Iran to Go Nuclear in One Year?

By Dyre42 | Related entries in Iran

According to the European Commission Joint Research Center it is possible although not probable:

From Der Spiegel

As part of a project to improve control of nuclear materials, the European Commission Joint Research Centre (JRC) in Ispra, Italy set up a detailed simulation of the centrifuges currently used by Iran in the Natanz nuclear facility to enrich uranium. The results look nothing like those reached by the US intelligence community.

For one scenario, the JRC scientists assumed the centrifuges in Natanz were operating at 100 percent efficiency. Were that the case, Iran could already have the 25 kilograms of highly enriched uranium necessary for an atomic device by the end of this year. Another scenario assumed a much lower efficiency — just 25 percent. But even then, Iran would have produced enough uranium by the end of 2010.

For the purposes of the simulation, the JRC modelled each of the centrifuges individually and then hooked them together to form the kind of cascade necessary to enrich uranium. A number of variables were taken into account, including the assumption by most experts that Iran isn’t even close to operating its centrifuges at 100 percent efficiency. What is known, however, is that the Iranians are operating 18 cascades, each made up of 164 centrifuges. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad himself said last April that the country had 3,000 centrifuges in operation. At the time, most Western observers discounted the claim as mere propaganda. But the International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed Ahmadinejad’s assertion in November.

However the IAEA report issued today confirms that Iran is continuing to enrich uranium and has in fact acquired better centrifuges.

From the AFP:

UNITED NATIONS (AFP) — A report by the UN nuclear watchdog on Iran’s suspect atomic program bolsters the case for the Security Council adopting new sanctions against Tehran, hopefully late next week, senior US diplomats said Friday.

The Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said earlier Friday it had made “quite good progress” in its long-running probe into Iran’s disputed nuclear drive, but was still not in a position to offer a verdict on Tehran’s nuclear ambitions.

In a confidential new report, the IAEA complained that Tehran was continuing to defy UN demands to halt uranium enrichment and had started developing faster and more efficient centrifuges to produce enriched uranium, which can be used to make the fissile material for a bomb.

With the National Intelligence Estimate putting Iran as being able to produce weapons grade fissile material in ten years and the JRC’s report stating its possible to do in twelve months I’m for splitting the difference and assuming it’ll take five years and then crafting our policies to reflect the new assumed time line. Personally I’m not for taking military options off of the table but having said that I am also for directly engaging in talks with Iran via diplomatic channels rather than a leader to leader summit. Once we take military options off of the table we lose the ability to blockade their ports and declare no fly zones on their borders with Iraq and Afghanistan. I also believe we should only pursue such a course of action only after all diplomatic and nonmilitary punitive options have been exhausted.

Iran is either playing a dangerous or strange game. As Dave Schueler points out they are either developing a nuclear weapons or want the world to think they are. So while we need to treat them as if they are pursuing the former we need to figure out what benefit is derived from the latter.

Cross Posted at Dyre Portents

This entry was posted on Saturday, February 23rd, 2008 and is filed under Iran. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

4 Responses to “Iran to Go Nuclear in One Year?”

  1. Bubbles Says:

    They’re also right next to a nuclear-armed Pakistan whose parliament has a new majority two-party coalition, half of which is comprised of muslim fundamentalist. So in the end, Musharraf will probably be ousted and replaced by someone slightly friendlier to Islamic extremists. Not saying Musharaff was great, but he’s better than what could come. My biggest fear is that Iran with its already mobile nuclear program could bribe Pakistan to hand over the final technologies needed to go nuclear. Of course, in this election year the news media is focusing on supposed romantic relationships with lobbyists and alleged plagiarism in speeches… so until something bad happens nobody’s going to care.

  2. Jimmy the Dhimmi Says:

    I am also for directly engaging in talks with Iran via diplomatic channels rather than a leader to leader summit
    We are doing that. The IAEA, and the European Union are diplomatic channels that we convey our interests through, and they convey theirs. I agree that we cannot have official negotiations with an apocalyptic regime like Iran, but Obama disagrees with us. I’m guessing he will be the president when Iran gets the bomb.

    The moral of this story: Anti-Bush people should not get so jumpy when other anti-bush career CIA guys publish reports in the NIE that Iran is not a threat to obtain nuclear weapons, based on weak evidence obtained from one intercepted phone call in 2003.

    Becuase of that, I hate to say it Dyre, but the military option is off the table, at least if Obama wins. Who knows, we might see the lame duck authorize a surgical strike before he leaves office if Obama wins in November - and that might not be a bad thing.

  3. Jim S Says:

    They’re also right next to a nuclear-armed Pakistan whose parliament has a new majority two-party coalition, half of which is comprised of muslim fundamentalist.

    Huh? This is completely inaccurate. Neither one of the two parties that form the new coalition is a religious party. They are both secular parties that were (until Bhutto’s assassination) led by former prime ministers of the country. Neither of those leaders are/were saints. Both of them found themselves trying to deal with the Muslim fundamentalists and often in hopelessly naive ways that were sure to come back and bite them. But neither party is islamist.

  4. ExiledIndependent Says:

    Is this a cultural thing that my Western mind can’t grasp? Because it feels suspiciously like Saddam Hussein’s behavior before the U.S. invaded–appear as a threat, albeit a vague one, even if you aren’t.

Leave a Reply


NOTE TO COMMENTERS:


You must ALWAYS fill in the two word CAPTCHA below to submit a comment. And if this is your first time commenting on Donklephant, it will be held in a moderation queue for approval. Please don't resubmit the same comment a couple times. We'll get around to moderating it soon enough.


Also, sometimes even if you've commented before, it may still get placed in a moderation queue and/or sent to the spam folder. If it's just in moderation queue, it'll be published, but it may be deleted if it lands in the spam folder. My apologies if this happens but there are some keywords that push it into the spam folder.


One last note, we will not tolerate comments that disparage people based on age, sex, handicap, race, color, sexual orientation, national origin or ancestry. We reserve the right to delete these comments and ban the people who make them from ever commenting here again.


Thanks for understanding and have a pleasurable commenting experience.


Related Posts: