IRAN Nears Bomb Capability

Iranian Atomic Work Nears Bomb Capability, U.S. Says

Sept. 9 (Bloomberg) -- Iran’s nuclear work is approaching a “dangerous and destabilizing” point at which the Persian Gulf country could build a bomb, the U.S. envoy to the United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency said.

“Iran is now either very near or in possession already of sufficient low-enriched uranium to produce one nuclear weapon, if the decision were made to further enrich it to weapons grade,” Ambassador Glyn Davies said today in a statement prepared for the IAEA’s 35-member board of governors, which is meeting for a third day in Vienna.

This “moves Iran closer to a dangerous and destabilizing possible breakout capacity,” Davies added, in some of the strongest comments yet used by a U.S. official about the threat posed by Iran’s nuclear program. He repeated President Barack Obama’s overtures to Iran for direct negotiations and said the administration in Washington is committed to a negotiated resolution to the international dispute over Iran’s work.

Iran, holder of the world’s No. 2 oil and natural gas reserves, is under three sets of UN Security Council sanctions for refusing to halt uranium enrichment, a process to isolate an isotope needed to generate fuel for a nuclear power reactor or, in higher concentrations, to make a weapon. The government in Tehran says it wants to generate power and rejects Western allegations that it seeks to build an atomic bomb.

‘Weapons Option’

“We have serious concerns that Iran is deliberately attempting, at a minimum, to preserve a nuclear weapons option,” said Davies, in his first IAEA meeting since being appointed by Obama.

IAEA inspectors reported last month that Iran “has not suspended its enrichment-related activities or its work on heavy-water-related projects as required by the Security Council.” The agency said it can’t exclude the possibility that there is a military purpose to Iran’s nuclear program.

“Against the background of the evidence available it is inexcusable that Iran continues to refuse any degree of transparency or cooperation in clarifying these outstanding issues,” France, Germany and the U.K. said in a joint statement today in Vienna.

Iran today presented proposals for a new round of talks to the representatives of the five permanent members of the Security Council and Germany, which have been leading discussions with Iran over the nuclear work, state-run Press TV reported.

Iran’s IAEA ambassador, Aliasghar Soltanieh, said at a Vienna press briefing earlier that the proposals include compromises on security, economic and nuclear issues.

Intelligence Estimate

U.S. experts concluded in a National Intelligence Estimate in December 2007 that Iran probably couldn’t produce a bomb until 2010.

Former President George W. Bush branded Iran, North Korea and Saddam Hussein’s Iraq as an “axis of evil” in his 2002 state of the union speech. Iran has been under UN investigation since 2003, after it was discovered that the country hid work on its Natanz uranium-enrichment facility from the IAEA.

“These allegations were the Bush administration’s allegations,” Soltanieh said. “The international community is curious and enthusiastic and carefully monitoring the attitudes and conduct of the new U.S. administration.”

London’s Verification Research, Training and Information Center calculates that 630 kilograms (1,389 pounds) of low- enriched uranium could yield 15 to 22 kilograms of weapons-grade uranium, enough for the production of a device under the supervision of an expert bomb-maker. The IAEA says Iran has more than 1,500 kilograms of low-enriched uranium.

To contact the reporter on this story: Jonathan Tirone in Vienna at jtirone@bloomberg.net.

Last Updated: September 9, 2009 10:12 EDT

 

Too bad Bush "choked" when it came to giving the Israelis permission to fly over Iraqi airspace last Spring and deliver several US made "bunker-busting" bombs into Iran's major nuclear site at Natanz.

Thanks Georgie.
You pussy!

 

I guess this means you don't believe in Obama!

 

If America can have nukes, why can't Iran have nukes too.

The US is the only country to use nukes on people... someone should tell us we cannot have nukes.

 

Because Iran signed the Nuclear non-proliferation treaty for starters. A host of other reasons which you probably won't understand given that you think that a western democracy having nukes is as bad as an islamic theocracy having nukes.

 

Iran does not admit to having nukes. They have signed treaties agreeing not to have nukes. By signing treaties Iran gets to participate in the global marketplace.
They have the right to have a nuke bomb but the USA has the right to stop trade with them.
Iran wants it both ways. They want all the advantages of belonging to NPT treaties and have the bomb.

 

I'm sure you meant western plutocracy vs. Islamic theocracy, but I get your point...

 

Western democracy... no theocracy with George W. Bush influenced by the Christian Right who believe in radical thought like the rapture.... and support the Wars in the Middle East because it foreshadows the rapture.... No Abortion, gay marriage, stem- cell research, etc. because it goes against the bible?

BTW, China has nukes (very aggressive country) and has threathened to nuke its own people in Taiwain... We don't do anything.

Pakistan has nukes and has threathened to nuke India... we don't do anything.

Russia has nukes and they are very aggressive in foreign policy... we don't do anything.

And as I said earlier, the US is the only country to use nukes on another population. SOMEONE SHOULD NOT ALLOW US TO HAVE THESE WEAPONS because ONLY WE have used them.

Oh yea... and it's also funny how the US put the SHAH (Theocracy) in power in Iran... helped overthrow a democratically elected official. Same goes for Musharaff in Pakistan. And we also helped put Saddam Hussein in power too.

So again... only the Western "democracy" has ever used weapons.. not Islamic theocracy. So yea, with history as a judge, its worse for western democratic countries to have nukes.

Crazy Hypocrisy.

 

They can't do that because we have nukes!

 

Western democracy... no theocracy with George W. Bush influenced by the Christian Right who believe in radical thought like the rapture.... and support the Wars in the Middle East because it foreshadows the rapture.... No Abortion, gay marriage, stem- cell research, etc. because it goes against the bible?
As I predicted in my previous post you won't understand the difference between a democracy and a fundamentalist islamic theocracy. I've never been a fan of GWB and his policies myself but it takes a truly sick mind to compare the US and Iran.


BTW, China has nukes (very aggressive country) and has threathened to nuke its own people in Taiwain... We don't do anything.
Pakistan has nukes and has threathened to nuke India... we don't do anything.
Russia has nukes and they are very aggressive in foreign policy... we don't do anything.
So it makes perfect sense to prevent one more theocratic, fundamentalist and aggressive state from getting nukes and becoming potentially even more aggressive, does not it? There is not that much that can be done about existing nuclear powers but it's even more important to make sure that more states with medieval mentality don't enter the nuclear club.

So again... only the Western "democracy" has ever used weapons.. not Islamic theocracy. So yea, with history as a judge, its worse for western democratic countries to have nukes.
Do you seriously think you're scoring points with this ridiculous and childish argument? The US used nukes in a totally different era when 50 million people had just been murdered in less than 6 years, when the rules of engagement and the value of human life were completely different from what they are today. The US used nukes to put an immediate end to WWII, to prevent more american and allied casualties and demonstrate american power to communist Russia (which was at the time occupying half of Europe and spreading). Duh. It's truly ironic how ultra-liberals and islamists whine about it far more than the Japanese ever have.

Crazy Hypocrisy.
Hypocrisy? Really? Hypocrisy in international relations, no less? Who knew? And you are still a boy-scout, aren't you? (PS One man's hypocrisy is another man's pragmatism). And if you want to keep discussing hypocrisy please explain your affection with Islamic states if you're so concerned about women's rights, gays' rights, stem-cell research etc.