Iran "is now either very near or in possession" nuclear weapon

[Camtender]

Time to double down on oil? How long is Irsael going to sit on its hands?


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...901701_pf.html


U.S. Concerned About Iran's Nuclear Program


By Glenn Kessler
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, September 9, 2009 11:48 AM

Iran "is now either very near or in possession" of enough low-enriched uranium to produce one nuclear weapon, a senior U.S. diplomat said Wednesday, offering some of toughest remarks uttered by an Obama administration official on Iran's nuclear ambitions.
"We have serious concerns that Iran is deliberately attempting, at a minimum, to preserve a nuclear weapons option," Glyn Davies, Washington's chief envoy to the International Atomic Energy Agency, said in his inaugural speech to the U.N. nuclear watchdog, which is based in Vienna.
Davies said that Iran's ongoing enrichment activity -- in defiance of three U.N. Security Council resolutions -- "moves Iran closer to a dangerous and destabilizing possible breakout capacity."
But Davies also reiterated the Obama administration's interest in a diplomatic resolution to the impasse of Tehran's nuclear programs, and its interest in negotiating directly with Iran without preconditions. The United States, along with Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China, earlier this year reiterated an offer to provide economic and security benefits in exchange for a halt to Iran's enrichment activity.
The United States and other major powers said in July that it would "take stock" of Iran's response to that offer in late September, during a U.N. General Assembly meeting. Washington has warned that it may turn to bolstering sanctions against Iran if little progress is made by year's end.
Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad suggested this week that Iran would not suspend its uranium enrichment but was willing to negotiate with the other parties, inviting top officials to come to Tehran for talks.
"While we have seen press reports that Iran has a new proposal, we have not yet received any official, substantive response from our Iranian counterparts," Davies said Wednesday. "Nonetheless, we would review any proposal seriously in the spirit of mutual respect and would welcome the Iranian government's constructive response."
Tehran's ambassador to the IAEA, Ali Asghar Soltanieh, told the agency that it "should be recalled that the agency has been faced with continuous false and forged allegations" by the United States.
"I remind that the international community is carefully monitoring the attitude and conducts of the new U.S. administration," Soltanieh said. "The world is observing curiously whether or not this administration follows the same trend and policy as the Bush administration -- pursuing hostile political confrontation, using fabricated baseless allegations."

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Security/D...aspx?id=674100

Prospects for Israel-Iran conflict

Chad Groening - OneNewsNow - 9/9/2009 6:00:00 AM
A best-selling author and eschatology scholar believes time is running out to stop Iran's nuclear program, and that a war between Iran and Israel could take place possibly next year.

The International Atomic Energy Agency's 35-nation board is meeting this week to take a hard look at Iran's nuclear program. Iran insists its nuclear activities are peaceful and geared solely toward generating electricity. But the U.S. and key allies contend the Islamic republic is covertly trying to build an atomic bomb.

Joel Rosenberg is the author of Inside the Revolution: How the Followers of Jihad, Jefferson, and Jesus are Battling to Dominate the Middle East and Transform the World. He does not think Iran can be dissuaded from pursuing its nuclear ambitions.

"I am not convinced that these radical Muslims in Iran want to truly engage the West. I don't believe that they are going to negotiate in good faith," he admits. "I believe time is running out to stop Iran's nuclear program -- and I think it's increasingly likely that there will be a major war between Israel and Iran, possibly in 2010."

Rosenberg is not convinced that the world is prepared to stop a second Holocaust that could occur if Iran gets atomic weapons. He says the world could have some very hard times ahead of it.

[Diarmuid]

Re: Iran "is now either very near or in possession" nuclear weapon

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...901701_pf.html

The Washington Post, bastion of truth and impartiality.

The paper started out hawkishly, echoing many of Bush’s arguments and calling war “an operation essential to American security” even before Powell’s presentation. The Post then quickly endorsed Powell’s WMD and al Qaeda claims. … Yet as invasion approached, the paper shifted its tone. In two lengthy editorials, it directly answered antiwar arguments and responded to readers who’d accused the paper of “jingoism.” Following this public grappling with dissent, the Post unleashed a flurry of editorials smacking the Bush administration for “worryingly vague” postwar planning. … The paper never changed its stance on war, however.

