Talk:Nuclear program of Iran

Tehran Nuclear Declaration

There seems to be no representation in this section of the view that the so-called "Tehran Nuclear Declaration" does not describe a "fuel swap" in a complete sense but rather a deposit of LEU whilst another batch of uranium is enriched and turned into fuel rods in Russia and France respectively. The declaration seems not to transfer ownership of Iran's LEU at any point, even after receipt of fuel rods from France. This view was expressed at the time and seems to have been the underlying reason for the cool reception from the USA and EU, although there is little media coverage of it. Also a longer discussion of the "equivalent" October 2009 Vienna Group draft accord (as far as it is known) would provide some helpful background, and might usefully be compared with the "Tehran Nuclear Declaration". By the way, the phrase "Tehran Declaration" or "Tehran Nuclear Declaration" is highly confusing since there was also the EU-3 "Tehran Declaration". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Literatim (talk • contribs) 07:23, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposal for splitting this article

This article is much too long, and the level of detail is inconsistent over time and from topic to topic. It seems to me that there are a few topics that could be split from the main article, including "Iran and the IAEA" and "Iran and the NPT." This would allow several long sections to be pulled out of this article and replaces with short summaries. Before I embark on a project like this, I'd appreciate the reaction of other editors who watch this article. NPguy (talk) 02:02, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I have no objections so long as the summaries are neutral and all information is preserved. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 02:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I've started construction on a user subpage User:NPguy/Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency. Comments/suggestions welcome. NPguy (talk) 03:40, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Ahmadinejad admits centrifuges hit by software problem

http://www.rferl.org/content/ahmadinejad_centrifuges_software_problem/2234106.html

Where do we wedge this into the article? Hcobb (talk) 21:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Akbar Etemad - Father of Iran's nuclear program

This article should mention Akbar Etemad .

Iran's nuclear program began in 1959 with a small reactor given by the United States to Tehran University as part of the "Atoms for Peace" program announced by President Dwight D. Eisenhower in December 1953. But that only whetted the Iranian monarch's appetite: With his increased oil revenues, and with his new vision of Iran as the hegemonic force in the region, a nuclear program became for Shah Pahlavi the symbol of progress and power. He summoned Akbar Etemad, a trained nuclear physicist, to the royal court in 1973, told him of his desire to launch a nuclear program, and asked Etemad to develop a master plan.

Two weeks later, the shah met with Etemad again. He quickly read the 13-page draft document Etemad had prepared, then turned to the prime minister and ordered him to fund what turned out be one of the most expensive projects undertaken by his regime. There was no prior discussion in the Majlis, where the constitutional power of the purse lay, or in any other governmental body or council. Like every major policy decision in those days, it was a one-man act. Thus was launched Iran's nuclear program.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/12/29/the_shahs_atomic_dreams

is Bushehr online yet?

article seems to say that the plant is opening in the future but refers to a time frame in the past. This should probably be updated. romnempire (talk) 02:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Although this article is too long and needs some subsection to be spin-off, I propose to merge (more precisely, redirect) Nuclear energy in Iran here. It is currently one-sentence stub and does not deserve to be a separate article. After merging it would be worth to considered, if any information from this article could be moved there. Beagel (talk) 09:16, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

making it a redirect to Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant would be better imho. That has a link at the top pointing here anyway. DS Belgium (talk) 13:21, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Iran is causing the sale of missile defense systems to Arab states

It's not bad breath that the Arabs are seeking to defend themselves against. It's Iran's nuclear program, as the LM exec pointed out in my edit that got reverted. Hcobb (talk) 04:09, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "bad breath," but the reason it was reverted was a question of relevancy to this topic. First off, statements from a Lockheed Martin executive need to be taken with a little grain of salt on this. He's not a foreign policy analyst or expert, he's an executive in a company that wants its weapons sold. Second, it isn't incredibly relevant to the topic of Iran's nuclear program. Iran's program is in no way changed by neighbors possibly buying some defensive weapons. If we have an analyst or expert saying this is triggering a regional arms race, then we might have something worth putting in the article. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 04:14, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

North Korean personnel

There are two reports of hundreds of North Koreans being deployed in Iran's nuclear facilities:

• "Hundreds of N.Koreans' Working at Iran Nuke Facilities" "North Korea has dispatched a small army of engineers to Iran's nuclear and missile facilities, a diplomat claimed Sunday"
• "Hundreds of N. Korean Nuclear & Missile Experts Working in Iran" "Hundreds of North Korean missile and nuclear experts have reportedly worked for their Iranian counterparts in more than 10 locations across the Islamic state. This came from a South Korean diplomatic source"

In the current climate, drumming up sentiment for a war, I don't consider this a reliable source. Essentially it is an assertion of a South Korean diplomat which may be well founded or not. User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:03, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

If that assertion is reflected in other reputable sources, it doesn't matter whether we think the diplomat's assertion is well founded. We just have to be careful to frame it as something being asserted, rather than a verifiable fact. 204.65.34.246 (talk) 23:12, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Concerned about the veracity of this page.

I started to hit this page with 'citations needed' and realised it is a shitpit of completely outsourced opinions and soundbites with no actual citations, for the most part.

This wiki page really needs to be burned down.

One of the citations in the start of the entry actually sources Fox News, come on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.245.220 (talk) 14:50, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this page is a disaster - a former war zone - but is it worth the effort? NPguy (talk) 02:25, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Far better to do something in editing it then to complain without any solution. Especially in unnecessary language. If this page is important to you, do something productive instead of adding to the problem. Fox News is a reputable source (according to wiki, even though I personally disdain them) as long as the content comes from their primary news, and not opinion/blogs/commentary. And if you found it questionable, then find competing reputable sources. Regardless, wiki pages are NOT about "veracity". We do not get to choose what is and isn't true. We work on verifiable information alone. We report what the reputable sources say, giving due weight, period.204.65.34.246 (talk) 23:10, 21 November 2011 (UTC)