the paranoid uninformed imperialist types appear, yelling "nuclear weapons!". Despite nuclear energy (or any other form of alternative energy) being an extremely sane choice for an oil exporting nation.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
I mean, we could always trust the Russians to work in our best interests. Also, they were never sneaky about anything. Always truthful and honest, them Russians.
And Iran only threatened to wipe The West off the map, starting with Israel, with any means at their disposal. And that they could make a nuclear bomb if they wanted to, because it was a right granted to them from Allah.
Not to mention that they're playing the North Korean game of "let's talk" / "we're not talking to you anymore" / "let's talk" / "we're not talking to you anymore" with the UN. Remember what North Korea has now after a few years of that? Ah, yes, The Bomb.
And all this in the hands of a fanatic regime, intent on spreading Islam through force, feared and hated even by most other Islamic nations, all the while being one of the most horrible human-rights violators of our time.
But there's nothing to fear. They're not after the bomb. They say they are, but there's nothing to worry about. It's just a nuclear power plant.
REMAIN CALM!
"Programming is life, the rest is mere details"
If Israel struck the plant and killed a bunch of Russian engineers, that would be bad. If the strike put a radioactive plum in the air that drifted over part of China or India, that would be worse.
Not to mention the fact that if the Russians really got cheesed off they could just sell Iran warheads.
Any country with enough money and enough time is going to be able to acquire nuclear weapons. We might have to face the fact that there may not always be a military solution.
Canada doesn't have nuclear weapons, they don't feel the need to squander their collective treasure maintaining 12 aircraft carrier groups and they seem to get along just fine. Let some other country pick up some of the tab for being the world's policeman. We need that money here.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
I always shake my head and ruefully smile when I see these fear-mongering stories about hyped-up fears of “An Iranian Nuke in our Future!” and similar drivel. The IAEA inspects the program at ever single step of the way and of something is veering off course, everyone in the UN and the US will know. So far that hasn't happened, and my guess is that it won't.
For the record there's no simple, direct way to readily convert fuel-grade uranium into weapons-grade uranium, short of building a breeder reactor, and that's not exactly something you can do in your backyard or garage. Fuel-grade uranium doesn't go into a nuke, and you don't put weapons-grade uranium into your reactor, unless you want a really big “boom”.
As it stands, the only nation in the Mideast that illegally built a nuclear weapons program outside of international purview was Israel, and they got some of the initial materials to do so by smuggling the uranium from a refinement facility in Apollo, Pennsylvania in the late 1960's (c.f.: The Samson Option by Seymour Hersh). Yet you never hear two peeps about the “destabilizing influence in the Mideast” of that nuclear bandit state in the press, do you?
Also, let's not forget that the entire [crooked] line of thought is brought to you by the same perpetual prevaricators who threw up a lot of hot air about “Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq!” and “Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan!” and then were trying to beat the drums for a war with Syria under the pretense of “Saddam moved all the weapons to Syria (and Iran!)” It's the same old, tired media meme rehashed once again for a petty excuse to get us involved in another war we don't need and can't afford.
For my part, I'd like to see every media editor that purports that very same lie to be strung up, just so the air can be cleared a bit.
This needs to be modded up.
The world needs an FAQ which should be required reading by everybody with a keyboard and the ability to vote.
Sheesh.
-FL
"Right now, we're just dealing with karma of past actions by our government.
If we kept our noses out of others business, the World would probably be a much different place and there would be less hatred towards us."
It's sad that so few Americans understand this.
While it could theoretically be done, this particular plant is not very useful for making bomb material.
In order for plutonium produced by reactors to be useful for weapons it needs to be extracted from a reactor fairly shortly after being produced, or otherwise it will be contaminated with heavier plutonium isotopes that generate a lot of heat and neutrons, making the weapon design dramatically more difficult (so difficult in fact that it is probably easier to start all over and make decent material ). For this reason plants used to make bomb material are usually smaller and built to be able to refuel quickly. Attempting to separate the plutonium isotopes after they have been mixed would likely be more difficult than "simply" enriching uranium, so that's not much of a worry either.
