Too late to halt Iran’s nuclear bomb, EU is told

[Logan13]

Too late to halt Iran’s nuclear bomb, EU is told
02/12/07
financialtimes.com
Iran will be able to develop enough weapons-grade material for a nuclear bomb and there is little that can be done to prevent it, an internal European Union document has concluded.

In an admission of the international community’s failure to hold back Iran’s nuclear ambitions, the document – compiled by the staff of Javier Solana, EU foreign policy chief – says the atomic programme has been delayed only by technical limitations rather than diplomatic pressure. “Attempts to engage the Iranian administration in a negotiating process have not so far succeeded,” it states.

The downbeat conclusions of the “reflection paper” – seen by the Financial Times – are certain to be seized on by advocates of military action, who fear that Iran will be able to produce enough fissile material for a bomb over the next two to three years. Tehran insists its purposes are purely peaceful.

“At some stage we must expect that Iran will acquire the capacity to enrich uranium on the scale required for a weapons programme,” says the paper, dated February 7 and circulated to the EU’s 27 national governments ahead of a foreign ministers meeting yesterday.

“In practice . . . the Iranians have pursued their programme at their own pace, the limiting factor being technical difficulties rather than resolutions by the UN or the International Atomic Energy Agency.

“The problems with Iran will not be resolved through economic sanctions alone.”

The admission is a blow to hopes that a deal with Iran can be reached and comes at a sensitive time, when tensions between the US and Tehran are rising. Its implication that sanctions will prove ineffective will also be unwelcome to EU diplomats. Only yesterday the bloc agreed on how to apply United Nations sanctions on Tehran, overcoming a dispute between Britain and Spain over Gibraltar.

Iran has set up several hundred centrifuges to enrich uranium, a process that can yield both nuclear fuel and weapons-grade material. But analysts say that Iran is behind schedule on plans to install 3,000 centrifuges to produce enriched uranium on a larger scale.

Last year Ernst Uhrlau, the head of German intelligence, said Tehran would not be able to produce enough material for a nuclear bomb before 2010 and would only be able to make it into a weapon by about 2015.

The EU document is embarrassing for advocates of negotiations with Iran, since last year it was Mr Solana and his staff who spearheaded talks with Tehran on behalf of both the EU and the permanent members of the UN Security Council.

The paper adds that Tehran’s rejection of the offer put forward by Mr Solana “makes it difficult to believe that, at least in the short run, [Iran] would be ready to establish the conditions for the resumption of negotiations”.

[Kale]

So lets assume they make a bomb and they are actually stupid enough to use it. Do they seriously think that they wont be wiped off the map as a result of the massive retaliation that would take place ? There is no Mutually Assured Destruction here, Iran would be totally annihilated and all they would gain would be the destruction of a city in Israel or maybe some other Western country

[Logan13]

So lets assume they make a bomb and they are actually stupid enough to use it. Do they seriously think that they wont be wiped off the map as a result of the massive retaliation that would take place ? There is no Mutually Assured Destruction here, Iran would be totally annihilated and all they would gain would be the destruction of a city in Israel or maybe some other Western country

hey, can you do a source check for me..........

On topic, I am more concerned about one of their fundamentalist groups getting their hands on a smaller one. And than we all know that Iran will claim that they knew nothing of it. And then the leftists of the world will proclaim that we have no "solid" evidence strong enough to go to war with them over it. The problem with a slippery slope is that it's so damn slippery.......

[singern]

Iran may not be dumb enough to use it themselves (maybe), but Iranian support for international terror groups like Hezbola, Islamic Jihad, Hamas and others means if it is used:

1 . once again we will be fighting a stateless enemy, who do we retaliate against.....

2 . Israel will be wiped away (as promised by Ahmenajad), and I am not willing to wait until that happens. Nor am I willing to give them the ability or opportunity to do so.

[eliteforce]

obviously if one of those groups used an atomic bomb it would be traced back to iran so it would be the same thing as using it themselves.

I do not beleive that any of those groups has any interest in obtaining a tactical nuclear weapon (it would have to be tactical, anything bigger and theyd blow themselves up.) but certainly these groups have no interest in that kind of attack.

[singern]

obviously if one of those groups used an atomic bomb it would be traced back to iran so it would be the same thing as using it themselves.

I do not beleive that any of those groups has any interest in obtaining a tactical nuclear weapon (it would have to be tactical, anything bigger and theyd blow themselves up.) but certainly these groups have no interest in that kind of attack.

I couldnt disagree more, terrorist groups like AlKaida, and Hezbola would use a small suitcase like bomb in a heartbeat, and Iran would sit back and deny it, while the arab world blame's Israel for it as usual.

[eliteforce]

While planning the 9/11 attacks, the alqueda operatives considered different targets for the attack, they rejected nuclear reactors out of fear that the incident would go "out of control" when the reactor melted down, causing environmental damage and possibly too many casualties..this according to one of the captured conspirators.

As far as Hamas or Hezbollah-they would have nothing to gain from such a large scale attack, Israel may kill 100,000s(or more) Palestinians and Lebanese in retaliation or right wing Israeli types may use the incident as an excuse to expel the Palestinian civilian population out of the west bank for "security purposes".

Hamas and Hezbollah are doing pretty ok the way they're going with small scale menacing resistence, I see no reason why they would become so desparate in the near future.

[mcpeepants]

if a terrorist group used an nuke, Iran would be razed in heart beat, whether they were involved or not. the administration or Israel would ask questions latter.

[Kärnfysikern]

I couldnt disagree more, terrorist groups like AlKaida, and Hezbola would use a small suitcase like bomb in a heartbeat, and Iran would sit back and deny it, while the arab world blame's Israel for it as usual.

You can trace the origin of a nuclear weapon by the isotopic composition. So even if they give ot to a terrorist organisation IAEA just need to sample the fallout afterwards and they can trace the origin.

[Logan13]

You can trace the origin of a nuclear weapon by the isotopic composition. So even if they give ot to a terrorist organisation IAEA just need to sample the fallout afterwards and they can trace the origin.

such a test would be inconclusive. You are basing this assertion on Iran actually giving the IAEA samples. They will kick the IAEA out, and you will be on here saying that there is not any proof of wrong doing yet since Iran will not give them samples........... Remember, if Saddam would have allowed the IAEA to stay in Iraq, instead of just throwing 17 sanctions at him from the UN for his unwillingness to do this, we would not have invaded them. Saddam signed the treaty in 1991/92 which called for a cease-fire against Iraq after he invaded Kuwait. One of the stipulations in the treaty was for permanent IAEA inspections of Iraq's facilities. 17 sanctions later, he was held accountable for the 1991 cease-fire agreement. How many sanctions are you willing to give Iran should the above occur?

[Kärnfysikern]

such a test would be inconclusive. You are basing this assertion on Iran actually giving the IAEA samples. They will kick the IAEA out, and you will be on here saying that there is not any proof of wrong doing yet since Iran will not give them samples........... Remember, if Saddam would have allowed the IAEA to stay in Iraq, instead of just throwing 17 sanctions at him from the UN for his unwillingness to do this, we would not have invaded them. Saddam signed the treaty in 1991/92 which called for a cease-fire against Iraq after he invaded Kuwait. One of the stipulations in the treaty was for permanent IAEA inspections of Iraq's facilities. 17 sanctions later, he was held accountable for the 1991 cease-fire agreement. How many sanctions are you willing to give Iran should the above occur?

No I dont belive Iran would give IAEA a sample. But the IAEA would be able to exclude all other enrichment facilities in the world. It would limit the suspects to the few nations that doesnt allow inspections in their enrichment facilities.

I dont know the procedures, but all the samples the IAEA already have of Irani uranium might be enough.

You are also forgetting that in 2003 before the war the IAEA was pleased with the way Iraq and Sadam cooperated with them. The fact that no WMD's was found proves that the IAEA was right in that no war was neccesary.
Do you want to make the same misstake again?

[Logan13]

No I dont belive Iran would give IAEA a sample. But the IAEA would be able to exclude all other enrichment facilities in the world. It would limit the suspects to the few nations that doesnt allow inspections in their enrichment facilities.

I dont know the procedures, but all the samples the IAEA already have of Irani uranium might be enough.

You are also forgetting that in 2003 before the war the IAEA was pleased with the way Iraq and Sadam cooperated with them. The fact that no WMD's was found proves that the IAEA was right in that no war was neccesary.
Do you want to make the same misstake again?

You should read the following Johan:

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-file...24/dossier.pdf

[Kärnfysikern]

Jesus 55 pages. That will have to wait a while.

But do you remember Hans Blix comments regarding iraq war?

[Logan13]

Jesus 55 pages. That will have to wait a while.

But do you remember Hans Blix comments regarding iraq war?

this is the declassified British Gov't's pre-war assessment, which sights the IAEA, on Iraq. Blix also went along with 17 sanctions............

[Kärnfysikern]

But blix was very clear with the fact that right before the war iraq was very cooperative.

[Logan13]

But blix was very clear with the fact that right before the war iraq was very cooperative.

After 17 sanctions, how can anyone be fooled, including you Johan? This was Saddam's MO since the cease-fire in 1991. Cooperate until they got close to something which made him uncomfortable than kicked IAEA out. Naive on anyone's part to give a man 17 chances to "cooperate".

[juicedOUTbrain]

Naive on anyone's part to give a man 17 chances to "cooperate".

Its naive to goto war against a country who was far from a threat to the US...(Thelongest range missile we ever found, the al-sammod 2, could barely reach israel, and was destroyed once we found they violated 1441)...I dont care if he was squirming to avoid war that was the point of the democrats giving the "authority" to goto war...once he got scared and allowed inspections we wouldnt have to launch an expensive war...

50 years of threats, and diplomacy are cheaper economically, and militarily, than a full out war, and just the moral thing to do, IMO...

[Logan13]

50 years of threats, and diplomacy are cheaper economically, and militarily, than a full out war, and just the moral thing to do, IMO...

Just as moral as keeping Saddam in power...........
How many Iraqi's do you think that he would have killed during the next 50 years of reign. As usual, you re looking at a snapshot instead of the whole opicture.

[Kärnfysikern]

After 17 sanctions, how can anyone be fooled, including you Johan? This was Saddam's MO since the cease-fire in 1991. Cooperate until they got close to something which made him uncomfortable than kicked IAEA out. Naive on anyone's part to give a man 17 chances to "cooperate".

No one was fooled. Sadam did not cooperate for a long time. But the months before the war he started cooperating fully with the IAEA. He probably realised hes ****ed if he dont.

The IAEA said that there was no need for a war because of this cooperation.

Naive or not the IAEA was right, there was no wmd's, no nuclear program. No nothing.

[Logan13]

No one was fooled. Sadam did not cooperate for a long time. But the months before the war he started cooperating fully with the IAEA. He probably realised hes ****ed if he dont.

The IAEA said that there was no need for a war because of this cooperation.

Naive or not the IAEA was right, there was no wmd's, no nuclear program. No nothing.

Than it all goes back to the fact that Saddam could have avoided all of this by complying from the beginning...........