More Fuel For The Pro War With Iran Element
Many people with experience in the field of international politics are suspecting that Iran has been trying to provoke the U.S. into a confrontation that would cause a legion of pitfalls for the aggressor.
A similar strategy worked splendidly for Hezbollah recently.
Today's development is additional evidence supporting this opinion.
An Iranian plant that produces heavy water officially went into operation on Saturday, despite U.N. demands that Tehran stop the activity because it can be used to develop a nuclear bomb.
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad inaugurated the plant, which Tehran says is for peaceful purposes.
The announcement comes days before Thursday's U.N. deadline for Iran to stop uranium enrichment -- which also can be used to create nuclear weapons -- or face economic and political sanctions. Tehran has called the U.N. Security Council resolution "illegal" and said it won't stop enrichment as a precondition to negotiations.
Mohammed Saeedi, the deputy head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, said the heavy water plant is "one of the biggest nuclear projects" in the country, state-run television reported. He said the plant will be used in the pharmaceutical field and in diagnosing cancer....
Nuclear weapons can be produced using either plutonium or highly enriched uranium as the explosive core. Either substance can be produced in the process of running a reactor.
Reactors fueled by enriched uranium use regular -- or "light" -- water as a "moderator" in the chain reaction that produces energy. Reactors using "heavy water" contain a heavier hydrogen particle, which allows the reactor to run on natural uranium mined by Iran, foregoing the enrichment progress.
But the spent fuel from a heavy water reactor can be reprocessed to extract plutonium for use in a bomb.
The West's main worry has been uranium enrichment. Iran on Tuesday responded to an incentives package presented by the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council plus Germany aimed at getting Tehran to roll back its disputed nuclear program.
Iran said it would be open to negotiations but did not agree to the West's key demand for Tehran to halt uranium enrichment as a precondition to talks.
At least one key vote on the United Nations Security Council is publicly resisting the Bush administration's desire for the body to enact sanctions against Iran for their nuclear program:
Russia's defense minister said Friday that it was premature to consider punitive actions against Iran despite its refusal so far to suspend its efforts to enrich uranium as the United Nations Security Council has demanded.
Although Russia agreed to the Security Council's resolution on July 31, Defense Minister Sergei B. Ivanov's remarks made it clear that Russia would not support taking the next step that the United States and Britain have called for: imposing sanctions against Iran or its leaders over its nuclear programs. The Council set Aug. 31 as the deadline for Iran to respond to its demand.
Russia has repeatedly expressed opposition to punitive steps, even as President Vladimir V. Putin and others have called on Iran to cooperate with international inspectors and suspend its enrichment activity.
But on Friday Mr. Ivanov went further, saying the issue was not "so urgent" that the Security Council should consider sanctions and expressing doubt that they would work in any case.
"I know of no cases in international practice or the whole of previous experience when sanctions achieved their goals or were efficient," Mr. Ivanov, a close ally of Mr. Putin who also serves as deputy prime minister, said in televised remarks in the Far East....
On Wednesday a spokesman for the Foreign Ministry, Mikhail L. Kamynin, said that it was important to "grasp nuances" in Iran's lengthy written response and that Russia would continue to use its influence with the Iranians.
Urging the Bush administration to "grasp nuances", especially over a matter as important to them as attacking Iran, is like asking an alcoholic to begin a 12-step program on New Year's Eve.
A similar strategy worked splendidly for Hezbollah recently.
Today's development is additional evidence supporting this opinion.
An Iranian plant that produces heavy water officially went into operation on Saturday, despite U.N. demands that Tehran stop the activity because it can be used to develop a nuclear bomb.
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad inaugurated the plant, which Tehran says is for peaceful purposes.
The announcement comes days before Thursday's U.N. deadline for Iran to stop uranium enrichment -- which also can be used to create nuclear weapons -- or face economic and political sanctions. Tehran has called the U.N. Security Council resolution "illegal" and said it won't stop enrichment as a precondition to negotiations.
Mohammed Saeedi, the deputy head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, said the heavy water plant is "one of the biggest nuclear projects" in the country, state-run television reported. He said the plant will be used in the pharmaceutical field and in diagnosing cancer....
Nuclear weapons can be produced using either plutonium or highly enriched uranium as the explosive core. Either substance can be produced in the process of running a reactor.
Reactors fueled by enriched uranium use regular -- or "light" -- water as a "moderator" in the chain reaction that produces energy. Reactors using "heavy water" contain a heavier hydrogen particle, which allows the reactor to run on natural uranium mined by Iran, foregoing the enrichment progress.
But the spent fuel from a heavy water reactor can be reprocessed to extract plutonium for use in a bomb.
The West's main worry has been uranium enrichment. Iran on Tuesday responded to an incentives package presented by the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council plus Germany aimed at getting Tehran to roll back its disputed nuclear program.
Iran said it would be open to negotiations but did not agree to the West's key demand for Tehran to halt uranium enrichment as a precondition to talks.
At least one key vote on the United Nations Security Council is publicly resisting the Bush administration's desire for the body to enact sanctions against Iran for their nuclear program:
Russia's defense minister said Friday that it was premature to consider punitive actions against Iran despite its refusal so far to suspend its efforts to enrich uranium as the United Nations Security Council has demanded.
Although Russia agreed to the Security Council's resolution on July 31, Defense Minister Sergei B. Ivanov's remarks made it clear that Russia would not support taking the next step that the United States and Britain have called for: imposing sanctions against Iran or its leaders over its nuclear programs. The Council set Aug. 31 as the deadline for Iran to respond to its demand.
