Iran actively attempting to produce nuclear warhead

Looks like that IAEA report was released today and held the information most thought it would:

 

Iran worked on nuclear bomb design: U.N.

By Fredrik Dahl and Sylvia Westall | Reuters – 11/8/2011

 

VIENNA (Reuters) - Iran appears to have worked on designing an atomic bomb and may still be conducting relevant research, the U.N. nuclear watchdog said in a hard-hitting report on Tehran's nuclear program likely to raise tensions in the Middle East.

 

Citing what it called "credible" information from member states and elsewhere, the agency listed a series of activities applicable to developing nuclear weapons, such as high explosives testing and development of an atomic bomb trigger.

 

The hotly anticipated International Atomic Energy Agency report, which was preceded by Israeli media speculation of pre-emptive air strikes on Iranian nuclear sites by Tehran's arch-foe, detailed new evidence apparently showing concerted, covert efforts to acquire the capability to produce atomic bombs.

 

Some of the cited research and development activities by Iran have both civilian and military applications, but "others are specific to nuclear weapons," said the report, obtained by Reuters Tuesday ahead of an IAEA board of governors meeting.

 

Tehran, which has denied ever seeking nuclear firepower, immediately condemned the report. "(It) is unbalanced, unprofessional and politically motivated," said Ali Asghar Soltanieh, Iran's ambassador to the IAEA.

 

The United States and its allies are expected to seize on the document to press for more punitive sanctions on the major oil producer over its record of hiding sensitive nuclear activity and lack of full cooperation with U.N. inspectors.

 

"I think the facts lay out a pretty overwhelming case that this was a pretty sophisticated nuclear weapons effort aimed at miniaturizing a warhead for a ballistic missile," said prominent U.S. proliferation expert David Albright.

 

"It's overwhelming in the amount of details, it is a pretty convincing case," he told Reuters from Washington.

 

Russia criticized the report, saying it would dim hopes for dialogue with Tehran on its nuclear strivings and suggesting it was meant to scuttle chances for a diplomatic solution.

 

"We have serious doubts about the justification for steps to reveal contents of the report to a broad public, primarily because it is precisely now that certain chances for the renewal of dialogue between the 'sextet' of international mediators and Tehran have begun to appear," the Russian Foreign Ministry said in a statement.

 

It said time was needed to study the report and determine whether it contained new evidence of a military element in Iran's nuclear program or was nothing but "the intentional -- and counterproductive -- whipping up of emotions."

 

Tehran has for years dismissed allegations of atomic bomb research, based largely on Western intelligence funneled to the IAEA, as fabricated and baseless, and more recently sought to discredit IAEA chief Yukiya Amano as a tool of Washington.

 

The IAEA said it had carefully assessed intelligence passed on from member states and found it consistent in terms of technical content, individuals and organizations cited and time frames. It said it had gathered its own supportive details.

 

"The agency has serious concerns regarding possible military dimensions to Iran's nuclear program," the IAEA said in the report, which included an unusual 13-page annex with technical descriptions of research with explosives and computer simulations applicable to nuclear detonations.

 

The Vienna-based agency said the data "indicates that Iran has carried out activities relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device."

 

It added: "The information also indicates that prior to the end of 2003, these activities took place under a structured program, and that some activities may still be ongoing."

 

"STRONG INDICATORS OF WEAPONS DEVELOPMENT"

 

U.S. spy services estimated in 2007 that Iran had halted outright "weaponisation" research four years previously, but also that the Islamic Republic was continuing efforts to master technology usable in nuclear explosives.

 

The IAEA report included information from both before and after 2003. It voiced "particular concern" about information given by two member states that Iran had carried out computer modeling studies relevant to nuclear weapons in 2008-09.

 

"The application of such studies to anything other than a nuclear explosive is unclear to the agency," the IAEA said.

 

The information also indicated that Iran had built a large explosives vessel at the Parchin military complex southeast of Tehran in which to conduct hydrodynamic experiments, which are "strong indicators of possible weapon development."

 

Israeli officials had no immediate comment on the IAEA report, which was big news in a Jewish state that feels uniquely threatened by Iran, although Israel is widely believed to harbor the Middle East's only nuclear arsenal.

 

Udi Segal, diplomatic correspondent for Israel's top-rated Channel Two television news, said the report would dampen speculation that an attack on Iran was in the offing.

 

"First off, the prime minister has instructed the ministers to keep mum - that's a refreshing innovation. He is letting the game move over to the international community. Israel is saying, in essence, 'We told you so'," said Segal.

 

"They are rolling the ball to the world, so it will pass crippling sanctions, in hope this will work. De facto, it defers talk of military option for at least a few months."

 

A U.S. official said after the report's release that Washington might slap more sanctions on Iran, possibly on commercial banks or front companies, but is unlikely to target its lifeblood oil and gas sector or its central bank for now.

 

"I think you will see bilateral sanctions increasing," the official, speaking on condition of anonymity, told Reuters.

 

"From our side, we are really looking to close loopholes wherever they may exist," he said.

 

For several years the IAEA has been investigating Western intelligence reports indicating that Iran has coordinated efforts to process uranium, test high explosives and revamp a ballistic missile cone to accommodate a nuclear warhead.

 

Iran, the world's No. 5 oil exporter, insists that its program to enrich uranium is for a future network of nuclear power stations to provide electricity for a rapidly growing population, so that it can export more of its oil and gas.

 

But Tehran's history of hiding sensitive nuclear activity from the IAEA, continued restrictions on IAEA access and its refusal to suspend enrichment, which can yield fuel for atom bombs, have drawn four rounds of U.N. sanctions and separate punitive steps by the United States and European Union.

 

IAEA officials have often complained that Iran has refused, for at least three years, to seriously answer the agency's questions about accusations of illicit nuclear activity.

 

(Additional reporting by Dan Williams in Jerusalem, Arshad Mohammed in Washington, Steve Gutterman in Moscow and Tehran bureau; Editing by Mark Heinrich)

Anyone want to go half with me on the postage for sending Ahmadinejahugehead a nice box of seal team 6?

Anyone want to go half with me on the postage for sending Ahmadinejahugehead a nice box of seal team 6?

 

Or whatever the IDF uses in that same capacity...

 

 

Or whatever the IDF uses in that same capacity...

Mossad?

 

Honestly this isn't a shock to anyone. And if it is, you're an idiot.

 

Why doesn't the UN send him another strongly-worded letter Those are SOOOO effective.

Mossad?

 

Honestly this isn't a shock to anyone. And if it is, you're an idiot.

 

Why doesn't the UN send him another strongly-worded letter Those are SOOOO effective.

 

It's a real bitch with this one.

 

First off, you have 100+ sites that would all need to be precisely hit in order to really cripple/curtail the progress. This isn't the lone Iraqi reactor at Osirik that needed just a few well placed bombs to disable permanently 30 years ago. This is unfortunately so much more.

 

Worse, much of those sites are hardened. The Iranian population is in poverty for a reason, and that reason is that so much oil money went into the building and infrastrure of these sites. Very difficult to knock out.

 

Finally, it can't be left to Israel as their air force simply isn't capable of running this operation, at all. One look at a map shows that they'd have to violate either Syrian, Jordanian, Turkish, or Iraqi airspace to even make the long haul to Iran, none of which will be giving permission.

 

In the old days they'd just say "fcuk you, we're flying over anyway". Unfortunately this is not the old days, and they won't be violating international law to make it happen.

 

SO, that leaves flying over Saudi Arabia, which is a long shot for approval. Even if they Saudis did say "ok" for whatever reason (they fear Shite power in the region and may be open to it) the IDF does not have fuel tankers of the quantity needed to produce enough sorties at that massive distance.

 

And this problem remains even if they do violate another country's airspace to get the shortest route. It's still a large amount of miles to cover for their short-range defense fighters/fighter-bombers.

