Iran's Manhattan Project Speeding Ahead (what

[MKSheppard]

Linka

Iran Defies West, Resumes Nuclear Work

By ALI AKBAR DAREINI
The Associated Press
Tuesday, August 9, 2005; 1:19 AM

ISFAHAN, Iran -- Iran stepped up its confrontation with the West over its nuclear program, restarting work at a uranium conversion facility Monday in a move the United States and Europe have warned will prompt them to seek U.N. sanctions.

The resumption strikes a blow at European efforts to persuade Iran to rein in a program that Washington says is intended to develop nuclear weapons. Over the weekend, Iran, which says it aims only to produce electricity, rejected European proposals for economic incentives in return for limiting its nuclear activities.

The U.N. nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, will hold an emergency meeting of its 35-member board of governors Tuesday to discuss the standoff with Iran.

Critics of Tehran question why Iran, which has vast reserves of petroleum, would need nuclear energy. Iran has responded by pointing out that it was Washington which first urged it to pursue a nuclear energy program while the pro-U.S. shah was in power.

France, Germany, Britain and the United States are likely to push for Iran to be referred to the U.N. Security Council, where they could seek new economic sanctions. But sanctions are far from a sure thing: Russia, which has helped Iran build its first nuclear reactor, and China, which has been strengthening ties with Tehran, hold veto power in the council.

"I think Iran should really bear in mind that this step is a step in the wrong direction," German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer said, according to ZDF television. But he suggested negotiations could continue, saying: "We are trying to prevent a negative trend with fatal consequences."

French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy urged Tehran to reconsider, saying it wasn't too late to turn back. "I call on Iran one more time, tonight, to listen to the voice of reason," he said.

Tehran suspended its nuclear activities in November to avoid sanctions and as a gesture in the negotiations with Europe. But it has expressed frustration with the talks and has been threatening for weeks to resume part of the program _ work done at the Uranium Conversion Facility outside the city of Isfahan.

On Sunday, Iran brushed off the sanctions threat.

"We are not concerned and are ready for everything," Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said. He called the threats "not effective. What interests us is cooperation. We advise Europe to withdraw its threats."

On Monday, work at Isfahan resume, after IAEA inspectors installed cameras and other surveillance equipment intended to ensure no nuclear material is diverted. Iranian technicians in white suits and surgical masks rolled out barrels of yellowcake _ raw uranium _ to begin the conversion process.

The facility covers over 150 acres spread along mountains outside the city. Parts of the facility were built in tunnels in the mountains as protection from airstrikes. It is also surrounded by radar stations and anti-aircraft batteries.

Iran learned a lesson from the 1981 Israeli airstrike against Iraq's main nuclear reactor. Iran has spread its facilities over several locations, each with underground installations. The Isfahan facility and the uranium enrichment plant in Natanz house the heart of the country's nuclear program.

The Isfahan Conversion Facility, 255 miles south of Tehran, carries out an early stage of the cycle for developing nuclear fuel, turning yellowcake into UF-6 gas, the feedstock for enrichment.

In the next stage of the process _ which Iran has said it will not resume for the time being _ the gas is fed in centrifuges for enrichment. Uranium enriched to a low level is used to produce nuclear fuel; further enrichment makes it suitable for use in an atomic bomb.

Mohammad Saeedi, deputy head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, said work was resuming "stage by stage" at Isfahan, starting with the unit that makes ammonium uranyl carbonate, or AUC, a component in the conversion process.

The plant will soon start turning yellowcake into UF-4, a preliminary stage before UF-6, the state news agency reported.

The AUC unit had not been sealed by the U.N. watchdog agency. Within the next two days, IAEA inspectors will remove seals that were put in place on the unit where UF-4 is turned into UF-6, bringing the facility into full operation, Saeedi said.

The seals are voluntary, and the IAEA has no choice but to remove them when Iran asks. Tehran says it is abiding by IAEA inspections of its sites, and allowed installation of surveillance equipment.

Iran has insisted it has the right under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to carry out the entire fuel cycle _ from raw uranium to fuel for a reactor. Europe fears that if Iran can develop fuel on its own, it will secretly produce material for a bomb.

IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei said work had resumed as Isfahan before the surveillance equipment was tested, "which normally takes 24 hours," ElBaradei's spokesman Mark Gwozdecky said in Vienna.

Earlier, Iran converted some 37 tons of yellowcake into UF-4. Experts say that amount could yield 200 pounds of weapons-grade uranium, enough to make five crude nuclear weapons.

Saeedi said Iran is willing to wait on starting uranium enrichment until a deal is reached with Europe. "We won't restart work in Natanz for now," he said. "We hope we will reach a logical conclusion in talks with Europeans."

An exiled opposition group, the National Council of Resistance of Iran, accused Tehran of exploiting talks with the Europeans in a "cat and mouse game" to stall for time while covertly developing a nuclear weapons program.

[The Kernel]

Iran knows that either China or Russia will hold out for them in the UN Security Council, there is no way that we'll see a UN sanction against Iran for this.

In all likelyhood, the US is going to be faced with the same problem as Iraq; go in without UN approval or forget the whole thing. Given that the international community is already pissed with us about attacking Iraq without proper motive, we'd look like a bunch of thugs if we tried to bomb them now.

Let's face it, Iran has more friends among the Security Council then Iraq did, there is no way in hell they'll be sanctioning any military action. Which is exactly why Iran has no problem moving forward with their enrichment plans.

[Chmee]

In the next stage of the process _ which Iran has said it will not resume for the time being _ the gas is fed in centrifuges for enrichment. Uranium enriched to a low level is used to produce nuclear fuel; further enrichment makes it suitable for use in an atomic bomb.

Right now, they're saying they are willing to negotiate on enrichment ... really this is the whole show. If they agree not to do it but do it anyway in secret and get away with it, they have their bomb factory. If they decide to go ahead with enrichment in public, they're throwing down the gauntlet. If they actually do foreswear enrichment, they get their domestic nuclear power industry and open up expanded trade with the EU at least.

I think their egos & nationalism are too tied up in getting the bomb to give up trying now, but I'd love to be surprised.

[MKSheppard]

Given that the international community is already pissed with us about attacking Iraq without proper motive, we'd look like a bunch of thugs if we tried to bomb them now.

Uh, George W Bush is in office. Never say Never

[Duckie]

I doubt we'd bomb them. We'd probably foister it on Israel and then red-facedly say that Israel was in the right (we had no connection, of course), and defend them from any retribution.

But then again, it is Chimp Junior in office, so we could see anything from a preemptive nuclear strike to complete disgard of the situation... [Hyperbole, of course. I hope.]

[fgalkin]

Iran knows that either China or Russia will hold out for them in the UN Security Council, there is no way that we'll see a UN sanction against Iran for this.

In all likelyhood, the US is going to be faced with the same problem as Iraq; go in without UN approval or forget the whole thing. Given that the international community is already pissed with us about attacking Iraq without proper motive, we'd look like a bunch of thugs if we tried to bomb them now.

Let's face it, Iran has more friends among the Security Council then Iraq did, there is no way in hell they'll be sanctioning any military action. Which is exactly why Iran has no problem moving forward with their enrichment plans.

At least they actually have WMDs.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[The Kernel]

At least they actually have WMDs.

True, but we don't really have any reason to deny them that. That's why everyone on the Security Council is pretty apathetic about this; they don't see a compelling reason to stick their necks out in order to deny the ME's second most powerful nation a nuclear detterent.

[Stofsk]

At least they actually have WMDs.

True, but we don't really have any reason to deny them that. That's why everyone on the Security Council is pretty apathetic about this; they don't see a compelling reason to stick their necks out in order to deny the ME's second most powerful nation a nuclear detterent.

What of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty? I imagine that would be enough of a reason - you know, if anyone actually took it seriously though.

[The Kernel]

What of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty? I imagine that would be enough of a reason - you know, if anyone actually took it seriously though.

As long as Iran has China or Russia veteoing for them in the UN Security Council, Bush might as well wipe his ass with that treaty for all it's worth.

[Joe]

This is going to go down exactly like it did with North Korea. We won't do shit, they'll get the nukes, and when they get 'em and become a real problem down the line, whichever political party happens to be out of power in the U.S. will slam the party that's in power for not acting earlier on the Iranian threat. The sad thing is, we probably deserve it.

[Chmee]

At least they actually have WMDs.

True, but we don't really have any reason to deny them that. That's why everyone on the Security Council is pretty apathetic about this; they don't see a compelling reason to stick their necks out in order to deny the ME's second most powerful nation a nuclear detterent.

What of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty? I imagine that would be enough of a reason - you know, if anyone actually took it seriously though.

Certainly the US and USSR don't seem to take that part about ultimately disarming their own nuclear arsenals seriously ... reducing & modernizing yes, disarming hell no .... which makes the NNPT basically a quaint anachronism of an era when the US was actually trying to negotiate a multilateral world, not one where it has an unrestrained ability to do anything anywhere whenever some screwy notion gets into Presidential advisors' heads.

[Ma Deuce]

I doubt we'd bomb them. We'd probably foister it on Israel and then red-facedly say that Israel was in the right (we had no connection, of course), and defend them from any retribution.

That wouldn't work: The Israelis don't have aircraft that can hit Iran's nuclear facilities without in-flight refueling (especially when loaded down with ordinance), and guess where those tankers would have to be stationed? Over some Arab country. The only country where the tankers could safely orbit is Iraq, since the USAF currently controls that country's airspace. That would be undeniable proof of American complicity in the operation.

Furthermore, the Israelis would have to fight their way through the Iranian Air Force (which unlike most other airforces in the region, is not total crap) to reach their targets, and the most important of these targets (their primary enrichment facility at Natanz, which you would have to take out for the operation to be worthwhile) is protected by a 3-5 meter reinforced concrete roof buried under more than 20 meters of earth. The smallest bomb that could penetrate that is the 4,400lb BLU-113, and any Israeli aircraft that carries them would be a wallowing pig, and would probably be forced to jettison if engaged by the Iranian Air Force. Also, each of the two large "superbunkers" at Natanz would require multiple BLU-113 hits to put out of commission. Nukes would do the trick easily, but I doubt the Israelis would resort to that unless they felt their national extinction was truly imminent.

Suffice it to say, the only sure (non-nuclear) bet for taking out such a facility would be B-2s armed with that new 30,000lb penetrator bomb the Air Force is working on. Cruise missile wouldn't work either: their warheads are simply too small.

[Chardok]

How many people here would find it deliciously ironic if Iran had a meltdown and had to ask the US to bail it out? *raises hand*

[Dahak]

At least they actually have WMDs.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Maybe that takes the fun out of it?

[Chmee]

How many people here would find it deliciously ironic if Iran had a meltdown and had to ask the US to bail it out? *raises hand*

It would certainly be improbable ... they aren't using meltdown-prone reactor tech, are they? They'd be looking for help from the countries they bought their nuclear gear from long before they'd ask us for *anything*. Thanks to record oil prices, they won't be looking for charity from anybody, and as long as they're paying cash the Russians, French, Germans, and Chinese will be more than happy to help with any reactor issues.

[NapoleonGH]

Well iran needs a bomb to defend itself against possible US, Israeli, and other attacking forces.

Not to mention their need for nuclear power in the civilian sphere (and anyone who makes the "but they are sitting on oil" argument really needs to think a little bit harder about how oil is most valuable to people. Being burned or being sold? The Shah of Iran decades ago, long before the revolution, used to say that "Oil is too valuable to burn" and he wasnt incorrect.)

It is in their best interest to have nuclear power.

It is also in their best interest to have nuclear bombs.

If you believe game theory and M.A.D. it is in all of our best interests for them to have the bomb, it will insure that no war between the US and Iran or Israel and Iran will ever take place.

[Beowulf]

Well iran needs a bomb to defend itself against possible US, Israeli, and other attacking forces.

Not to mention their need for nuclear power in the civilian sphere (and anyone who makes the "but they are sitting on oil" argument really needs to think a little bit harder about how oil is most valuable to people. Being burned or being sold? The Shah of Iran decades ago, long before the revolution, used to say that "Oil is too valuable to burn" and he wasnt incorrect.)

It is in their best interest to have nuclear power.

It is also in their best interest to have nuclear bombs.

If you believe game theory and M.A.D. it is in all of our best interests for them to have the bomb, it will insure that no war between the US and Iran or Israel and Iran will ever take place.

They wouldn't need a bomb if they weren't outcasts from the world community. It's not in their best interests to have nuclear bombs, because M.A.D. isn't a valid theory. Especially when you can't possibly have the number of nuclear devices required for the Mutual part of M.A.D. All it insures is that if they ever use their nukes, they are Assured Destruction. Worst case in a conventional war is that the leaders are deposed. Worst case in a nuclear war is a self-lit parking lot.

[The Kernel]

They wouldn't need a bomb if they weren't outcasts from the world community.

How typical...I hate to inform you of this, but Iran is NOT a pariah from the international community. China, Russia, and much of the EU not only trades with them, but has good standing diplomatic relations with them. Your inability to see beyond the borders of the US is sad, although hardly surprising.

It's not in their best interests to have nuclear bombs, because M.A.D. isn't a valid theory. Especially when you can't possibly have the number of nuclear devices required for the Mutual part of M.A.D. All it insures is that if they ever use their nukes, they are Assured Destruction. Worst case in a conventional war is that the leaders are deposed. Worst case in a nuclear war is a self-lit parking lot.

MAD may not be valid, but detterence is. Israel isn't going to attack Iran in a first strike if they are capable of glassing Tel Aviv, and neither is the United States. Much like North Korea, Iran is developing a detterent that will not ensure the destruction of the enemy, but will make the cost of attacking them too high.

