Jolie Rouge

Secret UN report: Iran knows how to build a bomb[i]
posted at 6:36 pm on October 4, 2009 by Allahpundit

I don’t mean to be alarmist but I’m starting to think they’re interested in building a bomb.

Two years ago, American intelligence agencies published a detailed report [i.e. the 2007 NIE] concluding that Tehran halted its efforts to design a nuclear weapon in 2003. But in recent months, Britain has joined France, Germany and Israel in disputing that conclusion, saying the work has been resumed.

This would be the same “secret” report that France’s foreign minister has been hounding IAEA chief/Iranian stooge Mohammed ElBaradei to release for weeks now, only to be met with hemming and hawing about how it’s “incomplete” and “there’s no concrete proof.” Evidently the proof was concrete enough for UN analysts to, um, put together an entire report on it, but leave it to the stooge to try to keep that rather pertinent information out of a raging international debate lest it increase pressure on Iran.

As for that portentous aside in the Times piece about there being a “long list” of suspected nuclear sites — which is entirely true, although you wouldn’t know it from the high-fiving going on over the revelation of a single secret site last week — will that list ever be published or will the public go on being misled into thinking that the UN inspections at Qom on October 25 are some sort of game-changer? Remember, the supposed “breakthrough” by which Iran would send its uranium to Russia for enrichment is important if and only if we know for certain that they’re not doing any additional enriching on the sly themselves. If there’s a “long list” of other suspected secret sites, then obviously we can’t know that. So much for the breakthrough.

Incidentally, that October 25 date is actually beyond the two-week deadline laid down by Obama last week and will come slightly more than a month after Iran first acknowledged the existence of the Qom facility, which we know gives them ample time to hide any evidence there. But who cares? This fiasco has reached a point of such absurdity that while Obama’s busy lobbying Medvedev to support sanctions against Iran, Netanyahu’s meeting secretly with Putin to kindly request that Russian scientists stop helping Iran to build their bomb.

Exit question: I know I’ve asked this before, but in light of the spiralling fears about a Sunni/Shia nuclear arms race in the Middle East, it bears asking again. Ever wonder how Saddam would be reacting to this if he was still in charge in Iraq?

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/10/0...-build-a-bomb/

__________________
Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

Jolie Rouge

Iran to 'blow up the heart of Israel' if attacked
Ali Akbar Dareini, Associated Press Writer
Fri Oct 9, 7:26 am ET

TEHRAN, Iran – Iran will "blow up the heart of Israel" if the United States or the Jewish state attacked it first, a top official with Iran's most powerful military force — the Revolutionary Guard — warned Friday.

Cleric Mojtaba Zolnour, who is the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's representative in the Guard, said that if a U.S. or Israeli missile lands in Iran, Iranian missiles will hit Israel in retaliation.

"Should a single American or Zionist missile land in our country, before the dust settles, Iranian missiles will blow up the heart of Israel," Zolnour was quoted as saying by the state IRNA news agency.

Iran and Israel are archenemies and anti-Israeli stance is a trademark for the hardline Guard. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has since 2005 often called for Israel's destruction and predicted demise for the Jewish state.

Though common, Zolnour's remarks appear to be ratcheting up the rhetoric ahead of the next round of talks between Iran and the West later this month over Iran's controversial uranium enrichment program.

The U.S. and Israel have accused Iran of seeking nuclear weapons but Iran denies the charge, saying its nuclear program is geared toward generating power, not a bomb. Israel has said it favors a diplomatic solution to the nuclear standoff but has not ruled out a military strike over fears that Iran may develop nuclear weapons.

Israel maintains a doctrine of "nuclear ambiguity" and has never confirmed nor denied having its own nuclear weapons program. It considers Iran a serious threat not only because of Tehran's nuclear program but also because of Iran's arsenal of long-range missiles, which can be fitted with nuclear warheads and are capable of striking the Jewish state.

Tehran is equipped with Shahab-3 missiles which have a range of up to 1,250 miles (2,000 kilometers). Israel is about 625 miles (1,000 kilometers) west of Iran.

Iran's missile program and its nuclear work — much of it carried out in secrecy — have long been a concern for the West, which fears Tehran is intent on developing an atomic weapons capability and the missiles to deploy such warheads.

In September, the revelation of a secret uranium enrichment facility near the Iranian holy city of Qom, represented a coup for Western intelligence and put Iran on defense. Within days of intense diplomatic activity, Tehran entered landmark nuclear negotiations with the U.S. and other world powers — talks that have since somewhat eased tensions between the two sides.

Oct. 25 has been set as a date for an inspection of the Qom site by the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency. Separately, a meeting is slated for Oct. 19 in Vienna with Iran, the U.S., France and Russia to discuss details of a deal that would lead to more cooperation from Iran on the enrichment process.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091009/..._mi_ea/ml_iran

__________________
Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

Jolie Rouge

UN inspectors visit once-secret Iranian site
By Ali Akbar Dareini, Associated Press Writer
1 hr 7 mins ago

TEHRAN, Iran – U.N. inspectors entered a once-secret uranium enrichment facility with bunker-like construction and heavy military protection that raised Western suspicions about the extent and intent of Iran's nuclear program.

The visit Sunday by the four-member International Atomic Energy Agency team, reported by state media, was the first independent look inside the planned nuclear fuel lab, a former ammunition dump burrowed into the treeless hills south of Tehran and only publicly disclosed last month. The inspectors are expected to study plant blueprints, interview workers and take soil samples before wrapping up the three-day mission.

No results from the inspection are expected until the team leaves the country, but some Iranian officials hailed the visit as an example that their nuclear program was open to international scrutiny.

"IAEA inspectors' visit to Fordo shows that Iran's nuclear activities are transparent and peaceful," the official IRNA news agency quoted lawmaker Hasan Ebrahimi as saying.

Another test of Iran's cooperation is fast approaching, however. Iran has promised to respond this week to a U.N.-brokered deal to process its nuclear fuel abroad — a plan designed to ease Western fears about Iran's potential ability to produce weapons-grade material.

The current inspection of Iran's second enrichment site came about a month after Tehran disclosed its existence in a letter to the IAEA, the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog. The notification to the U.N. agency came just days before President Barack Obama and other Western leaders claimed Iran has been hiding the facility from the world for years.

After Iran's disclosure, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon told Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that "the burden of proof is on Iran" to convince the international community its nuclear program is peaceful.

Iran says that by reporting the existence of the site voluntarily, it "pre-empted a conspiracy" by the United States and its allies who were hoping to present the site as evidence that Iran was developing its nuclear program in secret.

But the IAEA says Tehran should have reported it before it started construction. And the new facility, about 20 miles (30 kilometers) north of the holy city of Qom, immediately raised suspicions about the aim of the nuclear program — which Iran claims is only for peaceful research and energy production. The site is reached by tunnels and is protected by military installations including missile silos and anti-aircraft batteries, Iranian officials said last month.

Iran says the facility — known as Fordo after a village believed to have the largest percentage of fighters killed in the 1980-88 war with Iraq — was fortified to protect against any possible attack by the United States or Israel.

Officials say the plant won't be operational for another 18 months and would produce uranium enrichment levels up to 5 percent, suitable only for peaceful purposes. Weapons-grade material is more than 90 percent enriched.

Iran says its other known enrichment facility — a much larger industrial-scale plant in Natanz in central Iran — is also only to produce nuclear fuel and not at levels for weapons. But many experts say the enrichment centrifuges could be expanded and upgraded to make weapons-grade material.

Another worry for the West is Iran's plans to install a more advanced type of centrifuge at the Fordo site, capable of enriching uranium several times faster and with higher efficiency.

Iran also has promised to respond later this week on U.N.-drafted proposal to have its nuclear fuel processed in Russia, which would limit Iran's stockpiles and allow more international controls.

Although Iran has not given its official answer on the proposed nuclear deal — discussed last week after talks in Vienna with the United States, France and Russia — there are increasing doubts that Iran's leadership will come on board.

On Saturday, Parliament Speaker Ali Larijani claimed the West was trying to "cheat" Iran under the deal that would ship most of Iran's uranium to Russia for reactor-ready enrichment.

Larijani, the country's former nuclear negotiator, said Iran prefers to buy the nuclear fuel it needs for a reactor under construction that makes medical isotopes.

