Looks like we’re scheduled to endure another round of hype about Iran’s nuclear program. David Sanger writes in today’s New York Times about an imminent IAEA report.
International nuclear inspectors will soon report that Iran has installed hundreds of new centrifuges in recent months and may also be speeding up production of nuclear fuel while negotiations with the United States and its allies have ground to a near halt, according to diplomats and experts briefed on the findings.
Almost all of the new equipment is being installed in a deep underground site on a military base near Qum that is considered virtually invulnerable to military attack. It would suggest that a boast by senior Iranian leaders late last month — that the country had added upward of 1,000 new machines to its installation despite Western sabotage — may be true.
The report will also indicate, according to the officials familiar with its contents, that Iran is increasingly focused on enriching uranium to a level of 20 percent — a purity that it says it needs for a specialty nuclear reactor that it insists is used only for medical purposes, but that outside experts say gets it most of the way to the level needed to produce a workable nuclear bomb. The report does not attempt to address the question of whether Iran has made a decision to build a nuclear weapon; American intelligence officials believe it has not, and Iran insists it wants to use nuclear power for peaceful ends.
I suppose there’s some solace to be taken in the highlighted portion. After hearing about it from readers, the Times reports on Iran now stress that the consensus of the US intelligence community states that they have not determined whether or not to build a nuclear weapon, nor have they restarted their nuclear program. This so rarely gets highlighted as part of the discussion around Iran that it’s a kind of success that it made its way into the bottom of paragraph number 3.
Sanger also indicates that it would take years to develop a weapon from a standing start like this. But this will not matter to the lords of saber-rattling, who we will hear from over the next couple months, against the backdrop of the US Presidential election. Chatter in Israel has already picked up about Iran’s nuclear capabilities, which exist outside of whether they have an active nuclear weapons program. And this IAEA report will fuel that speculation.
Diplomatic talks between Iran and Western powers have basically ended. The sanctions are in place and they continue to constrict the Iranian economy. Neoconservatives who view every potential international crisis as an opportunity for more bomb-dropping will certainly put together the stalled talks and this report as a signal that Israel must strike and that the US must back them. We’re closing in on some very dangerous territory.




55 Comments

Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
I still think Bibi’s bluffing about a pre-election Israeli strike.
Israel’s military and intelligence agencies seem to be against it.
And even in the midst of a US election, it’s a mighty big political gamble if Israel thinks Obama would be forced to go along.
I don’t think the US public is as willing to go to war on behalf of Israel as Bibi might tend to think.
So what is Obama’s response? We already know Mitt wants a war. Will Obama try and wag the dog and start a war? Will Obama do nothing and let Mitt beat him like a seal on this issue? Or will Obama admit Iran has every legal right to Nuclear tech even a bomb?
I hope your right but just how crazy is Bibi?
Probably crazy enough to do it with his inflated sense of himself.
That is what I am afraid of but hopefully Israeli Intelligence and the Army can arrange an accident.
Obviously we MUST go to war. With the Iraq war behind us, and the Afghan war stalemated, we need a new and improved war.
AIPACman Joe is drooling like a starving dog in front of red meat.
You cannot make a bomb out of 20% enriched. The lowest level of enrichment ever successfully detonated is 80% and a device made of that would likely not be deliverable due to weight and size.
Iran certainly has everything they need for a deliverable device EXCEPT the HEU. It would take them at least a year to turn their current stock of HEU into 80% enriched and we’d know about it as soon as they took their stash out of IAEA monitoring.
Boxturtle (Why would any country go nuclear for ENERGY after Fukushima?)
Obama will do nothing unless forced to do so by Israeli action. Then he will do whatever the election polls tell him to do.
Boxturtle (And if whatever it is works out, he’ll claim it was his idea all along)
Bibi is not crazy, he’s scared. Much like the fear GOPers experience when they see someone not like themselves in a non-servial role.
He’s behaving toward Iran like the GOP behaves toward Mexico.
Boxturtle (You think the GOP wouldn’t invade if Mexico got the bomb?)
Just like WW2 was the response of the rich to the Great Depression another war seems to be the answer again.
However
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002
http://my.firedoglake.com/thingscomeundone/2012/03/14/we-cant-win-a-war-with-iran-not-if-they-have-half-a-brain/
Also Iran has faster than sound missile tech from Russia no Western Nation has that tech. American anti missile tech on our warships might knock down one faster than sound missile but against multiple missiles all launched at the same time we could lose the whole fleet.
Add in the cost to the world’s economy if Iran starts sinking oil tankers and we could be facing a new dark ages.
No. Yes, and God, I hope not.
The key clue that a strike is on the way will be when the USN pulls all their large ships out of the gulf.
