Iran, a Nuclear Weapons Program to Cure Disease, and Centrifuges

Maybe Iran's ayatollahs really are planning to cure incurable diseases with research reactors.

Maybe Iran has no intention at all of producing nuclear weapons.

Maybe.

Then again, maybe not.

A pacific, beneficent nuclear program - even one pursued in defiance of United Nations demands - would be a nice change of pace from "Death to America" and "Death to Israel." (October 6, 2007)

If it wasn't the same lot in charge in Tehran, I might be more willing to believe what Iranian officials said today.

From recent news:

"Iran gained another nuclear achievement as it marked the National Day of Nuclear Technology.

"The Head of Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI) Fereidoun Abbasi said on Saturday that the country is to launch a unit of Ceramic Grade Uranium Dioxide with natural purity at uranium processing firm in central city of Isfahan soon....

"...He also added Tehran and Arak research reactors enjoy unique facilities to produce medical radioisotopes for incurable diseases."
(ISNA)

"Iran's foreign minister has confirmed claims by an exiled Iranian opposition group that a factory west of Tehran is manufacturing centrifuge parts.

"Ali Akbar Salehi, quoted by the state news agency IRNA, says the facility is no secret and that many other facilities in the country are involved in manufacturing parts for Iran's nuclear program.

"Iran has long said it produces centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium, a process that the U.N. has demanded Tehran halt...."
(Associated Press, via FoxNews.com)

"...The comments by Ali Akbar Salehi came two days after the Mujahedeen-e Khalq announced at a press conference in Washington that its spies identified the factory, called the TABA facility, saying workers there produced centrifuge casings, molecular pumps, tubes and bellows for the centrifuges.

"Iran has long said it is producing its own centrifuges for its uranium enrichment program. Enrichment can produce either fuel for a nuclear reactor or the material for a nuclear warhead...."
(Associated Press)

Related posts:

• "Iran, Dubious Equipment, and a Nuclear Weapons Program that Doesn't Exist"
  (March 18, 2011)
• "Stuxnet: Inhuman Secret Agent"
  (November 26, 2010)
• "Jundallah, Iran, Islam, and the U. S. State Department"
  (November 3, 2010)
• "U.A.E. Ambassador and Iran: One Insane Speech Too Many?"
  (July 7, 2010)
• "Iran's Need(?) for Power, the Natanz Underground Uranium Enrichment Site, and the IAEA"
  (December 5, 2009)

In the news:

• "Iran gains nuclear achievement, marks National Day of Nuclear Technology"
  ISNA (April 9, 2011)
• "Iran Confirms Facility Producing Centrifuge Parts"
  Associated Press, via FoxNews.com (April 9, 2011)
• "Iran confirms factory producing centrifuge parts"
  Associated Press (April 9, 2011)

Stuxnet: Inhuman Secret Agent

Public Radio International calls Stuxnet a real threat. They could be right about that. Telegraph.co.uk calls it a virus.

Iran's government says that the nuclear weapons program they don't have - wasn't affected by Stuxnet. That's - unlikely.

Bombs? That's So 20th-Century

I've written about Iran's nuclear program before. While it's remotely possible that one of the world's leading producer of petroleum desperately needs nuclear power plants - which in turn require weapons-grade uranium - I think it's more likely that Iran's ayatollahs wanted nuclear bombs.

I think can see their point, in a way. Quite a few folks outside Iran don't act the way the ayatollahs want them to. Nuclear weapons might seem quite effective - either as an upgrade to their means for converting the unbeliever, or to incinerate folks who wouldn't cooperate.

That's not to say that I approve of the lot that's running Iran. "Understanding" isn't "approval."

I think it's very likely that's what Iran's nuclear program is intended to produce nuclear weapons. I also think that aging religious fanatics with nukes present a very serious threat to anyone within range of their missiles: which includes quite a lot of the Middle East, Russia, and a disturbing fraction of Europe.

If Iran Wanted Nukes, Wouldn't They Have Them By Now?

One of the problems with the notion that Iran wanted nuclear weapons was the way that predictions kept being wrong.

It was like Iran's nuclear program was slowing down.

In some circles, this would 'obviously' mean that the vast right-wing conspiracy, or some other mysterious force, had made up the whole 'Iranian nukes' idea. After all, if Iran wanted nukes, they'd have them by now - and since they don't have them, they didn't want them.

Looks like there was a 'conspiracy' involved. Sort of.

Also, apparently, a very, very sophisticated worm: a sort of Information Age secret agent.

Stuxnet: One Very Smart Worm

Stuxnet is, in a way, scary. I hope that whoever designed it has figured out a way of disabling the thing. I'll get back to that.

According to an article I read today, Stuxnet is a very, very sophisticated set of code: a worm that's designed to damage, but not destroy, particular machinery in Iran's nuclear program. Also not affect other systems it infects - and cover its tracks so effectively that Iranian counter-intelligence apparently assumed that people working on the project were damaging the equipment.

Some of those people were killed - others simply disappeared.

Moralizing While Cities Get Nuked?

I am not comfotable with the idea of (presumably) innocent people being killed by Iranian security, when the culprit is malicious code. Or, rather, whoever made Stuxnet.

On the other hand, I am not comfortable with the idea of people in Tel Aviv, Beirut, Stavropol, or some other city, getting vaporized because folks who could have stopped the Iranian nuclear program - didn't.

I know, by the way: A lot of the folks in the cities I mentioned are Muslims. I've gotten the impression that quite a few Muslims die because some other Muslim decided they're not doing Islam the 'right' way.

Stuxnet: No Skynet

Smart as Stuxnet is, I'm about as certain as I can be about anything that it won't wind up taking over the world, like The Terminator's Skynet.

On the other hand, like I said, I really hope that whoever designed Stuxnet has a way of disabling it - or that one of the many commercial anti-malware firms works out a method.

It looks like it was designed very carefully to perform one function - and only one function. On a particular computer system, in a particular place.

Still, anybody can make a mistake.

As to 'is it moral to use a worm like Stuxnet' to keep religious crazies from having nukes? If someone hadn't developed Stuxnet, the world's best and brightest might be discussion how if they'd just had a chance to talk with the ayatollahs, some city would still be on the map.

I'm inclined to think that "alive" is better than "dead," all other things being equal.

Here's a rather long set of excerpts from that article I mentioned:

"....--The worm also knew that the complex control system that ran the centrifuges was built by Siemans, the German manufacturer, and -- remarkably -- how that system worked as well and how to mask its activities from it.

"--Masking itself from the plant's security and other systems, the worm then ordered the centrifuges to rotate extremely fast, and then to slow down precipitously. This damaged the converter, the centrifuges and the bearings, and it corrupted the uranium in the tubes. It also left Iranian nuclear engineers wondering what was wrong, as computer checks showed no malfunctions in the operating system.

"Estimates are that this went on for more than a year, leaving the Iranian program in chaos. And as it did, the worm grew and adapted throughout the system. As new worms entered the system, they would meet and adapt and become increasingly sophisticated....

"...This went on until June of last year, when a Belarusan company working on the Iranian power plant in Beshehr discovered it in one of its machines. It quickly put out a notice on a Web network monitored by computer security experts around the world. Ordinarily these experts would immediately begin tracing the worm and dissecting it, looking for clues about its origin and other details.

"But that didn’t happen, because within minutes all the alert sites came under attack and were inoperative for 24 hours.

" 'I had to use e-mail to send notices but I couldn't reach everyone. Whoever made the worm had a full day to eliminate all traces of the worm that might lead us them,' Eric Byers, a computer security expert who has examined the Stuxnet. 'No hacker could have done that.'

"Experts, including inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency, say that, despite Iran's claims to the contrary, the worm was successful in its goal: causing confusion among Iran’s nuclear engineers and disabling their nuclear program.

"Because of the secrecy surrounding the Iranian program, no one can be certain of the full extent of the damage. But sources inside Iran and elsewhere say that the Iranian centrifuge program has been operating far below its capacity and that the uranium enrichment program had 'stagnated' during the time the worm penetrated the underground facility. Only 4,000 of the 9,000 centrifuges Iran was known to have were put into use. Some suspect that is because of the critical need to replace ones that were damaged.

"And the limited number of those in use dwindled to an estimated 3,700 as problems engulfed their operation. IAEA inspectors say the sabotage better explains the slowness of the program, which they had earlier attributed to poor equipment manufacturing and management problems. As Iranians struggled with the setbacks, they began searching for signs of sabotage. From inside Iran there have been unconfirmed reports that the head of the plant was fired shortly after the worm wended its way into the system and began creating technical problems, and that some scientists who were suspected of espionage disappeared or were executed. And counter intelligence agents began monitoring all communications between scientists at the site, creating a climate of fear and paranoia....

"...Speculation on the worm's origin initially focused on hackers or even companies trying to disrupt competitors. But as engineers tore apart the virus they learned not only the depth of the code, its complex targeting mechanism, (despite infecting more than 100,000 computers it has only done damage at Natanz,) the enormous amount of work that went into it—Microsoft estimated that it consumed 10,000 man days of labor-- and about what the worm knew, the clues narrowed the number of players that have the capabilities to create it to a handful.

" 'This is what nation-states build, if their only other option would be to go to war,' Joseph Wouk, an Israeli security expert wrote.

"Byers is more certain. 'It is a military weapon,' he said.

"And much of what the worm 'knew' could only have come from a consortium of Western intelligence agencies, experts who have examined the code now believe.

"Originally, all eyes turned toward Israel's intelligence agencies. Engineers examining the worm found 'clues' that hinted at Israel's involvement. In one case they found the word 'Myrtus' embedded in the code and argued that it was a reference to Esther, the biblical figure who saved the ancient Jewish state from the Persians. But computer experts say 'Myrtus' is more likely a common reference to 'My RTUS,' or remote terminal units.

"Langer argues that no single Western intelligence agency had the skills to pull this off alone. The most likely answer, he says, is that a consortium of intelligence agencies worked together to build the cyber bomb...."
(FOXNews)

Langer's picks are

• The United States
  • Which has the technical skills needed
• Germany
  • With access to Sieman's product design
• Russia
  • Familar with
    • Iran's nuclear plant
    • Sieman's systems

He could be right about all that.

Then, there's this - I suppose you could call it a literary reference.

"There is one clue that was left in the code that may tell us all we need to know.

"Embedded in different section of the code is another common computer language reference, but this one is misspelled. Instead of saying 'DEADFOOT,' a term stolen from pilots meaning a failed engine, this one reads 'DEADFOO7.'

"Yes, OO7 has returned -- as a computer worm.

"Stuxnet. Shaken, not stirred."
(FOXNews)

Related posts:

• "Jundallah, Iran, Islam, and the U. S. State Department"
  (November 3, 2010)
• "9/11 and the One-Size-Fits-All Explanation: 'It is the Fault of the Jews' - and the Yankees"
  (September 24, 2010)
• "Iran, an Unmanned Bomber, Nuclear Weapons, and No Simple Answers"
  (August 22, 2010)
• "U.A.E. Ambassador and Iran: One Insane Speech Too Many?"
  (July 7, 2010)
• "Iran, Protests, Internet Blackout, and Nuclear Bombs"
  (December 7, 2009)

In the news:

• "Mystery Surrounds Cyber Missile That Crippled Iran's Nuclear Weapons Ambitions"
  Ed Barnes, FOXNews (November 26, 2010)

Iran, an Unmanned Bomber, Nuclear Weapons, and No Simple Answers

In today's news:

"President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has unveiled Iran's first domestically-built unmanned bomber aircraft, calling it an 'ambassador of death' to the country's enemies.

"The 4m-long drone aircraft can carry up to four cruise missiles and will have a range of 620 miles, according to a state TV report - but not far enough to reach arch-enemy Israel.

" 'The jet, as well as being an ambassador of death for the enemies of humanity, has a main message of peace and friendship,' Mr Ahmadinejad said at the inauguration ceremony in Tehran...."
(Press Association)

This carrier drone is impressive. On the other hand, Iran has had the X-55 LACM in its arsenal for years. (GlobalSecurity.org) That cruse missile has a range of 3,000 kilometers, or about 1,864 miles. America's comparatively safe from an attack using the X-55 LACM. Southern Russia? Not so much. I've written about that before.

Middle East: Where Pre-Industrial Cultures Face the Information Age

I've made the point before, that many people in the Middle East had been out of the loop for centuries - millennia in some cases. After the fall of the Persian and Roman Empires, with a few relatively brief exceptions, events in the rest of the world went on without troubling customs which had been old when Abraham moved out of Ur.

Then people in Europe and North America developed technologies that required petroleum. Lots of petroleum. Suddenly outsiders came, bringing strange new ideas with them.

The old-school cultures of the Middle East might have weathered that, but a few decades ago the Information Age started. I've managed to adjust to a world where I can communicate with people on the other side of the world: but I'm an American, and my ancestors had already gotten used to changing technologies.

It's not just technology, although today's infotech is affecting folks in the Middle East.

Again, my ancestors came from Europe and settled in America: where they learned how to deal with other folks who didn't have exactly the same set of cultural preferences. Without killing them.

I have some sympathy for the old-school folks, who were dragged from a comfortably insulated society of burqas and honor killings to a world of bikinis, beer and dog food commercials. It must be a terribly unsettling experience.

Andy Capp, Iran, and Nuclear Weapons

There's an old Andy Capp comic strip, where a police officer is repeating what Mr. Capp told him: something like 'I thought he was going to hit me, so I hit him back first.'

That's funny, I think.

That's not, as a rule, a philosophy which I think should be applied to international diplomacy.

It'd be nice if Iran really did use their new robot bomber strictly as a deterrent. Then they might feel a little safer from the Jews and the Great Satan America.

My concern is that they'll decide that someone in range of their various short-, medium-, and long-range weapons is a threat; or is insufficiently Islamic, or whatever: and have a shot at killing some of the offending parties.

From what shows up in the news from time to time, my guess is that I'm not the only one with that sort of concern.

Can America 'hit him back first?'

In strictly practical terms: probably. Almost certainly, in fact. And then there would be cries (self?) righteous indignation from most of the national governments whose bacon we kept from frying. Unless there wasn't much of Iran left, there would probably be attacks against everyone and anyone within reach.

Not a good situation.

The alternative isn't too pleasant to contemplate, either: but there's the chance that the Ayatollahs will finally mismanage their government into oblivion, and let someone else have a crack at running the country.

Stranger things have happened.

Related posts:

• "U.A.E. Ambassador and Iran: One Insane Speech Too Many?"
  (July 7, 2010)
• "Obama, Iran, Missiles, Europe, and 'What the heck did they tell him?' "
  (September 17, 2009)
• "Iran's Nuclear Weapons Program: Oops, Let's Look at That Again"
  (October 16, 2009)
• "Iran's Nuclear Program, Israel, Iraq, America, Bush and Obama: Simple? Not!"
  (January 11, 2009)
• "Iranian Nukes, Israeli Attack, Diplomacy, and Common Sense"
  (June 21, 2008)
• "Russian Official Declares First-Strike Nuke Policy: Why?"
  (January 19, 2008)
• "Nuclear War in the Middle East: Messy, Lethal, and Brief"
  (December 24, 2007)

In the news:

• "Iran president unveils drone bomber"
  Press Association (August 22, 2010)
• "Iran unveils drone aircraft to counter 'aggressors' "
  Reuters (August 22, 2010)

U.A.E. Ambassador and Iran: One Insane Speech Too Many?

It's possible that Iran's Ayatollahs have made one insane speech too many.

A Washington Times article yesterday said that the United Arab Emirates ambassador to the United States was okay with using military force to stop Iran's nuclear program. And said so in public.

Ambassador Yousef al-Otaiba apparently would like to give sanctions a chance - but if that doesn't change Iran's policy, well: "We cannot live with a nuclear Iran" is the way the article says that he put it.

Apparently other Arab diplomats have said essentially the same thing privately: the United Arab Emirates (U.A.E.) ambassador is the first one to go public.

I don't think this is anything to celebrate: any sort of military strike on Iran is likely to be messy. On the other hand, I'm rather relieved that at least one diplomat from the Islamic world seems to have decided that on the whole, he'd rather be alive, than pretend that Iran is okay because they're "Islamic."

It's a sort of victory for common sense.

Related posts:

• "Zimbabwe, Iran, and Uranium: Oh, Jolly"
  (May 4, 2010)
• "Boobquake! I am Not Making This Up"
  (April 23, 2010)
• "Iran's Need(?) for Power, the Natanz Underground Uranium Enrichment Site, and the IAEA"
  (December 5, 2009)
• "Protesting Election Fraud is 'Waging War Against God' - Ayatollah Khatami "
  (June 28, 2009)
• "Nuclear War in the Middle East: Messy, Lethal, and Brief"
  (December 24, 2007)

In the news:

• "U.A.E. diplomat mulls hit on Iran's nukes"
  The Washington Times (July 6, 2010)

Iran's Mighty Army, President Ahmadinejad, Nuclear Weapons and History

This hasn't been a particularly slow week for news:

• Followups on Poland's loss
• The Eyjafjallajökull Eruption
• Mark Teixeira's first home run of the season

I think this is noteworthy, too:

"Iran is so powerful today that no country would dare attack it, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Sunday during an annual army parade.

" 'Iran's army is so mighty today that no enemy can have a foul thought of invading Iran's territory,' the Iranian leader said, according to state media.

" 'Of course, Iran is a friend and brother of regional and independent nations and it wants peace, progress and security for all countries,' Ahmadinejad said.

"During the event near the mausoleum of the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini -- who ushered the Islamic Revolution into Iran more than 30 years ago -- several models of Iran's medium- and long-range missiles, including the Shahab 3, were on display...."

"...The United States and its allies should abandon policies designed to dominate the oil-rich nations of the Middle East, Ahmadinejad said, adding that reliance on arms was a sign of a country without culture.

"Iran, he said, is prepared to do all it can to counter nuclear weapons.

" 'One of the greatest treasons by those that monopolize nuclear weapons is to equalize nukes with nuclear energy,' Ahmadinejad said. 'The way to produce weapons is totally different than nuclear energy. And they know these very well, but they plan to talk about both these things in their own monopolized way.' "
(CNN)

Oddly enough, I think that President Ahmadinejad has a point: although I wouldn't describe efforts at slowing down the spread of nuclear weapons as "treason."

Wouldn't it be Nice, If Nukes Didn't Exist?

Here in America, a noticeable number of people apparently think that technology makes people do things: not the other way around. Search for things like "gun laws," "gun lobby" or "gun crime," and you may see what I mean. (December 23, 2007)

It's an attractive idea: just destroy all the guns and ban gunpowder, and everything would be hunky dory. I'm quite sure that, in a 'ban firearms' scenario, "gun crimes" would disappear.

But, depending on what America's 'right sort' got scared of first, soon we'd have to ban crossbows, swords, knives, steel, iron, bronze - you get the idea. (April 6, 2010)

Iran a Threat? Yes, Obviously

I think that Iran's current leadership is a serious threat to anybody within range of its missiles. By now that includes a disturbing fraction of Eurasia and Africa. (August 4, 2009) And the Ayatollahs haven't missed too many opportunities, in my view, to make it quite clear that they believe people should agree with them: or die.

Dealing With New Technology: Been There, Done That

On the other hand, I'm fairly sure that nuclear energy - reactors and weapons systems - is a genie that won't go back into the bottle. We'd better get used to living in a world where people can, with a certain amount of effort, use - or misuse - enormous amounts of energy.

Humanity has been through this sort of thing before. There was a time when arrows were the latest thing in super-weapons. What's different about today's situation is that things tend to move faster: and more of 'the masses' have a clue about what's going on.

Ignorance may be bliss: But I'd rather live now, than in any of the 'good old days' I've heard about. Certainly not the ones I remember. "Happy Days" wasn't.

One advantage we've got, that people a thousand or ten thousand years ago didn't have, is that there are well upwards of 6,000,000,000 of us. A fair percentage of that number have access to Internet connections. Which gives them access to quite a bit of raw information - some of it reliable, some more fiction than fact. They - we - can also communicate with each other. Fast.

Welcome to the Information Age

All national leaders may not have caught on yet, that they're not the only people who have viable ideas: but I think there's there's a vague sense developing, that this isn't the 19th century any more.

That's a pretty good start.

Individual Nations Can Deal With Iran

I don't have answers: not in any detail. But, in general: I think the sort of situation represented by Iran and Korea is one that individual nations can deal with.

But That May Not be a Good Idea

Which is a bit of a problem. I said, "can deal with," not "should deal with." In my view, the United Nations is a sort of practical joke: and a screwball prototype of what humanity may develop. In a century, or a millennium. My guess is that it'll take even longer: but I've been wrong before.

We've seen, recently, what a coalition of nations can achieve. Provided that there's one or two nations in the group with leaders who are willing to take charge. Not dictate: direct.

I realize that's a radical idea: nations cooperating with each other without a U.N. agency running the whole affair. But I think it's better than the 'solo' option.

I'm not necessarily talking about America 'going it alone,' mind you. A few years ago, Russian leaders made it fairly clear that they weren't too noble and self-sacrificing to use nuclear weapons against a threat. (January 25, 2008)

Personally, I'd rather see the 'Iranian nuclear weapons' issue settled without parts of Iran becoming radioactive ash. But today's heirs of the Czars and commissars may decide to be more proactive.

Related posts:

• "Obama Limits Nuclear Weapons: That's Nice"
  (April 6, 2010)
• "The CIA, the BBC, Iran, and an Iranian Scientist"
  (March 31, 2010)
• "Iran, Twitter, and the Responsibilities of Proper British Gentlemen"
  (December 29, 2009)
  • And jolly old England isn't alone
• "American Military Tests Antimissile System: Smart Move, I Think"
  (December 19, 2009)
• "Russian Submarines Near America: There's Probably a Reason"
  (August 4, 2009)
  Particularly
  • Yes: Iran Could Bomb European Targets
• "Iran's Need(?) for Power, the Natanz Underground Uranium Enrichment Site, and the IAEA"
  (December 5, 2009)
• "Iran, Islam, "Arrogant Powers" and 'Certain Expansionist Superpowers,' and Common Sense"
  (May 30, 2009)
• "Unintended Consequences? The West May be Getting Over Hiroshima"
  (January 25, 2008)
• "Ballistic Missiles in Cuba = Anti-Missile System in Europe?"
  (October 26, 2007)

In the news:

• "Ahmadinejad: Iran too 'mighty' to attack"
  CNN (April 18, 2010)

The CIA, the BBC, Iran, and an Iranian Scientist

"Iran nuclear scientist Shahram Amiri 'defects to US' "
BBC (March 31, 2010)

"An Iranian nuclear scientist who has been missing since June has defected to the US, according to a US media report.

ABC News said Shahram Amiri had been resettled in the US and was helping the CIA in its efforts to block Iran's nuclear programme.

Mr Amiri disappeared in Saudi Arabia while on a Muslim pilgrimage.

Iran accused the US of abducting him but Washington denied any knowledge of the scientist. The CIA has declined to comment on the latest report. ..."

Well, maybe the CIA kidnapped an Iranian scientist, implanted a chip in his brain that makes him say what they want him to, and the IAEA's concerns about Iran's nuclear program are all part of a CIA plot.

And maybe the world is really run by shape-shifting space-alien lizard people.

I rather doubt it. Not that somebody in the CIA would capture ("kidnap," if you must) an Iranian scientist: that the international concern about Iran's nuclear program is some kinda plot.

Which isn't what the BBC article says.

They're awfully careful, though, to focus on the CIA's interest in Iran's activities.

Don't Look Behind the Curtain

I think it's remotely possible that Iran has been ramping up its production capacity for weapons-grade heavy metals and obstructing U.N. efforts to let inspectors look at the 'peaceful' nuclear program's facilities. Possible, but not likely.

Related posts:

• "Iran, Twitter, and the Responsibilities of Proper British Gentlemen"
  (December 29, 2009)
• "Iran's Need(?) for Power, the Natanz Underground Uranium Enrichment Site, and the IAEA"
  (December 5, 2009)
• "Iran's Nuclear (Weapons?) Program and the IAEA"
  (December 4, 2009)
• "Iran's Nuclear Weapons Program: Oops, Let's Look at That Again"
  (October 16, 2009)

Iran's Need(?) for Power, the Natanz Underground Uranium Enrichment Site, and the IAEA

In today's news, noted and recorded:

"Report: Iran needs 20 uranium enrichment facilities like Natanz plant"
Xinhua, (December 5, 2009)

"Iran said that it needs 20 uranium enrichment facilities on the scale of its Natanz plant to fulfill its total electricity demand, Iran's satellite channel Press TV reported Saturday.

" 'We are in need of 20,000 megawatts that means 20 (times the amount the) Natanz (facility can produce),' head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization Ali-Akbar Salehi told Press TV on Friday.

" 'Now the government has decided to have ten sites with the same size as Natanz; of course, when I say with the same size as Natanz, it is concerning the amount of fuel that is produced, which is about 30 tonnes per year,' Salehi said.

" 'Each site will produce 30 tonnes per year which is enough for one nuclear power plant,' he added...."

"UPDATE 1-Iran says needs 20 nuclear sites - agency"
Reuters UK (December 5, 2009)

"(Adds quote, background, details)

"TEHRAN, Dec 5 (Reuters) - Iran needs 20 uranium enrichment plants to produce enough fuel for its nuclear power plants and has no plans to withdraw from the Non-Proliferation Treaty, the official IRNA news agency reported on Saturday.

" 'To provide fuel for our nuclear power plants, we need to have 20 uranium enrichment plants,' IRNA quoted Iran's nuclear chief Ali Akbar Salehi as saying.

"In a major expansion of its nuclear programme, Tehran said on Sunday it would build 10 more uranium enrichment sites like its Natanz underground one monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

"Iran said on Friday it will provide the IAEA with the bare minimum of information about its plan to build new sites, a stance sure to stoke Western suspicions about its atomic agenda.

"Analysts say Iran will need many years if not decades for such a huge expansion of its enrichment capability.

"They fear that Iran's insistence on sticking to notification rules the IAEA considers obsolete will allow Tehran to skirt the system, heightening the risk of Tehran being able to 'weaponize' enrichment clandestinely.

"Uranium enrichment can be calibrated to yield fuel either for nuclear power plants or the fissile core of a nuclear bomb...."

I've made the point before, that Iran's Ayatollahs and their underlings are not all there is to Iran. (June 15, 2009, June 26, 2009,for starters)

That said, the Ayatollahs are running the country now, and apparently making a bad job of it. Iran is the fourth largest net exporter of oil in the world, after Saudi Arabia, Russia, and the United Arab Emirates. (EIA) And, if you believe the Iranian government, they don't have enough oil to run their electrical generators.

That could be true, actually.

Although state-run economies look good on paper, and have a very loyal fan base, they don't have a good track record when it comes to performance.

To be fair, the Ayatollahs didn't come up with the clever idea of running Iran's economy from the capital. The country's oil industry was nationalized in 1951, back when the Shah was still around. (GlobalSecurity.org) Still, under their management, Iranians experienced a rate of 28% annual inflation in 2008. (CIA) That's a bit high.

With the sort of inefficiency that comes with state control, it's possible that the world's fourth-largest net exporter of oil really doesn't have enough left over to make electricity for its people.

Or, maybe the Iranian government isn't being entirely transparent about why it wants to produce so much uranium.

Funny thing about uranium: its energy can be released slowly, to produce electrical power; or it can all be released in a tiny fraction of a second, to turn cities into cinders.

Considering the way Iran popularized catchy phrases like "death to Israel! Death to the Great Satan America!" - I don't think it's entirely unreasonable to consider the possibility that Iran's government wants to make nuclear bombs.

It looks like Iran has vehicles that could deliver nuclear warheads to targets in the Middle East, Russia, and Europe. (September 17, 2009) I don't think it's beyond the realm of possibility to imagine that the Ayatollahs would decide that the world would be a better place, if a few cities whose people they don't approve of were to vanish in a bright flash.

It wouldn't be the first time that a government that's been mismanaging a nationalized economy blamed the Jews and started a war: arguably, to deflect criticism of its performance.¹

Related posts:

• "Iran's Nuclear (Weapons?) Program and the IAEA"
  (December 4, 2009)
• "Iran's Supreme Leader and God"
  (November 13, 2009)
• "Iran's Nuclear Weapons Program: Oops, Let's Look at That Again"
  (October 16, 2009)
• "Obama, Iran, Missiles, Europe, and 'What the heck did they tell him?' "
  (September 17, 2009)
• "Iran Leaders Request Investigation of Supereme Leader: An Iranian My Lai? Maybe, Maybe Not"
  (August 14, 2009)
• "Neda Agha Soltan, Iran, Cell Phone Cameras, and the Information Age"
  (June 23, 2009)
• "Iran's Nuclear Program, Israel, Iraq, America, Bush and Obama: Simple? Not!"
  (January 11, 2009)
• "Russia, Iran, Nuclear Weapons: Not Much Has Changed"
  (September 27, 2008)
• "Pray for Neda: And Learn About the Real Iran"
  (June 26, 2009)
• "Journalism in the Information Age, Or Nothing Says 'No' Like a Brightly Burning Motorcycle"
  (June 24, 2009)
• "Iranian Nukes, Israeli Attack, Diplomacy, and Common Sense"
  (June 21, 2008)
• "Iran: Win the Election, Lose the Country?"
  (June 15, 2009)
• "Iran Poses No Threat? Guess Again"
  (February 7, 2008)
• "How to Succeed in Conflicts: Three Approaches"
  (February 20, 2008)
  • A Passion for Vengeance: The Mad Patriot
  • A Passion for Conciliation: The Wistful Activist
  • A Passion for Reason: The Hopeful Historian
• "Unintended Consequences? The West May be Getting Over Hiroshima"
  (January 25, 2008)
• "Russian Official Declares First-Strike Nuke Policy: Why?"
  (January 19, 2008)
• "Jews Flee Iran, Fearing Persecution: Sound Familiar?"
  (December 25, 2007)
• "Nuclear War in the Middle East: Messy, Lethal, and Brief"
  (December 24, 2007)
• "Peace, Hope, and Jihadists With Nuclear Bombs"
  (September 2, 2007)

Background:

• "Oil"
  Home :: Military :: World :: Iran :: Introduction ::, GlobalSecurity.org
• "Iran"
  World Factbook, CIA (last updated on November 30, 2009)
• "Country Energy Profiles"
  Energy Information Administration, Official Energy Statistics from the U.S. Government

---

¹ Germany's period of hyperinflation occurred during the Weimar Republic. National Socialist Germany fixed unemployment by putting people to work "regardless of whether or not their productivity exceeds their wage cost" - and didn't have to worry about inflation. "...The Nazi Government reacted to the threat of inflation by declaring a general price freeze in 1936.... ("THE ECONOMIC HISTORY OF GERMANY," National Socialist Germany, Department of Economics, San José State University)

Iran's Nuclear (Weapons?) Program and the IAEA

In today's news, noted and recorded:

"Official says Iran to limit cooperation with IAEA"
The Associated Press (December 4, 2009)

"A nuclear official said Friday Iran will not answer to the U.N. nuclear watchdog about its plans to build 10 new uranium enrichment sites beyond the barest minimum required under the international nonproliferation treaty.

"The comments by Abolfazl Zohrehvand, an adviser to the country's top nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili, came days after President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Iran was considering whether to scale back cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency after it approved a resolution censuring Iran over its nuclear program.

"If Iran follows through on the threat, it would be another slap to Western efforts to curtail Iran's nuclear program for fear it is aimed at building weapons.

"Tehran on Sunday announced it intends to build the 10 new sites...."

"Iran Rejects IAEA Transparency Demand on Atom Sites"
Reuters, via The New York Times (December 4, 2009)

"Iran said it will provide the U.N. nuclear watchdog with the bare minimum of information about its plan to build 10 new uranium enrichment plants, a stance sure to stoke Western suspicions about its atomic agenda.

"In a defiant response to last week's International Atomic Energy Agency board of governors vote rebuking Iran for building a second enrichment plant in secret, Tehran said on Sunday it would build 10 more sites like its IAEA-monitored one at Natanz.

"In 2007, in reprisal for U.N. sanctions slapped on it, Iran renounced an amended IAEA code of conduct requiring states to notify the agency of nuclear plans as soon as they are drafted, so as to catch any illicit atomic bomb work in the early stages.

"Iran reverted to an earlier IAEA transparency code mandating only 180 days notice before a nuclear site begins production...."

Given time and effort, I could probably cobble together a story that makes Iran's leaders sound like a nice, reasonable bunch of well-meaning people who just happen to be making the rest of the world think they're probably getting ready to build nuclear weapons. A little more time and effort, and I could make them look like victims.

I'm not going to do that.

As nice as it would be, if everybody would be nice: the world isn't like that, and hasn't been for thousands of years of recorded history. That's why we have SWAT teams. And, at the national level, the armed forces.

Related posts:

• "Iran's Supreme Leader and God"
  (November 13, 2009)
• "Iran's Nuclear Weapons Program: Oops, Let's Look at That Again"
  (October 16, 2009)
• "Iran Leaders Request Investigation of Supereme Leader: An Iranian My Lai? Maybe, Maybe Not"
  (August 14, 2009)
• "Ahmadinejad Wants America to Apologize: This is News?"
  (January 28, 2009)
• "Iran's Nuclear Program, Israel, Iraq, America, Bush and Obama: Simple? Not!"
  (January 11, 2009)
• "Russia, Iran, Nuclear Weapons: Not Much Has Changed"
  (September 27, 2008)
• "Iranian Nukes, Israeli Attack, Diplomacy, and Common Sense"
  (June 21, 2008)
• "How to Succeed in Conflicts: Three Approaches"
  (February 20, 2008)
  • A Passion for Vengeance: The Mad Patriot
  • A Passion for Conciliation: The Wistful Activist
  • A Passion for Reason: The Hopeful Historian
• "Unintended Consequences? The West May be Getting Over Hiroshima"
  (January 25, 2008)
• "Russian Official Declares First-Strike Nuke Policy: Why?"
  (January 19, 2008)
• "Jews Flee Iran, Fearing Persecution: Sound Familiar?"
  (December 25, 2007)
• "Nuclear War in the Middle East: Messy, Lethal, and Brief"
  (December 24, 2007)

Iran's Nuclear Weapons Program: Oops, Let's Look at That Again

The headline is dry enough, and the first few paragraphs are hardly what I'd call heated prose. But this article got my attention anyway:

"U.S. Considers a New Assessment of Iran Threat"
The Wall Street Journal (October 16, 2009)

"Amid Pressure After Latest Nuclear Revelations, Spy Agencies Rethink a 2007 Judgment That Weapons Effort Had Been Halted"

"U.S. spy agencies are considering whether to rewrite a controversial 2007 intelligence report that asserted Tehran halted its efforts to build nuclear weapons in 2003, current and former U.S. intelligence officials say.

"The intelligence agencies' rethink comes as pressure is mounting on Capitol Hill, and among U.S. allies, for the Obama administration to redo the 2007 assessment, after a string of recent revelations about Tehran's nuclear program.

"German, French and British intelligence agencies have all disputed the conclusions of the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate, or NIE, in recent months, according to European officials briefed on the exchanges...."

So Iran's Ayatollahs Get the Bomb: What's the Worst that Could Happen?

Odds are, I think, pretty good that Iran won't have more than the dozen or so nuclear weapons that North Korea probably has, any time soon: and probably nothing all that much more powerful than the devices that overheated parts of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

More effective weapons, like the hydrogen bomb that put a mile-wide crater near Nam island in the Pacific, back in the fifties.¹ More powerful bombs have been developed since then, of course.

However, it's quite expensive to build, say, a 100 megaton hydrogen bomb: and you need fairly specialized equipment to make the components. And, of course, people who can run the machines.

So I don't think that Iran will be punching mile-wide holes in the ground any time soon.

But it's remarkable, how much damage can be done with just a dozen or so kilotons-worth of atomic bomb.

Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Two Very Unpleasant Days

A piddly little 13 to 18 kiloton bomb vaporized part of Hiroshima, killed around 140,000 people, and make others really sick. The 21 kiloton bomb that went off over Nagasaki would have done quite a lot more damage, if it weren't for the hills there. Even so, about 39,000 people were killed.

Those were very unpleasant experiences, and I hope that sort of thing doesn't happen again.

On the other hand, I'm not going to indulge in the conventional apology for a decision made by President Truman, which saved thousands - maybe millions - of Japanese lives. And quite a number of American lives, for what that's worth.²

Like it or not, Japan's leaders during WWII had given no indication that they wanted to surrender (and yes, I know about the 'surrender/capitulation' translation - the story's been on campuses for at least thirty years).

On the other hand, experience in the Pacific theater had taught that Japanese forces were quite willing to fight to the death, rather than surrender. And quite capable of employing Japanese civilians for combat and combat support.

Accepting death before defeat can be an admirable trait, and won Spartans lasting fame at Thermopylae. But the resolve of Japanese leaders also indicated that an invasion of the Japanese homeland would most likely involve fighting until the vast majority of Japanese citizens were dead. Along with quite a large number of Americans. Including my father, who served on an LST slated for use in the invasion.

Without the reality-check of those nuclear bombs, a conventional invasion of Japan was, I've read and been told, was the only realistic alternative.

I'm one of the people who most likely wouldn't have been born, if President Truman had been 'nice.'

I'm not sorry I'm alive, and I'm not at all sorry that thousands (millions?) of Japanese citizens around my age and younger are alive, too. (More at "Unintended Consequences? The West May be Getting Over Hiroshima" (January 25, 2008))

Iran's Ayatollahs With A-Bombs

I think many people would agree that cities like Budapest, Vienna, Athens or Warsaw wouldn't be improved by having a nuclear bomb detonated over - or in - them. The same probably goes for Paris, Berlin, Moscow, London and Madrid.

Some of those cities aren't withing range of missiles Iran's known to have, today: but I don't think there's any reason to believe that something like Fat Man couldn't be shipped in via air freight.

As for the idea that London, say, wouldn't be hit because there are mosques there? Muslims who follow the wacky side of Islam have shown little if any reservations about hitting a mosque. Maybe if it isn't the one they go to, it's just another enemy target. The rationale doesn't matter: the fact is, Muslims blowing up other Muslims and mosques is a fairly routine news item, and has been for years.

All things considered, I don't think this period is one of Islam's shining hours.

But that's another topic.

A Hundred Thousand or So Dead Parisians Wouldn't be Nice

I think that people in France wouldn't like it if part of Paris was obliterated. They might even be irrité if bits and pieces of Madrid or Moscow started falling out of a mushroom cloud. Can't say that I'd blame them.

I wouldn't be happy, either: and I wouldn't be happy if an American city was nuked.

The sort of death and destruction that would go along with that sort of an even would be, as I said before, unpleasant.

What happened as a result of a nuclear strike probably wouldn't be pleasant, either.

Remember how many people felt after the 9/11 attack? 'Only' around 3,000 people died then. The death toll from a nuclear attack on a major city, even with a low-yield bomb, could easily be fifty times as large.

America, the likes of Professor Ward Churchill notwithstanding, took time to figure out who actually launched the 9/11 attack - and where they were based. Then, an American-led coalition ended the Taliban's control of Afghanistan: despite the 'nuke Kabul' rhetoric of some of America's more hot-headed citizens.

A nuclear strike in America might, or might not, provoke America to lash out thoughtlessly. But let's say the target wasn't in America.

Quite a few nations have, or most likely have, nuclear weapons:

• US
• Russia
• United Kingdom
• France
• China
• Israel
• India
• Pakistan
• North Korea
  (Source: GlobalSecurity.org)

Several of those countries have missiles that could deliver warheads a significant distance. I don't think it's beyond the realm of possibility that their leaders might, if they suffered a nuclear attack, respond in kind.

If the Iran's Ayatollahs ordered the attack, and used a missile launched from Iran, the sort of detective work that went into finding out that - despite the number of Saudi citizens among the 9/11 terrorists - the rulers of Afghanistan were responsible, and not Saudi Arabia.

Let's Say Iran Nukes Moscow

I really wouldn't like to read, sometime in the next few years, that part of Moscow had been destroyed, and that people could start moving back into the Tehran area in another few centuries.

On the other hand, that sort of scenario would end the "Iranian nukes" issue.

What to do? Short of Obliterating Iran

I have a great respect for the people of Iran and their history. I think the world would be better with Iran, than without the country.

The Ayatollahs are something else: but the Ayatollahs are not Iran. (See "Journalism in the Information Age, Or Nothing Says 'No' Like a Brightly Burning Motorcycle" (June 24, 2009))

An option that gets discussed in the news quite often is economic sanctions against Iran. It sounds like an attractive idea, and would be even more attractive to me if there were a good chance that it would work.

But so far, economic sanctions haven't done much more to Iran than give the leaders there something to talk about, and hurt the citizenry.

I'm not at all convinced that sanctions work, as a rule. Take North Korea, for example: economic sanctions have probably hurt Koreans who aren't connected with Kim Jon Il's government: but there's little reason to believe that he's suffered. His staff has probably had to scramble to keep up his supplies of lobster - but they're out of the loop when it comes to decision-making.

I'd love to have a practical, humane, popular, and swift solution to the problem of religious fanatics trying to get nuclear weapons.

I don't have one.

I do think that there's a chance that the Ayatollahs will mismanage Iran so badly that significant Iranians end their rule - and, probably, their lives.

Whether that happens before Iran builds and delivers a nuclear bomb depends on knowledge I don't have.

I'm afraid that military force will be necessary to end the threat of Ayatollahs with nukes. It doesn't need to be a 'nuke Tehran' approach. If the:

• Iranian nuclear program is concentrated in a few places
• Facilities
  • Can be precisely located
  • Are close enough to the surface so that 'bunker buster' penetrating bombs would be effective

Then maybe an equivalent to Israel's bombing of Iraq's reactor, back in 1981, would end the threat - long enough for fed-up Iranians to solve their problems with a new set of leaders.

That's a lot of "ifs," though.

So, do I think sanctions will work? No.

Would a precise military strike be effective? Maybe - but I think the odds are mighty slim. Even so: I think the odds are that someone is going to solve the 'Iranian nukes' issue with something between a comparatively precise attack, and a full-scale assault that will leave much of Iran in ruins.

Do I have a better idea? Other than wait and hope that Iran's people wipe out the Ayatollahs and their government: no.

Do I think this is a satisfactory state of affairs? Certainly not.

Related posts:

• "Obama, Iran, Missiles, Europe, and 'What the heck did they tell him?' "
  (September 17, 2009)
• "Iran Leaders Request Investigation of Supereme Leader: An Iranian My Lai? Maybe, Maybe Not"
  (August 14, 2009)
• "Iran Tries Outside Agitators: It Can't Happen Here, Right?"
  (August 8, 2009)
• "Journalism in the Information Age, Or Nothing Says 'No' Like a Brightly Burning Motorcycle"
  (June 24, 2009)
• "'U. S. Bombed Mosque:' Iran Official - 'When in Doubt, Blame the Americans' "
  (May 29, 2009)
• "Russia, Iran, Nuclear Weapons: Not Much Has Changed"
  (September 27, 2008)
• "Russia, Iran, Nuclear Weapons: Not Much Has Changed"
  (September 27, 2008)
• "Iranian Nukes, Israeli Attack, Diplomacy, and Common Sense"
  (June 21, 2008)
• "Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Japan: Join Us, America Will be Gone (and Israeli Official Warns Iran)"
  (June 6, 2008)
• "How to Succeed in Conflicts: Three Approaches"
  (February 20, 2008)
• "Common Sense Knows No Boundaries: Neither does Bureaucratic Vindictiveness"
  (February 14, 2008)
• "Iran Poses No Threat? Guess Again"
  (February 7, 2008)
• "Unintended Consequences? The West May be Getting Over Hiroshima"
  (January 25, 2008)
• "Russian Official Declares First-Strike Nuke Policy: Why?"
  (January 19, 2008)
• "Iran: Another Unilateral Quagmire?"
  (November 1, 2007)
• "America Declared Sanctions Against Iranian Armed Forces"
  (October 25, 2007)
• "French Official Speaks Out on Iran: and it Isn't America's Fault"
  (September 17, 2007)
• "Six Years Ago, Tomorrow: Remembering 9/11"
  (September 10, 2007)
• "Peace, Hope, and Jihadists With Nuclear Bombs"
  (September 2, 2007)

In the news:

• "U.S. Considers a New Assessment of Iran Threat"
  The Wall Street Journal (October 16, 2009)

Background:

• "Status of Nuclear Powers and Their Nuclear Capabilities"
  GlobalSecurity.org (data as of 01 January 2005)
• "Mechanism of the Hydrogen Bomb"
  Samantha Haskins, via .docstoc (probably October, 2005)
• Archdiocese of Nagasaki
• Diocese of Hiroshima

---

¹Mile-Wide Crater: Roughly

The crater wasn't exactly a mile across. Haskins's paper says that the Castle Bravo hydrogen bomb had a 15 megaton yield, and produced a crater 6.500 feet in diameter and 250 feet deep. I think those numbers are rounded: but you get the idea. Hydrogen bombs have been built with a design yield of 100 megatons. (GlobalSecurity.org) For comparison, the nuclear bomb detonated over Hiroshima was rated at 12 kilotons. (GlobalSecurity.org) Or 13 to 18. Depends on who you read.

²Nagasaki, Hiroshima, and People Like Me

The civil rights movement in America taught us to think of people in terms of their ethnicity and ancestry. Every ancestor of mine that I know of descended from people in northwestern Europe, and I look it: melanin-deficient skin, blue eyes and all. You'd think that people in Japan would be utterly foreign to me.

It's a fact: I'd stick out like a sore thumb in Tokyo, if I wandered away from the usual tourist haunts.

On the other hand, I have a great deal in common with quite a few people in Hiroshima. And even more in Nagasaki. I'm Catholic. There are - and were - quite a few Catholics in those two cities. Quite a few of them died when those nuclear bombs went off.

I'm not happy about that. At all.

But I'm not going to rant about Yankee imperialism, for the reasons I've outlined.

That photo? According to an accompanying article, that's what was left of the Urakami Cathedral in Nagasaki, after the "Fat Man" bomb went off. Like I said, I'm not happy about that.

Iran Has Heavy Metal for Bomb, No Bomb: Yet

First, the good news: Iran (probably) doesn't have a nuclear bomb.

Now, the bad news: The Islamic Republic probably has enough fissile material to build a nuclear weapon.

Happily for everybody the Ayatollahs may not approve of, there's more to making a nuclear bomb than packing plutonium or uranium into a drum and sticking a fuse in it. But, there are quite a few smart, educated, and trained people in Iran: I'd say the odds are that, in the not-too-distant future, the Ayatollahs will have a nuclear bomb or two, with missiles to deliver them.

Or, plans to ship them overseas, in mislabeled cargo containers.

Bomb Iran Now? Probably Not the Best Idea: But Hold That Thought

Some anonymous chap in the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) says that a Washington think tank, the Institute for Science and International Security, has it all wrong. Anonymous says that the IAEA's data don't show that, as CNN put it, "Iran has reached 'nuclear weapons breakout capability.' " The Washington think tank says that's just what the IAEA does show.

I'm glad I don't have President Obama's job.

Negotiations: It's Worth a Try

Obama is one of the few people in the world who is in a position to have a shot at stopping Iran's 'peaceful' nuclear program. The Obama administration - like the previous one - is trying to work with the EU, to convince Iran that dropping the 'peaceful' nuclear program is a good idea.

I hope they succeed. If they don't, there will be a rather short - or maybe non-existent - time, during which an attack on Iran's nuclear sites might stop the program. After that time passes, we may see cities vaporized on the evening news.

That's assuming, not unreasonably, that Iran's leaders really do mean that "Death to Israel! Death to the great Satan America!" stuff.

As I said, I'm glad I don't have President Obama's job.

Does Iran Definitely Want Nuclear Weapons?

Just to make things more interesting, I think it's (remotely) possible that Iran's nuclear program really is peaceful - and that Iran's leaders think they need nuclear reactors, but not nuclear weapons.

And, I think it's possible that American leaders don't know where all of Iran's nuclear facilities are.

That brings up a disturbing idea: Let's say that America bombs Iran's known nuclear facilities ("unilaterally," like America unilaterally attacked Iraq). But, that the attack is as successful as the Japanese Empire's attack on Pearl Harbor.

Back in 1941, America lost many sailors and ships. But, the Pacific Fleet still had some ships: including aircraft carriers and submarines. And, a whole lot of fuel oil.

I'd just as soon that America be a bit more careful than that. A sudden, devastating, attack can be effective: provided that it devastates all of an enemy's capacity to strike back.

I'm really glad I don't have President Obama's job.

Related posts:

• "North Korea Set to Launch - Communications Satellite?"
  (February 27, 2009)
• "Iran Launched Satellite, Probably: and North Korea's Preparing for Launch"
  (February 3, 2009)
• "Ahmadinejad Wants America to Apologize: This is News?"
  (January 28, 2009)
• "Iran's Nuclear Program, Israel, Iraq, America, Bush and Obama: Simple? Not!"
  (January 11, 2009)

In the news:

• "Top Defense Officials: Iran Has Fissile Material for Nuke, but No Bomb Yet"
  FOXNews (March 1, 2009)
• "U.S.: Iran has material for nuclear bomb but still 'not close'"
  CNN (March 1, 2009)

Iran's Nuclear Program, Israel, Iraq, America, Bush and Obama: Simple? Not!

Looks like Israel recently asked the Bush administration for special bunker-buster bombs (probably MOP), and permission to fly warplanes over Iraq. Israel was rather clearly intending to shut down at least part of Iran's nuclear program: that Iran insists is quite peaceful.

Bush said, "no."

Looking for Certainty? Read a Spy Novel

Anyone who thinks the matter of Iran's nuclear program, and nuclear weapons is simple, isn't paying attention.¹

Judging from data found in Iranian computer networks, Iranian technicians were told to stop developing a nuclear warhead in 2003. That's a (relatively) easy part of building a nuclear missile. Getting enough enriched uranium is the hard part - and Iran went on busily churning out that stuff.

Maybe all that enriched uranium really has been stockpiled for peaceful purposes. And, maybe Iran's "death to Israel! Death to the great Satan America!" line is just harmless propaganda.

Maybe, but I doubt it.

Of course, I'm not one of those sophisticated people who believe that "the US is the world's number one terrorist" - or that Israel is a racist oppressor.

Can America's leaders be absolutely sure that Iran has a nuclear weapons program?

Without getting into a philosophical discussion about the nature of knowledge, I doubt that there'll be obvious proof of an Iranian nuclear program until and unless a missile is tracked from Iran to the airspace of a Middle Eastern, Indian, or European city - and part of the city disappears in an atomic fireball.

Or, until somebody else is running Iran.

Oh, for the Simplicity of Good Guys and Bad Guys!

Even if the Iranian situation were simple, it's just one part of the crazy quilt of competing interests that America and other countries have to deal with. As I wrote last September:

Good guys? Bad guys? It isn't that simple. We've got a situation where

• National leaders in the Middle East are dealing with people living within their territory who don't like the idea of nations - and have the firepower to be more than annoying
• Terrorists (or activists, or whatever you want to call them) are as hard to keep track of as mercury that's been hit with a hammer - They
  • Aren't tied to one territory, as nations are
  • May have the support of people who think that Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and similar groups
    • Are defending Islam
    • Deserve support, based on tribal loyalties
  • May dissolve and re-form under new names
• Conflicting accounts are broadcast around the world before bureaucracies get facts through 'regular channels' and decide what to say
• News organizations, from The New York Times and Prensa Latina to CNN, are dealing with a world that doesn't fit their Cold War templates

And that's just scratching the surface.

Oh the other hand, although there probably aren't (purely) good guys and (purely) bad guys, I think there are (fairly) good sides and (decidedly) bad sides.

Al Qaeda, the Taliban, the Iranian regime, and other like-minded organizations, do seem to have a clear idea of what they want: a world that's run much more tidily, and according to their rules.

The burqa-yes, trouser-no dress code alone would hard for westerners to live with. Never mind what would happen to the status of women, and anyone who didn't see eye-to-eye with the local imam.

Americans, and quite a few other people, have gotten used to living with a degree of personal freedom that doesn't seem to be part of Al Qaeda's dream.

What About Iran and Nuclear Weapons?

It sounds like the Bush administration, after Israel's request for bunker-busters, pushed covert efforts against Iran's nuclear program up a notch. Later this month, the Obama administration will have to decide to continue these unobtrusive efforts to prevent a nuclear attack.

There are other ways to approach countries like Iran: much more 'diplomatic' ways that seem to be popular in America's self-styled better circles. Last year, after a frustrated day of reading the news, I put together a flow chart, outlining how well such diplomacy would probably work.

Kraggoth, by the way, doesn't really exist. This example is strictly hypothetical.



Related posts:

• "Hamas, Palestine, Israel, and How to Seem Sophisticated"
  (January 3, 2009)
• "The Marines Blew Up the Islamabad Marriott!"
  (September 23, 2008)
• "Iranian Nukes, Israeli Attack, Diplomacy, and Common Sense
  (June 21, 2008)
• "Unintended Consequences?
  The West May be Getting Over Hiroshima"
  (January 25, 2008)
• "Nuclear War in the Middle East: Messy, Lethal, and Brief"
  (December 24, 2007)
• "... And It's the Fault of the Americans! - Iran's Tried-and-True Response to Nuclear Weapons Findings"
  (December 10, 2007)
• "Preemptive Strike: Am I a Hawk, or a Dove?"
  (September 21, 2007)

In the news:

• "U.S. Rejected Aid for Israeli Raid on Iranian Nuclear Site"
  The New York Times (January 10, 2009)

---

Excerpt from "U.S. Rejected Aid for Israeli Raid on Iranian Nuclear Site"

"...What Mr. Bush authorized, and informed a narrow group of Congressional leaders about, was a far broader effort, aimed at the entire industrial infrastructure that supports the Iranian nuclear program. Some of the efforts focused on ways to destabilize the centrifuges. The details are closely held, for obvious reasons, by American officials. One official, however, said, 'It was not until the last year that they got really imaginative about what one could do to screw up the system.'..."

---

¹ I've said something like this before: "If you're not a bit confused...you're not paying attention." ((September 23, 2008), (August 13, 2008))

Russia, Iran, Nuclear Weapons: Not Much Has Changed

A few headlines jumped out at me as I went through the news today, and started what I'll call a chain of thought. "Chain of association" might be a better term.

I'm not as concerned with Russia's upgrading their weapons systems, nuclear and other, as you might think. For a number of reasons, Russia has made quite a lot of money in oil lately, and is finally able to afford military spending on this scale.

Like it or not, countries need to defend themselves from time to time. From pirates, among other things.

Iran's leadership, on the other hand, still hopes for an early demise for the 'American empire,' showing that they're on the same page as as Venesuela's leader and some of the more colorful of America's academics.

Which is one reason why I'm genuinely concerned that Iran is still going ahead with it's 'peaceful' nuclear program that Iran's leaders insist is strictly for civilian uses. Maybe one of the more oil-rich countries in the world is in desperate need of energy. On the other hand, given the Iranian president's stated preferences regarding Israel, America, and other non-Iranian entities, it's easy to see Iran's nuclear ambitions as having a more militant nature.

Then, there's the curious relationship between Russia and Iran. Granted, Iran is right next door to Russia, which might explain some of the on again-off again friendliness. But I keep thinking of odd alliances in the twentieth century.

In the news:

• "Iran calls new UN resolution not constructive"
  International Herald Tribune (September 27, 2008 )
  • "...Saeed Jalili said in remarks carried by state television that the new resolution would cause "mistrust" and would not help global peace and security.
  • "On Friday, the U.S. and Russia led a new effort to condemn Iran's controversial program that includes no new sanctions. The brief resolution seeks to reaffirm three previous ones, which imposed sanctions on Iran for refusing to halt its uranium enrichment program....
• "Russia aims to upgrade nuclear arsenal"
  CNN (September 26, 2008)
  • "...Russia's economic troubles after the 1991 Soviet collapse hit the armed forces hard. But in recent years, flush with oil money, the Kremlin has been pumping more money into new weapons systems."
• "No new sanctions in next U.N. Iran vote"
  Reuters (September 26, 2008)
• "Ahmadinejad: 'American empire' nearing its end"
  CNN (September 24, 2008)
• "Iran describes nuke talks as 'constructive' "
  CNN (July 19, 2008)
  • "... Under the proposal, Iran would be allowed to continue to use the more than 3,000 centrifuges it already has but could not make more. In exchange, the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council plus Germany would not impose further sanctions against Iran during that period.
  • "Iran says it is pursuing nuclear power only for energy purposes...."

Iraq, Freedom, and a Reality Check

Big Uranium behind American invasion of Iraq!

Canadian Cabal masterminded plot to get Iraq's uranium!

Well, no: I really don't think so. But it sure makes a good story.

And, those wild statements are based on facts: facts that indicate more hope for Iraq's future than we generally hear.

News broke recently, that the American military smuggled tons of uranium ore (yellowcake, more precisely) out of Iraq and into Canada. A Canadian firm paid Iraq for the ore, and the Iraqi government says it will reimburse America for at least part of the shipping costs.

Smuggled? Well, yes, in a way. The yellowcake was taken out of Iraq very, very quietly, and I can see why. Between protesters and people who would love to get their hands on the stuff, secrecy is, I think, quite sensible in this case. Uranium ore can be refined into fuel for nuclear power plants - that's what the Canadian company is planning to do - or, it can be used to make 'dirty bombs.'

Iraq can use cash now. Decades under Saddam Hussein didn't do a lot of good to the Iraqi economy, and the the last few years haven't been a picnic either, with terrorists doing their level best to kill the people and destroy the things that could put Iraq in its feet again.

(The uranium ore is left over from Saddam Hussein's nuclear program. Reuters carefully points out: "The Bush administration's claim that Saddam was developing nuclear weapons was a primary justification it gave for the invasion to topple his regime, but no evidence has been found that Saddam continued a nuclear weapons programme after 1991.")

There's more good news from Iraq, too: It's in these excerpts from the news - I'll be back after that, with my take on the topics.

Some recent headlines about Iraq are quite familiar:

• "Seven killed in bombings in northern Iraq"
  CNN (July 7, 2008)
  • "BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Seven people were killed Monday in bombings in northern Iraq, police said.
  • "A suicide car bomber struck an Awakening Council checkpoint south of Samarra, killing four members of the U.S.-backed group and wounding six other people.
  • "The Awakening Council has emerged as a foe of al Qaeda in Iraq...."

Some, however, are a little odd:

• "Iraq removes uranium left over from Saddam era"
  Reuters (July 7, 2008)
  • "BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraq's government has removed 550 tonnes of natural uranium left over from Saddam Hussein's era and sold it to a Canadian company, government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said.
  • "The uranium, called yellowcake, had been stored in a compound at Tuwaitha, south of Baghdad, which was once the centre of Saddam's nuclear weapons programme.
  • "A U.S. embassy spokeswoman confirmed the U.S. military helped safely ship the uranium out of the country.
  • " 'The Iraqi government decided to get rid of the uranium, which amounted to 550 tonnes, because of its potentially harmful affects on Iraq and the region and because it causes pollution,' Dabbagh said on Iraqiya state television late on Sunday...."
• "500 tons of uranium shipped from Iraq, Pentagon says"
  CNN (July 7, 2008)
  • "WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The United States secretly shipped out of Iraq more than 500 tons of low-grade uranium dating back to the Saddam Hussein era, the Pentagon said Monday.
  • "The U.S. military spent $70 million ensuring the safe transportation of 550 metric tons of the uranium from Iraq to Canada, said Pentagon spokesman Brian Whitman.
  • "The shipment, which until recently was kept secret, involved a U.S. truck convoy, 37 cargo flights out of Baghdad to a transitional location, and then a transoceanic voyage on board a U.S.-government-owned ship designed to carry troops to a war zone, he said...."
• "Admiral says security in Iraq improving"
  CNN (July 7, 2008)
  • "WASHINGTON (CNN) — Iraq is making positive steps forward in security and stability, according to an assessment by the U.S. military’s highest ranking officer.
  • "Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Adm. Michael Mullen said violence was down to its lowest point in four years and a decision whether to draw down the number of non-surge troops would come later in the year if stability continued...."
• "Iraq PM Wants Short-Term U.S. Agreement"
  CBS News (July 7, 2008)
  • "(CBS/AP) Iraq's prime minister said Monday his country is now proposing an interim deal with the United States on the presence of American troops instead of a more formal agreement — and wants to include a timetable for a U.S. withdrawal.
  • "Some type of agreement is needed to keep U.S. troops in Iraq after a U.N. mandate expires at year's end. But many Iraqi lawmakers had criticized the government's attempt to negotiate a formal status of forces agreement, worried that U.S. demands would threaten the country's sovereignty.
  • "Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said the memorandum "now on the table" includes a formula for the withdrawal of U.S. troops — an idea opposed by President Bush...."
• "UAE to cancel Iraq's $7 billion debt"
  CNN (July 6, 2008)
  • "DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (CNN) -- Dubai has forgiven the nearly $7 billion Baghdad owes it, Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki announced Sunday. UAE President Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan promised to 'put out these debts,' appoint an ambassador to Baghdad, and 'help Iraq building the holy shrines that were targeted by the terrorists,' al-Maliki said in a written statement.
  • "Al-Maliki and the sheikh met Sunday, the first day of a two-day official visit. Al-Maliki was accompanied by the Iraqi ministers of Interior, Commerce and Industry.
  • " 'Our biggest challenge is now the reconstruction and rehabilitation of the economic situation and to provide services to our citizens,' al-Maliki said.
  • "Debt relief is a major issue for Iraq, and the United States has urged other nations to forgive Iraqi debt, most of which is held by Arab states, U.S. Deputy Treasury Secretary Robert Kimmitt said in late May....
• "Iraqi PM says government has defeated terrorism"
  International Herald Tribune (July 5, 2008)
  • "BAGHDAD: Iraq's prime minister said Saturday that the government has defeated terrorism in the country, a sign of growing confidence after recent crackdowns against Sunni extremists and Shiite militias.
  • "Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki launched the crackdowns to extend the authority of the government over areas in Baghdad and elsewhere that have largely been under the control of armed groups since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003.
  • " 'They were intending to besiege Baghdad and control it,' al-Maliki said. 'But thanks to the will of the tribes, security forces, army and all Iraqis, we defeated them.' ..."

One of the best pieces of news I've heard in a week, at least, is the UAE forgiving Iraq's debts. That takes a burden off Iraq, for now - and I suspect that the UAE will benefit too, in the long run, by having good ties with Iraq.

About al-Maliki's leaving out the coalition in his litany of Iraqi groups who defeated terrorism in Iraq: I'll give that a pass. Iraqis have a great deal to be proud of right now, and the Prime Minister's comments emphasize that it's their country now.

The same goes for the Iraqi government's apparent preference for a short-term security deal. Between the stink being raised in America, over Iraq being freed from a brutal dictator, and Iraq's reasonable desire to emphasize its independence, a short-term deal like that makes sense. We can always re-negotiate, later.

North Korea Disables Reactor: Progress, of a Sort

After making sure that politicos and journalists from around the world were watching, North Korea's regime blew up the Yongbyon reactor's cooling tower. Whatever condition the reactor is in, it won't be used. Those things generate a lot of heat, and now the radiator's busted.

And, North Korea has said that they extracted plutonium to be used in nuclear weapons. Maybe around 110 pounds. That doesn't sound like much, but it's enough for 10 nuclear bombs: assuming that each has 5 kilograms of plutonium. That's enough for something shy of the 20 kiloton explosion (like the Trinity test, in 1945): if I did my math right. It's not as powerful as the bomb that devastated Nagasaki, but it's a serious weapon.

(from Telegraph.co.uk, used w/o permission)

There's a diversity of opinion on just what North Korea's media event means, including:

• " 'This is a critical piece of equipment for the nuclear reactor,' said analyst John Wolfsthal, of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, who has been following North Korea since the 1980s. 'Without this facility, the reactor can't operate and can't produce more plutonium for weapons.' "
  (CNN)
• "The tower is a technically insignificant structure, relatively easy to rebuild. North Korea also has been disabling - though not destroying - more sensitive parts of the nuclear complex, such as the 5-megawatt reactor, a plant that makes its fuel and a laboratory that extracts plutonium from its spent fuel.
  " 'It's symbolic. But in real terms, whether demolishing or not a cooling tower that has already been disabled doesn't make much difference,' said Lee Ji-sue, a North Korea expert at Seoul's Myongji University."
  (International Herald Tribune)

I'm inclined to agree with Lee: today's implosion even made a great show, but probably has little practical effect on North Korea's nuclear weapons program.

On the other hand, blowing up that tower has done more good than boost ratings for some news networks.

• Even though it could be re-started easily, that nuclear facility is out of service for now: thanks to a deal between North Korea, America, South Korea, Japan, Russia and China
• After this dramatic show, it's going to be a bit harder for national leaders to ignore a North Korean nuclear program

Is this news event an epochal event, heralding the dawn of a new age? Hardly.

I think that it's mildly hopeful, and may have positive results, down the road.

In the news:

• "North Korea destroys tower at nuclear plant"
  International Herald Tribune (June 27, 2008)
  • SEOUL, South Korea : With international TV networks filming at the scene, North Korea blew up the most visible symbol of its nuclear program on Friday in a gesture demonstrating its commitment to stop making plutonium for weapons.
  • "The 60-foot cooling tower at the North's main nuclear power plant was demolished on Friday, as promised by the North Korean government. The collapse of the concrete structure, the most conspicuous part of the nuclear complex at Yongbyon, 60 miles north of Pyongyang, the North Korean capital, bore witness to the incremental progress that has been made in American-led multilateral efforts to end North Korea's nuclear weapons programs.
  • "On Thursday, North Korea submitted its first significant - although partial - account of its arms programs. Almost simultaneously, President Bush announced that Washington was removing North Korea from a U.S. list of state sponsors of terrorism, and issued a proclamation lifting some sanctions under the Trading with the Enemy Act.
• "N. Korea destroys nuclear reactor tower"
  CNN (June 27, 2008)
  • "PYONGYANG, North Korea (CNN) -- North Korea on Friday destroyed a water cooling tower at a facility where officials acknowledge they extracted plutonium to build nuclear weapons, CNN's Chief International Correspondent Christiane Amanpour reported from the scene.
  • "The massive implosion, which came at about 5pm local time Friday at the Yongbyon facility, was intended to be a powerful public symbol of a move to end nuclear activities by the Communist nation once branded a member of an "axis of evil" by U.S. President George W. Bush.
  • "The destruction of the highly visible symbol of North Korea's long-secret nuclear program came just a day after the country released details of its program.