Military force can't destroy our atomic program: Iran

reuters ^ | Mar 27, 2006 | By Louis Charbonneau

[Flavius]

BERLIN (Reuters) - Military strikes against Iran's nuclear sites would not destroy the Islamic republic's uranium enrichment activities, which could be easily moved and restarted, a senior Iranian official said on Monday.

"You know very well ... we can enrich uranium anywhere in the country, with a vast country of more than 1 million 600 square kilometers," said Aliasghar Soltaniyeh, Iran's ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna.

"Enrichment can be done anywhere in Iran," he told a panel discussion on the possible use of military force to destroy what the West fears is Iran's atomic bomb program.

Soltaniyeh said that after Israel bombed Iraq's nuclear power plant at Osirak in 1981, then Iraqi-leader Saddam Hussein bombed Iran's Bushehr plant.

The Security Council then passed a resolution condemning the attacks and making it illegal for countries to strike nuclear facilities.

But Soltaniyeh said those U.N. documents were "just pieces of paper" today to the United States and Israel.

Soltaniyeh said Iran was hiding nothing from the world and that all of its nuclear fuel facilities were known to the U.N. nuclear watchdog. But he hinted that threats of possible military action against Tehran could change that.

"Any threat or potential threat will create a very complicated situation," he said, adding that Iran would never give up its enrichment program.

A retired U.S. Air Force colonel and well-known war gaming expert told the conference the United States was under increasing pressure to use military force to destroy Iran's atomic sites and would make a decision on this option soon.

Iran has completed a 164-machine "cascade" of centrifuges to enrich uranium at its Natanz plant and is expected to begin testing it soon, diplomats in Vienna say. Operating such a cascade would not enable it to fuel any atomic weapons but would enable Iran to master the difficult art of uranium enrichment.

"I think we may be looking at a (U.S.) decision in six to nine months," said Sam Gardiner, a military strategy expert who has taught at the U.S. Army's National War College.

I say before the November elections there will be a serious decision made in the United States," he said.

Gardiner said that while Washington supported European and Russian efforts to use diplomacy to pressure Iran to abandon its nuclear enrichment program, U.S. officials were skeptical about the efficacy of sanctions or other diplomatic weapons.

Washington also believes the U.N. Security Council will fail to agree on a course of action against Tehran, he said.

Tehran insists its nuclear program is aimed solely at the peaceful generation of electricity. However, it hid its uranium enrichment program, which could produce fuel for nuclear power plants or weapons, from U.N. inspectors for nearly two decades.

Gardiner said a U.S. operation aimed at destroying Iran's nuclear facilities would take less than a week and would not use any of the forces currently stationed in Iraq.

"This is an operation that would not take more than five evenings to do," he said, adding that it would probably use Stealth bombers to bomb the facilities.

But Gardiner said all his war-gaming and analysis had led him to the conclusion that Ambassador Soltaniyeh was right and the military solution would not destroy Iran's nuclear program as the know-how would remain.

"I don't think U.S. policymakers understand that the military option won't work," he said, adding that continued diplomacy was the only way to resolve the issue.

[right right]

Do these mullets have 6 year olds writing their stuff???

[Chicos_Bail_Bonds]

I say we give it a try

[operation clinton cleanup]

But Gardiner said all his war-gaming and analysis had led him to the conclusion that Ambassador Soltaniyeh was right and the military solution would not destroy Iran's nuclear program as the know-how would remain.

But it would extend the negotiation time line.

[Frank T]

Persistent targeted assassinations. The blowback would be bad, though.

[Prince Caspian]

Military strikes against Iran's nuclear sites would not destroy the Islamic republic's uranium enrichment activities, which could be easily moved and restarted, a senior Iranian official said on Monday.

Let's find out.

[Nuc1]

"Military strikes against Iran's nuclear sites would not destroy the Islamic republic's uranium enrichment activities, which could be easily moved and restarted, a senior Iranian official said on Monday."

Wanna bet? These people are clueless as to what our armed forces are capable of. Reminds me of the Taliban bluster.

[crowman]

I wouldn't want to be in charge of re-building Iran's nuke factories after we light them up..

[Sax]

Currently, Iran can build and develop nuclear capabilities whenever and wherever it wants.

Conversely, the US can destroy these nuclear capabilities, whenever and wherever they are.

This is more statesmanship than anything else. Iran is very concerned at how their mortal enemy, Iraq, is developing. The nukes are their bargaining chip and why we've both agreed to talks on Iraq, which is the real immediate issue for both states.

[tomahawk]

If Pres. Bush doesn't stop talking and start bombing, his Presidency will prove a miserable failure and millions of Americans will needlessly die.

[mathurine]

wanna bet, farsi farter?

[Citizen Tom Paine]

I will bet you a nickle that military force can stop their nuclear program. Properly applied military force concentrates one's thinking marvelously.

[canuck_conservative]

Attacking Iran would probably jeopardize American oil interests in the entire Middle East, and you gotta think that W's oil-industry buddies have some strong influence in the White House.

So for that reason alone, I say the US won't attack Iran.

[Frank T]

The downside of assassinating foreign leaders is that their people will try and return the favor. It's been some time since the era of political assassinations in the US, and the policy is to not use the presidency to order the killing of their counterparts in such a direct manner.

But like I say, killing the leaders of the Iranian regime would be simpler than uprooting a hidden nuclear program, and would scramble their government, allowing the people the chance to overthrow it.

[manwiththehands]

"Enrichment can be done anywhere in Iran,"

And our bombs can reach anywhere in Iran, too.

Let's play!

[TBP]

Moo-laaaaahs on drugs, obviously.

Not only can force destroy their nuke program, it's just about time to use it.

[HawaiianGecko]

 But Gardiner said all his war-gaming and analysis had led him to the conclusion that Ambassador Soltaniyeh was right and the military solution would not destroy Iran's nuclear program as the know-how would remain.

That's all well and good, but I'm not sure how the knowledge to build nuclear weapons does Iran any good if the U.S. military plays "whack-a-mole" with them.

This may be a non sequitur but isn't that like saying: We shouldn't defeat the German army under Hitler because because his generals will still know how to fight and his engineers will still know how to build tanks?

 

[American in Israel]

It is pretty hard to concentrate Uranium without power plants. It is also very hard to buy Uranium to process if all your oil facilitys are burning. When the majority of your population centers are in ruins, food and water become much higher prioritys for the man in street than working for world conquest.

I think the Mad Mullahs are not thinking things through.

[the lone wolf]

Anyone who uses the words "military force", "can't destroy" and "atomic" all in the same sentence must have missed the end of World War II on the History Channel.

[backhoe]

Wouldn't bet on that, if we and a few selected allies have enough of these:

Small Diameter Bomb Provides Big Capabilities

A Small Diameter Bomb hits an A-7 parked inside a concrete aircraft shelter during a test at White Sands Missile Range, N.M. The bomb is an autonomous, 250-pound class weapon that can be used in adverse weather and has a standoff range of more than 60 nautical miles. Courtesy photos