Boxturtle (We can hammer Iran from well out of their range, provided we strike first)
Agree you can’t make a bomb. However Iran probably thinks if they have a bomb they won’t have to be worried about America attacking them.
Any real diplomacy with Iran would include a peace treaty if we really wanted Iran to give up nuclear power.
You think Israel will attack Iran without us that they are that crazy? I’m not doubting you but even I am surprised.
Everything I have heard indicates that Iran has all their nukulear stuff buried way down in a bunker that even the MOAB bunker buster couldn’t get to. so any bombinbg would likely be ineffective.
Israel is a bunch of pretty smart guys. They’re Jewish. They’ve already sent computer viruses and blown up several of their scientists in the cars. I’m thinking something more subtle. Dump several hundred ppounds of old dead shrimp down the air intake.
I know, I know. The MIC is down to just 1/2 a war and even that will be history in ’14. But, we need to bring home our trops who’ve had 3-4 tours and rest them a while.
Check out my #15 cheap and effective solution. It ain’t “shock and awe”, but, it’s environmentally friendly.
I still think the framework for a deal is there, if we just deal with Iran as a sovereign nation.
We should offer them full diplomatic relations, a non-aggression pact and an end to sanctions in return for an end to enrichment beyond power reactor levels.
Boxturtle (How do we trust each other, though…)
Your right we can lose the whole fleet if they are inside the Persian Gulf to missiles. However Iran can sink every oil tanker in the Gulf very easily to retaliate. Our ship based long range missiles can’t hit moveable missile launchers that well.
Every nation except Iran on the Persian Gulf has an American military base that makes them our allies and their ships targets. Iran can use old silkworm missiles to sink every oil tanker in the Gulf.
The world economy needs oil if Iran is the only Arab Country with undamaged oil tankers in port then we will need their oil and Iran can sell their oil at sky high prices.
That’s all good and well. But can we trust us???
I’m thinking only troops on the ground can take out Iran’s nuclear program.
An air war is an easy sell to Israeli and American voters a ground war with troops is a much harder sell but once a war is started we can’t really object much can we.
I think they’re pretty confident that if they go, Obama’s election handlers will tell him he has to go to or he loses.
If Obama stands up to that (and he hasn’t stood up to ANYTHING when pressed), all Bibi has to do is last until Jan. and then Mitt will send in the marines.
Boxturtle (And Bibi would go to war just to hurt Obama’s re-election IMO. He likes Mitt)
You seem to be “up” on this. What type of missiles do they have and what kind of range??? I know we can’t take out their mobile issile launchers. But we should be able toeliminate all the stationary sites. right???
Barring the “shrimp” strategy, everything I’ve seen indicates that. But having a bomb and delivering it effectively are two different things.
Hard to believe, but Sanger of the Times is wrong.
According to the IAEA this is the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant, not a military base. Which makes some sense since the plant is under ninety meters of rock.
I agree and think we should offer Iran free solar power to replace their nuclear plant it would still be cheaper than a war.
However trust is the issue America backed the Shah of Iran when he was torturing people we still won’t admit that we did wrong if we turned over the Shah’s assets to Iran that might do it but it would mean every human rights violating nut job ruling a country and working for the CIA would quit?
Realistically can America have friends, diplomacy and foreign intelligence without violating their human rights?
Sure I think so but the pols in Washington don’t.
.
True, but remember this: If they hit every tanker, THEIR coastline will be fouled for decades. The Iranians are smart enough not to do that. They’ll sink a couple empty tankers in the shipping channels and shoot at anything trying to remove them.
And they’ll hit the Saudi & Kuwaiti Oil fields with something that will make them unusable for a long time.
Boxturtle (And Hezbollah will flatten Tel Aviv)
(
All kidding aside, I doubt that. I don’t think Israel will take any kinetic military action until it is the only alternative left and it is absolutely necessary. But, that pinnacle reached, they won’t delay.
Although the Russian navy continues to rust in port, and the Russian army is in disarray, in certain key areas Russian technology is actually superior to our own. And nowhere is this truer than in the vital area of anti-ship cruise missile technology, where the Russians hold at least a ten-year lead over the US.
Many years ago, Soviet planners gave up trying to match the US Navy ship for ship, gun for gun, and dollar for dollar. The Soviets simply could not compete with the high levels of US spending required to build up and maintain a huge naval armada. They shrewdly adopted an alternative approach based on strategic defense. They searched for weaknesses, and sought relatively inexpensive ways to exploit those weaknesses. The Soviets succeeded: by developing several supersonic anti-ship missiles, one of which, the SS-N-22 Sunburn, has been called “the most lethal missile in the world today.”
According to one report, when the Iranian Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani visited Moscow in October 2001 he requested a test firing of the Sunburn, which the Russians were only too happy to arrange. So impressed was Ali Shamkhani that he placed an order for an undisclosed number of the missiles.
The Sunburn can deliver a 200-kiloton nuclear payload, or: a 750-pound conventional warhead, within a range of 100 miles, more than twice the range of the Exocet. The Sunburn combines a Mach 2.1 speed (two times the speed of sound) with a flight pattern that hugs the deck and includes “violent end maneuvers” to elude enemy defenses. The missile was specifically designed to defeat the US Aegis radar defense system. Should a US Navy Phalanx point defense somehow manage to detect an incoming Sunburn missile, the system has only seconds to calculate a fire solution not enough time to take out the intruding missile. The US Phalanx defense employs a six-barreled gun that fires 3,000 depleted-uranium rounds a minute, but the gun must have precise coordinates to destroy an intruder “just in time.”
. A single one of these missiles can sink a large warship, yet costs considerably less than a fighter jet. Although the Navy has been phasing out the older Phalanx defense system, its replacement, known as the Rolling Action Missile (RAM) has never been tested against the weapon it seems destined to one day face in combat. Implications For US Forces in the Gulf
http://www.rense.com/general59/theSunburniransawesome.htm
http://my.firedoglake.com/thingscomeundone/2012/03/14/we-cant-win-a-war-with-iran-not-if-they-have-half-a-brain/
My bold this is just the publicly available information any new missile tech from Russia and whether they sold it and how many missiles did they sell to Iran is unknown. Also these anti ship missiles are pretty mobile its the long range missiles that can hit Israel that are not mobile.
However if a missile hits Israel who cares? If a missile sinks an oil tanker gas prices head for $10 a gallon.
Agreed
These arguments work for us but they would not have stopped Bush do we have any evidence Iran cares for its ocean?
Hitting empty oil tankers is a good first move but if America keeps attacking they will have to sink full oil tankers.
What are you thinking Enriched Uranium dust? A strain of super oil eating bacteria designed to clean up oil spills? Some kind of long lasting contact poison?
One way that the US has managed to keep the concocted Iran crisis going is that it has used unexplainable terms to describe the situation.
So we’ve had undefinable verbal garbage like:
*Iran’s threat
*Iran’s illicit nuclear program
*Iran’s nuclear ambitions
*Iran’s nuclear capability
Now here, from Mr. Sanger, we finally have a definition of the latter.
That’s pretty good, especially the “relatively short notice” part. Short notice, modified by “relatively.” I like it. Meets the “meaningless” criterion.
Now if Sanger could define the other terms, including “Iran’s nuclear ambitions,” I would be much obliged. After all, he does work for the government, no?
The real issue is not nuclear but ME hegemony. Iran has it and the US wants it.
Would you enlist? Or would it be up to others.
Iran has every legal right to nuclear tech thats another thing not mentioned by the WH and Media.
The Bush theory of preventative war that justified attacking Iraq because of WMD that were never there has been discredited.
Besides chemicals, Iran has at least the following:
1) They have earth penetrators that can collapse the well casings way below the surface. Not reparable, we’d need new wells.
2) They can bust the wells and ignite them. It took how many months for us to put out the Iraq oil field fires?
3) They could hit the pipelines with small missles, evectively requiring complete replacement.
I’m sure there are other options. Iran is NOT a bunch of camel hearders, they have skilled engineers and scientists and they’ve had years to prepare. Think of the suprises YOU could generate if you had years of warnings that your neighbor was coming to rob your house. Now imagine a skilled team of engineers faced with that same question.
Boxturtle (If I had that much time to prepare, you’d better never touch a doorknob!)
I am against pretty much all wars. However if we were serious about stopping Iran air attacks won’t do it. My point is all this talk of air attacks makes the war easier for voters.
However pols say the words troops on the ground support for a war with Iran will drop even among Republicans.
Damm you just beat me at thinking of a worse case scenario I’m impressed get some links and write a diary.
By trying to beat Iran if we lose we hand Iran the ME but of course are pols and the army cannot even consider that possibility happening.
from Lessons Learned, Tanker War, 1984-87
U.S. and other Western forces were largely successful in using power projection help control and terminate the conflict in the Gulf. Nevertheless, they ran into serious problems in dealing with a number of major issues in low level war. These ranged from serious problems in mine warfare capability to problems in managing missile defense and the IFF problems inherent in dealing with a mix of friendly and hostile ships and aircraft operating in the same area.
http://csis.org/files/media/csis/pubs/9005lessonsiraniraqii-chap14.pdf
Iran is now much stronger with missiles and mines.
Why would ANY country stay nuclear, for ENERGY … after Fukushima, BoxTurtle?
(Or, from a moral “perspective”, for WAR?)
You have heard of Excelon Corporation?
The largest nuclear operator in the US, put together by Rahm Emanuel, once upon a time, and VERY friendly to Barack Obama … who is very friendly, personally, and officially, time-wise, to Excelon Corporation… and its “interests”.
Obama and Romney both support expanding nuclear POWER … significantly, so there’s a big difference between them, there.
Presumably, every nation is permitted to be just as stupid as America … from drones, to nuclear power, to killing anyone they wish to, anytime and anywhere, without that tiresome due process thingie … and so on … and so forth.
Equal Opportunity Stupidity.
It ain’t just apple pie …
Unless you think that Iran REALLY wants the bomb?
Then they are not playing “fair”.
Like Israel does?
Like “we” do?
(And you are correct, messing with certain doorknobs ain’t the height of enlightenment, even if ya think that Dog is on yer side … especially when, Iran, Israel, and the US … all claim to worship the very same Dog. War prayers, anyone?)
DW
DW, while this thread references Iran, did you notice that the Obomber Administration has warned of “intervention” if Assad were to use chemical weapons on the opposition? This declaration is a result of the REM. I may have missed it, but I haven’t heard any reports indicating that Assad has threatened this action. Have you?
The latest story on Syria chemicals is that Iran ordered their transfer to Hezbollah, so came Obamba’s “order” which includes movement of chemicals in the “redline.” That’s a story.
Chemical weapons are useless in urban warfare; Syria has indicated their use if the country is attacked.
Sure looks like creating an insurance policy for rapid weaponization if needed instead of a current weapons program. The international sanctions and threats have the (intended?) perverse effect of accelerating Iran’s production of its 20% refined stock.
There are elections coming up in 2013 in Iran, elections in 2012 in the US, and Netanyahu trying to stay politically relevant in a changing neighborhood. Dangerous territory indeed — but not until after the US election and possibly not until after the Iranian election.
Obama will do whatever will best get him re-elected. If it means bombing Iran so be it. If it means not bombing Iran so be it. These presidential politicians are just like that. None of it matters to him whatsoever. Whatever helps the campaign he will do. This is a man that sets up kill lists every single week of his life now.
I knew that Assad threatened to use them against attacks by the forces of invading nations, but he didn’t threaten their use on his citizens. Thanks for your response, but this just seems to be the O administration providing more in the way of weapons of mass distraction.
I do believe you’re describing the behavior of a sociopath.
And the national PTB just accept that the president has all this power. Nobody (except Congressman Paul, and maybe one or two others-certainly no senators) even makes a peep. They hate us for our freedom? This man has us by the *****.
These quarterly IAEA reports are always leaked to the press before they are published. The last one was May 25. They definitely want to start a propaganda counter-offensive against the Non-Aligned Movement meeting in Tehran next week, to embarrass one attendee in particular (UNSG Ban Ki-moon).
Of course this meeting, with all its ranking attendees, ABOVE ALL, will deep-six one enduring piece of US propaganda, that Iran is isolated. Iran has NOT been isolated and that will be apparent next week, no matter how much the US and Israel press squawks about centrifuges.
See, according to the new organization of the U.S., we don’t have a president we have a commander-in-chief.
You, over there, third one down, wipe that smirk off your face.
See, the Columbia Broadcasting System gets it:
(CBS News) There’s not much optimism in Syria, where there is growing concern that the dictatorship’s stockpiles of chemical weapons could get loose in the chaos of the civil war there. CBS News asked presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney what he would do as commander-in-chief in Syria and Iran. . . Romney . .”they have to also know that a military option is one which we would be willing to consider”
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57500225/romney-unacceptable-for-iran-to-get-nuclear-weapon/
It’s not war, it’s a “military option.” Like — you want fries with that? So if the commander-in-chief says go, his army goes. Remember to support the troops. They’ll need it, the ones that live.
We can’t vanquish a bunch of guys living in caves and fighting us while wearing flip flops and we’re going to occupy a sophisticated nation of 80 million people who have had 20 years to prepare for this?
American Exceptionalism indeed
Especially in a country ravaged by periodic earthquakes of major significance
The lesson they learned from Saddam and Qadaffi when they folded their nuclear programs
Don’t know about the Hezbollah but Iranian retaliation will be fierce against Saudi Arabia and GCC oil pimpdoms. Any Arab nation that gives Israel free airspace intrusion is gonna get spanked hard
As someone whose grandparents are from The old Assyrian communities of western Azerbaijan and has many Iranian friends and cousins, Iran has the highest percentage of graduate school attendance in the world. Anything less than a doctor or engineer is a disappointment to the family.
Just because they wear turbans don’t mistake them as bucolic hill dwelling Kipling stereotypes like the Taliban. They haven’t squandered their oil dividend on the baccarat tables like the Arabs across the gulf. They are used to playing the underdog.
The doom window will come shortly after the conclusion of the NAM meeting