As much as it would like to pat itself on the back for getting one right, the WP editorial board had many more that were wrong. A few lowlights:

“After Secretary of State Colin L. Powell’s presentation to the United Nations Security Council yesterday, it is hard to imagine how anyone could doubt that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction.” [2/6/03]


“The Perils of Passivity” [2/13/03]


“But the United States cannot again join the Security Council in backing down from a confrontation with the Iraqi dictator, as it did repeatedly during the 1990s, also under pressure from France and Russia.” [2/16/03]


“In the case of Iraq, the functioning of American democracy has been pretty straightforward. President Bush has been respectful of opponents, at least at home, as he should be on such a momentous issue.” [2/23/03]

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/05/01/wp-editorial-iraq/

[sadsack]

Re: Iran "is now either very near or in possession" nuclear weapon

This quote makes absolutely no sense:

Iran "is now either very near or in possession" of enough low-enriched uranium to produce one nuclear weapon, a senior U.S. diplomat said Wednesday, offering some of toughest remarks uttered by an Obama administration official on Iran's nuclear ambitions.

First of all, low-enriched uranium cannot be used for a fission weapon. You couldn't even use it for a radiological weapon, since the half-life of U235 is on the order of billions of years.

Secondly, who uses U235 in a bomb these days? I thought everyone uses Pu239 implosion-based nukes, not the excessively crude (and very low yield) "gun-type" U235 jobs.

Low-enriched uranium is overwhelmingly used for civilian PWR, at least in this country (the crazy Japanese prefer FMBR).

This is a propaganda hatchet job.

[ASH]

Re: Iran "is now either very near or in possession" nuclear weapon

First of all, low-enriched uranium cannot be used for a fission weapon.

The version of the story run by the BBC includes the important weasel words:

Glyn Davies told the meeting Iran was nearly or already in possession of enough low-enriched uranium to produce a bomb, if it was further enriched.

Secondly, who uses U235 in a bomb these days?

Well, one must learn to walk before they run, non? Also, a U235 bomb would work, and if you are trying to plausibly deny seeking a weapon, developing uranium refinement technology as part of a civilian nuclear fuel cycle is a whole lot less suspicious than developing a Pu breeder.

This is a propaganda hatchet job.

I can't agree more. However, I suspect it is the new administration trying to establish a hard-nosed negotiating stance, rather than a signal that military action is contemplated.

[seanm123]

Re: Iran "is now either very near or in possession" nuclear weapon

The CIA said in December of 2007 that the Iranians halted their program back in 2003.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/03/wo...5.8573960.html

[ASH]

Re: Iran "is now either very near or in possession" nuclear weapon

The CIA said in December of 2007 that the Iranians halted their program back in 2003.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/03/wo...5.8573960.html

Yep. That was widely regarded as weakening the American position. At the time, I read that the finding evoked considerable consternation among our allies. After all, we had been pressing our friends to support us in applying pressure to the Iranians, and then we abruptly undermined our own position with that finding.

I think the specific conclusion was that the Iranians halted their weaponization program; they themselves brag about their continued progress with enrichment. The security issue is that after enrichment is accomplished, weaponization can be rapid. Also, my impression is that weaponization activities short of an actual test explosion are much easier to conceal than enrichment.

[seanm123]

Re: Iran "is now either very near or in possession" nuclear weapon

Ronald Regan's signature phrase was "trust but verifiy."

Iran agreed to allow UN inspectors back in, and IAEA inspectors visited the uranium enrichment plant at Natanz and the unfinished research reactor at Arak during the second week of August.

Obama set a late September deadline for Iran to respond to an international offer to negotiate on the future of Iran's nuclear program or face more economic sanctions and they are doing so. They seem to be complying, but lets not let that get in the way I guess. Whomever is beating the War drum again needs to cool it already.

[ASH]

Re: Iran "is now either very near or in possession" nuclear weapon

They seem to be complying, but lets not let that get in the way I guess. Whomever is beating the War drum again needs to cool it already.