He did not specifically address the fuel needs for Iran's planned full-scale reactor, but Russia is required to provide fuel as part of an agreement to build it for Iran in the southern city of Bushehr. The reactor is nearly operational.

Rejection of the U.N. deal would force the United States and its allies to either return to talks or step up demands for greater economic sanctions and seek to further isolate Iran.

The four-member delegation from the International Atomic Energy Agency is led by Herman Nackaerts, director of IAEA's division of operations department of safeguards. The inspectors are expected to stay three days in Iran.

They are expected to compare Iran's engineering plans with the actual layout of the plant, interview employees and take environmental samples to check for the presence of nuclear materials.

The small-scale site is meant to house no more than 3,000 centrifuges — much less than the estimated 8,000 machines at Natanz.

A recent satellite image provided by DigitalGlobe and GeoEye shows a well-fortified facility built into a mountain about 20 miles northeast of Qom, with ventilation shafts and a nearby surface-to-air missile site, according to defense consultancy IHS Jane's, which did the analysis of the imagery. The image was taken in September.

GlobalSecurity.org analyzed images from 2005 and January 2009 when the site was in an earlier phase of construction and believes the facility is not underground but was instead cut into a mountain. It is constructed of heavily reinforced concrete and is about the size of a football field — large enough to house 3,000 centrifuges used to refine uranium.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091026/...luc3BlY3RvcnM-

__________________
Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

Jolie Rouge

IAEA: First Iranian response on enrichment deal
By George Jahn, Associated Press Writer
Thu Oct 29, 11:56 am ET

VIENNA, Austria – Iran has given an initial response to a plan that calls for Tehran to ship most of its enriched uranium abroad, the International Atomic Energy Agency said Thursday. An official familiar with Iran's response said Tehran was unwilling to accept the deal, which would delay Tehran's ability to make a nuclear weapon.

The U.S. and allied countries were seeking Iranian agreement to ship out 70 percent of its low-enriched uranium to Russia in one shipment for further enrichment and conversion into fuel for a Tehran research reactor.

Sending that amount in one batch would not leave Tehran with enough material to make weapons-grade uranium should it decide to make a warhead. Experts say Iran would need at least a year to produce enough to make up for the exported material, giving the international community a window in its efforts to persuade the Islamic Republic to freeze its enrichment program.

But a Western diplomat familiar with the Iran offer said Tehran was instead proposing to enrich the material domestically under supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

The Tehran research reactor needs fuel enriched to just under 20 percent — far from the 90 percent and above needed to make the fissile core of a nuclear weapon. Iran's stockpile is low-enriched uranium enriched to around 3 percent, suitable only for nuclear fuel.

But the higher the level of enrichment, the easier it is to reach weapons-grade level. Such a proposal outlined by the diplomat is unlikely to be endorsed by the U.S. and its allies, which would see it as bringing Tehran closer to nuclear weapons capacity instead of reducing such a threat.

"They don't want the LEU taken out," said the diplomat, referring to low-enriched uranium. "They want to enrich it there (in Iran) under IAEA supervision."

Iran has signaled in recent days that it was unwilling to give up most of its enriched stockpile in a single shipment and would seek to re-negotiate terms worked out by IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei in talks last week with Iran, Russia, France and the U.S. That Iranian stance was reinforced by the language of the IAEA statement.

Besides speaking of "an initial response from the Iranian authorities" — suggesting that Iran was looking for further talks — the statement indicated the possible need for further negotiations. It said ElBaradei expressed "hope that agreement can be reached soon" and was consulting with the four nations involved.

The plan would commit Iran to turn over more than 2,600 pounds (1,200 kilograms) of low-enriched uranium — more than the commonly accepted amount of low-enriched uranium needed to produce weapons-grade uranium. The West says Tehran agreed in principle to export that amount in one shipment during Oct. 1 talks in Geneva with the U.S. and five other world powers — something Iranian officials have denied.

In Iran Thursday, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said that his country will not give up its nuclear program although the West and Iran are now cooperating on the issue — remarks that signaled a divide between the Islamic Republic and the West on what Iran needed to do to comply with the outlines of the enrichment plan.

Ahmadinejad said the West has moved "from confrontation to interaction" with Iran over its uranium enrichment program, which he called an "inalienable right of the Iranian nation."

