http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle...ticle356854.ece

Target Iran: US hints at a new battlefront
Tensions are rising over Tehran's alleged nuclear weapons programme as the Pentagon considers its military options. Anne Penketh reports
Published: 10 April 2006
They are the human shields. Every time there is the sound of sabre-rattling from the West over Iran's suspected nuclear weapons programme, the protesters are back in the picture.

Some have been deployed in a human chain outside sensitive sites in remote areas of Iran. Others rally outside the embassies of the United States and Britain in Tehran.

In the West, public opinion is hardening against the prospect of a nuclear-armed Islamic republic. Inside Iran, the public has been galvanised by its leaders into mobilising in support of the country's nuclear programme.

The Iranian demonstrators are likely to be needed again in the light of a shock report by the authoritative journalist Seymour Hersh that the Bush administration is considering possible strikes by tactical "bunker-buster'' nuclear missiles able to destroy facilities deep underground.

According to his article in The New Yorker, the plans aimed at engineering regime change in Tehran have split the Pentagon top brass to such an extent that some officers have threatened to resign their posts.

Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, yesterday dismissed the claim of a nuclear strike being used to prevent Iran from obtaining its own atomic weapon as "completely nuts". The Iranians described the article as the part of the "psychological war" launched by the US to frighten Tehran into abandoning what it believes is its treaty right to develop nuclear technology.

But President George Bush has been careful to keep the military option on the table throughout the stand-off with Iran over its nuclear programme, which intensified last June with the election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Mr Ahmadinejad, a former member of the fanatical Revolutionary Guards, set alarm bells ringing throughout the West - and even in his own country - by threatening to "wipe Israel off the map".

Even though it is the country's spiritual leader, the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who calls the shots in Iran, according to The New Yorker, it is Mr Bush's deep distrust of Mr Ahmadinejad that has strengthened his determination to confront Iran.

But time is running out. Diplomatic moves are at a standstill because of the reluctance from Russia and China to impose sanctions against Iran, which has important support from developing countries where nuclear power is seen as a legitimate right.

In the West, arms control experts - as well as European governments - are convinced that Iran wants to pursue uranium enrichment at its underground facility at Natanz with the intention of keeping open the option of building a bomb. The difference between enriched uranium for a nuclear power plant and for a weapon lies in the level of enrichment. Fuel for a civilian reactor requires 2 to 3 per cent uranium-235, while a nuclear bomb needs 90 per cent or more, a range known as highly enriched uranium.

The Iranians will have mastered the technology that can allow its centrifuges to enrich uranium without exploding or breaking down in a matter of months, according to Western experts. When that happens, the world will be hurtling towards a nuclear nightmare. Israel's arch foe will have obtained a powerful tool with which to threaten its neighbours.

Estimates vary as to how long it would take Iran to reach the break-out capability. The generally cautious director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Mohamed ElBaradei, who is to visit Iran this week, believes that it could take up to two years for Natanz to be up and running. At that point, he says, an Iranian nuclear bomb could be "a few months away".

The estimate of the Egyptian IAEA chief echoes Israeli thinking. United States estimates range from five to 10 years for weapons-grade fuel to be successfully manufactured.

According to a study by the International Institute for Strategic Studies, with 1,000 working centrifuges at Natanz, it would take just over two years to produce enough highly enriched uranium for a bomb - without the IAEA safeguards which are currently in place. With 3,000 centrifuges, the number Iran has told the Europeans it wants to install at Natanz, it would take 271 days to produce the same amount of weapons-grade fuel. According to one expert, such a fuel cycle would be a clear indication that the Iranians are bent on building a bomb.

There are two ways of making a nuclear bomb: a relatively simple way which results in a plutonium bomb and a harder way using enriched uranium. But whichever route is followed, step one in making the fuel for a nuclear bomb - or a civilian reactor - is to mine uranium.

In step two, the uranium ore is ground into a powder and reconstituted into a solid known as yellowcake, which is radioactive. Step three involves the conversion of yellowcake into uranium hexafluoride gas.

In step four, the gas is fed into centrifuges, measuring one and a half metres tall, where the uranium enrichment takes place. This process increases the percentage of uranium-235 to the levels needed to be used as fuel in a civilian reactor, or a weapon, by separating the uranium isotopes in the rapidly spinning rotor tubes.

But there are well known problems with gas centrifuges. If they do not operate in a vacuum, rust and corrosion sets in. The spinning at enormous speeds can cause uncontrollable vibrations which can send shrapnel flying and cause explosions. The Iranians lost one third of their centrifuges when they agreed to halt uranium enrichment in November 2003 under an agreement with the European Union. That agreement was shattered last January when Iran reopened Natanz, where it tested an array of 20 centrifuges in vacuum conditions.

The method involving plutonium has a clear advantage because it needs much smaller quantities - 4kg rather than the 25kg of enriched uranium required to produce a bomb. Plutonium does not exist in a natural state, and is the product of reprocessed spent reactor fuel, after yellowcake has been reduced to uranium metal.

The extraction of plutonium is a serious engineering challenge as spent fuel is highly radioactive and toxic, and a very dangerous process.

The main worry for the West is that Iran has dabbled in all aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle, on both the enriched uranium route and the plutonium route.

It has a uranium mine, it has a conversion facility just outside the city of Isfahan, which was reopened last summer in violation of its agreement with the European Union, and it has the Natanz enrichment plant.

Although work has been suspended at Arak, 150 miles south of Tehran, Iran is in the early stages of constructing a heavy water plant that is to supply a research reactor which could eventually produce enough weapons-grade plutonium for one or two weapons per year.

Although nuclear experts say that the international community has been distracted by the crisis triggered over Iran's uranium enrichment programme, the plutonium experiments have the potential for creating a far more worrying situation. "With uranium, it's much easier to put in safeguards to monitor the atmosphere and instruments," said Paul Ingram, a senior analyst with the British American Security Information Council, which specialises in nuclear issues.

Nuclear reprocessing is more difficult for inspectors to verify, in terms of possible diversion for military purposes. And reprocessing can take place in a very small area. "It could be done in a plant the size of a house, in the middle of a mountain," if Iran decided to carry on with a clandestine programme, Mr Ingram said. "If the Iranians succeed in producing a heavy-water plant plus a reactor at Arak, then we are in a very difficult situation."

The Russians are helping Iran build a "safe" light-water reactor at Bushehr in the south of the country. Under an agreement with the Russians, the fuel rods for the reactor, which has not yet come on stream, are to come from Russia and will be sent back there for reprocessing to avoid any possible diversion.

The main nuclear powers, including Britain, followed the reprocessing route to build their modern arsenal. The US, in the early days, experimented with the fuel cycle of both enriched uranium and plutonium: the bomb that flattened Hiroshima in August 1945 was a uranium bomb, while the bomb that blasted Nagasaki three days later was plutonium.

Iraq went down the centrifuge route, although after 10 years of efforts, Saddam Hussein had still not produced a weapon when the UN inspectors belatedly discovered, and dismantled, its clandestine programme in the 1990s.

Pakistan also took the enrichment route, most probably because the father of the Muslim world's atom bomb, AQ Khan, worked in the 1970s for a Dutch uranium enrichment plant, Urenco, which supplied European reactors. He used a centrifuge design stolen from Urenco to build facilities in Pakistan for weapons-grade uranium.

So why did Iran decide to put its major effort into travelling along the bumpy road towards uranium enrichment?

In fact the Iranians were following both routes from the beginning. They bought their first nuclear reactor from the US, during the rule of the Shah. But the breakthrough came in the 1980s when Iran bought a blueprint for a P1 centrifuge from the AQ Khan network, which operated like a nuclear supermarket.

United Nations inspectors with the IAEA are still trying to unravel the history of Iran's nuclear know-how and have not proved without a doubt that the Iranians are working on a bomb.

Iran is meanwhile being asked by the UN Security Council to suspend all uranium enrichment work. Tehran has refused.

In the next few weeks, the West will have to decide what carrot, or what stick, to use next.

"In terms of strategy, the West needs to think more clearly about the need to work with the Iranians and the IAEA to keep the inspectors inside Iran. The key to all this is to ensure the IAEA is on the ground and with the Iranians co-operating," said Mr Ingram.

They are the human shields. Every time there is the sound of sabre-rattling from the West over Iran's suspected nuclear weapons programme, the protesters are back in the picture.

Some have been deployed in a human chain outside sensitive sites in remote areas of Iran. Others rally outside the embassies of the United States and Britain in Tehran.

In the West, public opinion is hardening against the prospect of a nuclear-armed Islamic republic. Inside Iran, the public has been galvanised by its leaders into mobilising in support of the country's nuclear programme.

The Iranian demonstrators are likely to be needed again in the light of a shock report by the authoritative journalist Seymour Hersh that the Bush administration is considering possible strikes by tactical "bunker-buster'' nuclear missiles able to destroy facilities deep underground.

According to his article in The New Yorker, the plans aimed at engineering regime change in Tehran have split the Pentagon top brass to such an extent that some officers have threatened to resign their posts.

Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, yesterday dismissed the claim of a nuclear strike being used to prevent Iran from obtaining its own atomic weapon as "completely nuts". The Iranians described the article as the part of the "psychological war" launched by the US to frighten Tehran into abandoning what it believes is its treaty right to develop nuclear technology.

But President George Bush has been careful to keep the military option on the table throughout the stand-off with Iran over its nuclear programme, which intensified last June with the election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Mr Ahmadinejad, a former member of the fanatical Revolutionary Guards, set alarm bells ringing throughout the West - and even in his own country - by threatening to "wipe Israel off the map".

Even though it is the country's spiritual leader, the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who calls the shots in Iran, according to The New Yorker, it is Mr Bush's deep distrust of Mr Ahmadinejad that has strengthened his determination to confront Iran.

But time is running out. Diplomatic moves are at a standstill because of the reluctance from Russia and China to impose sanctions against Iran, which has important support from developing countries where nuclear power is seen as a legitimate right.

In the West, arms control experts - as well as European governments - are convinced that Iran wants to pursue uranium enrichment at its underground facility at Natanz with the intention of keeping open the option of building a bomb. The difference between enriched uranium for a nuclear power plant and for a weapon lies in the level of enrichment. Fuel for a civilian reactor requires 2 to 3 per cent uranium-235, while a nuclear bomb needs 90 per cent or more, a range known as highly enriched uranium.

The Iranians will have mastered the technology that can allow its centrifuges to enrich uranium without exploding or breaking down in a matter of months, according to Western experts. When that happens, the world will be hurtling towards a nuclear nightmare. Israel's arch foe will have obtained a powerful tool with which to threaten its neighbours.

Estimates vary as to how long it would take Iran to reach the break-out capability. The generally cautious director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Mohamed ElBaradei, who is to visit Iran this week, believes that it could take up to two years for Natanz to be up and running. At that point, he says, an Iranian nuclear bomb could be "a few months away".

The estimate of the Egyptian IAEA chief echoes Israeli thinking. United States estimates range from five to 10 years for weapons-grade fuel to be successfully manufactured.

According to a study by the International Institute for Strategic Studies, with 1,000 working centrifuges at Natanz, it would take just over two years to produce enough highly enriched uranium for a bomb - without the IAEA safeguards which are currently in place. With 3,000 centrifuges, the number Iran has told the Europeans it wants to install at Natanz, it would take 271 days to produce the same amount of weapons-grade fuel. According to one expert, such a fuel cycle would be a clear indication that the Iranians are bent on building a bomb.

There are two ways of making a nuclear bomb: a relatively simple way which results in a plutonium bomb and a harder way using enriched uranium. But whichever route is followed, step one in making the fuel for a nuclear bomb - or a civilian reactor - is to mine uranium.

In step two, the uranium ore is ground into a powder and reconstituted into a solid known as yellowcake, which is radioactive. Step three involves the conversion of yellowcake into uranium hexafluoride gas.

In step four, the gas is fed into centrifuges, measuring one and a half metres tall, where the uranium enrichment takes place. This process increases the percentage of uranium-235 to the levels needed to be used as fuel in a civilian reactor, or a weapon, by separating the uranium isotopes in the rapidly spinning rotor tubes.
But there are well known problems with gas centrifuges. If they do not operate in a vacuum, rust and corrosion sets in. The spinning at enormous speeds can cause uncontrollable vibrations which can send shrapnel flying and cause explosions. The Iranians lost one third of their centrifuges when they agreed to halt uranium enrichment in November 2003 under an agreement with the European Union. That agreement was shattered last January when Iran reopened Natanz, where it tested an array of 20 centrifuges in vacuum conditions.

The method involving plutonium has a clear advantage because it needs much smaller quantities - 4kg rather than the 25kg of enriched uranium required to produce a bomb. Plutonium does not exist in a natural state, and is the product of reprocessed spent reactor fuel, after yellowcake has been reduced to uranium metal.

The extraction of plutonium is a serious engineering challenge as spent fuel is highly radioactive and toxic, and a very dangerous process.

The main worry for the West is that Iran has dabbled in all aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle, on both the enriched uranium route and the plutonium route.

It has a uranium mine, it has a conversion facility just outside the city of Isfahan, which was reopened last summer in violation of its agreement with the European Union, and it has the Natanz enrichment plant.

Although work has been suspended at Arak, 150 miles south of Tehran, Iran is in the early stages of constructing a heavy water plant that is to supply a research reactor which could eventually produce enough weapons-grade plutonium for one or two weapons per year.

Although nuclear experts say that the international community has been distracted by the crisis triggered over Iran's uranium enrichment programme, the plutonium experiments have the potential for creating a far more worrying situation. "With uranium, it's much easier to put in safeguards to monitor the atmosphere and instruments," said Paul Ingram, a senior analyst with the British American Security Information Council, which specialises in nuclear issues.

Nuclear reprocessing is more difficult for inspectors to verify, in terms of possible diversion for military purposes. And reprocessing can take place in a very small area. "It could be done in a plant the size of a house, in the middle of a mountain," if Iran decided to carry on with a clandestine programme, Mr Ingram said. "If the Iranians succeed in producing a heavy-water plant plus a reactor at Arak, then we are in a very difficult situation."

The Russians are helping Iran build a "safe" light-water reactor at Bushehr in the south of the country. Under an agreement with the Russians, the fuel rods for the reactor, which has not yet come on stream, are to come from Russia and will be sent back there for reprocessing to avoid any possible diversion.

The main nuclear powers, including Britain, followed the reprocessing route to build their modern arsenal. The US, in the early days, experimented with the fuel cycle of both enriched uranium and plutonium: the bomb that flattened Hiroshima in August 1945 was a uranium bomb, while the bomb that blasted Nagasaki three days later was plutonium.

Iraq went down the centrifuge route, although after 10 years of efforts, Saddam Hussein had still not produced a weapon when the UN inspectors belatedly discovered, and dismantled, its clandestine programme in the 1990s.

Pakistan also took the enrichment route, most probably because the father of the Muslim world's atom bomb, AQ Khan, worked in the 1970s for a Dutch uranium enrichment plant, Urenco, which supplied European reactors. He used a centrifuge design stolen from Urenco to build facilities in Pakistan for weapons-grade uranium.

So why did Iran decide to put its major effort into travelling along the bumpy road towards uranium enrichment?

In fact the Iranians were following both routes from the beginning. They bought their first nuclear reactor from the US, during the rule of the Shah. But the breakthrough came in the 1980s when Iran bought a blueprint for a P1 centrifuge from the AQ Khan network, which operated like a nuclear supermarket.

United Nations inspectors with the IAEA are still trying to unravel the history of Iran's nuclear know-how and have not proved without a doubt that the Iranians are working on a bomb.

Iran is meanwhile being asked by the UN Security Council to suspend all uranium enrichment work. Tehran has refused.

In the next few weeks, the West will have to decide what carrot, or what stick, to use next.

"In terms of strategy, the West needs to think more clearly about the need to work with the Iranians and the IAEA to keep the inspectors inside Iran. The key to all this is to ensure the IAEA is on the ground and with the Iranians co-operating," said Mr Ingram.
Also in this section

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/211...64F3E553E61.htm

Bush warned against attacking Iran
Monday 10 April 2006, 5:30 Makka Time, 2:30 GMT


George Bush is said to be getting ready to attack Iran

Critics of the Bush administration have expressed alarm over reports that the president is considering a military strike to knock out Iran's nuclear programme.

Anthony Zinni, a retired general and former head of US Central Command, told CNN on Sunday that a pre-emptive strike on Iran would be extremely risky

"Any military plan involving Iran is going to be very difficult. We should not fool ourselves to think it will just be a strike and then it will be over," said Zinni.

"The Iranians will retaliate, and they have many possibilities in an area where there are many vulnerabilities, from our troop positions to the oil and gas in the region that can be interrupted, to attacks on Israel, to the conduct of terrorism."

But he said he had no detailed knowledge of the alleged military plans.

Height of irresponsibility

John Kerry, a Democratic senator and former presidential contender, also assailed the White House for what he said was its over reliance on military might.

"The Iranians will retaliate, and they have many possibilities in an area where there are many vulnerabilities, from our troop positions to the oil and gas in the region that can be interrupted, to attacks on Israel, to the conduct of terrorism"

Anthony Zinni, former head of US Central Command

"That is another example of the shoot-from-the-hip, cowboy diplomacy of this administration.

"For us to think about exploding tactical nuclear weapons in some way is the height of irresponsibility. It would be destructive to any non-proliferation efforts and the military assessment is: It would not work," he told NBC television.

Both men made their remarks after the publication of two media reports this weekend that said George Bush, the US president, was seriously considering military action against Iran, including using nuclear weapons, amid a stalemate in diplomatic efforts.

Diplomatic priority

But the Bush administration said on Sunday that its priority was to seek a diplomatic solution to the dispute over Iran's nuclear ambitions.

A senior official labelled the reports "ill-informed", although he stopped short of an outright denial.

"The president's priority is to find a diplomatic solution to a problem the entire world recognises," the official said.

"And those who are drawing broad, definitive conclusions based on normal defence and intelligence planning are ill-informed and are not knowledgeable of the administration's thinking on Iran."

Jack Straw, the British foreign secretary, on Sunday rejected the idea that Washington could launch a military strike on Iran, saying it was "not on the agenda" and that any idea that Washington could use nuclear weapons against Iran was "completely nuts".

Explosive reports

Investigative journalist Seymour Hersh wrote in the New Yorker magazine that Washington was stepping up planning for a possible bombing campaign against Iran, despite publicly pushing for a negotiated settlement.

He said that one option being considered called for the use of nuclear "bunker-busting" bombs against Iranian targets. He also asserted that Washington already had advance forces on the ground in Iran.

The Washington Post and the Times of London, citing unnamed US officials and independent analysts, also reported that the administration was studying options for strikes against Iran.

Iran insists it wants nuclear technology only for power generation. Washington says Tehran is trying to build an atomic bomb and refuses to rule out military options to deal with what it says is one of the world's biggest threats.

Appeals by the US - already bogged down in Iraq - for sanctions on Iran have been frustrated by the reluctance of fellow UN Security Council veto-holders Russia and China to take such action.


Agencies

CSIS has just published a detailed study of US and other regional options on Iran in the event that diplomacy fails. This may be found at:
http://www.csis.org/media/csis/pubs/060407...nnucoptions.pdf

As always, this is a model of factual presentation. Just as equally, some may feel that it is another unhappy instance of how easily the Washington DC think-tank world slips into war-fighting mentality.

- Ahmadinejad Says Iran Won't Back Down 'One Iota'
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Ahmadineja...n_One_Iota.html

Tehran (AFP) Apr 11, 2006 - President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad vowed Monday he would not back down "one iota" over Iran's nuclear programme, again rejecting a UN Security Council demand for Tehran to freeze sensitive enrichment work.

- Bush Says Iran Attacks Reports 'Wild Speculation'
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Bush_Says_...peculation.html

- EU Mulls Iran Sanctions, Dismisses Military Option
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/EU_Mulls_I...ary_Option.html

DEBKAfile reports: Army chiefs and foreign ambassadors invited to hear Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s promised “good news” nuclear announcement due shortly

April 11, 2006, 6:17 PM (GMT+02:00)

Ex-president Rafsanjani cites an uranium enrichment breakthrough on an industrial scale. DEBKAfile reports the disclosure of success in uranium enrichment as an accomplished fact would be intended to force the International Atomic Energy Agency and the world to recognize that Iran has joined the international atomic energy club.

The announcement is embarrassingly due as five IAEA nuclear inspectors, who arrived last Friday, April 7, scour Iran for concealed enrichment sites. It is a slap in the face for the watchdog’s director Mohamed ElBaradei, 24 hours before his arrival in Tehran.

According to our Iranian sources, the word going round the majlis in Tehran is that the head of Iran’s nuclear energy agency Gholamreza Aghazadeh is about to deliver news of a “great achievement.” Some sources expect the achievement to consist of success in purifying uranium to 3.5%, which is still below the 8-9% level of nuclear fuel and far less than the 80% for weapons-grade fuel. Nonetheless, Iran’s ability to enrich sufficient uranium to fuel its reactors without having to rely on imports is a significant breakthrough which opens the way for improved results.

To preserve the secrecy of the enrichment site, the Iranians will no doubt claim that have achieved success in laboratory conditions.

The Iranian president’s announcement is a serious rebuff to the UN Security Council’s efforts to persuade Iran to give up its attempts to enrich uranium.

Copyright 2000-2006 DEBKAfile. All Rights Reserved.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/200...-iran-space.htm

Iran Joins the Space Club, but Why?
In-Depth Coverage By William J. Broad and David E. Sanger

The spacecraft is small by world standards — a microsatellite of a few hundred pounds. Launched in October by the Russians for an oil-rich client, it orbits the earth once every 99 minutes and reportedly has a camera for peering down on large swaths of land.

But what makes this satellite particularly interesting is not its capabilities, which are rudimentary, but its owner: Iran. With last year's launching and another planned in the next few weeks, Tehran has become the newest member of the international space club.

The question now asked in Washington and other capitals is whether Iran's efforts are simply part of its drive to expand its technical prowess or an attempt to add another building block to its nuclear program. In that sense, it is the newest piece of the Iranian atomic puzzle.

To some government analysts and other experts in the West, Iran's space debut is potentially worrisome. While world attention has focused on whether Iran is clandestinely seeking nuclear arms, these analysts say the launchings mark a new stage in its growing efforts to master a range of sophisticated technologies, including rockets and satellites. The concern is that Tehran could one day turn such advances to atomic ends.

"It may appear tempting to dismiss Iranian efforts" as relatively crude, said Dr. John B. Sheldon, an analyst at the Center for Defense and International Security Studies in Britain who recently wrote a report on Tehran's space program. "But Iran has already demonstrated a persistence and patience that would indicate it is prepared to play a long game in order to achieve its ambitions."

Iran has publicly rejected the goal of developing unconventional arms. It says its space and rocket efforts are either entirely peaceful, aimed at improving the state's telecommunications and monitoring natural disasters (strong earthquakes shook Iran on Friday), or are military efforts meant to enhance its defenses with conventional weapons.

But some Western analysts note that such technologies can also have atomic roles and that a crucial element of a credible nuclear arsenal is the ability to launch a missile accurately and guide a warhead to its target. While Iran now depends on Russia to launch its satellites into orbit, it has vowed to do so itself, and is developing a family of increasingly large rockets. In theory, the biggest could hurl not only satellites into space but warheads between continents.

"The real issue is that they have a very large booster under development," said Dr. Anthony H. Cordesman, a military analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington who wrote a recent report on Iran's nuclear effort.

He said Tehran's bid to develop new rocket and space technologies might be nothing more at this point than its exploring of technological options, at times quite modestly, as in its recent effort to loft experimental satellites.

"That doesn't mean the potential should be minimized," Dr. Cordesman said. "We know these states can achieve technical surprise." On Sunday, Iran said it test-fired a fast underwater missile that could evade sonar and on Friday announced that it had launched a new rocket that can carry multiple warheads and elude radar. The military actions, accompanied by film clips on state television during a week of naval maneuvers, seemed calculated to defy growing pressure on Tehran.

So far, American officials say they have not protested Iran's space program. Intelligence agencies reviewed information about the satellite launching last fall, but concluded that it warranted no action. Nor has the United States urged Russia — a key player in the current negotiations with Iran over its efforts to enrich uranium — to halt the launchings.

But a senior American official who spoke anonymously because he was unauthorized to address the topic publicly said the United States was "taking another look" at pressing Moscow to end the space assistance as a way of pressuring Iran to stop the enrichment of nuclear material.

Analysts across the political spectrum seem to agree that the Iranian missile and satellite programs bear watching, even if judged as presenting no current threat to the United States.

"It's clearly interesting to see what direction they're going," said David C. Wright, a space analyst at the Union of Concerned Scientists, a policy research group in Cambridge, Mass.

The United Nations Security Council is now debating possible sanctions against Iran because many states worry that Tehran's atomic push conceals a clandestine effort to acquire an atom bomb. American intelligence agencies estimate that it is 5 to 10 years away from having enough material for a nuclear weapon.

John D. Negroponte, the director of national intelligence, recently called the danger that Tehran "will acquire a nuclear weapon and the ability to integrate it with ballistic missiles Iran already possesses" a cause "for immediate concern."

Iran has missiles that can reach about 1,000 miles, or as far away as Israel and, as Mr. Negroponte put it, has "the largest inventory of ballistic missiles in the Middle East." American intelligence officials estimate that it might field an intercontinental missile by 2015, but such forecasts are always rough approximations.

Scores of nations have satellites, including Algeria, Greece, Spain and Tonga. But only a dozen or so have rockets big and powerful enough to put satellites into orbit. In the Middle East, only Israel can now do so.

Tehran's effort to build a fleet of rockets, and to buy and make satellites, has received technical help from not only Russia but China, India, Italy and North Korea.

Its effort began during the war between Iran and Iraq, from 1980 to 1988, when Baghdad fired many rockets and Tehran worked hard to respond in kind. A recent report by the International Institute for Strategic Studies, a respected arms analysis group in London, sketched the Islamic state's progress.

At first, Iran bought Russian Scud missiles and then learned how to make them on its own, calling them Shahab-1, Persian for shooting star. The missiles, 36 feet tall, can throw one-ton warheads roughly 200 miles. By 1991, Iran learned how to extend their range to about 300 miles, naming the new weapon Shahab-2.

Iran fired waves of these missiles in 1994, 1999 and 2001 at the armed camps of the National Liberation Army of Iran, a dissident force based in Iraq committed to overthrowing the Islamic regime in Tehran.

During that period, Iran also sought to develop a new, more powerful family of missiles, Shahab-3. Based on a North Korean model, they stand 56 feet tall.

In recent military parades, Iran has draped them with banners reading, "We will crush America" and "Wipe Israel off the map."

Iran cloaks its advanced rocket work in as much secrecy as possible, making it hard for Western analysts to discern the details. But they say many signs and declarations indicate that Tehran is working hard on missiles powerful enough to launch satellites into space or warheads between continents.

Charles P. Vick, an expert on the Iranian rocket program at GlobalSecurity.org, a research group in Alexandria, Va., said one strategy was apparently to stack a Shahab-1 or Shahab-2 atop a Shahab-3, making a tall missile with two stages. It might have a range of nearly 2,000 miles. Other variants, Mr. Vick said, would go further.

Dr. Cordesman and Khalid R. al-Rodhan of the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington said in a recent report that advanced models, if perfected, would "enable Iran to target the U.S. Eastern Seaboard."

Tehran has been more open about its satellite program, making many claims over the years but to date managing only baby steps. All the while, Iranian scientists have hailed the potential benefits of participating in the space age.

In a conference presentation, S. Mostafa Safavi of Amirkabir University of Technology in Tehran discussed the value of earth-observation satellites for tracking floods, fighting fires, gauging earthquake damage, finding evacuation routes and identifying high-risk areas.

He also praised reconnaissance satellites, able to peer down on the planet's surface with more powerful cameras, for their ability "to identify smaller features of military interest." For instance, Mr. Safavi noted their capacity to track "departing and arriving vessels at commercial and military ports," calling such observations "an important factor in intelligence surveillance."

In April 2003, the Iran Space Agency (www.isa.ir/en/rs) was founded to coordinate and publicize the nation's space efforts. The agency held meetings that drew experts from around the world, its agenda often centering on the use of space cameras to aid land planning and to manage natural catastrophes.

In May 2004, for instance, the agency sponsored a regional workshop in Tehran entitled: "Space Technology for Environmental Security, Disaster Rehabilitation and Sustainable Development."

Hassan Shafti, the agency's president, opened the session with remarks "in the name of God, the Compassionate and the Merciful," according to a transcript. He said the wise application of space technology would raise the quality of life, adding that his agency would play "an important role" in the design, manufacture and launching of Iranian and regional satellites.

But it turned out that a Russian company in the Siberian city of Omsk built Iran's first satellite, Sina-1, named after a Persian philosopher. And the Russian military launched the spacecraft from a remote base in the wilds of northern Russia.

A day earlier, Iran's president declared that Israel "must be wiped off the map," producing global shockwaves that overshadowed the space debut.

Jonathan McDowell, a Harvard astronomer who publishes Jonathan's Space Report and tracks the Iranian program, said information about the satellite's mission came out slowly, with few details. "It's not clear how much of that is because of military involvement," he said, "or how much is because they don't know how to do public relations."

A month after the satellite's launching, Ahmad Talebzadeh, director of the Iran Space Agency, said Sina-1 could be used to spy on Israel but added that the wide availability of commercial satellite photos made such espionage unnecessary.

Dr. McDowell of Harvard said commercial imagery was often too old and imprecise for spying and setting military targets. "You want to check if the tanks or facilities have moved," he said. "You want to see with your own eyes."

It is unclear if and when Iran might acquire a satellite powerful enough to do such military reconnaissance, which can also give early warning of surprise attack. Experts say Sina-1 is too basic for anything more than general observations.

Dr. Sheldon of the Center for Defense and International Security Studies, a private group at Henley-on-Thames in England, said his own analysis suggested that Sina-1 was probably meant for telecommunications, not earth observations.

Iranian officials say that by 2010 they hope to have roughly a half-dozen satellites in orbit, including a large $132 million one known as Zohreh, or Venus. To be made and launched by Russia, the telecommunications craft is to relay data, audio and television signals.

Yiftah S. Shapir, a space analyst at the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies at Tel Aviv University, questioned Iran's ability to achieve its ambitious goals. "Iran is motivated," he said in a recent report, adding, however, that "the engine is stalled, and important projects are being delayed."

He laid such failures "to the government's inherent inability to coordinate government agencies, resolve conflicting demands and mobilize the required resources."

Mr. Vick of GlobalSecurity.org said Iran has long discussed building a tiny satellite on its own and launching it atop one of its own rockets. In theory, he said, it might fly into orbit atop a Shahab-4 or similar Iranian vehicle.

But Mr. Vick said the Iranians had given no clear indication of when they may attempt that milestone. "It's gone backwards and forwards several times, and left a lot of us wondering what is real and what isn't," he said in an interview. "For now, they're trying to absorb the technology to do this on their own."

Dr. Sheldon of the Center for Defense and International Security Studies predicted that Iran would one day master the fundamentals in regard to its nuclear, ballistic missile and space efforts but made no guess as to whether such accomplishments would take years or decades.

"The Iranians," he said, "are prepared to play a long game."

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/200...unning-iran.htm

Focus: Gunning for Iran
Against the odds, America is said to be planning a military strike on Iran. Sarah Baxter reports from Washington
In-Depth Coverage

It is seven o’clock in the morning eastern standard time when the news comes through to Americans at their breakfast tables. President George W Bush will shortly be addressing the nation live from the Oval Office. Moments later he is on air, announcing in a sombre drawl that Iran’s nuclear sites have been struck during the night by American bombers.

“You can see the shape of the speech the president will give,” said Richard Perle, a leading American neo-conservative. “He will cite the Iranians’ past pattern of deception, their support for terrorism and the unacceptable menace the nation would present if it had nuclear weapons.

“The attack would be over before anybody knew what had happened. The only question would be what the Iranians might do in retaliation.”

Sounds far-fetched? Think again. The unthinkable, or what Jack Straw, the foreign secretary, described only a few weeks ago as “inconceivable”, is now being actively planned in the Pentagon.

White House insiders say that Bush and Dick Cheney, his hawkish vice-president, have made up their minds to resolve the Iranian crisis before they leave office in three years’ time.

They say that military intervention — in the form of a massive strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities — is being planned and that Bush is prepared to order the raid unless Iran scraps its nuclear programme.

“This White House believes that the only way to solve the problem is to change the power structure in Iran, and that means war,” a senior unnamed Pentagon adviser is quoted as saying in an article by Seymour Hersh, the respected American investigative journalist, in tomorrow’s New Yorker magazine.

The Sunday Times was last week given the same message. A senior White House source said Bush and Cheney were determined not to bequeath the problem of a nuclear Iran to their successors. “It’s not in their nature,” he said.

White House insiders scoff that Bill Clinton left Al-Qaeda unchecked. A nuclear-armed Iran, they believe, is too dangerous to be left to a potential Democrat president.

One date is said to be etched in the minds of military planners: 2008. Word has gone out that the Iranian nuclear crisis must be resolved by then or the regime of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, with its Israel-baiting rhetoric, will face military consequences.

Hersh reports that one option involves the use of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon, such as the B61-11, to ensure the destruction of Iran’s main centrifuge plant at Natanz.

The Sunday Times understands that a strike with a conventional weapon is much more likely. By 2008 a new bunker-busting missile called the Big Blu should be available to the US air force. The 30,000lb behemoth is being designed for dispatch by the B-series stealth bombers and can penetrate 100ft under the ground before exploding.

Trident ballistic missiles, newly converted to carry conventional warheads, may also be on hand by 2008, providing Bush with further options.

What is going on at the White House? Is Bush really contemplating a strike against Iran or might his officials simply be talking up the possibility to strengthen their negotiating hand with Iran? If military action were to be launched, what would be the consequences for America, the Middle East and Britain?

UNTIL Ahmadinejad won the Iranian presidency on a tide of popular support that caught the West by surprise last June, Iran had been seen by many commentators as being on the mend.

American neo-cons had hoped the invasion of Iraq would set in train a domino effect across the region, with the people of Iran and other oil-rich states rising up to demand western-style freedoms and democracy.

Unfortunately the reverse has been true, in Iran at least. Since taking power, Ahmadinejad has openly embraced a tide of nationalism and anti-Israeli and American sentiment.

The rhetoric has been matched with action. He has restarted Iran’s nuclear enrichment programme, placing the country in breach of its international obligations and on a collision course with the West.

Seemingly emboldened by America’s problems in Iraq, last week Ahmadinejad continued his baiting of the West by staging ostentatious war games in the Gulf.

The hardware on display — flashy missiles, torpedoes and rockets — may be no match for US weaponry, but it served as a warning of the disruption that the regime could cause to the global economy by blocking the Straits of Hormuz, the corridor through which much of the Middle East’s oil flows.

“The importance of the ‘Great Prophet’ manoeuvre lies in the time and geographical place as well as the arms used,” General Yahya Rahim Safavi, head of Iran’s elite Revolutionary Guards, said pointedly.

Revelling in the international spotlight and apparently oblivious to his growing pariah status, Ahmadinejad will this week up the anti by hosting an international conference focused on Palestine and “the Holocaust myth”.

IT IS against this backdrop and in the context of the race to find a diplomatic solution at the United Nations that the White House is briefing on military action against Iran.

Some observers will interpret it as more posturing than reality.

Nevertheless, the US administration is nothing if not tenacious and there was a growing feeling in Washington last week that Bush really has put a military option on the table. While the British and Europeans are still placing faith in diplomacy, the Americans are actively preparing for the worst case scenario, it is said.

Furthermore, while it is true that setbacks in Iraq have diminished American enthusiasm for military intervention, it would be a mistake to conclude that the American public, with its horror of the ayatollahs and memory of the 1979 embassy siege in Tehran, would not stomach a strike, Bush officials believe.

“The American people are not looking for new fights but they understand the nature of the Iranian threat very clearly,” said a senior American defence official. “I don’t see anyone out there saying, ‘Oh, we have to be nice to Iran’.”

Senior military planners at the Pentagon met recently to assess such an attack’s chances of success. They told the White House that they had yet to map all of Iran’s nuclear enrichment sites and that several were buried under deep granite mountains. A strike now could set the mullahs’ programme back only a couple of years at most.

Fast-forward to 2008 and the picture changes. By then more intelligence will have been gathered on the location of sites. And, crucially, Big Blu should be ready.

The damage, if not total, say experts, would be considerable. “The Iranians need 100% of their programme to build nuclear bombs,” the American defence analyst John Pike, of globalsecurity.org, pointed out. “We don’t have to destroy 100% of their facilities to deny the ayatollahs a nuclear capability.”

Edward Luttwak, a Pentagon adviser and expert on military strategy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, is a leading advocate of the theory that Iran’s nuclear installations could be bombed “in a single night”.

Inside the Pentagon, top officials have been citing Luttwak’s views. Air strikes by a handful of B2 bombers, flying out of the British dependency of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, would be enough to demolish the most critical Iranian nuclear sites such as Natanz, Arak and Isfahan.

“You don’t need to solve the problem of Iran, you just need to delay the mullahs for a few years, expose their vainglory and hope that the Iranians, most of whom hate this regime, will get rid of them,” Luttwak said.

It is a tempting prospect for Bush, who is determined to leave his mark on history as a “consequential president”, as Karl Rove, his adviser and guru, once put it. However, there is considerable nervousness among administration officials about the Iranians’ potential reaction.

“We’re in a state of flux about military action,” said a White House insider. “We can bomb the sites, but what then?” Will America hold its nerve if events take a sharp turn for the worse?

IF attacked, there is no doubt that Iran could unleash a wave of terrorism in the West and Israel and destabilise its all-too-fragile Iraqi neighbour. An attack would almost certainly also encourage Iranians to rally behind Ahmadinejad.

Luttwak admits that it would be disastrous if military action were to alienate pro-western Iranians, whom he regards as America’s “once and future allies” in the Middle East.

It is a view shared by many neo-conservatives, including Perle, who would prefer to see internal regime change in Iran rather than bombs raining down.

To this end the State Department has been awarded $75m to promote democracy in Iran. “It’s a safe bet the CIA has been given a budget 10 times that size,” observed Pike.

Last week there were reports that British ministers were to hold secret talks with defence chiefs to consider the consequences of a possible American-led attack on Iran.

The report was denied by Downing Street but there can be little doubt that the apparent change in American thinking must now be occupying minds throughout Whitehall.

Until recently it was assumed that any strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities would be left to the Israelis, who are the most interested party. That, say American defence sources, has changed on the grounds that only the US has the weaponry to perform the job in one night — presenting the world with a fait accompli.

More worrying for Labour perhaps is that under the American plans Britain would be expected to play a supporting role, perhaps by sending surveillance aircraft or ships and submarines to the Gulf or by allowing the Americans to fly from Diego Garcia.

Will Tony Blair still be in Downing Street by 2008 and, if not, would Gordon Brown as prime minister be willing to play ball on yet another military adventure in the Middle East? As public opinion stands, such a move could spell political suicide.

Larry Wilkerson, Colin Powell’s former chief of staff, believes Bush is compounding the mistakes he made in the run-up to the war in Iraq. “If you get to the point where you have to use your military, you’ll want everybody on board with you and we haven’t even tried,” he said.

Such considerations have failed to sway Bush and Cheney before. If their approval ratings remain in the doldrums, there may be an upside to a strike on Iran. “Regardless of how bad Bush’s poll numbers are, Americans love a display of firepower,” said Pike.





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


© Copyright 2006, Times Newspapers Ltd.

http://today.reuters.com/news/NewsArticle....CENTRIFUGES.xml

Rafsanjani says Iran producing atomic fuel
Tue Apr 11, 2006 12:15 PM ET



By Christian Oliver

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran is producing enriched uranium from 164 centrifuges, influential former Iranian President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani said on Tuesday, a major step toward its goal of making nuclear fuel for power stations.

Rafsanjani's comments to Kuwait's KUNA new agency came ahead of a planned announcement by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad about progress in Iran's nuclear program, which media had speculated would be to say that Iran had produced low-grade uranium.

The announcement is a serious setback to U.N. Security Council efforts to have Iran halt enrichment work. It could escalate a confrontation with Western powers leading to consideration of sanctions against the Islamic Republic.

The West fears Iran is using its power station program as a smokescreen to build atomic bombs, a charge Tehran denies.

"We operated the first unit which comprises of 164 centrifuges, gas was injected, and we got the industrial output," Rafsanjani said in his interview with KUNA.

"There needs to be an expansion of operations if we are to have a complete industrial unit; tens of units are required to set up a uranium enrichment plant," said Rafsanjani, who was Ahmadinejad's rival in last year's presidential race.

Ahmadinejad had said he would announce "good news" on atomic progress on Tuesday night, but had not given details.

Rafsanjani's announcement may have been aimed at trumping his rival and taking credit for progress in the nuclear program, which has broad support in Iran, analysts said.

"They are competing with each other for who will be the first person," political analyst Saeed Laylaz said.

The United Nations Security Council has demanded Iran shelve enrichment activity and on March 29 asked the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to report on its compliance in 30 days.

IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei is expected to visit Iran later this week to seek full Iranian cooperation with the Council and IAEA inquiries. The announcement of advances in enrichment work by Iran will cast an embarrassing cloud over ElBaradei's trip.

Iran was referred by the IAEA to the Council in February for failing to convince much of the international community that its nuclear work aims to generate only electricity, not weaponry, and will not pose a threat to international peace and security.

Reflecting anxiety about the nuclear dispute, investors shifted into the safe-haven Swiss franc after Rafsanjani made his comments, traders said. The nuclear dispute has also been a factor helping to push up oil prices to record levels.

'LOGICAL EXTENT OF PROGRESS'

Two weeks ago IAEA diplomats said Iran had set up a "cascade" of 164 centrifuges at its Natanz plant but no uranium hexafluoride gas (UF6), the feedstock for enriched fuel, had yet been fed into them. It had tested 20 centrifuges, they added.

Iranian nuclear officials have previously said purifying uranium to 3.5 percent -- the level needed for fuel for power stations -- would require the operation of 164 centrifuges, which spin it at supersonic speeds to heighten the concentration of its most radioactive isotope, U-235.

The level of enrichment needed to trigger the nuclear chain reaction that detonates bombs is far higher, around 90 percent. But even word that low-level enrichment is under way will be unacceptable to Western powers, diplomats say.

Iran has only one nuclear power plant under construction but plans to build more and says it wants to make its own fuel.

"It may be that they have begun feeding the 164. That might be the logical extent of progress since late March. It wouldn't be surprising," a European Union diplomat accredited to the IAEA said when asked about Ahmadinejad's teaser.

"164 centrifuges is still well short of producing enriched uranium in significant quantity over a sustained period. But the more they do it, the more they learn the technology. So any form of enrichment is a red line for us," the diplomat said.

A special team of IAEA inspectors went to Iran on Friday to gather fresh information at nuclear sites for ElBaradei's pending report to the Security Council. IAEA officials have declined to divulge any findings so far.

It would take Iran years to yield enough highly enriched uranium for one bomb with such a small cascade. But Iran has told the IAEA it will start installing 3,000 centrifuges later this year, enough to produce material for a warhead in a year.

Washington has said repeatedly it wants to resolve the nuclear standoff by diplomatic means. But analysts say advances in uranium enrichment technology by Iran may be the tripwire for the United States or Israel to take military action.

President George W. Bush on Monday dismissed reports of plans for military strikes on Iran as "wild speculation".



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

© Reuters 2006. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content, including by caching, framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters and the Reuters sphere logo are registered trademarks and trademarks of the Reuters group of companies around the world.

Iran joins nuclear club Yahoo! NEWS
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Tuesday
Iran had joined the group of countries possessing nuclear technology and was determined to achieve industrial-scale uranium enrichment. The United States said Iran was "moving in the wrong direction" with its nuclear program and if it persisted, the United States would discuss possible next steps with the U.N. Security Council. "I am officially announcing that Iran has joined the group of those countries which have nuclear technology. This is the result of the Iranian nation's resistance," Ahmadinejad said in a televised address from the northeastern city of Mashhad. "Based on international regulations, we will continue our path until we achieve production of industrial-scale enrichment," he said, adding that the West must respect Iran's right to peaceful atomic technology. White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Washington would "be talking about the way forward with the other members of the Security Council and Germany about how to address this" if Iran continued to move in its current direction. The United States says Iran's nuclear program is a cover for developing nuclear weapons, while Tehran insists it is for civilian purposes to generate electricity. The head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization said earlier that Iran had enriched uranium to a level used in nuclear power plants. "I am proud to announce that we have started enriching uranium to the 3.5 percent level," Gholamreza Aghazadeh said, adding that the pilot enrichment plant in Natanz, south of Tehran, had started working on Monday. Influential former Iranian President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani said earlier on Tuesday that Iran was producing enriched uranium from a cascade of 164 centrifuges. Iran's announcement is a serious setback to U.N. Security Council efforts to have Tehran halt enrichment work. It could escalate a confrontation with Western powers leading to consideration of sanctions against the Islamic Republic. "We operated the first unit which comprises of 164 centrifuges, gas was injected, and we got the industrial output," Rafsanjani said in an interview with the Kuwaiti news agency KUNA. "There needs to be an expansion of operations if we are to have a complete industrial unit; tens of units are required to set up a uranium enrichment plant," said Rafsanjani, who was Ahmadinejad's rival in last year's presidential race. Rafsanjani's announcement may have been aimed at trumping his rival and taking credit for progress in the nuclear program, which has broad support in Iran, analysts said. "They are competing with each other for who will be the first person," political analyst Saeed Laylaz said. The U.N. Security Council has demanded Iran shelve enrichment activity and on March 29 asked the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to report on its compliance in 30 days. An IAEA spokesman declined comment on Iran's announcement and said no official agency reaction was likely for the time being. IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei is expected to visit Iran later this week to seek full Iranian cooperation with the Council and IAEA inquiries. The announcement of advances in enrichment work by Iran will cast an embarrassing cloud over ElBaradei's trip. Iran was referred by the IAEA to the Council in February for failing to convince much of the international community that its nuclear work aims to generate only electricity, not weaponry, and will not pose a threat to international peace and security. Reflecting anxiety about the nuclear dispute, investors shifted into the safe-haven Swiss franc after Rafsanjani made his comments, traders said. The nuclear dispute has also been a factor helping to push up oil prices to record levels.

'LOGICAL EXTENT OF PROGRESS'
Two weeks ago IAEA diplomats said Iran had set up a "cascade" of 164 centrifuges at its Natanz plant but no uranium hexafluoride gas (UF6), the feedstock for enriched fuel, had yet been fed into them. It had tested 20 centrifuges, they added. Iranian nuclear officials have previously said purifying uranium to 3.5 percent -- the level needed for fuel for power stations -- would require the operation of 164 centrifuges, which spin it at supersonic speeds to heighten the concentration of its most radioactive isotope, U-235. The level of enrichment needed to trigger the nuclear chain reaction that detonates bombs is far higher, around 90 percent. But even word that low-level enrichment is under way will be unacceptable to Western powers, diplomats say. Iran has only one nuclear power plant under construction but plans to build more and says it wants to make its own fuel. "It may be that they have begun feeding the 164. That might be the logical extent of progress since late March. It wouldn't be surprising," a European Union diplomat accredited to the IAEA said when asked about Ahmadinejad's teaser. "164 centrifuges is still well short of producing enriched uranium in a significant quantity over a sustained period. But the more they do it, the more they learn the technology. So any form of enrichment is a red line for us," the diplomat said. It would take Iran years to yield enough highly enriched uranium for one bomb with such a small cascade. But Iran has told the IAEA it will start installing 3,000 centrifuges later this year, enough to produce material for a warhead in a year. Washington has said repeatedly it wants to resolve the nuclear stand-off by diplomatic means. But analysts say advances in uranium enrichment technology by Iran may be the tripwire for the United States or Israel to take military action. President George W. Bush on Monday dismissed reports of plans for military strikes on Iran as "wild speculation."
By Christian Oliver

Iran joins world nuclear technology club:

The president said that Iran has completed production of the nuclear fuel cycle on laboratory scale and produced enriched uranium with the purity needed for a nuclear power station on April 9, this year.
http://www.irna.ir/en/news/view/menu-234/0...11207213242.htm

===
Iran 'has joined nuclear club' :

The White House has labelled Iran's declaration that it has joined the club of nuclear countries as "moving in the wrong direction" and threatened UN talks.
http://www.channel4.com/news/content/news-...e.jsp?id=808714

===
Iran Has Produced 110 Tons Uranium Gas-Iran Nuclear Head :

Iran's nuclear chief, Vice President Gholamreza Aghazadeh, said Tuesday Iran has produced 110 metric tons of uranium gas, the feedstock for enrichment.
http://tinyurl.com/lbsn9

===
Iran's nuclear power will serve Gulf region -- president says:

Iran is the eighth state in the world to acquire the technology for enriching low-grade uranium, he said, adding that the his country has the technology to enrich uranium at a 3.5 percent proportion.
http://www.kuna.net.kw/Home/Story.aspx?Lan...=en&DSNO=850413

===
Going nuclear :

No one need be surprised that when the Pentagon looked at military ways of dealing with Iran one idea it considered was a tactical nuclear attack. The surprise, according to the New Yorker magazine's veteran investigative reporter Seymour Hersh, is that when the US joint chiefs of staff later sought to cross it off their list the White House insisted on keeping it there.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/leaders/story/0,,1751128,00.html

===
Countdown to U.S.-Iran War Has Begun:

Presence of U.S. bombers in England seen as advance signals
http://english.ohmynews.com/ArticleView/ar...284740&rel_no=1

===
Bush prepares unmanned attack over nukes:

THE Pentagon has secret plans for a "remote control" blitz on Iran if it does not comply with demands to curb its nuclear programme.
http://tinyurl.com/qxyr6

===
Israel won’t allow Iranian nuclear capability – Olmert:

Asked whether Tel Aviv is considering the use of military force for stopping Tehran’s development of nuclear warheads, he said, Israel would not wait until Iran develops nuclear weapons that might be used against it.
http://www.itar-tass.com/eng/level2.html?N...94480&PageNum=0

===
Iran Switch to Euros? Inconsequential!:

There are warnings that the US military will attack Iran, not so much because of its development of missiles and nuclear weapons, but because a switch to the euro would somehow cause a major fall of the US dollar.
http://www.progress.org/2006/fold450.htm

===
Will the US attack Iran?....yes, it will sooner than later: :

It is irrelevant what Iran is trying to do...whether it is trying to develop nuclear weapons or if it is planning to open a new bourse to sell oil in euros which would undermine the dollar.
http://informationclearinghouse.info/article12683.htm

===
Paul Krugman : Yes He Would :

"But he wouldn't do that." That sentiment is what made it possible for President Bush to stampede America into the Iraq war and to fend off hard questions about the reasons for that war until after the 2004 election. Many people just didn't want to believe that an American president would deliberately mislead the nation on matters of war and peace.
http://informationclearinghouse.info/article12690.htm

===
Riyadh seeks Russian help to prevent US strike on Iran:

Saudi Arabia, fearing that US military action against Iran would wreak further havoc in the region, has asked Russia to block any bid by Washington to secure UN cover for an attack, a Russian diplomat said on Tuesday.
http://tinyurl.com/gdcpq

- Iran Says Ready To Sign Non-Aggression Pact With Region
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Iran_Says_...ith_Region.html

Tehran (AFP) Apr 12, 2006 - Iran is ready to sign non-aggression pacts with countries in the region, the Islamic republic's defence minister was quoted as saying Tuesday. The comment came less than a week after military exercises were held to trumpet the Islamic republic's "homegrown" military achievements.

- Rumsfeld Says Talk Of US Military Strikes On Iran Are "Fantasyland"
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Rumsfeld_S...antasyland.html

- US Air Chief Says Iran Nuke Option Not Under Debate
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/US_Air_Chi...der_Debate.html

- Iran 'Moving In The Wrong Direction' In Enriching Uranium
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Iran_Movin...ng_Uranium.html

-----------

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HD12Ak02.html
Iran flirts with confrontation
By Michael A Weinstein

Tensions between Iran and the United States have heated up to the point that some analysts, particularly in the Arab world, surmise that the struggle between the Iraqi transitional government and the Shi'ite resistance led by Muqtada al-Sadr is in essence a proxy war between Iran and the US.

Iran has been the instigator of much of the present surge in tensions over its nuclear program, taking advantage of the military and diplomatic vulnerabilities of the US that were revealed by Washington's campaign for regime change in Iraq.

Despite deep internal divisions in Iran over the vision of its future (Western or Islamic), all of its significant political forces are



nationalist, uniting on the premise that any foreign attempts to change the Iranian regime and forfeit the revolution of 1979 (however its meaning is interpreted) are unwelcome, indeed intolerable, and are to be firmly resisted.

Political forces in Iran are also at one in the belief that the country should pursue a policy of enhancing its military machine to make it an effective deterrent against external attack, and expanding its influence as a regional power in all directions. Tehran's bid to alter the regional balance of power in its favor is evidenced by its increasing defiance of international controls over its nuclear program and its financial and probable military support of a wide spectrum of Shi'ite movements and factions in southern Iraq.

Iran's actions have sparked a strong reaction from the US, which has made it clear that it will not tolerate a nuclear-armed Iran. The threat has been answered with the comment that there were established political circles in Iran recommending preemptive military "replies" against any entity that "decides to inflict harm" on the country.

Despite the bellicose rhetoric from both sides, there is no direct war between the two adversaries in the immediate works. The rhetoric is an indicator of Iran's push for power and America's attempts to resist that push. (Several reports published over the weekend said that the Bush administration was studying options for military strikes against Iran, and an article in The New Yorker magazine by Seymour Hersh suggested the possibility of the US using nuclear bombs against Iran's underground nuclear sites.)

Iran's strategic scenarios
That Iran is the protagonist and the US the antagonist in the current tensions means that the Iranian regime senses the opportunity to enhance its power position. Several strategic scenarios dominate Iranian thinking, reflecting the possibilities that policymakers perceive in the current situation.

The best-case scenario for Iran is that the US military is forced to withdraw from Iraq, leaving Iran with a sphere of influence over a Shi'ite-dominated Iraq or a breakaway Shi'ite mini-state in the south, and that Iran is able to achieve nuclear-weapons capability. Were this outcome to occur, Iran would be the dominant power in the Persian Gulf region, displacing the United States.

The worst-case scenario is that the United States or Israel launches a preemptive strike on Iran's nuclear complex, possibly associated with US military efforts at regime change.

In between the two extreme cases is a gamut of more realistic scenarios. On the favorable side, Iran would exhaust the US in southern Iraq through its support of resistance and would drag out negotiations on its nuclear program by exploiting divisions among external powers working through international agencies. On the unfavorable side, Iran would be excluded from influence in Iraq by a US-oriented regime, would suffer economic sanctions for failing to submit its nuclear program to international supervision or would feel constrained to give up that program, and would be diplomatically isolated.

The recent assertive behavior of Iran suggests that it is determined to resist any concessions on its perceived vital interests, risking the worst-case and other unfavorable scenarios to realize as many of its ambitions as possible.

Iran's strategic situation
The scenarios projected by Iranian policymakers are relative to Iran's strategic situation. That situation is marked by threats to and opportunities for Iran's vital interests, giving rise to the range of possibilities from best-case to worst-case scenarios. In seeking to ward off threats and exploit opportunities, policymakers are constrained to play a hand that has assets and liabilities.

Liabilities: The most important obstacle to Iran's drive for regional power is the presence of US ground forces in its eastern neighbor Afghanistan and its western neighbor Iraq, and US naval and air forces in the Persian Gulf. Iran is partially encircled by the US, whose explicit best-case scenario is Iranian regime change. The immediate proximity of US military forces results in a bias among policymakers toward building up military security above any other priority.

Iran's nuclear program, which it insists is only for peaceful purposes but is likely for weapons capability, is only one part of an ongoing program for military self-dependence in the face of sanctions. Iran recently tested advanced torpedoes and missiles as part of week-long war games in the Persian Gulf. It has also successfully tested a new version of its Shahab-3 missile with a range of 1,300 kilometers and a capability of striking Israel. Iran also produces tanks, armored personnel carriers and a fighter plane.

Yet Iran would still be no match for a full-scale US attack - its only effective deterrent would be nuclear weapons. Iranian policymakers are aware that the US threat is ever present, even if it has receded for the moment.

Iran also faces a military threat from Israel, which might launch a preemptive strike against Iran's Bushehr reactor and is reportedly working with Iraqi Kurds to destabilize the Iranian regime. Iran has recently threatened to bomb Israel's nuclear complex at Dimona if Israel attacks Bushehr. As the country that feels most threatened by Iran, Israel has a vital interest in eliminating Iran's nuclear program or at least setting it back seriously. Iranian policymakers can do very little about the Israeli threat and have begun a program to install technologies and procedures to minimize the effects of the release of radiation that would follow a successful strike on Bushehr.

Iranian ambitions to create a sphere of influence in Iraq are checked not only by the US military presence, but also by divisions in Iraq's Shi'ite population and leadership. At present, they are not seeking Iranian protection, although they are willing to accept Iranian aid.

Internally, Iran is socially divided by the familiar split between Westernizers and traditionalists that has marked countries on the borders of the West, such as Russia and Turkey. In Iran's complex post-revolutionary political institutions, the executive is currently controlled by the reformists, and the parliament, judiciary and supreme religious authorities by the theocrats.

Outside the state institutions, the increasingly youthful population generally favors a loosening of theocratic rule and a more Western lifestyle. With the successful suppression of reformists in the last parliamentary elections, the theocrats have engineered a short-term victory at the cost of intensifying social polarization.

Washington's strategy toward Iran makes the division between Westernizers and traditionalists the centerpiece of plans for regime change. Iranian exile groups and US neo-conservatives argue that an aggressive policy of weakening the Iranian regime, if not an invasion of the country, would unleash the forces of Westernization and bring Iran into the circle of US-led, capitalist globalization.

Iranian policymakers, increasingly dominated by the traditionalists, have responded to the social and political divide by appealing to the need to defend the country's integrity above any other interest.

Assets: Counterbalancing the negatives in Iran's strategic environment are a number of assets that give it the room to maneuver necessary for pursuit of its ambitions. Most important, the US military is overextended from its Iraq and Afghanistan missions, and its continuing needs and commitments to maintain Asian and European presences. It is unlikely at present that the US is militarily ready or politically capable of mounting an operation against Iran similar to the one that it undertook in Iraq.

Iran is also a much more formidable adversary than was Ba'athist Iraq. Its population of 70 million dwarfs Iraq's 26 million and, unlike Iraq, Iran is not a construction of colonial rule combining diverse ethnic and religious groups without a common history, but a relatively homogeneous society with a long history of independence and a strong sense of nationalism.

Iran's military is also more capable than Iraq's was, and it is a center of post-revolutionary nationalism. In its war with Iraq in the 1980s, Iran absorbed heavy losses and eventually repelled an aggressor that had the backing of the United States.

If the US tried to occupy Iran, it could not use the divide-and-rule strategy that it has employed in Iraq. The Iranian regime banks on the expectation that in the case of external attack, nationalism will override the rift between Westernizers and traditionalists. Analysts in the Middle East generally agree that the regime's judgment is correct.

Iran's trump card is the geopolitical fact that it is a major oil producer bordering other major oil producers. A large-scale war undertaken by the US would almost surely lead to a disruption of world oil supplies and the danger that Iran would use its missiles to attack Saudi or Gulf-state oil complexes.

Iran also has a strategic ally in Syria, which shares the same security interests and which borders Iraq on the west. The Iranian and Syrian regimes have been conferring closely since the US occupation of Iraq and have a common line that the US should withdraw from the region. Russia is a benevolent neutral, perhaps ally, providing help with Iran's nuclear program and interested in diminishing US power in the region.

The European powers are ambivalent, subject to US pressure to bring the issue of Iran's nuclear program to the United Nations Security Council where sanctions could be imposed, and desirous of pursuing economic interests in Iran.

Thus far, Iran's policy of "commercializing" relations with Europe has been a relative success, leading to reluctance by the Europeans to follow the US hard line. Instead, they have followed an independent, diplomatic path to resolve the nuclear question. Recently, as Iran has taken a harder line toward the International Atomic Energy Agency, the Europeans have begun to tilt toward the US, but it is still not certain that they will back a sanctions regime.

Finally, it is possible that Iran can turn the presence of US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan to its advantage. Historically, Iran has had close contact with, and political and cultural influence in, the regions on its eastern and western borders. Long-standing economic and cultural interchange gives Iran footholds in the west of Afghanistan and the southeast of Iraq, which it is currently using to back political forces that favor its strategic interests.

When the positives and negatives of Iran's strategic situation are weighed, it becomes clear that the complex balance of opportunities and threats provides the opportunity for Iran to try to expand its regional power at considerable risk.

The reasoning of the hardliners, who are gaining increasing control over Iranian foreign and security policy, is that Iran has little choice but to try to strengthen itself by militarizing and pressing for spheres of influence, since the alternative is acceptance of US hegemony in the Persian Gulf region.

Their posture is primarily defensive, but they believe that the best defense at the present time is an assertive one. They will act with the best-case scenario in mind as they maneuver to avoid the worst-case scenario, resorting to brinkmanship and tactical retreats.

Conclusion
Iran plays its hand through one of the most complex sets of political institutions in the contemporary world. Not only are clerical institutions overlaid on the conventional executive, legislature and judiciary, but different factions have vested influence and authority within each of them. Iran does not speak with one voice or act with one hand.

Indian political analyst Hamid Ansari observes that Iran's shifting stances of conciliation and defiance, and its elliptical and contradictory policy statements, are "fully reflective of the multiplicity of centers that characterize the decision-making mechanism of the Islamic Republic".

Unlike Iraq under Saddam Hussein, Iran has polycentric politics, in which decisions on security and foreign policy are the result of shifting alliances and independent initiatives. This complexity leads to the simultaneous pursuit of seemingly opposed policies, but it would be a mistake to interpret this as a sign of weakness, since all participants are committed to Iranian independence and integrity.

Iran's polycentric decision-making system is, in fact, a source of strength in its current situation, since it leads structurally, rather than by design, to a multi-pronged strategy that hits all possible vulnerabilities of its adversaries, confuses them and allows for flexibility. If one policy fails, it will be de-emphasized in favor of another.

If one faction is discredited, another is ready to take its place. If all possible proxies in Iraq and Afghanistan are backed by one Iranian faction or another, downside risk is minimized and opportunity is enhanced. If reformists pursue commercialization of foreign relations and hardline traditionalists pursue militarization, Iran potentially gets the benefit of both tracks.

It is impossible to predict whether Iran will succeed or fail in its bid for security and regional power, but its regime has impressive and surprising assets that work in its favor.

Michael A Weinstein is professor of political science at Purdue University and a senior analyst with the Power and Interest News Report. He has been the recipient of Guggenheim and Rockefeller Foundation Fellowships and is the author of 21 books and numerous scholarly and analytical articles in the fields of general political science and political theory.

Published with permission of the Power and Interest News Report, an analysis-based publication that seeks to provide insight into various conflicts, regions and points of interest around the globe. All comments should be directed to content@pinr.com .

World criticism mounts over Iran Yahoo! NEWS
Russia and Europe joined the United States on Wednesday in condemning Iran's assertion that it had enriched uranium in defiance of a U.N. demand, but Moscow said force could not resolve the dispute. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad declared on Tuesday that Iran had enriched uranium for the first time and would now press ahead with industrial-scale enrichment. His triumphant announcement keeps the Islamic Republic on a collision course with the United Nations and with Western countries convinced that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons, not just fuel for power stations as it insists. The United States said that if Iran continued moving in the "wrong direction" it would discuss future steps with the U.N. Security Council, which can impose punitive measures. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said the use of force could not solve the stand-off over Iran's nuclear program, but he did not reiterate Moscow's past opposition to sanctions. "If such plans exist they will not be able to solve this problem. On the contrary they could create a dangerous explosive blaze in the Middle East, where there are already enough blazes," he was quoted by Russian news agencies as saying. President Bush this week dismissed media reports of plans for strikes on Iran as "wild speculation" and said force might not be needed to curb its nuclear ambitions. The Russian Foreign Ministry urged Tehran to stop all enrichment work, saying its proclaimed atomic advance ran counter to the decisions of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the U.N. Security Council. But a senior Iranian official ruled out any retreat. "Iran's nuclear activities are like a waterfall which has begun to flow. It cannot be stopped," said the official, who asked not to be named, referring to the Russian demand.

"DANGEROUS ACTIVITIES"
European states also voiced concern at Ahmadinejad's statement that Iran has joined the nuclear technology club. Germany, one of three European states behind a deal to suspend enrichment that broke down last year, expressed "great concern" and said Tehran was heading toward self-isolation. French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy said it was worrying and Tehran should stop its "dangerous activities." The European Union voiced dismay. "This is regrettable," said Emma Udwin, a spokeswoman for Benita Ferrero-Waldner, the EU commissioner for external relations. The Security Council has told Iran to halt all sensitive atomic activities and on March 29 it asked the IAEA, the U.N. nuclear watchdog, to report on its compliance in 30 days. IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei is due to visit Iran on Thursday to seek full Iranian cooperation with the council and IAEA inquiries, a trip now clouded by Ahmadinejad's speech. The Iranian president stoked international anxieties about Iran's nuclear program last year when he called for Israel's destruction. But Israelis responded cautiously to Iran's latest announcement, saying diplomacy was the best course. The United States has pledged to defend Israel, which bombed an Iraqi nuclear facility in 1981. The State Department said it was unable to confirm that Iran had enriched uranium and some experts said even if Tehran's assertions were accurate, it would still be years before the Islamic Republic was able to produce a nuclear weapon. In a well-flagged televised address, He also said Iran's goal was industrial-scale enrichment. The level of enrichment needed for nuclear bombs is far higher than the 3.5 percent Iran says it has reached. It would take Iran about two decades to yield enough highly enriched uranium for one bomb with its current cascade of 164 centrifuges. But Tehran says it wants to install 3,000 centrifuges, enough to produce material for a warhead in a year. Exiled Iranian opposition leader Maryam Rajavi said the West had been too soft on Iran's nuclear ambitions. "The policy of complaisance followed for years by the Western countries has permitted this country to get so close to a nuclear weapon," she told reporters in Strasbourg. Information provided in 2002 by Rajavi's National Council of Resistance of Iran, which wants to oust Iran's clerical rulers, forced Tehran to lift the veil on its nuclear program. The council's armed wing, the People's Mujahideen, is listed as a terrorist group by the United States.
By Parisa Hafezi

DEBKAfile: Iran’s ex-president Hashemi Rafsanjani in Damascus to redouble pressure on Washington

April 12, 2006, 5:46 PM (GMT+02:00)

The day after the announcement of Iranian success in producing uranium enrichment, Tehran’s most adept diplomat, Expediency Council head Hashemi Rafsanjani, arrived in the Syrian capital Wednesday for four days of talks. DEBKAfile’s sources report that after publicly declaring Iran’s nuclear aims were “purely peaceful”, Rafsanjani embarked on secret talks with Syrian leaders on ways of working together to raise war tensions in Iraq and the Lebanese-Israeli border.

They describe Tehran’s motives as being to try and put the Americans on the spot of having to appeal to its clerical leaders for a key to a political solution and calm in Iraq. Israel is to be taught a lesson by being shown forcefully who controls Hizballah’s terrorist campaign and apprised of Tehran’s deepening grip on the Palestinians. Iran seeks to drive home its ability to open yet another front against Israel.

These demonstrations come in the wake of Iran’s failure to achieve the desired propaganda and deterrent effect sought by its large-scale military maneuvers earlier this month and the daily unveiling of purported new weaponry. Yet another clandestinely procured piece of hardware is promised for next week. A senior military source told DEBKAfile that Iran’s “striptease” - far from deterring the Americans has made them an intelligence gift of data on Iran’s arsenal and its weaknesses. The exhibits displayed thus far appear to be still in stages of development and nowhere near operational.

Copyright 2000-2006 DEBKAfile. All Rights Reserved.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=710...id=aduNTcpDuDd4

Iran Could Produce Nuclear Bomb in 16 Days, U.S. Says (Update2)
April 12 (Bloomberg) -- Iran, defying United Nations Security Council demands to halt its nuclear program, may be capable of making a nuclear bomb within 16 days, a U.S. State Department official said.

Iran will move to ``industrial scale'' uranium enrichment involving 54,000 centrifuges at its Natanz plant, the Associated Press quoted deputy nuclear chief Mohammad Saeedi as telling state-run television today.

``Using those 50,000 centrifuges they could produce enough highly enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon in 16 days,'' Stephen Rademaker, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for International Security and Nonproliferation, told reporters today in Moscow.

Rademaker was reacting to a statement by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who said yesterday the country had succeeded in enriching uranium on a small scale for the first time, using 164 centrifuges. That announcement defies demands by the UN Security Council that Iran shut down its nuclear program this month.

The U.S. fears Iran is pursuing a nuclear program to make weapons, while Iran says it is intent on purely civilian purposes, to provide energy. Saeedi said 54,000 centrifuges will be able to enrich uranium to provide fuel for a 1,000-megawat nuclear power plant similar to the one Russia is finishing in southern Iran, AP reported.

``It was a deeply disappointing announcement,'' Rademaker said of Ahmadinejad's statement.

Weapons-Grade Uranium

Rademaker said the technology to enrich uranium to a low level could also be used to make weapons-grade uranium, saying that it would take a little over 13 years to produce enough highly enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon with the 164 centrifuges currently in use. The process involves placing uranium hexafluoride gas in a series of rotating drums or cylinders known as centrifuges that run at high speeds to extract weapons grade uranium.

Iran has informed the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency that it plans to construct 3,000 centrifuges at Natanz next year, Rademaker said.

``We calculate that a 3,000-machine cascade could produce enough uranium to build a nuclear weapon within 271 days,'' he said.

While the U.S. has concerns over Iran's nuclear program, Rademaker said ``there certainly has been no decision on the part of my government'' to use force if Iran refuses to obey the UN Security Council demand that it shuts down its nuclear program.

Rademaker is in Moscow for a meeting of his counterparts from the Group of Eight wealthy industrialized countries. Russia chairs the G-8 this year.

China is concerned about Iran's decision to accelerate uranium enrichment and wants the government in Tehran to heed international criticism of the move, Wang Guangya, China's ambassador to the United Nations said.



To contact the reporter on this story:
Sebastian Alison in Moscow at Salison1@bloomberg.net.

Last Updated: April 12, 2006 12:19 EDT

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20060412/45750291.html

Russia
Iran's nuclear announcement is pure PR move - Russian expert
18:48 | 12/ 04/ 2006




MOSCOW, April 12 (RIA Novosti) - Iran's announcement that it has joined the world's nuclear club is a bluff and a political PR move, an expert at a Russian think tank said Wednesday.

"The announcement that Iran can produce nuclear fuel is largely a bluff," said Vladimir Yevseyev, a senior researcher at the Moscow-based Center for Global Security. "What they [Iranian leaders] said about successfully completing the full nuclear cycle in laboratory conditions should not be viewed as a confirmation that the country could launch full-scale production of nuclear fuel."

In a televised speech on Tuesday, Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said: "I officially announce that Iran has joined the group countries with nuclear technology."

The Russian expert said that during the latest experiment Iran had managed to produce only a small amount of low-enriched uranium.

"Iran is talking about completing a full nuclear cycle, but actually it has not gone that far because the full cycle includes plutonium separation in addition to uranium enrichment, and the country has made only a few initial steps in this sphere," Yevseyev said, adding that it could take Iran at least three years to accumulate enough high-enriched uranium to create a nuclear weapon.

The expert also said Iran could not be considered a member of the world's nuclear club because the country had not yet conducted a single nuclear test.

"Therefore, I regard all such statements merely as a bluff - political PR moves designed to apply pressure on the West, and ensure a better negotiating position," he said.

Meanwhile, the head of the international affairs committee of the upper house of the Russian parliament, Mikhail Margelov, said he believed Iran would continue its nuclear research.

He said the Iranian president's announcement that the country had produced enriched uranium made this intention clear.

"Tehran has made us understand the firmness of its position, and its readiness to continue nuclear developments - all this will only complicate further talks," he told journalists.

Margelov added, however, that uranium produced by Iran "does not present any direct military threat."

- Iran One Step Closer To Nukes
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Iran_One_S...r_To_Nukes.html

Washington (UPI) Apr 13, 2006 - Just days after strong rumors of a possible preemptive U.S. and/or Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear facilities circulated like wildfire around the Washington Beltway, Iran announced it has taken its nuclear program forward.

- Iran's Military Believes Its Nuclear Programme Unstoppable
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Irans_Mili...nstoppable.html

Iran refuses to heed worldwide condemnation of its successful low-level uranium enrichment claim

April 13, 2006, 1:02 PM (GMT+02:00)

Chinese assistant foreign minister Cui Tiankai is due in Tehran Thursday on the heels of IEAE director Mohammed ElBaradei who arrived Wednesday night for an attempt to defuse the crisis. Beijing calls for restraint so as not to escalate the situation, while President Mahmoud Ahmadenejad repeated Iran would not back down from its declared right to enrich uranium "for its atomic reactors." The world, he said, must treat Iran as a nuclear power.

The five UN Security Council permanent members plus Germany meet in Moscow Tuesday to discuss the new crisis, after US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice urged strong UN steps against Tehran.

The five UN Security Council permanent members plus Germany meet in Moscow next week to discuss the new crisis, after US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice urged strong UN steps against Tehran. The Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov also criticized Iran for taking “a wrong direction.”

Iran’s deputy nuclear chief Mohammed Saeed said his government plans to expand its enrichment program using 54,000 centrifuges instead of the 164 in the small scale process announced Tuesday. ElBaradei must report back to the Security Council on whether Tehran has complied with the SC’s demand to stop all enrichment activity by April 28.

US ambassador John Bolton said the council would wait for the watchdog director’s verdict before deciding on action.

Copyright 2000-2006 DEBKAfile. All Rights Reserved.

DEBKAfile: Iran’s ex-president Hashemi Rafsanjani in Damascus to redouble pressure on Washington

April 12, 2006, 5:46 PM (GMT+02:00)

The day after the announcement of Iranian success in producing uranium enrichment, Tehran’s most adept diplomat, Expediency Council head Hashemi Rafsanjani, arrived in the Syrian capital Wednesday for four days of talks. DEBKAfile’s sources report that after publicly declaring Iran’s nuclear aims were “purely peaceful”, Rafsanjani embarked on secret talks with Syrian leaders on ways of working together to raise war tensions in Iraq and the Lebanese-Israeli border.

They describe Tehran’s motives as being to try and put the Americans on the spot of having to appeal to its clerical leaders for a key to a political solution and calm in Iraq. Israel is to be taught a lesson by being shown forcefully who controls Hizballah’s terrorist campaign and apprised of Tehran’s deepening grip on the Palestinians. Iran seeks to drive home its ability to open yet another front against Israel.

These demonstrations come in the wake of Iran’s failure to achieve the desired propaganda and deterrent effect sought by its large-scale military maneuvers earlier this month and the daily unveiling of purported new weaponry. Yet another clandestinely procured piece of hardware is promised for next week. A senior military source told DEBKAfile that Iran’s “striptease” - far from deterring the Americans has made them an intelligence gift of data on Iran’s arsenal and its weaknesses. The exhibits displayed thus far appear to be still in stages of development and nowhere near operational.
Copyright 2000-2006 DEBKAfile. All Rights Reserved.

DEBKAfile: Iran’s ex-president Hashemi Rafsanjani in Damascus to redouble pressure on Washington

April 12, 2006, 5:46 PM (GMT+02:00)

The day after the announcement of Iranian success in producing uranium enrichment, Tehran’s most adept diplomat, Expediency Council head Hashemi Rafsanjani, arrived in the Syrian capital Wednesday for four days of talks. DEBKAfile’s sources report that after publicly declaring Iran’s nuclear aims were “purely peaceful”, Rafsanjani embarked on secret talks with Syrian leaders on ways of working together to raise war tensions in Iraq and the Lebanese-Israeli border.

They describe Tehran’s motives as being to try and put the Americans on the spot of having to appeal to its clerical leaders for a key to a political solution and calm in Iraq. Israel is to be taught a lesson by being shown forcefully who controls Hizballah’s terrorist campaign and apprised of Tehran’s deepening grip on the Palestinians. Iran seeks to drive home its ability to open yet another front against Israel.

These demonstrations come in the wake of Iran’s failure to achieve the desired propaganda and deterrent effect sought by its large-scale military maneuvers earlier this month and the daily unveiling of purported new weaponry. Yet another clandestinely procured piece of hardware is promised for next week. A senior military source told DEBKAfile that Iran’s “striptease” - far from deterring the Americans has made them an intelligence gift of data on Iran’s arsenal and its weaknesses. The exhibits displayed thus far appear to be still in stages of development and nowhere near operational.

Copyright 2000-2006 DEBKAfile. All Rights Reserved.

In case Iran needs a squeeze
The West is weighing sanctions, but of what kind? And will they alter
Iran's nuclear path? The Monitor's View
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0414/p08s01-comv.html?s=hns

Iran's Enriching Experience:

Iran still appears to have a long way to go before it can actually make nukes. It enriched the uranium to 3.5 percent purity; for weapons-grade material they need to kick it up to about 80 percent and do so on an industrial scale, all of which will likely take years.
http://informationclearinghouse.info/article12715.htm

===
Analysts Say a Nuclear Iran Is Years Away :

Nothing had changed to alter current estimates of when Iran might be able to make a single nuclear weapon, assuming that is its ultimate goal. The United States government has put that at 5 to 10 years, and some analysts have said it could come as late as 2020.
http://informationclearinghouse.info/article12721.htm

===
The impact of Iran's nuclear ambitions :

The technologies of nuclear energy and nuclear weapons are similar, but not necessarily a stepping stone, as nuclear activities can be monitored to ensure they remain peaceful - the aim of Mohammed ElBaradei's current visit. Iran's breakthrough was in its civil nuclear programme; failure to differentiate paves the way for another illegitimate war in the Middle East
http://www.guardian.co.uk/letters/story/0,,1752538,00.html

===
U.S. Outsourcing Special Operations:

The Pentagon is bypassing official US intelligence channels and turning to a dangerous and unruly cast of characters in order to create strife in Iran in preparation for any possible attack, former and current intelligence officials say.
http://informationclearinghouse.info/article12727.htm

===
Storm gathering in Iran :

U.S. long-term goals in Iran are obvious: to engineer the downfall of the current regime, establish control over Iran's oil and gas, and use its territory as the shortest route for the U.S.-controlled transportation of hydrocarbons from the regions of Central Asia and the Caspian Sea bypassing Russia and China.
http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20060412/45777355.html

===
Katharine Gun : Iran: don't let it happen :

"To me it would be a worse crime to stay silent if telling the truth could prevent war."
http://www.newstatesman.com/200604170003

http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=29009
The following are excerpts from an interview with General Hosein Salami,
Commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Air Force, which aired on
Jaam-e Jam 3 TV on April 4, 2006.
TO VIEW THIS CLIP VISIT: http://www.memritv.org/search.asp?ACT=S9&P1=1106

*Clip # 1106 - Iranian Revolutionary Guards Air Force Commander, General
Hosein Salami: We Are Capable of Blocking Oil Export from the Persian Gulf
and the Gulf of Oman with Our Missiles

General Hosein Salami: Although the weapons we manufacture are long-range,
they are not meant for the population or countries of the region, nor for
any other country, unless it is a country that poses a threat to us. In such
a case, we will not be courteous towards anyone. We are frank with everyone.
We believe that our life as a nation depends on our defensive ability. This
is not supported to increase the concerns of the region's countries, but
unfortunately, you see superpowers that have traveled thousands of miles,
from the other side of the world and overseas. They send armies to this
region, and rob its countries of their right to political life. They disrupt
the social life and economic system of the region. [..] We believe that as
Iran's deterrence capability in the region increases, the ability to make
threats decreases. Since our weapons are for deterrent purposes, they
prevent war.

Interviewer: They increase the degree of security.

General Hosein Salami: Exactly. They increase stability in the region.

[..]

Interviewer: One of the issues [the West] and especially Fox News is making
a fuss about is that by means of this maneuver, Iran wishes to make it clear
that it can prevent oil export from the region, and that since the Hormuz
Straits are only 54 km wide, it can pose a threat to the oil export with its
missile technology. Would you elaborate on this?

General Hosein Salami: You don't need to hear this from Fox News. Iran
controls over 2,000 km of the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman. Even
without this maneuver Iran has this ability. This is a natural ability of
our country. Iran can block oil export whenever necessary. Fox News doesn't
have to make propaganda out of this. This is a natural ability of our
country.

TO VIEW THIS CLIP VISIT: http://www.memritv.org/search.asp?ACT=S9&P1=1106

**********************
For assistance, please contact MEMRI TV Project at memritv@memri.org

The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) is an independent,
non-profit organization that translates and analyzes the media of the Middle
East. Copies of articles and documents cited, as well as background
information, are available on request.

MEMRI holds copyrights on all translations. Materials may only be used with
proper attribution.

MEMRI TV Project
P.O. Box 27837, Washington, DC 20038-7837
Phone: (202) 955-9070
Fax: (202) 955-9077
www.memritv.org
.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/...60414-voa01.htm

Iran Rejects UN Appeal for Nuclear Freeze
By VOA News
14 April 2006


Iran has rejected an appeal from the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency to suspend its uranium enrichment activities.

Iran's top nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani met with IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei in Tehran Thursday. Afterward he said such demands are not important.

ElBaradei said Iran reiterated its promise to clarify outstanding issues regarding its nuclear program. He said he has yet to confirm Iran's claim of enriching uranium to a level used in nuclear power plants - a breakthrough Tehran announced Tuesday.

In Washington, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Iran could face escalating international penalties if it ignores a U.N. Security Council demand to halt its nuclear work. She said one option is the chapter seven resolution of the U.N. charter, which could allow for sanctions against Iran.

Last month, the Security Council gave Iran 30 days to suspend uranium enrichment. The IAEA chief is expected to report to the U.N. body on Iran's compliance by April 28.

The United States accuses Iran of running a secret nuclear weapons program - a charge Tehran denies.

China's Assistant Foreign Minister Cui Tiankai is to begin Friday, a trip to Iran and Russia in an attempt to defuse the Iranian nuclear issue.

Meeting Yields No Progress on Curbing Iran Nuclear Bid
By NAZILA FATHI and DAVID E. SANGER
Published: April 14, 2006
TEHRAN, April 13 — A one-day trip to Iran by the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, ended Thursday night with no agreement by the Iranians to halt their production of enriched uranium. And European diplomats said Iran had shown inspectors evidence that they were preparing to double the size of their small-scale production facilities within weeks.

Before Dr. ElBaradei's arrival, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran issued a taunt meant to erase any doubts about whether Iran was determined to plunge ahead with its fuel-making facilities in defiance of a warning from the United Nations.

"Our answer to those who are angry about Iran obtaining the full nuclear cycle is one phrase. We say, be angry and die of this anger," he said late on Wednesday, the official IRNA news agency reported. He left the job of meeting with Dr. ElBaradei to lower-ranking officials. For the first time, Mr. Ahmadinejad also boasted that Iran was conducting what he called "research" on a next-generation of centrifuges, called the P-2, based on a Pakistani design.

Until now, Iran has rebuffed most questions from the atomic energy agency about what kind of information concerning the advanced centrifuges that it had obtained from the illicit nuclear network run by Abdul Qadeer Khan of Pakistan. Mr. Ahmadinejad made no estimate of when the more advanced equipment — which would enrich uranium several times faster than the equipment Iran has just put into operation — might be tested or installed.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, speaking at the State Department on Thursday, said that "when the Security Council reconvenes, there will have to be some consequence" for Iran's decision to defy the calls for a suspension of fuel production, "and we will look at the full range of options available."

During his speech, Mr. Ahmadinejad uncharacteristically acknowledged differences inside Iran over the leadership's decision to confront the West, Russia and China by surging forward with the production of fuel that could be used for nuclear power plants or, at a greater level of enrichment, for nuclear weapons.

"There are some coward elements who are trying to create difference among people," the student-run ISNA agency quoted him as saying. "They get together, talk and create propaganda and psychological war. But we laugh at them. They call us and say that crisis is on the way, but we believe that the enemy has a crisis and we have no crisis in our country. Our people are brave."

But in Washington, Iran's efforts to create the impression that it was speeding ahead to make its nuclear program a fait accompli was countered by intelligence officials.

At a briefing on Thursday, Thomas Fingar, deputy director of national intelligence for analysis, said the official view of the intelligence agencies remained that Iran was unlikely to have nuclear weapons before 2010 at the earliest. But he also acknowledged that the mistakes made in assessing Iraq's capabilities had made the intelligence agencies far more cautious about delivering definitive assessments to President Bush.

But on Iran's progress toward nuclear weapons, he said, there has been virtually no dissent. "Certainly none that has surfaced," he said, "and this is a question we revisit all the time."

Another official at the briefing, Kenneth Brill, director of the National Counterproliferation Center, cautioned against accepting at face value Iran's recent claims about producing enriched uranium and its plans for producing more than 50,000 centrifuges, enough to produce fuel for several weapons a year. "They've made a statement, but it's still to be determined what is actually happening," he said.

At the same time, asked whether some part of Iran's program might remain hidden from American spies and satellites, he said, "That's an issue we work on quite hard."

European diplomats familiar with what Iran has told inspectors in recent days say that the country has already largely built a second "cascade" of 164 centrifuges, matching the one that is already in operation. The inspectors have not yet verified Iran's claims this week that it is already producing low-enriched uranium suitable for power plants, but officials from the atomic energy agency are to examine the current operations during a visit next week, the diplomats said.

Upon his arrival, Dr. ElBaradei told reporters he hoped he could "convince Iran to take confidence-building measures, including suspension of uranium enrichment activities, until outstanding issues are clarified." He met with the head of Iran's Atomic Organization, Gholamreza Aghazadeh, and Ali Larijani, Iran's chief nuclear negotiator. A diplomat who had been briefed on the meeting said Dr. ElBaradei had told them, in essence, that "you have achieved your goal, and this would be a good time to pause, and allow negotiations to restart."

"There wasn't a rejection of this, or an embrace of this," the diplomat said. "They are very aware that he will be writing a report two weeks from now" to the United Nations Security Council, where the United States has indicated it will press for escalated action against Iran.

Iran's nuclear boasts were the centerpiece of editorials in the Arab media on Thursday. Most commentators raised fears that Iran's acts could spur a nuclear race in the region while they lamented the relative weakness of Arab governments, which have mostly viewed Iran's ambitions as an immediate threat.

"Congratulations to Iran for what it has achieved and accomplished in extremely difficult regional and international conditions. Congratulations to its leaders and religious authorities upon whom some of our modernist leaders have looked down with such condescension," the columnist Urayb al-Rintawi wrote in the Jordanian daily Al Dustour. "Iran has bid farewell, perhaps for the last time, to the club of the Earth's weak and oppressed."

But most Arab governments have remained silent, a change from the signals that some were sending a few months ago that they might support international action against Iran.

"They're terrified. When you speak to someone for the first few minutes they're speechless," said Riad Kahwaji, managing director of the Institute for Near East and Gulf Military Analysis in Dubai, speaking of Arab officials in recent days. "You now have two evils to choose from: do you live with a nuclear Iran, or do you trust the U.S. administration in launching a war with Iran, despite the whole debacle in Iraq?"

Nazila Fathi reported from Tehran for this article, and David E. Sanger from Washington. Scott Shane contributed reporting from Washington, and Hassan M. Fattah from Dubai.

US COMMITTED TO DIPLOMACY ON IRAN? - WYNDHAM HARTLEY (BUSINESS DAY, SA, APRIL 11): Cape Town US Undersecretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs Karen Hughes yesterday insisted that the US wanted a diplomatic resolution to the increasingly heated row with Iran over its nuclear capability.