It is possible to build large reactors that can function both as power-plants and bomb producers, but this generally requires them to be designed so they can change their fuel bundles while operating ( The UK and former Soviet used to do this ). For a large pressurized water reactor, like this one, it is however not practical since it would require you to shut down and restart it to replace the fuel at frequent intervals, and for such a large reactor doing that takes ages, and it would be obvious to the outside world what is going on ( you don't just hide the fact that a few gigawatt of spill heat suddenly went away ).
Basically of all the types of power producing reactors in widespread use in the world today, a large pressurized water reactor is probably the least suitable for making plutonium. It is theoretically possible, but it is not even a fraction as big a concern as the uranium enrichment facilities Iran is also operating. Those facilities can be used to create highly enriched U-235, which is pretty much the material that is easiest to turn into a nuclear weapon. Using plutonium can have advantages for advanced weapon designs, but it is a lot easier to do with uranium.
So, if the Israelis think that this plant will be used to produce nuclear material for a fission bomb (or a much easier to make "dirty" bomb), they might be tempted to put it (permanently) out of action.
If so, I wonder what would happen if they rupture the containment dome while it is running "full steam". Would there be a Chernobyl type disaster? (Hundreds of thousands evacuated, thousands of sq. kilometers contaminated for decades/centuries). Some have claimed that the costs from Chernobyl caused the bankrupting of the old USSR. Remember that instead of a few measly kg of highly radioactive material in a bomb, a reactor has TONS. (Of course maybe it has to be running for awhile to "cook" the material).
Is this in the Israelis planning? Could they try to pick a time when the plume would go over, say, Tehran?
Remember that the Israelis destroyed an Iraqi reactor in the 80s. Of course it hadn't started operations yet. Maybe the Israelis were afraid the fallout might hit them (but Iran is a bit further away). Of course the diplomatic fallout would be extraordinary but any attack on Iran is going to be condemned so why not achieve your goals of preventing them from getting nukes AND crippling their entire country at the same time?
Just don't have homer simpson work there!
Uh nope. You got your war history wrong. Without US involvement in Europe, the world would not have been operating with the US dollar as the international currency.
Since Japan wanted US owned territories, many current USians would be speaking japanese (Remember Pearl Harbour).
But most of the grunt work was done by Russia. Canadian and displaced european forces were more numerous (and D Day for the americans went so badly because they didn't think they needed support from the British Navy guns in the landings) and the war may have delayed a year without USA involvement, but most of Europe would still have been Europe and not Germany.
And the reason why we weren't all speaking russian is because the COLD WAR had the US and USSR pissing all over the place going "mine!". Just after WWII the russians had lost huge numbers of men and materials and would not have been able to invade any more countries.
First, I wish no one had the bomb, and the idea of a squirrelly state like Iran - or God forbid, North Korea - having one is enough to make me lose sleep. That said, under what moral or legal right do we get to say that they can't have one, other than that we don't like them? Is it our official policy that only our allies get nukes, and if so, do Russia and China have the same official policy with non-overlapping sets of allies?
Again, I don't want Iran to have the bomb. I'm just curious about what doctrine or treaty gives us a say in the matter of whether a sovereign country gets to use a technology that we already have.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Russia has decided to withdraw its advanced missile defense system for export. Officials said the Kremlin has ordered the state-owned arms agency Rosoboronexport to end marketing of the S-400 air and missile defense system. They said Rosoboronexport was told that the S-400 would be deployed only in Russia until further notice.
"Russia would consider exports only after meeting the requirements of its own armed forces," Rosoboronexport director Anatoly Isaikin said on Jan. 28. Over the last five years, Rosoboronexport has sought to sell the S-400 to a range of Middle East states, including Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates. So far, no export sales were reported.
"There are a lot of preliminary talks," Isaikin said.
