Iranian Uranium
Tehran owns up to 100 kilos.
Or at least Reuters says Iran’s interior minister claims Iran has 100 kilograms of enriched uranium. THe story also reports another Iranian source “cast doubt” on the claim.
From the second half of the Reuters report:
Iran has said it wants to clear up IAEA questions about the nature of its program but not unless the U.N. Security Council returns authority over its file to the Vienna-based agency, ending sanctions pressure — a nonstarter for Western powers.
Instead of freezing all enrichment-related activity, as the Security Council has demanded, Iran has accelerated the program and says it has passed the point of no return.
“When the world saw that the (Iranian) nation is pursuing this goal with unity, the world surrendered, ” Pourmohammadi said. “We have passed the dangerous moment.”
The Security Council has already imposed two rounds of limited sanctions on Iran over its refusal to shelve enrichment.
The United States said on Tuesday it and five other world powers — Britain, Russia, France, Germany and China — had begun discussing a third round of penalties against Iran.
A third round of sanctions? The real sanction the mullahs fear is a revolt by Iranians. Fostering that should be our sanctions policy.
“Divestment” of Iranian investments is a sanctions regimen for private corporations and institutions. More of that needs to happen.
1937… 1938… 1939… According to the Daily Telegraph, the government whose leaders have sworn themselves to the destruction of Israel, has been at war with the US since 1979, and whose leaders hold a messianic, apocalyptic vision of the future may be just
Trackback by Public Secrets: from the files of the Irishspy — 6/22/2007 @ 11:45 am
“The real sanction the mullahs fear is a revolt by Iranians. Fostering that should be our sanctions policy.” For a long time now I have felt that we should be doing everything we can to pulicize and highlight the abysmal state of human rights in Iran. I don’t understand why Bush has not taken every opportunity to do so for it would hopefully prevent the need for eventually using military force which of course must not be ruled out but should only be a last resort.
Comment by Gary Rosen — 6/23/2007 @ 9:50 am
I’ve got a sanctions regime for you. Let loose the U.S. Air Force and Navy on the target rich environment that is Iran’s mullahcracy. We’ve been speaking softly for a good long while, to little effect. I’m afraid the time for the big stick is fast approaching. Besides, the Iranians have been conducting a Viet Cong style war against American troops for two or three years now in Iraq. When will we have had enough of that?
Comment by brian — 6/23/2007 @ 9:53 am
The Iranian Divestiture Project Those living in CA who are serving and deployed in the GWOT, their friends, and relatives can help right now. Please see this info re AB221 Cal-PERS Iranian Divestiture: BREAKING - AB221 CA Asm Floor Vote 75 AYES 0 NOES AB221 is now scheduled for its first hearing in the CA Senate’s public pension committee on Monday June 25th. Your calls to members of this committee would be greatly appreciated. RBT
Comment by rocketsbrain — 6/23/2007 @ 10:08 am
Great site, keep it up! Please consider a link to my homepage, The Internet Radio Network. At the IRN you can listen for free to over 25 of Americas top Talk Show via Free Streaming Audio! Something for everyone here… http://netradionetwork.com
Comment by Steve — 6/26/2007 @ 10:56 am
While divestment here is nice, how about putting some real pressure on some of our so-called friends to quit investing in the country? Not a week goes by when the Regime doesn’t advertise that they’ve some new multi-billion dollar project in the works and are looking at prospective partners(investors) and one of the worst offenders continues to be the German’s. Merkel makes plenty of cooing noises to Bush but the fact of the matter is that the German’s are throwing money at the regime at every opportunity. The latest is a magnetic train. We may have defanged the German’s militarily but as a political motivator/mover & shaker in Europe they are a power to be reckoned.
Comment by Earlg — 6/28/2007 @ 2:02 am
I don’t think forcing economical restriction will yield any positive results.But it is also one of the major strategy we have to put against them.It is really dangerous sign that Iran engaged them self with dangerous weapons and threatening the world.. Low Cost Roadside assistance
Comment by sakthi — 7/1/2007 @ 7:52 am
The sad reality is that Iran’s mullahs are convinced that the West will not prevent them from acquiring nuclear weapons. They are either correct, or incorrect. If they are correct, then they will obtain nuclear weapons within 3 years. Within ten years they will have an arsenal of multiple weapons. If that state is reached, any reasonable person will estimate a 50% chance of a detonation within Tel Aviv (or some similar target intended to eliminate what the mullahs repeatedly call a “one bomb state” in the short term, and a 100% chance in the long term. The only reason the mullahs would wait, for any period of time, would be to see if they could play the strategic situation in such a way as to undermine the likelihood or severity of a second-strike counterattack by the West (or Israel’s “Sampson” option). Meanwhile, Iran will take the lead of the Islamist movement worldwide, and will be increasingly aggressive and antagonistic in their approach to the world to a degree which will make their current mild antagonism (capturing British sailors and holding press conferences with Hugo Chavez) look like an affectionate snuggle. If Iran’s leaders are incorrect — if the U.S. will not, in fact, allow Iran nuclear weapons — then the United States will ultimately use military force against Iran, to stop them. Either way, there is a potential for catastrophe. Obviously, the genocide of Israeli Jews would qualify, as would the detonation of a nuke in an American city: Child’s play for a well-funded nation-state, once they’ve got the nukes, and unless they’re deterred. (Jihadis, anticipating their 72 virgins and their coming Mahdi, are not deterrable by Mutual Assured Destruction, so our old Cold War tool is sadly useless.) It would be almost as bad a catastrophe if we were to wait until the Iranians had the nuclear weapons before destroying them. For of course, once they have the weapon, the only option (if you’re not willing to let them keep it) is to destroy it for sure…which, under the circumstances, probably means burying it under the rubble of the decimated cities of Persia, and millions dead in the process. I hope very much that the U.S has the will to deny nukes to the mullahs. But if we are not to be forced into a nigh-on-genocidal scenario like that I have just described, we need to act sooner, not later. I believe that the earlier the U.S. uses force against Iran, the smaller the level of force need be to stop the mullahs for good…provided that the first use of force is sufficiently devastating as to be utterly convincing. But it grows late, and they are very near their goal. They begin to taste the thrill of leading an nuclear armed jihad. It is an addictive flavor. We are past the point where a cruise missile or two will do the job. But we are not yet past the point where utter genocide will be required, either: or, I fervently pray we are not. What, then, can we do? First, financial warfare. As soon as possible, the United States should pass laws forbidding the U.S. government, U.S. citizens, and any U.S. business from any financial transactions or commerce with Iran, or any Iranian business…or with anyone else who does business with Iran, or any Iranian business. The choice for a company like Siemens should be: participate in the economic isolation of Iran, or lose access to the United States completely. Secondly, the military action. We have previously sunk a huge percentage of their surface fleet in an afternoon; this time, it should be the whole fleet. We should deny them all air traffic and surface shipping. Thirdly, we should target their nuclear facilities, as much as we can. They may be beyond our reach (too numerous, too well-buried, too hidden) but what we can reach, we should damage as we can. Fourth, we should destroy some percentage of their oil production, and threaten the remainder. I believe this portion which is the most critical. Iran and other dictators are accustomed to a heady draught of omnipotence via petrodollars. And they are convinced that the U.S. will never do anything that would damage its own short-term economic interests. They are, in short, convinced that the West is so debauched by commercialism that, when they come for us in hangman’s garb, we’ll sell them the rope. More precisely, they think we’d rather have $3.25 a gallon gas prices right up to the moment that they set off a nuke in D.C. (built using U.S. dollars sent as payment for oil), than endure $5.00 gasoline in an effort to prevent the nuke. In short, they reckon that, since they have oil, and we need oil, they can do anything they damn well please. It would be a tremendous shock for them to learn they were wrong. They would find, suddenly, disturbingly, that their calculations were wrong: That America cares more about denying them nukes than about the price of gasoline. And, note: Their petrodollars are the only things which pay their armed forces. And their weapons purchases from Russian arms dealers. And their nuclear technology purchases from Russia and China. And their Hizballah allies. And their nuclear scientists. In short, we should clarify to the whole world that Iran, shortly, suddenly, won’t have enough money to pay for anything. Not arms for terrorists, not nuke tech, not weapons, not soldiers, not keeping the lights on in their most important government buildings. Not only will Iran be stopped — as a practical matter — from additional nuclear development, but the regime will likely fall. The people are nearly fed up with Ahmadinejad as it is. And with a large part of its oil suddenly undeliverable, unsaleable, Iran would quickly lose their supporting cast ’round the world: Nobody does business with someone who can’t pay. True, we’ll have to deal with a huge spike in gas prices. But let’s face it: We’d face the same spike once Iran got a nuke and started lording it over the whole Persian Gulf region, anyway. We’d face the same spike no matter what, because they’re already planning to use oil as a weapon. We will face the high gas prices now, or later. But face ‘em now, and we won’t ALSO be facing a nuclear Iran. One other reason for acting now, and specifically for attacking Iran’s oil directly: The craziness factor. In any negotiation between armed parties, the crazier guy has an edge. We used that to our benefit in the Cold War, sometimes: (The Russians, whose national character trait is that of the plodding chess strategist, were oft disturbed by the inexplicable changeability of Western emotions, and tread more cautiously than they might otherwise have done.) In more recent years, jihadis have used this against the West: It’s just hard to deal with crazy people. But imagine the shock if the oil-hungry Americans attacked the OIL. Again, the Iranian mullahs are currently very confident. It is time to make them as uneasy, facing us, as we are when dealing with them, and what better way than to (a.) cut the sole source of their significance halfway out from underneath them, while threatening the second half, and (b.) show them that they were shockingly incorrect in their estimations of what we would and would not do, and what we are willing to sacrifice to achieve victory? For Mutual Assured Destruction does not deter them — they don’t mind dying — but Assured defeat for them, with us left in a mere 70’s style energy crisis shared equally by the rest of the world, with the Saudis and the Canadians being the main beneficiaries? With them permanently removed from being at the forefront of the Islamist movement, for lack of funds? Now THAT outcome would deter them quite well. A word of caution: Our action must be entirely decisive, in a short period of time: Too short for international yammering to build up and undermine our resolve. To short for Iran to think up countermeasures. Too short for Russia or China to suddenly sign treaties with Iran, in order to deter the U.S and thereby protect their profitable trading-partner. The world must be presented a fait accompli. For the U.N. diplomatic corps are tremendously fickle and will not defend a cause that was lost five hours ago. This all seems correct to me, a layperson. But perhaps the analysis is full of holes. I won’t be too proud to accept correction, if anyone has any to give. Feel free: I wish I could find a less-grim vision of the future. But I fear that, if we do not act within the next year or so, high gas prices will be the least of our worries in the long-term.
Comment by R.C. — 7/5/2007 @ 8:45 pm
Argh. You think you’ve checked over your writing, and then, as soon as you reread your post, you find three typos. “…this portion which is the most critical.” -> “…this portion IS the most critical.” And, “To short for Iran to think up…” -> “TOO short for Iran to think up….” And I’ve already lost track of the other. Bother.
Comment by R.C. — 7/5/2007 @ 8:55 pm
RC, I think what you wrote is dead on. Economic sanctions won’t work in time. And, given the fact that the US is far from indispensable and other countries are eager to cheat them, they probably would not work if we had 50 years to let them work. That does not mean we should not be applying them as aggressively as possible to weaken the Iranians in the meantime. However, nothing short of physical denial (via military action) will stop the Iranians from developing nuclear weapons. It is everything to the leadership for exactly the reasons you stated in your comment. They will rule over the middle east once they have nukes because they are as ruthless as all of the Arab regimes but much smarter in the application of their power. I agree with you that Iran will likely have a functioning nuke within a few years. I think, however, it will not take ten years to have multiples – just another year or two. Any military action would have decimate their navy (especially their diesel subs), air force (a given) and their offensive missile capability. It would have to come without warning and would have to cripple their army very quickly. In other words, it would have to be a real shock and awe campaign, not like the pale and faint-hearted stand-in we saw in Iraq. This time we will have to seek to kill as many of the enemy as possible as quickly as possible. Unfortunately, the necessary military action will not happen. George Bush is incapable of quick and bold military action by nature and by lack of public support. He is a plodder and despite his seemingly aggressive rhetoric, extremely timid in his use of force. He does not have the killer instinct that would be required to soundly drub the Iranians. He also missed his opportunity to stop the Iranians by failing to act years ago. At this point in his presidency I am convinced that he would be immediately impeached if he took significant military action against Iran. The American public no longer believes that the military should be used in the efforts to deal with Islamic terrorism. While I think that the public is wrong on this it is not hard to understand why they think that way. The perception is mostly GWB’s fault. He has fought the war so half-heartedly and with such a lack of urgency (by leaving Syria and Iran untouched, allowing high level AQ and Taliban types to escape for fear of US casualties, and a failure to attack AQ and Taliban sanctuaries in Pakistan) that our efforts have seemed futile. He does not understand that momentum and forward progress are essential to keep up the public morale. A hot war is like a shark, it has to keep moving or it dies for lack of public support. He has also destroyed his credibility with his staunchest supporters by continuously reminding us that we are under threat of terrorist attack, all the while he leaves our borders so open that we have no idea who is here, lacks that guts to implement reasonable profiling and discrimination regarding threats, and continues to voice platitudes like “Islam is a religion of peaceâ€, despite that fact that even member of the public who have no interest in these matters know that such is statement has been proven false over and over again. About nine months ago I wrote a comment here stating that Iran is ascendant. Bay disagreed. I wrote that only time will tell who is correct. If you look at events in Lebanon, Iraq, and the Palestinian territories and their progress towards nukes in that period I think that my view has been borne out so far. Mr. Bay is an optimist and generally that is the correct way to look at things where the US is involved. However, we are in a dark period lead by a weak and ineffective president, with a skittish and short-sighted legislature and a public that is convinced that military force is the wrong approach to our struggle, despite the fact that it is essential and needs to be central to it. Now is not the time for optimism.
Comment by Brian — 7/13/2007 @ 9:49 am
I think the west should look back at how they treated some of the Middle Eastern countries, how the CIA interfered with the politics, and I am sure the KGB too, and the history goes on and on. World powers interfering where they should not have, and now the chickens have come home to roost. The history is there, but we do not want to see it, we just look at the now, and the game keeps going, until it destroys us finally. Lets get Chavez too, he is next?? Maybe, or how about someone else we do not like, lets go there and interfere. History shows just how ignorant, and stupid the actions of world powers have been, totally absorbed with self-interest, and it does not work, but it keeps happening…… why?
Comment by Paul — 9/6/2007 @ 9:42 am