Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: Nuclear Iran & Other Fun in the Sandbox

  1. #1

    Default Nuclear Iran & Other Fun in the Sandbox

    Ahmadinejad: Iran is now a ‘nuclear state’

    Amount of enriched material unclear just 2 days after process was started


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

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

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

    White House spokesman Robert Gibbs dismissed Iran's claims, saying that country's leadership has made a series of statement based on politics, not physics.

    The claim of new progress in Iran's nuclear program came a day after the U.S. Treasury Department imposed new sanctions, freezing the assets in U.S. jurisdiction of a Revolutionary Guard general and four subsidiaries of a construction firm he runs.

    David Albright of the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security said that any 20-percent enriched uranium produced just a few days after the start of the process would be "a tiny amount."

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

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

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

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

    Iran announced Tuesday it was beginning the process of enriching its uranium stockpile to a higher level. The international community reacted by discussing the imposition of new U.N. sanctions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Western powers blame Tehran for rejecting an internationally endorsed plan to defuse the situation by having Iran export its low enriched uranium for enrichment abroad and returned as fuel rods for the Tehran reactor.

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

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

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

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

    Also, GMail to be blocked in Iran

    And Tehran attacks opposition leaders

    Fun stuff!

  2. #2
    What happens when or if Iran truly does become nuclear?

    What then?

    Would Israel act before then?

  3. #3
    There was another article I saw from last year that said Israel's military was making sure they'd be able to launch a "massive air offensive" against Iran targeting their nuclear sites within 8 hours of being ordered to do so.

  4. #4
    Shit hits the fan, I guess. I'm fairly convinced that even if the UN were not to take any serious action, and I'm fairly certain the US wouldn't take any pre-emptive action, Israel would certainly try to at least start, if not end the situation on their terms.

  5. #5
    Don't hold your breath waiting for Israel to do something. I have no doubt that the decision-making triumvirate in Israel (the Prime Minister, Defense Minister, and IDF Chief of Staff) are very concerned about Iran, but will they actually do something? I'm skeptical for two reasons.

    First, Israel is going to have to coordinate with the US on this one (as, presumably, they did for the 2007 Syrian air raid) - much more so because a strike on Iran would directly involve US interests. Given that a military option has been downplayed by the US, I doubt they would approve of an Israeli strike, and would probably actively attempt to dissuade the Israelis from such a course of action. This isn't really an Obama thing, either - Bush was pretty opposed to giving the go-ahead for a strike as well.

    Secondly, there are significant doubts about whether Israel would be able to significantly damage or slow the Iranian nuclear program. The initial concerns about distance are probably somewhat overstated - it would be just at the edge of the IAF's striking range, but they could probably manage a few small sorties. Similarly, while Iran's air defense systems are supposed to be miles better than the Iraqi systems in '81 or even the Syrian systems today, their operators are probably poorly trained, and the multiple systems are probably not well integrated. Furthermore, they as of yet have not received the S-300 system from Russia, and Israel has some pretty damn good ECW gear. A carefully planned and executed strike could probably hit a number of targets in Iran with manageable losses.

    Nevertheless, such a strike would not ensure success in significantly delaying the Iranian nuclear program. Evidence is mounting that the program is distributed among many secret facilities - the newly revealed one in Qom is probably one of several unknown sites. As it is, some of the currently known sites (notably Natanz and Qom IIRC) are hardened underground facilities that would be awfully difficult to completely destroy. Using some of Israel's largest bombs and some precision aiming, it might be possible, but would significantly increase the risk of operational failure.

    Thus, even if Israel were to get US approval (not bloody likely) and was able to field a large enough set of sorties, get through Iranian air defenses, and effectively destroy all of the known targets, it is likely that significant remnants of the nuclear program would survive in unknown facilities and would be able to continue weapons development in secret.

    That being said, it seems that Israel has been heavily involved in trying to slow the program through less dramatic means - a number of important scientists on the project have disappeared or died unexpectedly, and some have suggested that sabotage is responsible for some of the technical difficulties Iran keeps on running into. Combined with a sanctions regime, it's theoretically possible Iran could be dissuaded from further development. Absent that possibility, the only real actor who could effectively destroy Iran's nuclear program would be the US, and even that would be iffy.

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by agamemnus View Post
    What happens when or if Iran truly does become nuclear?

    What then?

    Would Israel act before then?
    I think this is an excellant question. Assuming they don't get bombed flat before they complete a bomb, what would a nuclear armed Iran do different than it does now?
    The Rules
    Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
    Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
    Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by EyeKhan View Post
    I think this is an excellant question. Assuming they don't get bombed flat before they complete a bomb, what would a nuclear armed Iran do different than it does now?
    That's easy - it would try to assert itself as a regional hegemon. It would act belligerently not just towards Israel, but towards Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and the rest of the Gulf countries. A number of major Arab powers would in response undertake their own nuke programs - certainly Saudi and Egypt have been leaning that way if Iran gets nukes. The concern isn't a nuclear Iran per se (though of course Israel and other small neighbors of Iran are rightfully concerned), but about the extremely destabilizing effect it would have on Middle East geopolitics.

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by wiggin View Post
    That's easy - it would try to assert itself as a regional hegemon. It would act belligerently not just towards Israel, but towards Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and the rest of the Gulf countries. A number of major Arab powers would in response undertake their own nuke programs - certainly Saudi and Egypt have been leaning that way if Iran gets nukes. The concern isn't a nuclear Iran per se (though of course Israel and other small neighbors of Iran are rightfully concerned), but about the extremely destabilizing effect it would have on Middle East geopolitics.
    Would Israel come forward (officially, I mean) as a nuclear power if Iran announced they had the bomb?
    In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
    The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by wiggin View Post
    That's easy - it would try to assert itself as a regional hegemon. It would act belligerently not just towards Israel, but towards Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and the rest of the Gulf countries. A number of major Arab powers would in response undertake their own nuke programs - certainly Saudi and Egypt have been leaning that way if Iran gets nukes. The concern isn't a nuclear Iran per se (though of course Israel and other small neighbors of Iran are rightfully concerned), but about the extremely destabilizing effect it would have on Middle East geopolitics.
    Local arms race. Heightened chance of a regional nuclear exchange. I could see the US making some sort of 'umbrella' arrangement with the Saudis, Iraq, Kuwait stating that we would resond in the event of a nuclear attack. Clearly the US would have less influence in the region.
    The Rules
    Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
    Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
    Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by EyeKhan View Post
    Local arms race. Heightened chance of a regional nuclear exchange. I could see the US making some sort of 'umbrella' arrangement with the Saudis, Iraq, Kuwait stating that we would resond in the event of a nuclear attack. Clearly the US would have less influence in the region.
    The other countries in the region are already in an arms race (conventional), but their weaponry (American-bought) is far superior to Iran's...
    Last edited by agamemnus; 02-12-2010 at 07:37 PM.

  11. #11
    I was thinking of a nuclear arms race. That wouldn't be good for anyone, I don't think.
    The Rules
    Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
    Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
    Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)

  12. #12
    Nuclear arms race between whom? Israel is the only state with nuclear capacity, and they're very likely will ahead of anything Iran could realistically produce.
    When the sky above us fell
    We descended into hell
    Into kingdom come

  13. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Steely Glint View Post
    Nuclear arms race between whom? Israel is the only state with nuclear capacity, and they're very likely will ahead of anything Iran could realistically produce.
    Its conceivable other countries in the region might use an Iranian nukes as a pretext to start their own program.
    The Rules
    Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
    Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
    Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)

  14. #14
    Am I correct in assuming we still get a benefit from the oil pumped out of the ground in Iran? With that in mind, how persuasive are the overt actions at our disposal to force our will on them without economic blow-back?
    Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
    If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?

  15. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by EyeKhan View Post
    Its conceivable other countries in the region might use an Iranian nukes as a pretext to start their own program.
    Not just conceivable - a number of countries, notably Egypt and Saudi, have made not-so-subtle moves towards starting their own nuke programs if Iran continues unfettered. I am unsure whether Israel would end strategic ambiguity, though they might - but the issue was never an arms race with Israel, since everyone trusts Israel to keep from using nukes in all but the most dire of circumstances (even Israel's enemies are thankful that Israel has a strong command and control system and an aversion to deploying nuclear weapons). Iran's neighbors have no such beliefs about the Iranian regime.

    Quote Originally Posted by Being View Post
    Am I correct in assuming we still get a benefit from the oil pumped out of the ground in Iran? With that in mind, how persuasive are the overt actions at our disposal to force our will on them without economic blow-back?
    The US gets little direct benefit from Iranian oil with the exception of an overall market effect on oil supply. Most of the oil goes to China and a handful of other countries. Now guess which of the P5 on the UNSC is most opposed to serious sanctions against Iran?

  16. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by wiggin View Post
    The US gets little direct benefit from Iranian oil with the exception of an overall market effect on oil supply. Most of the oil goes to China and a handful of other countries. Now guess which of the P5 on the UNSC is most opposed to serious sanctions against Iran?
    Indirect benefit is just as valuable as direct benefit and the benefit is the difference in price if Iranian oil where suddenly taken off the market. Other OPEC countries do not have the capacity to make up the difference. It'd be a bidding war.
    Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
    If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?

  17. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Being View Post
    Indirect benefit is just as valuable as direct benefit and the benefit is the difference in price if Iranian oil where suddenly taken off the market. Other OPEC countries do not have the capacity to make up the difference. It'd be a bidding war.
    Actually, Saudia Arabia is doing just that. They are intentionally trying to keep oil prices down around $70/barrel, since that level is too low for Iran to sustain its government spending (but enough for Saudi and most of the Gulf states). Iran is important, but not critical, especially when most of the other major oil producing states are interested in containing them. The oil embargo in '73 was so devastating because all of OPEC worked in concert; Iran stands alone on this one. Additionally, Iraqi oil is rapidly ramping up and exploiting fields that haven't been touched in a long time due to sanctions/war/etc. This will help to dampen any effects of sanctions against Iran.

    I have no doubt that the US remains ready to enact sanctions against Iranian gasoline imports and potentially oil exports if appropriate backing could be secured in the UNSC. The heel-dragging comes from China and to a lesser extent Russia, who are both significant trading partners with Iran, and which have energy ties with them.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •