Iran Watch

All signs say Iran is racing toward a nuclear bomb

2011-07-08T19:35:00.001-04:00

From the article:

"Two crucial new questions are now worrying all those who follow Iran's nuclear program. One is whether Qom was chosen as a site for uranium enrichment due only to its strategic location, or if any meaning should be attached to the fact that Shi'ites consider it a holy city, the place of residence of Ayatollah Khomeini, founder of the Islamic Republic.

Ahmadinejad and several of his ministers, as well as senior commanders in the Revolutionary Guards, belong to a small but influential group in the Iranian government that adheres to a mystical belief in the coming of the Mahdi - the Twelfth, or hidden, Imam - who is considered the Shi'ite messiah. One of the conditions for the Mahdi's coming is that a huge proportion of the world's population be annihilated in a great war."

Ahhh, I love the smell of paranoia in the morning ... it is the smell ... of psychosis ...

A small bump in the road to annihilation

2011-07-08T19:21:00.003-04:00

There is a reason that almost 12 months have elapsed since I last posted. Those pesky Mossad and CIA agents are really wrecking havoc at the Qom Armageddon factory. Bastards.

Apparently "Stuxnet" caused a little delay in the masterplan. Looks like all that unpleasantness is out of the way now and its full steam ahead! Hang on gang, it is going to get exciting!

Iran is digging graves for U.S. soldiers dude ...

2010-08-10T22:02:00.000-04:00

Iran has dug mass graves in which to bury U.S. troops in case of any American attack on the country, a commander of the elite Revolutionary Guard said August 10th, 2010.

Chatter rises on Iran strike ...

2010-07-15T22:05:00.001-04:00

Patiently waiting and watching ... based on the large number of public comments combined with the seeming acceleration of their number, perhaps this is an indicator of military action?

Iran presses ahead with plans to increase its ability to make nuclear weapons

2010-02-08T21:48:00.002-05:00

"Achieving the 20-percent level would be going most of the rest of the way to weapon-grade uranium"

-- David Albright, Institute for Science and International Security

Iran's atomic energy organization informed the IAEA that "production of less than 20 percent enriched uranium is being foreseen."

"Less than 20 percent" means enrichment to a tiny fraction below that level — in effect 20 percent but formally just below threshold for high enriched uranium.

Although material for the fissile core of a nuclear warhead must be enriched to a level of 90 percent or more, just getting its stockpile to the 20 percent mark would be a major step for Iran's nuclear program. While enriching to 20 percent would take about one year, using up to 2,000 centrifuges at Tehran's underground Natanz facility, any next step — moving from 20 to 90 percent — would take only half a year and between 500-1,000 centrifuges.
Britain said the Islamic Republic's reason for further enrichment made no sense because it is not technically advanced enough to turn the resulting material into the fuel rods needed for the reactor.

Looks like February 11 promises merriment and hyjinx ...

2010-02-01T08:18:00.002-05:00

"The nation will deliver a harsh blow to global arrogance on February 11."

-- Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, January 31st, 2010

Bring it

2010-01-31T23:08:00.001-05:00

Things are getting really weird. Why would Obama's administration be sending anti-missile defense to our Sharia law buddies in the Gulf?

IAEA's report proves Iran's nuclear program is peaceful?

2009-11-17T08:06:00.002-05:00

Nothing to see here, move along please ... please ignore any indications of further, undisclosed, nuclear enrichment facilities ... please ignore the size of the Qom facility, understanding it is for peaceful research purposes ...

Iran tested advanced nuclear warhead design – secret report

2009-11-05T22:53:00.002-05:00

"It's remarkable that, before perfecting step one, they are going straight to step four or five ... To start with more sophisticated designs speaks of level of technical ambition that is surprising."

-- James Acton, British nuclear weapons expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

Watchdog fears Tehran has key component to put bombs in missiles.

NYTimes: Iran is capable of making the bomb

2009-10-05T12:04:00.002-04:00

The New York Times weighs in on a report by the International Atomic Energy Agency. The report says the agency assesses that Iran has sufficient information to be able to design and produce a workable implosion nuclear device based on highly enriched uranium.

There may still be those who do not believe Iran is moving toward a nuclear capability, but there numbers are dwindling. Apparently, the IAEA's departing director, Mohamed ElBaradei, still is not convinced that Iran is moving toward the bomb. I think that ElBaradei is simply in the tank with Ahmadinejad.

Iran Reveals Existence of Second Uranium Enrichment Plant

2009-09-25T15:56:00.005-04:00

"If I were Obama's adviser, I would definitely advise him to refrain making this statement [pressing their case about the new enrichment plant during upcoming talks] because it is definitely a mistake. It would definitively be a mistake. This does not mean we must inform Mr. Obama's administration of every facility that we have, it simply adds to the list of issues [over] which the United States owes the Iranian nation an apology. . . . Rest assured that this will be the case. We do everything transparently."

-- Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, in an interview with Time magazine, 9/25/2009

Seems that Mahmoud and Barry both are having problems understanding the meaning of "transparency" when applied to things associated with government.

The bigger issue is Iran's nuclear ambition, which seems to be growing in capability and confidence daily, and is not being met with any real deterrent. The Obama administration's recent declaration of a nuclear free world is incredibly naive and dangerous. Proposing a unilateral disarmament in an effort to lead the world by example is breath-taking in its stupidity. The only immediate rival is the Administration's concession to Russia, and slap in the face to Poland and the Czech Republic, by announcing it would not be honoring America's commitment to keeping our allies safe through a missile defense shield.

Amazingly, the French and British are now leading the World in condemning Iran and sounding a general alarm. Their rhetoric is hollow, however, as their proposed deterrent consists entirely of sanctions.

Time seems to be moving very slow. The days drag into weeks, the weeks into months ...

Sarkozy: Iran still working on a nuclear weapons program

2009-09-16T12:30:00.002-04:00

"It is a certainty to all of our secret services. Iran is working today on a nuclear [weapons] program. We cannot let Iran acquire nuclear weapons because it would also be a threat to Israel,"

-- French President Nicolas Sarkozy, September 15, 2009

Re-stating the obvious ...

2009-08-31T12:42:00.001-04:00

Tell tale ...

2009-08-28T21:21:00.001-04:00

Move along, nothing to see here ....

Israel says UN covering up Iran's drive toward the bomb ...

2009-08-19T12:25:00.002-04:00

Israel thinks the IAEA is purposefully underexposing Iran's bomb making activity. IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei, who is to vacate his post in December, has said the UN watchdog does not have any evidence suggesting Iran is developing a nuclear weapons programme. Meanwhile, everyone from the DA of Manhattan to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has concluded that Iran not only can build a bomb, but that they are most probably building a bomb.

Israel's enemies are gathering ...

2009-08-04T16:25:00.003-04:00

Hezbollah’s rearming is in the name of “resistance” against Israel. But the real reason probably has more to do with its ally Iran. If Israel carries out its threat to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities, then the main retaliation is likely to come from its Hezbollah allies in Lebanon. Hezbollah is Iran’s insurance policy.

Ezekiel 38:15-16 (New International Version)

¹⁵ You will come from your place in the far north, you and many nations with you, all of them riding on horses, a great horde, a mighty army. ¹⁶ You will advance against my people Israel like a cloud that covers the land. In days to come, O Gog, I will bring you against my land, so that the nations may know me when I show myself holy through you before their eyes.

(Can't say you've not been warned! Good luck dudes!)

Iran awaiting the word from Ayatollah ...

2009-08-02T21:24:00.004-04:00

If Iran’s leader does decide to build a bomb, he will have two choices. One would be to take the high-risk approach of kicking out the international inspectors and making a sprint to complete Iran’s first bomb, as the country weathered international sanctions or possible air strikes in the ensuing crisis. The other would be to covertly develop the materials needed for an arsenal in secret desert facilities.

Uh, perhaps option two has been in the process of execution for some while now??

Idiots ...

John Bolton weights in on Israel's "Responsibility"

2009-07-29T18:10:00.001-04:00

"Absent Israeli action, prepare for a nuclear Iran. "

-- John Bolton, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute

Germany thinks Iran could have a bomb in 6 months

2009-07-16T21:26:00.003-04:00

"If they wanted to, they could detonate an atomic bomb in half a year's time."

-- Anonymous expert at Germany's foreign intelligence agency BND

This dude in England begs to differ:

"(Six months) is absolutely a worst-case analysis,"

-- Mark Fitzpatrick, senior non-proliferation fellow at London's International Institute for Strategic Studies.

Obama and Hillary discover what Bush already knew: Negotiating with Iran is hard

2009-07-16T13:07:00.004-04:00

The U.S. administration is discovering now that that the attitude of Iranian leaders is harder to sway than they thought on the campaign trail.

-- Ilan Berman, Iranian expert, American Foreign Policy Council, Washington D. C., July 2009

If countries like Iran are willing to unclench their fist, they will find an extended hand from us.

-- Barak Obama, interview on al-Arabiya television network, January 2009

Idiot.

Ahmadinejad mad! No one goes home without punch in nose!!

2009-07-16T12:55:00.004-04:00

As soon as the new government is established, with power and authority, ten times more than before, it will enter the global scene and will bring down the global arrogance. They should wait as a new wave of revolutionary thinking ... from the Iranian nation is on the way and we will not allow the arrogant (powers) to even have one night of good sleep. In this recent election the enemy tried to bring the battlefront to the interior of this country, but I have told the enemies ... that this nation ... will strike you in the face so hard you will lose your way home.
-- Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, broadcast from IRIB, July 14, 2009

Israeli ships sailing into the Red Sea ...

2009-07-14T16:43:00.002-04:00

Two of Israel's Saar class missile boats have crossed through the Suez Canal and into the Red Sea. This follows the news earlier this month that one of the Israeli navy's Dolphin class submarines had also sailed to the Red Sea through the Suez Canal.

I am wondering what Russia is thinking right now? I wonder what they are planning.

Admiral Mike Mullen: Clock is ticking ...

2009-07-08T23:36:00.002-04:00

"... it is critical for diplomatic efforts to reach a solution before Iran develops a nuclear weapon or faces an Israeli or U.S. strike to turn back its nuclear program. That window is a very narrow window. There's a great deal that certainly depends on the dialogue and the engagement. I'm hopeful that that dialogue is productive. I worry about it a great deal if it's not. . . . [some forecasters believe Iran could be as little as a year away from developing a nuclear bomb], The clock has continued to tick. . . . [Washington must keep all options on the table as it pursues dialogue with Iran], including certainly military options. It (a military strike) is a really important place to not go, if we can not go there in any way, shape or form," the admiral said.
-- Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff

Biden gives Israel the green light ...

2009-07-06T12:49:00.003-04:00

"Israel can determine for itself -- it's a sovereign nation -- what's in their interest and what they decide to do relative to Iran and anyone else; whether we agree or not. They're entitled to do that. Any sovereign nation is entitled to do that. But there is no pressure from any nation that's going to alter our behavior as to how to proceed, We cannot dictate to another sovereign nation what they can and cannot do. Israel has a right to determine what's in its interests, and we have a right and we will determine what's in our interests."

-- Vice President Joe Biden, ABC's "This Week", Sunday July 5th.

Oh, by the way, the Saudi's are willing to let Israel fly over their airspace on the way to bomb Iran too (according to a high level Mossad official).

I am assuming we now wait for an Iranian response.

An embarrassing slip of the lip? Ahem ...

2009-06-23T13:02:00.004-04:00

"The whole Iranian nation are united... on (the) inalienable right of (having a) nuclear weapon,"
-- Ali Asghar Soltanieh, Iran's envoy to the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency

Dude. What are you trying to say? That Iran *might* be pursuing nuclear weapons?

Crickets ...

Whew, that was close!

2009-06-16T12:20:00.002-04:00

Almost appeared that Mahmoud would be replaced and Iran would take its rightful place around the world's table of civilized nations. So much for that.

Apparently, the apocalyptic, genocidal Persian death cult is alive and well.

By the Supreme Leader giving his warm embrace to Ahmadinejad (thereby ratifying the election results) there can be no doubt that not only are their end-time beliefs in concert, but on track for commencement. Bring on the Mahdi, baby!

First up in their sights: Israel.

Obama: Iran has the "rights" to nukes ...

2009-06-03T14:32:00.002-04:00

"[there is a danger] when the United States, or any country, thinks that we can simply impose these values on another country with a different history and a different culture."

- Barack Hussein Obama, BBC Interview, June 2 2009

What values are the United States attempting to impose that are so detestable? The golden rule?

North Korea lights a nuke, Iran dispatches warships and Venezuela gets caught supplying uranium to Iran

2009-05-26T18:18:00.005-04:00

Wow, what a busy Memorial Day.

North Korea lights one up underground, and fires a flurry of missiles.

Iran moves warships into the Gulf of Aden.

Israel catches Venezuela sending Uranium to Iran.

Things seem to be moving rather quickly right now.

Yet another Iranian missile test firing ...

2009-05-20T19:10:00.002-04:00

This missile looks like it has the appropriate range (Israel). It is an "advanced" solid rocket fueled missile. Wonder where the Persians got that technology from?

"It's late in the game, and we don't have a lot of time."

2009-05-19T10:48:00.006-04:00

Manhattan District Attorney and legendary Democrat Robert Morgenthau has confirmed beyond doubt Iranian intentions with respect to development of THE BOMB (the story was first covered here).

" . . . we have consulted with top experts in the field from MIT and from private industry and from the CIA. . . . Frankly, some of the people we've consulted are shocked by the sophistication of the equipment they're buying."

-- Robert Morgenthau, District Attorney, Manhattan

A copy of the indictment can be found here.

Apparently, the Foreign Relations Committee, chaired by John Kerry, concurs. Again, they have a timetable that says Iran is 6 months away from having enough material for a bomb. Actually, assuming 19.9 kg of U-235 on hand as of November 17, 2008, a requirement of 21.6 kg for a first bomb, and a production rate of 1.6 kg of U-235 each month, Iran would have had enough in December 2008. The weaponization of that U-235 should be just about complete.

"It's late in the game, and we don't have a lot of time."

-- Robert Morgenthau, District Attorney, Manhattan

Obama, folding ...

2009-04-15T13:07:00.003-04:00

Well, in Obama's defense he did say while campaigning that he would not push preconditions for talks with Iran. Mission accomplished.

Meanwhile, North Korea has expelled all the U.N.'s nuclear inspectors and has restarted its nuclear reactors ...

crickets

Peres, saber rattling ...

2009-04-13T22:40:00.002-04:00

“[Iranian president Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad recruits forces against us, but there are also forces against him ... What happened in Egypt created a fierce opposition and we must unify all his opponents -- the Sunnis and the Europeans, as well as those afraid of nuclear weapons and terror. [If Obama's rhetoric doesn't soften the Iranian president’s approach] we’ll strike him.”
-- Israeli President Shimon Peres, April 11, 2009

Meanwhile ... Caroline Glick thinks that America has bailed on her former allies and friends and now it is up to those jilted former friends to come together in unity to take the fight forward ...

Jewish World Review: Surviving in a post-American world

... crickets ....

Showtime must be approaching ...

2009-04-09T21:16:00.003-04:00

Ahmadinejad says he is ready to talk with Obama, and his conditions are open to debate. He lambastes Bush for past belligerence and strong-arm tactics and fawns praise for Obama's gentle and humble approach. He further reiterated Iran's desire for its sovereign ability to develop enriched uranium for "peaceful" purposes. He also announced that Iran has 7000 centrifuges now, up from 6000 in February.

"[past negotiations failed because] they were insisting on stopping our peaceful activities, they were trying to impose that. The Iranian nation has always been for talks, dialogue has to be based on justice and respecting rights ... Justice means both sides are treated equally and bilateral rights are respected ... Today conditions have changed. We had presented a package. Given new world developments, new subjects need to be added to the package"

-- Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, speaking during celebrations for Iran's Nuclear Day, in which a number of nuclear advances were announced.

So, maybe the Sentinel is a stupid, slack-jawed, doe-eyed, low-brow and Iran really does not want the 12th Imam to re-appear and they really don't want to incinerate the Zionist-pig nation and her supporters; however, does anyone remember that period of time when Neville Chamberlain was coming back to Britain announcing peace in our time? He had just signed this fancy document (after some killer negotiating - with words) with Hitler that said Hitler promised not to start a war. There was this brief period when everybody breathed this huge sigh of relief.

I believe this is our brief period.

Confirmation: China's been selling banned material to Iran

2009-04-08T21:18:00.002-04:00

NY Times reports on indictments handed down today. Appears the Chinese were selling things to Iran that would facilitate construction of a bomb.

Prosecutors in New York have charged a Chinese businessman and his company with a conspiracy relating to the sale of sensitive materials to Iran, covert transactions that prosecutors say violated United Nations bans aimed at restraining Tehran’s rocket and nuclear ambitions.

Israel, going down the checklist ...

2009-04-07T21:33:00.003-04:00

Apparently, Israel is making sure all the last minute details are being attended to at the very moment its arch rival is doing the same.

A few minor quibbles from the referenced article:

The Arrow project is being developed by Israel Aerospace Industries Ltd. and Chicago-based Boeing Co. at a cost of more than $1 billion. It was spurred largely by the failure of the U.S. military's Patriot missiles to intercept Iraqi Scud rockets that struck Israel in the 1991 Gulf War.

The "Patriot" was designed as an anti-aircraft missile system. That it took down a missile is a testament to the genius of its developers. The Patriot is truly a remarkable weapon.

Last month, the U.S. military's ground-based mobile missile defense system successfully shot down a medium-range ballistic missile during a test in Hawaii.

It was the first time the military fired two interceptors at one target using the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system, a program designed to shoot down ballistic missiles in their last stage of flight.
The drill followed up on a test that was planned for last September but had to be aborted when the target malfunctioned shortly after launch.

Any complaints about the missile defense system that President Bush had negotiated for placement on U.S. allies Poland and the Czech Republics borders are now officially rebuffed. The truth is THAAD is also quite remarkable and very effective. It is the result of Reagan-Bush-Clinton and should close the mouths of the ignorant baying in the wilderness (it really has not). Is Obama and crew really trying to dismantle these programs?

At any rate, looks like we are set for a magnificently spectacular evening light show in the Hebrew wilderness, eh? Game on!

Meanwhile, Obama is weakening our nuclear aresenal ...

2009-04-04T16:33:00.002-04:00

While we wait for World War III to unfold at the hands of Iran, it appears our Commander-in-Chief is doing his very best to even the playing field.

What Mr. Obama wants to kill specifically is the Reliable Replacement Warhead, which the Bush Administration supported over Congressional opposition, and which Mr. Obama now opposes despite the support of Defense Secretary Robert Gates and the military. Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told us this week that "we do need a new warhead." When we asked about Mr. Obama's views on the warhead, the Admiral said, "You would have to ask him."

Can't say we've not been warned

2009-03-17T13:20:00.002-04:00

I have penned a little Haiku concerning our nuclear implosion bomb problem:

Israel, warning
Iran and Russia Smile
Obama, yawning

Or,

Obama talking
Iran secretly plots
Israel glowing

At any rate, Israel feels compelled to warn Washington that it plans on taking out Iranian nukes. While no one should be suddenly surprised when this happens certainly unified world-wide condemnation will follow. Or at least unified world-wide propaganda will lead the charge to condemn the Zionist state. I'm not really sure how normal people would feel about this.

I am not sure why Israel is bothering to warn Washington. They certainly know by now that the Obama administration cannot be counted on for support, don't they?

Wolves in the Throneroom

2009-03-06T12:27:00.004-05:00

In review of the recent several weeks activities, let us examine President Obama's emerging Middle East diplomacy objectives.

Initially, let us see what the Obama administration understands about Syria and Iran:

"[The IAEA report] contributes to the growing evidence of clandestine nuclear activities in Syria. We must understand why such [uranium] material - material not previously declared to the IAEA - existed in Syria and this can only happen if Syria provides the cooperation requested."

- George Schulte, the US ambassador to the IAEA, reacting to the IAEA's recent release of findings from the September 2007 Israeli attack which destroyed Syria's North Korean built, Iranian financed al Kibar nuclear reactor. The report revealed that after analyzing soil samples from the bombed installation, its inspectors discovered traces of uranium. The nuclear watchdog agency also noted that the Syrians have blocked UN nuclear inspectors from the site and from three other suspected nuclear sites.

And ...

"Iran has enough uranium for a bomb."

- US Admiral Michael Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, commenting on the IAEA's report on Iran

What is Obama's diplomatic posture with respect to Syria and Iran? According to John Kerry, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the Obama administration will be adopting doctrine laid out in the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group report published in December 2006. This report urges the US to coordinate the withdrawal of its forces from Iraq with Iran and Syria - the principal sponsors of both the Shiite and Sunni insurgencies in the country. It recommended that the US purchase Syria's good will by pressuring Israel to surrender the Golan Heights to Damascus and Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem to Hamas. It recommended that the US win Iran's trust by accepting it as a nuclear power and pledging not to overthrow the regime.

"[The starting point for US-Iran discussions is for the US to] state our respect for the Iranian people, renounce regime change as an instrument of US policy, seek opportunities for a range of dialogue across a range of issues, and acknowledge Iran's security concerns and its right to civilian nuclear power."

- former Congressman Lee Hamilton, co-author of the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group report, in a February interview with Washington Post columnist David Ignatius

So, the Obama administration is now fully aware of the extent of the Syrian and Iranian nuclear programs. They are not alarmed. They are pursuing a policy of appeasement. The motivation for this? Palestinian statehood?

No, I think something is at play on a much more sinister level. I am intrigued that the Hamilton study urges surrender of Jerusalem to Hamas. What was that saying about Jerusalem? What was so special about Jerusalem in ancient times? Hmm ..

Matthew 24:10-20 (New International Version)

At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other, and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people. Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved. And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.

"So when you see standing in the holy place 'the abomination that causes desolation,' spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand— then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. Let no one on the roof of his house go down to take anything out of the house. Let no one in the field go back to get his cloak. How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! Pray that your flight will not take place in winter or on the Sabbath.

The abomination that causes desolation! Oh, that Jesus was a riot wasn't he?

Clinton saber rattling

2009-03-04T23:43:00.004-05:00

Ahem ... Clinton saying the U.S. won't back down from European missile defense? Says we not only need to protect Europe from Iran but from other unnamed threats too.

"Missiles not only with a nuclear warhead but a conventional warhead or some other chemical, biological weapon could very well be in the hands of a regime like Iran's, which we know will use whatever advantage they have to intimidate as far as they think their voice can reach, and who are actively pursuing a missile development program ... We have real potential threats, and obviously Iran is the name we put to them, but it is a kind of stand-in for the range of threats we foresee ..."
- Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, March 4, 2009

I am not buying it. There are numerous indications that President Obama wants to warm up to the Arabs in general, and the terrorist-sponsoring ones in particular. This is demonstrated, for example, in his willingness to talk to Hamas and Syria, and even Iran (though strictly speaking, the Iranians are not ethnically Arabs). All of this is part and parcel of his apparent belief that the principal reason that the Arab and Islamic worlds are hostile toward the US is because the US supports Israel.

Ahhh, Barry! Barry! Barry!

And therein lies the danger. Clearly, the Obama government wants to improve relations with the Arab world. If the President sees Israel as the main roadblock to that goal, it is believed that he will either try to manipulate Israel to his own ends, or, if Israel proves intransigent, eventually abandon her. Better start that review of Revelations ...

From the Jerusalem Post:: Iran-Israel Showdown Near

2009-03-02T22:43:00.001-05:00

Four recent developments have pushed Israel closer to a confrontation with Iran over its nuclear weapons program — and that could have dire consequences for an already beleaguered U.S. economy, according to best-selling author Edwin Black.

Black, an investigative journalist whose books include, “The Plan: How to Save America When the Oil Stops,” cited the four developments in an Op-Ed piece for the Jerusalem Post:

Iran successfully launched a satellite into outer space on Feb. 2 and plans three more satellites this year, creating “an easily weaponized space net that worries American military planners.”
The International Atomic Energy Agency admitted in mid-February that it had underestimated Iran’s nuclear stockpile by about one-third, and now confirms that Iran has enough nuclear material to build at least one bomb.
Iran has stepped up its uranium enrichment program with thousands of highly advanced centrifuges, and is now near its goal of 6,000 centrifuges. “American policy-makers are now convinced that Iran, despite all protests and charades, is in a mad dash to create a deliverable nuclear weapon,” Black disclosed.
Benjamin Netanyahu has just become the prime minister-designate of Israel, and he is determined to take action against Iran before it can deliver a nuclear weapon to the nation that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said should be “wiped off the map.”

Also, Russia is in the process of delivering an advanced air defense system that can shoot down Israeli aircraft and drones. But the system will not be fully operational for several months, “creating a narrow window for Israel to act,” Black observes.

The author points out that Iran has repeatedly vowed that if attacked by Israel, it will close the Strait of Hormuz to shipping and attack the Saudi Arabian oil facilities at Ras Tanura and Abqaiq.

“Any one of these military options, let alone all three, would immediately shut off 40 percent of all seaborne oil . . . and some 20 percent of America’s daily consumption,” Black writes.

Such an interruption in oil supplies, he warns, would likely push gasoline prices in the U.S. to $20 per gallon.

Recapping previous assessment of Iranian enriched uranium

2009-03-02T11:10:00.002-05:00

In news interviews which took place yesterday, Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told both CNN and Fox news that he believed Iran had enough fissile material for a bomb. Of course Mullen's spokesman, Capt. John Kirby, said Mullen was referring only to the International Atomic Energy Agency's finding that Iran has processed 2,222 pounds (1,010 kilograms) of low-enriched uranium.

This Washington D.C. based think-tank seems to have a much more optimistic view. They thought that Iran had enough enriched uranium back in December of 2008 for a Hiroshima sized nuclear weapon. They estimated that Iran would need another 2 to 3 months to actually transform that material into a bomb ... Lets see, since then Iran has test fired an ICBM, launching a satellite into orbit ... tick, tick, tick ...

Direct talks with Iran may facilitate, not reduce, threats to U.S. interests

2009-03-02T06:51:00.002-05:00

"[T]he State Department recently named Dennis Ross, a seasoned Middle East negotiator, as a "special adviser" to the Gulf region -- a bureaucratic but important prerequisite for direct talks with Iran. Unfortunately, a new envoy and a new diplomatic tone cannot disguise the ongoing substantive collapse of U.S. policy and resolve in the teeth of the Islamic Republic's growing challenge."

So, there are four problems with Iran:

Diplomacy is not working
Pretending that Hamas, Hezbollah and Syriah are not really Iranian proxies is not working
Iraq: A free and stable Iraq threatens Iran, and Obama's policy will insure that Iraq will not be stable, and subsequently will not remain free; therefore, the Iraqi angle is not working
Afghanistan: See #3 above. Unstable neighbors on its borders only helps Iran. It behooves Iran to not help stabilize Afghanistan, so expect more Iraqi type insurgency there in the coming months.

Have we elected the village idiot to guide our middle east policies? Only time will tell. One thing is clear: nuclear fallout will leave a fingerprint that will be impossible to gloss over.

"The West's collective failure to stop Iran's nuclear ambitions has persuaded Iran that it faces minimal risks in greater adventurism on other fronts as well. Mr. Obama's discovery of "carrots and sticks," after a half decade of European failure to make that mantra a successful policy, will lead Tehran's mullahs to one inescapable conclusion: They have won the nuclear race, absent imminent regime change or military action."

Iran accuses Obama of being nothing more than Bush II

2009-02-26T17:20:00.002-05:00

"It is unfortunate that, yet again, we are hearing the same tired, unwarranted and groundless allegations that used to be unjustifiably and futilely repeated by the previous administration," -- Mohammad Khazaee, Iranian envoy to the U.N. Security Council

Mohammad is responding to criticism from U.S. envoy Susan Rice.

"Instead of raising allegations against others, the United States had better take concrete and meaningful steps in correcting its past wrong policies and practices vis-a-vis other nations, including the Islamic Republic of Iran."

Hmm ... Take steps to correct past wrong policies and practices. What do you suppose he is referring to? Further, how will President Obama direct his people to react to such blustering?

I do not think these statements will intimidate Obama, I have a new perspective on the Command-In-Chiefs driving motivation. I think these statements are meant to provoke (and they eventually will).

Lots of news coming out of Iran here lately ...

Iran cranks up a reactor, and discloses it now has 6000 centrifuges whirring away

2009-02-25T11:35:00.004-05:00

"[This] should be understood as very bad news for the whole of the international community."

-Yigal Palmor, Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman

So, could we be looking at President Obama's very own "Cuban missile crisis" ? Some believe that the clock is now ticking ...

Militarily, Iran continues to strengthen the three pillars of its strategic deterrence:

surface-to-surface missiles long-range rockets and aircraft for retaliation;
naval forces to disrupt maritime traffic through key waterways;
unconventional forces and surrogates to conduct worldwide lethal operations.

Although many of their statements are exaggerations, Iranian officials throughout the past year have repeatedly claimed both greater ballistic missile capabilities that could threaten US and allied interests and the ability to close the Strait of Hormuz using unconventional small boat operations, anti-ship cruise missiles, and other naval systems. Some officials, such as Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Commander Major General Mohammad Ali Jafari-Najafabadi, have hinted that Iran would have a hand in attacks on “America’s interests even in far away places,” suggesting Iran has contingency plans for unconventional warfare and terrorism against the United States and its allies.

Iran puts satellite into orbit

2009-02-03T09:20:00.004-05:00

Ahmadinejad said Tuesday that the satellite, which he said had telecommunications capabilities, had reached its orbit and had made contact with ground stations, though not all of its functions were active yet. The launch was intended to be a message of peace and friendship to the world, Ahmadinejad told state television. "We need science for friendship, brotherhood and justice," he said

What do you suppose Ahmadinejad means by "justice"?

Also, if a country can launch a satellite into orbit I wonder how much more difficult it is to launch an intercontinental ballistic missile?

Obama's Iranian Posture

2009-01-27T16:29:00.005-05:00

Can America live with an Iranian nuclear weapon? This question was recently posed to President Obama during his first interview as President. Obama responded only generally, expressing disapproval of an Iranian bomb but not the flat condemnation that is standard from American officials. The interview was conducted by the Dubai-based Al-Arabiya Network. "Will the United States ever live with a nuclear Iran? And if not, how far are you going in the direction of preventing it?" asked the interviewer, Al Arabiya Washington Bureau Chief Hisham Melhem.

"You know, I said during the campaign that it is very important for us to make sure that we are using all the tools of U.S. power, including diplomacy, in our relationship with Iran. Now, the Iranian people are a great people, and Persian civilization is a great civilization. Iran has acted in ways that's not conducive to peace and prosperity in the region: their threats against Israel; their pursuit of a nuclear weapon which could potentially set off an arms race in the region that would make everybody less safe; their support of terrorist organizations in the past -- none of these things have been helpful."

Perhaps a generic meandering response was calculated. During the campaign and transition periods, Obama's condemnations of an Iranian nuclear weapon were more direct [Meet The Press, December 7th 2008]:

"[T]heir development of nuclear weapons would be unacceptable"

The question is: what does Iran think about this response? An overture to establishing diplomatic ties? The opportunity to forge a fresh, healthy relationship with the West? Perhaps ...

Perhaps their response here is the same as their response to Clinton's overtures last week?

Maybe Iran is reading between the lines. If Iran's stated goal is to rid the region of God's chosen people then why would they suddenly abandon this effort just because the West, the great Satan, wanted to be friends? Perhaps Iran will interpret this as weakness and step-up its plans to unleash hell?

Obama is doing things the way he said he would. Let us see what happens next.

The Shape of Things to Come

2009-01-16T11:53:00.003-05:00

Incoming Secretary of State Hillary Clinton testified this week that the Obama administration will seek direct engagement with Iran, in hopes of convincing Tehran to "abandon its nuclear program and become a constructive regional actor." Iran's leaders had no comment, probably because they were still laughing too hard to speak. Later, with no apparent sense of irony, Clinton said Barack Obama would not agree to engaging with Hamas until it renounces violence, recognizes Israel, and respects previous agreements between Israelis and Palestinians -- in short, until it changes precisely the behaviors exhibited by Iran, only on a smaller scale and without a nuclear program. We can only suppose that's what Leftists mean by "nuance."

President-elect Obama's lapdogs in the press described the new approach as a "sharp contrast to President Bush's policy of refusing to deal with countries that did not first meet conditions set by the United States." For the record, the United States handed over all direct negotiation with Iran to the Europeans in 2003, at the behest of those wise liberal graybeards that knew better. Since that time, there has been only one "demand" placed on Iran: that it stop enriching uranium in order for diplomacy to move ahead. In the last year, the Europeans abandoned even that request. The most recent request by the G-8 was merely that Iran stop installing new centrifuges at Natanz, never mind what Iran was doing with its 5,000 operational centrifuges. Iran's answer to the G-8 was the same as it had been to the P-5+1 in 2007 and the EU-3 in 2005: No.

I am afraid that Iran is merely trying to run out the clock on the Bush administration, hanging on for a more gullible and naive American leader with whom to dance. Barack Obama has given the clearest possible indication that he is that leader, one who believes that the charisma that made the Germans swoon and a thrill go up Chris Matthews' leg can also make Iran's lunatic regime see the error in its ways and become a "constructive regional actor."

My bet is on Tel-Aviv. This is where the first mushroom cloud rises. A close second would be New York City. By the time this happens we will be too far down the road to effectively change course. It is simply days away.

Unrest in the forest

2008-12-21T14:01:00.006-05:00

A Middle East Arms Race

Hosni Mubarak is no one's idea of a visionary, but in sensing the Middle East's political winds he has few equals. So when Egypt's president-for-life warned his ruling party last week that "the Persians are trying to devour the Arab states," it's worth paying attention.

The immediate cause of the remarks is a war of words by Iran that led Mr. Mubarak to recall an envoy from Tehran last week. Among other provocations was the recent release of an Iranian film celebrating the 1981 assassination of Anwar Sadat, Mr. Mubarak's predecessor. A Tehran demonstration late last month also called for Mr. Mubarak's execution, on the grounds of his alleged "subservience to the Zionists."

But the broader context of the friction is its steady progress toward a nuclear weapon and the encroachment by Iran into the Arab world -- principally through Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza and the Mahdists in Iraq. States like Egypt and Saudi Arabia watched with dismay in the summer of 2006 as Israel failed to deliver a knockout blow against Hezbollah.

[Sentinel]: Interesting observation, and while neither Egypt nor Saudi Arabia would ever publicly admit support for Israel I have no reason to doubt the veracity of the above statement.

Now they calculate that the U.S. lacks the will to prevent a nuclear Iran. As for Barack Obama's promise of "tough diplomacy," we suspect the Arab states take him about as seriously as they would a tourist who thinks he knows how to bargain at an oriental bazaar.

[Sentinel]: Everyone is eager to see Hussein in action, and whether he will be willing to back up his talk with action.

Little wonder, then, that the Arab states are taking a keen interest in acquiring nuclear capabilities of their own. The latest is the United Arab Emirates, which hopes to sign a nuclear cooperation agreement with the U.S. before the Bush Administration leaves office. Saudi Arabia is seeking a similar deal, while Egypt, Algeria, Turkey and even Yemen are also in the market for reactors.

[Sentinel]: Giving everyone on the Saudi peninsula a nuke, eh? Have we suddenly begun to think that MAD is a deterrent? If so, then those driving the boat are fools. Cannot project western values into the Middle East and MAD will never work as a deterrent there.

The ostensible rationale for these reactors varies from place to place, from energy-intensive water desalination schemes to reliable electricity supply. Under the terms of the agreement being proposed for the U.A.E. and Saudi Arabia, neither country would enrich its own uranium and both would put their facilities under the safeguards of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

[Sentinel]: Oh yes I see, it will only be used for the common good, and never to cause harm. Yeah, right.

Still, it's difficult to see what use oil giants like the Saudis or Algerians would have for nuclear power except as a hedge against an Iranian bomb. IAEA safeguards or not, possession of "civilian" nuclear technology served India and Israel as the crucial first step to getting a bomb. It gave local scientists first-hand experience with the technologies and allowed opportunities for the covert diversion of key nuclear materials. Reports have circulated for years that the Saudis have pursued a secret nuclear program with help from Pakistan, though the Saudis deny this. Egypt has also been cited by the IAEA for undeclared nuclear work.

All this is a useful reminder that the threat of Iran's nuclear programs lies not only in whether it will acquire a bomb. It's also a question of how Iran's neighbors will react. The Israelis have said publicly that a nuclear Iran is an intolerable threat, a view many Arab states share privately. If neither Israel nor the U.S. act, they will be tempted to seek their security by acquiring their own nuclear deterrents. A Middle East in which Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Egypt have the bomb -- in addition to Israel and Pakistan -- is possible within a decade.

Maybe there's someone at the Council on Foreign Relations who can explain why this isn't such a terrible scenario, what with everyone pointing a gun at everyone else's head. Our view is that this is a recipe for global instability, if not catastrophe, and a reminder of why no one should be complacent at the looming prospect of an Iranian bomb.

[Sentinel]: Only a fool would rationalize as reasonable a nuclear equipped Middle East.

5000 Centrifuges

2008-11-26T13:02:00.004-05:00

Iran announced today that it now has 5000 centrifuges up and working.

For Iran to build a first-generation implosion bomb it will need 17.6 kg of U-235, according to the SWU calculator published by URENCO, a European uranium enrichment consortium: web.archive.org/web/20021226100607/www.urenco.de/trennarbeit/swucal_e.html.

Assuming 16.2 kg of U-235 on hand in early November 2008, a requirement of 17.6 kg for a first bomb, and a production rate of 1.8 kg of U-235 each month, Iran would have needed about three weeks from November 7 (early December 2008). These are based on numbers derived on the assumption that Iran had 4000 centrifuges up and running.

Iran might be sitting on enough U-235 right now.

More evidence from Syria

2008-11-19T23:29:00.004-05:00

A new story from the McClatchy Washington Bureau warning that the thing in the desert that Israel destroyed last year had nuclear fingerprints. I guess we wait for Israel to do our dirty work in Iran too, eh?

U.N.: Bombed Syrian facility had nuclear reactor features

By Jonathan S. Landay, McClatchy Newspapers Jonathan S. Landay, Mcclatchy Newspapers Wed Nov 19, 6:38 pm ET

By Jonathan S. Landay, McClatchy Newspapers Jonathan S. Landay, Mcclatchy Newspapers

Wed Nov 19, 6:38 pm ET

WASHINGTON — A Syrian facility that Israel bombed last year had similarities to a nuclear reactor and chemically processed uranium particles were found at the site, but a final determination can't be made until Syria provides "the necessary transparency," a new U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency report out Wednesday says.

[Sentinel]: Pretty certain Syria will not be providing the necessary transparency.

"The onus of this investigation is on Syria ," said a senior U.N. official, who requested anonymity because the report is confidential.

A separate IAEA report says that Iran has persisted in stymieing the agency's probe of its nuclear program and continues to defy U.N. Security Council demands to suspend uranium enrichment, a process that can produce fuel for nuclear weapons.

"There is no communication whatsoever, no progress regarding possible military dimensions of their ( Iran's ) program," the senior U.N. official said.

The reports served as stark reminders of one of the thorniest security issues that will confront President-elect Barack Obama — global nuclear proliferation — particularly Iran's refusal to suspend the uranium enrichment program that it kept secret for 18 years.

Iran says that it's legally producing low-enriched uranium fuel for power reactors; U.S. and other Western officials contend that Tehran is pursuing the capability to make highly enriched uranium used in the explosive cores of nuclear bombs.

[Sentinel]: By mid January Iran should have enough enriched Uranium for a bomb. Six weeks later, after the gas has been converted to a metal and machined, we might be having some excitement.

Iran has refused to halt its enrichment program despite being hit with three rounds of U.N. economic sanctions and punitive measures by the United States and the European Union .

[Sentinel]: Translation: punitive means laughable.

The nuclear watchdog's director general, Mohamed ElBaradei, submitted the confidential reports to the agency's 35-nation board of governors. Copies were posted on a blog, www.armscontrolwonk.com.

The IAEA opened an inquiry into the Dair Alzour site in eastern Syria after the United States charged in April that the facility, which was destroyed in a September 2007 Israeli airstrike, was an undeclared nuclear reactor that was being built with North Korean help to produce plutonium for bombs.

U.S. officials said that satellite pictures, photos taken inside the semi-completed facility — also known as al Kibar — before it was bombed and other information showed that the building was a copy of the British-designed natural uranium-powered reactor that North Korea built at its main nuclear complex at Yongbyon.

The Bush administration provided the IAEA with the materials on which the U.S. assessment was based.

"It cannot be excluded" that the Syrian facility "was intended for non-nuclear use," the IAEA report says.

However, it continues, "The features of the building . . . along with the connectivity of the site to adequate pumping capacity of cooling water, are similar to what may be found in connection with a reactor site."

Pre-attack photographs show a "containment structure (that) appears to have been similar in dimension and layout to that required for a biological shield for nuclear reactors, and the overall size of the building was sufficient to house the equipment needed for a nuclear reactor of the type alleged" by the United States , the report says.

[Sentinel]: Who among us is afraid that this type of hard analysis will fall by the wayside with the advent of our new emperor?

It also says that dirt samples taken from the site by IAEA inspectors who visited in June contained "a significant number of natural uranium particles."

An analysis of the particles found that they were "produced as a result of chemical processing," the report says.

Syria is required by an accord with the IAEA to inform the agency six months before it begins building a nuclear reactor.

Damascus contends that the destroyed building was an unused non-nuclear military facility. It says that it lacks the trained manpower and other requirements to have run such a reactor.

Satellite pictures taken after the Israeli strike showed that the remains of the facility were demolished and then buried or carted away, and a shed-like building was erected over the site.

The report criticizes Israel for its "unilateral use of force," the Bush administration for waiting seven months after the attack to turn over information on the site to the agency and Syria for the "removal of the remains," all of which made the IAEA inquiry "more difficult and complex."

Syria told the IAEA inspectors that the uranium particles had come from missiles fired in the Israeli airstrike, and it refused them access to three other sites that satellite photographs provided by an IAEA member nation showed might have been related to Dair Alzour, the report says.

The senior U.N. official said the particles weren't depleted uranium, a substance used in hardened military munitions, and a second U.N. official said that one of the closed locations is thought to contain debris removed from Dair Alzour that inspectors want to test.

"The director general has called on Syria to provide the necessary transparency, including allowing visits to the requested locations and access to all available information for the agency to complete its assessment," the report says, noting that Damascus also has failed to provide the inspectors with documents related to the suspected reactor.

The IAEA also urged Israel to cooperate in the investigation.

Iran fires yet another missile

2008-11-13T00:05:00.000-05:00

So, Medved is moving a "missile defense" system onto the Polish border (link), and Iran is test firing missiles with a range capable of hitting Europe. Meanwhile, U.S. generals are desperately trying to convince Hussein that now would not be a good time to discontinue funding missile defense systems and cutting military spending (link). Getting closer ....

Iran tests precision missile able to reach Europe

By ALI AKBAR DAREINI, Associated Press Writer Ali Akbar Dareini, Associated Press Writer 40 mins ago

TEHRAN, Iran – Iran said it successfully test-fired a new generation of long range surface-to-surface missile on Wednesday — one that could easily strike as far away as southeastern Europe with greater precision than earlier models.

The Sajjil is a solid fuel high-speed missile with a range of about 1,200 miles, Defense Minister Mostafa Mohammed Najjar said on state television. At that range, it could easily strike Iran's arch-foe Israel and go as far as southeastern Europe.

Solid-fuel missiles are more accurate than the liquid fuel missiles of similar range currently possessed by Iran. The country has had a solid-fuel missile with a shorter range — the Fateh, able to fly 120 miles — for several years.

The Islamic Republic News Agency said the test was conducted Wednesday, and television showed the missile being fired from a desert launching pad.

Najjar said the missile was a defensive weapon and not a response to threats against Iran. He didn't name any country, but Israel has recently threatened to take military action against Iran to stop Tehran from developing a nuclear bomb.

Najjar said the missile was part of a "defensive, deterrent strategy ... specifically with defensive objectives."

[ERIC]: Not believable.

The defense minister, quoted by Iran state television, said the two-stage missile with two solid-fuel engines has "an extraordinary high capability" but gave no further details. He did not say whether it was capable of carrying a nuclear warhead.

Israel's Foreign Ministry refused comment about the missile test.

In Washington, the State Department said the missile tests were not good for the stability of the region and were another sign that U.S. plans to construct a missile shield in Europe are critical to international security. Department spokesman Robert Wood said Washington hoped Russia, which has criticized the proposed shield, would recognize the threat posed by Iran and realize the system is not aimed at Russia.

[ERIC]: To believe that Russia is not acting in concert with Iran is naive. Russia is fully aware of Iran's intentions and what the intent of the U.S. response is. It is my firm belief that Russia and Iran are working together, formulating a strategy that will ultimately lead to the misery of many people.

"I think it's pretty obvious when Iran launches one of these ballistic missiles, that this is something of concern to the international community, and I'm including Russia in the international community here," he said.

The name "Sajjil" means "baked clay," a reference to a story in the Quran, Islam's holy book, in which birds sent by God drive off an enemy army attacking the holy city of Mecca by pelting them with stones of baked clay.

[ERIC]: Everything Iran does is motivated by their fanatical Islamic belief system. This is no longer a point to prove, simply a fact to accept.

Iran has intensified its domestic missile development in recent years, raising concerns of the U.S. and its allies at a time when they accuse the country of seeking to build a nuclear weapon. Iran denies it wants to build a bomb, saying its nuclear program is aimed only at generating electricity.

In a speech coinciding with the missile launch, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad warned that his government would act against any threats.

"The Iranian nation defends its dignity. Should any power stand against the Iranian nation, the Iranian people will crush it under its foot and will strike it on the mouth," he said in a speech broadcast live on state television.

Ahmadinejad added that it doesn't matter who comes to power in America because the important question will be how a future U.S. administration will behave.

[ERIC]: So, how our ruler (Hussein's press secretaries own words) behaves with respect to his relation with Iran will determine if Iran decides to unleash his missiles on a target of interest? Again, Iran assumes that Hussein is weak and will respond by curling into the fetal position. We shall see ...

The Sajjil's range puts it at around the same range as Iran's other farthest-flying missiles — a version of the Shahab-3 unveiled in 2005 and the Ghadr, which was shown off at a September 2007 military parade. The Shahab-3 missile is capable of carrying a nuclear warhead, and its latest versions use a combination of liquid and solid fuel.

Iran launched an arms development program during its 1980-88 war with Iraq to compensate for a U.S. weapons embargo. Since 1992, Iran has produced its own tanks, armored personnel carriers, missiles and a fighter plane. Najjar said the Sajjil was built by the Defense Ministry's aerospace department.

____

Associated Press writer Matthew Lee in Washington contributed to this report.

Iran making some noise

2008-11-13T00:03:00.001-05:00

What a surprise. Wonder what will happen when the U.S. immediately withdraws its troops?

Iran test-fires new missile near Iraq: state media

Tue Nov 11, 2008 10:17am EST

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran has test-fired a new type of missile during war games near the Iraqi border, state television said Tuesday, after warning the United States it would respond to any violation of Iranian airspace.

The English-language Press TV said the Iranian-made missile, named as the Samen, was successfully tested Monday by the elite Revolutionary Guards in the western border city of Marivan.

They also tested artillery and rocket launchers, Press TV said on its website.

Iran's armed forces have staged frequent maneuvers in recent months, coinciding with speculation of possible U.S. or Israeli strikes against the Islamic Republic over its disputed nuclear ambitions.

[ERIC]: Or perhaps in anticipation of coalition force withdrawal.

In a move that further heightened tension, Iran in July test-fired nine highly advanced missiles, including one which reportedly could reach Israel and U.S. bases in the Middle East.

Iran's army last Wednesday said U.S. helicopters had been seen flying close to Iran's border and that it would respond to any violation, a message analysts said seemed directed at U.S. President-elect Barack Obama more than American troops in Iraq.

[ERIC]: Heh. Who could have predicted this?

The November 5 statement followed a cross-border raid last month by U.S. forces into Syria, an action that was condemned by Damascus and Tehran.

The United States and its Western allies suspect Iran is seeking to build atomic bombs, a charge Tehran denies.

Obama, like outgoing U.S. President George W. Bush, has not ruled out military action although he has criticized the outgoing administration for not pushing for more diplomacy and engagement with Iran.

[ERIC]: If not mistaken, I believe that Iran has now set down its own preconditions for negotiation (click here).

Iran has said it would respond to any attack on its territory by targeting U.S. interests and Washington's ally Israel, as well as closing the Strait of Hormuz, a vital route for world oil supplies.

[ERIC]: Methinks Iran considers our incoming Commander in Chief to have little appetite for confrontation, and can threaten him and push him around.

(Reporting by Fredrik Dahl; Editing by Angus MacSwan)

Iran setting the stage

2008-11-13T00:02:00.000-05:00

This past week Senator Biden, running mate of Hussein, indicated that Hussein would certainly be tested within the first six months of taking office (LINK). Today, Hussein himself echoed this sentiment. I do not think anyone is in disagreement with these statements. I read the press release from Iran, stating their conditions for negotiations, and I begin to get a sense of where the testing will occur. Who doubts that Hussein, as President, will fold up like a cheap tent on a rainy night when forced to make a decision when Iran reveals it has missiles pointed at Tel-Aviv and orders Syria into Israel? How long will it take Hussein to pull every last U.S. troop out of the middle east and end U.S. support for our Jewish allies? With no U.S. presence in the middle east I wonder what the result will be? Without U.S. backing I wonder how long Israel will survive? I think I know the answer to these questions.

Iran's Preconditions

So much for Obama's diplomacy.

Barack Obama's declaration that, if elected, he would be willing to sit down and talk to Iran "without preconditions" has been widely discussed in this country. It's a key policy difference between him and John McCain, who rejects unconditional talks with Tehran.

So what does the Islamic Republic think? The enterprising reporters at the state news agency recently asked a high-ranking official for his opinion on talks with the U.S. As it turns out, Iran has its own "preconditions" and they don't suggest a diplomatic breakthrough, or even a summit, anytime soon.

Mehdi Kalhor, Vice President for Media Affairs, said the U.S. must do two things before summit talks can take place. First, American military forces must leave the Middle East -- presumably including such countries as Iraq, Qatar, Turkey and anywhere else American soldiers are deployed in the region. Second, the U.S. must cease its support of Israel. Until Washington does both, talks are "off the agenda," the Islamic Republic News Agency reports. It quotes Mr. Kalhor as saying, "If they [the U.S.] take our advice, grounds for such talks would be well prepared.

Iran is one of the toughest and most urgent foreign policy problems the new U.S. Administration will face. If Mr. Obama ends up in the Oval Office on January 20, he may find that solving it will take more than walking into a room and talking to Iranians "without preconditions."

Meanwhile, back in Iran ...

2008-11-13T00:00:00.000-05:00

The question is, "what will Obama do about a nuclear Iran?" What Obama does about a nuclear Iran will yield a very black and white result. There will be no prognosticator pulling the wool over the eyes of useful idiots. The results of Obama's Iranian policy will be very clear to see.

Good luck.

Iran's Nuclear Waltz

An ominous U.N. report, but more diplomatic dancing.

At its annual Vienna powwow this week, the world's nuclear watchdog is taking Iran for a few spins over its atomic ambitions. But the mullahs in Tehran know this diplomatic waltz well, and they can rest assured the dance merely frees up more time and space for them to get their bomb.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

The International Atomic Energy Agency report does at least tell us the Iranians are closer than ever to becoming a nuclear power. In unusually scathing terms for an outfit disinclined to criticize Iran, the IAEA lays bare Tehran's lack of cooperation and implies it was hiding illegal military work related to its nuclear program. After six years of monitoring, says IAEA boss Mohamed ElBaradei, "the agency has not been able to make substantive progress" to resolve concerns about Iran's military ambitions.

[ERIC]: That the IAEA is now sounding the alarm is a particularly ominous sign. In the past the IAEA has been one of Iran's biggest apologist.

According to the IAEA report, Iran had built up a stockpile of 1,058 pounds of "low-enriched" uranium hexafloride by the end of August. At this rate, as Gary Milhollin of Iran Watch pointed out in the New York Times, Iran will have the low-enriched uranium necessary to produce enough weapons-grade uranium for a bomb by mid-January. Iran has recently tested long-range missiles and tried to retrofit them to carry a nuclear warhead.

[ERIC]: Mid-January. What if someone where to tell you today that the world that you knew would change dramatically for the worse in less than 90 days?

The five permanent members of the Security Council, plus Germany, are on record saying a nuclear Iran would be unacceptable. Surely the U.N., meeting in General Assembly last week days after the IAEA report came out, would respond with urgency. Sure enough, the Europeans and the U.S. suggested another round of sanctions, a position backed by China. And sure enough, Russia scotched those plans.

In its place, the Security Council adopted a resolution calling on Iran to abide by the previous three resolutions to suspend its enrichment program. Translation: "Stop -- or we'll do nothing."

[ERIC]: I am not understanding how the U.S. and its allies can continue to believe that there is a diplomatic solution when they have not positioned themselves into a more effective negotiating posture.

Condoleezza Rice called it "a very positive step." Her Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov, a foreign minister in the Andrei Gromyko mold, was more honest: "This is a reiteration of the status quo."

The Russian ambassador at the U.N., Vitaly Churkin, claimed the irresolute resolution would channel "the minds of everybody in the direction of political rather than military enterprises." The potentially tragic irony is that the failure of resolve makes a military conflict more likely. If Iranian nuclear progress isn't halted by political or economic means, someone -- probably Israel -- will try to stop it by force.

[ERIC]: Are you ready?

The Security Council nonaction did give Iran a pretext to make fresh threats. A senior Iranian lawmaker told the state news agency that Iran would limit the IAEA's access to the known nuclear sites. The covert sites are off limits. Presumably he was speaking on orders. But the Europeans, joined in recent months by the Bush Administration, still claim to believe that Iran can be talked out of the bomb.

The Iranians have been offered everything from membership in the World Trade Organization to Western billions and backing for its energy sector, including civilian nuclear reactors. The mullahs mock those entreaties. And in the latest humiliation, Iran's terrorist client state with its own nuclear ambitions, Syria, was poised this week to win a seat on the IAEA's 35-member board. The U.S. and EU are trying to get Afghanistan in its place.

Both of America's Presidential candidates say they worry about a new nuclear arms race. The best way to stop proliferation, particularly in the combustible Middle East, is to start getting serious about stopping Iran from joining the club.

About a month ago ...

2008-11-12T23:59:00.000-05:00

... Ahmadinejad says Israel will soon disappear [Excerpts]

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gkqvlPndHPxXMqNzQLCQAPNyxbdQ

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad predicted on Monday that Muslims would uproot "satanic powers" and repeated his controversial belief that Israel will soon disappear, the Mehr news agency reported.

"I must announce that the Zionist regime (Israel), with a 60-year record of genocide, plunder, invasion and betrayal is about to die and will soon be erased from the geographical scene," he said.

"Today, the time for the fall of the satanic power of the United States has come and the countdown to the annihilation of the emperor of power and wealth has started."

"I tell you that with the unity and awareness of all the Islamic countries all the satanic powers will soon be destroyed," he said to a group of foreign visitors ahead of the 19th anniversary of the death of revolutionary leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.

Ahmadinejad also again expressed his apocalyptic vision that tyranny in the world be abolished by the return to earth of the Mahdi, the 12th imam of Shiite Islam, alongside great religious figures including Jesus Christ.

"With the appearance of the promised saviour... and his companions such as Jesus Christ, tyranny will be soon be eradicated in the world."

http://www.citizen.co.za/index/article.aspx?pDesc=1,1,22&type=top&File=080603073505.4dct8rl4.xml

http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2008/06/ahmadinejad-pre.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,361705,00.html

From the U. S. Ambassador to the UN: Iran’s Nuclear Threat Deepens

2008-11-12T23:57:00.000-05:00

The problem with Iran seems to be getting worse. The overtures made in this editorial by Mr. Khalilzad are filled with hope and the promise of a warm global embrace for a country that the world desperately wants to include as a responsible member. The ball is in Ahmadinejad's court. I am not confident.

Iran's Nuclear Threat

By ZALMAY KHALILZAD
March 4, 2008; Page A17

The United Nations Security Council has passed another resolution concerning Iran because its nuclear program is an unacceptable threat. Iran's violations of Security Council resolutions not only continue, but are deepening. Instead of suspending its proliferation-sensitive activities as the council has required, Iran is dramatically expanding the number of operating centrifuges and developing a new generation of centrifuges, testing one of them with nuclear fuel.

Once again, Iran has not made the choice the world had hoped for; once again, the Security Council has no choice but to act. At stake is the security of a vital region of the world, and the credibility of the Security Council and the International Atomic Energy Agency, as they seek to hold Iran to its nonproliferation commitments.

[ERIC]: The credibility of the IAEA is on life support.

The latest report from the IAEA states that Iran has not met its obligation to fully disclose its past nuclear-weapons program. On the core issue of whether Iran's nuclear program is strictly peaceful, the report showed no serious progress.

The IAEA presented Iran with documents assembled over a period of years from multiple member states and the agency's own investigations. The documents detailed Iran's efforts to develop a nuclear warhead, including designs for a missile re-entry vehicle, and showed other possible undeclared activities with nuclear material.

Iran dismissed these documents as "baseless and fabricated." But the IAEA does not share that conclusion.

Instead of slogans and obfuscations, the international community needs answers from Iran. The international community must be able to believe Iran's declaration that its nuclear program is for exclusively peaceful purposes. Iranian leaders must as a first step fully disclose past weapons-related work, and implement additional safeguards to ensure no continuing hidden activities. We agree with the IAEA that until Iran takes these steps, Iran's nuclear program cannot be verified as peaceful.

The latest IAEA report also states that Iran is not suspending its proliferation-sensitive activities.

For almost two years now, the Security Council has required Iran to suspend all of its enrichment-related, reprocessing, and heavy water-related activities. I want to ask the Iranian leaders, "If your goal is to generate nuclear power for peaceful purposes, why do you court increasing international isolation, economic pressure and more, all for a purported goal more easily and inexpensively obtained with the diplomatic solution we and others offer?"

I want the Iranian people and others around the world to know that the United States recognizes Iran's right to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. They should know that the five permanent members of the Security Council and Germany have offered to help Iran develop civil nuclear power, if it complies with the Security Council's demand -- a very reasonable demand -- to suspend enrichment. They should know that the package of incentives includes active international support to build state-of-the art light water power reactors, and reliable access to nuclear fuel.

Iran should do what other nations have done to eliminate any doubts that their nuclear program is peaceful. Many states have made the decision to abandon programs to produce a nuclear weapon. Two of them sit on the Security Council today: South Africa and Libya.

Other countries that have stepped away from past nuclear-weapon aspirations include Brazil, Argentina, Romania, Ukraine and Kazakhstan. These countries did not see their security diminished as a result of their decisions. Indeed, one could easily say their security has been enhanced. Nor did they lose their right to develop nuclear energy. We urge Iran to take the same path these other states have chosen.

[ERIC]: These are arguments being made not only by Iran but by left-wing pundits here too: Iran needs nukes for their own safety and (good lord) national self-esteem. Nothing could be further from the truth, simply look at the countries mentioned above.

The international community has good reason to be concerned about Iran's activities to acquire a nuclear-weapons capability. The present Iranian regime, armed with nuclear weapons, would pose a greater potential danger to the region and to the world.

The Iranian government has been a destabilizing force in the broader Middle East and beyond. Contrary to its statements, Iran has been funding and supporting terrorists and militants for operations in Lebanon, the Palestinian territories, Iraq and Afghanistan. Their lethal assistance has harmed countless innocent civilians. The president of Iran has made many reprehensible statements -- embracing the objective of destroying a member state of the United Nations.

[ERIC]: Why not just name it? It is Israel, and Ahmadinejad has stated publicly that his intention is to drive Israel from the Middle East. Actually, his intention is to destroy the Jewish state. The world slumbers fitfully, annoyed with being disturbed yet unconcerned that another despot pronounces intentions for genocide and destruction.

Because of all these factors, the international community cannot allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons. If Iran continues down its current path, it would likely fuel proliferation activities in the region, which, in turn, could cause the demise of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty regime itself.

The U.S. remains committed to a diplomatic solution. If Iran shares this commitment, it will suspend its enrichment and reprocessing activities and let diplomacy succeed. We call on Iran to engage in constructive negotiations over the future of its nuclear program. Such negotiations, if successful, would have profound benefits for Iran and the Iranian people.

The message from the U.S. to the people of Iran is that America respects you and your great country. We want Iran to be a full partner in the international community. And as President Bush has said, if Iran respects its international obligations, it will have no better friend than the United States of America.

[ERIC]: That the U. S. can become any countries strong ally and friend has been demonstrated again and again in our relatively short history. The Iranian people want this as much as the American people do - this I know for fact. I pray this result follows.

Mr. Khalilzad is U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations.

Iran: Back on track!

2008-11-12T23:56:00.000-05:00

Well, that NIE hoopla didn't last very long, did it? I guess the revelation that Iran has discovered how to build a better centrifuge (using composite materials no less!) has everyone wringing their hands and wiping perspiration from their foreheads.

UPDATE: Iran cries foul! Claims the U.S. is making stuff up, and that they are only interested in exploring clean energy alternatives for their country! And the IAEA is buying it!! Hooray, Iran really doesn't pose a threat to World Peace!

US intel links Iran with nuke bomb bid

By GEORGE JAHN, Associated Press Writer

Thu Feb 14, 10:21 AM ET

The U.S. has recently shared new intelligence with the International Atomic Energy Agency on key aspects of Iran's nuclear program that Washington says shows Tehran was directly engaged in trying to make a bomb, diplomats said Thursday.

[ERIC] Again, how effective is the IAEA?

One of the diplomats said Washington also gave the IAEA permission to confront Iran with at least some of the evidence in an attempt to pry details out of the Islamic republic, as part of the U.N. nuclear watchdog's attempts to investigate Iran's suspicious nuclear past.

The diplomats suggested that such moves by the U.S. administration would be a reflection of Washington's' drive to pressure Iran into acknowledging that it had focused part of its nuclear efforts toward developing a weapons program.

The U.S. is leading the push for a third set of U.N. sanctions against Iran. Tehran insists its program is intended only to produce energy and has refused U.N. demands that it suspend its uranium enrichment program — technology that can produce both fuel for nuclear reactors and the fissile material for a bomb.

A recent U.S. intelligence assessment that Iran had a clandestine weapons program but stopped working on it four years ago has hurt Washington's attempts to have the U.N. Security Council impose a third set of sanctions.

While the Americans have previously declassified and then forwarded intelligence to the IAEA to help its investigations, they do so on a selective basis.

Following Israel's bombing of a Syrian site late last year, and media reports citing unidentified U.S. officials as saying the target was a nuclear installation, IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei turned in vain to the U.S. in asking for details on what was struck, said a diplomat who — like others — spoke on condition of anonymity in exchange for divulging confidential information.

Over the past two years, the U.S. already has shared material on a laptop computer reportedly smuggled out of Iran. In 2005, U.S. intelligence assessed that information as indicating that Tehran had been working on details of nuclear weapons, including missile trajectories and ideal altitudes for exploding warheads.

[ERIC]: Why would these details be worked out if they are only enriching Uranium for fuel?

After declassification, U.S. intelligence also was forwarded on two other issues: the "Green Salt Project" — a plan the U.S. alleges links diverse components of a nuclear weapons program, including uranium enrichment, high explosives testing and a missile re-entry vehicle — and material in Iran's possession showing how to mold uranium metal into warhead form.

Two of the diplomats said the material forwarded to the IAEA over the past two weeks expanded on the previous information from the Americans, but had no additional details.

Iran is already under two sets of U.N. Security Council sanctions for refusing to suspend uranium enrichment, which it started developing during nearly two decades of covert nuclear activity built on illicit purchases and revealed only five years ago.

Since then, IAEA experts have uncovered activities, experiments, and blueprints and materials that point to possible efforts by Iran to create nuclear weapons, even though Tehran insists its nuclear project is peaceful and aimed only at creating a large-scale enrichment facility to make reactor fuel.

Its leaders consistently dismiss allegations that they are interested in enrichment for its other use — creating fissile material suitable for arming warheads.

Instead of heeding Security Council demands to freeze enrichment, Iran has expanded its program. On Wednesday, diplomats told the AP that Iran's new generation of advanced centrifuges have begun processing small quantities of the gas that can be used to make the fissile core of nuclear warheads.

[ERIC]: Pretty dramatic way to end the article. My question is, what will Obama do when he is elected?

Copyright © 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.

IAEA: Iran disputes atomic arms evidence

By GEORGE JAHN, Associated Press WriterFri Feb 22, 6:20 PM ET

The U.N. nuclear watchdog said Friday that Iran is defying a U.N. Security Council ban on uranium enrichment and accusing the U.S. and its allies of fabricating information to back up claims that Tehran is making nuclear weapons.

[ERIC]: And what is the IAEA's response? Read on ...

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said there was a "very strong case" for moving forward with a third round of sanctions against Tehran, while Iran said the report's findings confirmed that its nuclear program is a peaceful one.

"There is very good reason after this report to proceed to the third Security Council resolution," Rice said, adding that the report "demonstrates that whatever the Iranians may be doing to try to clean up some elements of the past, it is inadequate."

The 11-page report obtained by The Associated Press said Iran "has not suspended its enrichment-related activities," despite two sets of U.N. Security Council sanctions over fears the program might be used to make weapons-grade uranium instead of the nuclear fuel Iran says it is interested in.

Instead, said the report, Iran "started the development of new-generation centrifuges" — an expansion of enrichment — and continued working on heavy water nuclear facilities. When finished, Iran could cull them for plutonium, a possible fissile payload in nuclear warheads.

At the same time, the International Atomic Energy Agency report said that Tehran has cooperated in other areas of an IAEA probe, leading the agency to put to rest for now suspicions that several past experiments and activities were linked to a weapons program.

[ERIC]: Woo-hoo!! That is FANTASTIC news! The IAEA declares that Iran is not really in the process of building nuclear weapons! I can sleep easier now that I know this.

Specifically, the report suggested the agency was satisfied with answers provided by Iran on the origin of traces of enriched uranium in a military facility; on experiments with polonium, which can also be used in a weapons program; and on purchases on the nuclear black market.

[ERIC]: Dude, I am at a loss for words on this one ...

It said that in those areas information given by Tehran is either "consistent with its findings (or) ... not inconsistent with its findings," suggesting it was content for now with explanations that these activities were not weapons-related.

Iran's U.N. Ambassador Mohammad Khazee said the report "clearly attests to the exclusively peaceful nature of the nuclear program of the Islamic Republic of Iran, both in the past and at present."

The report "also serves to strongly and unambiguously support my country's long-standing position that the allegations raised by few powers against the peaceful nuclear program of the Islamic Republic of Iran have been entirely groundless," Khazee said in written response to the AP.

[ERIC]: Is there anyone reading this BLOG who actually agrees with this? Does everyone think I am some paranoid nut case whose odd fascination with Iran is just some neo-con's peculiar past-time?

But the American U.N. ambassador said Friday that report should pave the way for passage next week of a new U.N. Security Council resolution tightening sanctions on Tehran.

"They're increasing their capabilities," U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad said. "Not only have the number of centrifuges increased, but they're working on a second-generation, if you like, a more capable centrifuge.

"Things are getting worse in terms of the enrichment part."

Britain and France introduced a council resolution on Thursday — with support from the United States, Russia, China and Germany — to expand and toughen travel bans and the freezing of assets for more Iranian officials linked to the nuclear effort.

A declassified U.S. intelligence report last December judged that the Iranians had put a nuclear weapons program on hold in 2003. But the U.S., Israel and others contend Iran's continued advances in the crucial centrifuge work will eventually give it a capability to quickly build a bomb.

Much of the information purportedly linking Iran to attempts to make nuclear arms came from the United States, with allies providing lesser amounts and the IAEA passing on selected material to Tehran, after approval by the nations that gave the agency the information.

IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei, who drew up the report, said his team had "made quite good progress in clarifying the outstanding issues that had to do with Iran's past nuclear activities, with the exception of one issue, and that is the alleged weaponization studies that supposedly Iran has conducted in the past."

Ahead of the confidential report's release to the 35-nation IAEA board and the U.N. Security Council, U.S. officials had repeatedly insisted that the IAEA probe would be incomplete unless Iran acknowledged trying to make nuclear arms in the past. That stance is shared by Canada, Japan, Australia and U.S. allies in Europe.

A senior IAEA official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the report was confidential, said that if the material provided by the U.S. and other agency members on the alleged activities was genuine, most of Iran's work was "most likely for nuclear weapons."

But he said the agency was not reaching any conclusion until the Iranians went beyond rejection of the purported evidence and concretely addressed the issues it raised.

When confronted with some of the documentation from the U.S. and other on its alleged weapons experiments, Tehran "stated that the allegations were baseless and that the information ... was fabricated," the report said.

Iran explained some of its activities linked by the Americans to a weapons program as work on "air bags and for the design of safety belts," according to the report.

[ERIC]: I think Iran just insulted the entire civilized, educated world.

The report will be the focus of discussions at an IAEA board report starting March 3. At that meeting, the U.S. and its allies are weighing whether to ask the board to approve a resolution declaring that the agency was unable to shed light on Iran's suspected nuclear weapons program, according to diplomats.

___

Associated Press writers Edith M. Lederer and Charles J. Hanley at the United Nations and Matthew Lee in Washington contributed to this report.

NIE part deux

2008-11-12T23:55:00.000-05:00

Looks as if the NIE report submitted late last year, to the resounding cheers if militant Islamic mullah's and Bush haters alike has been re-addressed by Admiral Michael McConnell who sponsored it. Might have made a little error in judgment with respect to the wording of document, eh Mike?

February 8, 2008

REVIEW & OUTLOOK

Iranian Nuclear Rewrite
February 8, 2008; Page A16

Give Admiral Michael McConnell credit for trying to walk back the cat. Questioned this week by the Senate Intelligence Committee, the Director of National Intelligence defended the "integrity and the professionalism" of the process that produced last December's stunning National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran's nuclear program. Yet his testimony amounts to a reversal of the previous judgment.

The December NIE made headlines the world over for its "key judgment" that in 2003 "Tehran halted its nuclear weapons programs" -- programs that previously had been conducted in secret and in violation of Iran's Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty obligations.

This was a "high confidence" judgment, though the intelligence community had only "moderate confidence" that the program hasn't since been restarted. The NIE also waded into speculative political and policy judgments, such as that "Tehran's decisions are guided by a cost-benefit approach rather than a rush to a weapon irrespective of the political, economic, and military costs."

So it was little wonder that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad quickly called the NIE a "declaration of victory" for Iran's nuclear programs. Diplomatic efforts to pass a third round of U.N. economic sanctions ground to a crawl, though another weak draft resolution is currently making the rounds. Russia decided to ship nuclear fuel to the reactor it has built for Iran at Bushehr, a move it had previously postponed for months and which has worrisome proliferation risks.

Elsewhere, the NIE complicated U.S. efforts to deploy an antiballistic-missile shield in Central Europe. The Israelis worried that the report signaled the death of American seriousness on Iran, possibly requiring them to act alone. At home, Democrats used the NIE to accuse the Administration of hyping intelligence. "It's absolutely clear and eerily similar to what we saw with Iraq," said John Edwards.

[ERIC]: Ah yes, partisan politics at its finest. Are we sacrificing national security for the sake of the party?

Now Admiral McConnell is clearly trying to repair the damage, even if he can't say so directly. "I think I would change the way that we described [the] nuclear program," he admitted to Evan Bayh (D., Ind.) during the hearing, adding that weapon design and weaponization were "the least significant portion" of a nuclear weapons program.

He expressed some regret that the authors of the NIE had left it to a footnote to explain that the NIE's definition of "nuclear weapons program" meant only its design and weaponization and excluded its uranium enrichment. And he agreed with Mr. Bayh's statement that it would be "very difficult" for the U.S. to know if Iran had recommenced weaponization work, and that "given their industrial and technological capabilities, they are likely to be successful" in building a bomb.

The Admiral went even further in his written statement. Gone is the NIE's palaver about the cost-benefit approach or the sticks-and-carrots by which the mullahs may be induced to behave.

[ERIC]: Again, I see terrible errors projecting a Western based system of "rewards" into the Middle East. What constitutes their wants and desires nullifies MAD, and renders useless diplomatic enticements intended to curb their drive to the bomb.

Instead, the new assessment stresses that Iran continues to press ahead on enrichment, "the most difficult challenge in nuclear production." It notes that "Iran's efforts to perfect ballistic missiles that can reach North Africa and Europe also continue" -- a key component of a nuclear weapons capability.

Then there is the other side of WMD: "We assess that Tehran maintains dual-use facilities intended to produce CW [Chemical Warfare] agent in times of need and conducts research that may have offensive applications." Ditto for biological weapons, where "Iran has previously conducted offensive BW agent research and development," and "continues to seek dual-use technologies that could be used for biological warfare."

All this merely confirms what has long been obvious about Iran's intentions. No less importantly, his testimony underscores the extent to which the first NIE was at best a PR fiasco, at worst a revolt by intelligence analysts seeking to undermine current U.S. policy. As we reported at the time, the NIE was largely the work of State Department alumni with track records as "hyperpartisan anti-Bush officials," according to an intelligence source. They did their job too well. As Senator Bayh pointed out at the hearing, the NIE "had unintended consequences that, in my own view, are damaging to the national security interests of our country." Mr. Bayh is not a neocon.

Admiral McConnell's belated damage repair ought to refocus world attention on Iran's very real nuclear threat. Too bad his NIE rewrite won't get anywhere near the media attention that the first draft did.

[ERIC]: This statement does not surprise me.

Iran builds a better centrifuge

2008-11-12T23:54:00.000-05:00

I sure hope when we elect Obama that he has the courage to draw a hard line with Iran and then stand by it.

Iran starts up advanced centrifuges

By GEORGE JAHN, Associated Press WriterThu Feb 7, 6:23 PM ET

Iran's nuclear project has developed its own version of an advanced centrifuge to churn out enriched uranium much faster than its previous machines, diplomats and experts said Thursday.

[ERIC]: That is great news, isn't it?

They said that few of the IR-2 centrifuges were operating and that testing appeared to be in an early phase, with the new machines rotating without processing any uranium gas.

More significant, the officials said, is the fact that Iran appears to have used know-how and equipment bought on the nuclear black market in combination with domestic ingenuity to overcome daunting technical difficulties and create highly advanced centrifuges.

[ERIC]: The Persians I knew in school were no dummies. It is amazing what a little motivation, coupled with high IQ can produce.

Iran's uranium enrichment work has raised concerns in Washington and other Western capitals because it can produce the radioactive material needed for nuclear bombs. Tehran says it is only pursuing lower-level enrichment to make fuel for atomic reactors that will generate electricity.

[ERIC]: Then why buy nuclear "fuel" from Russia?

Iran is under two sets of U.N. Security Council sanctions for refusing to suspend uranium enrichment, which it started developing during nearly two decades of covert nuclear activity built on illicit purchases and revealed only five years ago.

That secrecy heightened suspicions about Iran's intent, but Iranian leaders argued the country has a right to run a peaceful enrichment program and dismissed the U.N. demands, saying they planned to expand the project rather than freeze it.

Up until recent weeks, Iran had publicly focused on working with P1 centrifuges — outmoded machines that it acquired on the black market in the 1980s. Workers set up more than 3,000 of the machines in the large underground hall near Natanz, a city about 300 miles south of Tehran.

But diplomats told The Associated Press that Iranian experts now are testing a small number of more advanced IR-2 machines. They described it as a hybrid of the P-2 centrifuge once peddled on the black market by A.Q. Khan, the scientist who oversaw Pakistan's development of nuclear weapons.

The diplomats, who agreed to discuss the development only if granted anonymity because they weren't authorized to divulge the confidential information, said it was unclear whether the new generation centrifuges were in the underground facility or an aboveground pilot site at Natanz.

The P-2 centrifuge sold by Khan can enrich uranium gas up to three times faster than a P-1, but it is made from maraged steel — a high-nickel, low-carbon steel that is difficult to manufacture and hard to smuggle through international controls.

One of the diplomats said the Iranians had circumvented that problem by making the centrifuge's rotor tubes out of carbon fiber, presumably using machines and technology developed for Tehran's missile sector and using a German version as a model.

A former U.N. nuclear inspector, David Albright, said the ingenuity demonstrated by such a development was impressive.

"If you learn how to make carbon fiber rotors, you are very far ahead," said Albright, whose Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security tracks countries under nuclear suspicion. "They are much cheaper and easier to make, and you can learn to spin them very fast."

Using a hypothetical example of the efficiency of a P-2-based centrifuge compared with the P-1, Albright said 1,200 of the more advanced machines could produce enough material for a single nuclear warhead in a year, compared to 3,000 of the older model.

[ERIC]: Am I the only person that finds this disturbing?

Iran has stonewalled the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency for years on details of its centrifuge development program, but in recent months has shown more cooperation under a plan agreed to last year that commits Tehran to lifting the veil of secrecy on all past nuclear activities.

[ERIC]: Once that first mushroom cloud begins rising over Tel-Aviv I think the veil of secrecy will pretty much be lifted.

Last month, the International Atomic Energy Agency's chief, Mohamed ElBaradei, was given new information on Iran's "new generation of centrifuges" during talks in Tehran — a priority as the agency tries to establish how far along Iran is in developing the technology.

ElBaradei is to report on the progress of his probe next month to the 35-nation IAEA board.

Ali Ashgar Soltanieh, Iran's chief representative to the IAEA, declined to discuss specifics of the probe but told AP that "we have made good progress."

___

On the Net:

International Atomic Energy Agency: http://www.iaea.org

The Kingdoms of Gog and Magog

2008-11-12T23:52:00.000-05:00

No surprises here. My real question is why does Iran still have 3000 centrifuges whirring when Russia is supplying it with the fuel it will need to bring its FIRST nuclear power plant reactor online ( I have included two more articles at the end of the first, from different sources confirming the apparent danger of this unholy Russian-Iranian alliance).

As a side note, reactor grade plutonium can be used in nuclear weapons, albeit the case that weapons manufacture using reactor grade plutonium is more difficult and dangerous compared to weapon grade plutonium.

For weapons manufacture, the ideal plutonium contains a very high proportion of plutonium-239. As neutron irradiation of uranium-238 proceeds, the greater the quantity of isotopes such as plutonium-240, plutonium-241, plutonium-242 and americium-241, and the greater the quantity of plutonium-238 formed (indirectly) from uranium-235. These unwanted isotopes make it more difficult and dangerous to produce nuclear weapons.

Definitions of plutonium usually refer to the level of the unwanted plutonium-240 isotope:

(1) Weapon grade plutonium contains less than 7% plutonium-240. (A sub-category - super grade plutonium - contains 2-3% plutonium-240 or less.)
(2) Fuel grade plutonium contains 7-18% plutonium-240
(3) Reactor grade plutonium contains over 18% plutonium-240.

Nuclear power reactors can of course be operated on a much shorter than usual irradiation cycle in order to produce large quantities of weapon grade and/or fuel grade plutonium for use in weapons. It is sometimes argued that short irradiation times would adversely effect the commercial operation of a power reactor, but that would probably be of minimal concern to a would-be proliferator.

During a normal reactor operating cycle (in which fuel typically remains in the reactor for 3-4 years), a large majority of the plutonium formed is reactor grade. However, the grade of the plutonium varies depending on the position of the particular fuel elements in the reactor. Carlson et al. (1997) note that: "Even though fuel assemblies are moved around during refuelling, some parts of fuel rods will have a plutonium isotope composition closer to that of [weapon grade plutonium]. Fuel grade plutonium is produced in some nuclear reactors. It is often produced in tritium production reactors, and can also be produced in power reactors in initial core loads and in damaged fuel discharged from the reactor earlier than normal (Carlson et al., 1997).Carlson et al. (1997) note the normal operation of on-load refuelling reactors (eg certain gas-graphite and heavy water reactors) can result in some low burn-up plutonium.The development of fast breeder technology has the potential to result in large-scale production of weapon grade plutonium (Carlson et al., 1997).Carlson et al. (1997) note that at least five tonnes of civil plutonium under IAEA safeguards is in the upper range of fuel grade plutonium or weapon grade plutonium. There is general agreement that reactor grade plutonium can be used to produce weapons, though the process is more difficult and dangerous than the use of weapon grade plutonium (see Gorwitz, 1998 for discussion and references).

Carlson, J., J. Bardsley, V. Bragin and J. Hill (Australian Safeguards and Non-Proliferation Office), "Plutonium isotopics - non-proliferation and safeguards issues", Paper presented to the IAEA Symposium on International Safeguards, Vienna, Austria, 13-17 October, 1997, www.asno.dfat.gov.au o_9705.html

Carson Mark, J., 1993, "Explosive Properties of Reactor-Grade Plutonium", ccnr.org findings_plute.html.

Gorwitz, Mark, 1996, "The Plutonium Special Isotope Separation Program: An Open Literature Analysis".

Gorwitz, Mark, 1998, "Foreign Assistance to Iran's Nuclear and Missile Programs", www.globalsecurity.org wmd library report 1998 iran-fa.htm. See Appendix A and references.

www.globalsecurity.org ccnr.org www.asno.dfat.gov.au

Russia makes 1st nuke shipment to Iran

By JIM HEINTZ, Associated Press Writer

1 hour, 24 minutes ago

Russia has made its first shipment of nuclear fuel to an Iranian nuclear power plant at the center of the international tensions over Tehran's atomic program, the Foreign Ministry said Monday.

The United States said the Russian delivery gave Iran another reason to suspend its enrichment program.

The U.S. has been unhappy about Russia helping Iran build the Bushehr nuclear plant. But President Bush has supported Russia in providing uranium fuel to Iran — but only if Moscow retrieves the used reactor fuel for reprocessing.

Iran contends the plant is strictly for civilian purposes, but critics say it could be used to advance efforts to build nuclear weapons.

The construction of the Bushehr plant has been frequently delayed. Officials said the delays were due to payment disputes, but many observers suggested Russia also was unhappy with Iran's resistance to international pressure to make its nuclear program more open and to assure the international community that it was not developing nuclear arms.

Russia announced last week that its construction disputes with Iran had been resolved and said fuel deliveries would begin about a half year before Bushehr was expected to go into service.

"All fuel that will be delivered will be under the control and guarantees of the International Atomic Energy Agency for the whole time it stays on Iranian territory," the Foreign Ministry said in a statement. "Moreover, the Iranian side gave additional written guarantees that the fuel will be used only for the Bushehr nuclear power plant."

Iran confirmed that it had received the shipment, the official Iranian news agency IRNA reported.

"The first nuclear fuel shipment for the Bushehr atomic power plant arrived in Iran Monday," IRNA quoted Iranian Vice President Gholam Reza Aghazadeh as saying.

The 2005 agreement under which Russia agreed to supply nuclear fuel for Bushehr included a clause that requires Iran to return the spent fuel to prevent any possibility Tehran would extract plutonium from it to make atomic weapons.

Aghazadeh said the Bushehr plant was 95 percent complete and would begin operations "next year." He indicated the reactor needed 80 tons of nuclear fuel during the initial phase of operation, but did not provide further details.

The U.S. has been pushing the U.N. Security Council to pass a third round of sanctions against Iran for its refusal to suspend uranium enrichment.