Russia has repeatedly expressed opposition to punitive steps, even as President Vladimir V. Putin and others have called on Iran to cooperate with international inspectors and suspend its enrichment activity.
But on Friday Mr. Ivanov went further, saying the issue was not "so urgent" that the Security Council should consider sanctions and expressing doubt that they would work in any case.
"I know of no cases in international practice or the whole of previous experience when sanctions achieved their goals or were efficient," Mr. Ivanov, a close ally of Mr. Putin who also serves as deputy prime minister, said in televised remarks in the Far East....
On Wednesday a spokesman for the Foreign Ministry, Mikhail L. Kamynin, said that it was important to "grasp nuances" in Iran's lengthy written response and that Russia would continue to use its influence with the Iranians.
Urging the Bush administration to "grasp nuances", especially over a matter as important to them as attacking Iran, is like asking an alcoholic to begin a 12-step program on New Year's Eve.
posted by Effwit at 9:37 AM
9 Comments:
Even with Iraq 3-4 years ago, Saddam was required to provide a response accounting for his WMD. When the response indicated he no longer had any WMD, the Bush administration said, "We don't believe you," and then launched an attack.
These people have their minds made up, and it's just a matter of how to spin the propaganda to their own advantage in order to gain enough public support to move on their pre-destined agenda.
Iran could cease it's enrichment tomorrow and the Bush response would be, "We don't believe you." I don't blame Iran, per se. Pakistan has the bomb. India has the bomb. Israel has the bomb. If having the bomb helps gain security for Iran, wouldn't it be in their best interests to do so? Put me in their shoes, having seen what the U.S. did to Iraq (on so many levels,) and I'm enriching away.
There's no proof that Iran is trying to develop weapons grade uranium. They have a need for electricity generating capacity now and long into the future. Nuclear power will allow them to do that efficiently and relatively inexpensively. I, too, would be going down that road if I were they. Hell, here in Texas, the largest generator - TXU - is attempting to build 16 new coal-fired plants over the next several years, but they are getting stiff resistance from the environmental lobby. Natural gas had become the fuel of choice until the recent, rapid rise in gas prices. Coal is cheap, as is nuclear power, although each has it's own environmental hazard.
As we discussed, the objective is to take out Iran, by hook or by crook. And all the trying in the world may not be enough for it to be prevented.
Yeah Drewl, as much as I dont dig the Iranian regime, who can blame them and Iranians at large for wanting a nuke as they witness what happened to Iraq and the leverage Israel has gained with theirs. Iraq would never use nukes on Israel or anyone else. And like you said, they are ages from acquiring one through their own in-house efforts.
What I wanna know is, has Israel planted some of their nukes in mole holes in cities around the middle east or the US? A kind of stay behind programme abroad...just in case. Beats working with ICBMs. I've long held per speculation that they have. I would have implemented such a policy myself if I was an Israeli in position to do so.
DrewL:
I actually suspect that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons program. It would be running parallel to their energy program.
Such a program would not be the catastrophic for the U.S., in a couple of decades many nations will have nukes--we can't attack them all. Besides, a nuclear-armed Iran can be deterred. They will never have an inventory of nuke that could compete with the U.S., not to mention delivery systems.
Israel may be in a bit of a fix, but probably not, as they fall under our nuclear umbrella.
You are absolutely right, however, about the desire on the part of the administration to take out Iran. And about the Iranian need for energy that is not petroleum-based.
M1:
The buried nuke scenario is not far fetched.
There are serious people in Washington that believe that Al Qaeda was the mystery customer of A.Q. Khan, and may already have a weapon hidden here in the U.S.
Im with Effy. I believe the Iranians want a nuke. I can't find any credible evidence that points otherwhere. I just cant see how they will be in posession of one within the next 5 years or so unless they buy some at Wal-Martski. And still, so what?
So the question is, why the hurry to hit Iran now, as now is what's in their adamant pipeline - not 3 years from now. I think if there was goo reason for now then we would be hearing it. To date however it's just one BS pretext after the other.
Pertaining to one already in the hole - now that would explain some shit and leave me in a forgiving mood for lots of the Orwellian leanings of this Admin. But then I'd expect to see a lot more frantic and concerted surface activity, no matter how hard nuke hunters tried to keep the population in a state of ignorant bliss.
But I still think that hiding a few in the U.S. and elsewhere would fit perfectly with Israeli strategic thinking. I'm gonna have to give Nunn a call.
M1:
So the question is, why the hurry to hit Iran now, as now is what's in their adamant pipeline - not 3 years from now.
The probability of a U.S. attack on Iran is receeding by the day.
But then I'd expect to see a lot more frantic and concerted surface activity.
There is quite a bit of that going on, at least in Washington. It is very hush-hush. I am sure that the same can be said about NYC.
The Israeli false flag scenario may account for the seriousness being exhibited by the nuke detectors. DOE's NEST and NNSA.
So, is this a friendly little game of nuclear-tipped extortion by the Israelis? The concern being that they've hidden a few nukes in convenient places just in case they need to keep us in line? Would the plan be to set one off at an opportune time and allow the fingers to point toward al Qaeda? Or maybe Iran?
When you say there's activity in Washington, is that in a political sense with national scope or in a geographic sense with localized scope? I.e. are they searching the Potomac for sunken nukes?
DrewL:
The activity includes many radiation sensors strategically deployed around town, and mobile DOE units cruising around doing basically the same thing.
I have not heard of them checking the Potomac. Water tends to obscure the detection of radioactive materials.
But they probably are doing something along those lines.
The government is also sniffing the air for all sorts of hideous pathogens.
God damn. Coming from tempered and annealed you, that is quite the riveting news.
Holy cow
Post a Comment
<< Home