Iran the Next Battlefield - Thread Renamed

[American Patriot]

Iran Intends to Expand Uranium Enrichment


Wednesday April 12, 2006 5:31 PM

AP Photo XHS104

By ALI AKBAR DAREINI

Associated Press Writer

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Iran intends to enrich uranium on a scale hundreds of times larger than its current level, the country's deputy nuclear chief said Wednesday, signaling its resolve to expand a program the international community insists it halt.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Tuesday that Iran for the first time had succeeded on a small scale in enriching uranium, a key step in generating fuel for a reactor or fissile material for a bomb. The U.N. Security Council has demanded that Iran stop all enrichment activity because of suspicions the program's aim is to make weapons.

Iran's small-scale enrichment used 164 centrifuges, which spin uranium gas to increase its proportion of the isotope needed for the nuclear fission at the heart of a nuclear reactor or a bomb.

Saeedi said Iran has informed the International Atomic Energy Agency that it plans to install 3,000 centrifuges at its facility in the central town of Natanz by late 2006, then expand to 54,000 centrifuges, though he did not say when.

``We will expand uranium enrichment to industrial scale at Natanz,'' Deputy Nuclear Chief Mohammad Saeedi told state-run television.

Saeedi said using 54,000 centrifuges will be able to produce enough enriched uranium to provide fuel for a 1,000-megawatt nuclear power plant like one Russia is finishing in southern Iran.

In theory, that many centrifuges could be used to develop the material needed for hundreds of nuclear warheads if Iran can perfect the techniques for producing the highly enriched uranium needed.

Iran, which has made no secret of its plans to ultimately expand enrichment to around 50,000 centrifuges to fuel reactors, is still thought to be years away from a full-scale program.

Still, concerns grew Tuesday when Ahmadinejad announced Iran's enrichment success in a nationally televised ceremony, saying the country's nuclear ambitions are peaceful and warning the West that trying to force Iran to abandon enrichment would ``cause an everlasting hatred in the hearts of Iranians.''

The IAEA is due to report to the Security Council on April 28 whether Iran has met its demand for a full halt to uranium enrichment. If Tehran has not complied, the council will consider the next step. The U.S. and Europe are pressing for sanctions, a step Russia and China have so far opposed.

Iran's announcement quickly drew condemnations.

Russia criticized the announcement Wednesday, with Foreign Ministry spokesman Mikhail Kamynin saying, ``We believe that this step is wrong. ``

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov reiterated Moscow's firm opposition to any military action against Iran.

Denouncing Iran's successful enrichment of uranium as unacceptable to the international community, Secretary of State Conodoleezza Rice said the U.N. Security Council must consider ``strong steps'' to induce Tehran to change course.

Rice also telephoned IAEA head Mohamed ElBaradei to ask him to reinforce demands that Iran comply with its nonproliferation requirements when he holds talks in Tehran on Friday.

``This is not a question of Iran's right to civil nuclear power,'' she said. ``This is a question of ... the world does not believe that Iran should have the capability and the technology that could lead to a nuclear weapon.''

Rice did not call for an emergency meeting of the Council, saying it should consider action after receiving an IAEA report by April 28. She did not elaborate on what measures the United States would support, but economic and political sanctions are under consideration.

In Berlin, Chancellor Angela Merkel's government said Iran's announcement was cause for concern.

``It is another step in the wrong direction by Iran,'' German government spokesman Thomas Steg said.

French government spokesman Jean-Francois Cope urged Iran ``to respect its obligations'' and stop nuclear activities.

British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said he was ``seriously concerned'' by Ahmadinejad's announcement.

Israel's military chief of staff, Lt. Gen. Dan Halutz, cautioned that it will take some time before Iran achieves nuclear capability. ``I think things will change in this process and we shouldn't see this as a foregone conclusion,'' he told Army Radio.

The chief of military intelligence, Maj. Gen. Amos Yadlin, told the Yediot Ahronot newspaper that Iran could develop a nuclear weapon ``within three years, by the end of the decade.''

ElBaradei was heading to Iran on Wednesday for talks aimed at resolving the standoff. The timing of Ahmadinejad's announcement suggested Iran wanted to present ElBaradei with a fait accompli and argue that it cannot be expected to entirely give up a program showing progress.

Former Iranian President Hashemi Rafsanjani - a powerful figure in the country's clerical regime - warned in an interview with the Kuwaiti newspaper Al-Rai Al-Aam that pressuring Iran over enrichment ``might not have good consequences for the area and the world.''

Rafsanjani, who heads the body that arbitrates between the parliament and the clerical hierarchy, said planned talks between Iran and the United States on stabilizing Iraq could lead to discussions on the nuclear dispute.

``If the talks on Iraq go in the right direction, there might be a possibility for that issue,'' Rafsanjani told the Al-Hayat daily. ``There have been many cases where big and wide-ranging decisions had small beginnings.''

Iranian and U.S. officials have insisted the talks will deal only with Iraq. So far, no date for the talks has been set.

Rafsanjani and other Iranian officials, meanwhile, reiterated that the country's nuclear ambitions were peaceful.

``There is no worry as we will not threaten anyone,'' Rafsanjani said as he arrived in Damascus on Wednesday, according to Syria's official news agency.

Thousands of centrifuges arranged in a network called a ``cascade'' are needed to produce enriched uranium. Getting any number to work together is delicate and difficult.

Iran resumed research on enrichment at Natanz in February. Saeedi said scientists there slowly built up the number of centrifuges in the cascade. On Sunday, they succeeded in enriching an amount of uranium to contain 3.5 percent of the isotope uranium-235 - the proportion needed for reactor fuel - using 164 centrifuges.

Enriching uranium to the much higher levels needed for a nuclear warhead is even more difficult, requiring tens of thousands of centrifuges or much longer periods of time.

Iran is believed to have enough black-market components in storage now to build the 1,500 operating centrifuges it would need to make the 45 pounds of highly enriched uranium needed for one crude weapon.

``The next stage is to install 3,000 centrifuges. We definitely won't have problems doing that. We just need to increase our production line,'' Saeedi said.

Iran is pressing for further negotiations with the IAEA or with Western countries, hinting that it could agree to keep its enrichment program on a small scale under IAEA inspection without giving it up entirely.

---

Associated Press writers Henry Meyer in Moscow, George Jahn in Vienna, Austria and Diana Elias in Kuwait City, Kuwait contributed to this report.

[American Patriot]

Iran says nuclear drive is unstoppable
Stefan Smith and Siavosh Ghazi | Tehran, Iran

12 April 2006 06:59

A defiant Iran vowed on Wednesday that nothing could halt its controversial nuclear programme, in a direct challenge to the United Nations Security Council that could risk international sanctions.

With the country basking in national pride after regime scientists successfully enriched uranium to make nuclear fuel -- a milestone in its atomic drive -- officials pledged to move rapidly to industrial-scale work.

"When a people master nuclear technology and nuclear fuel, nothing can be done against them," boasted armed forces joint chief of staff, General Hassan Firouzabadi.

Iran says its nuclear drive is purely peaceful, but uranium enrichment can be extended to make the fissile core of a bomb. The Security Council had set April 28 as a deadline for Tehran to halt the ultra-sensitive work.

"The West can do nothing and is obliged to extend to us the hand of friendship," the ISNA news agency quoted Firouzabadi as saying.

United States Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice called for the 15-member Security Council to take "strong steps" and the White House said sanctions were now an option.

"The enrichment activities by the regime fly in the face of the UN Security Council and the International Atomic Energy Agency [IAEA] board," White House spokesperson Scott McClellan told reporters.

"There are a number of options that are available to us through the diplomatic process," he said, adding that officials were nonetheless still "pursuing a diplomatic solution".

Iran's announcement is also a blow to IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei, who is due to arrive in Tehran overnight in a fresh bid to resolve tensions. He is expected to give his response in Tehran on Thursday.

ElBaradei has said "the jury is still out" over the true nature of Iran's programme and is also trying to press Iran to agree to a fuel cycle moratoruim while his frustated investigation continues.

Officials from permanent Security Council members Britain, France, Russia and Germany all said Iran had taken a "step in the wrong direction".

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov was however quoted as strongly opposing the use of force after US reports over the weekend suggested Washington was considering military action -- even a possible nuclear strike.

"I am convinced that there can be no resolution of the problem through use of force ... practically all European countries are in solidarity with Russia."

The Israeli military's chief of staff, General Dan Halutz, described a nuclear Iran as "a threat to the whole world and not only Israel".

The Jewish state -- believed to be the only nuclear-armed state in the region -- views the regime in Tehran as its number one enemy, alarmed in particular by a call last year from Ahmadinejad for Israel to be "wiped off the map" as well as his dismissal of the Holocaust as a "myth".

But Ahmadinejad repeated his call on foreign governments to "recognise and respect Iran's rights" -- presenting a fait accompli to Western powers which have been battling to prevent Iran from acquiring sensitive nuclear know-how. The firebrand president has also called for a no-holds-barred acceleration of enrichment work.

Iran's nuclear milestone was achieved on Monday -- at a pilot plant of 164 centrifuges in Natanz -- with uranium enriched to 3,5%, or the purity required for civilian reactor fuel.

This, said Iranian Vice President and atomic energy chief Gholam Reza Aghazadeh, "paves the way for enrichment on an industrial scale" using an enormous 110 tonnes of UF6 feedstock gas already produced.

He also said Iran was "determined" to complete work within three years on a heavy water reactor in Arak -- which critics say which could also produce plutonium for a nuclear weapon.

Mohammad Saidi, the deputy chief of Iran's atomic programme, told state television 3 000 centrifuges would be installed at Natanz within the next year.

"The nuclear fuel cycle is complete, the beginnings of a powerful Iran," the conservative Iranian daily Resalat trumpeted, calling for a week of "national celebration" and a new annual public holiday to mark the event.

State television was broadcasting non-stop images of nuclear sites accompanied by rousing patriotic music. -- AFP

[American Patriot]

Russia Joins Call for Iran to Halt Nuclear Program
By Bill Gasperini
Moscow
12 April 2006


Russia has joined Germany, France and the United States in calling for Iran to halt its nuclear program, one day after its president said Tehran had successfully enriched uranium for the first time. A supporter of Iran, Russia has been seeking a diplomatic solution to the nuclear stand-off with Tehran.

Russia's Foreign Ministry says Moscow considers Iran's latest step "wrong", and runs counter to U.N. resolutions on the issue.

Ministry spokesman Mikhail Kamynin said Russia was concerned by Tuesday's speech by Iran's president that Tehran has successfully enriched uranium.

Officially the enriched fuel is only meant to be used in Iran's nuclear energy program. But the United States and Europe believe the ultimate aim is to develop atomic weapons.

Russia has long tried to convince Iran to halt its attempts at uranium enrichment, and has proposed that the fuel it needs for nuclear reactors be enriched in Russia instead.

But while agreeing to discuss that idea, Iran has insisted it has the right to enrich its own uranium.

Russia is Iran's major supplier of nuclear-power technology, but has also added its voice to Western nations that have criticized Iran.

Sergei Lavrov
Sergei Lavrov
The Kremlin is firmly against any talk of possible military action, a point reiterated by Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in Moscow.

Lavrov says he has heard reports in the media about possible U.S. military moves, but Russia believes this would only create another "hotbed of tension" in the Middle East.

Lavrov was referring to a New Yorker magazine article by investigative reporter Seymour Hersh that the Bush administration is reviewing possible bombing strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities.

While saying that "all options remain on the table", President Bush has dismissed the reports, which are attributed to an anonymous source.

Government officials in Germany, France, and Great Britain have also expressed concern about Iran's latest move.

In London a British Foreign Office spokesman said Iran "needs to get back into compliance, and their statements are not helpful."

IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei briefs the media after meeting at Foreign Ministry in Berlin, March 27, 2006
Mohammed ElBaradei
The director of the IAEA, Mohammed El Baradei, is to visit Iran for talks aimed at resolving the stand-off.

The U.N. Security Council has demanded that Iran stop all enrichment by April 28, due to suspicion that it is seeking to develop nuclear weapons.

Uranium enrichment produces the fuel needed to power a nuclear energy reactor, it can also produce material for a nuclear warhead.

[American Patriot]

[April 12, 2006]

China says Iran's nuclear step 'not in line with' UNSC, IAEA+

(Japan Economic Newswire Via Thomson Dialog NewsEdge)NEW YORK, April 12_(Kyodo) _ Chinese Ambassador to the United Nations Wang Guangya said Wednesday Iran's announcement that it has manufactured low-enriched uranium "is not in line with" the recent statement by the president of the U.N. Security Council and a resolution by the International Atomic Energy Agency that called on Iran to halt such activities.

Click Me!

Wang expressed his view when he spoke to reporters at the U.N. headquarters in New York.

It was China's first reaction to Iran's announcement on Tuesday night, in which President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Iran has successfully enriched uranium for the first time and joined the club of nuclear countries.

Wang, who expressed concerns over Iran with tougher expressions than before, also said China wants to help resolve the problem through diplomacy, emphasizing that mulling the use of force against Iran or imposing sanctions on the country "will not be helpful" in resolving the problem.

Wang asked all parties, including Iran, not to make the existing situation worse.

Also on Wednesday, French Ambassador to the United Nations Jean-Marc de La Sabliere expressed his concerns over Iran's move.

France will decide which action to take, including possibly drafting a new U.N. resolution based on the U.N. Charter's chapter seven, depending on the contents of a report by IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei to be submitted to the Security Council expected at the end of the month, the ambassador said.

Meanwhile, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan said Wednesday that he hopes Iran "will be able to come back to the table and work with the international community to find a negotiated solution."

"And indeed they (Iran) have maintained that their intent is the peaceful energy. And if that is indeed the case, they should be able to give the international community that assurance and work with everybody to find a solution out of this," Annan said in an interview with Reuters TV in The Hague.

[American Patriot]

Israeli Top Brass Not Convinced About Iran's Nuclear Might
Israel Will Follow Diplomatic Lead Instead of Striking Out on Its Own

By SIMON McGREGOR WOOD

April 12, 2006 — Several of Israel's military brass are urging caution over Iran's claims to have enriched uranium.

In interviews in the Israeli media and on the radio, two of Israel's most senior military commanders said they believed Iran was still a long way from producing a nuclear weapon.

Because Israel is considered to be on the front line of the Iranian nuclear danger and has been the target of explicit threats by the Iranian president, the country's posture on the nuclear showdown issue is carefully followed by the international community.

Diplomacy Before Strikes

In 1981, the Israeli Air Force destroyed the embryonic nuclear ambitions of Saddam Hussein's Iraq, sending planes to bomb the country's nuclear reactor at Osirek. Some in the international community assume that Israel has already planned similar but more complex operations against Iran's scattered facilities.

In recent weeks, however, Israeli leaders have stressed that suspicions that Iran intends to build its own bomb are well founded, and that Iran's nuclear program is a threat not just to Israel but to the whole world.

Speaking on Israel's Army Radio this morning, Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Dan Halutz said the international community should not see Iran's uranium enrichment as the significant breakthrough Iran's leaders were making it out to be.

"The Iranians aren't there yet. It will take them time before they achieve nuclear capability," he said. "I think things will change in this process and we shouldn't see this as a foregone conclusion."

When asked about possible Israeli plans to strike against Iran's nuclear facilities, Halutz said Israel should follow the diplomatic lead of the international community but hinted this may change.

"We shouldn't look for Israeli solutions, nor recommend them. Everything has its time," he said.

In interviews with two of Israel's top-selling newspapers this morning, the head of military intelligence Maj. Gen. Amos Yadlin warned that President Ahmadinejad's claim "is intended to strengthen Iran in its negotiations with the international community."

He went on to say, however, that the limited uranium enrichment success claimed by the Iranians meant they had crossed a technological threshold, and he warned "they could reach a nuclear bomb within about three years, by the end of the decade."

But he emphasized that the Iranians had a long way to go before they could produce weapons-grade uranium.

"This is significant progress, but the fact that they can ride a bike does not mean that they will be able to ride at 80 kilometers per hour [50 miles per hour] without falling off," Yadlin said.

Both men would not say whether Israel was planning its own military strike option against Iran's nuclear program, though most people in Israel assume that such plans exist.

[American Patriot]

Tensions soar as Iran joins nuclear club
Geoff Elliott and Martin Chulov
April 13, 2006
TENSIONS between the West and Iran escalated yesterday when hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced that his country had joined the world's nuclear nations by successfully enriching uranium.

While he insisted Tehran was only interested in peaceful nuclear power and was not pursuing nuclear weapons, Mr Ahmadinejad's announcement on national television comes amid speculation that Washington has begun planning air attacks against Iran.

The Bush administration and Russia criticised Iran's move as a step in the wrong direction.

"Defiant statements and actions only further isolate the regime from the rest of the world, and further isolate the Iranian people," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said.

Israeli officials reacted cautiously to the announcement by Mr Ahmadinejad - who called last year for Israel to be wiped off the map - by refusing to ramp up earlier rhetoric in which military chiefs spoke of military strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities.

Israeli chief of staff Dan Halutz said a nuclear-powered Iran was a "threat to the whole world and not only Israel", but he would not advance the idea of unilateral strikes against Tehran.

"I suggest not going too far, not to look for Israeli responses or to propose them," Lieutenant-General Halutz told army radio. "I'm not sure whether Israel will top the list of Iranian targets ... the Iranians aren't there yet. Time is an essential medium in the dialogue with Iran, and I believe things will change during this process."

Former Israeli foreign minister and newly elected Kadima MP Shimon Peres warned his Government to stay on the sidelines of the looming conflict, claiming pre-emptive military measures would isolate Israel in the region and expose it to danger.

In Washington, US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld continued to talk up diplomatic options in dealing with Iran rather than commenting on plans for military strikes, which he described as "fantasyland".

"The US is on a diplomatic track," he said. "That is the President's decision. That's where our European allies are. There is obviously concern about Iran. It's a country that supports terrorists. It's a country that has indicated an interest in having weapons of mass destruction.

"So, obviously, the President has indicated his concern about the country, but it is simply not useful to get into fantasyland."

In a speech before an audience of top Iranian military commanders and clerics that was nationally televised, Mr Ahmadinejad called on the West "not to cause an everlasting hatred in the hearts of Iranians" by trying to force Tehran to abandon uranium enrichment for nuclear power. "At this historic moment, with the blessings of God almighty and the efforts made by our scientists, I declare that the laboratory-scale nuclear fuel cycle has been completed and young scientists produced enriched uranium needed to the degree for nuclear power plants," he said.

"I formally declare that Iran has joined the club of nuclear countries."

The historic announcement comes ahead of a visit to Tehran this week by the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei, who is trying to resolve the West's standoff with Iran.

The UN Security Council has demanded that Iran stop all enrichment activity by April 28. Tehran has rejected this, saying it has a right to carry out the process under international law.

Tehran says it only wants to produce peaceful nuclear power, but the Bush administration accuses it of a clandestine program of nuclear weapon production.

The IAEA is due to report to the Security Council on April 28 whether Iran has halted its uranium enrichment - but given yesterday's announcement, that is now clearly unlikely.

The US ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, said Iran's announcement "shows they're not paying any attention" to the Security Council.

"And it shows why we feel a sense of urgency that we have to have Iran realise the mistaken course it's pursuing."

[American Patriot]

April 12, 2006, 12:58PM
Rice Calls for 'Strong Steps' Against Iran



US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice gestures as she speaks to members of the media at the State Department in Washington, Wednesday, April 12, 2006. Denouncing Iran's successful enrichment of uranium as unacceptable to the international community, Secretary of State Conodoleezza Rice said Wednesday the U.N. Security Council must consider "strong steps" to induce

By BARRY SCHWEID AP Diplomatic Writer
© 2006 The Associated Press

WASHINGTON — Denouncing Iran's successful enrichment of uranium as unacceptable to the international community, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Wednesday the U.N. Security Council must consider "strong steps" to induce Tehran to change course.

Rice also telephoned Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, to ask him to reinforce demands that Iran comply with its nonproliferation requirements when he holds talks in Tehran on Friday.

While Rice took a strong line, she did not call for an emergency meeting of the Council, saying it should consider action after receiving an IAEA report by April 28. She did not elaborate on what measures the United States would support, but economic and political sanctions are under consideration.

The European Union is considering travel restrictions on Iranian officials, but White House and State Department spokesmen said what the Security Council might be asked to do was under discussion.

"It's time for action and that is what the secretary was expressing," Scott McClellan, the White House spokesman, said. "The president wanted to make sure that she made that very clear to all that were listening."

On March 29, the Security Council adopted a statement that gave Iran 30 days to clear up suspicion that it wants to become a nuclear power. The statement demanded Iran comply with IAEA demands that it suspend enrichment and allow unannounced IAEA inspections.

If Iran goes ahead with its enrichment program the United States and European allies are certain to press for a Council resolution.

"You can be sure that it needs to be more than a presidential statement at this point," McClellan said.

Asked if the United States would be running a risk of a disagreement with other members of the Council by pushing for strong measures, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said, "There is now a consensus Iran should not be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapons program."

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, announcing on Tuesday that his country had crossed the line into enrichment, said Iran's objectives were peaceful. Iran is said by many analysts to lack the equipment, including a nuclear reactor, to make nuclear weapons.

But Rice brushed aside suggestions Iran was far from the goal the United States and its allies suspect _ nuclear weaponry.

She said the world believes Iran has the capacity and the technology that lead to nuclear weapons. "The Security Counil will need to take into consideration this move by Iran," she said. "It will be time when it reconvenes on this case for strong steps to make certain that we maintain the credibility of the international community."

"This is not a question of Iran's right to civil nuclear power," she while greeting President Teodoro Obiang Nguema Moasogo of Equatorial Guinea. "This is a question of, ... the world does not believe that Iran should have the capability and the technology that could lead to a nuclear weapon."

At the private Arms Control Association, executive director Daryl Kimball said the administration should consider direct talks with Iran on the nuclear issue. And, he said in an interview, "the administration should be extending non-aggression pledges rather than implied threats in order to weaken Iran's rationale for a nuclear weapons program."

"Otherwise," Kimball said, "the Bush administration is creating a self-fulfilling prophecy of failure and military confrontation."

At the private Center for Strategic and International Studies, analyst Anthony Cordesman said, "What we need to understand when we call for strong action by the Security Council, we may not expect it today or on this particular round."

But, Cordesman added in an interview, "this issue is not going away. The more Iran pushes the tolerance of the international community to its limits, the more support the United States can count on in the future."

"This is a very complex and uncertain process," he said.

[American Patriot]

Iran’s enrichment plan may prove trouble for India
(DPA)

12 April 2006


NEW DELHI - While India’s government has reserved opinion on Iran’s announcement that it has successfully enriched uranium, the move may create trouble for India’s nuclear plans, media reports said on Wednesday.

A day after Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made his announcement, a senior diplomat of India’s foreign ministry said there was no official comment on the issue.

But Indian media reports said the announcement could spell trouble for India and its civilian nuclear deal with the United States.

Under the deal committed by US President George W. Bush the US is to supply nuclear fuel to India for its energy sector in return for placing its civilian facilities under international safeguards.

The agreement can be implemented only after the US Congress passes an amendment to the country’s nuclear energy law. The issue is being currently debated in Congress.

“India had tested nuclear bombs in violation of international regulations and has refused to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, acts being cited by the deal’s opponents in the US who might now find fresh ammunition in Iran’s act of defiance,” said the Telegraph newspaper in a front-page article.

“Iran has cited the US concession to India, which has in the past done much the same thing as it is now being accused of - developing nuclear weapons technology on the sly - contrasting it with the threat of international sanctions being held against it.”

Iran claims it is developing nuclear technology for civilian purposes, while the US says it is a cover for developing nuclear weapons.

Also, if Iran’s announcement leads to sanctions against the country by the United Nations Security Council, India would again face the dilemma of having to choose sides.

India’s ruling United Progressive Alliance government has been criticized in the past by its leftist allies over the deal with the US and for voting against Iran at the International Atomic Energy Agency.

US lawmakers on the other hand, wary of India’s longstanding ties with Iran, have been pushing it to side with the US and have made it clear that favouring Iran would adversely affect the India-US civilian nuclear deal.

In the circumstances, the Indian government preferred to watch developments rather than come out with an official stance on Iran’s latest announcement.

[American Patriot]

Australian Broadcasting Corporation

TV PROGRAM TRANSCRIPT

LOCATION: http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2006/s1615224.htm

Broadcast: 12/04/2006
World leaders ponder Iran nuclear announcement

Reporter: Scott Bevan

KERRY O'BRIEN: Welcome to the program. For months, the international community, particularly the United States, has been engaged in a game of intense diplomacy to try to force Iran to pull back from its nuclear ambitions. But after a provocative announcement from the Iranian President overnight, declaring his country has successfully enriched uranium and is now claiming membership of the nuclear club, other world leaders are now pondering what to say and do next. The enriched uranium could allow Iran to develop nuclear fuels, but according to experts, at present levels, it's not suitable for military use. But America's fear is that there may be a clandestine parallel program to develop a nuclear weapon capacity. The US Government says Iran is "moving in the wrong direction". The question is: At what point does the Bush Administration seriously consider turning to military action? Scott Bevan reports

DONALD RUMSFELD, US DEFENCE SECRETARY: There is obviously concern about Iran. It's a country that supports terrorists.

DR MICHAEL FULLILOVE, LOWY INSTITUTE FOR INTERNATIONAL POLICY: And the threat of a nuclear weapons armed Iran, given its large oil and gas reserves as well is something that's very frightening to many members of the international community.

SCOTT BEVAN: With much ceremony, and even melody, the President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, told his people, and the world overnight that his country has just become a member of a powerful international club.

MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD (TRANSLATION): I formerly declare that Iran has joined the club of nuclear countries. I declare that the laboratory-scaled nuclear fuel cycle has been completed and young scientists produced enriched uranium needed to the degree for nuclear power plants on Sunday, 9th April of this year.

SCOTT BEVAN: The announcement may have been embraced within Iran.

VOX POP #1: This news made all Iranians happy because this is our natural right to have nuclear fuel cycle technology.

SCOTT BEVAN: But many around the world see this step as a reason to worry.

MARK REGEV, ISRAELI FOREIGN MINISTRY SPOKESMAN: The Iranian announcement today serves as a further example of the Iranian refusal to comply with the demands of the international community.

SCOTT BEVAN: Ever since Iran recommissioned its nuclear research facilities in January, ending a two-year suspension on its uranium enrichment work, the international community has been suspicious of what's been going on in the labs, despite the Iranian president's insistence that his intentions are peaceful.

DR MICHAEL FULLILOVE: Iran has form in deceiving the international community.

SCOTT BEVAN: Dr Michael Fullilove is the program director of global issues at the Lowy Institute for international policy. He's written about Iran's nuclear ambitions, past, present and future.

DR MICHAEL FULLILOVE: Because it hasn't been upfront in the past there are fears that Iran may have, either that Iran may have parallel covert nuclear weapons programs, or that it will under the cover of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, will master the nuclear fuel cycle so it's within a screwdriver's turn, if you like, of acquiring nuclear weapons.

SCOTT BEVAN: Iran's Atomic Energy Organisation says it has enriched uranium to the level of 3.5 per cent. Dr Reza Hashemi-Nezhad, who's a nuclear physicist at the University of Sydney, says at that low level the uranium could be used only for a nuclear fuel.

DR REZA HASHEMI-NEZHAD, NUCLEAR PHYSICIST, SYDNEY UNIVERSITY: In nuclear fuels the range of the stand-out is around 3 per cent-5 per cent. So from 0.7 per cent which appears in the nature you release it to 3 per cent-5 per cent.

SCOTT BEVAN: What percentage levels would the uranium need to be enriched to to be used for military purposes?

DR REZA HASHEMI-NEZHAD: For military use you have to be above 20 per cent. At least. But in general belief is that uranium nuclear bomb must have more than 90 per cent.

DONALD RUMSFELD: It's a country that has indicated an interest in having weapons of mass destruction.

SCOTT BEVAN: The Iranian President's uranium enrichment announcement has come when the ink has barely dried on reports that the United States is allegedly planning extraordinary military action. An article in the New Yorker magazine by renowned investigative journalist Seymour Hersh claims the White House has considered using tactical nuclear weapons against Iran. Even the senior military personnel wanted that option ruled out.

SEYMOUR HERSH, 'NEW YORKER' MAGAZINE: People in the White House, the Oval Office, the Vice President's office said, no, let's keep it in the plan. That doesn't mean it won't happen. They refused to take it out.

SCOTT BEVAN: President Bush rejected the claim as wild speculation. His Defence Secretary equally dismissive.

DONALD RUMSFELD: It's simply not useful to get into fantasy land.

DR MICHAEL FULLILOVE: I think that's the least likely option, actually. The ramifications of using a nuclear device for the first time in 60 years in part to solve a crisis of nuclear proliferation would be extreme and I think if the Americans were to use force they would much prefer to use conventional methods.

SCOTT BEVAN: And Michael Fullilove says there's compelling arguments against the US launching an attack at all. An airstrike may be ineffective in disabling Iran's nuclear program, and it could end up bolstering support for Tehran while straining Washington's alliances.

DR MICHAEL FULLILOVE: It would be a very risky thing to do. On the other hand, President Bush has shown himself to be a risktaker and it's always possible that he would find the risks of a - that he would risk the uncertain, if you like, to prevent the unthinkable.

SCOTT BEVAN: And while drivers here are watching the numbers rise on the petrol bowser in the lead-up to Easter, international oil traders are keenly observing what's happening in Iran.

IRA ECKSTEIN, US OIL TRADER: A lot of traders are trying to digest the news. We're talking about planned possible strikes against Iran, the No. 2 producer in OPEC. They produce roughly 4.5 million barrels a day. There's a world spare capacity of 2 million barrels. If you take some of that oil on the market there will be shortages.

SCOTT BEVAN: With Iran already rejecting a UN Security Council demand it stopped all uranium enhancement programs by the end of this month, the search to solve the stand-off continues.

MARK REGEV: What is required to deal with this Iranian nuclear challenge is a broad and determined international coalition.

DONALD RUMSFELD: The United States of America is on a diplomatic track.

DR MICHAEL FULLILOVE: If I and the country I represented wanted to avoid the use of American force against Iran the best thing to do is hang tough and move towards, for example, diplomatic sanctions against Iran because the best way to avoid the use of force is to deploy strong diplomatic action.

[ExplodedMind]

Now what? I love answering these types of questions, even though we are all guessing....

The UN will consider writing a resolution ordering Iran to cease and desist all nuclear research and activities, or else there could be another letter written. Our best hope here is that Armaggedon-nijad and the Mullahs die laughing.

Bush will do nothing until after the fall elections. Congress will never push for military action unless US soil or Israel is directly attacked, as Congress has no collective spine. After November, I don't know what to expect, though if Bush is convinced that military action is necessary, he will take it, and Congress, after much wailing and weeping, will allow it. Any such action will be followed by more wailing and weeping from the you know whos.

Cindy Sheehan will get arrested a few more times. Bush will be denounced as the "most warmongering presdient ever, a madman, Bush-chimp-Hitler-Religious-fanatic-alien-shapeshifter-illuminati," and so forth.

Oh, wait, that's already happened, sorry.

We will withdraw a lot of troops from Iraq before we attack Iran. No large land invasion, no occupation, we will use air and naval stikes, plus some Special Forces incursions. Oil facilities taken out and/or naval embargo after the festivities.

National emergency declared, Strategic Oil Reserve opened wide, federal gas taxes suspended as gas goes to $5 to $6 a gallon. Most states except NY and CA will follow suit. Liberals will be intolerable to be around.

Alternatives:

Internal overthrow of the Mullahs and Hostage-Boy. Doesn't look possible, from what I read.

Sit back and await Iran's missles. Not too likely, Democrats not in power yet.

EM

[Brian Baldwin]

While I personally think we should engage in air strikes ASAP... I imagine we'll rattle our sabers and do absolutely nothing until we're nuked by these rabid dogs. And considering Islamofacists can't hold their wad, you can bet they'll hit Europe at the same time. Europe in turn will cry that America should have done something to begin with to curtail the terrorists since most Europeans are in fact eunuchs that hide behind their women's skirts in times of crisis. And when you think about the size of the liberal leftist body within the US you can come to see that we're no longer far behind in that thinking.

