The West Can't Let Iran Have The Bomb (UK)

The Telegraph (UK) ^ | 4-11-2006 | Con Coughlin

[blam]

The West can't let Iran have the bomb

By Con Coughlin
(Filed: 11/04/2006)

With each week that passes, Iran's ayatollahs move closer to their goal of building an atom bomb.

This is not misinformed propaganda pumped out by trigger-happy yahoos on the wilder fringes of America's Republican Party. This is the opinion of the dedicated teams of nuclear experts attached to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna, whose task it is to sift through the highly complex science surrounding Iran's nuclear programme and to provide a considered judgment to the UN Security Council on the Iranians' ultimate objectives.

During three years of painstaking negotiations with Iran, Mohamed ElBaradei, the Nobel peace laureate who heads the IAEA, went out of his way to play along with the charade that Iran's nuclear ambitions were entirely peaceful and designed to develop an indigenous nuclear power industry. This, after all, is a country with known oil reserves in excess of 90 billion barrels, more than enough to meet its energy needs well into the next century.

Mr ElBaradei was even prepared to accept at face value the Iranians' shame-faced admission that their failure to disclose the existence of their massive nuclear enrichment plant at Natanz was no more than a bureaucratic oversight.

When the inspectors were finally granted admission, they were dumb-founded to find themselves in a 250,000-acre complex containing two vast underground bomb-proof bunkers designed for enriching uranium to weapons grade.

Mr ElBaradei is now prepared to concede that the Iranians have run out of excuses, and Teheran has been given until April 29 to implement a total freeze on its nuclear enrichment activities at Natanz and its other key plants, or face the wrath of the Security Council.

At the same time the IAEA's nuclear specialists are working on a report that will be submitted to the UN on the same day, in which they will state explicitly their concerns about Iran's nuclear programme.

But to judge by the Iranians' response so far, the threat of international condemnation and isolation does not appear to be causing sleepless nights.

This is because, while Western diplomats agonise over how to deal with the threat posed by Iran's nuclear programme, Iranian scientists are working hard to achieve nuclear enrichment, processing uranium to a level where it can be used to make atomic weapons.

Far from taking the UN's ultimatum seriously, nuclear experts at the IAEA now report that Iranian scientists at Natanz are taking advantage of the diplomatic stand-off to intensify their efforts to develop the technical capability to enrich uranium to weapons-grade.

This process began in January, when they began assembling new centrifuges, the sophisticated equipment needed to enrich high-grade uranium. Their ambition is to link 164 centrifuges, thereby forming a "cascade". Once that is accomplished, Iran will be able to produce its own weapons-grade uranium.

Estimates vary as to how long it will take the Iranians to accomplish such a technically demanding task, and how long it will then take them to make an atom bomb. The hawks argue that Iran could have enough material for a nuclear bomb within three years, while the more sanguine members of the international intelligence community say it could take 10 years.

What is not in doubt is that the work now being undertaken at Natanz, and at the processing plant at Isfahan, means the Iranians will soon be self-sufficient in producing weapons-grade uranium. And once they have passed that important milestone, it is then merely a question of when, not if, they develop a nuclear arsenal.

"Iran's strategy all along has been to talk and at the same time proceed with its nuclear programme," said an official closely involved in the IAEA's negotiations with Iran. "The longer we draw out the diplomatic process, the closer they get to fulfilling their nuclear ambitions."

The mounting frustration, particularly within the Bush Administration, over the UN's impotence to prevent Iran fulfilling its nuclear destiny explains the recent hysterical reports suggesting that George W. Bush is seriously contemplating nuclear air strikes against Iran's bomb-making infrastructure.

It is no coincidence that these reports are circulating at a time when the Iranians themselves are indulging in their own sabre-rattling, with their armed forces undertaking a series of military exercises in which they are showing off all their latest technological advances, from radar-evading missiles to stealth flying boats.

While none of these weapons would seriously threaten the overwhelming superiority enjoyed by America, the clear signal that the Iranians are trying to send out is that, if attacked, they have the ability to retaliate and cause mayhem throughout the Middle East.

Apart from starving the West of vital oil supplies by closing the Straits of Hormuz, the Iranians have an advanced ballistic missile capability that can hit targets throughout the Middle East - including Israel.

Certainly the fear of provoking a wider Middle East war is one of the reasons that divisions are already starting to appear in the Security Council over how best to deal with Iran.

While Britain and America would like to see a "smart sanctions" regime implemented if Teheran refuses to call a halt to its nuclear enrichment activities by the end of this month, other powerful voices, particularly Russia and China, believe such a move would be counter-productive.

Irrespective of the outcome, however, the Bush Administration is correct in its assessment that, without the threat of serious military action, the Iranians are unlikely to take seriously the West's determination to prevent them acquiring a nuclear arsenal.

The suggestion, contained in Seymour Hersh's article in this week's New Yorker, that Washington is prepared to use tactical nuclear weapons, might appear far-fetched: the ground-penetrating bombs used to destroy Saddam's state-of-the art German-built bunkers at the start of the Iraq war three years ago adequately accomplished the task using conventional munitions.

But if the current round of diplomacy is to stand any chance of success, then the Iranians must be made to understand that their prevarication tactics at the UN can no longer be tolerated over an issue of such importance for international security.

For while Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, regards the concept of military action against Iran as "nuts", it would be even nuttier to allow Teheran to have an atom bomb.

[blam]

"This is not misinformed propaganda pumped out by trigger-happy yahoos on the wilder fringes of America's Republican Party. "

Is he talking about me?

[bkepley]

France should help. It'd give them a chance to think about something other than their sorry selves.

[the invisib1e hand]

Imagine if Osama bin Laden had had nukes on Sept 11, 2001.

To not stop Iran is to vote to hold the world hostage to bloodthirsty Islam. Once again, regardless of the political cost, President Bush is taking the historic role of leadership he's been given.

Amazing times, amazing man.

[rickmichaels]

During three years of painstaking negotiations with Iran, Mohamed ElBaradei, the Nobel peace laureate who heads the IAEA...

Fox meets henhouse.

[DuncanWaring]

This process began in January, when they began assembling new centrifuges, the sophisticated equipment needed to enrich high-grade uranium. Their ambition is to link 164 centrifuges, thereby forming a "cascade". Once that is accomplished, Iran will be able to produce its own weapons-grade uranium.

Didn't they announce today they'd done this?

[JRandomFreeper]

Is he talking about me?

He's talking about us.. you know.. the people that actually feed the world and do the hard stuff, and spend time at work, and not at rallies, and don't ask for handouts, and expect the government to fulfill it's duties under the Constitution.

The ones they really, really, don't want to p!$$ off...

/johnny

[Old Grumpy]

"This is not misinformed propaganda pumped out by trigger-happy yahoos on the wilder fringes of America's Republican Party."

Hey, I resemble that remark! (All but the YAHOO part, that is.)

[gafusa]

Not going to happen. Iran will get the bomb. The West appears to have lost the will to live.

[blam]

"Didn't they announce today they'd done this?"

Yes. That was his big news for today.

[Billthedrill]

While I welcome a conclusion on the part of someone who is not a "trigger-happy yahoo on the wilder fringes of America's Republican Party" that Iran "must not be allowed" to develop nuclear weapons, this commentator falls right back into full-speed dithering when it comes to discussing the means, or more precisely the sanctioning of the means. It still comes down to a bunch of UN and NGO wet-nurses gabbling about whether they'll allow the United States to make a raid on Iranian targets. They'd better think through what they're going to do about what happens next, because unless the Iranian government is decapitated in these raids (and that isn't currently under discussion) then we're going to see an escalation of Iranian hostility that most certainly is going to affect even non-participating countries. This isn't going to be a case of "let's you and he fight."

That is one reason the Chinese in particular aren't playing. They just signed some juicy oil delivery contracts with Iran and would just as soon not see that disturbed even if the rest of the world is obligated to put up with a nuclear-armed set of radical revolutionary Islamists. Their consideration is whether Iran can hurt them more by a nuclear attack or by cutting off oil supplies. The answer might not be what you'd think.

[JRandomFreeper]

When asked what was going to happen about the mexican influx into Texas, and what America would do... My best answer was that Texas may wind up like Belgium, stuck between france and Germany. Or maybe something like Belgium on steriods, kicking out at both north and south of our borders.

On the Iran question... I suspect that some Americans may wind up dead in a nuclear explosion. And if that happens, my historical reference would be Adm. Yamamoto's quote. As an example of an understatement.

Middle America won't put up with that kind of BS. Rattle sabers, we're busy working... Yell and demonstrate... we're busy growing food to feed your third world @$$.

But... p!$$ us off? Nuke 'em till they glow, shoot 'em in the dark.

