View Story | 24 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
Iran: The data show that Iran's nuclear program has made significant progress during Bush's terms in office.
How is "significant" being defined here?
Institute for Science and International Studies (ISIS), via War & Piece
"Despite Iran failing to meet U.S. Security Council demands to halt enrichment, progress at Natanz is slower than expected." Iran has made limited progress at its Natanz uranium enrichment plant, installing and operating fewer gas centrifuges than expected. Senior Vienna-based diplomats have confirmed to ISIS that Iran may be either delaying deliberately the pace of its work while diplomatic efforts are underway, or is experiencing technical problems with its centrifuge program. ... Iran has also failed to install as many cascades in the Natanz pilot plant as expected. In April 2006, U.S. government and IAEA officials expected Iran to have installed five cascades ... It now appears that Iran has not begun to operate the second and third cascades at the pilot plant, although they may be close to completion. ... It is possible that Iran's leadership has deferred installation out of concern that the facility would be a target of military strikes should diplomacy fail to resolve the nuclear issue. It is also possible that Iran has prepared undisclosed facilities for research and development of uranium centrifuges and deployment of additional cascades, although no evidence of such facilities currently operating has emerged from IAEA inspections.
"Despite Iran failing to meet U.S. Security Council demands to halt enrichment, progress at Natanz is slower than expected."
Iran has made limited progress at its Natanz uranium enrichment plant, installing and operating fewer gas centrifuges than expected. Senior Vienna-based diplomats have confirmed to ISIS that Iran may be either delaying deliberately the pace of its work while diplomatic efforts are underway, or is experiencing technical problems with its centrifuge program. ...
Iran has also failed to install as many cascades in the Natanz pilot plant as expected. In April 2006, U.S. government and IAEA officials expected Iran to have installed five cascades ... It now appears that Iran has not begun to operate the second and third cascades at the pilot plant, although they may be close to completion. ...
It is possible that Iran's leadership has deferred installation out of concern that the facility would be a target of military strikes should diplomacy fail to resolve the nuclear issue. It is also possible that Iran has prepared undisclosed facilities for research and development of uranium centrifuges and deployment of additional cascades, although no evidence of such facilities currently operating has emerged from IAEA inspections.
The ISIS August 31 issue brief (.pdf) is available here.
Liberal: "I still think it's a respectable word. Its root is "liber," the Latin word for "free," and isn't that what we are all about?"--Mary McGrory
by mini mum on Tue Sep 05, 2006 at 09:35:07 AM PDT
Is the source! If you google "aluminum tubes" they are the 2nd hit. From March 10, 2003, it completely blows out the myth of the tubes for nuclear use.
The reason people don't learn from the past, is because the past was a repetitious lie to begin with. Mike Hastie U.S. Army Medic Vietnam 1970-71
by BOHICA on Tue Sep 05, 2006 at 09:39:12 AM PDT
[ Parent ]
by mini mum on Tue Sep 05, 2006 at 09:50:59 AM PDT
and clearly have centrifuges to achieve suffecient quantities that could potentially produce a "dirty bomb."
But just as significantly, if not moreso, Iran has become the real winner, geopolitically, in the region subsequent to our invasion of Iraq. In fact, Clark wrote this in his NYTimes Op/ED piece, "The Next Iraq Offensive":
The Arab states agree on one thing: Iran is emerging as the big winner of the American invasion, and both President Bush's new strategy and the Democratic responses to it dangerously miss the point. It's a devastating critique. And, unfortunately, it is correct. While American troops have been fighting, and dying, against the Sunni rebels and foreign jihadists, the Shiite clerics in Iraq have achieved fundamental political goals: capturing oil revenues, strengthening the role of Islam in the state, and building up formidable militias that will defend their gains and advance their causes as the Americans draw down and leave. Iraq's neighbors, then, see it evolving into a Shiite-dominated, Iranian buffer state that will strengthen Tehran's power in the Persian Gulf just as it is seeks nuclear weapons and intensifies its rhetoric against Israel."
The Arab states agree on one thing: Iran is emerging as the big winner of the American invasion, and both President Bush's new strategy and the Democratic responses to it dangerously miss the point. It's a devastating critique. And, unfortunately, it is correct.
While American troops have been fighting, and dying, against the Sunni rebels and foreign jihadists, the Shiite clerics in Iraq have achieved fundamental political goals: capturing oil revenues, strengthening the role of Islam in the state, and building up formidable militias that will defend their gains and advance their causes as the Americans draw down and leave. Iraq's neighbors, then, see it evolving into a Shiite-dominated, Iranian buffer state that will strengthen Tehran's power in the Persian Gulf just as it is seeks nuclear weapons and intensifies its rhetoric against Israel."
Iran is becoming the dominant power in the region. They know that our forces are "bogged down" and vulnerable to Iran's missiles and weaponry; even worse should they develop one with a nuclear warhead.
StopIranWar.com
by Knightrider on Tue Sep 05, 2006 at 10:02:51 AM PDT
Recently said in Europe that he didn't know if the opposition to the nuclear enrichment had to do with the current leadership in Iran or the nuclear issues as the Bush folks say. Apparently, before Ahmadinejad was elected (Larijani ran against him) the US knew about their attempts to become nuclear and didn't say anything about it at that time. I took that to mean that there was room for talks about the real concerns. Iran has uranium they can mine right there in their own country. James Fallows wrote an excellent article in Atlantic Monthly some months ago about the question is not "if" a nuclear Iran, but "when?" Figuring out how to live in a world where this is a reality seems to be what people should be talking about now. You are right, Iran was the big winner from our going to Iraq. I suspect that was their hope all along when we went there based on the lies of their good buddy Chalabi.
Winning without Delay.
by ljm on Tue Sep 05, 2006 at 10:15:09 AM PDT
Iran's capabilities haven't reached even North Korea's levels.
Do they? It's not clear what they have or don't have and that's a huge problem. The evidence is circumstantial, not conclusive. And, I might add that right now, it’s the same quality of “evidence” that the administration was pushing about Iraq. And look how well that worked out for us.
Last week on NPR's "Morning Edition," David Kay said these are the questions to answer in order to be 100% sure that Iran has a weapons objective:
We don’t know any of this because it hasn’t been observed.
by mini mum on Tue Sep 05, 2006 at 10:17:49 AM PDT
wide narrow
View Story | 24 comments