The S-400 Triumph was designed to intercept airborne targets at up to 400 kilometers. Rosoboronexport has asserted that the system could destroy stealth aircraft, cruise missiles and ballistic missiles.
In 2009, Rosoboronexport lobbied the Turkish government to purchase the S-400. Ankara, which appears to favor the U.S.-origin PAC-3, has conducted a $1 billion tender for the procurement of missile defense systems.
Officials said the Russian military would require at least two years to exploit the potential of the S-400. The first S-400 battalion entered combat duty in the Moscow region in 2007.
"There have been bugs in the system and this has prevented us from properly demonstrating the S-400 abroad," another official said.
(/end copy paste)
"Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
That's interesting. Do you have a link to a source for this? Not doubting you - interested in reading more. It's possible I've become a bit out of touch.
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
they could seal the Strait of Hormuz which would majorly fuck up the US's oil supplies
No it wouldn't. It would screw up PRICES but the US actually gets fairly little oil from the middle east. Only Saudi Arabia is in the top 5 exporters of oil to the US and I suspect they might take issue with Iran screwing up the oil market. Furthermore the US has ample military means of responding to such an overt threat. The US doesn't really want to tangle with Iran but Iran REALLY doesn't want to tangle with the US military.
Therefore it is natural for the nation of Iraq to form close ties with Iran.
Except they fought a long a bloody war and hate each other. Otherwise you might have a point.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vela_Incident
don't want the Iranians to have the materials. Its not like they would not want a spike in oil prices, let alone a major competitor to them "occupied" with other concerns decreasing availability of oil.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
There is a big difference between supporting a terrorist organization and supporting somebody who would eventually become a terrorist, unless you claim to be able to predict the future for a few decades.
In addition, Noam Chomsky is not exactly an unbiased source in a matters related to Israel
you'd be speaking proper English. blimey.
They actively support Hezbollah, which is defined as a terrorist organization by many countries including US. I don't know about you, but I think that would is a better place when terrorists do not have an access to nuclear weapons.
because "terrorism" is what the Kommandantur was calling the resistance.
So I guess this is the part of "reload" which comrade Putin skipped to mention to Obama when they talked about "reloading" relationship b/w US and Russia?
It amazes me how many U.S. citizens are ignorant of the violent, corrupt activities of the U.S. government. The violence is always for the profit of a few.
In the case of the U.S. government overthrowing the democratically elected Premier of Iran, Mohammad Mosaddeq, the CIA was allowed to act in secret: "The CIA, with help from British intelligence, planned, funded and implemented the operation." The purpose was to insure huge profits for British Petroleum (Yes, that BP), and U.S. oil companies.
Quote from the Wikipedia article: "Overnight, the CIA became a central part of the American foreign policy apparatus, and covert action came to be regarded as a cheap and effective way to shape the course of world events"--a coup engineered by the CIA called Operation PBSUCCESS toppling the duly elected Guatemalan government of Jacobo Arbenz Guzmán, which had nationalised farm land owned by the United Fruit Company, followed the next year."
Military action so that U.S. investors can make more money has ever since been a central policy of the U.S. government. The families and friends of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney had oil and weapons investments, so the U.S. military was used to get control of the oil in Iraq. That violence has made U.S. citizens much poorer, through taxes and inflation.
Call it what you want, but nowadays Hezbollah resistance is against democracy in Lebanon (see Rafic Hariri assassination). For me this and killing other civilians in other countries is terrorism.
Iran wants nuclear materials in their reactor. We can quickly deliver some really hot nuclear materials right down the chimney of their reactor. One good bomb will certainly correct their thinking in a flash!
not the above comment is 'Flamebait' but USA as a country is a Flamebait.
You can't handle the truth.
If it was containment of Soviet expansion, why the hell did it start right after Mosaddeq nationalized Iranian Oil?
I personally think that Iran has a disgusting record on human rights, that it really needs to sort out its misogynistic patriarchy, and that the "Iranian Minister of Justice" is an oxymoron. But a state of the US is about to execute a woman with an IQ of 72 for allegedly plotting to kill her husband, and the chance of being executed for various offences in the US is directly linked to socioeconomic status and skin colour. Am I supposed to draw the same conclusions about the US?