"This fuel shipment gives the Iranians one more reason to suspend their enrichment program," White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe said. "If they're getting fuels from the Russians now, Iran doesn't need its own program."

[ERIC]: And has been obviously stated above and in previous articles, turning reactor fuel into weapons grade material is not difficult. Building the detonator is not terribly difficult. Enriching material in centrifuges is difficult.

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino noted the Russian said the IAEA "will be involved in this transaction. So that is a step — I would say a good step in that direction."

The American effort became more difficult earlier this month with the release of a new U.S. intelligence report that concluded Iran had halted its nuclear weapons development program in 2003 and had not resumed it through at least the middle of this year.

Although Russia has resisted drives to impose sanctions on Iran, it also repeatedly has urged Tehran to cooperate with the Vienna, Austria-based IAEA to resolve concerns over the nuclear program.

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov underlined that position last week after a meeting in Moscow with his Iranian counterpart Manouchehr Mottaki.

Officials at Atomstroyexport, the Russian contractor for Bushehr, raised the prospect last week of creating a Russian-Iranian joint venture "to ensure security" at the Bushehr plant, according to the RIA-Novosti agency.

[ERIC]: Suicide. Ignorance. Anyone buying into that is an idiot. Sorry, but it is the truth.

That could indicate Russian interest in ensuring that enriched uranium at the plant is not stolen or diverted. Depleted fuel rods also could be reprocessed into plutonium.

___

Associated Press Writer Ali Akbar Dareini in Tehran, Iran contributed to this report.

A DANGEROUS WORLD

Stupid Intelligence on Iran
If Tehran did slow its weapons program, Bush policies probably had something to do with it.
BY JAMES SCHLESINGER
Wednesday, December 19, 2007 12:01 a.m.

The release earlier this month of "key judgments" from the National Intelligence Estimate--including the bald assertion "that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program"--has caused both astonishment here at home and consternation overseas, where it has resulted in confusion about America's policy goals and steadiness.

Let us stipulate that the intelligence community has acquired evidence sufficiently persuasive to lead it to reverse its prior judgment that Iran was hard at work developing nuclear weapons. For that it has been praised, particularly in traditional intelligence quarters, for "speaking truth to power," and thereby dissipating some of the distrust generated by its faulty earlier judgments on Iraq.

The NIE's about-face on Iran's nuclear weapons program represents a reversion to an earlier style of intelligence analysis--featuring a renewed determination not to get beyond the "hard evidence." But as we shall see, this has led to a decision not to consider several crucial elements that lay behind the presumed 2003 decision in Tehran.

Clearly, the key judgments in the NIE were overstated. And that, in turn, may reflect the very late decision to declassify the key judgments, written in a kind of shorthand, and thus incautiously phrased.

The crucial decision, hidden in a footnote, was to define the "nuclear weapons program" which had been halted to mean only "Iran's weapon design and weaponization work and covert . . . uranium enrichment-related work." Thus it excludes Iran's overt enrichment program monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

[ERIC]: Apparently, the intelligence analyst were expecting those in the media to "connect-the-dots" and correctly render their report in a correct light.

We have long understood that the production of fissile material, whether overt or covert, remains "the long pole in the tent" in the development of a nuclear capability. Thus the NIE defines away what has been the main element stirring international alarm regarding Iran's nuclear activity.

Yesterday Tehran announced its Bushehr nuclear power plant will be operating at full capacity by the end of next year. Yet even though Russia supplied the nuclear fuel for Bushehr, the Iranians insist on maintaining their "civilian" uranium-enrichment program. Weapon design and weaponization, at least for the simpler weapons, is a far less demanding and less time-consuming task than uranium enrichment.

Let us examine what else has not been considered. The NIE asserts "that Iran halted the program in 2003 primarily in response to international pressure" and that "indicates that Tehran's decisions are guided by a cost-benefit approach." Now what might have constituted the principal elements in that "international pressure" to induce Tehran, at least temporarily, to halt its covert weaponization program?

• The American invasion of Iraq, resulting in the seizure of Baghdad in 10 days time--something that had widely been suggested could not be accomplished.

• The earlier destruction of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, another display of American military prowess.

• The decision of Col. Moammar Gadhafi to abandon his nuclear program and to renounce and make amends for terrorism.

• The exposure and partial demolition of the A.Q. Khan nuclear technology network, Khan's confession and his confinement by the Pakistani government to his home.

Does it not seem likely that Tehran took notice of these events, and may have been intimidated by them into more circumspect behavior? The NIE argues that "Tehran's decisions are guided by a cost-benefit approach." Given those successful American actions, those who guide decisions in Iran may well have decided that the potential costs of being caught with a clandestine program had risen sharply, and that the presumed benefits of early clandestine weaponization efforts could safely be deferred.

In brief, since the "long pole in the tent" remains the production of fissile material, Iran likely decided that the prudent course of action was to pursue an open enrichment program ostensibly to produce fuel for nuclear reactors. It is a course that had been chartered by North Korea--and arguably was legitimate under the Nonproliferation Treaty. This central path to obtaining fissile material--the focus of international concern--has been treated in the NIE as quite distinct from the "nuclear weapons program."

Still, the achievements of American arms and American policy during that period were undoubtedly noted in Tehran. Why not mention them in the NIE as possibly influencing Tehran's decision in 2003?

The answer, in brief, is that it would have been speculative and in violation of the renewed commitment of the intelligence community to stick to the "hard evidence." There was no intercept; there was no agent's report that such calculations were, indeed, the source of Iran's switch. So in order to avoid the kind of speculation that had gotten the intelligence community into trouble in its judgments regarding Iraq, these realities were left up to the imagination of others and the intelligence community stuck to what it had evidence for.

What was obvious about events in and around 2003 should have been obvious at least to the American media. The media, Lord knows, have no inhibitions about engaging in speculation or urging us to "connect the dots," or feeling any obligation to limit themselves to hard evidence. The NIE almost begged for others to follow up on the nature of "international pressure" and the calculations behind Iran's "cost-benefit approach."

But the American media today almost reflexively treat any development as a setback for the administration of George W. Bush. So, the media quite clearly ignored the obvious: that a surprising decision by Tehran in 2003 to halt the covert weaponization effort likely was a tribute to the successes of American policy and arms during that period. Thus, administration policies and actions that likely induced caution in Tehran could be characterized, ironically enough, as an administration defeat.

Little more need be said about the process by which what might have been heralded as a victory was transformed into a defeat and echoed overseas. But a few words do need to be added about the intelligence community's decision to restrict its key judgments to "hard evidence." Many in the intelligence community embrace this as a return to virtue. Yet in itself it has severe drawbacks. As in this case, reading the key judgments may now require something akin to Cliffs Notes listing other relevant events and considerations that may be necessary in interpreting an Estimate limited to the hard evidence.

Exclusive reliance on hard evidence not infrequently results in deliberately blinding oneself to the most obvious explanation of what has occurred. The classic example of this failing occurred during the Vietnam War, when intelligence analysts stubbornly refused to accept that enemy supplies were pouring through Sihanoukville ostensibly on the grounds that there was no hard evidence. (Actually, there was an agent's report that revealed the activity, but it was dismissed as insufficient.) Intelligence based on hard evidence requires supplementation by other forms of intelligence.

"Failures of imagination," to which the 9-11 Commission referred, can come in a variety of modes.

Mr. Schlesinger is a former secretary of defense, secretary of energy and director of the Central Intelligence Agency.

The Bear Is Back
By Ben Shapiro
Wednesday, December 19, 2007

On Monday, Russia announced it was sending 80 tons of uranium fuel to Iran to help that Islamist dictatorship build a "peaceful" nuclear reactor in Bushehr. Russia has an interest in building the power plant: It stands to gain $1 billion, since the plant is to be constructed by the Russian state-owned Atomstroyexport. Iran also has an interest in building a power plant: pursuit of nuclear weaponry. Meanwhile, the Bush administration stands by and does nothing.

Russia says it will insist Iran return all processed uranium that could be used to create nuclear bombs. "All fuel that will be delivered will be under the control and guarantees of the International Atomic Energy Agency for the whole time it stays on Iranian territory," explained Sergei Karaganov, chairman of the Council on Foreign and Defense Policy in Moscow. "All our processed fuel is to be returned, gram by gram. It can't be used for weapons under any circumstances. This is a fact of life."

[ERIC]: The actual fact is that fuel would normally stay in a reactor for about four years, at which point is contains too many contaminating isotopes and is generally unusable as a weapon source. Removing fuel after minimal irradiation would, however, produce very usuable weapons grade material. If the fuel is removed after 6 months, and inspectors assume a four year fuel cycle then that leaves 3 1/2 years for the Iranians to play with possible weapons grade Uranium. People need to educate themselves with facts, because obviously the chairman of the Council on Foreign and Defense Policy in Moscow is either misinformed or lying.

Russia says it believes Iran has no nuclear ambitions. "For us, the old information we got was that they didn't have a military program," said Karaganov. "Now it has been confirmed by the U.S. intelligence. Thank God, because it has ended speculation that the Americans are preparing a massive attack."

While Russia proclaims the Ayatollahs' peaceful intentions, Iran is more transparent. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad continues to taunt the West, justifying the Iranian nuclear program as a necessary response to domestic oil shortage -- which is somewhat like China claiming a shortage of manpower.

President Bush responded to the Russian-Iranian deal with conciliatory words. "If the Russians are willing to do that -- which I support -- then the Iranians do not need to learn how to enrich," Bush stated at a speech in northern Virginia. "If the Iranians accept that uranium for a civilian nuclear power plant, then there's no need for them to learn how to enrich."

There's only one problem: Russia isn't to be trusted.

Russia has an agenda of its own. For years, the Russians have strengthened bonds with our enemies. Just before the invasion of Iraq, Russia inked an enormous financial deal with Saddam Hussein. Russia does huge weapons business with Syria. And Russia's involvement with the Bushehr reactor dates back years.

Russia has two strong motivations to aid Iran: cash and nationalism.

[ERIC]: From an economic perspective I certainly agree that Iranian money infused into the Russian economy will do good things for them. But, does Russia have a "little brother" complex regarding the U.S., and would it execute risky behaviour to again consider itself our equal? That does not make any sense to me. The need for cash I understand, the need for a collective national esteem boost by supplying nukes to Islamic radicals is nuts.

Iran provides the Russians with billions of dollars in income. And Russia sees itself as a power on the rise -- a potential challenger to the hegemony of the United States over the long haul.

Russia's suggestion that the West ought to sign off on the Bushehr reactor based on IAEA oversight is simply absurd. The IAEA has proved to be a hollow shell time and time again. Pre-invasion Iraq, Iran and North Korea have all barred IAEA inspectors on a regular basis.

The release of this month's National Intelligence Estimate, which claimed that Iran had halted its nuclear weapons program, provided Russia with the opportunity it needed to openly contribute to the Iranian nuclear agenda. With the Bush administration hemmed in by domestic naysayers, Russia is now free to pursue its own goals in the Middle East.

Over five years ago, in August 2002, I penned these words: "We must act quickly in opposition to those countries that would constitute a new Russian sphere of influence: Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Syria and others. We cannot allow Moscow to ally with these countries, creating a new Russian satellite system." That warning went unheeded. We cannot continue to ignore Russia's rogue nationalism. There is a bear in the woods again.

NIE report starting to unravel?

2008-11-12T23:51:00.000-05:00

Seems everyone is attacking: the report, the administration for releasing the report, and the "intelligence" officials who wrote the report.

GLOBAL VIEW

The NIE Fantasy
The intelligence community failed to anticipate the Cuban Missile Crisis.

BY BRET STEPHENS
Tuesday, December 11, 2007 12:01 a.m.

"The USSR could derive considerable military advantage from the establishment of Soviet medium- and intermediate-range ballistic missiles in Cuba, or from the establishment of a submarine base there. . . . Either development, however, would be incompatible with Soviet practice to date and with Soviet policy as we presently estimate it."

--Special National Intelligence Estimate 85-3-62, Sept. 19, 1962

Twenty-five days after this NIE was published, a U-2 spy plane photographed a Soviet ballistic missile site in Cuba, and the Cuban Missile Crisis began. It's possible the latest NIE on Iran's nuclear weapons program will not prove as misjudged or as damaging as the 1962 estimate. But don't bet on it.

At the heart of last week's NIE is the "high confidence" judgment that Tehran "halted its nuclear weapons program" in the fall of 2003, "primarily in response to increasing international scrutiny and pressure resulting from exposure of Iran's previously undeclared nuclear work." Prior to that, however, the NIE states, also with "high confidence," that "Iranian military entities were working under government direction to develop nuclear weapons." Left to a footnote is the explanation that "by 'nuclear weapons program' we mean Iran's nuclear weapon design and weaponization work. . . . we do not mean Iran's declared civil work related to uranium conversion and enrichment."

[ERIC]: Can you really decouple the two?

Let's unpack this.

In August 2002, an Iranian opposition group revealed that Iran had an undeclared uranium enrichment facility at Natanz and an undeclared heavy water facility at Arak--both previously unknown to the pros of the U.S. intelligence community. Since then, the administration has labored to persuade the international community that all these facilities have no conceivable purpose other than a military one. Those efforts paid off in three successive U.N. Security Council resolutions demanding Iran suspend enrichment because it was "concerned by the proliferation risks" it posed.

Along comes the NIE to instantly undo four years of diplomacy, using a semantic sleight-of-hand to suggest some kind of distinction can be drawn between Iran's bid to master the nuclear fuel cycle and its efforts to build nuclear weapons. How credible is this distinction?

In "Avoiding Nuclear Anarchy" (1996), MIT's Owen Cote notes that "The recipe [for designing a weapon] is very simple. . . . Nor are the ingredients, other than plutonium or HEU [highly enriched uranium], hard to obtain. For a gun weapon, the gun barrel could be ordered from any machine shop, as could a tungsten tamper machined to any specifications the customer desired. The high-explosive charge for firing the bullet could also be fashioned by anyone with access to and some experience handling TNT, or other conventional, chemical explosives" (my emphasis).

In other words, Iran didn't abandon its nuclear weapons program. On the contrary, it went public with it. It's certainly plausible Tehran may have suspended one aspect of the program--the aspect that is the least technically challenging and that, if exposed, would offer smoking-gun proof of ill intent. Then again, why does the NIE have next to nothing to say about Iran's efforts to produce plutonium at the Arak facility, which is of the same weapons-producing type as Israel's Dimona and North Korea's Yongbyon reactors? And why the silence on Iran's ongoing and acknowledged testing of ballistic missiles of ever-longer range, the development of which only makes sense as a vehicle to deliver a weapon of mass destruction?

[ERIC]: 3000 centrifuges, still whirring away ...

Equally disingenuous is the NIE's assessment that Iran's purported decision to halt its weapons program is an indication that "Tehran's decisions are guided by a cost-benefit approach"--an interesting statement, given that Iran's quest for "peaceful" nuclear energy makes no economic sense. But the NIE's real purpose becomes clear in the next sentence, when it states that Iran's behavior "suggests that some combination of threats of intensified international scrutiny and pressures, along with opportunities for Iran to achieve its security, prestige and goals for regional influence in other ways, might--if perceived by Iran's leaders as credible--prompt Tehran to extend the current halt to its nuclear weapons program."

This is a policy prescription, not an intelligence assessment. Nonetheless, it is worth recalling that if Iran did have an active weaponization program prior to 2003, as the NIE claims, it means that former Iranian President Mohammad Khatami was lying when he said that "weapons of mass destruction have never been our objective." Mr. Khatami is just the kind of "moderate" that advocates of engagement with Iran see as a credible negotiating partner. If he's not to be trusted, is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?

[ERIC]: Policy prescription? We have some terrible flaws right now in our intelligence community. I believe these flaws began with the First Bush administration and really were hammered home with the Clinton administration.

Then again, when it comes to the issue of trust, it isn't just Mr. Ahmadinejad we need to worry about. It has been widely pointed out that the conclusions of this NIE flatly contradict those of a 2005 NIE on the same subject, calling the entire process into question. Less discussed is why the administration chose to release a shoddy document that does maximum political damage to it and to key U.S. allies, particularly France, the U.K. and Israel.

[ERIC]: I find this point to be the most unsettling.

The likely answer is that the administration calculated that any effort by them to suppress or tweak the NIE would surely leak, leading to accusations of "politicizing intelligence." But that only means that we now have an "intelligence community" that acts as an authority unto itself, and cannot be trusted to obey its political masters, much less keep a secret. The administration's tacit acquiescence in this state of affairs may prove even more damaging than its wishful thinking on Iran.

For years it has been a staple of fever swamp politics to believe the U.S. government is in the grip of shadowy powers using "intelligence" as a tool of control. With the publication of this NIE, that is no longer a fantasy.

Mr. Stephens is a member of The Wall Street Journal's editorial board. His column appears in the Journal Tuesdays.

Will the recent NIE report actually cause a war with Iran?

2008-11-12T23:41:00.000-05:00

Here is the first of what I assume to be many dissenting voices with respect to the recent NIE report on Iran's nuclear capability.

I have no idea how badly flawed America's intelligence gathering capability is. I know that in some part of the mid 90's we began to move away from field officers in the CIA to electronic data gathering, and hence lost our on the ground viewing capability. Spy satellites can only reveal so much. Eventually, you need someone to sit down and have a cup of coffee with a potential source of information.

That NIE Makes War against Iran More Likely
By Daniel Pipes
Tuesday, December 11, 2007

With the Dec. 3 publication of a completely unexpected declassified National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), "Iran: Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities," a consensus has emerged that war with Iran "now appears to be off the agenda." Indeed, Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, claimed the report dealt a "fatal blow" to the country's enemies, while his foreign ministry spokesman called it a "great victory."

[ERIC]: Sure would suck if we unwittingly played directly into Iranian hands. If they do have nukes I am sure they are laughing their burka's off at us.

I disagree with that consensus, believing that military action against Iran is now more likely than before the NIE came out.

The NIE's main point, contained in its first line, famously holds: "We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program." Other analysts – John Bolton, Patrick Clawson, Valerie Lincy and Gary Milhollin, Caroline Glick, Claudia Rossett, Michael Rubin, and Gerald Steinberg – have skillfully dissected and refuted this shoddy, politicized, outrageous parody of a piece of propaganda, so I need not dwell on that here. Further, leading members of Congress are "not convinced" of the NIE's conclusions. French and German leaders snubbed it, as did the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and even the International Atomic Energy Agency expressed doubts. British intelligence believe its American counterparts were hoodwinked, while Israeli intelligence responded with shock and disappointment.

[ERIC]: According to the MSM (mainstream media) the entire world (Europe) is applauding the report and scolding Bush for "saber rattling" and acting in a irresponsible manner. I guess it depends on where you get your information.

Let us skip ahead then, and ask what are the long-term implications of the 2007 report?

For the sake of argument, let us assume the May 2005 NIE was correct, in which sixteen U.S. intelligence agencies assessed "with high confidence that Iran currently is determined to develop nuclear weapons." Let us also assume there are three possible American responses to the Iranian nuclear buildup:

Convince the Iranians of their own accord to stop the nuclear weapons program.
Stop it for them through military intervention (which need not be a direct strike against the nuclear infrastructure but could be more indirect, such as an embargo on refined petrochemicals entering the country).
Permit it to culminate in Iran's acquiring a nuclear bomb.

As for Option 3, President Bush recently noted that whoever is "interested in avoiding World War III, … ought to be interested in preventing [the Iranians] from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon." So far, the lame NIE has not changed his mind. He appears to share John McCain's view that "There's only one thing worse than the United States exercising a military option. That is a nuclear-armed Iran."

Therefore, the real question is not whether Iran will be stopped, but how.

The 2007 NIE has effectively terminated Option 1, convincing the Iranians themselves to halt their nuclear program, because this route requires wide external agreement. When key countries banded together to pass Security Council Resolution 1737 in December 2006, it caused the Iranian leadership to respond with caution and fear; but the NIE's soothing conclusion undercuts such widespread cooperation and pressure. When Washington pressures some Western states, Russia, China, and the IAEA, they can pull it out of the drawer, wave it in the Americans' faces, and refuse to cooperate. Worse, the NIE has sent a signal to the apocalyptic-minded leadership in Tehran that the danger of external sanctions has ended, that it can go undisturbed about its bomb-building business.

That leaves Option 2, direct intervention of some sort. Yes, that seems unlikely now, with the NIE dropping like a bombshell and shifting the debate. But will this hugely-criticized one thousand-word exercise really continue to dominate the American understanding of the problem? Will it change George W. Bush's mind? Will its influence extend to a year from now? Will it extend yet further, to the next president?

Highly unlikely, for these projections assume stasis – that this one report can refute all other interpretations, that no further developments will take place in Iran, that the argument over Iranian nuclear intentions closed down in early December 2007, never to revive. The debate most assuredly will continue to evolve and the influence of this NIE will fade and become just one of many appraisals, technical and non-technical, official and unofficial, American and non-American.

In short, with Option 1 undermined and Option 3 unacceptable, Option 2 – war carried out by either U.S. or Israeli forces – becomes the more probable. Thus have short-sighted, small-minded, blatantly partisan intelligence bureaucrats, trying to hide unpleasant realities, helped engineer their own nightmare.

