Iran 3 years away from The Bomb....

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-08-22 12:36am

The Sunday Times

Reposted here because it requires registation

IRAN has warned British officials that it could produce enough enriched uranium in a year for a nuclear weapon — significantly raising the stakes in its stand-off with the West.

The claim was made during talks late last month between Iran and Britain, France and Germany but has only just come to light.

According to a high-ranking Washington diplomat, Tehran said that it was only months away from producing enough fissionable material for a bomb if it chose to, and only three years from making the device itself.

The revelation comes as the board of governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the world’s nuclear watchdog, prepares to meet to consider a report that will increase concerns over the Islamic state’s intentions.

John Bolton, America’s undersecretary of state for arms control, said Iranian officials made their position clear during secret talks with their counterparts from the three European Union states in Paris on July 29.

“They’ve told the ‘EU Three’ that they could enrich enough uranium for a nuclear weapon within a year,” Bolton said.

The Iranian comments, he said, suggested that if they were put under pressure they could turn their peaceful nuclear programme into a military one. “The assertion gives the lie to the public contention that their nuclear programme is entirely civil and peaceful in purpose,” he said.

The Foreign Office has made no mention of the Iranian threat, apparently for fear of deepening the rift between Iran and the West and strengthening the hand of hardliners who want to end co-operation.

Contacted by The Sunday Times, the Foreign Office at first denied that Iran had made the claim at the meeting, but later said it could not comment on diplomatic discussions. Privately officials are furious that Washington has divulged the contents of briefing notes passed to it in confidence.

If couched in the terms suggested by Washington, the Iranian statement amounts to a dramatic esclalation in the nuclear row that has developed over the summer.

It would signify that Iran is prepared to pull out of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty which obliges it to refrain from developing nuclear weapons, and implies that Tehran is at least two years closer to having the capability to build a nuclear bomb than many experts thought.

Iran has accused the EU Three of reneging on a protocol signed last year under which it agreed to allow international inspectors into its nuclear sites and to co-operate with the IAEA. In return, Iran expected to receive nuclear technology and expertise under the “Atoms for Peace” programme.

Britain and other nuclear powers have so far refused to supply help because of suspicions over Iran’s intentions.

* The National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), an opposition group, was the first to reveal the existence of two suspicious nuclear sites — a heavy water plant at Arak in central Iran and a partly buried site at Natanz capable of housing 50,000 centrifuges for enriching uranium. Farid Soleimani, a member of the foreign affairs council of the NCRI, said Iran had nuclear capability far in advance of what it had publicly admitted.

Iran already faces renewed criticism from the IAEA. In a report due to be completed on September 3, the agency describes the findings of its investigations into traces of weapons-grade uranium discovered by inspectors inside Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Iran claims an innocent explanation but the report, scheduled to be discussed by representatives of 35 countries on the IAEA’s board of governors at a meeting beginning on September 13, concludes that Iran still has questions to answer, according to information passed to The Sunday Times.

Nevertheless, the US government, which has taken an increasingly hawkish line against the Islamic republic, is likely to be disappointed that the IAEA has found insufficient evidence to warrant the intervention of the UN security council.

Iran has already warned that unless it is given a clean bill of health by the IAEA and gets the technical help to which it believes it is entitled, it will reduce its co-operation or end it altogether.

“We are at an impasse and there is no easy way out,” said Dr Wyn Bowen, a British expert in counter-proliferation.

At the Paris meeting, Iran made it clear that its patience with the diplomatic process had run out, surprising the European diplomats with a list of its own demands. These included access to “advanced technology, including those with dual use” equipment and know-how with both peaceful and weapons applications.

The Iranian delegation also demanded a commitment to push for a non-nuclear Middle East and to “provide security assurances” against a nuclear attack on Iran — a clear allusion to Israel.[/i]

Hamel · Post by **Hamel** » 2004-08-22 12:53am

So how do we solve the problem? Give Iraq bioweaponry and sic them on Iran like last time?

SyntaxVorlon · Post by **SyntaxVorlon** » 2004-08-22 02:28am

Sounds like a good idea. Then we can capture that damn bastard Alawi in 12 years and put the NBC warmonger on trial for his crimes against Iran.

Fire Fly · Post by **Fire Fly** » 2004-08-22 02:57am

I guess the Iranians are following the old maxim "The closer you are to danger, the farther you are from harm," which is somewhat true. The US military is so overstreched currently that they really can't conduct any large scale military operations* and being the "Diplomacy first, then appeasement" that Europe tends to be, no one is really going to, at the moment, do much. The only other factor is Isreal, which will most likely conduct some sort of attack on the Iranians as they did with Saddam a few years ago, in regards to nuclear production.