 

That leaves us having to carry the load, from our usual staging points in the gulf/carriers/diego garcia/etc/etc/etc, but the second the White House authorizes it oil will jump +25-50% in price overnight. Which will then show up as $5.00+ gasoline, which will then have Americans pissing their pants with hatred for the President IN AN ELECTION YEAR.

 

Yeah, we'll be sitting this one out.

 

It's a tough nut to crack, not sure what the answer is.

It's a real bitch with this one.

 

First off, you have 100+ sites that would all need to be precisely hit in order to really cripple/curtail the progress. This isn't the lone Iraqi reactor at Osirik that needed just a few well placed bombs to disable permanently 30 years ago. This is unfortunately so much more.

 

Worse, much of those sites are hardened. The Iranian population is in poverty for a reason, and that reason is that so much oil money went into the building and infrastrure of these sites. Very difficult to knock out.

 

Finally, it can't be left to Israel as their air force simply isn't capable of running this operation, at all. One look at a map shows that they'd have to violate either Syrian, Jordanian, Turkish, or Iraqi airspace to even make the long haul to Iran, none of which will be giving permission.

 

In the old days they'd just say "fcuk you, we're flying over anyway". Unfortunately this is not the old days, and they won't be violating international law to make it happen.

 

SO, that leaves flying over Saudi Arabia, which is a long shot for approval. Even if they Saudis did say "ok" for whatever reason (they fear Shite power in the region and may be open to it) the IDF does not have fuel tankers of the quantity needed to produce enough sorties at that massive distance.

 

And this problem remains even if they do violate another country's airspace to get the shortest route. It's still a large amount of miles to cover for their short-range defense fighters/fighter-bombers.

 

That leaves us having to carry the load, from our usual staging points in the gulf/carriers/diego garcia/etc/etc/etc, but the second the White House authorizes it oil will jump +25-50% in price overnight. Which will then show up as $5.00+ gasoline, which will then have Americans pissing their pants with hatred for the President IN AN ELECTION YEAR.

 

Yeah, we'll be sitting this one out.

 

It's a tough nut to crack, not sure what the answer is.

 

Glass coffee table anyone?

Saudi Arabia hates Iran, so I don't think getting their permission would be too difficult, although the rest of the Middle East, including Saudi citizens would probably be quite upset about permitting the bombing of another Islamic nation.

 

Forgive me for being ignorant on the topic, but that is why I am going to ask this question; to be educated on the matter. Why is it such a bad thing that they have nuclear weapon technology? Israel has it, and IIRC so does Pakistan, India, and China. Saudi Arabia doesn't get along with Iran, may fear Shiite power, and are heavily influenced by the US, who are heavily influenced by Israel, who also don't get along with Iran, and fear Iran may take action against them for their treatment of Palestine. IMO, any nuclear weapon technology Iran has or is trying to attain, is as a defense mechanism, because they realize they are on their own if things go sour for them. I don't think that nuclear bombs will be their go to measure if they are attacked or feel the need to attack, just a way to ensure an equal playing field and possibly discourage any nations from attacking them. Sure Ahmadinejad is somewhat of a nutcase, and a stubborn nutcase at that, but I don't think the guy is stupid enough to deploy nuclear bombs unless Iran is being seriously attacked and/or invaded. I also doubt that he is or would be the sole decision maker of whether or not to deploy nuclear bombs. That said, crazy people and guns don't mix, crazy people and nukes really don't mix.

 

Again, I admit not being up to date or educated on the matter, so these questions and statements are those of an uninformed individual who is looking for some information.

Gonna be a fun ten years.

 

And Baaz, probably because they are the largest state sponsor of global terrorism. The only scary devil on your list is Pakistan, and we happen to have enough firepower in Pakistan to stop them from doing anything silly.

Saudi Arabia hates Iran, so I don't think getting their permission would be too difficult, although the rest of the Middle East, including Saudi citizens would probably be quite upset about permitting the bombing of another Islamic nation.

 

The Kingdom is very worried about uprising/rebellion right now, partularly with the Arab Spring having such dire consquences for the regimes that were overthrown combined with rising anger over growing unemployment in the area.

 

Because of this, the Monarchy is trying desperately to appear neutral publically to their people while privately pushing hard against Iranian interests (wikileaks State Dept. cables show their direct requests for American military action against Iran).

 

Giving Israel permission to fly over the Islamic holy land to kill other Muslims would not go down well over there, even if they are Shite, so I don't see them allowing it. Would have to be the US to get Saudi approval.

The Kingdom is very worried about uprising/rebellion right now, partularly with the Arab Spring having such dire consquences for the regimes that were overthrown combined with rising anger over growing unemployment in the area.

 

Because of this, the Monarchy is trying desperately to appear neutral publically to their people while privately pushing hard against Iranian interests (wikileaks State Dept. cables show their direct requests for American military action against Iran).

 

Giving Israel permission to fly over the Islamic holy land to kill other Muslims would not go down well over there, even if they are Shite, so I don't see them allowing it. Would have to be the US to get Saudi approval.

 

 

When the SHTF the attack won't start from the air. It will start from the dolphins. The fly overs will just be needed to clean up what no one else will want to deal with.

Worse, much of those sites are hardened. The Iranian population is in poverty for a reason, and that reason is that so much oil money went into the building and infrastrure of these sites. Very difficult to knock out.

 

Finally, it can't be left to Israel as their air force simply isn't capable of running this operation, at all. One look at a map shows that they'd have to violate either Syrian, Jordanian, Turkish, or Iraqi airspace to even make the long haul to Iran, none of which will be giving permission.

 

I don't think Israel's military even has the capability to destroy all the underground bunkers. They have the 5000# bunker buster bombs, and Iran knows this so I would expect Iran to have built the bunkers to withstand them. There are larger bombs but only the US has them and only the US has the aircraft that can carry them.

 

 

reminds me of another WMD fiasco....lots of theory and conjecture here......and the US is still trying to unwind itself from Iraq, based on WMD claims...we never should have been there in the first place...

 

There are larger bombs but only the US has them and only the US has the aircraft that can carry them.

 

Bingo. Do we have any evidence that Iran can build a missile that can reliably lob a camel turd over a 6 foot tall chicken wire fence?

Forgive me for being ignorant on the topic, but that is why I am going to ask this question; to be educated on the matter. Why is it such a bad thing that they have nuclear weapon technology? Israel has it, and IIRC so does Pakistan, India, and China. Saudi Arabia doesn't get along with Iran, may fear Shiite power, and are heavily influenced by the US, who are heavily influenced by Israel, who also don't get along with Iran, and fear Iran may take action against them for their treatment of Palestine. IMO, any nuclear weapon technology Iran has or is trying to attain, is as a defense mechanism, because they realize they are on their own if things go sour for them. I don't think that nuclear bombs will be their go to measure if they are attacked or feel the need to attack, just a way to ensure an equal playing field and possibly discourage any nations from attacking them. Sure Ahmadinejad is somewhat of a nutcase, and a stubborn nutcase at that, but I don't think the guy is stupid enough to deploy nuclear bombs unless Iran is being seriously attacked and/or invaded. I also doubt that he is or would be the sole decision maker of whether or not to deploy nuclear bombs. That said, crazy people and guns don't mix, crazy people and nukes really don't mix.

Finally someone who thinks rational and clearly on this matter.

The assumption that Iran will immediately bomb Israel after they´ve got the nuke is, imho, ridiculouse! they are a bunch of nutcases but they aren´t that batshit crazy and stupid. The A-bomb is imho a way(probably the only) to even the playig field in the middleast, whether ot not this is good for us in the west is a different matter....

reminds me of another WMD fiasco....lots of theory and conjecture here......and the US is still trying to unwind itself from Iraq, based on WMD claims...we never should have been there in the first place...

 

It's natural to think that, but this is the IAEA not Cheney/Rummy/Bush trying to push an agenda. It's a pretty unbiased group, not affiliated with any particular doctrine.

 

In recent years they've done everything possible to not leap to a premature conclusion, giving the data time to be assimilated, etc. They're very conservative traditionally in terms of sounding the alarm.

 

Finally someone who thinks rational and clearly on this matter.

The assumption that Iran will immediately bomb Israel after they´ve got the nuke is, imho, ridiculouse! they are a bunch of nutcases but they aren´t that batshit crazy and stupid. The A-bomb is imho a way(probably the only) to even the playig field in the middleast, whether ot not this is good for us in the west is a different matter....

 

Everyone is "thinking rationally" on this issue from all outward apprearances, particularly other Arab nations and the UN. All of whom are directly oppossed to this happening for a wide variety of extremely good reasons.

 

Don't assume you or I understand or have knowledge about what any totalitarian regime would or would not do once having a nuclear capability, particularly a regime that has been having to stamp out rebellions from its own people lately.

 

We have no clue what those "nutcases" are after. None. We can expect the best and think optimistically sure, but we must prepare for the worst outcome as well.

 

As a litmus test for Iran having this level of destruction potential, I ask myself whether Khadaffi would have used a nuclear option on the rebels if he had one, especially as the walls closed in. The answer is absolutely and without hesitation.

 

Much better to push the button and deal with the response than get a lead-pipe colonoscopy from your people after getting dragged out of a sewer pipe...

 

So we can't assume anything. The sane world's ideals and thoughts about the sanctity of life and/or geopolitical goals do NOT apply to a dictator or totalitarian regime that's under pressure from their own people.

Good pointts Mako, I agree.

So, in short, Do we want to bomb Iran?

Bingo. Do we have any evidence that Iran can build a missile that can reliably lob a camel turd over a 6 foot tall chicken wire fence?

 

Afaik they have balistic missiles that can hit Israel and beyond.

 

On another note, multiple high ranking Saudi officials have said repeatedly in the past years they will not allow Israel to use their airspace in the advent of an attack on Iran. If they ever do, this will definitely not go down well with the large majority of the Saudi population. The Saudi royals are many things, but politically stupid they are most certainly not.

 

In spite of the 'Arab Spring', Saudi Arabia has been spared from turmoil so far. There were some gatherings and demonstrations but those were very small and were put down easily and peacefully. The Shi'a population in KSA has seen a dramatic improvement in living standards over the past decade, even though they are still looked down upon by some, I'm not sure they have much reason to become a beacon of Iran's power. While Iran has influence in the Middle East, no doubt, the majority of Shias look for religious guidance to the Iraqi clerics in Najaf, and not to Iran. The influence Iran has over Shia organizations in the middle east (Hezbollah) isn't necessarily because of religion, it's because of sponsorship, patronage.

 

Even if they are intending to build nuclear weapons, and I honestly doubt they are anywhere close. They might be decades away. This article doesn't prove anything, all it says is that they have at some point actively pursued making weapons, which isn't at all that surprising to me. Seeing things from their pov, they have their own priorities. Keeping the regime in power is no 1, making sure Iraq will never be a threat to them again is no 2, and last but not least, they like any other country, want to project their power and influence throughout the Middle East and a nuclear weapon will be a strong argument in their favour. I also do not get why everyone automatically assumes they will nuke Israel the moment they get the capability to do so. They will most likely kill more muslims than jews and open themselves up to a similar attack. People seem to forget how tiny Israel is, how close other countries are to it and that 30% of its population is muslim. Just because they don't have a western style government doesn't mean they are some sort of bloodthirsty madmen, that will wipe everyone off of the planet just because they can. Isn't it a bit childish to think so?

 

Personally I am more concerned about Pakistan having nuclear weapons, and the possibility that such weapons can fall into the hands of bona fide terrorists, rather than Iran being X years from building a nuke.

 

And again, Ahmadinejad doesn't really call the shots on this... Even if it doesnt seem so, there is a quite complex political decision making process in Iran, in spite of the supreme leader wielding absolute power. I dont remember Khamenei ever saying anything about wiping Israel off the map like Chimpazeenejad does all the time, in fact he tried saving face a few times after Ahmadinejad's inflaming comments.

 

They need something to cement their power and to act as a major deterrent against any military intervention in their country. Nothing better at doing that than a nuke, Israel has done it for decades successfully and they don't plan on nuking anyone either, their nukes are solely for deterrence.

 

Bombing Iran is an awful idea, and will only radicalize them further, thus insuring they will use a nuke if given the chance.

So, in short, Do we want to bomb Iran?

 

Would you walk up and disturb a mentally instable man sitting on his porch with a shotgun in his hand?

Afaik they have balistic missiles that can hit Israel and beyond.

 

On another note, multiple high ranking Saudi officials have said repeatedly in the past years they will not allow Israel to use their airspace in the advent of an attack on Iran. If they ever do, this will definitely not go down well with the large majority of the Saudi population. The Saudi royals are many things, but politically stupid they are most certainly not.

 

I also would like to try and find a better solution that military options, but the sanctions appear to be having no impact at all. Frustrating.

 

Both China and Russia have already sold Iran all of the knowledge/engineering needed to advance their short-range ballistic missle program forward by multiple generations so it's not a question to me of them being somehow limited by not being able to reach out and drop a warhead on someone. If they can create miniturized warheads they can create the delivery systems to carry them no question.

 

But honestly to me this is more about the internal danger to their own populace.

 

As you mentioned, the true power in Iran is held solely by the top level radical fundamentalist clerics who determine actual policy, not Ahmadinejad who is simply their puppet.

 

Many in the West would say "well who gives a shit if they bomb their own people" about it, but it would be a worldwide catastrophe if one of these devices was utilized against Iranian citizens. Everything must be done to prevent that possibility.

I also would like to try and find a better solution that military options, but the sanctions appear to be having no impact at all. Frustrating.

 

Both China and Russia have already sold Iran all of the knowledge/engineering needed to advance their short-range ballistic missle program forward by multiple generations so it's not a question to me of them being somehow limited by not being able to reach out and drop a warhead on someone. If they can create miniturized warheads they can create the delivery systems to carry them no question.

 

But honestly to me this is more about the internal danger to their own populace.

 

As you mentioned, the true power in Iran is held solely by the top level radical fundamentalist clerics who determine actual policy, not Ahmadinejad who is simply their puppet.

 

Many in the West would say "well who gives a shit if they bomb their own people" about it, but it would be a worldwide catastrophe if one of these devices was utilized against Iranian citizens. Everything must be done to prevent that possibility.

 

Clusterfuck.. That's what it is. And for precisely that reason - it's important that a leading candidate for POTUS give a damn and know what is going on in the world. Pizza man wouldn't have a clue.

Anyone want to go half with me on the postage for sending Ahmadinejahugehead a nice box of seal team 6?

Could we call them Christmas SEALs?

Personally I am more concerned about Pakistan having nuclear weapons, and the possibility that such weapons can fall into the hands of bona fide terrorists, rather than Iran being X years from building a nuke.

 

Bingo.

 

Bombing Iran is an awful idea, and will only radicalize them further, thus insuring they will use a nuke if given the chance.

 

Right again, anyone who would advocate bombing or going to war with Iran simply doesn't understand the dynamics of the region or the consequences of making such a move.

 

Bingo.

 

 

 

Right again, anyone who would advocate bombing or going to war with Iran simply doesn't understand the dynamics of the region or the consequences of making such a move.

 

^^^^^

 

Absolutely. But Pakistan hasn't used them since they first tested nukes in '98. Of all the countries on the nuke list - we are the only ones who have. Some say they make states safer and more rational - but I don't want to test that theory with Iran. Are they more unstable than their neighbors? Or are they just acting rationally out of their own circumstances?

There are no certainties here. The risks are so high that error (like Iraq) is completely unacceptable.