[Instigator]

Could someone help me out? I'm confused why Israel is saying wait it out, while the rest of the world is saying the time for talk is quickly passing. Israel is at the center of the bullseye based on comments that Iran has made, and the West and Europe are in the 9 ring. Especially when considering Israel's response when they thought that Saddam was making or getting close to making nukes, why are they saying we should use diplomacy as opposed to wanting to stop the situation before it begins?

[Ryan Ruck]

Could someone help me out? I'm confused why Israel is saying wait it out, while the rest of the world is saying the time for talk is quickly passing. Israel is at the center of the bullseye based on comments that Iran has made, and the West and Europe are in the 9 ring. Especially when considering Israel's response when they thought that Saddam was making or getting close to making nukes, why are they saying we should use diplomacy as opposed to wanting to stop the situation before it begins?

Sounds kind of like when confronted by a rabid dog, you stall by gently saying "Good doggy! Gooood doggy!!" as you slowly reach around behind you for your .45 .

I think that what we'll see is Osirak II. It will be a limited air strike on Iran's nuclear infrastructure with attempts made to keep collateral damage to an absolute minimum.

Now, what happens after that air strike is up to Iran. I think that we should have our boys in Iraq get prepped for the possibility of a dual Syrian/Iranian ground offensive into Iraq.

[American Patriot]

Egypt wants diplomatic solution to Iran crisis
Thu Apr 13, 2006 3:33 PM GMT


CAIRO (Reuters) - Egypt said on Thursday it wanted a diplomatic solution to the dispute over Iran's nuclear programme and could not accept the emergence of a new nuclear-armed power in the region.

In a statement after a meeting with the U.S. State Department's senior arms control official, it also said that failure to persuade Israel to join the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) was a setback to the non-proliferation system.

"It is important to reach a diplomatic solution to the crisis over the Iranian nuclear file," Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit said in the statement.

"Egypt cannot accept the appearance of a military nuclear force in the region, since that would further complicate the regional security imbalance in the Middle East," he added.

The Foreign Ministry released the statement after Aboul Gheit had talks with U.S. Under Secretary of State Robert Joseph, who handles arms control and international security.

Joseph will also visit other countries in the region to talk about Iran's nuclear programme after Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad announced this week that his country has succeeded in producing enriched uranimum, officials said.

Aboul Gheit said there had been no progress towards the Egyptian goal of a nuclear-free Middle East "in the light of Israel's persistence in refusing to join the NPT or even announce its intention to join the NPT".

Israel is widely believed to have some 200 nuclear warheads but the United States and the European Union rarely talk about Israel's nuclear activities.

Joseph said the United States remained in favour of universal adherence to the NPT but was concentrating for the moment on what he called the urgent threat posed by Iran to the non-proliferation system.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

© Reuters 2006. All rights reserved.

[American Patriot]

Ryan is right.... "Nice Doggie" a really good analogy to this. Israel can't just jump up and down and start hollering, because this would simply piss the doggie off a little more.

The US is taking a lead in this for a reason. We have the ability to stop a major problem in the world, and we're using every method. Everything from background talks, to public diplomacy. In fact, world opinion has risen against Iran now, and you can even see Russia and China (both have been backers of the nuclear program until now) are telling Iran to back down.

Everyone KNOWS what is coming. When diplomacy fails, wars start. Anyone who has lived through a war knows this, and anyone that can't see it is blind (I'm speaking of the anti-war-in-Iraq crowd mostly here).

[American Patriot]

William M. Arkin on National and Homeland Security
Despite Denials, U.S. Plans for Iran War
The U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) has been conducting theater campaign analysis for a full scale war with Iran since at least May 2003, responding to Pentagon directions to prepare for potential operations in the "near term."

The campaign analysis, called TIRANNT, for "theater Iran near term," posits an Iraq-like maneuver war between U.S. and Iranian ground forces and incorporates lessons learned from Operation Iraqi Freedom.

In addition to the TIRANNT effort and the Marine Corps Karona invasion scenario I discussed yesterday, the military has also completed an analysis of Iran's missile force (the "BMD-I" study), the Defense Intelligence Agency has updated "threat data" for Iranian forces, and Air Force planners have modeled attacks against "real world" Iranian air defenses and targets to establish new metrics. What is more, the United States and Britain have been conducting war games and contingency planning under a Caspian Sea scenario that could also pave the way for northern operations against Iran.

After new reports of intensified planning for Iran began to circulate over the weekend, the President dismissed the news as "wild speculation."

On Tuesday, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld similarly called media speculation about Iran war planning as "fantasyland."

Asked at a Pentagon new conference whether he had in recent days, weeks or month, asked the Joint Staff or CENTCOM to "update, refine, [or] modify the contingencies for possible military options against Iran," Rumsfeld said: "We have I don't know how many various contingency plans in this department. And the last thing I'm going to do is to start telling you or anyone else in the press or the world at what point we refresh a plan or don't refresh a plan, and why. It just isn't useful."

I beg to differ, Mr. Secretary.

World pressure and American diplomacy would be mightily enhanced if Iran understood that the United States was indeed so serious about it acquiring nuclear weapons it was willing to go to war over it. What is more, the American public needs to know that this is a possibility.

Think the U.S. military isn't serious about war with Iran?

Since at least 2003, in response to a number of directives from Secretary Rumsfeld and then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Richard Myers, the military services and Pentagon intelligence agencies have been newly working on a number of "near term" and "near-year" Iranian contingency studies in support of CENTCOM war planning efforts.

These studies, war games, and modeling efforts have been the first step in shifting the bulk of planning from almost exclusive focus on Iraq to Iran. At CENTCOM headquarters in Tampa, Florida, at Army and Air Force CENTCOM support headquarters in Georgia and South Carolina, and at service analysis and operations research organizations like the Army Concepts Analysis Agency in Bethesda, a monumental effort has been underway to "build" an Iran country baseline for war planning.

Under the TIRANNT campaign analysis program, Army organizations, together with CENTCOM headquarters planners, have been examining both near term and "out year" scenarios for war with Iran, covering all aspects of a major combat operation from mobilization and deployment of forces through post-war "stability" operations after regime change.

The core TIRANNT effort itself began in May 2003, when modelers and intelligence specialists pulled together the data sets needed for theater level (large scale) scenario analysis in support of updated war plans. Successive iterations of TIRANTT efforts have updated "blue," (United States), "green," (coalition), and "threat" databases with post-Iraq war information.

The follow-on TIRANNT Campaign Analysis (TIRANNT-CA), which began in October 2003, has calculated the results of different campaign scenarios against Iran to provide options for "courses of action" analysis. According to military sources close to the planning process, in 2002-2003, the CENTCOM commander, Gen. John Abizaid was directed to develop a new "strategic concept" for Iran war planning and potential courses of action for Secretary of Defense and Presidential review.

Parallel with the TIRANNT and TIRANNT-CA analysis, Army and CENTCOM planners have also been undertaking the "TOY study." TOY stands for TIRANNT Out-Year, and posits a U.S.-Iran war in the year 2011. Under the TOY modeling effort, Army division-sized formations as currently organized are sent up against real world models of Iranian ground units. The results are compared to the same engagements when fought by newly reorganized Army brigade combat teams who fight independent of a strict divisional hierarchy. The product gauges not only the impact of military "transformation" efforts in the Army but also the most propitious timing for war.

Under a separate "BMD-I study," for ballistic missile defense - Iran, the Army Concepts Analysis Agency has modeled the performance of U.S. and Iranian weapon systems to determine the number of missiles expected to "leak through" a coalition missile defense in the 2005 (current) time frame. The BMD-I study has not only looked at U.S. Patriot surface-to-air missile performance and optimum placement to protect U.S. and coalition forces, but also the results of combined air, cyber warfare and missile defense operations to disable Iranian command and control capabilities and missiles on the ground before Iran can fire them.

In July 2004, U.S. and British Army planners also met at Fort Belvoir to play the Hotspur 2004 war game, a 2015 timeframe Caspian Sea scenario examining deployment of forces, movement to "contact" with the enemy, and "decisive" operations. A U.K. medium weight brigade operated subordinate to U.S. forces and the game included an assessment of lessons learned in U.S.-British interoperability during similar operations in southern Iraq.

The extremely complex Caspian Sea scenario has become the standard non-Asian platform for education, training and force development in the Army. The current 2005 "high resolution" version model provides analysts with the ability to manipulate thousands of entities using tens of thousands of combat orders to simulate all aspects of major combat operations. The scenario not only has variable "physical battlespace" including urban terrain, but an adaptive enemy, allowing analysis of not just standard military operations but also complex counter-insurgency activity.

In February 2005, after a similar flurry of news reporting on U.S. military options for Iran, the Deputy Commander of CENTCOM Lt. Gen. Lance Smith was asked at a Pentagon briefing if the Tampa based command was in any kind of heightened state of planning when it comes to Iran.

"We plan everything," Smith responded. "We have a requirement on a regular basis to update plans. We try to keep them current, particularly if -- you know, if our region is active. But I haven't been called into any late-night meetings at, you know, 8:00 at night, saying, 'Holy cow, we got to sit down and go plan for Iran.'"

Throughout mid-2002, when a similar public debate about an Iraq war plan swirled in the news, Secretary Rumsfeld, Myers, and then CENTCOM commander Gen. Tommy Franks insisted that there were no "war plans," that they hadn't been asked to prepare a war plan, that no decisions had been made, that no war plan sat on the President's desk.

It would take a doctoral dissertation to wade through the chronology of statements and actions to sort out the specifics of the truth, but here is the reality: Iraq war planning consumed the government inner circle all through this period and the government made a knee jerk decision -- never really thoughtfully reviewed -- not to speak about it. "We don't discuss war plans," the mantra goes. And it is dead wrong.

Maybe history will show that the Bush administration was so hell bent on war in 2002-2003, nothing that Saddam Hussein could have done would have prevented it. Still the world went through the motions of U.N. inspections and the Security Council and the U.S. Congress made decisions based upon the allusion that war could still be averted, that all diplomatic options would be exhausted before the decision to go to war was made.

We now also know that the Iraqis themselves didn't quite believe that the United States was serious about regime change and that it would go all the way. Perhaps though, had the United States candidly stated its intentions rather than spending so much time denying reality, Baghdad would have gotten the message and war would have been averted, perhaps in another time and place.

It seems today we face a similar problem with Iran. The President of the United States insists that all options are on the table while the Secretary of Defense insists it "isn't useful" to discuss American options.

I think this sends the wrong message to Tehran. Contingency planning for a full fledged war with Iran may seem incredible right now, and Iran isn't Iraq. But Iran needs to understand that the United States isn't hamstrung by a lack of options, Iran needs to know that it can't just stonewall and evade international inspections, that it can't burrow further underground in hopes of "winning" because war is messy.

As I've said before in these pages, I don't believe that the United States is planning to imminently attack Iran, and I specifically don't think so because Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons and it hasn't lashed out militarily against anyone.

But the United States military is really, really getting ready, building war plans and options, studying maps, shifting its thinking.

It is not in our interests to have Tehran not understand this. The military options currently on the table might not be good ones, but Iran shouldn't make decisions based upon a false view. Two so-called "experts" are quoted in The Washington Post today saying that there are no options, that there is no Plan B, that the United States will just live with Iran acquiring nuclear weapons. They are fundamentally wrong about the options, and misunderstand the Bush administration as well.

But most important, this constant drum beat in the newspapers and the media sends the wrong message to Iran. This is why Secretary Rumsfeld should be saying that the U.S. is preparing war plans for Iran, and that the United States views the situation so seriously that it would be willing to risk war if Iran acquired nuclear weapons or lashed out against the U.S. or its friends. The war planning moreover, Rumsfeld needs to add, is not just routine, it is not just what military's do all the time. It is specifically related to Iran, to its illegal pursuit of nuclear weapons, to its meddling in Iraq and support for international terrorism.

Iran needs to know the facts and the American public need to know the facts. But most important, the American public needs to hear the facts about American war plans, military options and preparedness from the government so that they can understand where we are and decide whether they think the threat from Iran justifies the risks of another war.

By William M. Arkin | April 13, 2006; 09:00 AM ET | Category: Iran , War on Terrorism

[American Patriot]

Warnings from the West fall on Iran's deaf ears

*
* Email
* Print
* Normal font
* Large font

By Alissa Rubin in Vienna
April 14, 2006
AdvertisementAdvertisement

IN DEFIANCE of renewed international calls to halt sensitive nuclear work, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says Iran will not back away from its right to enrich uranium.

"Today our situation has changed and we are a nuclear country, and we are talking to others from that position," he said shortly before the arrival early yesterday of the director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei.

"We will not hold talks with anyone about the Iranian nation's right [to enrichment], and no one has the right to step back, even one iota," the President said.

Countries with permanent membership of the United Nations Security Council have expressed dismay at Tehran's announcement that it has produced enriched uranium but there is little sign of consensus, on how to respond.

China said yesterday that it would send a senior envoy on arms control to Iran and Russia to try to defuse the stand-off with the West. The Assistant Foreign Minister, Cui Tiankai, is to begin his visit to Iran and Russia today.

Iran announced on Tuesday that its scientists had enriched a tiny amount of uranium to a low level suitable for civilian use. They said they planned to greatly increase the country's capacity to produce nuclear fuel by the end of this year. Western countries fear that Iran wants to enrich uranium to build an atomic bomb.

The sharpest response came from the US, which has been unabashed in its opposition to Iranian efforts to enrich uranium. In Washington on Wednesday the Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, said it was time for the Security Council to take "strong steps" to bring Iran into compliance with UN demands that the Islamic republic rein in its nuclear program.

"The world does not believe that Iran should have the capability and the technology that could lead to a nuclear weapon," Dr Rice said. "When the Security Council reconvenes, I think it will be time for action."

The Security Council is expected to meet to discuss the matter at the end of the month. However, US officials refused to spell out what action Washington might demand from it.

Russia and China, which are permanent members of the Security Council, were more equivocal, raising concerns about Iran's actions while warning against any precipitous international action. Both say they are reluctant to back economic sanctions, a possible tool to force Iranian compliance.

European governments that have been most active in negotiations with Iran have restrained their rhetoric but are clearly perturbed at Tehran's announcement.

They are examining the possibility of imposing their own economic sanctions if the Security Council cannot agree on strong action. Such sanctions would be hard to sell domestically in Europe, where several countries have lucrative trade with Iran and have invested billions.

■ North Korea says it may boost its nuclear deterrent if six-nation talks on ending its atomic programs remain deadlocked, but says it will return to talks if Washington agrees to unlock its own assets. Pyongyang's top envoy to the stalled negotiations said the US must lift what North Korea considered financial sanctions against it.

Los Angeles Times, Reuters

[American Patriot]

Spooky business: CIA probing Iran's nuclear intent

From David Ensor
CNN
Thursday, April 13, 2006; Posted: 10:49 a.m. EDT (14:49 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- What exactly are Iran's nuclear scientists up to?

That's a question the West wants answered, and it's one of extreme focus at the CIA. It's also a question not easily answered. Ask intelligence officials these days whether Iran has a covert enrichment program and they are quick to say, "We just do not know."

That said, intelligence officials -- including senior ones -- express confidence in their key judgment: Although Iran says it is only working toward nuclear power, the U.S. intelligence community believes otherwise -- that Tehran is in fact also working toward a bomb.

U.S. officials will not describe the evidence backing that up, but they say it is credible.

At an agency bruised from its faulty prewar intelligence assessment of Iraq, they want to make sure they get it exactly right this time around.

"People are approaching this with a heck of a lot of vigor," said one U.S. intelligence official. "But they are being very careful not to jump to conclusions."

Like journalists, intelligence analysts are never happy with their sources, and always looking for better information.

"People are dissatisfied, but this is a major priority and we are collecting everything we can on it," this official said.

Experts say Tuesday's announcement by Tehran -- that it used an array of 164 centrifuges to enrich uranium -- is less significant scientifically speaking than Tehran would have the world to believe.

There are many difficult steps ahead before enough enriched uranium hexafluoride can be produced to make electricity and many more still before bomb-grade uranium can be produced. Nuclear weapons require many thousands of centrifuges.

"I think it's mostly about showbiz and politics," said David Albright, a former U.N. weapons inspector, now head of the Institute for Science and International Security.

"I think the Iranians want the world to believe that they are like North Korea -- they've accomplished the goal. 'You can't stop us.' But in fact, they are a long way from accomplishing the goal and they can be stopped through diplomatic means."

Lest anyone believe there is an easy military way to eliminate Iran's nuclear program, intelligence officials say they are aware of dozens of facilities in Iran that are connected with it. And some of them are deep underground in hardened facilities. They also believe there may be many more that they do not know about.

And the question remains: What exactly are Iran's nuclear scientists up to? There is no doubt the CIA will keep digging for the answer.

[American Patriot]

Pentagon Declined Possibility of U.S. Military Attack on Iran
12.04.2006 19:21 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld said Tuesday he would not engage in “fantasy land” speculation about a possible U.S. attack on Iran, though he said the Bush administration is concerned about Tehran's nuclear ambitions. “The United States of America is on a diplomatic track,” Rumsfeld told reporters. The defense secretary declined to comment on Iran's claim that it has successfully enriched uranium for the first time.

Rumsfeld's comments came a day after President Bush said that force is not necessarily required to stop Iran from having a nuclear weapon. Bush dismissed reports of plans for a military attack against Tehran as “wild speculation.”

“There is obviously concern about Iran. Iran is a country that supports terrorism. It is a country that has indicated a desire to obtain nuclear technology. But it is just simply not useful to get into fantasy land,” said Rumsfeld. Neither Rumsfeld nor Bush has taken military off the table as a potential option, reported CNN.

[Brian Baldwin]

Officials say Iran years away from Nukes...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1614577/posts

WASHINGTON - Iran remains years away from obtaining the materials and technology necessary for a nuclear weapon despite its announcement this week that it has begun enriching uranium, several top U.S. intelligence officials said Thursday.
Kenneth Brill, the head of the newly created National Counterproliferation Center, said the U.S. assessment on the timeframe of Iran's weapons development was sufficiently broad that it does not need to be modified.
Senior intelligence officials alternatively say Tehran will have a nuclear weapon within a decade, or within several years.
"What the Iranians have announced, is what they've announced," said Brill, speaking alongside nine senior intelligence officials at a discussion of the Office of the National Intelligence Director's first year. "They need to let the ( International Atomic Energy Agency) inspectors in there to see it, because they have obligations."
He noted that the regime has blustered before about developments that did not readily materialize.
"We really have to see what's happened in Iran," Brill said. "There is still a very significant amount of time that needs to be worked through by the Iranians to get to where they want to go."
Defending the quality of intelligence assessments, Brill said much of what the intelligence agencies have predicted has been validated by the IAEA and others.
U.S. intelligence officials are scrubbing their information and analysis on Iran as tensions increase over its nuclear program. Tehran insists its work is solely for peaceful, civilian purposes, but the U.S. and a number of its allies believe it is after a nuclear arsenal.
The nation's No. 2 intelligence official, Gen. Michael Hayden, said the Iran intelligence has benefited from the lessons-learned exercises on estimates about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.
Based on all the data available to spy agencies, he said confidently that Iran is intent on developing a nuclear weapon. Over time, he added, "We are able to be more clear." He declined to offer specifics about the information — or the gaps in information.
The top U.S. intelligence analyst, Thomas Fingar, said changes have been made in how analysis is done. "All of us have greater confidence in the judgments that we are making and bringing forward on Iran," Fingar said. He said the various intelligence agencies took to heart the various reports on the flawed intelligence leading up to Iraq. "We get it," Fingar said. "We realize we have got to rebuild confidence."