The One Minute Case Against Iran’s “Right” to Uranium Enrichment Technology

Iran is the global leader of Islamic Totalitarianism

During the Iranian Revolution in 1979 a group of militant university students stormed a United States embassy, taking 52 United States citizens hostage for 444 days. These students were not a violent, autonomous faction but a group that received the whole-hearted support of the post-revolution Islamic regime of Ayatollah Khomeini.

Ever since, Iran’s financial, ideological and political sanctions of terrorism have been numerous. Iran supports Hezbollah who, amongst many other attacks, have been responsible for the bombing of the U. S. Marine Corps barracks in Beirut in October 1983, the detonating of the Khobar Towers apartment complex in Saudia Arabia and the 1994 blasting of a seven-story building in Buenos Aires.1 Furthermore, Iran offers passionate ideological, political and in many cases economic support of both Hamas and Islamic Jihad, two Islamic militant organizations whose stated goal is the destruction of Israel.

Does the current Iranian President distance his administration from this recent history of fanatical bloodshed? Quite the opposite; President Ahmadinejad proudly identifies himself as a child of the (Iranian) revolution and has publicly rejoiced “God willing, with the force of God behind it, we shall soon experience a world without the United States and Zionism.” 2 Moreover, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), the largest branch of the Iranian military, has been providing deadly weapons to radical Shiite insurgents in Iraq. 3

Iran’s motives are not peaceful

After taking office, President Ahmadinejad immediately transferred Iran’s nuclear program under military control and his administration has continued the clandestine relocation of nuclear technologies to fortified underground complexes. Furthermore, there are numerous, recently unearthed top-secret nuclear weapons components in Iran that are all simultaneously progressing. This includes a beryllium program, a metal commonly used in missiles and other aerospace products, an acquiring of a series of hot isostatic presses, which are commonly used to shape atomic weapons and a CMC production program, a graphite material commonly used in heat shields for nuclear weapons. 1 In addition, Iran has recently purchased 18 smuggled nuclear-capable cruise missiles on the Ukrainian black market. 4 Lastly, Iran has sought to bolster its defensive capability after agreeing to purchase 29 anti-missile defense systems from Russia. 5

Iran has also uniformly rejected all diplomatic approaches that involved any significant delay in their accelerated pursuit, including proposals to have their uranium enriched in Russia, which would have given the Islamic state access to a nuclear fuel cycle while the Russians would ensure the program is peaceful. 6

Power to weapons is just a matter of enrichment

Low-enriched uranium (LEU) is the fuel that is needed to run nuclear power reactors and high-enriched uranium (HEU) is what is needed for nuclear weapons. It is important to recognize that it takes significantly more resources to enrich uranium to LEU levels than it does to subsequently proceed to enrich uranium to HEU levels. By the time Iran can successfully mass produce LEU, it will have done 80 percent of the work in producing HEU for use in nuclear weapons. 1

Rights are forfeited after threatening to initiate force

A nation who protects, finances or endorses terrorists is a nation that encourages the violation of the inalienable rights of others. Such a nation has absolutely no right to any technology that will enhance its offensive capability.

The evidence that the Iranian Government has no respect for individual rights is undeniable. President Ahmadinejad has issued repeated unabashed threats to eradicate Israel and has insinuated that Iran will take appropriate military action if their pursuit of uranium enrichment technology is blocked. Iranian schoolchildren are taught to chant “Death to America” and are indoctrinated with anti-Western propaganda. Tehran is decorated with murals encouraging the destruction of the United States. Apostates are still threatened with the death penalty from the state.

If the Iranian government wishes to receive the right to uranium enrichment technology, it must issue a total renunciation of Islamic Totalitarianism, including a political condemnation of the activities of Hezbollah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad. In addition, Iran must impose a strict separation of mosque and state and it must embrace a constitution that protects individual rights. Until such overhauls are honestly completed, Iran has no rights to uranium enrichment technology.


  1. The Iran Threat: President Ahmadinejad and the Coming Nuclear Crisis by Alireza Jafarzadeh
  2. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad threatens Israel with destruction. CNN, October 27, 2005
  3. Bush: Iran Involved in Sending Weapons to Iraq. ABC news, February 14, 2007.
  4. Cruise missile row rocks Ukraine. BBC News, March 18, 2005
  5. Russia Fills Iran’s Air Defense Missile Contract. Fox News, January 23, 2007
  6. Iran rejects Russia nuclear plan. BBC News, January 1, 2006

Further Reading:


Filed under Current Events

4 Responses to The One Minute Case Against Iran’s “Right” to Uranium Enrichment Technology

  1. John Baxter

    Excellent piece. Read Alireza Jafarzadeh’s book, it is a must read for every American.

  2. Michael Price

    If you’re not going to let Iran have it’s rights under the treaty they signed, why shouldn’t they just scrap that treaty? Especially since no nuclear-armed nation actually stood by their side of the deal (disarmament). There is almost zero evidence that Iran is pursueing a nuclear weapons policy. Most of the “evidence” is obviously made up. Enriching to weapons grade without warning the rest of the world would be impossible given the safeguards. So what’s the actual risk? Even assuming that Iran gets the bom what use would it be to them? Israel has had it for years. Worst case scenario Iran is offered Isreali disarmament in return for it’s own.

  3. “A nation who protects, finances or endorses unilateral military invasions is a nation that encourages the violation of the inalienable rights of others. Such a nation has absolutely no right to any technology that will enhance its offensive capability.” See, there I substituted the term “unilateral military invasions” for “terrorism” … and viola! The U.S. no longer has any moral right to possess technology that enhances ITS offensive capability.

    Or, how about this one: “A nation who protects, finances or endorses the violent replacement of democratically elected regimes is a nation that encourages the violation of the inalienable rights of others. Such a nation has absolutely no right to any technology that will enhance its offensive capability.” Again, if you paint the U.S. with appropriate colours, you can apply these factors to the right to posses nuclear weapons, and the U.S. is once again on the losing end.

    What do both paragraphs have in common with your article?

    All 3 pieces take historical factors, throw in some supposition, prediction, character assassination, and accusations of future actions which haven’t taken place yet – and we apply these arguably irrelevant factors to that piece of international legislation known as the Non-Proliferation Treaty. You can’t take the facts you cited and apply them to this legislation, because those facts are not proven, and are based on old history which YOU feel should be relevant (but it isn’t).

    Any judge would have definitely thrown you right out of court on the very weak arguments above. I’d say this does a very poor job of convincing anybody that Iran should receive special, unique treatment under the treaty that no other regime receives.

  4. ali

    Though Iran’s government is made of thugs,
    it doesn’t make Israel a peaceful country or a legal country at all same about US.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *