Posted on 01/23/2006 6:19:51 PM PST by NormsRevenge
VIENNA, Austria - Iran upped the ante Monday in its nuclear standoff, warning that it will immediately begin developing a full-scale uranium enrichment program if it is referred to the U.N. Security Council.
The message, delivered by Ali Asghar Soltaniyeh, Iran's senior envoy to the International Atomic Energy Agency, reflected Tehran's defiance in the face of growing international pressure over its nuclear program. Enrichment can be used in electricity production but it is also a pathway to making nuclear weapons.
Negotiations intensified ahead of a Feb. 2 meeting of the IAEA's 35-nation board to decide on referral.
Iran's top nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, planned to travel to Moscow on Tuesday to discuss a proposal to have Iran's uranium enriched in Russia, then returned to Iran for use in the country's reactors — a compromise that would provide more oversight and ease tensions.
A European official said the two sides would discuss the possibility of allowing Iran to conduct small-scale experimental enrichment itself if it agreed to move all industrial production to Russia.
The official, who demanded anonymity in exchange for discussing confidential details of the negotiations, refused to say whether Britain, France and Germany — the key European nations behind the U.S.-supported push for referral — would tolerate such a deal.
Those European nations and EU representatives also intensified diplomatic efforts, with diplomats telling the AP they were sending senior representatives to Brazil, Russia, China and Indonesia to persuade the key IAEA board members to drop their opposition to referral.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel on Monday called for a step-by-step diplomatic approach in the standoff, saying she wants "the largest majority possible" for whatever course of action is decided upon by the IAEA.
While the Europeans believe they have enough votes to get Iran hauled before the council Feb. 2, they want broad support, including from key developing countries as well as skeptics Russia and China.
In Washington, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said "referral absolutely has to be made" on Feb. 2, while remaining vague on what action the Security Council would take — and when.
Iran removed IAEA seals from equipment Jan. 10 and announced it would restart experiments, including what it described as small-scale enrichment — a move that led the European negotiators to call for the Feb. 2 emergency board session.
The Europeans also began drafting a resolution calling for the Security Council to press Tehran to re-impose its freeze on enrichment and fully cooperate with the U.N. agency in its investigation of suspect nuclear activities — though it stops short of asking for sanctions.
Soltaniyeh, in comments to The Associated Press, warned against referral, suggesting such a "hasty decision" would backfire.
Whether Iran's suspension of its full-scale enrichment program remains in effect "depends on the decision of Feb. 2," he said. If the board votes for referral, he said, Iran would resume efforts to fully develop its nascent enrichment activities.
Iran insists its nuclear ambitions do not go beyond wanting to generate fuel, but concerns are growing that its focus is on making nuclear weapons.
An exchange of letters, made available to the AP Monday, reflected differences over Iran between IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei and the United States, Britain, France and Australia — other key supporters of referral.
In a letter dated Friday, Gregory L. Schulte, the chief U.S. representative to the IAEA, asked ElBaradei to prepare a report on the "status of IAEA efforts to investigate indications of an Iranian nuclear weapons program." Similar letters from the other countries were dated Thursday and Monday.
In a reply Monday, ElBaradei wrote that a detailed report would only be available in March, the next scheduled meeting of the IAEA board. Instead, ElBaradei — who had argued against the special Feb.2 meeting saying he needed until March to probe Iran's nuclear program — offered an "update brief" for the Feb. 2 meeting.
Separately, Merkel, speaking at a news conference with President Jacques Chirac, defended the French leader's threat last week that France might use its nuclear weapons against state-sponsored terrorism or to thwart an attack involving weapons of mass destruction — comments that drew criticism from elsewhere in Europe and from Iran.
"We know that France is a country with nuclear capabilities, capabilities that exist exclusively for deterrence and, for me, there are no grounds there for criticism," she said.
Chirac said he had simply delivered a reminder of France's nuclear doctrine.
"The nature of the threat, the defintion of a country's vital interests, and thus the very nature of the response that might be employed, evolves with time," he said.
___
On the Net: http://www.iaea.org
Why don't someone just flat out ask Iran this.....
With easy access to oil reserves why are you demanding the use of nuclear power.
Just a Texan thinking out loud.
true, the silence speaks a lot, though it is also fair that the administration sees it is bad press to say 'bad iran' over and over and over and over...until there is something tangible to add to that.
I think all the doomsaying and "we can't do it" is ridiculous. So oil will be cut off for a while. It will be restored. So we might have a war with Iran. Uh, Iran defeat the United States? I don't think so. We can do it and we probably must do it. There will be plenty of oil once the chips have fallen and been sorted out. The soldiers die their sacrifice is the one that matters, if our economy suffers for a time so be it.
LOL....don't think I've seen that word in about 40 years.....and I think I still remember what it means (grade school biology)
Rumor that Chinese micro boost nuke diagrams discovered by IAEA in past Iran junkets.
Signatory breaking Isotope discovered by IAEA in Egypt,
Where Egypt motions that Isotope was achieved by rogue scientists.
Egypt gets a wrist slap...and nothing more is said.
That KH 55 Cruise missile [Ex Ukraine] was discovered.
Are there other nuke capable cruise missile designs ....now sit on dolly's.....in say Egypt....awaiting mating with a warhead?
The myriad tunnel systems and complex's in Iran margin the plan was for production line.
Iran could go nuclear within three years
Article excerpt:
By far the most alarming acquisition from Pakistan, according to western intelligence assessments, is the P2 centrifuge, the highly sophisticated device necessary for enriching uranium to weapons grade.
In order to reach the advanced stage needed for building an atomic weapon, it is necessary to connect a number of centrifuges so that they form a "cascade".
When they were finally allowed to visit Natanz two years ago, IAEA inspectors were alarmed to discover that the Iranians had managed to construct a cascade. This comprises 164 centrifuges, which are based on Pakistan's P2 design.
Any doubts about the effectiveness of the devices were banished when soil samples taken from the site by IAEA inspectors showed traces of weapons-grade uranium.
If the nuclear programme were genuinely aimed at developing nuclear power, there would be no need to process weapons-grade uranium.
Asked to explain the soil samples, the Iranians provided the rather lame excuse that the traces had inadvertently been imported from an unidentified foreign power - believed to be Pakistan - when the centrifuges were purchased.
This is only one of the many glaring inconsistencies that have appeared in the Iranians' submissions to the IAEA, which has been powerless to prevent their relentless pursuit of nuclear technology.
As a consequence Iran now has all the means of production and materials to proceed to the final weapons stage.
That process will begin this week when scientists resume work on processing uranium to weapons grade at Natanz.
Much of the preparatory work has already been done at the Isfahan nuclear conversion plant.
Work resumed there last year when President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad ordered the removal of IAEA seals, unilaterally breaking the Paris Accord of November 2004.
This was negotiated with the European Union as Iran promised to suspend its nuclear activities until IAEA inspectors had satisfied themselves that Teheran's nuclear intentions were purely peaceful.
Isfahan has the capacity to process 300 tons of yellowcake a year, and before work was suspended in 2004 it was known that 37 tons had been developed to make uranium hexafluoride (UF6) gas. UF6 is a key component in achieving weapons grade.
Once the UF6 is produced, it is transferred to Natanz where it is fed into the centrifuges to enrich uranium to weapons grade.
Exactly how much UF6 has been produced since the Isfahan seals were removed last August is unknown, although conservative intelligence estimates suggest there are sufficient stocks of UF6 for 30 kilos of enriched uranium. The warhead used at Hiroshima contained 25 kilos.
The only question remaining for western intelligence is to assess exactly how long it will take the Iranians to complete the process.
"We just don't know how efficient the Natanz plant is at enriching uranium," said an intelligence official.
Where would the US attack from then?
Uh, Afghanistan defeat the Soviet Union? I don't think so
North Vietnam defeat the United States? I don't think so
Things happen. You've seen the reaction to 2000 dead in Iraq and things are still unstable there. A war with Iran would be much worse. At least 5000 dead. We simply don't have the numbers short of a draft.
Iran is 4 times as large with 3 times the population. It's not a flat desert. There's plenty of mountains. You think after the boondoggle in Iraq the public will accept, and the WH will undertake another preemptive war?
We had one shot with Iraq and that hasn't exactly gone according to plan. If we had done better in Iraq maybe. But given what's happened I see no realistic military option with Iran, at least at this point.
At least one that involves regime change and occupation. Perhaps an Israeli style one off raid might work, but nothing more than that. Certainly no extended operation.
It's true we haven't really seen shock and awe, but what have we seen that would give us any reason to believe that the WH has any intention of ever unleashing it?
I never would have thought the Iranians would get this far after 9/11 with this WH and this SecDef.
Iran has much greater assets than Saddam. Iraq was under sanctions for 15 yrs and basically had no mlitary left. No air force, no tank force other than obsolete Russian T-62s, no navy, no nothing. Iran has all that and more, plus a fully trained and equipped military of greater than 750K. Plus Hezbollah to wreak havoc. Plus the Syrians. Plus the Iraqi shiites. Plus their ability to kick up a storm in Iraq. Plus their friends in Beijing and Moscow.
I just don't see any realistic military option at this point. Certainly not one the WH has prepared the public for.
I'd like to be wrong here. I think the only option is a one off multi target raid, not any extended operation. Othert han that, I expect more of the same diplomacy with the Wh eventually claiming victory under some NK like deal to have the Russians enrich their fuel.
The irony is thick. Our greatest enemy of the past 50 yrs teaming up with our greatest enemy of the next 50 yrs. Why anyone would trust the Russians and the Iranians I have no idea.
As for questioning if this WH has the will to take on Iran....there is no question about this. This WH has done more to take on real national security risks then any President since FDR (of course R.R. should be included in this group as well....though he should have went after terrorism a little more in the late 80's).
Winning a military operation Vs Iran could be done and done rather quickly in the since of "major combat" (in terms of controlling the sky's, tanks and other large engagements). The Iranians would be overwhelmed -
However you are correct in stating there really is no good (with certainty that is) military option. Because there is the real threat that any military engagement with Iran could be drawn out over months and months....with the real possibility for ramifications taking place in Iraq and certainly with regard to the world markets being effected by dramatically increased oil costs.
Seizing Iranian oil fields along with a massive simultaneous air strikes aimed at decapitation of most of the Iranian leadership (both civ and mil) is probably the most daring potential quick resolution to this growing threat.
But how will the Iranian people respond? That is a risky gamble but one in which we might be forced to take.
President GWB is a remarkable man (agree with him or not). He is a true leader who has been asked (and continues to be asked) to make incredibly difficult decisions.
God bless him.
of course, they can't even come up with a good lie. there is no reason for them to have a nuke.
North Vietnam defeated the US? Never happened. We defeated them militarily, they signed a favorable treaty and they only re-invaded after Nixon resigned and the dem Congress denied aid.
You're complaining about what has happened in Iraq. We won the war and we are winning the peace.
There is nothing in recent history or in military reality that indicates the United States cannot readily defeat Iran. So we can stop all the it can't be done talk. If that were true we might as well fold our cards now, but it isn't true.
Iraq isn't a boondoggle, you don't only get "one shot" in a war, and if we did that shot blew their heads off. And as for public support, the American people will support whatever has to be done to prevent a nuclear Iran. Americans are well aware of the threat posed by Iran.
If you want to believe the US won the Vietnam War that's your perogative. War isn't about just the battlefield, it's politics by other means and as long as the red flag with the yellow star flies over Ho Chi Minh city and not the RVN flag over Saigon I'll go with the North Vietnamese as the victors. But Vietnam is history and it doesn't really matter at this point.
But we'll see what happens. You seem to be saying there will be a war with Iran relatively soon. I say there won't be. We'll just have to see what happens.
True, we can't predict the future. We are being prepared for military action if needed. As for Vietnam, South Vietnam was defeated you are correct. If America suffered a defeat it was brought on by the Ted Kennedy's. But we had defeated the North and didn't have to lose S viet in the end. Sad fact is that what America did at the end was immoral, we abandoned our allies. Hopefully we've learned that lesson.
From a recent FoxNews poll:
.
"Do you think the United States should take military action to keep Iran from developing or trying to develop a nuclear weapons program?"
.
Yes No Unsure
% % %
1/25-26/05 41 46 13
Only 41% support military action against Iran. The WH has its work cut out for it if wants to ramp up public support for a war with Iran.
I think the public will generally support a preemptive strike or a raid to take out certain facilities. I don't think they'll support a large scale invasion and occupation of muslim country #3.
It is interesting, isn't it? I can think of three possible reasons: prestige, actual economic damage, and a genuine military intervention that the UN has always had the capability of authorizing but never has (Korea being an accidental exception).
Prestige - Ahmadinejad has been playing to the world press since 1979 in an anti-American role. Understand that he does not know a political life during which the international press did not side with him against the U.S. - this is frightening, uncharted territory.
Economic damage - Iran sells oil or the government has no money to pay the Bassij and the other thugs, many of whom aren't even Iranian. It has absolutely no other threat beside oil, and were that sanctioned and the countries making up an international coalition to increase production to offset it, he is completely defeated. In part the nuclear weapons drive is precisely because the government has no other weapon and it knows that through collective security it may be taken from it.
Genuine military intervention - this he fears and Iraq gave him good reason. The United States actually could take his government down alone. So could China or Russia, and a coalition boasting real European participation - the U.K., Poland, and the others who have served unsung in Iraq, could bring the government down completely. Ahmadinejad may or may not realize this, but he is extremely unlikely to garner even such nationalistic support as Saddam did from his tortured population. The mullahs do realize it.
Now, this "threat" is the real toothless tiger - Iran's official position on the matter has for some time been nothing much more complicated than "allow us to develop nuclear weapons or we'll develop nuclear weapons." We are long past the point when that constitutes a cogent position.
ROFL!!!
I agree. The economic fallout is a price worth paying to prevent a NUCLEAR attack against Israel or the US (An iranian bomb detonated by terrorists in NYC will make the economy not matter anyway).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.