Iran is now a "nuclear state" [Archive] - Professional Soldiers ®

bandycpa

02-11-2010, 10:09

Yep, this is the big announcement. Does this confirm what was already suspected? Or is this a bluff of immense proportions?

Bandy

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,585461,00.html

Ahmadinejad Says Iran Is Now a 'Nuclear State'

Thursday , February 11, 2010

AP

TEHRAN, Iran —
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad claimed Thursday that Iran has produced its first batch of uranium enriched to a higher level, saying his country will not be bullied by the West into curtailing its nuclear program a day after the U.S. imposed new sanctions.

Ahmadinejad reiterated to hundreds of thousands of cheering Iranians on the anniversary of the 1979 foundation of the Islamic republic that the country was now a "nuclear state," an announcement he's made before. He insisted that Iran had no intention of building nuclear weapons.

It was not clear how much enriched material had actually been produced just two days after the process was announced to have started.

The United States and some of its allies accuse Tehran of using its civilian nuclear program as a cover to build nuclear weapons but Tehran denies the charge, saying the program is just geared toward generating electricity.

"I want to announce with a loud voice here that the first package of 20 percent fuel was produced and provided to the scientists," he said.

Enriching uranium produces fuel for a nuclear power plants but can also be used to create material for atomic weapons if enriched further to 90 percent or more.

"We have the capability to enrich uranium more than 20 percent or 80 percent but we don't enrich (to this level) because we don't need it," he said in a speech broadcast live on state television.

Iran announced Tuesday it was beginning the process of enriching its uranium stockpile to a higher level. The international community reacted by starting the process to impose new sanctions on Iran.

The U.S. Treasury Department went ahead on Wednesday and froze the assets in U.S. jurisdictions of a Revolutionary Guard general and four subsidiaries of a construction firm he runs for their alleged involvement in producing and spreading weapons of mass destruction.

Tehran has said it wants to further enrich the uranium — which is still substantially below the 90 percent plus level used in the fissile core of nuclear warheads — as a part of a plan to fuel its research reactor that provides medical isotopes to hundreds of thousands of Iranians undergoing cancer treatment.

But the West says Tehran is not capable of turning the material into the fuel rods needed by the reactor. Instead it fears that Iran wants to enrich the uranium to make nuclear weapons.

Ahmadinejad reiterated Iran's position that it was not seeking to build nuclear weapons.

"When we say we do not manufacture the bomb, we mean it, and we do not believe in manufacturing a bomb," he told the crowd. "If we wanted to manufacture a bomb, we would announce it."

"We told them the Iranian nation will never give in to bullying and illogical remarks," he said.

Western powers blame Iran for rejecting an internationally endorsed plan to export its low enriched uranium to have it further enriched abroad and returned to the country in the form of fuel rods for the Tehran reactor.

Iran, in turn, asserts it had no choice but to start enriching to higher levels because its suggested changes to the international plan were rejected.

The president said Iran will triple the production of its low-enriched uranium in the future but didn't elaborate.

"God willing, daily production (of low enriched uranium) will be tripled," he said.

A confidential document from the U.N. nuclear agency shared Wednesday with The Associated Press said Iran's initial effort at higher enrichment is modest, using only a small amount of feedstock and a fraction of its capacities.

The document, relying on onsite reports from International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors, also cited Iranian experts at the country's enrichment plant at Natanz as saying that only about 10 kilograms — 22 pounds — of low enriched uranium had been fed into the cascade for further enrichment.

afchic

02-11-2010, 10:24

Utah Bob

02-11-2010, 11:11

He is trying to goad the Isreali's into taking action. I don't think he is prepared for the response they are going to recieve.

I don't think Israel gives a rat's behind about what the world thinks of them, if they do launch a strike.

The clock is ticking. Saddam rattled his sabers as well before the Mother of all Battles.
A surgical strike could be in the future unless the internal conflict in Iran escalates to the point where it might topple the current govt. Given the Fundamentalists' stranglehold on things though, I wouldn't expect a successful revolution to be in the offing.

Team Sergeant

02-11-2010, 11:17

He is trying to goad the Isreali's into taking action. I don't think he is prepared for the response they are going to recieve.

I don't think Israel gives a rat's behind about what the world thinks of them, if they do launch a strike.

They soon forget missions such as "Operation EARNEST WILL".

"You have 20 minutes to un-ass those oil platforms before we destroy them."

Iran could do nothing, absolutely nothing. I'm sure that's about to happen again, a "measured" strike against Iran's military & nuclear infrastructure.

All they can do is "saber-rattle".

newbie

02-11-2010, 11:19

I've read that Israel's only REAL option of attack would be a nuclear strike, because they dont have the conventional ability to strike deep enough to effect Irans N. facilities. Also, according to the U.S. state dept., the only plane capable of penetrating Iranian (read russian) radar is the U.S. F-22, B-2 etc.. So let's hope israel doesnt ignite something that would undoubtedly spark a MAJOR conflict in the region, and put our troops in Iraq in serious danger. I can only bet that Iran secretly hopes Israel will attack it. Their proxy forces (shiites in yemen, hezbollah, hamas, quds etc.) are more than capable of engaging israel and sewing havoc throughout the region (tearing apart Iraq...again). A good read on this is Robert Baer's "the Devil we Know" All about Iran, and the danger associated with underestimating it. say what you want about the guy, but he KNOWS the region better than probably most Americans alive, being that he was a case officer in the M.E. for 20 years or something. Just my 2 cents though. Iran is probably our greatest enemy in the world right now, we need to be extremely intelligent in how we handle them, they are not your average Arab, barbarian state...they are Persian, and extremely intelligent, and deceptive. Then again, i aint no expert on this stuff, so I could be way off.

afchic

02-11-2010, 11:22

They soon forget missions such as "Operation EARNEST WILL".

"You have 20 minutes to un-ass those oil platforms before we destroy them."

Iran could do nothing, absolutely nothing. I'm sure that's about to happen again, a "measured" strike against Iran's military & nuclear infrastructure.

All they can do is "saber-rattle".

The thing that scares me is this: They goad the Isreali's into a strike. Iran has a weapon that we don't know about, and uses it, and claims self defense.

I wouldn't put it past them to have all these "failures" of their rockets in the MSM, so no one suspects they really do have something.

Things are about to get interesting folks. How do we react if Iran strikes back at Israel?

armymom1228

02-11-2010, 12:03

Things are about to get interesting folks. How do we react if Iran strikes back at Israel?

Israel a not a member of NATO. Therefore, in theory, we have the luxury of sitting back and doing nothing. I agree that Iran is not being completely forthcoming in thier true purpose and capabilities. OTOH, what we do can depend in part, on what our treaties with Israel state we will do if/when they are wholesale attacked either by conventional means or nuclear. So far we did nothing when they were attacked by conventional means.

Someone said that Israel dosen't care what the world thinks of them. Why should they? They are in a fight to death for survival as a nation and a people. Sometimes I think we, the US, should have that mentality.

NATO membership countries here. (http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/nato_countries.htm)

afchic

02-11-2010, 12:25

The other thing that bears watching is how does Saudi Arabia react to this? There is no way in hell Iran is getting a bomb, and Saudi doesn't. So is there now going to be a nuclear arms race in the Middle East? What does that mean for the rest of us?

Various opinions on this, "go ahead, let them have it, it will make them more responsible" vs. "not a chance in hell we should allow this to happen"

Richard

02-11-2010, 12:29

Utah Bob

02-11-2010, 12:30

armymom1228

02-11-2010, 12:32

Utah Bob

02-11-2010, 13:03

For some queer reason i keep thinking of the movie, "Dune" where the term "family atomics" was said a lot. Where everyone who ruled one way or the other had 'atmoics' and that the law said they were okay to own, but not use. I foresee a time when that is the case.

I think, emphasis on think, that the answer to that, AFChic, might be in that one coutnry is Sunni and one Shiite?? I surmise that it won't be Iran that uses a nuke but one of thier little buddies that 'accident' gets thier hands on one.. Hezbollah, Hamas, AQ.

It was all about the Spice.:D
Great book. Weird movie.

Dad

02-11-2010, 13:14

Is the Iranian announcement connected with the renewed street violence in Teheran? Seems the regime may need a common enemy to distract the population? What if Israel just ignores (publicly) this development? Does it deprive the Iranian government of the bogie man they need? Or does it embolden them? Or, is the government of Iran just too crazy to predict?
Thank you

bandycpa

02-11-2010, 13:18

The other thing that bears watching is how does Saudi Arabia react to this? There is no way in hell Iran is getting a bomb, and Saudi doesn't. So is there now going to be a nuclear arms race in the Middle East? What does that mean for the rest of us?

That's what scares me as much as anything else here. The Middle East may unite against us on one side, but also obliterate each other in the process. It seems their mindset is so mercurial that the potential use of nuclear weapons by Iran, Saudi Arabia, et al would increase in proportion to the number of perceived enemies that were out there. I go back to this quote from "The Haj":

"Before I was nine I had learned the basic canon of Arab life. It was me against my brother; me and my brother against our father; my family against my cousins and the clan; the clan against the tribe; and the tribe against the world and all of us against the infidel."

– Leon Uris, ‘The Haj’.

Bandy

craigepo

02-11-2010, 13:33

I just received a Stratfor article on this issue. For those of you who don't subscribe to their free e-mail list, here's a link. Forgive me for borrowing someone else's brainpower, but Stratfor does a pretty good job.

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20100201_defensive_buildup_gulf?utm_source=GSWeekl y&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=100203&utm_content=readmore&elq=3d229b6c5d8446efb333bfc02c6db6a1

"This report is republished with permission of STRATFOR"

afchic

02-11-2010, 14:56

newbie

02-11-2010, 17:56

You're right i should show the source of my remarks. It was STRATFoR. Theyve written some interesting Stuff on the Irán situ. It was their analysis that Israel doesnt hace a conventional means to deal with Irán, leaving nukes as the only, yet not likely option...according to them. And since hezbollah "beat" Israel in their latest confrontation, it would seem that the iranian proxies aré more powerfull than Ever. As far as the "barbarían state" comment, that's my ignorance shining through, i was trying to simplify a point which I've read many times which states that irAn is leaps and bounds more militarily oraganized than it's neighbors, Iraq was the exception, but less so now, especially since Iran has serious influence there now. I will be clearer in the future, I'm respectfuly bowing out now.

Box

02-11-2010, 19:33

the world has become a much safer place since we apologized to everyone for our arrogance...

Surf n Turf

02-11-2010, 23:16

Israel can defend itself. The question is – do they believe they can ?
As the STRATFOR article points out – one nuclear hit on Israel and it’s over for them.
Does the Israeli military take the chance ? I’m sure those discussions were, are, and will be underway for some time.
It may all boil down to who makes what decision. I think the Iranians should tread carefully, as both "Bibi" Netanyahu, and his brother, were active duty in the Sayeret Matkal, and take seriously “who dares wins”.
SnT

The fact that Iran has “hardened” their nuclear sites seems futile, as Israel has access to (and probable in possession of) the following munitions:
BLU-109, BLU-116, BLU-118B, GBU-28, GBU-31,GBU-39, GBU-43B, GBU-44, GBU-57, + ??.
As I have only basic knowledge and a little research of AF weaponry, please feel free to correct me on the list.
Speaking of the munitions ----
Some published reports suggest the new bomb (GBU-57) can burrow through 200 feet of reinforced concrete before detonating, but many analysts are skeptical. The physics of bunker busting are tricky, and even nuclear bombs can't punch into the world's most hardened targets.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2009/091022-gbu-57-bunker-buster.htm

Known Iranian Nuclear sites
Even if the number of sites is only the 20 listed below, it will be difficult to hit all of them within a short period of time (weeks). Iran will have some time for a thoughtful response before they are all destroyed. Israel can expect some reprisal for even selective destruction.

Anarak, Ardekan, Arak, Bonab (Benab), Bushehr, Chalus, Darkhovin, Esfahan, Fasa, Gchine, Karaj (Hashtgerd), Kolahdouz, Lashkar Abad, Natanz (Kashan), Parchin, Qom (Ghom), Ramandeh, Saghand, Tabas, Tehran

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/nuke-fac.htm

And finally, here is why this cannot be allowed to continue---

“TEHRAN (FNA)- A member of the Iranian Parliament announced that the study phase for locating proper sites for 10 new nuclear enrichment plants has been accomplished.
Member of the Parliament's National Security and Foreign Policy Commission Mohammad Karami-Raad told the Iranian students news agency that the issue of
finding locations for the country's new nuclear sites has been discussed in a meeting between the Head of Iran's Nuclear Safety Organization and a number of officials from the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI). He noted that during the said meeting, the Iranian officials also discussed initiating physical measures to protect the sites and strengthen the safety codes.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MewNews/message/54681?l=1

Richard

02-12-2010, 15:22

The article says a nuclear strike on the United States would "do minimal harm to the United States." I am not any expert, but this I do not know if I believe.

FWIW - nuclear weapons come in all yields - smallest equal to < 2kt in enhanced energy release which does little real damage BUT will certainly do > psychological damage.

Richard's $.02 :munchin

st1650

02-12-2010, 15:56

FWIW - nuclear weapons come in all yields - smallest equal to < 2kt in enhanced energy release which does little real damage BUT will certainly do > psychological damage.

Richard's $.02 :munchin

Well I might be young but I do remember the whole anthrax scare. Even a dirty bomb would be a complete and utter catastrophe to the American people even if it causes fewer death than the number of car crashes on the Thanksgiving weekend... The media-fueled hysteria would be quite something.

Richard

02-12-2010, 16:19

...a complete and utter catastrophe to the American people...

:confused:

You must be a reporter, a vender of some religious philosophy, a radio talk show host, or a government official seeking re-election to posit such a fatalistic view of the collective American psyche - a view which is quite contrary to the historical record. ;)

And so it goes...

Richard's $.02 :munchin

incarcerated

02-14-2010, 22:33

http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=168729

Olmert: We can stop Iran without strike

BY GIL HOFFMAN
15/02/2010 03:17
Former PM says his successor is sincere about making peace.
Former prime minister Ehud Olmert, who led Israel’s efforts to prevent a nuclear Iran during his three-year premiership, expressed certainty on Sunday that the Islamic Republic’s nuclearization can be prevented without resorting to a military confrontation.

Speaking to a gathering of the Israel Friends of Tel Aviv University at the campus’s Green Building, Olmert said the Iranian threat should not be underestimated and was a genuine reason for concern, but that Israel should not initiate a military strike on the Islamic Republic’s nuclear sites.

He appeared to confirm Israel’s involvement in alleged covert operations that have reportedly hindered Teheran’s nuclear program.

“There are a huge range of options between a full military attack and accepting a nuclear Iran,” Olmert said. “There are other means that – together with other things happening, and they are happening – can create a result that would not allow the Iranians to reach what they are trying to reach.”

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/middle-east/Clinton-Travels-to-Qatar-Saudi-Arabia-84313702.html

Clinton Urges Iran to Change 'Dangerous' Nuclear Policy

14 February 2010
David Gollust
Doha
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says it is time for Iran to be held to account for what she said is that country's "pursuit of nuclear weapons." Clinton spoke at a forum on U.S.-Islamic relations in Doha, Qatar, where that Gulf states' prime minister urged more efforts at dialogue with Tehran….
Clinton shared the podium at the seventh annual U.S.-Islamic World Forum with Qatar's Prime and Foreign Minister Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim al-Thani, who said Gulf states share U.S. concerns about Iran's nuclear program, but the issue requires more dialogue and, in particular, direct U.S.-Iranian talks. "I believe we cannot talk through messengers in my opinion. I think this problem has to be taken up with the Iranians directly and try to see if we have a deal or we do not have deal on this. Of course if there is a nuclear race in the region, it is disturbing for us," he said….
Clinton said Russia has told the United States both publicly and privately that it "can and will" support new U.N. sanctions against Iran…..
Officials traveling with Clinton say the United States is talking with Saudi Arabia, where Clinton visits Monday, about the idea of boosting oil shipments to China in the event Iran halted sales to Beijing if it backed a new U.N. resolution.
They suggest Saudi Arabia is amenable to the idea, provided China gives assurances it will join a consensus for sanctions….

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1149825.html

Despite Netanyahu pressure, Russia defends Iran missile deal

By Barak Ravid, Haaretz Correspondent and Agencies
Last update - 03:12 15/02/2010
On the eve of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's visit to Moscow, senior Russian security officials were speaking out on defense-related issues that have provoked tensions between the two countries.

An hour before Netanyahu's plane took off on Sunday, Russian officials said that Moscow sees no reason to delay the sale of the S-300, a powerful air-defense system, to Iran. In addition, on Friday, Russian intelligence officials leaked comments expressing their displeasure with plans by an Israeli firm to close a major arms deal with Georgia.

"There is a signed contract [for the S-300 missiles] which we must follow through on, but deliveries have not started yet," Vladimir Nazarov, deputy secretary of Russia's Security Council secretary, told Interfax news agency in an interview. "This deal is not restricted by any international sanctions, because we are talking about deliveries of an exclusively defensive weapon."

Nazarov added that a military strike on Iran would be a big mistake and that the problems linked to Tehran's nuclear program must be resolved by diplomatic means only….

incarcerated

02-15-2010, 02:41

....IMHO if they really wanted to hit the US or Isreal with nukes and had the capability they would STFU and nail someone when we were not looking.

IMHO, we’re still in the yammering and strong words stage of this. At one level, all of these public statements are just noise. And it’s not so much that we’re going with our hat in our hands to the Saudis to ask them to go with their hats in their hands to the Chinese; it’s that we’re pursuing what looks remarkably like a Saudi foreign policy. Put differently, we seem to be concerned less with Israel’s security, and more with the security of the Arabian Peninsula.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8515623.stm

Clinton to ask Saudis for help persuading China on Iran

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is to press Saudi Arabia to help persuade China to support a tougher stand against Iran's nuclear ambitions.
Monday, 15 February 2010
Mrs Clinton will ask the Saudis to reassure China that they will meet any shortfall in its oil needs if further UN sanctions are imposed, aides say.
She will meet King Abdullah and Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal during her first visit to the kingdom….
Our correspondent says Mrs Clinton's speech also seemed to appeal to Muslims and Arabs not to give up on the Obama administration.
She acknowledged there had been setbacks in re-launching peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians, and in closing the military detention centre at Guantanamo Bay, but insisted Washington was committed to achieving both….

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/26/AR2010012604239.html

U.S. military teams, intelligence deeply involved in aiding Yemen on strikes

By Dana PriestWashington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
U.S. military teams and intelligence agencies are deeply involved in secret joint operations with Yemeni troops who in the past six weeks have killed scores of people, among them six of 15 top leaders of a regional al-Qaeda affiliate, according to senior administration officials.
The operations, approved by President Obama and begun six weeks ago, involve several dozen troops from the U.S. military's clandestine Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), whose main mission is tracking and killing suspected terrorists. The American advisers do not take part in raids in Yemen, but help plan missions, develop tactics and provide weapons and munitions. Highly sensitive intelligence is being shared with the Yemeni forces, including electronic and video surveillance, as well as three-dimensional terrain maps and detailed analysis of the al-Qaeda network….
The collaboration with Yemen provides the starkest illustration to date of the Obama administration's efforts to ramp up counterterrorism operations, including in areas outside the Iraq and Afghanistan war zones.
"We are very pleased with the direction this is going," a senior administration official said of the cooperation with Yemen....
In the case of Yemen, a steady stream of high-ranking officials has visited Saleh, including the rarely seen JSOC commander, Vice Adm. William H. McRaven; White House counterterrorism adviser John O. Brennan; and Gen. David H. Petraeus, head of U.S. Central Command....
In a newly built joint operations center, the American advisers are acting as intermediaries between the Yemeni forces and hundreds of U.S. military and intelligence officers working in Washington, Virginia and Tampa and at Fort Meade, Md., to collect, analyze and route intelligence....

incarcerated

02-15-2010, 20:04

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704431404575067193404330842.html?m od=googlenews_wsj

Iran's Emerging Military Dictatorship

The Revolutionary Guard now has more power than the Islamic Republic's Supreme Leader.
OPINION
FEBRUARY 15, 2010, 7:34 P.M. ET
By AMIR TAHERI
At first glance, Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei might seem a happy man. The pro-democracy movement had promised that last Thursday, the 31st anniversary of the Islamic Revolution, would be a turning point for the cause of freedom. But Mr. Khamenei's regime contained the mounting opposition.

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) controlled Tehran with the help of tens of thousands of club-wielding street fighters shipped in from all over the country. Opposition marchers, confined to the northern part of the city, were locked into hit-and-run battles with the regime's professional goons. An opposition attempt at storming the Evin Prison, where more than 3,000 dissidents are being tortured, did not materialize. The would-be liberators failed to break a ring of steel the IRGC threw around the sprawling compound.

With the Internet shut down and foreign radio broadcasts jammed, the regime imposed its own version of events. State television showed large crowds chanting "Death to America" while marching in front of giant portraits of the Supreme Leader.

And yet, despite all of this, Mr. Khamenei's message thanking the pro-regime marchers after the "glorious events of the day" had a surprisingly subdued tone. He has reason to feel unhappy.

For the first time the regime had to transform Tehran into a sealed citadel with checkpoints at all points of entry. The IRGC was in total control. Code-named "Simorgh," after a bird in Persian mythology, its operation created an atmosphere of war in the divided city. Warned that his life may be in danger, Mr. Khamenei was forced to watch the events on TV rather than take his usual personal tour.

To ensure control of Tehran, the regime had to abandon plans for celebrations in other parts of the country. Only 20% of Iranian towns and cities and less than 9% of villages had the privilege of marking the anniversary of the revolution.

The transformation of the Khomeinist regime from theological despotism into military dictatorship started almost a decade ago. And as a keen student of Islamic tradition, Mr. Khamenei must know that history is repeating itself.

All Islamic states in history were initially built around an individual claiming divine legitimacy, first the Prophet himself and then a caliph. All have ended by losing that legitimacy and maintaining their power by force.

Even the most successful Islamic dynasties—such as the Umayyids, the Abbasids and the Fatimids—came to depend on mercenaries known as the Mamluks, who were recruited from pagan tribes of Central Asia. Often the Mamluks seized power by murdering the caliph or keeping him as a puppet.

The IRGC is a modern version of the Mamluks. Their leaders are more strident than many of the regime's leaders, vetoing countless attempts by mullahs and politicians to reach a compromise with the portion of the opposition still calling for reform rather than regime change. Revolutionary Guard generals frequently appear on television to call for mass arrests and show trials. A weak and indecisive caliph, Mr. Khamenei has so far refused to endorse the kind of "final solution" the generals demand.

Abroad, the Revolutionary Guard pursues an aggressive policy aimed at "filling the vacuum" the generals hope will be created when the U.S. disengages from Iraq and Afghanistan by funding terrorist groups and their political front organizations. The IRGC has reportedly created a special desk to monitor the coming parliamentary elections in Baghdad and Kabul with the aim of helping pro-Tehran elements win power.

The generals also reject any compromise on the country's nuclear program. With the entire program under their control, it is not far-fetched to suggest that even Mr. Khamenei might not quite know what's going on.

President Barack Obama's hopes for a dialogue with Tehran, repeated Sunday by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during a visit to Qatar, sound increasingly surreal. Mrs. Clinton's announcement that the U.S. might allow one more year for the elusive dialogue to materialize unfortunately undermined her tougher talk yesterday about sanctions. One thing is certain: The regime, now dominated by the Revolutionary Guards, will settle for nothing less than total victory on the nuclear issue.

Mr. Khamenei has other reasons to be unhappy. According to the Ministry of Labor more than a million jobs have "vanished" in the past 12 months thanks to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's populist policies. In the same period, the nation's currency, the rial, has lost a quarter of its value against a basket of other oil-based currencies in the region.

Some foreign companies with long histories of aiding Iran are beginning to understand that the regime, while not on the verge of collapse, is vulnerable. A consortium led by the Austrian oil company OMV has withdrawn from multibillion-dollar projects designed to ship Iranian natural gas to Pakistan, India and Europe. Germany's Siemens has terminated all of its activities in Iran, ending a presence dating to 1875. A group of Malaysian investors recently walked out of a scheme to help Iran sell government bonds on the global capital market. A plan for creating two new Turkish banks to help their Iranian counterparts beat U.S.-imposed sanctions has been abandoned.

Countries such as Spain, Austria, Greece, Dubai and Malaysia that have helped Iran beat sanctions for years are beginning to review their policies. Overall trade between Iran and the European Union fell by 13% in 2009. Even China is showing concern. Scheduled talks with Iran about building 10 oil refineries and at least five nuclear-power stations remain frozen.

For three decades major democracies, including the U.S., have attempted to persuade the regime to change aspects of its behavior. The subtext was that the West would turn a blind eye to the regime's repression inside Iran as long as it behaved more responsibly abroad.

This has not worked. Perhaps it is time to reconsider regime change as a possibility. Even so-called realists must concede that the Khomeinist establishment, under the emerging leadership of the IRGC, is not the only actor on the Iranian scene. There is another actor: the popular movement for change. To ignore the democrats and fail to support them in clear and strong terms would be a sign of poor political judgment—even under the most cynical version of realpolitik.

Mr. Taheri's new book, "The Persian Night: Iran Under the Khomeinist Revolution," is published by Encounter.

incarcerated

02-18-2010, 18:00

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704269004575073853888645236.html?m od=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsThird

Iran Enriches Nuclear Fuel, Says IAEA

MIDDLE EAST NEWS
FEBRUARY 18, 2010, 6:31 P.M. ET
By DAVID CRAWFORD And JONATHAN WEISMAN
The United Nations' nuclear watchdog said it has information suggesting Iran may be working to build a nuclear warhead, an assessment that could escalate the U.S. and other Western governments' confrontation with Iran over its nuclear activities.

The International Atomic Energy Agency, a Vienna-based U.N. body, said in a confidential report Thursday that Iran has impeded agency efforts to establish the true purpose of Tehran's nuclear program.

"The information available to the agency...raises concerns about the possible existence in Iran of past or current undisclosed activities related to the development of a nuclear payload for a missile," IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano wrote in the report.

The expression of concern over the "weaponization" of enriched uranium is a first for the agency.

The IAEA's first report under its new director general underscores what senior Obama administration officials see as a shift at the agency toward a tougher, factually based approach to Iran's nuclear program. One senior U.S. official said Mr. Amano is sticking strictly to the watchdog's responsibilities of ensuring that nuclear safeguards are obeyed.

Egyptian Mohamed ElBaradei, the last director general, saw the IAEA's role more broadly, asserting it in matters of war, peace and international stability.

Nonetheless, the new report puts the U.S. in an awkward position. Officially, White House officials said, Washington is standing by the 2007 conclusions of its intelligence community that Iran has shelved efforts to "weaponize"—or turn its enriched nuclear materials into a nuclear weapon. At the same time, as President Barack Obama pressed for tougher sanctions, the senior administration officials didn't try to refute the IAEA's conclusions.

Iran's "pattern of behavior is very disturbing," one senior administration official said.

The report also confirmed that Iran has produced its first batch of uranium enriched to 20% purity, a level suitable for use in Iran's medical-research reactor. Iran insists its nuclear activities serve only peaceful purposes. Uranium must be enriched much further to be suitable for a weapon.

In the report, Mr. Amano cites open questions about "possible military dimensions" of Iran's nuclear program, adding that Iran has failed to explain the "procurement and R&D activities of military related institutes and companies."

The IAEA has asked Iran to discuss "the project and management structure of alleged activities related to nuclear explosives," the report says.

At the same time, U.S. administration officials said the report underscores the technical difficulties facing the Iranian nuclear program. The number of operating centrifuges producing enriched uranium has actually dropped since the last IAEA report. The enrichment program is operating at less than half its capacity.

The program is producing about 100 grams of 20%-enriched uranium a day, or about seven pounds a month. At that rate it would take five to seven years to produce enough material to make a bomb, administration officials said.

The secret nuclear site at Qom, which U.S., French and British heads of state unmasked with a flourish in September, is still largely inactive. Iran appears to be running out of raw, mined uranium, or yellowcake, which it needs to enrich.

The agency's board of governors, which includes representatives of the U.S. and other international powers, is expected to discuss the report at its meeting beginning March 1.

Mr. Amano became head of the IAEA in December, replacing Mr. ElBaradei, a lawyer and diplomat who during his 12-year tenure won a Nobel Peace Prize shared with the agency's staff.

Mr. Amano told The Wall Street Journal earlier this month that talks with Iran are at a delicate stage. He declined to provide details.

Earlier this month, Iran notified the IAEA of its intention to enrich uranium to the nearly 20% purity required to fuel its medical-research reactor. That process began Feb. 9, a day before IAEA inspectors arrived at the Pilot Fuel Enrichment Plant located at Natanz, Iran.

Low-enriched uranium can be used to produce electricity in a nuclear power plant, or it can be enriched further in a complicated process to a much higher level of purity, and used to build a nuclear weapon.

In October, Iran offered to export most of its stocks of low-enriched uranium for reprocessing into fuel for a medical research reactor. However, talks with the U.S., Western European countries and Russia faltered and the deal was never sealed.

The draft agreement envisioned Iran shipping out the bulk of its low-enriched uranium to Russia, which would enrich it further for use in an Iranian medical-research reactor. The plan was designed to temporarily keep Iran's store of low-enriched nuclear fuel below the threshold required to build a nuclear weapon.

The deal was seen as an important first step in winning cooperation with Iran over its nuclear ambitions.

incarcerated

02-19-2010, 10:44

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-02-19/iran-supreme-leader-denies-nuclear-bomb-plan-says-forbidden-.html

Iran Supreme Leader Denies Nuclear Bomb Plan, Says ‘Forbidden’

February 19, 2010, 10:04 AM EST
By Ali Sheikholeslami

Feb. 19 (Bloomberg) -- Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said Iran deems nuclear weapons to be prohibited under Islam and isn’t seeking to build them, after the International Atomic Energy Agency announced the country may have been working on a warhead.

“Our religious beliefs consider such weapons forbidden as symbols of destruction,” Khamenei said today after he presided at a ceremony where Iran’s first domestically made guided- missile destroyer was put into service from a base in the Persian Gulf. “We don’t believe in atomic bombs and we do not seek one.”

Speaking to military commanders and staff, Khamenei said comments in recent days by Western officials that Iran has a nuclear weapons program were “outdated and nonsensical,” the state-run Mehr news agency reported....

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iWHfIO1lFCuRe9_L_ACa8ozXZAWw

Iran navy launches domestically made destroyer

(AFP) – 5 hours ago
TEHRAN — Iran's navy on Friday has launched in the Gulf its first domestically made destroyer in a ceremony attend by the supreme leader and the commander-in-chief Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the media reported.

"Iran's navy on Friday took the delivery of the first indigenously designed and developed guided missile destroyer "Jamaran" in the Persian Gulf," Iran's English-language Press TV reported.

The vessel has a displacement of around 14,000 tonnes and is equipped with modern radars and electronic warfare capabilities, the report said.

"Jamaran, a multi-mission destroyer, can carry 120-140 personnel on board and is armed with a variety of anti-ship and surface-to-air missiles with a top speed of up to 30 knots and has a helipad," the report added. "The vessel has also been equipped with torpedoes and modern naval cannons."

State television also showed footage of the vessel and the ceremony at which it was launched by Khamenei flanked by the top Iranian military commanders.

Much of Iran's naval equipment dates from before the 1979 Islamic revolution and is US made. Since the revolution, Tehran has purchased a number of Russian-made submarines.

In the past year Iranian navy has carried out a number of missions in the Gulf of Aden and offshore Somalia where it was commissioned to escort Iranian merchant ships and oil tankers....

rdret1

02-19-2010, 11:02

Any response cannot be overt because it would only favor the Iranian theocracy and cause nothing but TROUBLE for Israel and what is viewed in that part of the world as its 'lap dog'.

And so it goes...

Richard's $.02 :munchin

The "Jason Lewis Show" was making this very point last night. He quoted an interview with the son of the former Shah of Iran (who lives in the U.S. now), who stated any direct action would only drive current dissidents back into the fold.

incarcerated

02-21-2010, 17:11

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jzGq5R0PZqsUqDbfy8WgvNjAqzOA

US to pursue pressure track on Iran: Petraeus

By Stephanie Griffith (AFP) – 1 hour ago
WASHINGTON — The United States is raising the stakes in its bid to halt Iran's nuclear program, putting the issue on a "pressure track," top US general David Petraeus said Sunday....

"I think that no one at the end of this time can say that the United States and the rest of the world have not given Iran every opportunity to resolve the issues diplomatically," Petraeus, the head of US Central Command, said.

"That puts us in a solid foundation now to go on what is termed the pressure track. That's the course on which we are embarked now," he told NBC television's "Meet the Press" program.

Petraeus said the administration intends to "send the kind of signal to Iran about the very serious concerns that the countries in the region and, indeed, the entire world have... about Iran's activities in the nuclear program."

Concerns on Iran rose last week when the International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN's nuclear watchdog, said it suspected that Tehran might already be trying to develop a nuclear warhead.

A US intelligence report in 2007 said Iran halted such research in 2003, but the latest IAEA report gives credence to the belief held by some Western countries that the program continued.

Petraeus suggested that Iran's recent actions were leading US intelligence agencies to update their estimations.

"There is no question that some of the activities have advanced during that time. There is also a new national intelligence estimate being developed by our intelligence community in the United States," he said....

Shans84

02-21-2010, 17:41

I am thinking in the future that maybe some sort of joint clandestine mission to be in the works on dealing with this problem. IMO

incarcerated

03-05-2010, 11:25

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1154412.html

Iran: Bushehr nuclear plant to be operational in spring

By Reuters
Last update - 18:15 05/03/2010
Iran's long-delayed Bushehr nuclear plant will be launched within a few months, an Iranian energy official said on Friday.

"This plant will be launched according to schedule at the end of the spring and will run the same as the other nuclear plants in the world," Ali Akbar Saleh, head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organisation said in quotes carried by news agency ILNA.

The Iranian spring ends in late June....

incarcerated

03-19-2010, 04:33

Iran: Bushehr nuclear plant to be operational in spring

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748704207504575129651710721366.html

Russia Greets Clinton With Gift to Iran

MARCH 19, 2010
By JAY SOLOMON And RICHARD BOUDREAUX
MOSCOW—Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said Thursday that Russia will help Iran launch its first nuclear power plant this summer, delivering a diplomatic slap to visiting U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and a blow to U.S.-led efforts to increase financial pressure on Tehran.

Mr. Putin's announcement, made at a conference on Russia's nuclear-power industry in the southern city of Volgodonsk, took Mrs. Clinton's entourage by surprise and drew a swift rebuke. Mrs. Clinton is on a two-day visit to Moscow to work, in part, on forging a united front with Russia on addressing Iran's continuing push to develop nuclear technologies....

Mr. Putin's comments come as the Obama administration has endured other slights on the global stage in recent weeks. Israel's government announced new construction in disputed East Jerusalem during a visit by Vice President Joe Biden last week. Chinese officials have rebuffed U.S. calls for a revaluing of the yuan and greater Internet freedoms....

Richard

03-22-2010, 05:18

Given how much it has at stake in Iran's future, China might even find it in its own interest to get Iran to the negotiating table, said Lawrence Goldstein, an energy expert.

"The key is what role China is prepared to play," he said. "The Chinese have a lot to lose if things go wrong in Iran."

And so it goes...

Richard

Iran overplaying its hand
Jad Mouawad, DMN, 12 Mar 2010

Diplomacy and energy are never far apart in the Persian Gulf. So, as U.S. officials seek new international sanctions against Iran, it's probably wise for them to remember how much the world's global energy map has changed over the past decade.

Iran's leaders certainly do, and they've been counting on their increased ties with Asian countries, especially China, as their trump card against efforts to hem in their nuclear program.

At the same time, the Iranians may want to reconsider just how much that trump card is worth. A number of experts say it is losing its value with each month the stalemate over its nuclear program continues.

The argument that Iran may be much less vulnerable to sanctions than Washington would wish is based largely on the long-term stakes that three powers in the U.N. Security Council – China, Russia and France – have in the future of Iran's energy resources, either as customers, investors or potential partners.

In addition, Iran, which holds the world's second-biggest oil and gas reserves and supplies about 4.5 percent of the world's oil production, recently signaled that it could flex its muscles if it felt threatened, by briefly occupying a disputed oil field on the Iraqi border. The move was a reminder of Iran's unhappiness that Iraq is attracting foreign oil investments, and of Iran's ability to stop traffic in the Strait of Hormuz.

Iran has linked its oil policies to strategic goals for decades. In the 1990s, it tried to court American companies as a step toward political detente with Washington. When that failed, it turned to European and Japanese companies, and later to Chinese and other Asian companies.

Iran has also outlined plans to build a gas pipeline to India via Pakistan and another to Turkey that might eventually supply Europe. It is already Beijing's second-biggest oil supplier after Saudi Arabia.

"Iran considers its oil and gas sector as a strategic asset," said Flynt Leverett, a senior fellow at the New America Foundation and a critic of the administration's effort to strengthen sanctions. "Relations with China also don't come with any baggage. It gives them some leverage."

But that strategy is hardly foolproof, and it is already showing some strains.

For one, the prospect of Iran's achieving the ability to make a nuclear bomb has cooled European enthusiasm for investing. European companies that include Royal Dutch Shell, Repsol of Spain and France's Total have decided that their involvement in Iran was too risky; that is one reason the door was open so wide to China.

And in recent months, Russia's support for sanctions, though still tenuous, has grown.

Iran still may be counting on China to use its power in the Security Council and its leverage in Washington to shield it against international sanctions that could really hurt, like a ban on gasoline exports to Iran, as well as unilateral U.S. sanctions. But some analysts believe that would be expecting too much; they point out that China has been reluctant to openly challenge America, especially in the Persian Gulf.

"The Iranians are overconfident in the Chinese reliance on them," said Jon Alterman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Meanwhile, Iran's energy sector has glaring weaknesses. It has few refineries, imports about 40 percent of its gasoline, and struggles to keep oil production from falling. Erica Downs of the Brookings Institution in Washington says it is unclear how much money the Chinese have spent so far.

"The Iranians aren't getting all they were hoping for from China," she said.

The global recession isn't helping. Iran needs oil prices to stay up at $90 a barrel to balance its budget, according to PFC Energy, a consulting firm in Washington. Also, unlike a few years ago when the world's oil system could barely keep up with growing demand, there now is ample spare capacity, much of it in Saudi Arabia.

Cliff Kupchan, a former State Department official and now a director at the New York consulting firm Eurasia Group, said this meant Iran no longer held a "trump card" when it comes to oil.

That's a point Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton made last month in Saudi Arabia, where she asked King Abdullah to guarantee more oil to China to help persuade the Chinese not to block new sanctions. She also suggested that China's Persian Gulf oil supplies could be threatened by a nuclear Iran.

Given how much it has at stake in Iran's future, China might even find it in its own interest to get Iran to the negotiating table, said Lawrence Goldstein, an energy expert.

"The key is what role China is prepared to play," he said. "The Chinese have a lot to lose if things go wrong in Iran."

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/points/stories/DN-mouawad_14edi.State.Edition1.2b75d5d.html

incarcerated

08-15-2010, 01:30

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703960004575427692284277852.html

U.S.-Saudi Arms Plan Grows to Record Size

MIDDLE EAST NEWS
AUGUST 14, 2010
By ADAM ENTOUS
WASHINGTON—The Obama administration plans to include attack helicopters in an expanded arms package for Saudi Arabia, swelling the size of the proposed deal to as much as $60 billion over 10 years, according to officials familiar with the matter.

The deal would be the largest overseas U.S. arms sale, the officials said, though the size could change as the package is finalized, one official said.

Negotiated largely in secret because of the sensitivities in the region, the sale is part of a strategy spearheaded by the George W. Bush administration and expanded by President Barack Obama to beef up the militaries of Arab allies as a counterweight to Iran. Saudi Arabia, home to the birthplace of Islam, claims leadership of the Sunni world, making it a rival of Iran, which is predominantly Shia.

The size and scope of the Saudi deal has stoked concerns in Israel that Washington risks undercutting Jerusalem's military edge. Officials said some weapons systems strongly opposed by the Jewish states won't be included in the package, assuaging some of the Jewish state's concerns.

Israel considers Iran its archenemy but also views Saudi Arabia as a potential future threat to the Jewish state. Israeli and Saudi embassy officials in Washington had no immediate comment on the proposed helicopter sales.

New details about the deal include plans to sell the Saudis about 70 UH-60 Black Hawk helicopters and up to 60 Longbow Apache attack helicopters together worth about $30 billion. That comes on top of a previously disclosed $30 billion tranche that includes 84 Boeing Co. F-15s and upgrades to older fighters in the Saudis fleet.

Boeing makes the Apache. The Black Hawk is manufactured by United Technologies unit Sikorsky.

The package will also include flight simulators, spare parts and long-term support for the planes and helicopters, the officials said.

The Obama administration is expected to formally notify Congress next month about the deal. Lawmakers close to Israel could hold up parts of the sale or seek assurances of their own that Israel's military edge won't be compromised.

The Pentagon declined to comment on the details of the package.

U.S. officials said weapons systems were excluded from the sale if they were deemed not conducive to regional stability, or if they were objectionable to Israel or Congress. A senior U.S. defense official said of the Israeli response to the Saudi package: "There is a heightened anxiousness about their security situation, and it is not just because of Iran."

Officials said the Saudi F-15s wouldn't be equipped with so-called standoff systems, advanced long-range weapons that can be attached to the fighter for use in offensive operations against land- and sea-based targets. Giving standoff systems to the Saudis would have crossed Israel's red line, an official in the region said.

The Apache sale would also exclude certain weapons opposed by Israel, said officials, who declined to provide further details.

The Saudi deal could increase pressure on Israel to quickly commit to buying the F-35, also known as the Joint Strike Fighter, which Lockheed Martin Corp. could start delivering as early as 2015, around the same time the Saudis would begin to get new F-15s.

A senior U.S. defense official said the Joint Strike Fighter would be "the most stealthy, sophisticated and lethal tactical fighter in the sky," adding: "Quite simply, the F-15 will be no match for the F-35."

Israel has been seeking assurances that it could customize the new fighter with Israeli technology, a request that has received a cool reception in Washington. The F-35 is already the costliest and most technically challenging weapons program the Pentagon has ever attempted.

"We've had enough experience with these things that it's possible to come up with a package that reassures the Saudis but doesn't alarm the Israelis. But if we don't succeed, the Saudis are perfectly capable of taking their business elsewhere," said John Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org, which tracks such deals.

Saudi officials, in private, chafe over the leverage Israel has over its weapons purchases from U.S. suppliers, from its purchases of its first AWACs planes in the 1980s to the F-15 fighter jet purchases in the early 1990s.

As a way to counter Israeli pressure or vetoes over such purchases, the Saudis in recent years have sought more European- and Russian-made weaponry. That thinking was partially behind the 2007 deal to purchase dozens of Eurofighter fighter planes from BAE Systems, according to Saudi officials.

Flush with oil cash, Saudi Arabia has become a top weapons buyer. It spent $36.7 billion worldwide on arms between 2001 and 2008, according to a Congressional Research Service report.

In additional to Saudi Arabia, the Obama administration has moved aggressively to sell sophisticated arms to the United Arab Emirates and other Gulf states, as well as to provide support on a much smaller scale to the Lebanese Army.

—Julian E. Barnes in Washington and Margaret Coker in Abu Dhabi contributed to this article.

See also:
http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=184759

CombatMuffin

08-15-2010, 18:17

I was reading part of an International Law book last semester( I'll check out the info on it tomorrow in the library*) about the actual practical use of Nuclear weapons in today's battlefield...

What was interesting about the author's explanation was that Nuclear Weapons have more intimidation potential than as a practical instrument for victory, considering the political consequences that using a WMD brings about.

Iran has long been pulling the international community's sleeve about nuclear capability, but I'd be more interested in a practical demonstration(a nuclear plant or test detonation), instead of just talking the talk. Few countries would dare use WMD's as a first strike, since most other countries with a nuclear arsenal would probably respond in kind, or threaten to.

That being said, I'm curious to know where they got the uranium(local or import), because even if they, as a government, don't plan on using it as a weapon, they could easily pass it on to less scrupulous organizations to use it for them.

EDIT: Checked the Source at the library. Its a book called "Derecho Internacional" by author Cesar Sepulveda, from a reputed editorial called Porrua.

nmap

08-15-2010, 18:26

That being said, I'm curious to know where they got the uranium(local or import), because even if they, as a government, don't plan on using it as a weapon, they could easily pass it on to less scrupulous organizations to use it for them.

Locally, apparently. LINK (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aMtzNb9WS83I)

incarcerated

08-16-2010, 09:19

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/08/16/iran.nuclear/?hpt=T2#fbid=an8l-u-mwY0&wom=false

Iran will build uranium enrichment centers, nuclear chief says

By the CNN Wire Staff
August 16, 2010 -- Updated 1354 GMT (2154 HKT)
Tehran, Iran (CNN) -- Iran plans to begin construction of 10 uranium enrichment centers across the country by next year, state-run media is quoting Iran's nuclear chief as saying.

After a cabinet meeting Sunday, Ali Akbar Salehi told IRIB, a state network, that work on one of the centers will be started by March 2011.

Over the weekend, a top Iranian lawmaker defended his nation's right to enrich uranium in the future after Iran and Russia confirmed that Russians will start loading a nuclear reactor in the Islamic republic with fuel next week.

The August 21 arrival of fuel at the Bushehr facility, which Iran says will create atomic energy but other nations fear could be used for nuclear weapons, marks a key step toward its completion, Russia said Saturday, according to Iranian media.

The progress prompted the White House to question Iran continuing to enrich uranium within its borders, even as the project with Russia moves closer to completion.

"Russia is providing the fuel, and taking the fuel back out," White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Friday.

"It, quite clearly, I think, underscores that Iran does not need its own enrichment capability if its intentions, as it states, are for a peaceful nuclear program," he said.

Alaeddin Boroujerdi, head of the Iranian parliament's National Security and Foreign Policy Commission, responded Saturday by saying that Moscow will supply enriched uranium for the Bushehr plant as Iran plans to build a dozen more nuclear plants in the future, the semi-official Fars news agency reported.

"We in the parliament have tasked the government with producing 20,000 megawatts of nuclear electricity. That means setting up 20 power plants like Bushehr," said Boroujerdi. "To supply the fuel needed for these power plants ... we should carry out (uranium) enrichment and we are doing it," he said.

The head of Russia's Federal Atomic Energy Agency will visit Iran next week, Fars reported Friday. A Russian group is already in Iran to make the necessary arrangements for his arrival.

"This event will symbolize that the period of testing is over and the stage of physical start-up has begun," said Sergei Novikov, spokesman for Russia's Federal Atomic Energy Agency.

The reactor in the western Iranian port city of Bushehr will be operational by the third week of September, Fars said, though Novikov said the plant will not be ready to produce energy for another six months.

The United States has urged Russia to wait, saying more evidence is needed that Iran doesn't plan to use the site to make weapons.

Novikov said the fuel's arrival and loading into the plant will be monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency....

Earlier this month, the United States extended sanctions against Iran, saying it was targeting a number of Iranian businesses and groups accused of helping organizations such as Hezbollah, Hamas and the Taliban.

In June, the U.S. Treasury Department announced sanctions targeting the country's nuclear and missile programs -- identifying more than 20 companies and several individuals allegedly involved with those programs.

incarcerated

08-17-2010, 09:18

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g6uWFs6yHUSJ40tPbKfkSIxnteywD9HL78200

Iranian fighter jet crashes near nuclear plant

(AP) – 3 hours ago
TEHRAN, Iran — An Iranian fighter jet crashed Tuesday in southern Iran near the country's nuclear power plant that is to start up over the weekend, a semi-official news agency reported. The two pilots ejected safely.

The Fars agency quoted local government official Gholam Reza Keshtkar as saying one of Iranian airforce's F-4 planes crashed about four miles (six kilometers) north of the city of Bushehr. The city is located 745 miles (1,200 kilometers) south of the capital, Tehran.

Keshtkar said the pilot and co-pilot ejected safely from the plane before it crashed but were rushed to the hospital in Bushehr. He didn't provide other details.

Another local official, Mohammad Hasan Shanbadi, said technical failure was the cause of the crash but did not elaborate. He said the plane crashed in the desert, close to an industrial center.

The Bushehr nuclear power plant — Iran's first such facility — is expected to start fueling up this weekend.

Iran purchased many U.S.-made planes, including scores of McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom IIs before the 1979 Islamic Revolution and during the rule of the late pro-Western Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.

Richard

08-17-2010, 19:17

MOO - but regarding Iran and its quest for a nuclear capability:

Prestige (internal and external)
Membership in the Exclusive 'Big Boys' (nuclear) Club...and more prestige
Parity with Israel (a festering diplomatic sore)...and more prestige
Parity with Pakistan/India (another festering diplomatic sore)...and yet more prestige
Prestige
:confused:

Richard's $.02 :munchin

Nightflyer

08-17-2010, 20:10

I hear that Isreal has a three day window to hit Iran before the Russians supply the fuel. After the window closes and Isreal decides to hit the reactor afterwards, the fall out of radioactive emissions could reach the Sea and water supply. I also heard, that Isreal hit two other power plants before in the past. Both times they hit the power plants it was before any fuel was added. I forget the names of the two other countries

Night

The Reaper

08-17-2010, 20:19

Nightflyer

08-18-2010, 03:23

What is your point here, to demonstrate that you cannot spell Israel or to show your ignorance of military history?

TR

Iran warned Tuesday that any attack on its nuclear power plant would be an "international crime."

The head of Iran's nuclear agency, Ali Akbar Salehi, issued the warning in an interview with Iranian media as the country prepares to start up a Russian-fueled reactor for the first time.

Iran is planning to launch the Bushehr power plant on August 21, using fuel delivered by Russia. The plant would begin generating electricity days after that.

Iran says observers from the United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency will supervise the process.

Iran is under four sets of U.N. sanctions for its nuclear program, which the United States and other countries say is aimed at creating a weapon. Tehran says its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes.

The sanctions are in reaction to Iran's refusal to stop enriching uranium - a process that eventually can create the material for a nuclear bomb. Iran says it is only trying to process fuel to power civilian reactors.

On Monday, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said the nuclear fuel arrangement with Russia shows there is no need for Iran to enrich its own uranium.

Meantime, the former U.S. representative to the United Nations, John Bolton, told Fox News that Israel has until August 21 to attack the Bushehr facility. He said after that point there is too high a risk of spreading radiation. Bolton added that he does not think it is very likely Israel will actually launch an attack in the next week.

Israel is one of the harshest critics of Iran's nuclear program, and fears Iranian possession of an atomic weapon could lead to the destruction of the Jewish state.

Israel didn't wait till the fueling stage to begin when they attacked Syria or Iraq..

Night

CombatMuffin

08-18-2010, 23:12

Locally, apparently. LINK (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aMtzNb9WS83I)

Thank you for the link, that was actually spot on, and interesting.

MOO - but regarding Iran and its quest for a nuclear capability:

* Prestige (internal and external)
* Membership in the Exclusive 'Big Boys' (nuclear) Club...and more prestige
* Parity with Israel (a festering diplomatic sore)...and more prestige
* Parity with Pakistan/India (another festering diplomatic sore)...and yet more prestige
* Prestige

I agree completely, sir. Prestige plays an enormous card in Iran's play. One would have to wonder however, the prudence of its leadership in developing a nuclear program when the country could be using those resources towards safer and more economically sound choices.

Even if it was for peaceful purposes, do they have the tools(and willingness) to keep those resources tight and secure? Apparently 29 countries (http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/nuclear_statistics/worldstatistics/) benefit from nuclear energy, and there's 440 plants around the globe. Upon reading some of the information, I realized most of this countries are close and under heavy vigilance of the world's powers, with a handful causing tensions nowadays(the biggest one perhaps being N.Korea, not sure).

Its funny how much one learns from these topics: I had no idea Israel had performed an airstrike against an unfinished Iraqi Nuclear Plant back in '81. I'm sure many already knew, but its not unsound to think something like that could repeat itself in a similar fashion with Iran.

Richard

09-02-2010, 05:10

Reza Aslan, an Iranian-American writer, is a member of the faculty at the University of California, Riverside, and the author of “Beyond Fundamentalism: Confronting Religious Extremism in a Globalized World.” Bernard Avishai is adjunct professor of business at Hebrew University and the author, most recently, of “The Hebrew Republic: How Secular Democracy and Global Enterprise Will Bring Israel Peace At Last.”

Perhaps...

Richard :munchin

Stop the War Talk
IHT, 1 Sep 2010

The Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is in Washington, purportedly to be part of the Obama administration’s relaunch of peace negotiations. But the urgent talk is of war, thanks to Jeffrey Goldberg’s much-discussed Atlantic Monthly cover article, which faithfully reproduced the logic of Israeli military and political leaders.

{http://www.theatlantic.com/debates/israel-iran/ }

According to this, even Israelis who doubt that a nuclear Iran would immediately attack Tel Aviv argue that the threat is “existential.” An Iranian bomb would provide a “nuclear umbrella” for Hezbollah missiles and Hamas terrorism. It would force the Gulf states to ally with Iran against the United States and its cornered ally. Israel’s only option is a pre-emptive strike, like the ones it carried out against nuclear reactors in Iraq and Syria. It is only a matter of time.

The logic seems to be pushing on an open door. In the United States, an impressive 65 percent of Americans would support military action, according to a recent FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. Indeed — so the logic continues — the U.S. military would do a better job against Iran’s nuclear facilities, and the United States would surely be blamed for, and suffer the consequences of, any pre-emptive attack by Israel. So shouldn’t the U.S. carry out the strike itself? Shouldn’t Israel’s friends in America prepare the ground?

This drumbeat must be silenced, and only President Obama can silence it.

An Israeli attack on Iran would almost certainly precipitate a devastating regional war with unforeseeable global consequences.

Iran is not Syria, with no immediate capacity to retaliate against a surprise attack on its nuclear sites. Iran is a country of 70 million people, and its commanders, battle-hardened by a brutal eight-year stand-off with Iraq, have the ability and will to engage in a long, protracted war against Israel and American interests. Iran maintains a large military equipped with Russian-made weapons systems, surface-to-surface missiles, combat aircraft, unmanned drones and high-speed torpedo boats capable of destroying large warships.

Iran’s elite Revolutionary Guard has extended its reach from southern Lebanon to South America and maintains proxy forces — again, Hezbollah and Hamas — positioned in Israel’s back yard. They’ll force Israel to fight a war of attrition on multiple fronts.

Israel would likely be compelled to extend its military operations to include Lebanon. That would instantly plunge the entire region into war, likely bring a new intifada onto Jerusalem’s streets and place enormous pressure on leaders in Cairo and Amman to renounce their peace treaties with Israel. If Israeli planes use Saudi airspace, Iran has threatened to attack the kingdom, too.

The United States, for its part, could forget about the withdrawal of its forces from Iraq and the drawdown of troops in Afghanistan. There are up to 30,000 Iranian operatives in Iraq ready to do Iran’s bidding. And Iran enjoys significant loyalty from Afghan officials and warlords, particularly those in the trouble-prone region of Herat.

Iran has repeatedly said that it would, in the case of an attack, shut down the Strait of Hormuz, through which roughly 17 million barrels of oil pass every day, spiking oil prices and devastating America’s financial recovery.

All of this could engender a serious diplomatic crisis between the United States and Russia — respectively Israel’s and Iran’s patrons — at a time when U.S.-Russian relations are improving.

Netanyahu says Iran is led by “a messianic apocalyptic cult” and that failure to attack is appeasement. But surely not every year is 1938, not every statesman who fears the nemesis of war is Chamberlain.

Iran’s leaders, ruthless as they clearly are, are not crazed men looking for a 10-megaton exploding belt. They know that Israel has up to 200 warheads and a second-strike capacity in missile-carrying submarines. They also know that incinerating Tel Aviv means irradiating all of Palestine — that destroying Israel means the destruction of Tehran, Qum and their other great cities. They have repeatedly and formally declared they would make peace with Israel along any lines acceptable to the Palestinians. Nothing will reinforce their hold on power like a surprise attack in which hundreds, if not thousands, are killed.

And exactly what is a “nuclear umbrella”? Did the absence of a nuclear Iran stop Hezbollah from attacking Israel in 2006? If war resumes, God forbid, would a nuclear Iran keep Israel from attacking Hezbollah missile sites in Lebanon any more than, say, the images of bombed out Beirut apartment buildings on CNN?

Most plausibly, Iran wants a nuclear weapon for much the same reason Israel developed one: as an ultimate hedge against invasion by superior conventional forces.

In the Atlantic Monthly article, Goldberg — stretching the words of one ambassador from the Emirates — argues that if Iran becomes a nuclear power, “the small Arab countries of the Gulf would have no choice but to leave the American orbit and ally themselves with Iran.” But to suppose that the Gulf states — utterly dependent on the West culturally, technologically and militarily — would ally with Iran because of a bomb is fatuous.

Mohamed ElBaradei, the former chief of the International Atomic Energy Agency and an Egyptian, has called a strike “completely insane,” arguing that it would “turn the region into one big fireball” and that the Iranians “would immediately start building the bomb — and they could count on the support of the entire Islamic world.”

A former Israeli intelligence boss, Ephraim Halevy, and a former military chief of Staff, Amnon Lipkin-Shahak, have issued similar warnings.

Clearly, an Iranian bomb would cause irreparable damage to the global anti-proliferation regime, add a threat to Israel and complicate American foreign policy. All nonviolent diplomatic means should be used to prevent this.

But if a year from now we are confronted by an Iran crossing the nuclear threshold, that would be a lesser evil than what we will confront in the wake of an attack to prevent this.

If President Obama has the nerves for risk, he should rather gamble on rallying the international community to force through an Israeli-Palestinian deal within a year. That would not mean an end to the anti-Western leaders clinging to power in Tehran, but it would certainly do more to reduce their motivation to attack Israel than a temporary setback to their nuclear program would.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/02/opinion/02iht-edaslan.html?ref=global-home&pagewanted=all

Richard

11-19-2010, 05:48

SURPRISE! 'Somebody' thinks Iran should not have a nuclear capability...;)

Richard :munchin

Worm Was Perfect for Sabotaging Centrifuges
NYT, 18 Nov 2010

Experts dissecting the computer worm suspected of being aimed at Iran’s nuclear program have determined that it was precisely calibrated in a way that could send nuclear centrifuges wildly out of control.

Their conclusion, while not definitive, begins to clear some of the fog around the Stuxnet worm, a malicious program detected earlier this year on computers, primarily in Iran but also India, Indonesia and other countries.

The paternity of the worm is still in dispute, but in recent weeks officials from Israel have broken into wide smiles when asked whether Israel was behind the attack, or knew who was. American officials have suggested it originated abroad.

The new forensic work narrows the range of targets and deciphers the worm’s plan of attack. Computer analysts say Stuxnet does its damage by making quick changes in the rotational speed of motors, shifting them rapidly up and down.

Changing the speed “sabotages the normal operation of the industrial control process,” Eric Chien, a researcher at the computer security company Symantec, wrote in a blog post.

Those fluctuations, nuclear analysts said in response to the report, are a recipe for disaster among the thousands of centrifuges spinning in Iran to enrich uranium, which can fuel reactors or bombs. Rapid changes can cause them to blow apart. Reports issued by international inspectors reveal that Iran has experienced many problems keeping its centrifuges running, with hundreds removed from active service since summer 2009.

Intelligence officials have said they believe that a series of covert programs are responsible for at least some of that decline. So when Iran reported earlier this year that it was battling the Stuxnet worm, many experts immediately suspected that it was a state-sponsored cyberattack.

Until last week, analysts had said only that Stuxnet was designed to infect certain kinds of Siemens equipment used in a wide variety of industrial sites around the world.

But a study released Friday by Mr. Chien, Nicolas Falliere and Liam O. Murchu at Symantec, concluded that the program’s real target was to take over frequency converters, a type of power supply that changes its output frequency to control the speed of a motor.

The worm’s code was found to attack converters made by two companies, Fararo Paya in Iran and Vacon in Finland. A separate study conducted by the Department of Homeland Security confirmed that finding, a senior government official said in an interview on Thursday.

Then, on Wednesday, Mr. Albright and a colleague, Andrea Stricker, released a report saying that when the worm ramped up the frequency of the electrical current supplying the centrifuges, they would spin faster and faster. The worm eventually makes the current hit 1,410 Hertz, or cycles per second — just enough, they reported, to send the centrifuges flying apart.

In a spooky flourish, Mr. Albright said in the interview, the worm ends the attack with a command to restore the current to the perfect operating frequency for the centrifuges — which, by that time, would presumably be destroyed.

“It’s striking how close it is to the standard value,” he said.

The computer analysis, his Wednesday report concluded, “makes a legitimate case that Stuxnet could indeed disrupt or destroy” Iranian centrifuge plants.

The latest evidence does not prove Iran was the target, and there have been no confirmed reports of industrial damage linked to Stuxnet. Converters are used to control a number of different machines, including lathes, saws and turbines, and they can be found in gas pipelines and chemical plants. But converters are also essential for nuclear centrifuges.

On Wednesday, the chief of the Department of Homeland Security’s cybersecurity center in Virginia, Sean McGurk, told a Senate committee that the worm was a “game changer” because of the skill with which it was composed and the care with which it was geared toward attacking specific types of equipment.

Meanwhile, the search for other clues in the Stuxnet program continues — and so do the theories about its origins.

Ralph Langner, a German expert in industrial control systems who has examined the program and who was the first to suggest that the Stuxnet worm may have been aimed at Iran, noted in late September that a file inside the code was named “Myrtus.” That could be read as an allusion to Esther, and he and others speculated it was a reference to the Book of Esther, the Old Testament tale in which the Jews pre-empt a Persian plot to destroy them.

Writing on his Web site last week, Mr. Langner noted that a number of the data modules inside the program contained the date “Sept. 24, 2001,” clearly long before the program was written. He wrote that he believed the date was a message from the authors of the program, but did not know what it might mean.

Last month, researchers at Symantec also speculated that a string of numbers found in the program — 19790509 — while seeming random, might actually be significant. They speculated that it might refer to May 9, 1979, the day that Jewish-Iranian businessman Habib Elghanian was executed in Iran after being convicted of spying for Israel.

Interpreting what the clues might mean is a fascinating exercise for computer experts and conspiracy theorists, but it could also be a way to mislead investigators.

Indeed, according to one investigator, the creation date of the data modules might instead suggest that the original attack code in Stuxnet was written long before the program was actually distributed.

According to Tom Parker, a computer security specialist at Securicon LLC, a security consulting firm based in Washington, the Stuxnet payload appeared to have been written by a team of highly skilled programmers, while the “dropper” program that delivered the program reflected an amateur level of expertise. He said the fact that Stuxnet was detected and had spread widely in a number of countries was an indicator that it was a failed operation.

“The end target is going to be able to know they were the target, and the attacker won’t be able to use this technique again,” he said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/19/world/middleeast/19stuxnet.html