[Joe]

Well iran needs a bomb to defend itself against possible US, Israeli, and other attacking forces.

That is not my concern, nor is it the concern of sane U.S. policymakers, thankfully.

Not to mention their need for nuclear power in the civilian sphere (and anyone who makes the "but they are sitting on oil" argument really needs to think a little bit harder about how oil is most valuable to people. Being burned or being sold? The Shah of Iran decades ago, long before the revolution, used to say that "Oil is too valuable to burn" and he wasnt incorrect.)

Not only oil, natural gas too, Iran is sitting on enough natural gas and oil to power itself for decades. The plant they're trying to build won't save them money for decades at the very least, if ever. Doesn't really make sense for them to be building a nuclear reactor when they could spend that money elsewhere.

But even leaving that aside, if they want nuclear power, fine, let them build a heavy-water nuke plant which doesn't require the enriched fuel they need to make nukes. They could do that with no trouble from the U.S. or anyone else...but since it's nukes they want, they won't.

It is in their best interest to have nuclear power.

Not really, at least not for the next few decades. But again, if they want nuclear power and not nuclear weaponry, let them build a heavy water plant.

It is also in their best interest to have nuclear bombs.

But in no one else's.

If you believe game theory and M.A.D. it is in all of our best interests for them to have the bomb, it will insure that no war between the US and Iran or Israel and Iran will ever take place.

It is never in our best interests to allow unreliable states to acquire the most dangerous weaponry currently known to man.

[Chmee]

Well iran needs a bomb to defend itself against possible US, Israeli, and other attacking forces.

Not to mention their need for nuclear power in the civilian sphere (and anyone who makes the "but they are sitting on oil" argument really needs to think a little bit harder about how oil is most valuable to people. Being burned or being sold? The Shah of Iran decades ago, long before the revolution, used to say that "Oil is too valuable to burn" and he wasnt incorrect.)

It is in their best interest to have nuclear power.

It is also in their best interest to have nuclear bombs.

If you believe game theory and M.A.D. it is in all of our best interests for them to have the bomb, it will insure that no war between the US and Iran or Israel and Iran will ever take place.

They wouldn't need a bomb if they weren't outcasts from the world community.

So they can get them and then disarm right after the USA, USSR, PRC, UK and France, who seem to cling pretty tightly to them without being 'outcasts' ... well, maybe France.

[Chmee]

Well iran needs a bomb to defend itself against possible US, Israeli, and other attacking forces.

That is not my concern, nor is it the concern of sane U.S. policymakers, thankfully.

Not to mention their need for nuclear power in the civilian sphere (and anyone who makes the "but they are sitting on oil" argument really needs to think a little bit harder about how oil is most valuable to people. Being burned or being sold? The Shah of Iran decades ago, long before the revolution, used to say that "Oil is too valuable to burn" and he wasnt incorrect.)

Not only oil, natural gas too, Iran is sitting on enough natural gas and oil to power itself for decades. The plant they're trying to build won't save them money for decades at the very least, if ever. Doesn't really make sense for them to be building a nuclear reactor when they could spend that money elsewhere.

Unlike most nations, they have a domestic uranium supply ... all the arguments used in the US for more nuclear power are just as valid in Iran. Every barrel of oil they don't use is a barrel they can sell, and the price will not be going down in the long-term. Do we want them selling oil on the world market, or uranium? Because they're sure as hell going to sell something.

[Ma Deuce]

[quote=The Kernel"]MAD may not be valid, but detterence is. Israel isn't going to attack Iran in a first strike if they are capable of glassing Tel Aviv[/quote]

But is Iran capable of building enough nuclear-armed missiles to overwhelm that theatre ballistic missile shield the Israelis have in place, because if they can't, then they will have no deterrant against Israel.

[Crown]

MAD may not be valid, but detterence is. Israel isn't going to attack Iran in a first strike if they are capable of glassing Tel Aviv

But is Iran capable of building enough nuclear-armed missiles to overwhelm that theatre ballistic missile shield the Israelis have in place, because if they can't, then they will have no deterrant against Israel.

I don't understand; are you asking whether Iran can have enough for a first strike, or retaliation strike?

[Tiger Ace]

Israel's ballistic shield is a non issue, its not even functional yet.

[Ma Deuce]

I don't understand; are you asking whether Iran can have enough for a first strike, or retaliation strike?

Both, actually. Note my use of the word "deterrant"

Israel's ballistic shield is a non issue, its not even functional yet.

But it will be, by the time Iran is able to build nukes small enough to fit on missiles. Besides, I thought two batteries of Arrow IIs were already operational?