/johnny

[Don'tMessWithTexas]

Israel will not let Iran get the bomb.

[gafusa]

Hopefully, but it may not be possible. Israel's military is a self defense force, not intended or equipped for offensive operations far from its territory. Israel is lacking in strategic air power, having only the F-15 and F-16 for strike. Israel lacks effective strategic bombing capabilities. It worked on Iraq, but the Iraqi program was much smaller and focused at one site. Iran in much larger, and their program is scattered at various hardened locations. Plus Israel has to cross several countries to strike Iran. We can strike from the sea, Afghanistan and Iraq. Israel has no heavy or medium bombers, and does not have the necessary cruise missile capability, 3 small convention subs are the only platforms they could use. Israel could use its SSMs, but that still might not be enough, unless they they used nuke armed ones. Israel's only real option hope is to nuke Iran, but I doubt they will do that. We are the only ones who can do it conventionally, and I am afraid we will not. We should not leave it to nation with far inferior capabilities, and if we do should face the reality that Israel may not be able to do it.

[04-Bravo]

I bet Curtis LeMay could have come up with some ideas about how to deal with Iran...

[Cementjungle]

This is the opinion of the dedicated teams of nuclear experts attached to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)

The same experts who will surely say (after we've done the dirty work) that there was never a threat in the first place.

[Marine_Uncle]

In no way do I wish to diminish the concerns we have. But for those that think they are going to have a fully functional low yield atomic bomb any time soon, I think we should attempt to put things in perspective.
The amount of 3-4% enriched uranium they fianally managed to produce from those 160 some centrifuges is rather miniscule. Perhaps a few hundred millgrams at most.
This is not some production process that is ready to start pumping out a lot of fission grade uranium. It is more on a lab level.
What they have accomplished is the ability to operate this little cascaded system (both parallel and series centifuge units that must be synchornize [rpms] in such a manner as to obtain the final product. A laboratory achievment. Now they have to be able to either build literally thousands of centifuges of a similar design and couple them together in a given manner. It is not just a manner of piping them together in some half assed way. It gets complicated.
Each stage within a series path must be fine tuned so to speak to operate at a certain rpm range and perhaps baffling windows and other physical parts of the system must be monitored and controlled (automated eventually) to best extract ever smaller amounts of only U₂₃₅in any particular sub set within the series groups, and at the same time each parallel group at a given level must also be closely sinked to maintain the same flow rates etc..
Now imagine this having to work with a few thousand centifuges and all the automated equipment, sensors etc., that go into such a system.
It may take them a few years to get to this point. Like I say, it is not just a matter of hooking up a bunch of units and pushing a button to turn them on.
Now keep in mind one must be able to produce at least two or more sub critical masses of U₂₃₅ which quantity depends entirely on how effecient their eventual system can obtain. That is. The lower the percentage of fission grade uranium the more is needed to produce a given amount of energy during the fission process. So if they some how could produce 90% then their bomb would need a lot of fission grade uranium. Which means it could take a few years just to be able to produce enough material for one very low yield atomic weapon.
If you have followed me thus far. Now they must design a reliable trigger system, do many tests to perfect it. They must produce or somehow obtain the required inner casings that would hold the sub critical massess. You just down load a say stainless steel container with a given amount of fission grade material. You must provide fast neutron absorbant materials properly into the physical design.
After all the stages, which only a few are briefly made here are complete, one must then assemble the bomb.
Then must test it. How many bombs will have to be test to prove any reliability into the system? Perhaps two or three for any particular design.
Bingo. Bomb goes off in some underground prepared blast hole, and we know exactly when they set it off.
So for those that only react on the fly and do not have any basics behind them as how difficult and time consuming the task is to make even one small yield atomic weapon, perhaps you can at least see, it is not so easy to do.
Our Intel feels they are years away from being at a point they can actually contruct a bomb that is controllable per design specs.
I do not diminish our concern. Believe me. But don't think they are going to cleverly make some little suit case nuke they can cart off to Israel or the US any time soon.
If you believe this due to wild articles you read, then you are being deceived.
But I am all for stopping them from even having the chance to produce such weapons in the future. So please read what I write before you start on some flame routine that shows your not thinking rationally about what is at stack.
Lastly.
Their goon ball president is a bit on the bragging side when he said they are now a member of the nuclear club. Not really, not that it matters. Being in the nuclear club indicates you have functional nuclear weapons. Iran may be five to ten years off, from achieving that level, given the best opportunities to obtain all the things that are required in the manufacturing and design stages.
If it was that easy to build a functional atomic bomb. Believe me there would be a lot more countries sipping tea at that club house.

[blam]

"On the Iran question... I suspect that some Americans may wind up dead in a nuclear explosion. And if that happens, my historical reference would be Adm. Yamamoto's quote. As an example of an understatement."

I'm afraid I agree with you and second your sentiments.

[blam]

"I do not diminish our concern. Believe me. But don't think they are going to cleverly make some little suit case nuke they can cart off to Israel or the US any time soon."

Thanks for all the detail.

What about 'dirty bombs?' They're a lot closer.

[Marine_Uncle]

" What about 'dirty bombs?' They're a lot closer."
That my friend is a different story. They could have dirty bombs as we write. Where a dirty bomb conotates any device that holds radioactive istopes of a given type, that are placed into some container (shielded to avoid dectection), and connected with enough explosives, a detonator and timer to blow the stuff into a given area.
Anyone with a slight amount of skill can make a dirty bomb. So many commercially available timers are avaiable along with many forms of detonation very easy to construct.
The only catch really is finding enough radioactive isotopes of choice.
However. If we start to talk about dirty bombs capable of spreading radioactive isotopes over a large area, then of course one must start to improve on their design.
Lets use an example both of us can easily relate to.
You can have images of IED's blowing up lets say a 7 ton convoy truck.
Now if you place a container with the radio isotopes into the shell, lets say it was a 155m artillery shell. You would not expect to spread the bad stuff much more then a few hundred radial yards. And that would assume things like wind, surrounding buildings, and other obsticles that may prevent the main blast radius from reaching it's normal size. So again. it is not like someone can plant a dirty bomb in a large city and expect to do anything other then perhaps poisoning the poor people within a few hundred yards of such a single shell IED described above.
I'll let you judge if what I say is reasonable or not.
To create a huge explosion that could spread large amounts of radiactive material over a wide area in typical populations centers we see in the USA and Europe for instance would require one hell of a large bomb blast.
And I think you would agree, say trying to move a 2000lb iron bomb for instance around a neighorhood is not exactly so easy to do. If you put such a thing in say a large trailer rig, then the bomb blast right off the bat is diminished as it goes off. How one where to designed the required containers that contain the radio isotopes, you would need one heck of a lot of that stuff, very hard to get in such huge quantities from stolen sources say universities, various commercial labs, hostpitals, dumps etc..
So I am not trying to say we have not real concerns with any ot these things. All I am saying is it is not that easy to build such devices that will effect a large number of people with one blast. It is not like you could kill all the people in say a city of 100,000, which is comprised of mostly modern buildings.
One thing I did not point out about the goons getting from this first step of being able to actually extract some tiny amount of enriched uranium. Everyone is saying they managed to extract a tiny quantity capable of being used in some type nuclear reactors.
About 3.5% of an undisclosed amount. But at best a very small amount blam. I would without hesitation say less then a pea.
Atomic fission requires at least 90% enriched uranium isotope U-235.
Once they get say 3000 centifuge units actually operating in the required manner, effeciently, not breaking down, not fulling out of synchronization with the others within each serial/parallel stage (say six units long connected to another set of six units long etc.), group after group being assembled in a very very huge building or number of buildings.
They will then be at the point where they can start to manufacture higher enriched uranium for nuclear use, once they learn how to build the proper type fuel rods. That's another story in itself. You just don't pack uranium into tubes. It gets very involved. And they must manufacture to russian specs. a particular type fuel rod to use in a given reactore.
Any way. Once they get to that point. Then they are perhaps still many years away from creating the proper type centifugal configurations (we are talking about perhaps 50,000 or more cascaded centifuges) of course with a lot of sophisticated piping/control baffling hardware along with the computerization process to control the monster, to arrive aat a point where one can make any significant amount of fission grade uranium available.
If you are with me so far. If you believe what I am communicating, and I am not making this stuff up, what would I gain from being a lier. The one can start thinking a little different then the pack.
The USA and all concern are putting pressures on them for a number of reasons. All good reasons. But to think GWB for instance for a moment thinks the madman is going to have a bomb in six months is a little far fetched.
I hope you grasp what I have shared. I probably won't go through this again on the many free for all postings on this subject. People are going nuts without, at least attempting to learn even a little as to what is involved.

[pau1f0rd]

Thanks for that, Marine_Uncle. Nice to hear a bit of reason on the subject.