Iran, Russia in nuclear power deal

[JanMasterson]

Source: http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/B7D...90095339D5A.htm

 

"Under the agreement, Russia will provide Bushehr power plant's fuel for the next

10 years"

Asadollah Sabouri,

deputy head, Iranian Atomic Energy Organisation

 

Thursday 17 February 2005, 16:54 Makka Time, 13:54 GMT

 

An Iranian official has said a key agreement with Russia on the return of spent nuclear fuel will be signed by the end of the month.

 

The deal will pave the way for Iran's first nuclear power plant.

 

Asadollah Sabouri, a deputy head of the Iranian Atomic Energy Organisation, was quoted by state television as saying that the agreement would allow Russia to provide Bushehr's power reactor with fuel, and would be signed on 26 February.

 

The signing of the agreement, which obliges Iran to return spent nuclear fuel to Russia, will take place during Russian atomic energy chief Alexander Rumyantsev's three-day visit to Tehran, starting on 25 February, he said.

 

"Under the agreement, Russia will provide Bushehr power plant's fuel for the next 10 years," Sabouri said, with the first shipment of fuel due to be delivered by plane three months after the signing.

 

An agreement on the return to Russia of spent nuclear fuel has remained the key impediment to the $800 million project to build the plant in Bushehr, southern Iran.

 

Vigorous denial

 

Tehran has in the past used various arguments to avoid signing the agreement. It has said the material was too volatile and dangerous to transport back to Russia and also that Moscow was charging too much for the fuel itself.

 

The United States and Europe have raised alarm that Iran could reprocess the spent fuel delivered from Russia by upgrading it through centrifuges for weapons development instead, a charge Tehran has vigorously denied.

 

Both the US and Israel have jointly campaigned against the Bushehr project, but Moscow - considerate of the huge monetary gains from the deal - has countered that it would make sure the plant remained harmless to protect its own security interests.

 

The announcement of the nuclear fuel deal comes just weeks after the US administration said it could not rule out the use of military force if Tehran failed to drop its alleged efforts to develop an atomic weapons capability.

 

AFP

[JanMasterson]

After reading this news, i thought about a scen background:

off course, US and Israel aren't agreeing and they told us loud and clear, about 1 month after the official annoucement that an iranian perseverance in the nuc way will "invite" US to neutralize the installs, 5 EMP over US territory paralized the whole country, USA is KO.

The UN mandate a inspectors team and mandate France to provide armed escort, it consist of the Charles de Gaulle group, they come into he persian gulf via oman strait, at about 50km from Bushehr, the inspectors just taked off from CDG in a helo, just before they reach Bushehr (let's say at about 10nm, 4 israelis SUfa (F-16I) bombard Bushehr (do u remind the raid versus Iraki reactor?) ), iranian are now convinced that french are "hostiles", in fact, they think that every stranger is now "hostile",

The orders, commander, is to drive ur CVBG outside the persian gulf ASAP and without loosing ur ships

with everything speaking farsi trying to kill u)

[CV32]

Sounds like the makings of an interesting scenario, Jan. Anytime you put a naval task force into confined waters, with a hostile force situate in very close proximity, it can be made into a challenging mission. This is especially true when you substitute the typical US Navy carrier battle group with something a little less powerful. Toss in some sea mines, and maybe the limited assistance of a small friendly Gulf nation like Qatar, Bahrain or the UAE, and that French task force is going to have an action packed trip making its way out of the Gulf.

[JanMasterson]

After a nice discussion with Myk and danh yesterday night, it seems that a more "realist" reason for the US absence would add "credibility" to the background.

So, what can be a good/realistic reason for the US to not be active in this part of the world?

My own, non researched, possibilities:

- EMP strike paralized the country, lots of riots everywhere, a kind of civil war;

- actual president and some high VIP have been killed by a terror nuc strike when they was visiting a european/asian/african (make ur choice), there's no real leader ATM, so UN is the only "world policeman" ATM;

- a major chinese/NK operation strike taiwan/SK, all US forces are defending the region;

- well know terorrists have warned the world that if US forces come back in the persian gulf region, many nuc terror attack will strike major cities in the whole world, so there is an enormous political pressure on USA (from every country this time, not just some europeans).

 

What are yours?

[CV32]

... it seems that a more "realist" reason for the US absence would add "credibility" to the background.

Bah. Don't let a philosophy of enforced "realism" in scenarios prevent you from designing what could be a really great premise for your scenario. Realism and credibility, like beauty, are in the eye of the beholder. In 1985, would you have guessed that twenty years later, the USSR had crumbled and its Warsaw Pact allies had joined NATO ? Would you have guessed that the US had fought two wars in Iraq and that the country was (hopefully) on its way to becoming a democracy ? It doesn't take much imagination to see what I mean.

 

My own, non researched, possibilities:

- EMP strike paralized the country, lots of riots everywhere, a kind of civil war;

- actual president and some high VIP have been killed by a terror nuc strike when they was visiting a european/asian/african (make ur choice), there's no real leader ATM, so UN is the only "world policeman" ATM;

- a major chinese/NK operation strike taiwan/SK, all US forces are defending the region;

- well know terorrists have warned the world that if US forces come back in the persian gulf region, many nuc terror attack will strike major cities in the whole world, so there is an enormous political pressure on USA (from every country this time, not just some europeans).

 

Sure, whatever works for the scenario you have in mind. Its been my experience that people will play scenarios - and enjoy them - based on what forces are matched up, what the objectives are, and what challenges face them. The story or background, while a great addition, is NOT the determinative factor.

 

Btw, we should probably move this discussion to the Scenario Design forum, but I'm glad that the news report about Iran provoked your thought processes.

[JanMasterson]

lol, roger that Brad, thx for ur advice

[Herman]

If you want a simple reason for the absence of US forces, you can use that Taiwan/PRC situation to justify it.

 

Also, you can make up tons of reasons. How about a killer Tsunami that affects the entire western seaboard? Military forces are held back for relief efforts. One idea that I intend to use is to postulate that the San Andreas fault finally gives way and plunges much of California all the way up to Vancouver into the Pacific.

 

You think that American forces are going to be a bit distracted?

 

Whatever you decide, should be fine. You set your own realism. Other folks can choose to believe or not believe in your story. It's only background. Before the Twin Tower Attacks, no one would have thought that using airliners was realistic, either.