*For those who are more learned and versed in military matters, please feel free to correct me.

Ma Deuce · Post by **Ma Deuce** » 2004-08-22 03:32am

Fire Fly wrote:The US military is so overstreched currently that they really can't conduct any large scale military operations*

Invading and conquering Iran is indeed out of the question at the moment, but the USAF can still bomb the shit out of them (especially their precious nuclear program)...

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2004-08-22 04:12am

Physical occupation of another country of any significant size, right now, is out of the question for the US military. However, it still has an ENORMOUS ability to project power to other countries. Iran's nuclear aspirations are walking on egg-shells if this is anything but empty air, since the sorts of developed infrastructures required to construct nuclear weaponry are easily targetted by aircraft and cruise missiles.

Mange · Post by **Mange** » 2004-08-22 04:43pm

Just the other day (the day before yesterday iirc) it was reported on Swedish television that the Iranian minister of defense appeared on al-Jazeera and threatened to perform a preemptive attack on American troops in Iraq in order to safeguard their nuclear facilites, which the Iranians claim are for peaceful purposes only.

I will see if I can dig up some links (found one):

Yahoo! News (AFP):
+http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s ... _us_israel

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-08-22 04:53pm

Erm... Why did you break a link to Yahoo news?

Mange · Post by **Mange** » 2004-08-22 04:57pm

I'd thought it was the best thing to do to avoid hotlinking. I'm sorry if it caused you trouble.

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-08-22 05:07pm

No no, no trouble. But the no links rule applies to sites that Mike doesn't want the owners of to trace back to us, namely fundamentalist boards and Troll Kingdom. I'm sure there are others too, but Yahoo News isn't one of them.

Mange · Post by **Mange** » 2004-08-22 05:13pm

Thanks Rogue 9 for clearing that up! It's become a habit for me to break the links.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-08-22 06:10pm

Iran hasn't got the balls to pre-emp attack the US. You don't hit the strongest nation on the planet - stretched or not - and expect threatening cease and desist letters in the post a day later. Iran would start resembling the Moon shortly after such a stupid move, that is, more cratered.

Boyish-Tigerlilly · Post by **Boyish-Tigerlilly** » 2004-08-22 10:38pm

Perhaps they would if the leaders are stupid, crazy enough bastards.

Mange · Post by **Mange** » 2004-08-23 12:37pm

Boyish-Tigerlilly wrote:Perhaps they would if the leaders are stupid, crazy enough bastards.

Yes, I don't trust the ruling Mullas one minute. Peaceful purposes, eh? Why a centrifuge to enrich uranium?

Chardok · Post by **Chardok** » 2004-08-23 01:20pm

Mange the Swede wrote:
Boyish-Tigerlilly wrote:Perhaps they would if the leaders are stupid, crazy enough bastards.
Yes, I don't trust the ruling Mullas one minute. Peaceful purposes, eh? Why a centrifuge to enrich uranium?

Uranium deserves to be treated the same as any other radioactive element. if it is found in a poor state, affirmative action laws state that everything possible should be done in order that it have an opportunity to make it in this dog-eat-dog world. I'm For enriching uranium. It's better than having a bunch of uranium just sitting there, leeching off of our healthcare system for it's entire half-life and whatnot, give uranium a job, an education, a little enrichment and there's no telling how far it will go. This applies to polonium, plutonium, francium, americum, and all isotopes thereof. Christ, man! Don't you have any decency? you should be ashamed of yourself!

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2004-08-23 01:47pm

Iran hasn't got the balls to pre-emp attack the US. You don't hit the strongest nation on the planet - stretched or not - and expect threatening cease and desist letters in the post a day later. Iran would start resembling the Moon shortly after such a stupid move, that is, more cratered.

Except the moon is not as sandy as Iran and its already been show what happens to sand at extreme temps

Think ash tray, as in glass

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2004-08-23 07:48pm

Boyish-Tigerlilly wrote:Perhaps they would if the leaders are stupid, crazy enough bastards.

You don't stay in power for 25 years by being stupid and crazy. If nothing else, people smarter than you in your own government will end up maneuvering you out of any meaningful position of authority--or, if necessary, leave you in the meaningful position and siphon away all the authority.