Are they beating the war drum or are they "keeping the pressure on"? If I was reading more news stories about Israeli military exercises which look like a dress rehersal for bombing Nataz, or the pointed movement of American forces in the region, I'd call that saber-rattling. I suppose this PR statement could be an early step in that direction, but so far, it seems more natural to conclude that someone in the State Department thinks the Iranian government is feeling weaker as the result of their contested election, and that modestly aggressive diplomatic pressure is likely to bear fruit during negotiations.

[santafe2]

Re: Iran "is now either very near or in possession" nuclear weapon

Are they beating the war drum or are they "keeping the pressure on"? If I was reading more news stories about Israeli military exercises which look like a dress rehersal for bombing Nataz, or the pointed movement of American forces in the region, I'd call that saber-rattling. I suppose this PR statement could be an early step in that direction, but so far, it seems more natural to conclude that someone in the State Department thinks the Iranian government is feeling weaker as the result of their contested election, and that modestly aggressive diplomatic pressure is likely to bear fruit during negotiations.

Agree with this and the style feels like it's coming from Clinton. Obama didn't hire her because she likes to back down. I think Obama will be tested until he proves his resolve. That is simply how the world works.

The only president I can remember not having to do this was Reagan. The hostages were released by Iran as he was sworn into office.

[jk]

Re: Iran "is now either very near or in possession" nuclear weapon

The only president I can remember not having to do this was Reagan. The hostages were released by Iran as he was sworn into office.

that's because bill casey had already struck a deal to make sure they were NOT released before the election.

p.s. remember something called "iran-contra"?

[charliebrown]

Re: Iran "is now either very near or in possession" nuclear weapon

From wiki-pedia, regarding little boy a u235 weapon.

Additionally, the weapon design was simple enough that it was only deemed necessary to do laboratory tests with the gun-type assembly Unlike the implosion design, which required sophisticated coordination of shaped explosive charges, the gun-type design was considered almost certain to work.
Although occasionally used in later experimental devices, the design was only used once as a weapon because of the danger of accidental detonation. Little Boy's design was unsafe when compared to modern nuclear weapons, which incorporate safety features to endure various accident scenarios. The main objective of Little Boy was to create a weapon that was absolutely guaranteed to work.

If I was iran ...
any kind of nuke would really put the breaks on a iraq style invasion. it dosen't have to be sophisticated. it just has to go bang!

[santafe2]

Re: Iran "is now either very near or in possession" nuclear weapon

that's because bill casey had already struck a deal to make sure they were NOT released before the election.

p.s. remember something called "iran-contra"?

Carter's team was clearly out maneuvered but Iran-Contra was not related to this hostage release, Iran-Contra was much later.

[bcassill]

Re: Iran "is now either very near or in possession" nuclear weapon

Isn't it cute? Iran is almost all grown up. It seems like just yesterday they were chanting "Death to America" and getting their young men to join the Basij to run in human waves at Iraqi positions during their last shooting war. (Sigh) Now, come on. Have a seat up here with the big boys. Careful, watch that button. We don't want to go and press anything by accident. That wouldn't be nice. Want in on a little secret? You know those things that go boom? No, not the little boom. The BIG BOOM. Yeah, those are mostly for show. No one really intends to ever use them. You'd have to be crazy. Oh, that's right. You're a little unbalanced between the eardrums aren't you? That's okay, so are the rest of us. Here, have a drink.

Is everyone ready for $300 oil?

[Slimprofits]

Re: Iran "is now either very near or in possession" nuclear weapon

Carter's team was clearly out maneuvered but Iran-Contra was not related to this hostage release, Iran-Contra was much later.

Correct. Israel-Iran-Contra involved American hostages in Lebanon.

JK might be thinking of the alleged "October Surprise."

[Roughneck]

Re: Iran "is now either very near or in possession" nuclear weapon

Ahmadinejad is a twelver. He is part of a radical element of Islam that believes by creating war and chaos they will hasten the return of the twelth Imam. The supreme leader and those in power are all part of this radical sect.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/3...with-Iran.html