Iran busted; secret enrichment facility

[Ecofarm]

Iran revealed the existence of a secret uranium enrichment facility to the U.N. nuclear watchdog after it discovered the project's cover had been breached by Western intelligence agencies, The Associated Press and New York Times reported on Friday.

President Obama, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and French President Nicolas Sarkozy will accuse Iran on Friday morning of building the facility underground in secret and charge that it has hidden the covert facility for years from weapons inspectors, The New York Times reported on Friday.

Two officials told the AP that Iran revealed the existence of a second plant in a letter sent Monday to International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei.

Iran is under three sets of U.N. Security Council sanctions for refusing to freeze enrichment at what had been its single known enrichment plant, which is being monitored by the IAEA.

At an announcement before the opening of the G-20 economic summit in Pittsburgh, the three leaders will demand weapons inspectors from the IAEA be granted immediate access to the facility, the Times said.

Unnamed sources told the newspaper that U.S. officials have been tracking the secret project for years, but Obama's announcement comes after Iran discovered in recent weeks that the West had been monitoring the project.

"They [Iran] have cheated three times, and they have now been caught three times," an unnamed official with access to the intelligence told the Times.

The officials told the AP that Iran's letter contained no details about the location of the second facility, when — or if — it had started operations or the type and number of centrifuges it was running.

But one of the officials, who had access to a review of Western intelligence on the issue, said it was about 100 miles southwest of Tehran and was the site of 3,000 centrifuges that could be operational by next year.

Iranian officials had previously acknowledged having only one plant — the one under IAEA monitoring — and had denied allegations of undeclared nuclear activities.

The last IAEA report on Iran in August said Iran had set up more than 8,000 centrifuges to churn out enriched uranium at the cavernous underground Natanz facility, although the report said that only about 4,600 of those were fully active.

The Islamic Republic insists that it has the right to the activity to generate fuel for what it says will be a nationwide chain of nuclear reactors. But because enrichment can make both nuclear fuel and weapons-grade uranium, the international community fears Tehran will use the technology to generate the fissile material used on the tip of nuclear warheads.

The revelation of a secret plan further hinders the chances of progress in scheduled Oct. 1 talks between Iran and six world powers.

At that meeting — the first in more than a year — the five permanent U.N. Security Council members and Germany plan to press Iran to scale back on its enrichment activities. But Tehran has declared that it will not bargain on enrichment.

The officials who spoke to the AP — one from a European government with access to IAEA information and the other a diplomat in Vienna from a country accredited to the IAEA — demanded anonymity Friday because their information was confidential. One said he had seen the Iranian letter. The other told the AP that he had been informed about it by a U.N. official.

While Iran's mainstay P-1 centrifuge is a decades-old model based on Chinese technology, it has begun experimenting with state-of-the art prototypes that enrich more quickly and efficiently than its old model.

U.N. officials familiar with the IAEA's attempts to monitor and probe Iran's nuclear activities have previously told the AP that they suspected Iran might be running undeclared enrichment plants.

The existence of a secret Iranian enrichment program built on black-market technology was revealed seven years ago. Since then, the country has continued to expand the program with only a few interruptions as it works toward its aspirations of a 50,000-centrifuge enrichment facility at the southern city of Natanz.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,555303,00.html

Pretty unreal. I supposed this had something to do with Obama's nuclear threat resolution passing with ease.

How many times and in how many outrageous ways must Iran violate UNSCRs and IAEA protocol before there is action?

 

[RedRalph]

Same amount of times as Israel, I suppose. And they arent really busted when they are the ones who admit it

 

[Ecofarm]

Read the article. They admitted it after they became aware they were busted.

 

[Winner]

There won't be any action. Russia will block any sanctions and the only alternative to that is use of armed force, which nobody is willing to use.

Iran will get nukes in few years, unless the Israelis bomb them.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Iran tells IAEA it is building 2nd enrichment plant

By Mark Heinrich

VIENNA (Reuters) - Iran has told the U.N. nuclear watchdog it has a second uranium enrichment plant under construction, a belated disclosure sure to heighten Western fears of an Iranian bid for atom bombs.

The International Atomic Energy Agency said on Friday Iran had revealed the existence of the plant to IAEA Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei on Monday, just as six world powers and Iran prepare to discuss its disputed nuclear drive on October 1.

