Iran close to uranium enrichment — so what do we do now?
According to the L.A. Times, “Iran is moving faster than expected and is just days from making the first steps toward enriching uranium”.
What does this mean? — “If engineers encounter no major technical problems, Iran could manufacture enough highly enriched uranium to build a bomb within three years, much more quickly than the common estimate of five to 10 years.”
Iran denies that it intends to build nuclear weapons, but its unwillingness to use Russian-enriched uranium (see here) suggests otherwise. The U.S. and the major European powers “believe Iran intends to build nuclear weapons”.
Is a diplomatic solution possible? Perhaps, but is Iran even willing to give up control of its nuclear program, or at least over the enrichment of uranium? That seems unlikely, given its moves to date. Could Iran be bought off? Perhaps, but what would it take? North Korea wants aid, that much is clear, but does Iran? In addition, who would lead the diplomatic effort? Whatever consensus there is on the U.N. Security Council is fragile. “The European Union and the Americans want to exert vigorous pressure on Iran… The U.S. and EU are willing to use a U.N. procedure that gives Security Council resolutions the force of law, and to impose sanctions.” But “Russia and China would be willing to allow Iran to retain a small cascade of centrifuges for research purposes.”
Before there can be a diplomatic solution to this escalating crisis, there needs to be some sort of agreement between the U.S. and the E.U. on one side and Russia and China on the other. Without the latter, forget the former.
Regardless, how long would such diplomacy take? If Iran is already close to being able to enrich its own uranium, there isn’t much time. And that — if we’re serious about stopping Iran from becoming a nuclear state — brings us to the prospect of non-diplomatic measures. And that invariably means either sanctions or military action of some sort.
I’m less and less confident that diplomacy will work. Sanctions won’t work if the major powers can’t even get on the same page. So are we ready to consider military options, such as tactical strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities?
The U.S. is bogged down in Iraq, to be sure, but the Iranian threat simply cannot be ignored.
(Make sure to read the whole L.A. Times article. This is serious stuff.)
opinions powered by SendLove.to
12 Responses to “Iran close to uranium enrichment — so what do we do now?”
There’s very little overlap between the forces we have in Iraq and the ones we would most likely employ against Iran. I don’t think the Pentagon is seriously considering an invasion of Iran. Taking out Iran’s nuclear facilities would involve air power, not ground troops, and that air power is not being used in Iraq.
A diplomatic solution is preferable. This basically comes down to Khamenei, as he’s the one holding the cards in Iran.
Yaeh let’s him hard! We can start with conventional. Then when all the Shia militia and government forces in Iraq start hitting our troops and the lost oil and threats elsewhere mess us up then lets NUKE them!
Yeah!
Whatever you do don’t listen to this guy.
http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/
Look at the garbage he writes. He even quotes stories from the traitor MSM that says the Isea says the things we said they say are pure speculation. Like we would lie!???
00:26 Mar 26, 2006
More on Iran Timeline
posted by paul under iran
The AP has more about the alleged accelerated pace of Iran’s centrifuge program.
Some people at the IAEA are none too amused by recent press reports on the matter:
—-
U.N. inspectors should know by next week how far Iran has advanced on the path to nuclear enrichment, diplomats said Saturday — findings that could shape Security Council action against Tehran and hurt U.S. claims that Iran has accelerated its efforts.
The International Atomic Energy Agency — the U.N. nuclear watchdog — is clearly rankled by the U.S. assertions just days ahead of a trip by IAEA inspectors to Natanz, the site of Iran’s known enrichment efforts.
IAEA officials normally refuse to be identified as such when discussing sensitive topics such as disputes with leading IAEA board members, such as the United States.
But reflecting exasperation, a senior agency official dropped such reservations Saturday as he called the U.S. claims that an agency briefing on the advances made by Iran on enrichment was a bombshell “pure speculation and misinformation.�
“It comes from people who are seeking a crisis, not a solution� to the confrontation over Iran, the official said.
The senior IAEA official did not offer details on the spat.
But a diplomat in Vienna, who demanded anonymity in exchange for discussing confidential information, said some U.S. administration officials were misrepresenting a recent briefing by the agency to Vienna-based representatives of America, Russia, China, France, and Britain — the five permanent Security Council members.
The information on where Iran was on enrichment and where it was headed was not new, but the U.S. officials claimed “the … IAEA was blown away by (Iran’s) progress and had the U.S. redefining its timeline� for Iran’s capacity to make its first nuclear weapon down to three years, the diplomat told The Associated Press.
—-
The 2008 worst-case estimate described in the Knight-Ridder piece is about a year ahead of David Albright and Corey Hinderstein’s.
It seems likely that this accelerated timeline has its roots in ElBaradei’s last report to the IAEA BoG, which says that Iran plans to install 3,000 centrifuges in the Natanz FEP beginning late this year. That is about twice the number of centrifuges ISIS says Iran needs for producing enough HEU for a weapon within a year.
So if we take Iran’s claim at face value, Natanz will have more cascades operating by 2007 than the ISIS timeline posits.
Whether Iran will get its first cascades running sooner than ISIS estimates is unclear. US officials may be assuming that Iran’s ability to install more centrifuges earlier than previously thought also indicates that it can get the cascades up and running sooner than previously thought.
Comment [4]
God I can’t believe the treason of the MSM!
David Horowitz’s fine magazine just published that Janes (probably British fags who pretend to know something about war) had published that N. Korea sold Iran nukes and rather than agreeing for the good of the world, Jane’s is denying they said this even though it was in David Horowitz’s reputable magazine!
http://cernigsnewshog.blogspot.com/
I think it’s Jane’s that lying and that they are using the alien technology that the Illuminati keeps at Groom Lake to go back in time and change their story. This is how low the traitors will stoop to keep us from attacking Iran in time to have a boost in the elections!!!
Super dooper ungood!!!
Republican, please take a valium before you come on here and use homophobic slurs and otherwise rant and rave without any clear purpose.
Just in time for the ’08 election! Another war. Rally around the prez. The Iranians have learned how to defy all known science and produce weapons 5 times faster than humanly possible! What a load of crap! The GOP will do anything to stay in power!
Mr Stickings:
The fact that Republican posts a story which shows that the IAEA has said the story you quote is based on “speculation” is quite relevant since the proof of this Iranian speedup is allegedly the IAEA.
If you don’t like it or evidence that other members of the rght are telling lies to create hysteria then that does not mean it’s irrelevant.
Also I think arms control wonk is a good source which gives a laywoman’s view of the complexities and provides the best availible sources of information.
If you prefer false quotes of the IEAE which have caused that agency to take the unusual step of reacting angrily then so be it. But do not attack others for bringing these things up.
We have reason to believe that distortions of nformation were used to justify rapid action against Iraq and you should not attack someone if they say similar patterns are appearing with Iran. You should look at the evidence rather than simply dismissing it.
This might be a good time to take another look at my post on the Options on Iran. It’s got plenty of links (from sane people) substantiating the claim that Iran is, in fact, pursuing nuclear weapons. At this point I consider the idea hardly to be doubted.
You might also want to take a look at my explanation for the rationality of the Iranian regime and why the Iranians aren’t deterred.
Mr Schuler:
You’re exactly right. As was Mr. Stickings who strangely enough acted like a patriot in this case. I should not have postyed articles that confused the gullible liberal who traitors who do not understand that:
is NOT whether the adminstration or others offered “speculation” as specific IEAE statements which the IEAE now denies and which formed the basis of the Knight Ridder story.
The ISSUE is whether or not Iran is going to build a nuclear weapon in which case falsifying evidence, creating a state of hysteria, pointing out that the weapon might come in 2 years rather than 3 and even saying as true patriots do that N. Korea has already given them one is necessary to stop the dilly dallying of trying to bring in other nations and muddling around with negotiations when this could mean we might not get to attack them right away and bring about all kinds of uprisings in Iraq and strange stalls in oil production and proof once again that the Republicans are necessary for national security.
And as Mr. Stickings points out it is NO FACTS in specific cases, but TRUTH that matters and if we say the IAEA said something and they say they didn’t will obviously the thing is to assert the greater truth which can be explained by the Illunimiati using the alien mind control machines to make the IAEA misremeber the past just like Jane’s denies that it ever said N. Korea evetr sold nukes to Iran despite this being in a PATRIOTIC TRUTH TELLING publication.
We must be aroused by the LA Times article whether it matches the facts or not because it is the TRUTH, the greater truth, the truth beyond facts.
Mr. Stickings understands this. Deep down he may be a real human being rather than a Democratic unperson.
I am sorry I brought up things that might confuse the unwary and enable the traitors when I only wanted to show how dastardly our MSM enemies are.
]
Mr Schuler:
You are employing a strawman. The issue here is not whether or not Iran in trying to make a weapon. For the sake of argument we will assume that it is.
The issue is the nature of the debate and the degree of hysteria aroused in the public.
You and Mr. Stickings strive to change the subject when an article that purports to claim the IAEA briefed administration officials on certain dangers is denied by the IEEA.
http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/
provides a far better view than your blog os the specifics and time frames of Iranian weapons development. It also notes the states of various international efforts. It is written by an expert and there are dissenting views by other knowlegeable individuals in the comments.
Note how in the article quoted above (by “Republican) it gives a timeline for the predicted accelerated date (2008) and the possible assumptions behind it.
Yet you and Mr. Stickings seem determined to confine the discussion to “Iran is getting weapons fast!” and to believe any article which supports this positin is good and that any questioning is ungood.
This mirrors the Iraqi debate where it was argued by administration supporters that if one believed Iraqi might be a danger and that military action might be necessary that the only possible attitude was to accept the time line, strategy and go it alone approach of the administration.
No one is arguing that Iran is not a danger. The question is why it appears the admninistration is planting stories such as this and why you and Mr. Stickings think this possible manipulation irrelevant.
I myself am leery of the thousand strike sorties estimated for this mission and the responses. While they may be necessary it appears we have some time and that muddling diplomacy and trying to bring the Chinese and Russians on board has some promise.
I am distrustful of stories which seem to distort facts to implant the notion of rapidly developed Iranian nukes on the public mind.
I didn’t rely on any planted stories for my conclusions but on the the Nuclear Threat Iniative, a non-partisan organization. You might want to take a look at the links before flinging charges.
Didn’t MAD work for 50 years, or was that my imagination?
So whoopity doo if Iran gets the bomb, Israel might finally have to let it be known they have around 250 themselves. Yes it will come as a great surprise to the supporters of Israel (much sarcasm), and make the IAEA have to inspect Israel (anti-semitism charges to come when that happens). But the assurance that Israel can, and will mutually erase Iran if they try anything should work. And if that doesn’t deter them from getting some nutty idea that using terrorists with small suicide nukes into Israel (much lower chance since Israel has real homeland security, unlike the US), the assurance that Israel would nuke all the Arab countries well within range of it’s missles (imagine Mecca, and Medina as a nuclear wasteland if you were a Muslim) should deter all of them pretty quickly.
The only reason some people are all upset is we wouldn’t be able to strongarm Iran with threats anymore, making them full owners of their oil for good.
So time for the US to get real homeland security, if they decide instead of Israel to target the US. Helluva lot cheaper to secure our boarders, seaports, and airports than run wars 7000 miles away, not to mention add a few jobs.
Of course someone will say I’m living in fantasyland for this stance, but how long can we keep fighting wars on the otherside of the planet? If we do, the fall of the second Roman empire is upon us…and we are that very empire.
Should US bomb Iran if Iran continues to develop its nuclear program?