[ERIC]: What if this was just a ruse? A bit of disinformation with the single goal of tempting Iran to restart (or step up efforts) in its bomb making facilities. Maybe this NIE report was floated to see if Iran would take the bait and reveal their hand by their actions in light of these findings?

Copyright © 2006 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.

Still a dangerous world

2008-11-12T23:40:00.001-05:00

I find it odd that Iran has taken the time to develop (or acquire from North Korea) long range missiles capable of carrying a nuclear payload. I mean, they shut down their nuclear bomb making initiative several years ago, according to the recent NIE report. I find it equally interesting that many Eastern European countries are now scrambling to erect a missile defense perimeter. You know, the kind of missile defense perimeter that Ronald Reagan envisioned with his "Star Wars" program (that was openly mocked and laughed at). I have some comments about "Star Wars" in the article below.
This is an odd little politically correct wonderland we find ourselves in today, isn't it?

WONDER LAND

Still a Dangerous World
Democrats imply the U.S. can talk its way out of global threats.

BY DANIEL HENNINGER
Thursday, December 6, 2007 12:01 a.m.

The most disturbing thing about the National Intelligence Estimate on Iran wasn't the news itself, but how the episode displayed the wild and manic swings that now characterize American politics. A regular watcher of our politics could be forgiven for feeling that one isn't watching a serious country but a place that conducts its internal affairs like a Saturday morning cartoon show. Thunk! Boooinng!

For some time, the conventional storyboard drawn for the Bush presidency has been that the U.S. is led by a bumbling Elmer Fudd, who outlandishly overestimates the danger from such imagined threats as Saddam Hussein, Syria or Iran's mysterious-looking mullahs. Prominent political figures here design their comments on world events to fit inside cartoon dialogue balloons. John Edwards, after the NIE story broke, denounced the Bush-Cheney "rush to war with Iran." Sen. Harry Reid demanded a "diplomatic surge."

These wide, all-or-nothing swings may serve the melodramatic needs of politics and the press, but they don't much help an electorate that will vote a year from now to send a new U.S. president out into the world. With or without the NIE's opinion of Iran's nuclear program, that world is still a dangerous place.

Let's assume for argument's sake that Iran did stop its nuke program in 2003. Why, then, in 2006 was Iran performing test flights of the Shabab-2 and Shabab-3 ballistic missiles, the latter with a range of some 1,200 miles?

[ERIC]: Where would an Iranian launched ballistic missile, with a range of 1200 miles, land if fired from within Iran?

[ERIC]: I guess Germany and France still consider that a little too close for comfort. I'd be a little paranoid if I was Romania, Bulgaria or Turkey. I do not think that those splinters from the former Soviet Union have much to worry about; they are Muslim (but not sure which flavor).

Commenting at the time, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the Iranians "are not unaware that the security environment is one in which if they actually were to do something, Iran would suffer greatly." But as of this week, they might not.

[ERIC]: Would "suffering greatly" be a real deterent, of simply a mechanism used to gain passage into heaven, where 70 virgins would be waiting?

Indeed last week, just as the U.S. intelligence professionals were preparing to tell the world it could forget about Iran (as yesterday's news reports made clear the world is about to do), the Iranian defense ministry announced it has built a new 1,200-mile missile, the Ashura. In September, it put on display the 1,100-mile-range Ghadr-1 missile. If this is all an inconsequential feint, it's a remarkably big one.

North Korea in July 2006 tested the long-range Taepodong-2, a nuclear payload-capable ballistic missile. North Korea has exported its missile technology to Iran and Pakistan. And of course Hezbollah, in the same month North Korea was testing the Taepodong-2, fired thousands of Katyusha rockets at Israel, re-establishing the operational viability of short-range bombardment.

China is developing three strategic, long-range missiles--the JL-1, and the DF-31 and DF-31A; the latter two are mobile ICBMs. This technology did not go away with the Cold War.

In January, after much effort to do so, China successfully used a kinetic-kill vehicle launched from a ballistic missile to destroy a satellite orbiting at 500 miles altitude.

[ERIC]: Part of Reagan's "Star Wars" initiative, or SDI, included research into kinetic energy hit-to-kill projectiles. One of the programs I remember was called "Brilliant Pebbles" and used a sensor code-named "Brialliant Eyes". I think these programs actually came to life when Clinton scaled back SDI to a theater defense strategy.

Apparently, China thought very highly of this technology; however, their approach to delivery was a little different than ours. Our kinetic-kill vehicle was a space-borne satellite, not an ICBM. I do not think results of testing these weapons ever surfaced, though.

The Bush administration's effort to place a missile-defense system in Eastern Europe as counterweight to Iran's missiles was conventionally mocked by elite opinion as a rerun of Ronald Reagan's "Star Wars scheme." In fact, Japan, Australia, Germany, Italy, Israel and Denmark are all attempting to develop antimissile technology. France is building a short-range ballistic missile defense system, the SAMP/T. What are they all afraid of?

Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates, indeed virtually all the nations of the Middle East are seeking nuclear-power capability. Possibly it's all just to keep the lights on in the tourist hotels, but nuclear-energy production is still a dual-use technology. It is now believed that Israel bombed Syria in September to destroy a nuclear-bomb facility built in part by North Korea.

This is a more complex and hair-trigger world than the Cold War years between the U.S. and Soviet Union. The idea that George Bush's handling of all these volatile moving pieces has been "incompetent" and has "isolated" the U.S. is a dangerous caricature, though that caricature is the way our Roller-Derby politics has chosen to talk about the world. The NIE/Iran drama this week is a case study--reduced in press reports to another Bush intelligence "flip-flop," as though the president wrote this stuff himself in the Oval Office.

Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, John McCain and even Mike Huckabee want us to entrust them with managing the world's flourishing threats. Has any offered sufficient reason why we should? In other political systems, a candidate's strategic policies tend to flow from his party. Here we mostly get whatever these hyper-ambitious individuals choose to reveal during a campaign--and the foreign-policy views of their party in Congress.

This Wednesday, after the NIE's release, the Democratic candidates had a fresh opportunity at an Iowa debate to describe how their presidencies would address Iran and the world. John Edwards chose to attack Sen. Clinton for voting in September to label Iran's Revolutionary Guards as terrorists. She and Sen. Obama, along with Democrats in Congress, said the new Iran intelligence estimate now mandates diplomacy only. Sen. Obama: "They should have stopped the saber rattling, should have never started it. And they need, now, to aggressively move on the diplomatic front."

[ERIC]: Obama: No saber rattling. Now, what was that he said about our ally Pakistan several months ago? Obama = bad news.

But in a July essay for Foreign Affairs, Sen. Obama said nuclear weapons "in the hands of a radical theocracy" is "too dangerous." While he favored "tough-minded" diplomacy with Iran, "we must not rule out using military force."

[ERIC]: Ah yes, I remember now ...

Which version is one supposed to believe? The candidates seeking votes from their party's pacifists, or the person who wants to represent his country's interests in a hostile world?

One would like more on this than we're getting from the candidates in both parties. But the Democrats especially have tied themselves to the word "diplomacy," giving the impression that the U.S. can literally talk its way out of any bad outcomes that Iran, Syria, North Korea or free-agent terrorists have planned for us.

[ERIC] War should always be considered a final, unavoidable option. Diplomacy is always first.

Put it this way: Would they, like Israel, have bombed that factory in Syria without pre-discussing it with Bashar Assad or Kim Jong-Il? No candidate's answer to that will make everyone happy. But the more than 100 million Americans who'll vote next year need a better idea than they've got of how the next president plans to deal with the world. Not the cartoon world, but the real world.

Mr. Henninger is deputy editor of The Wall Street Journal's editorial page. His column appears Thursdays in the Journal and on OpinionJournal.com.

More fallout from the flawed NIE report

2008-11-12T23:39:00.001-05:00

Europe speaks up after the abrupt U.S. about-face yesterday. Their platform is one of guarded optimism, but they still urge diligence and pressure to continue to force Iran to a more transparent state regarding its nuclear program.

No wonder the Europeans are a little more concerned then we are. First, they are much closer to Iran, and within theoretical range of an ICBM. Second, it was not the Europeans who would have had to fight Iran. That job would have gone to the U.S., er .. I mean U.N. (yeah, right).

Europeans relieved at US report on Iran

By ANGELA CHARLTON, Associated Press Writer1 hour, 44 minutes ago

Don't let Iran off the hook quite yet.

That's the message European and U.N. officials are sending after a U.S. intelligence report concluded Iran is not building nuclear weapons.

[ERIC]: No one really wants to take responsibility for cleaning up the mess if these intelligence reports are as accurate as the ones detailing Iraq's WMDs. I read the European and U.N. message as saying, " America, you are an evil devil, but in a bar fight we need you to do the dirty work." Your mileage may vary ...

Europeans say the U.S. U-turn strengthens their argument for negotiations with Tehran. But they also said that sanctions are still an option to compel Iran to be fully transparent about its nuclear program.

The report, a composite of findings from several U.S. intelligence agencies released Monday, said Iran halted nuclear weapons development in 2003 -- a stunning reversal for an administration whose conviction that Iran was seeking nuclear arms has driven two rounds of U.N. sanctions and stoked worldwide proliferation fears.

[ERIC]: That is an understatement.

European officials, eager not to appear thrown off balance by the surprising report, insisted that the international community should not walk away from years of talks with an often defiant Tehran that is openly enriching uranium for uncertain ends. The report said Iran could still build a nuclear bomb by 2010-15.

[ERIC]: Does anyone know the output, in MW, of Iran's nuclear power plants? Or the projected output of future, planned power plants? Does anyone know how long it would take 3000 whirring centrifuges to further enrich U-238 uranium from a 5% concentration to a 90% concentration?

"We must maintain pressure on Iran," said French Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Pascale Andreani, whose country has taken an increasingly tough stance against Iran in recent months. She said France would pursue a new U.N. resolution with "constraining measures" against Iran over its refusal to comply with international obligations. A tougher stance on Iran was a campaign promise of French President Nicolas Sarkozy, elected in May.

The EU's foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, has led Europe's push to get Tehran to suspend uranium enrichment -- an effort that will not be derailed by the U.S. report, said an EU official who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue. "It's very important for us not to say, 'Oh thanks for that, this whole thing is over now.' It isn't over. Iran is still in defiance of the U.N. Security Council and the Nonproliferation Treaty," said William Hague, foreign affairs spokesman for Britain's opposition Conservative Party.

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown's spokesman Michael Allam said, "The report confirms we were right to be worried about Iran seeking to develop nuclear weapons. It also shows that the sanctions program and international pressure has had some effect."The report may relieve European fears about a possible U.S. move toward war in Iran.

Sarkozy has evoked the risk of "a catastrophic alternative: an Iranian bomb, or the bombing of Iran" if diplomacy and sanctions fail. "Those who believe dealing with Iran can only be done through a military attack are weakened," said Yossi Mekelberg, a Middle East expert at Chatham House, an international affairs think tank in London.

[ERIC]: War should ALWAYS be a last, final alternative ...

The report was a vindication for the U.N. nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, which has been criticized as too cautious on Iran.IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei said the report "should help defuse the current crisis," the agency said in a statement. "The estimate tallies with the agency's consistent statements over the last few years," it said. The IAEA urged further negotiations on the future of Iran's nuclear program. Despite the continued talk of sanctions, the viability of a new U.N. resolution was uncertain in the face of the new report.

After high-level talks in Paris on Saturday, world powers predicted a third U.N. sanctions resolution within weeks.The United States, Britain and France have been leading a push for more sanctions, while Russia and China, the other two veto-wielding members of the U.N. Security Council, have been less enthusiastic. China's Foreign Ministry would not say Tuesday whether the new report could undercut the case for sanctions or whether Beijing would support new measures against Tehran. Ministry spokesman Qin Gang instead reiterated China's standard position of using "diplomatic negotiations first" and said China hopes that "Iran can earnestly fulfill the U.N. Security Council resolutions and carry out comprehensive cooperation with the IAEA and make clarifications on relevant issues."

Francois Gere, an Iran specialist and head of the French Institute of Strategic Analysis, said the report would have more impact on U.S. politics and strategy than in Europe. "Europeans were, and remain, in a logic of diplomacy," he said.

Associated Press writers William J. Kole in Vienna, Constant Brand in Brussels, Audra Ang in Beijing, Robert Barr and D'Arcy Doran in London, and Jamey Keaten in Paris contributed to this report.

Iran still making nukes

2008-11-12T23:38:00.001-05:00

Time to get back on topic ... Iran is still spinning centrifuges ... but the news seems to be a little less bleak. Perhaps the U.S. show of force in Iraq, resulting in Libya's capitulation and a severe blow to the nuclear back market, influenced the Iranians to halt warhead development?

Maybe they are sitting on top of North Korean nuclear arms that were sent to them so that the North Koreans could pass the U.N. inspection? If North Korea gave them nukes (like they did with Syria) then it stands to reason that there would be no reason to continue to develop a warhead, right?

I find it interesting that there is still a time line projected as to when Iran will be fully capable of launching a nuclear attack against someone.
US: Iran still able to develop nukes

--> -->

By PAMELA HESS, Associated Press Writer 16 minutes ago

Iran halted its nuclear weapons development program in the fall of 2003 under international pressure but is continuing to enrich uranium, which means it may still be able to develop a weapon between 2010 and 2015, according to a new U.S. intelligence assessment released Monday.

That finding, part of a new National Intelligence Estimate on Iran, is a sharp turnaround from two years ago when U.S. intelligence agencies believed Tehran was determined to develop a nuclear weapons capability and was continuing its weapons development program. It suggests that Iran's decisions are rational and pragmatic, and that Tehran is more susceptible to diplomatic and financial pressure than previously thought, the document concluded.

[ERIC]: Hmmmm

"Tehran's decision to halt its nuclear weapons program suggests it is less determined to develop nuclear weapons than we have been judging since 2005," says the unclassified summary of the secret report.

The findings come at a time of escalating tensions between the United States and Iran, which President Bush has labeled part of an "axis of evil," along with Iraq and North Korea. At an Oct. 17 news conference, Bush said, "If you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them (Iran) from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon."

Rand Beers, who resigned from Bush's National Security Council just before the Iraq war, said the report should derail any appetite for war on the administration's part, and should reinvigorate regional diplomacy. "The new NIE throws cold water on the efforts of those urging military confrontation with Iran," he said.

Senior intelligence officials said Monday they failed to detect Iran's fall 2003 halt in nuclear weapons development in time to reflect it in the 2005 estimate.

One of the officials said Iran is the most challenging country to spy on — harder even than North Korea, a notoriously closed society. "We put a lot more collection assets against this," the official said, "but gaps remain." The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject.

Some of the changes in the new report reflect the use of "open source" intelligence — public information from sources such as the news media and international organizations. An official said, for example, that photos taken at Iran's Natanz nuclear facility during U.N. inspections in 2002 were particularly useful in assessing the capabilities of the civilian uranium enrichment program.

U.S. National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley, said the risk of Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon remains "a serious problem." The estimate suggests Bush "has the right strategy: intensified international pressure along with a willingness to negotiate a solution that serves Iranian interests, while ensuring the world will never have to face a nuclear armed Iran," Hadley said. He was less interested in what the 2005 assessment missed than what it got right: that Iran had a covert nuclear program.

Bush was briefed on the 100-page document on Nov. 28. National Intelligence Estimates represent the most authoritative written judgments of all 16 U.S. spy agencies. Congress and other executive agencies were briefed Monday, and foreign governments will be briefed beginning Tuesday, the officials said.

Despite the suspension of its weapons program, it may be difficult to ultimately dissuade Tehran from developing a nuclear bomb because Iran believes such a weapon would give it international prestige and leverage to achieve its national security and foreign policy goals, the assessment concluded.

[ERIC]: What exactly are Iran's national security and foreign policy goals? Hmmm ...

"The bottom line is this: For that strategy to succeed, the international community has to turn up the pressure on Iran with diplomatic isolation, United Nations sanctions, and with other financial pressure and Iran has to decide it wants to negotiate a solution," Hadley said.

The intelligence officials said they do not know all the reasons why Iran halted its weapons program, or what might trigger its resumption. They said they are confident that diplomatic and political pressure played a key role, but said the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Libya's termination of its nuclear program and the implosion of the illegal nuclear smuggling network run by Pakistani scientist A.Q. Khan might also have influenced Tehran.

To develop a nuclear weapon, Iran needs to design and engineer a warhead, obtain enough fissile material, and build a delivery vehicle such as a missile. The intelligence agencies now believe Iran halted warhead engineering four years ago and as of mid-2007 had not restarted it.

But Iran is still enriching uranium for its civilian nuclear reactors that produce electricity. That leaves open the possibility that fissile material could be diverted to covert nuclear sites to produce highly enriched uranium for a warhead. Engineers have known the design for a nuclear weapon for 60 years. The countdown to a nuclear weapon is determined more by the availability of fissile material than anything else, the officials said.

[ERIC]: 3000 spinning centrifuges ....

Even if the country went all out with present enrichment capability, it is unlikely to have enough until late 2009 or 2010 at the earliest, the officials said. The State Department's Intelligence and Research office believes the earliest likely time it would have enough highly enriched uranium would be 2013. But all agencies concede Iran may not have sufficient enriched uranium until after 2015.

Iran would not be able to technically produce and reprocess enough plutonium for a weapon before about 2015, the report says. But ultimately it has the technical and industrial capacity to build a bomb, "if it decides to do so," the intelligence agencies found. They said Iran's immediate intentions are a mystery.

"We do not have sufficient intelligence to judge confidently whether Tehran is willing to maintain the halt of its nuclear weapons program indefinitely while it weighs its options, or whether it will or already has set specific deadlines or criteria that will prompt it to restart its program," the report says.

This national intelligence estimate was originally due in the spring of 2007 but was delayed because the agencies wanted more confidence their findings were accurate, given the inaccuracy of the 2002 intelligence estimate of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program.

"There was a very rigorous scrub using all the tradecraft available, using the lessons of 2002," said one senior intelligence official. He said foreign intelligence information was particularly closely scrutinized.

The CIA, which did most of the analysis, considered at least six alternate scenarios that could explain the new findings, including whether Iran was intentionally trying to deceive them into believing weapons work had stopped.

Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell decided last month that key judgments of NIEs should not be declassified and released. The intelligence officials said an exception was made in this case because the last assessment of Iran's nuclear program in 2005 has influenced public debate about U.S. policy toward Iran, and must be updated to reflect the latest findings.

Also Monday, a top U.S. diplomat said China may be open to discussing fresh U.N. Security Council sanctions against Iran. China and Russia, both veto-wielding members of the Security Council, have been reluctant to support new sanctions.

--> -->

Who is afraid of an Iranian bomb?

2008-11-12T23:36:00.000-05:00

By Victor Davis Hanson
Thursday, October 25, 2007

At first glance, it would seem a straightforward thing to stop a relatively weak but volatile Iran from obtaining a nuclear bomb. It would also seem to be something a concerned world community would be actively working to do.

After all, the Sunni Arab states surrounding Iran don't want a Shiite nuclear power on their borders.

Europe, which isn't all that far from Tehran and lacks a missile-defense shield, certainly doesn't want to be in range of Iran's missiles.

Israel can't tolerate an Iranian theocracy both promising to wipe it off the map and then brazenly obtaining the means to do so.

The Russians and the Chinese, both already concerned about India, Pakistan and North Korea, don't need another rival Asian nuclear power on their borders.

And the United States, already worried about Iranian threats to Israel and involved in daily military battles in Iraq with pro-Iranian agents and terrorists armed with Iranian-imported weapons, doesn't want a nuclear Iran expanding its Persian Gulf influence.

But in truth, most players don't care enough to stop Iran from getting the bomb, or apparently don't think it's worth the effort and cost. Some may even see some advantages to a nuclear Iran.

The Arab Gulf monarchies, for example, know that their enormous dollar reserves would likely buy them some reprieve from a nuclear Iran, or at least bring in the U.S. Navy to offer them deterrence from attack.

Meanwhile, the current tension and ongoing fear of disruption in the Persian Gulf sends billions in windfall oil profits the Gulf states' way.

Leaders of Arab states also have to fear their own populations' reactions to any action taken against Islamic Iran. Despite his religious Shiite background, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is far more popular among Sunni populations in the Gulf than George Bush — and even perhaps more popular than the autocratic Arab thugs and dictators who run most of the Middle East.

The European Union, like the Arab states, believes as a last resort that its economic clout and deft diplomats can always work out some sort of arrangement with Tehran's clerics, who, after all, need customers to buy their high-priced oil.

So most in Europe bristle at French President Nicolas Sarkozy's warnings about an impending war to stop an Iranian bomb. Instead, they feel it's an American problem to organize global containment of Iran.

[ERIC]: To think that the French will lead the way in stopping Iran is completely amazing. The French? Viva la France!!

Israel also has reason to fear a war with Iran. If Israel were to attack Tehran, it could find itself in three instantaneous wars — and be hit with thousands of missiles from the West Bank, Gaza, Lebanon, Syria and Iran. That shower would make last year's Hezbollah barrage seem like child's play.

In Russia, Vladimir Putin's foreign policy is nursed on grievances about a lost empire, America as the sole superpower and the independence of cocky former Soviet republics. In the thinking of oil-exporting Russia, anything that causes America to squirm and world oil prices to soar is a win/win situation. That's why Russia supplies Iran with its reactor technology and stirs the nuclear pot.

[ERIC]: Putin is playing with the Tiger. Everything seems okay, for now. How can he be so sure that his alliance with Iran won't end the same way as Stalin's alliance with Hitler? Hmm ... I guess put another way, how can Ahmadinejad be confident in his alliance with Russia? I cannot believe that this intriguing alignment of powerful dictators coupled with nuclear bombs is not on everyones radar.

China, like Russia, is a large nuclear power and doesn't fear all that much Iranian missiles that it thinks are more likely to be pointed westward anyway. True, it would like calm in the Gulf to ensure safe oil supplies, but thinks it still could do business with a nuclear Iran.

And, as in the case of Russia, anything that bothers the United States can't be all that bad for Beijing. While Ahmadinejad ties the U.S. down in the Middle East, China thinks it will have more of a free hand to expand its influence in the Pacific.

Then there's the complacent situation here at home. After Afghanistan and Iraq, most Americans don't feel we're up to a third war. Some point to nuclear Pakistan and believe we could likewise live with Iran having the bomb.

[ERIC]: Isn't this the same kind of passive isolationist attitude that allowed World War II to unfold (because the nation was tired of war after the "war to end all wars")?

A few on the left even feel that a nuclear Iran would remind us of our own limitations in imposing our will and influence abroad.

[ERIC]: Again, typical left-wing rhetoric: America sucks, we are evil, we need to be punished for all our sins against humanity.

They belittle the current warnings of George Bush and Dick Cheney about Iran's nuclear program, shrugging that the two used to say similar things about Saddam and his nonexistent arsenal of weapons of mass destruction.

Meanwhile, much of the rest of the world, represented in the U.N.'s General Assembly, feels that a nuclear Iran offers comeuppance to a haughty United States, Israel and Europe without threatening anyone else.

Ahmadinejad may be viewed across the globe as a dangerous religious nut. But to many, he, like Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez, also represents an anti-capitalist, anti-globalization popular front against America and therefore shouldn't be ostracized.

So who wants a nuclear Iran?

No one and everyone.

Victor Davis Hanson is a classicist and historian at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and author, most recently, of "A War Like No Other: How the Athenians and Spartans Fought the Peloponnesian War."

A Warning

2008-11-12T23:34:00.000-05:00

As editor of the Jerusalem Post, some of her rhetoric is to be expected. But her article contains deeper truths ...

The rise of the fantasists
By Caroline B. Glick
Saturday, August 25, 2007

As the cliché goes, "A conservative is a liberal whose been mugged by reality." Like most clichés, this one exposes a larger truth. Namely, people often base their views on their fantasies of how the world should be, rather than on the reality of how the world actually is.

Following this line, the September 11, 2001 attacks can be seen as a large-scale mugging. After the attacks, the same American people that had ignored the threat of totalitarian Islam since the Iranian revolution first categorized the US as the Great Satan back in 1979, acknowledged the danger and recognized it was at war. The overwhelming majority of Americans supported President George W. Bush when he said that the US would fight to destroy all global terror organizations and take down the regimes that sponsor them.

But even before the fires were put out in Lower Manhattan, voices from two quarters were already claiming that the US should stay in Dreamland. First, there were the radical leftists like Susan Sontag and Michael Moore who wrapped themselves in the banner of the human rights of the wretched of the Earth. They claimed that al-Qaida was simply giving Americans their comeuppance for dominating the world through McDonalds and Levis.

ERIC: I have heard this idiotic argument, and it betrays an absolute ignorance with respect to Islam and middle eastern culture.

Next there were people like former presidents Carter and Bush's national security advisers Zbigniew Brzezinski and Brent Scowcroft, assorted university professors, and CIA analysts who wrapped themselves in the banner of realism. They claimed that American support for Israel is what brought the Islamic world to hate the country and kill thousands of its citizens by flying hijacked airplanes into buildings.

ERIC: This scenario I find easier to digest.

In both cases, the fantasists ignored completely Osama bin Laden's declarations that his goal is to conquer the world in the name of Islam. They disregarded the political and cultural milieus marked by inexhaustible envy towards the West and the US that gave rise to al-Qaida and its sister organizations. Rather than acknowledge the reality of real war with real enemies, both camps of fantasists argued that instead of slaying these twin dragons, the US should appease them by serving them Israel for lunch.

These voices were relegated to the margins of public debate until the lead up to the 2004 presidential elections. Ahead of those elections, backed by George Soros's financial muscle, the fantasists had an enormous impact of the debate in the Democratic Party. Politicians who until then had supported the war generally, and in Iraq particularly, clamored to decry it.

THIS WEEK, two leftist institutions - the Center for American Progress and Foreign Policy magazine - published a survey of conservative, moderate and liberal foreign policy experts. The results of the survey show clearly that while still a minority, the fantasists are far from marginal today.

Fourteen percent of those surveyed believe that Israel is the US's least helpful ally. While unfortunate, this is far from the survey's most troubling result.

The Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group's report, which was released last December, recommended that the administration sell Israel off in order to buy Iranian, Syrian and Saudi cooperation in Iraq that could pave the way to an orderly American retreat from the country. Uber fantasists James Baker and Lee Hamilton asserted that if the US forces Israel to surrender the Golan Heights to Syria and Judea, Samaria, and Jerusalem to the Palestinians, all will be well with Iraq. Eighty-eight percent of the foreign policy experts surveyed agreed with them.

ERIC: Besides the suicidal nature of such a move, I am convinced that God would intervene. Too many prophetic activities have been set in motion ...

Fifty-three percent of the experts (38% of the conservatives, 59% of the moderates and 59% of the liberals) believe that the US should recognize Hamas. Forty-seven percent (29% of the conservatives, 49% of the moderates and 61% of the liberals) believe that the US should recognize Hizbullah.

As for Iran, 68 percent of the survey's participants think that the Iranian threat can be contained through negotiations.

ERIC: Am I the only person who remembers Neville Chamberlain?

Only 10 percent think that the US should attack Iran's nuclear facilities. Indeed, a significant minority is of the opinion that the world stands to benefit from a nuclear-armed Iran.

ERIC: This one statement leaves me dumb-founded. Whether hawk or dove, liberal or conservative, how could any reasonably intelligent person possibly think this is a good thing??

A quarter of the conservatives, 29% of the moderates and 41% of the liberal experts claimed that Iran will behave more responsibly if it acquires nuclear capabilities. Only 32 percent think that Iran will attack Israel with nuclear bombs. Only 24 percent think it likely that Iran would transfer nuclear devices to terrorists.

A BRIEF look at recent statements by Iran's leaders and its terrorist vassals suffice to show how cut off these views are from reality. Last Saturday, Iran's supreme leader Ali Khamenei said, "America and its followers are stuck in a whirlpool and they sink deeper as time passes. A dangerous future is predicted for them." Wednesday Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad signaled that Iran will share its nuclear know-how with others saying, "If nuclear energy is something good, all nations should enjoy it on the basis of law."

In an interview with Britain's Independent, Iraqi Shiite terror boss Muqtada al Sadr admitted that his group trains with Hizbullah. Sadr said, "We have formal links with Hizbullah…. We copy Hizbullah in the way they fight and their tactics, we teach each other and we are getting better through this."

On the occasion of the one-year anniversary of last year's war against Israel, Hizbullah chief Hassan Nasrallah told Iranian television that Hizbullah acts at Teheran's pleasure. "I am a lowly soldier of the Imam Khamenei. Hizbullah youths acted on behalf of the Imam Khomeini… and sent their blessings to the Iranian people," Nasrallah said.

On August 6, Osama Hamdan, Hamas's representative in Lebanon, told al-Kawthar television that Hamas is preparing for war not because expects it Israel to attack, "but because the final goal of the resistance is to wipe this entity [Israel] off the face of the Earth. This goal necessitates the development of the capabilities of the resistance, until this entity is wiped out."

ERIC: Ding, ding, ding

ALTHOUGH PRESIDENT Bush insistently rejects the fantasists' approach to world affairs, his current policies towards Iran and Israel reflect their views. Indeed the administration's policies towards both countries read like a page out of the Baker-Hamilton playbook.

The administration maintains its slavish devotion to negotiating with Iran over its nuclear weapons program in spite of the fact that the diplomatic track failed demonstrably three years ago. It recently expanded its diplomatic offensive to include conducting direct talks with the Iranians on Iraq. Iran has responded to America's conciliatory stance by expanding its uranium enrichment activities and escalating attacks in Iraq.

As to Israel, the Americans are pressuring Israel to conduct negotiations with Fatah towards an Israeli surrender of Judea and Samaria and Jerusalem. Such withdrawals would foment the rise of yet another base for global jihad run by Iran's Palestinian proxies in the center of the shriveled Jewish state.

To advance this aim, the US pressured Israel to pardon some 178 Fatah terror fugitives and is now pressuring it to pardon another hundred. This is despite the fact that this week the Fatah terrorists announced they would renew their attacks on Israel.

The Americans have pledged to renew training of Fatah's Force 17 militia.

ERIC: Not too sure about this. I'd like to see proof.

This week the New York Sun published an interview with Abu Yusuf, a Force 17 commander who admitted that previous US training sessions enabled Fatah to murder Israelis more effectively.

Other Fatah leaders told The Jerusalem Post's Khaled Abu Toameh this week that Fatah forces are openly cooperating with Hamas cells in Judea and Samaria.

IF THE Americans want to know what will happen if their foreign policy fantasists take charge of their affairs, they have only to cast a glance at what is happening in Israel today. Because in Israel, the fantasists are firmly in charge of policy. With the twin goals of fostering peace and enhancing Israel's international standing, Israel's fantasist leaders are driving the country to the outer reaches of La La Land.

In the name of peace, the Olmert government is conducting semi-secret negotiations with Fatah chief Mahmoud Abbas. According to press reports Olmert and his colleagues are offering Abbas 92 percent of Judea and Samaria, the Arab neighborhoods of Jerusalem and the Temple Mount, and land in the Negev which will connect Gaza to Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem. Furthermore, according to press reports, the Olmert government is willing to accept Israeli responsibility for the fate of the Arabs who left Israel in 1948 and for their descendants. What this means in the real world is that Israel is seeking to extend Iran's control over Gaza to Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria and then to fill these Iranian enclaves with hostile foreign Arabs.

In the interests of enhancing Israel's international cache, Israel is courting the UN which in the Olmert government's fantasy world is Israel's friend. To foster good relations, Sunday the government endorsed the extension of UNIFIL's mandate in south Lebanon despite the fact that UNIFIL's 13,000 soldiers did nothing to prevent Hizbullah's rearmament and reassertion of control over Lebanon's border with Israel over the past year.

On November 29, the government is planning to have Israel's parliamentarians reenact the General Assembly's decision to partition the Land of Israel on November 29, 1947 and so promote the fiction that Israel owes its existence to the UN. The government has asked UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon to preside over the session.

In the real world, the UN is a hostile institution controlled by tyrannies that works actively to delegitimize Israel's right to exist. To this end, next week, the UN will convene two anti-Israel forums in Europe. First, the European Parliament will host an anti-Israel hate fest sponsored by the UN's Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People.

Second, in Geneva, the UN will convene the first planning session for its second anti-racism conference scheduled to take place in 2009. That the conference will be a reenactment of the anti-Semitic orgy of hatred which took place in Durban, South Africa in 2001 is made clear by the fact that Libya is chairing the planning session. Iran, Cuba and Pakistan are all members of the planning committee.

ERIC: UN = BAD

FANTASIES ARE alluring. Peddling them can even get you elected. But the majority of Americans who reject fantasy as a basis for making real world decisions should take heed of Israel's example.

That example shows that despite the fantasists' fervent efforts to smother it, reality never goes away. Sooner or later, it mugs you. Sometimes, all it does is pick your pocket. But the longer you ignore it, the more dangerous it becomes.

Caroline B. Glick is the senior Middle East fellow at the Center for Security Policy in Washington, D.C., and the deputy managing editor of The Jerusalem Post, where this article first appeared.

War with Iran close?

2008-11-12T23:33:00.000-05:00

Political pundit Pat Buchanen thinks he detects signs indicating Bush is preparing for a showdown with Iran. If you have read any of my posts you are certainly aware that I believe Iran is in the process of acquiring nuclear bombs which will be used to wreak world-wide havoc. Even so, the idea of expanding our "War on Terror" in the Middle East leaves me uneasy. I had really felt that dealing with Iran was going to be Hillary's problem, and my concern was that she would not take their threat seriously enough.

I think the real question concerns trusting our current leadership to take us into a war with Iran, when we are currently at war in Afghanistan and Iraq. Do we believe they will be successful? Is the window for Iran developing a nuclear bomb being met, and is the urgency in dealing with that stark reality now heightened? If it is not then why engage?

Phase III of Bush's War
By Patrick J. Buchanan
Tuesday, September 4, 2007

Those who hoped that -- with the victory of the antiwar party in 2006, the departure of Rumsfeld and the neocons from the Pentagon, the rise of Condi and the eclipse of Cheney -- America was headed out of Iraq got a rude awakening. They are about to get another.

Today, the United States has 30,000 more troops in Iraq than on the day America repudiated the Bush war policy and voted the GOP out of power. And President Bush, self-confidence surging, is now employing against Iran a bellicosity redolent of the days just prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom.

ERIC: Of course Pat is reading tea leaves here, right?

What gives Bush his new cockiness? The total collapse of the antiwar coalition on Capitol Hill and the breaking of the Congress.

Last spring, Bush vetoed the congressional deadlines for troop withdrawals, then rubbed Congress' nose in its defeat by demanding and getting $100 billion to support the surge and continue the war.

Before the August recess, Democrats broke again and voted to give Bush the warrantless wiretap authority many among them had said was an unconstitutional and impeachable usurpation of power. They are a broken and frightened lot.

ERIC: What is a Democratically controlled Congress afraid of?

Comes now evidence congressional Democrats have not only lost the pro-victory vote, but forfeited the peace vote, as well.

According to a Zogby poll the last week in August, just two weeks before Gen. Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker report, Americans, by 45 percent to 20 percent, give this Democratic Congress lower grades on handling the war than the Republican Congress it replaced.

Fifty-four percent of the nation believes, contra Harry Reid, the war is not lost. That is twice the support that Bush enjoys for his war leadership, a paltry 27 percent. But, by nine to one, Bush's leadership on the war is preferred to that of the Congress of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.

Incredibly, only 3 percent of the nation gives Congress a positive rating on its handling of the war. Congress has lost the hawks, and the owls, and the doves. No one trusts its leadership on the war.

And George W. smells it. He no longer fears the power of Congress, and his rhetoric suggests he is contemptuous of it. He is brimming with self-assurance that he can break any Democratic attempt to impose deadlines for troop withdrawal and force Congress to cough up all the funds he demands.

Confident of victory this fall on the Hill, Bush is now moving into Phase III in his War on Terror: First, Afghanistan, then Iraq, then Iran.

Do not take this writer's word for it. Hearken to the astonishing rhetoric Bush used at the American Legion Convention in Las Vegas against Tehran:

"Iran ... is the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism. ... Iran funds terrorist groups like Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, which murder the innocent and target Israel. ... Iran is sending arms to the Taliban. ... Iran has arrested visiting American scholars who have committed no crimes. ... Iran's active pursuit of technology that could lead to nuclear weapons threatens to put a region already known for instability and violence under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust.

"Iran's actions threaten the security of nations everywhere. ... We will confront this danger before it is too late."

ERIC: I hope people are paying attention to this.

Bush has repeatedly warned Iran to cease supplying Iraqi insurgents with arms and enhanced IEDs for attacks on our troops in Iraq.

How has Tehran responded to Bush's virtual ultimatums?

"The attacks on our bases and our troops by Iranian-supplied munitions have increased in the last few months -- despite pledges by Iran to help stabilize the security situation in Iraq. ...

"Iran's leaders cannot escape responsibility for aiding attacks against coalition forces and the murder of innocent Iraqis."

This is a case for war. Indeed, it's an assertion by President Bush that Iran is colluding in acts of war against the soldiers and Marines and allies of the United States. What does he intend to do?

"I have authorized our military commanders in Iraq to confront Tehran's murderous activities. ... We've conducted operations against Iranian agents supplying lethal munitions to extremist groups."

This suggests that U.S. forces may already be engaged in combat operations against Iranians.

Who or what can stop this drive to war?

Last spring, Nancy Pelosi herself, after a call from the Israeli lobby, pulled an amendment that would have forced Bush to come to Congress for specific authorization before attacking Iran. Before the August recess, the Senate voted 97 to zero for a resolution sponsored by Joe Lieberman to censure Iran for complicity in the killing of U.S. soldiers in Iraq.

The resolution explicitly rejected authorization for immediate military action, but the gist of it declared that Iran is participating in acts of war against the United States, laying the foundation for a confrontation.

What is to prevent Bush from attacking Iran and widening the war, at a time and place of his choosing, and sooner than we think?

Nothing and no one.

Pat Buchanan is a founding editor of The American Conservative magazine, and the author of many books including State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America .

Wheels ... slowly ... turning

2008-11-12T23:31:00.000-05:00

Here is a fun little video to watch in order to set the proper tone before reading this editorial piece from the Wall Street Journal:

REVIEW & OUTLOOK

Bush and Iran
Tehran has been told it will pay a price for killing Americans, but it never has.

Thursday, September 27, 2007 12:01 a.m.

The traveling Mahmoud Ahmadinejad circus made for great political theater this week, but the comedy shouldn't detract from its brazen underlying message: The Iranian President believes that the world lacks the will to stop Iran from pursuing its nuclear program, and that the U.S. also can't stop his country from killing GIs in Iraq. The question is what President Bush intends to do about this in his remaining 16 months in office.

[ERIC]: I can offer a guess as to what Bush will do. He will strike first. And you can believe the Democrats hope to God he does, because they don't want that unresolved problem on their necks when they take over the entire government in 2008. The newly elected Democratic Congress discovered just how unpleasant taking ownership of Middle Eastern problems really is (30K more ground troops in Iraq since the Democrats landslide takeover of Congress!). And Pelosi delivered a bill signed and sealed to Bush giving him total authority to wage war without Congressional consent. Lets not even talk about wiretapping. The Democrats are scarred witless and really willing to do anything to avoid responsibility going forward.

Over the last five years, Mr. Bush has issued multiple and sundry warnings to Iran. In early 2002, he cautioned Iran that "if they in any way, shape or form try to destabilize the [Afghan] government, the coalition will deal with them, in diplomatic ways initially." In mid-2003, following revelations about the extent of Iran's secret nuclear programs, he insisted the U.S. "will not tolerate the construction of a nuclear weapon."

In January of this year, as evidence mounted that Iran was supplying sophisticated, armor-penetrating munitions to Shiite militias in Iraq, Mr. Bush was tougher still: "We will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq."

In February, he added that "I can speak with certainty that the Qods Force, a part of the Iranian government, has provided these sophisticated IEDs that have harmed our troops." And as recently as this month's TV speech on Iraq, the President alerted Americans to the "destructive ambitions of Iran" and warned the mullahs that their efforts to "undermine [Iraq's] government must stop."

We belabor this rhetorical record because it so clearly contrasts with how little the Administration has done about it. As with Syria, the Bush Administration has repeatedly told Iran that it would have to pay a price for its hostile behavior while in the end demanding no such price. This undermines U.S. diplomacy, but in the case of GIs in Iraq it is worse: It means the Commander in Chief is letting an enemy kill Americans with impunity. And the Iranians have got the message: Mr. Ahmadinejad felt confident enough to declare this week at the U.N. that the issue of its nuclear program was "closed."

[ERIC]: Another page from Saddam's playbook. The silly little posturing meant for one purpose alone: start the war.

From 2003 to 2005, Mr. Bush outsourced his Iran policy to France, Germany and Britain, which wooed Tehran with trade concessions, security guarantees and promises of technical assistance. Iran rejected those offers, as it did a Russian proposal to enrich uranium on its own soil--but not without drawing out talks as long as possible.

The Administration finally succeeded in having Iran's Non-Proliferation Treaty violations referred to the U.N. Security Council in 2006, though by then Iran had mastered the technology of enriching uranium in a "cascade" of centrifuges. Many nuclear analysts consider this the point of no return toward a bomb. Intelligence reports also suggested that Iran had designs for casting uranium into hemispherical shapes--essential for making a bomb--and for marrying a nuclear warhead to a ballistic missile.

[ERIC]: Again, please, watch the YouTube video I posted a link to above. It is beautiful. It shows both the U.S. and Russia's most powerful thermo-nuclear bombs. This is Ahmadinejad's ambition: to release one of these monsters onto an American city.