The IAEA said Iran had told ElBaradei in a letter that the plant would enrich uranium only to a level needed to generate electricity.

"The agency also understands from Iran that no nuclear material has been introduced into the facility," International Atomic Energy Agency spokesman Marc Vidricaire said.

The agency requested specific information and an immediate inspection of the plant to ensure it was for peaceful purposes.

Iran was previously known to have one enrichment plant, a vast underground hall at Natanz where it has stockpiled low-enriched uranium in a rapidly expanding operation with almost 9,000 centrifuges installed.

Iran's ISNA news agency quoted an "informed source" on Friday as confirming the reports of a second uranium enrichment plant, saying it was similar to the Natanz plant.

The Natanz plant is under daily surveillance by IAEA inspectors. Iran concealed the site and other sensitive aspects of its enrichment program from U.N. non-proliferation inspectors until the Iranian exiles blew the whistle in 2002.

It was not known how long the new plant had been under construction or planned. Iran stopped providing the IAEA advance information on nuclear site designs last year in retaliation for U.N. sanctions imposed over its nuclear campaign.

OBAMA PREPARING ANNOUNCEMENT

Washington said U.S. President Barack Obama was aware of the development and would make an announcement at the G-20 summit of major industrialized nations in the U.S. city of Pittsburgh later on Friday.

A U.S. official also confirmed a New York Times report that said Washington had been tracking the secret project for years and Obama decided to go public after Iran learned in recent weeks that Western intelligence agencies had penetrated the secrecy veiling the site.

Obama, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and French President Nicolas Sarkozy planned to call on Iran to let the IAEA inspect the site immediately, the New York Times said.

Iran is under U.N. sanctions for refusing to suspend enrichment and withholding access the IAEA needs to clarify intelligence indications that Iran has geared nuclear activity to develop atom bombs, not generating electricity as it says.

The Natanz facility has been using a 1970s vintage centrifuge, the P-1, whose design Iran obtained from the former nuclear smuggling network of Pakistani A.Q. Khan

But it has been experimenting for over two years with advanced models that could enrich uranium 2-3 times faster. It was not immediately known whether the new enrichment plant would be stocked with these machines.

"This second enrichment facility could be very significant since it could prove the key to approaching potential nuclear weapons capacity for Iran," said a European diplomat, who emphasized he had seen no details of the project yet.

"It's good that Iran is coming clean about it," he said, alluding to lingering suspicions -- which lacked proof -- that Iran harbored further undeclared nuclear facilities, "but this could prove disastrous for non-proliferation."

Related:

IAEA confirms Iran says building 2nd enrichment plant

IENNA (Reuters) - Iran has told the U.N. nuclear watchdog that it has a second uranium enrichment plant under construction which will produce nuclear fuel only for the purpose of making electricity, the agency said on Friday.

"The agency also understands from Iran that no nuclear material has been introduced into the facility," International Atomic Energy Agency spokesman Marc Vidricaire said, adding that a letter from Iran had arrived on Monday.

"In response the IAEA has requested to Iran to provide specific information and access to the facility as soon as possible," he said, so U.N. inspectors could verify it would be used for peaceful purposes only

 

[SG-17]

There won't be any action. Russia will block any sanctions and the only alternative to that is use of armed force, which nobody is willing to use.

Iran will get nukes in few years, unless the Israelis bomb them.

I don't think that Israel would mind striking the enrichment facilities.

In fact I expect them to within 6 months.

 

[El_Machinae]

It's good that it was caught while still under construction. That will make negotiations much easier.

Though, really, aren't centrifuges decades-old and simple technology? How hard can it be to make secret ones?

 

[Rashiminos]

I don't think that Israel would mind striking the enrichment facilities.

In fact I expect them to within 6 months.

I've heard the figure is more like 2 months.

 

[Camikaze]

Because instigating a war with those that could actually do damage to Israel would make them far, far safer...

 

[Winner]

It's good that it was caught while still under construction. That will make negotiations much easier.

Though, really, aren't centrifuges decades-old and simple technology? How hard can it be to make secret ones?

The technology may be old and simple, but it is effective. The problem with enriching uranium this way is that you need centrifuge cascades containing thousands of these devices. That takes time to manufacture. It also needs a lot of electricity to operate.

I really don't think why politicians fool the public with promises of negotiations. Iran will not negotiate about its nuclear program, it has made that clear. And even if it did, it would just be a part of its delaying tactics which has worked so well in the past. With Russian backing, Iran is safe from any worldwide sanctions and I doubt the EU (the only global power with trade links with Tehran strong enough to make a difference) will impose any unilateral sanctions without UN legitimization.

So here we go, Iran will either get bombed, or they'll have a crude nuclear device in few years, maybe a little bit sooner, maybe later. It doesn't really matter at this point.

 

[Tee Kay]

Because instigating a war with those that could actually do damage to Israel would make them far, far safer...

Except that Israel won't be damaged. Iran can do nothing, except perhaps give Hezbollah and HAMAS some missiles, and we know their chances of seriously hurting the Jewish State is zero. It will just be Osirak all over again.

 

[Camikaze]

Except that Israel won't be damaged. Iran can do nothing, except perhaps give Hezbollah and HAMAS some missiles, and we know their chances of seriously hurting the Jewish State is zero. It will just be Osirak all over again.

Didn't Iran recently show their mid-range missile capability (i.e. long range enough to hit Israel)?

And what I was meaning was more long-term. Long-term Israel will not improve the situation for itself through following an aggressive policy towards Iran. If it wants to keep itself safe in the long-term, which any attack to prevent future atomic capability would be aiming for anyway, then attacking Iran would be a bad idea. It would even further ostracise Israel, and would only lead to more and more Iranian aggression towards Israel. And it wouldn't even mean the end of nukes for Iran. It would only mean that in the short-term, there wouldn't be as much threat of them. But it would surely harden Iran's resolve to produce atomic weapons, so as to defend itself in the future. So it would only worsen the situation.

 

[Yeekim]

Didn't Iran recently show their mid-range missile capability (i.e. long range enough to hit Israel)?

And what I was meaning was more long-term. Long-term Israel will not improve the situation for itself through following an aggressive policy towards Iran. If it wants to keep itself safe in the long-term, which any attack to prevent future atomic capability would be aiming for anyway, then attacking Iran would be a bad idea. It would even further ostracise Israel, and would only lead to more and more Iranian aggression towards Israel. And it wouldn't even mean the end of nukes for Iran. It would only mean that in the short-term, there wouldn't be as much threat of them. But it would surely harden Iran's resolve to produce atomic weapons, so as to defend itself in the future. So it would only worsen the situation.

My impression is that Israeli-Iran relations actually could not be worse, but that is of course just me...

 

[Tee Kay]

Didn't Iran recently show their mid-range missile capability (i.e. long range enough to hit Israel)?

Yes? Israel (and presumably the other Western nations) will bomb Tehran to oblivion if Iran launches their Shehabs against Israel.

And what I was meaning was more long-term. Long-term Israel will not improve the situation for itself through following an aggressive policy towards Iran. If it wants to keep itself safe in the long-term, which any attack to prevent future atomic capability would be aiming for anyway, then attacking Iran would be a bad idea. It would even further ostracise Israel, and would only lead to more and more Iranian aggression towards Israel. And it wouldn't even mean the end of nukes for Iran. It would only mean that in the short-term, there wouldn't be as much threat of them. But it would surely harden Iran's resolve to produce atomic weapons, so as to defend itself in the future. So it would only worsen the situation.

No one likes Iran. No one wants it to have nuclear weapons. If Israel halts Iranian nuclear ambitions, it will have the support (public or otherwise) of the United States, Europe, Australia, and also Arab states that see Iran as a threat to the region. Israel has little to lose, even on the diplomatic side, from attacking Iran.

 

[Camikaze]

Yes? Israel (and presumably the other Western nations) will bomb Tehran to oblivion if Iran launches their Shehabs against Israel.

But that would void the aim of keeping Israel safe. Sure, there would be consequences for Iran if they attacked Israel proper, but I would think that they would. And doing so would mean that Israel would be hit and endangered, which would make any initial Israeli attack quite self-defeating.

No one likes Iran. No one wants it to have nuclear weapons. If Israel halts Iranian nuclear ambitions, it will have the support (public or otherwise) of the United States, Europe, Australia, and also Arab states that see Iran as a threat to the region. Israel has little to lose, even on the diplomatic side, from attacking Iran.

