Sickening anti-Iranian propaganda

[RedQuarks]

Note: I apologize for the long posts -- I feel the need to write what I have thought, plus I feel that sharing large quantities of information allows us to converse and debate more effectively with a higher degree of clarity, brevity is not always necessary.

I am willing to place a great deal of certainty on all of the users of this forum being familiar with the American deal with Iran concerning the Iranian nuclear program, officially named the "Join Comprehensive Plan of Action." The deal mandated that Iran remove its slightly enriched and unenriched Uranium stockpiles, and reduce the number of enrichment facilities it had in exchange for economic assistance from the United States.

Now, the propaganda I have found simply is sickening, for a variety of reasons. I cannot post links currently, however, it can be found by searching: "Special Delivery" and adding something along the lines of Iran. I still don't understand the logic of not allowing Iran to have any nuclear programs, despite the inclinations of many officials that the Iranian government is NOT developing weapons.

Now, none of this is to say I support the current Iranian government, and I would hope no others here would support the bureaucracy. What most Americans ignore, however, is the history of American and British involvement in Iran. The story goes like this: Iran was doing half decent on its own, it had achieved something close to bourgeois democracy and was becoming modern and secular, when it was decided by officials that the Anglo-Iranian oil company (BP) should be removed from Iran for failing to cooperate concerning resources. Then capitalism's favorite friend, The CIA decided that a coup was what Iran needed, these actions were indeed confirmed by the CIA. And I'm not even getting into the Gulf War.

Now onto Iran's nuclear program, coming from a physics student. The process of enriching Uranium isn't that hard, the goal is to effectively remove U-235, enriched Uranium, from a mixture of it and other isotopes. Usually U-238 and U-235 are chemically converted to Uranium Hexafluoride and then placed in some pretty high quality centrifuges where the heavier U-238 separates from U-235, while this doesn't separate all of the Uranium, it yields Uranium wit a U-235 concentration of something like 3% which is considerably higher than in unenriched uranium. Now, obviously, such Uranium can be used to develop nuclear weapons, however, the quantities of actual Uranium being enriched should be indicative enough. Furthermore, Iran could indeed use a Heavy Water reactor, and apparently was attempting to do so, though it can be used to breed Plutonium. If you have a fission reactor, you CAN have nuclear weapons.

The hysteria just doesn't makes sense though, except for conservative fearmongering and the goal of keeping other nations weak, specifically the resource rich ones. Establishing a global communist society would begin to solve this problem, and it could have been avoided had capitalists never intervened, but they are still continuing to milk the Middle East for all of its resources. So what do you guys think about this? Responses, solutions?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

The iran trade deal is a great bit of news. Whether or not Iran has, is close to having, or is trying to have nuclear weapons, from what I understand the deal broadly says that in exchange for giving up nearly 100% of its (enriched? I'm not technically proficient at science!) uranium, economic sanctions against Iran will be lifted.

Really whether Iran has or wants to have a nuclear program or not is irrelevant to the deal - the point is that diplomatically it is a win for all sides. Iran gets greater trade access to the world (as that is something, as we have seen with Cuba, that the US can control very effectively) and diplomatic relations with Iran are opened up again, even to the extent that the British Embassy in Iran will open up again. Hopefully, the greater level of openness will:

a) encourage greater co-operation and solidarity between Iran, America, and the UK, through less travel restrictions on ordinary people, and better diplomatic relations hopefully leading to friendlier media coverage on both sides;
b) through greater co-operation and solidarity, lead to a movement away from the state-sponsored violence that is a blight on Iran (and the US, come to think of it!). I am mainly talking about state-sponsored executions, or the death penalty. It would just be incredible if somewhere down the line both Iran and the US agreed bi-laterally to permanently outlaw state-sponsored murders. Probably a pipe-dream.

[RedQuarks]

Really whether Iran has or wants to have a nuclear program or not is irrelevant to the deal - the point is that diplomatically it is a win for all sides

This is indeed the staple of the deal which may indeed serve to hinder imperialism in the Middle East and is one of the primary reasons for opposition. While I, like you, would love to see more developments in Iran and cooperation with the United States, this will not stop capitalist exploitation in either country, and we cannot allow ourselves to be pacified by these deals. That being said, it is still better for the Iranian and American people to cooperate as the Bourgeois pseudo-freedom we have today is still better than any blatantly fascist regime.