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
At $74 a barrel
You see, they're not selling oil in dollars, and *that* is the problem.
Deleted
That's what they did.
If it spreads, it will destroy the US dollar as the international reserve currency, cause a huge amount of inflation in the US and destroy the US as the world superpower.
Deleted
Iran Starts Nuclear Power Facility | Iran Unveils New Unmanned Long Range Bomber
They keep threatening to wipe an entire country off the map.
I thought they were effectively copying the USA foreign policies and going for "regime change".
e.g.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12790.htm
Deleted
It's going to a take a few years of US complaining about Iran & some UN resolutions to sanction Iran before there is a war.
Though the real trigger will be when the US economy is in doldrums and needs to be turned around. Nothing like war to stimulate it - and, hey, we've already set up a candidate for the war for a decade now with propaganda that demonizes Iran and the US "patience for years" for a "diplomatic solution".
(I am not supporting Iran or against the US in anyway. This post is more about how these things work)
The nation that just invaded two of your neighbors is threatening to invade. But don't try to come up with any sneaky way to defend yourself. Just remain calm while the Freedom Police check you for anything they don't approve of.
I know if the Russians and Iran invaded Mexico and Canada, we'd just sit quietly and hope for the best. Right?
http://www.geostrategy-direct.com/geostrategy-direct/
But, for a large part, it's subscription only.
The S-300 system even in it's original non-upgraded from would be enough to shift the balance of an air war with Israel.
US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil
Let's just put things in perspective: 1) The reactor is about is the worst suited for producing weapons grade radioactive materials. The fuel cycle is observed not just by the Russians but by the IAAE inspectors. 2) Iran is not run by warmongering crazy mullahs. It is a semi-democratic country with a complex system of checks and balances including the Supreme Leader, the President, the elected Assembly of Experts that has the power to remove the SL, the Parliament, the Islamic judiciary, the powerful Revolutionary Guard. If anything, many experts believe that the power balance has shifted from the religious authorities to the Revolutionary Guard controlled military-industrisl complex who Ahmadinejad represents. Some have gone as far as saying that the SL has not power and is a puppet of Ahmadinejad. 3) Iran is not going to attack anyone first, yet alone Israel. It's strategic policy is based on deterrence. Ahmadinejad's is a populist and his fiery speeches are generally aimed at the internal audience, the conservative majority in the countryside/provincial cities outside of the liberal Northern Tehran. Israel plays dumb when it pretends that his populist rhetoric represents the consensus of the Iranian power elites.
US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil
And Iran only threatened to wipe The West off the map, starting with Israel, with any means at their disposal.
No, they didn't. They said nothing of the sort.
They said that the regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time.
This is a poetic way of expressing their wish that the government of Israel, as it is today, would become a thing of the past.
Regardless of what I think of the geopolitics of the Middle East, it bugs me that people repeat some lies over and over again. Although Göbbels said that a lie repeated enough times becomes the truth, let's try to stick to the REAL facts in this matter.
OK?
In sufficient numbers, with well-trained operators, yes. Until the F 35 appears.
The S 400 would "threaten" the American air force more than the IAF at the moment.
"Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
From my European point of view, they're not any crazier than the evangelicals who supported Bush and who support Zionism.
Every truly independent nation state works in their own best interest. That's a given. I don't understand why you got a insightful mod. Russia is not Colombia or Mexico. For the Iranians case, getting into a war of choice against the west would mean the end of the Iranian regime. That would be an unlikely case of extreme collective stupidity. Your mention of North Korea reinforces the point of why the Iranians "would" want nuclear weapons, nothing more.
This plant produces plutonium-240 useless for weapons so the only contentious point remaining in Iran's nuclear program is their enrichment facilities.
Mexico: 100% conservative's America now!
Some of those require a considerable degree of paranoia. OTOH, as I mentioned, history gives Iran multiple reasons to be paranoid.
r = kilograms of radioactive material available to Iran
b = number of people in the Iranian regime who believe that low cut blouses cause earthquakes
m = monetary value of equipment and explosives supplied during the past 40 years to groups who use it to build IEDs and suicide bomb vests
d = r x b x m
d = percent increase in the odds that a dirty bomb (not a fission or fusion weapon) will be detonated in Israel or the US sometime in the next 5 years
Feel free to prove, disprove, or edit as necessary.
I recently wrote a blog post about this over here: http://lockethepundit.blogspot.com/2010/08/does-iran-really-have-peaceful-nuclear.html
Of course, but I think it's pretty clear that Obama will not be known as the one who started a major conflict in the ME hence American Air Force is largely irrelevant.
US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil
This reactor has been built over how many years with how many different people involved?
I'm sure has time has gone on the plan has been amended and amended and amended... I'm fearful that this reactor is a Chernobyl just waiting to happen.
Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
"Remember what North Korea has now after a few years of that? Ah, yes, The Bomb."
They probably don't. Or more precisely, what they have a bomb that has failed twice. And probably not enough plutonium to make another.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6040494.stm
I enjoy watching Iran piss away its fortune on atomic bombs. I feel certain it will lead to the ultimate destruction of the country. I don't wish it on them, the Iranian people are wonderful, but their leaders are leading them down a path of destruction. Obama is right to ignore them, they're wiping themselves out.
Have you ever stopped to consider that the reason that Canada gets along so well without much of a military is because of the US?
Canada and the US are very, very friendly. The countries get along great diplomatically and there's no need to guard the border (I don't mean that there aren't controls for crossing, I mean there's no watching for each other pulling any military tricks). It is well understood that because the US likes Canada, and because any invasion of Canada could be a precursor to an invasion of the US that the US will defend Canada with its full might and fury.
Well, that leads to a situation of Canada not having to worry about its own defense very much. Nobody will be invading Canada because the US will smash them. So they don't need to have much of a military force. They more or less have a small amount of highly trained people to do special operations type stuff, as well as other basic needs like coastal security and so on.
Were the US not there, they might well need a larger military.
The situation with militaries isn't as simple as it might appear. Anyone who says "Oh needing a military is a thing of the past, big countries don't go to war anymore," has their head in the sand. Having a strong defense is still a real concern.
That all said, I do think the US could draw down a lot. I don't think that so much of the world should get to have free defense courtesy of the US tax payer. You find that a good number of countries in Europe and Asia get away with a lot less defense than they might otherwise need because the US maintains large bases there. I say let's not do that, let's start slowly drawing those down.
How exactly the fact that they were democratically elected justifies killing their political opponents and civilians of another country !?
If you see no difference between "crazy" evangelicals and people who fire rockets at civilians I see no reason to continue this discussion with you.
That these women-stoning gay-killing "victims" have any motives other than living in total harmony with gaia is like telling a democrat chicago politician that he earns enough money and doesn't need bribes.
Incidentally Iran unveiled it's "ambassador of death" today. Isn't that a coincidence ? Well, actually it might potentially even be a coincidence. Still, it says something about them ...
But of course, don't let me appear racist. Hereby I testify :
1) there are no gays in Iran
2) islam does not call for stoning, nor does any contemporary muslim call for stoning and execution for gays. And it most certainly is not the case that all islamic scholars, of all 4 schools agree on the stoning and killing
3) if any of these statements appear to have anything to do with religion, that's a mistaken impression. I certainly do not claim that either on seeks to kill, or one clearly ignores allah's wishes, which obviously means you're not a muslim. This isn't true, of course, but it would be doubly true if all contemporary religious schools were to agree that this is so. But of course it's not true.
4) all these guys want is peace and harmony for all mankind in gaia. Amen.
5) that peace they want obviously makes forcing Jews to drop their defenses the good and moral thing to do, after all, anything else would be racist, now wouldn't it
Defended a massacre... or maybe just annexed that part of Georgia ? And nobody said a word...
There are no "cool guys" when it comes no nuclear weapons. Not Iran, not North Korea, not Russia, not the USA.
as soon as I read this headline I knew that neither Obama, nor the next or any other administration will attack Iran. It was an open question until today.
Absolutely. The US averages one major war every 20 years. That accounts for over 50% of all wars in the last 200 years.
In the last two centuries, the US has been there in 90% of all insurrections, coup d'etats and minning assassinations.
The deal is, that's where the US gets its power from. The US has no heavy industry, agriculture, mining, or any other significant export. Their only exports are shitty movies and bullets.
How is it then that such a country is the most powerful and rich in the world? Well, first, it was slavery. Then, slavery was outsourced. The US needs to keep its nose in other country's affairs to assure the availability of unstable political and social situations, that produce poverty (cheap labor), wars, and insurrections. In order to support its current position, the US needs half of the world in poverty (provides cheap labor), 10% of the world in war (allows the politicians to move the money earned towards their friends at Lockheed Martin and other companies), and another 10% in unstable situations (civil war) (in order to fix the oil prices).
That's roughly their strategy, and it'll continue to be that way for a long time. Voting changes nothing.
WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
Exactly! So who do you want in charge of regime change? Iran?
how about Einstein, Heisenberg or Bohr?
Oh.. wait. No I'm not. I've shit more shocking things.
I love when people try to shock. Like on Xbox where they keep yelling n**ger over and over, or say other dreadfully boring things in an effort to shock and get attention.
Please, quit posting boring things. I've seen you post this same comment over and over.
I guess it would have been smarter of me to post, all outraged and shit, "Oh my god, fuck you - you want our troops to die, you suck I'm so angry how dare you say that". Then you would have gotten the attention you crave and maybe stopped boring me with your boring posts.
It's a light water reactor. So Chernobyl can't happen.
"The deal is, that's where the US gets its power from. The US has no heavy industry, agriculture, mining, or any other significant export."
I think you mean "had." The US currently has all of those things.
This is what happens when you let other people think for you. Iran's foreign policy is by no means sweet and innocent. But then again neither is US foreign policy. Remember the US doesn't just talk about removing regimes, it actually does it (or tries to). Grenada, Liberia, Panama, Haiti, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq... and these are the obvious ones - the ones we actually know about.
American Indians, Japanese (Internment camps), Blacks, Invaded Canada, Annexed Texas from Mexico, etc. Yes the protestant white America has done much.
... that's still 210 megawatts short of the 1.21 JIGOWATTS [sic] required for time travel
"amid international fears that Iran will use the facility to make nuclear weapons" ...
should be: ... amid american/israeli fears that Iran will use the facility to make nuclear weapons.
I learned off Wiki this year that India's nukes basically came from Canada back in the day. Apparently we built them a whole bunch of Candu reactors. They were not "supposed" to be used to produce weapon material. India modified them so the would. When Canada found out, they pulled out of India. India continued to make modified Candu reactors now called "Candu Derivative Reactors" as they are modified design of the Candu that was supplied to them. India is now a nuclear power. Once the cat is out of the bag it is too late. I believe they use it them to produce tritium or something like that. I believe the originals are still running, but there are about 3 or 4 times as many derivative reactors now.
Anyway given history of proliferation, and the kind of statements that Iran has said publicly, I think it is pretty irresponsible of Russia to assist Iran possibly in its nuke program. I think Iran is one of the last countries that should get nukes. If I was a citizen, I would be getting more and more nervous the closer they get. If it is ever found that they have nukes, I think the reaction, particularly by the USA would be "very bad".
No, actually, when they say "regime change" they mean changing "ethnically Jewish country" to "religiously Muslim country". Try getting your information from something other than a conspiracy website.
I wonder if Israel's lies and brainwashing will eventually succeed, and Iran will be attacked?
No wonder, if they actually are developing nuclear weapons, i mean fuck, i would too, if i were in their position.