So far there have been two "binding" U.N. resolutions on Iran's nuclear project, both notable mainly for their weakness. When Resolution 1747 passed this March, U.S. officials said the Security Council would move quickly to the next round. Instead, it has done nothing, even as Iran has moved to install industrial-scale (3,000-plus centrifuge) enrichment facilities.

The U.S. has also exerted some financial pressure on Iran, in part by pressing European companies to scale back their investments. This is useful, but only on the margins. The U.S. is now talking with France and others on developing sanctions outside the U.N., to avoid a Russian or Chinese veto. But these sanctions will apparently not include an embargo on Iran's imports of refined gasoline, which account for 40% of its domestic consumption.

[ERIC]: I think this newly elected French government will be more than willing to work with us. They seem to understand the scale of the problem.

The failure to act is similar regarding Iran's support for terror in Iraq. As early as August 2003, Paul Bremer noted Iran's "irresponsible conduct" in Iraq's affairs. In 2005, even Time magazine was reporting "Inside Iran's Secret War for Iraq." It was not until last summer that the U.S. began taking any kind of action against Iranian operatives in Iraq, most of them working under diplomatic cover.

This month U.S. forces arrested Mahmudi Farhadi, whose job description, according to the Iranian government, is head of "cross-border commercial transactions" for the western Iranian province of Kermanshah. Translation: Mr. Farhadi smuggles IEDs into Iraq. Wire reports say Mr. Farhadi's arrest is only the third such action against Iranian nationals this year.

According to information from an Iranian opposition group with a record of being right, Iran's Qods (Jerusalem) Force operates under the aegis of the Al-Najaf Al-Ashraf Al-Saqafieh Establishment, based in Najaf and run by Iranian mullah Hamid Hosseini. Arms deliveries are organized by a group called the "Headquarters for Reconstruction of Iraq's Holy Sites." Iran orchestrates these efforts from the Fajr Base, in the Iranian city of Ahwaz.

Administration officials tell us that Iranian-backed militias using Iranian-supplied arms now account for 70% of U.S. casualties in Iraq. U.S. forces also recently intercepted a shipment of shaped explosive devices that Iran was smuggling to insurgents in Afghanistan.

[ERIC]: A shaped charge is an explosive charge shaped to focus the effect of the explosive's energy. Basically, it forms a plasma within the charges field of focus which it emits at around the speed of sound. A typical modern lined shaped charge can penetrate armour steel to a depth of 7 or more times the diameter of the charge's cone (cone diameters, CD), though greater depths of 10 CD and above are now feasible. Shaped charge explosives are used in Hellfire missiles, making them extremely effective tank killers. When the plasma penetrates the armor and enters the vehicle, the internal temperature will spike to around 2000F. The result is pretty devastating to both the mechanical portion of the vehicle and the occupants inside.

This is at least the third time such shipments have been seized by coalition forces. Dan McNeill, NATO's senior commander in Kabul, notes that "it would be hard for me to imagine that they come into Afghanistan without the knowledge of at least the military in Iran."

The Administration seemed prepared last month to name the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (which runs the Qods Force) as a terrorist organization, a designation that would be amply justified. But once again, the State Department is equivocating amid Russian, Chinese and European opposition.

[ERIC]: Just my guess, but the day the Administration declares the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps a terrorist organization is also the day we launch a preemptive strike against Iran.

Meanwhile, on the nuclear issue, Mr. Ahmadinejad declared this week that he'll no longer cooperate with the U.N. Security Council, but only with Mohamed ElBaradei, the accommodating Egyptian who runs the U.N. nuclear agency. Our readers will recall that former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton warned Mr. Bush about Mr. ElBaradei and tried to block his wish for a third term. But Mr. Bush sided with State Department officials who supported Mr. ElBaradei, and now the U.S. has to live with his pro-Iranian machinations.

The Bush Presidency is running out of time to act if it wants to stop Iran from gaining a bomb. With GIs fighting and dying in Iraq, Mr. Bush also owes it to them not to allow enemy sanctuaries or weapons pipelines from Iran. If the President believes half of what he and his Administration have said about Iran's behavior, he has an obligation to do whatever it takes to stop it.

[ERIC]: I would be interested to hear someone else's opinion on this matter. Does Bush have an obligation to stop Iran? For that matter, does he have a mandate from the American public to stop Iran?

Back to Iran

2008-11-12T23:28:00.001-05:00

I spoke with a liberal friend the other day who felt that our next President needed the ability to negotiate with Iran. Not simply the leadership of Iran, but those who are growing weary of the lack of economic and social progress who are living in Iran. He felt that there was enough dissension within the populace, that if we somehow found a way to negotiate with the disgruntled majority and enable them to overthrow the current regime then we could avoid any of these doomsday scenarios without war or much bloodshed. Not sure how citizens depose a despot without large amounts of human blood flowing ...

I think there are some Kurds in the mountains of Northern Iraq who would tell you that a left-wing President does not have the stomache for a coupe. Without the strong arm of the U.S., populist uprisings against tyrants end badly. Without a full committment to action by the U.S. administration then all that happens is civilians get slaughtered. Read "See No Evil: The True Story of a Ground Soldier in the CIA's War on Terrorism" by Robert Baer and see the first President Clinton leave those Kurdish troublemakers to their own Bay of Pigs. I have no reason to believe his wife would behave any differently.

Draft report logs bleak outlook for Iran

By PAULINE JELINEK and KATHERINE SHRADER, Associated Press Writers 10 minutes ago

A draft intelligence report on Iran suggests a change in the Tehran regime appears unlikely any time soon despite growing public anger over the country's economic woes, U.S. officials said Thursday.

The report also anticipates little progress in getting Iran to halt its nuclear program or stop supporting militant groups in the region, officials familiar with the draft said on condition of anonymity because the report has not been released.

The latest in a series of reports from the nation's 16 intelligence agencies, the new National Intelligence Estimate on Iran is nearly complete and could be shared with President Bush and other policymakers within weeks, said the officials. One said it is expected to be completed as soon as next week.

It is one of four reports the intelligence community is wrapping up on the Persian Gulf. Two others look at Iran's nuclear program and its military and conventional threat.

And an update on the situation in Iraq was released Thursday.

The report on Iran's political situation looks at issues ranging from the economy to its weapons programs, the officials said.

It says that Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei will continue in power despite rising discontent with the worsening economy, the officials said.

With the backing of the unelected clerical leadership that controls Iran, hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was elected on a populist agenda in 2005, promising to bring oil revenues to every family, eradicate poverty and tackle unemployment. His failure to keep those promises has provoked increasingly fierce criticism over recent months from both conservatives and reformists, who point to rising housing, food and oil prices, including the recent decision to ration fuel.

The new intelligence report also says Iran will continue to pursue a nuclear program that the United States and others believe is aimed at developing nuclear weapons, the officials said. Tehran denies that and says the program is for power generation.

Addressing another dispute between Washington and Tehran, the report also says Iran will continue to cause problems in Iraq, the officials said.

The U.S. government alleges that elements of Tehran's military are equipping and training militias involved in sectarian killings, roadside bombings of U.S. troops and other violence in Iraq — allegations that Iran denies.

U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker met in Baghdad early this month with his counterpart from Iran, Hassan Kazemi Qomi, on the subject. Though it was the third round of U.S.-Iranian security talks in just over two months, officials have reported no progress.

U.S. officials and others also have criticized Iran for supplying money and weapons to the Shiite Muslim extremist group Hezbollah, which is on the U.S. government list of terrorist organizations.

The new intelligence estimate foresees that Iran will continue as a main backer of the group, along with Syria, the officials said.

The U.S. broke diplomatic relations with Iran after the 1979 Islamic Revolution and the hostage crisis at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran.

The lingering poor relations have been exacerbated in recent years by rising tensions over Iran's nuclear program and U.S. allegations that Tehran is supporting armed groups in Iraq.

Iran said it had uncovered spy rings organized by the U.S. and its Western allies and has detained a number of Iranian-Americans.

The United States in recent months warned U.S. citizens against traveling to Iran, accusing Islamic authorities there of a "disturbing pattern" of harassment after the detention of a fourth Iranian-American for alleged espionage.

China loses 8kg of uranium

2008-11-12T23:26:00.001-05:00

China searches for 8 kg of "missing" uranium

1 hour, 52 minutes ago

Eight kg (17 lb) of radioactive uranium has gone missing in China, delaying the verdict in a trial of four men charged with attempting to sell it on the black market, state media said on Friday.

A court in Guangzhou, capital of China's southern province of Guangdong, heard the four tried to sell the material between 2005 and January 2007, the China Daily said.

The men were arrested in January after a potential buyer in Hong Kong reported them to the authorities, the paper said.

However, despite having the four men in custody, police were unable to locate the uranium.

"The men claimed it had been lost because it had been moved around so much between potential buyers," the paper said.

A verdict had yet to be reached "as the court said the trial would continue until authorities tracked down" the uranium.

More than 20 people had fallen sick after being exposed to the radioactive material, the Hong Kong-based Information Center for Human Rights and Democracy said, citing an official involved in the investigation.

Court documents identified it as fissile uranium-235, the Center said, adding that it originated in a mine in Hunan province that was open from 1958 to 1985.

Under Chinese law, the illegal trade in uranium carries a sentence of between three and 10 years in prison. In exceptional cases, it can carry the death sentence.

"The radioactive substance uranium does not explode when it is in its raw state, but it is very harmful to people's health," Jiang Chaoqiang, director of the Guangzhou No 12 People's Hospital, told China Daily.

"Therefore it needed to be found as soon as possible."

Copyright © 2007 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters shall not be liable for any errors or delays in the content, or for any actions taken in reliance thereon.

Just what sort of bomb would 8kg of Uranium build, you ask? As it turns out, not a very powerful one, when compared with what Hiroshima experienced. The thiefs did steal the U-235 variety of Uranium (as opposed to the stable, unenriched U-238 variety), but I'm not sure what concentration. Not sure what concentration causes radiation sickness (5% or 90%). It is the 5% concentration of U-235 Uranium that is used in power plants. It is the highly enriched 90% concentration U-235 Uranium that is considered weapons grade.

Here is an interesting article from across the pond that discusses how to build a nuke, and further discusses my favorite subject: Iran.

As a side note: The U.S. used gaseous diffusion on uranium hexafluoride in centrifuges during the Manhattan project to enrich uranium. This is an antiquated process that requires physically large production facilities. We now have the capability of using a laser based enrichment process that is much more efficient and requires very little production overhead. For a country to try and establish a weapons grade enrichment facility based on centrifuge technology would require a facility so large that spy satellites could easily identify it.

Issue 123 , June 2006

How to build a bomb

by Mark Fitzpatrick

How close is Iran to building a nuclear weapon? And what can the US do to stop it?

Mark Fitzpatrick is a senior fellow for non-proliferation at the International Institute for Strategic Studies

..>..>..>..>

Other articles in the Prospect online symposium on the Iranian nuclear crisis:

Philip Gordon explains why the US is unlikely to bomb Iran
Michael Rubin argues that diplomacy is not enough
Alastair Crooke says that the west are trampling over Iran's rights
Nazenin Ansari suggests that the Iranian state may be susceptible to sanctions
Esther Herman on her encounters with everyday Iranians

Anyone seeking to build a nuclear weapon needs two things: 1) enough fissile material for a critical mass (either 20-25kg of highly enriched uranium, the material used in the Hiroshima A-bomb, or 6-8kg of plutonium, as used in Nagasaki) and 2) a "weaponisation" package for a controlled fission reaction. They will also need a delivery vehicle—typically an aircraft or ballistic missile, but a suicide vessel or truck would do.

In the case of Iran, attention has focused on its uranium enrichment programme. Uranium enrichment involves increasing the concentration of fissile U-235 in uranium. What does this mean? The U-235 isotope makes up 0.7 per cent of naturally occurring uranium. U-235 is an isotope that will split, or fission, when struck by a loose neutron, emitting radiation energy and more neutrons that can split other atoms in a chain reaction. (Isotopes are atoms of a given element with the same chemical make-up and the same number of protons but varying numbers of neutrons. The number after the chemical symbol—U in uranium's case—is the atomic mass, the number of protons and neutrons, and is used to denote different isotopes.) But the bulk of natural uranium is the stable U-238 isotope, which cannot sustain a chain reaction. The point of the process of enrichment is to increase the concentration of U-235.

Uranium is enriched by passing it through a series of centrifuges—1.8cm-high spinning tubes that use centrifugal force to alter the concentration of the different uranium isotopes. Connecting 164 of the centrifuge machines together in a cascade, where the gas is successively enriched in each of several stages, provides a basic module for an enrichment facility. For nuclear fuel for reactors, such as the one Russia is completing at Bushehr, the U-235 content must be enriched to about 3.5 per cent for a controlled nuclear reaction. By contrast, weapons-grade uranium requires enrichment to over 90 per cent. Although that seems to be a far greater leap, once you have reached the 3.5 per cent fuel threshold, half the work is done. To get to weapons-grade, the low-enriched uranium is simply run through the centrifuges more times.

In early April, Iran announced that it had mastered the uranium enrichment process. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) confirmed that the pilot enrichment plant at Natanz had enriched uranium to the 3.5 per cent level in a connected series of 164 centrifuges. Iran's claimed achievement came twice as fast as analysts had predicted when the enrichment program resumed in January. In an almost reckless hurry, the Iranians had skipped many of the intermediate testing steps. They presumably wanted to establish new "facts on the ground," so that were they persuaded in the future to again suspend the enrichment programme, they would do so at a higher starting point.

Iran might not be as far along as its leaders would like us to believe. Only a small amount of enriched uranium has been produced, and it is possible that Iran's haste will eventually make waste. But we should not underestimate Iran's technical skill. Last year, western intelligence analysts judged that the uranium hexafluoride Iran was producing at Esfahan was overly contaminated with heavy metals. Now experts, including the IAEA, judge it is good enough for Iran's initial purposes. And Iran has already produced 110 tonnes of the feed material—enough, when enriched, for at least 15 nuclear weapons.

Iran originally planned to build five more 164-centrifuge cascade modules at the pilot plant, then to assemble 54,000 centrifuges in larger cascades in the underground fuel production facility at Natanz. Once the Iranians are confident the smaller cascades work, they can enlarge and replicate them at the underground site.

The Iranians could also replicate the centrifuge cascades in a hidden facility. If they seek to enrich uranium to the level and amount needed for a nuclear weapon, they could do so with 3,000 centrifuges operating for at least nine months. Assembling that number of centrifuges and getting them working smoothly would take some time—three years at least, in the estimate of the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), taking into account the time it takes to build and assemble the centrifuges, and to do all the diagnostic, calibration and sustainability testing that Iran skipped over in its race to demonstrate an enrichment capability this spring. Thus, in the IISS's estimation, the earliest Iran could have a nuclear weapon is at the end of the decade: 2010.

Other reputable analysts believe the earliest timeline for obtaining nuclear weapons could be 2009 or even 2008, while the official CIA estimate remains 2010 to 2015 years. These estimates are within the margin of error, because there are so many unknowns about Iran's programme. Even the Iranians do not know how well their domestically produced components will function and what technical problems they will face along the way. Iran's boast, however, that it will have 3,000 centrifuges installed at Natanz by March 2007 gives reason to fear the worst case scenario. Although the cascade will be configured for fuel production and monitored by the IAEA, Iran could reconfigure the facility for weapons-grade enrichment if it broke out of its nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT) commitment.

In November 2004, when Iran suspended its enrichment program under the terms of the Paris agreement with Britain, France and Germany, it had 1,345 centrifuges—of which perhaps half are of questionable quality—and components for several thousand more. Iran may need more and better components for its ambitious 54,000-centrifuge fuel production facility. As far as is known, however, it does not need to import anything more for a weapons programme.

Washington insists that it is focused on a diplomatic solution to Iran's nuclear challenge. It had hoped to forestall that programme before Iran acquired the expertise to enrich uranium, but Condoleezza Rice's recent conditional offer to join multilateral talks with Iran shows that the administration remains focused on the diplomatic track. If, however, these efforts do not stop the programme before Iran nears the worst case timeline for acquiring enough highly enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon, the military option is likely to be considered in earnest.

Seymour Hersh's claim in the April New Yorker that American military planners had included a tactical nuclear weapon among the alternatives considered to destroy underground nuclear facilities produced a flurry of comment and debate, mostly disparaging the notion. In addition to the disastrous consequences, weapons experts note that there is no need for a tactical nuclear weapon; the American GBU-28 Paveway III laser-guided penetration bombs—the so-called "bunker-buster"—can pierce 30 metres of soil or six metres of concrete. The fuel production facility at Natanz is buried ten metres underground. The depth of tunnels at Esfahan evident in satellite imagery last year are harder to judge, but most of the Esfahan facilities are above ground. The tunnels are presumably for storage of the uranium hexafluoride and associated machinery in the event of a foreseen attack.

If Iran refuses Washington's conditional offer for talks, the next step in the diplomatic process is for the security council to make suspension mandatory under Chapter VII of the UN charter, on the grounds that Iran's enrichment programme presents a threat to international peace and security. This could then pave the way for a second resolution authorising sanctions if Iran refuses. It has taken the west longer than planned to win agreement for a mandatory resolution, because Russia and China have refused to go along with any steps that could lead to UN sanctions, believing they would only exacerbate Iran's belligerent defiance.

Russia and China may be right. But it is defeatist to conclude that sanctions will not work before they have been tried. Until Iran has to face real costs for pursuing the enrichment programme, why would it stop? The security council could start with a range of political sanctions that would isolate Iran and hurt the pride that plays such a large role in its nuclear motivations. These could be supplemented by economic steps by the EU and other parties to cut off Iran's access to trade credits and foreign investment. Financial measures the US has effectively deployed to restrict North Korea's access to the international banking system are being employed against Iran as well. If incentives are added to the policy mix—especially the security and economic incentives that only the US can employ and which could be discussed in negotiations—Iran will be faced with a clear set of choices.

The combined impact of sanctions and incentives will not take root in time to stop Iran from furthering the enrichment technology. And air strikes cannot stamp out the knowledge in Iranian heads. But there is time to affect Iran's cost-benefit analysis before it employs this technology to make the bomb.

Iran is producing plutonium

2008-11-12T23:25:00.000-05:00

Only a matter of time. Once Russia shows up then I believe the showdown will be on. I think anyone who believes that Iran's nuclear program is to provide energy to their country should review North Korea and their nuclear energy program (big thanks to Jimmy Carter).

Do I believe these admissions of concealment to be a good-will gesture aimed to understate Iran's desire to join the world community as a good citizen? Please, go and review the U. N. transcripts of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's inaugural address after he was elected and decide for yourself his motivation.

Its coming. It will be here before you know it.

Here is the article from the BBC. Statements of interest are hi-lighted:

UN report says Iran has plutonium

Iran has reportedly admitted to the United Nations nuclear watchdog that it has produced plutonium - a material that could be used in nuclear weapons.

The admission comes in a report by the International Atomic Energy Agency on Iran's nuclear programme which the agency will consider next week.

The leaked IAEA report says Iran failed repeatedly to declare the extent of its programme but is now co-operating.

The US has demanded proof from Tehran that it is not developing weapons.

The report reveals that Iran has manufactured small amounts of both plutonium and enriched uranium - another material that can be used to make a nuclear bomb.

Iran says it is suspending its uranium enrichment with effect from Tuesday and has also announced that it will allow tougher UN inspections of its nuclear facilities.

US pressure

The United States has accused Iran of trying to build a bomb, but the Iranian authorities say their nuclear programme is designed purely to meet the country's energy needs.

Details of the IAEA report emerged as Iran responded angrily to the latest US criticisms of the regime in Tehran.

Iranian state radio described remarks by US Secretary of State Colin Powell as "extremely offensive".

Mr Powell had said the Iranian people wanted their freedom back and referred to Iranian clerics as people who had "dragged the sacred garments of Islam into the political gutter".

Iranian radio said: "Colin Powell has spoken against Iran on many occasions, but this is the first time that he has worn the cloak of an Islamologist to criticise the Islamic Republic of Iran."

Concealment policy

The IAEA report, widely quoted by news agencies, says there is no sign that Tehran has secretly been developing weapons.

"To date there is no evidence that [Iran's] previously undeclared nuclear material and activities... were related to a nuclear weapons programme," the agency said.

"However," it added, "given Iran's past pattern of concealment, it will take some time before the agency is able to conclude that Iran's nuclear programme is exclusively for peaceful purposes."

"Iran's policy of concealment continued until last month, with co-operation being limited and reactive and information being slow in coming, changing and contradictory," it said.

Fresh admissions

In September, the IAEA Board of Governors gave Iran an 31 October deadline to give details of its nuclear programme.

To meet the deadline, Iran made a number of admissions to hidden activities, according to the report.

The Vienna-based IAEA is to meet later this month to decide whether to declare Iran in violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

On Monday, Tehran said it was suspending its uranium enrichment programme and giving a letter to the IAEA agreeing to sign a protocol allowing for a more intrusive inspections of its facilities.

The IAEA welcomed the suspension as a goodwill gesture.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/middle_east/3259035.stm

Published: 2003/11/11 10:48:22 GMT