Iran is now a "nuclear state"

[bandycpa]

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]

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.

[Utah Bob]

Originally Posted by afchic

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]

Originally Posted by afchic

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Team Sergeant

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?

Originally Posted by afchic

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.

[afchic]

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]

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

[Utah Bob]

Originally Posted by newbie

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.

I don't know where you read that but the Israelis will only use nukes when the shit Really hits the fan. They are fully capable of mounting a strike that would flatten Irans sites without irradiating greater metropolitan Persia.
And in case you hadn't noticed, Hamas, Hizbollah and their minions are pretty much engaged daily with the IDF already.
And your assessment is that the Iranians are more intelligent than the Arabs?
By the way, what's an "average Arab barbarian state"?

Originally Posted by afchic

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"

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 'atomics' 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 country is Sunni and one Shiite?? I surmise that it won't be Iran that uses a nuke but one of their little buddies that 'accident' gets their hands on one.. Hezbollah, Hamas, AQ.

[Utah Bob]

Originally Posted by armymom1228

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.
Great book. Weird movie.

[Dad]

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]

Originally Posted by afchic

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]

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/20100...33bfc02c6db6a1

"This report is republished with permission of STRATFOR"