The iran trade deal is a great bit of news. Whether or not Iran has, is close to having, or is trying to have nuclear weapons, from what I understand the deal broadly says that in exchange for giving up nearly 100% of its (enriched? I'm not technically proficient at science!) uranium, economic sanctions against Iran will be lifted.
I believe you are correct, it was the vast majority of the stockpile, large quantities aren't necessarily needed for a reactor, though I do fear that this deal may be manipulated to hinder Iranian power production which has been an issue for quite some time now.

I think you raise great points on the potential of this deal and future ones that may or may not occur. In truth, it really is better to establish a system closer to the West in Iran as this makes revolution much easier. The transition from a state regime often times leads to people leaning towards Capitalism as the solution, as seen in Hong Kong. This is another point where Marx and others seem to have been correct, although he did not envision the world as it is today -- it is far easier to transition a people from capitalist society to any form of socialism than to leap from a developing capitalist society or state regime. Though I do fear that the Bourgeois of Iran and America will simply manipulate these deals to their own advantage and will create a level of pacification seen in the United States, which may or may not make the condition of the Iranian people worse. You are correct though, we will have to see and can only hope that the people of Iran, the United States, and all other parties involved will benefit from this new diplomacy.

[ComradeAllende]

I am willing to place a great deal of certainty on all of the users of this forum being familiar with the American deal with Iran concerning the Iranian nuclear program, officially named the "Join Comprehensive Plan of Action." The deal mandated that Iran remove its slightly enriched and unenriched Uranium stockpiles, and reduce the number of enrichment facilities it had in exchange for economic assistance from the United States.

You are basically correct, however the agreement had no stipulation for the provision of "economic assistance" to Iran; the U.S. (and its allies) would merely repeal certain economic and financial sanctions imposed because of the alleged "nuclear weapons program." This is only a technical difference, but it is noteworthy since "economic assistance" would involve loans and grants from the US and affiliated NGOs (plus the US still has sanctions on Iran for "supporting terrorism" in the Middle East).


Now, the propaganda I have found simply is sickening, for a variety of reasons. I cannot post links currently, however, it can be found by searching: "Special Delivery" and adding something along the lines of Iran. I still don't understand the logic of not allowing Iran to have any nuclear programs, despite the inclinations of many officials that the Iranian government is NOT developing weapons.

Other than the hilariously bad graphics and the ridiculous context (why would a terrorist be listening to the tirades of Lindsay Graham and Bibi Netanyahu?), this is nothing but pure neo-con propaganda. The evidence is mixed regarding an offensive Iranian nuclear program, and regardless of Iran's nuclear ambitions the US has some nerve talking about "clandestine nuclear programs," particularly after they looked the other way when Israel got the bomb. Not to mention America's indifference to the intricate relations between Saudi oligarchs and Islamic terrorists (including ISIS).


Now, none of this is to say I support the current Iranian government, and I would hope no others here would support the bureaucracy. What most Americans ignore, however, is the history of American and British involvement in Iran. The story goes like this: Iran was doing half decent on its own, it had achieved something close to bourgeois democracy and was becoming modern and secular, when it was decided by officials that the Anglo-Iranian oil company (BP) should be removed from Iran for failing to cooperate concerning resources. Then capitalism's favorite friend, The CIA decided that a coup was what Iran needed, these actions were indeed confirmed by the CIA. And I'm not even getting into the Gulf War.

The history is basically correct, although I must add that the US media manipulated the situation against the nationalist Prime Minister (accusing him of crimes worthy of Stalin and Hitler), either out of ignorance or complicity with the CIA.

[Hatshepsut]

The process of enriching Uranium isn't that hard...