Sure Israel won't lose diplomatically with anti-Iranian nations, or most nations for that matter, but an Israeli attack would almost certainly increase radicalism and Iran's support for it (through groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas), and would only institute a situation in which the production of nukes by Iran would be an even greater priority, in order to defend itself against any future attacks. That would constitute a complete failure of Israel's aims in such an attack, which would be to keep Israel safer. In the short-term, after the missiles had struck and violence had subsided, there would be a period of greater security, but in the long-term, once Iran had recovered, Israel would be in more danger than it had been originally. And the more ferocious of the attack, the worse the situation would be in the long-term, with Iran's resolve being strengthened more and more, and with radicalism and opposition to Israel growing more and more.

 

[Ecofarm]

That would constitute a complete failure of Israel's aims in such an attack, which would be to keep Israel safer. In the short-term, after the missiles had struck and violence had subsided, there would be a period of greater security, but in the long-term, once Iran had recovered, Israel would be in more danger than it had been originally. And the more ferocious of the attack, the worse the situation would be in the long-term, with Iran's resolve being strengthened more and more, and with radicalism and opposition to Israel growing more and more.

Nah.

Sometimes bombing improves governments in the long term. You don't see Japan threatening the US, right? They've recovered and they are not seeking vengeance, because they realized that the whole Imperial God King thing was stupid.

 

[Mise]

Quite damning. I wonder what Iran's next move will be?

 

[Camikaze]

Nah.

Sometimes bombing improves governments in the long term. You don't see Japan threatening the US, right? They've recovered and they are not seeking vengeance, because they realized that the whole Imperial God King thing was stupid.

Well, unless Israel are going to nuke Iran twice, after over a year of continuous unopposed bombing of civilian targets, destroying most the country, followed by a 7 year occupation, then I don't quite think that there will be the same results.

 

[Ecofarm]

Someday Iran will be a semi-western democracy, Israel need not fear Iran eternally. Instead of bombing Iran back into the stone age, perhaps Israel and a coalition will bomb them forward into the (early) 20th century... like we did with Iraq.

 

[Tee Kay]

But that would void the aim of keeping Israel safe. Sure, there would be consequences for Iran if they attacked Israel proper, but I would think that they would. And doing so would mean that Israel would be hit and endangered, which would make any initial Israeli attack quite self-defeating.

Iran wouldn't dare. And even if they would, it will just show the world (through the filters of the Western media) that Iran is a belligerent state. Israel will have the perfect casus belli to remove that threat to its existance once and for all. Public opinion - within Israel and elsewhere in the West - would approve.

Sure Israel won't lose diplomatically with anti-Iranian nations, or most nations for that matter, but an Israeli attack would almost certainly increase radicalism and Iran's support for it (through groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas), and would only institute a situation in which the production of nukes by Iran would be an even greater priority, in order to defend itself against any future attacks.

On the other hand, having their nuclear facilities destroyed would be a great humiliation to Iran. Its credibility among Islamists might drop. In the event that Iran still insists on building nukes or that Iran attacks Israel, and the subsequent Western counterattack and destruction of the Islamic Republic, Iran would be removed as a source of support for Hezbollah and HAMAS.

Radicalism might increase, sure, but nothing Israel can't handle. None of the neighbouring Arab governments will help the Palestinians and other resistance or Islamist groups attack Israel unless they were overthrown (unlikely), and the IDF can easily handle any resistance or terrorist attacks. And the thing is, if Iran does launch all-out missile attacks against Israel, the Israeli population (and the West) won't care about Palestinian civilian casualties any more.

That would constitute a complete failure of Israel's aims in such an attack, which would be to keep Israel safer. In the short-term, after the missiles had struck and violence had subsided, there would be a period of greater security, but in the long-term, once Iran had recovered, Israel would be in more danger than it had been originally. And the more ferocious of the attack, the worse the situation would be in the long-term, with Iran's resolve being strengthened more and more, and with radicalism and opposition to Israel growing more and more.

Israel and its Western allies are in a position of supremacy in the Middle East that is not going to change any time soon. By the time Iran recovers, if it ever does, the West would be ready for another confrontation. And this time the West will make sure Iran can't recover.