"Today we reached a very important point," Ahmadinejad said, speaking at a rally in the northeastern city of Mashhad. "Ground has been paved for nuclear cooperation" and Tehran is ready to now work on nuclear fuel supplies and technical know-how with the U.N. nuclear watchdog, Ahmadinejad added.

But he insisted his government "will not retreat even an iota" over the nation's right to pursue a nuclear program — which the West fears masks nuclear arms ambitions.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091029/...VhZmlyc3RpcmE-

__________________
Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

Jolie Rouge

Behind Iran's Response on the Nuclear Deal
By Tony Karon
Thursday, Oct. 29, 2009

Iran announced on Thursday that it had delivered its response on a proposed nuclear deal to the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna. It appeared to signal that its answer — not yet made public — is to accept the framework of the agreement to reprocess some of its enriched uranium abroad to create fuel for a medical research reactor but at the same time demand important changes to the deal. As Tehran has kept the world waiting over the past week, conventional wisdom has held that Iran is playing for time, testing the limits of international political resolve, and hamstrung by internal political divisions. There's a measure of truth to these claims. But more important, the reason that Iran and the West are struggling over an agreement envisaged as a first step toward greater cooperation is that the two sides don't share a common destination.

The draft agreement discussed at the talks in Vienna last week would have Iran ship 2,645 lb. of its low-enriched uranium (some three-quarters of the stockpile that was enriched at its Natanz facility) to Russia by the end of this year. There it would be enriched to a higher grade and converted into fuel plates in France, after which it would be shipped back to Iran to power the Tehran medical research reactor. Western governments, which fear that Iran has already stockpiled enough enriched uranium to be reprocessed into a single bomb, like that the deal would remove most of Tehran's stockpile and return it in a state difficult for Iran to weaponize. Though there are no signs that Iran is working on turning its uranium into a bomb, the West wants the material moved out of Iran in a single shipment, and by the end of this year. That way, they say, it will take Tehran another year to replenish its stockpile to current levels, setting back the supposed "ticking clock" of a potential Iranian bomb and allowing more time to negotiate an end to Iran's enrichment program.
(See pictures of the world's worst nuclear disasters.)

Iran, needless to say, sees things differently. It has no intention of relinquishing its uranium-enrichment program, which it insists is for the peaceful purpose of a civilian energy program and is its right as a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). And what it likes most about the Vienna deal is that it can be read as tacit acceptance of Iranian enrichment; the stockpile at the heart of the deal, after all, was enriched in violation of U.N. Security Council resolutions.

"In the past, they said that we had to halt our nuclear activities," Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Thursday, hailing what he called the new "cooperative" stance of the West. "But today they say, 'Come consult about finding solutions for world problems,' and they want to cooperate for the exchange of fuel and development of nuclear technology and establishing a nuclear plant." He reiterated that Iran has no intention of relinquishing its "nuclear rights," typically a reference to uranium enrichment.

Israel, which has threatened military action if Iran's nuclear program is not stopped, has been increasingly critical of the Vienna deal for the very reasons that Tehran welcomes it. "[The agreement] means that [the U.S., Russia and France] recognize that Iran is enriching uranium and that helps [Iran] with their argument that they are enriching uranium for peaceful purposes," Defense Minister Ehud Barak said on Thursday. "It is important to insist on an end to enrichment in Iran."

Partly because of the discrepancy between their ultimate intentions, Iran doesn't trust some of its negotiating partners — particularly France, which has adopted the most hawkish position among the Western powers against any Iranian enrichment. In other words, the very thing that Western powers like about the proposal — that it separates Iran from its uranium stockpile — is precisely what the Iranians fear as a prelude to moves to end all of its enrichment.

It's not hard to see how the competing underlying objectives influence both sides' approach to the deal. Having tried unsuccessfully to sideline France from the deal, Iranian officials have talked of possibly extending the range of suppliers of enriched uranium to include China — which is fast emerging as Iran's most significant economic partner and is not aligned with the more dire Western reading of Iran's intentions. And Iran will likely insist that it send its uranium to Russia in smaller installments and over a longer time frame, to test the bona fides of its partners without surrendering most of its stockpile at the get-go. But the French and other Europeans warn that such adjustments would be a deal breaker — precisely because their prime objective is to remove Iran's stockpile.

Tehran's goal is to develop the full nuclear-energy fuel cycle, which includes enriching uranium. While legitimate under the NPT as long as it is subject to IAEA monitoring, such a program would nonetheless give Iran the capacity to move relatively quickly to build a bomb, which is why Western leaders have argued that Iran can't be trusted to maintain an enrichment capability even as part of its nuclear-energy program.
(See a graphic of the nuclear-armed world.)

Given the two sides' sharply different ideas on the end point of their mutual journey, it's not easy to agree even on substantial "confidence building" measures. Iran appears to be open to greater safeguards and oversight of its ongoing nuclear work, like opening its hitherto secret enrichment facility under construction at Qum to inspection for the first time on Oct. 25. But at the same time, it is expected to push back against some provisions of the Vienna deal.

While the Western powers are likely to blanche at making any changes, Tehran may be more focused on how its response is received by China and Russia. After all, the threat of sanctions that hangs over Iran for non-compliance is considerably diminished without their support. And while Moscow and Beijing may support efforts to press Tehran for greater transparency on its nuclear intentions (and while they have backed the Vienna deal), they don't share the Western powers' assessment that Iran's enriched-uranium stockpile represents an imminent bomb threat. That's why an even more challenging response for the U.S. and its allies than a simple "No" is an ambiguous "Yes, but ..."

http://www.time.com/time/world/artic...oo-top-linkbox

__________________
Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

Jolie Rouge

Looks Like Iran Pwned Obama

The crowning achievement of Barack Obama's negotiation without precondition strategy on Iran was Iran's alleged agreement to ship its uranium abroad for reprocessing. This supposed agreement -- which was never as significant as it seemed -- was touted as proof that Obama's approach was correct.

Popular left-wing blogger and supposed Iran-guru Juan Cole wrote that Obama had "pwned" George Bush: http://www.juancole.com/2009/10/obam...ran-first.html

I was skeptical, and felt that Obama was getting rolled by the Iranians. http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.co...-iranians.html

Now the NY Times reveals that the Iranians have rejected any such agreement:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/30/wo...e.html?_r=1&hp
The Telegraph newspaper also reports that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is crowing that Iran has won the nuclear showdown: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...-the-West.html

While the book is not closed, it looks like Obama got pwned by the Iranians, at least on the issue of whether negotiations without preconditions would lead Iran to give up the elements of its nuclear weapons program.

Plan A didn't work. Now on to Plan B, if Obama has one.


--------
Related Posts: What Do Juan Cole and "Death to America" Have In Common? http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.co...o-america.html


October 29, 2009 9:45 PM
http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.co...ned-obama.html



See also http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2009/10/2...messiahs-deal/



Considering that France has been acting tougher on Iran than we have been, it’s not a big surprise that Iran hasn’t been taking Obama too seriously. Obama’s plan thus far has been to whine to Ahmadinejad and to ask him to stop (pretty please with a cherry on top??). So while Obama seems set on negotiating over and over again, Iran continues to get bolder and more insulting.

They didn’t flat-out refuse Obama’s deal, but they might as well have.

Could it be because Ahmadinejad has no respect for Obama?

Gee, I wonder why Iran wants to send its uranium in smaller batches then. Could it be because they have absolutely no intention of abandoning their nuclear program? While Ahmadinejad is shouting his cooperation from the rooftops for anyone to hear, it’s just an empty statement. His actions say something completely different, and it’s clear that he has no respect at all for Obama or the UN.

Of course, we were promised that the world would love us once again if we elected Obama. Obama would usher in “smart diplomacy” and he would be able to negotiate with terrorists other world leaders and everyone would be happy again. And this is our newer, smarter diplomacy? Iran and North Korea are both getting bolder and bolder, launching more and more test missiles, and getting further and further into nuclear weapons programs. Obama’s response is to launch a plan to remove our missile defense shields in eastern Europe and do nothing except ask Ahmadinejad and Kim Jong Il to please stop. He talks a big game, but doing absolutely nothing to back up what he says. Why should Iran respect or fear him?

Theodore Roosevelt believed in speaking softly and carrying a big stick. With Obama, it’s speak loudly and carry a limp stick.

__________________
Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?