To me it seems like it was pretty involved back in the 1940s when Manhattan Project officials in the USA built the Oak Ridge plant, intending to separate uranium isotopes for the gun-type device used at Hiroshima. This Tennessee facility covered more than 10 square miles and included a plywood "instant town" housing 75000 people. It cost over $2 billion, a lot of money in those days. With all this, the plant had to run two years to make enough U235 for one bomb. I think it used mostly gas diffusion, at that time more efficient than centrifuges. There was a paradox in the physics. Pu239, the other fissionable isotope used in bombs, is much easier to make, but the plutonium bomb requires a spherically symmetric implosion which is very difficult to achieve. By contrast the U235 gun design was simple. Physicists were so confident it would work that it wasn't tested before combat use. Technical developments since may be germane to Iran's program.

What I find comical in America's House of Representatives propaganda is that if the Iranians do get a bomb, they can't use it without committing national suicide. Despite former President Ahmadinejad's occasional rhetoric about destroying Israel, they're not going to drop a bomb on Tel Aviv when Israel has 200 much more powerful bombs, nor on Jerusalem where it might kill more Palestinians than Jews, nor on Baghdad where it kills more Shia than Sunni. Sanctions relief under the deal is only partial. Iran can access $57 billion of its own money frozen overseas at intervals over the next 7 years. It may donate some of this money to its client Hezbollah, the thorn in the U.S. side; while Iran's truck with the USA stems from the latter's installation of Shah Pahlavi in 1953. As the House conservatives know all this, it is Hezbollah they are concerned with. But sanctions haven't stopped Iran from helping its friends in past, and the deal is in fact a way for the U.S. to get concessions effectively for nothing.

[RedQuarks]

You are basically correct, however the agreement had no stipulation for the provision of "economic assistance" to Iran; the U.S. (and its allies) would merely repeal certain economic and financial sanctions imposed because of the alleged "nuclear weapons program." This is only a technical difference, but it is noteworthy since "economic assistance" would involve loans and grants from the US and affiliated NGOs (plus the US still has sanctions on Iran for "supporting terrorism" in the Middle East). Thank you for correcting me, upon further research it was indeed the lifting of sanctions, which I might add, do nothing to deter foreign governments and only fuel fires that have been burning for extended periods of time. As for the point on propaganda, this just seems to be the typical hysteria necessary to continue to justify the beliefs of the conservative population and prevent some liberals from radicalizing.


To me it seems like it was pretty involved back in the 1940s when Manhattan Project officials in the USA built the Oak Ridge plant, intending to separate uranium isotopes for the gun-type device used at Hiroshima. I shouldn't have said it was easy necessarily, but rather is not an extremely difficult undertaking in the modern world compared to many other projects, especially without foreign intervention. Oak Ridge research was expensive because that is what it was -- research that included a large number of failures and building brand new machines, now that the technology exists. Enriching materials is not a particularly daunting or complicated task today compared to other processes in the sciences, though it does consume time, money, and manpower. The biggest difficulty though was developing quality shaped charges and developing a design for the Manhattan project in order to allow detonation. I'm not sure exactly where cost came in, though the demand for Uranium was significantly lower and combined with the cost of housing and electricity likely accounted for most of it. The bottom line is that Iran is not concerned with developing the technology for a bomb or power planet as it already exists. It is costly to run centrifuges and go through the chemical process, but compared to many facilities today, it isn't particularly difficult for a state to do when nobody interferes -- merely requires educated scientists, raw materials, and the machines (namely centrifuges, reactor pumps, chamber, turbines, etc.), as well as raw materials, and they aren't concerned with designing new machines. I am told fuel rod replacement costs something like 40-50 million and the entire plant a few billion. When large powers turn a blind eye it isn't difficult for states with money to spend (or lack thereof) to obtain the necessary materials and workers. Hence the reason India, Pakistan, and Israel had no problem -- no imperialist powers had an immediate interest in them. EDIT: Note that Iran's total expenditure for 2013 was roughly 66 billion, some of this already being on the program. This is especially possible with Iran's 68 bil. reserves being opened up.


hat I find comical in America's House of Representatives propaganda is that if the Iranians do get a bomb, they can't use it without committing national suicide. I've been under the assumption that most people believe it out of xenophobia which has caused many to claim that the Iranian government is composed of complete fools who are willing to do whatever necessary to cleanse the world of Israel and America. Unfortunately, I've had family members, who while highly liberal and even radical on other policies (in part due to my rhetoric which may explain the stark contrasts in certain beliefs), still question the validity of relations with Iran due to a minor amount of Islamophobia (despite being atheists) and xenophobia.

Feel free to correct me if wrong, but it seems to me that Hezbollah is Iran's Taliban similar to United States' terrorist groups. None of it is even about religion, something propagandists miss -- it is purely about politics and consolidation of power, nothing more. Hell, centuries ago in the Thirty Years war Catholic France joined the Protestant League and the Sunni Ottomans are rumoured to have given Protestant nations financial aid in an attempt to destabilize Austria! Anyway, I appreciate the responses as they have provided me with additional information.

[WideAwake]

Red: You are right, you know I am a pacifist, in favor of love and wars. But I think that the great mistake of Iran was actually not to build, or buy nuclear atomic bombs. The USA has about 10,000 nuclear bombs. So Iran should have a rational right to build nuclear bombs in order to protect themselves from USA. It is a criminal hypocricy on the part of the USA to expect Iran to have zero nuclear bombs, when USA has 10,000 nuclear bombs. That's not very ethical and fair at all




Note: I apologize for the long posts -- I feel the need to write what I have thought, plus I feel that sharing large quantities of information allows us to converse and debate more effectively with a higher degree of clarity, brevity is not always necessary.

I am willing to place a great deal of certainty on all of the users of this forum being familiar with the American deal with Iran concerning the Iranian nuclear program, officially named the "Join Comprehensive Plan of Action." The deal mandated that Iran remove its slightly enriched and unenriched Uranium stockpiles, and reduce the number of enrichment facilities it had in exchange for economic assistance from the United States.

Now, the propaganda I have found simply is sickening, for a variety of reasons. I cannot post links currently, however, it can be found by searching: "Special Delivery" and adding something along the lines of Iran. I still don't understand the logic of not allowing Iran to have any nuclear programs, despite the inclinations of many officials that the Iranian government is NOT developing weapons.

Now, none of this is to say I support the current Iranian government, and I would hope no others here would support the bureaucracy. What most Americans ignore, however, is the history of American and British involvement in Iran. The story goes like this: Iran was doing half decent on its own, it had achieved something close to bourgeois democracy and was becoming modern and secular, when it was decided by officials that the Anglo-Iranian oil company (BP) should be removed from Iran for failing to cooperate concerning resources. Then capitalism's favorite friend, The CIA decided that a coup was what Iran needed, these actions were indeed confirmed by the CIA. And I'm not even getting into the Gulf War.

Now onto Iran's nuclear program, coming from a physics student. The process of enriching Uranium isn't that hard, the goal is to effectively remove U-235, enriched Uranium, from a mixture of it and other isotopes. Usually U-238 and U-235 are chemically converted to Uranium Hexafluoride and then placed in some pretty high quality centrifuges where the heavier U-238 separates from U-235, while this doesn't separate all of the Uranium, it yields Uranium wit a U-235 concentration of something like 3% which is considerably higher than in unenriched uranium. Now, obviously, such Uranium can be used to develop nuclear weapons, however, the quantities of actual Uranium being enriched should be indicative enough. Furthermore, Iran could indeed use a Heavy Water reactor, and apparently was attempting to do so, though it can be used to breed Plutonium. If you have a fission reactor, you CAN have nuclear weapons.

The hysteria just doesn't makes sense though, except for conservative fearmongering and the goal of keeping other nations weak, specifically the resource rich ones. Establishing a global communist society would begin to solve this problem, and it could have been avoided had capitalists never intervened, but they are still continuing to milk the Middle East for all of its resources. So what do you guys think about this? Responses, solutions?

[Gotya]

Note: I apologize for the long posts

You're talking about this post? It's six short paragraphs.

Anyway, people think this meddling is always something of the past. People act like it no longer happens. But then people really don't even care because they are laying on the couch.

Iran can have what it likes as far as I am concerned. Other countries have weapons of their choice. Any country can protect itself.