IAEA Staff Pushing for More Aggressive Report on Iran
One interesting aspect of the Iran nuclear debate has been the behind-the-scenes disagreement from various western intelligence agencies as to what exactly the Iranians are doing. Everyone agrees that their enrichment activities could be helpful in building a nuclear weapon, but the US intelligence community reached the judgment some time ago that Iran was not actively researching warhead construction. Israeli intelligence hotly disputes this, with the French and German intelligence agencies somewhat closer to the Israeli position than the American one. More recently, British intelligence came around to agreement with France and Germany. But Mohammed ElBarredei, head of the IAEA and the guy who tried to warn the world that the Bush administration was full of it on Iraqi nuclear issues, has been in the US camp. Today, however, comes word that the IAEA staff seems to think ElBarredei has this wrong and they’ve concluded that Iran has acquired “sufficient information to be able to design and produce a workable” nuclear weapon.
41 Responses to “IAEA Staff Pushing for More Aggressive Report on Iran”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
October 4th, 2009 at 1:12 pm
I’d like to see a list of countries ex-Soviet nuclear scientists didn’t sell secrets to.
October 4th, 2009 at 1:13 pm
Fuck you, no war. We’re not falling for this load of BS again.
October 4th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
Iran will have the bomb and a missile to carry it. Short of war, there’s nothing we can do about it.
October 4th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
Any second-tier state A&M with a mech-e and physics department has aquired “sufficient information to be able to design and produce a workable nuclear weapon.”
The Army Air Corps went straight to use, untested, with its uranium-gun design, it was such a slam dunk, and that was 65 years ago.
October 4th, 2009 at 1:26 pm
Well, ElBaradei considers Israel a worse threat than Iran. See
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-10/04/content_12181647.htm
Despite what others may think, I consider Iran the worse threat. Why? Because the history of about the last 131 years in the Middle East tells me so.
October 4th, 2009 at 1:26 pm
This whole thing is a non sequiter. Enrichment is a physical act which is not directly related to the making of a nuclear weapon.
Making a bomb is a difficult technical achievement. Making one small enough to be deliverable is exceedingly difficult. Making one small and reliable is stupendously difficult. All those things require very complex engineering feats requiring technical knowledge and information. Still,information has to be used to make something physical and that is very difficult.
The IAEA statement has nothing to do with enrichment. Of course the Iranians have the information to enrich.
October 4th, 2009 at 1:30 pm
If they start testing nuclear weapons, I’ll worry a little. Until then, worry about a nation having knowledge is bent.
October 4th, 2009 at 1:33 pm
BottomFish, the 131 years of history in which Iran has never waged a war of aggression? Why don’t you just be honest and admit that you just don’t like Muslims. It’s really hard to justify the idea that Iran represents an actual danger to America.
The world doesn’t end just because another country gets Nuclear Weapons. Even if that country does’t like us and has brown people in it.
October 4th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
@1 wiley: “I’d like to see a list of countries ex-Soviet nuclear scientists didn’t sell secrets to.”
1) Burkina Faso
2) Mongolia
3) Timor-Leste
4) Barbados
5) Brunei Darussalam
That is all I could find so far. I’ll keep looking. My sources believe there may be more.
October 4th, 2009 at 1:35 pm
Really, if we wanted to avoid them getting nuclear weapons, I seriously doubt that we’d have spent the last 10 years telling everyone who could hear that we wanted to invade them and overthrow their leadership. No, if anything, we’ve driven them to this so we would have an excuse to act against them. We put them in a position where a nuclear weapon is the only way to guarantee their safety.
October 4th, 2009 at 1:38 pm
Cute, Max.
October 4th, 2009 at 1:51 pm
” . . .Iran has acquired “sufficient information to be able to design and produce a workable” nuclear weapon.”
You can’t blow people up with information.
October 4th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
Check out Garreth Porter’s articles and his latest interview with Scott Horton.
And Gordon Prather’s latest on the UN hypocrisy.
The stink is dreadfully familiar.
October 4th, 2009 at 1:54 pm
The big difference between Bush and Obama is that Obama is too slick to openly admit he wants to be a “war President.” But he does, and he will, probably next year. They all do. He’ll lose some DFH’s in the midterms but pick enough wingnut crazies and PNACers to be true non-partisan kinda of mass-murdering neo-imperialist.
October 4th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
Re rapier at 6: “Making a bomb is a difficult technical achievement. Making one small enough to be deliverable is exceedingly difficult. Making one small and reliable is stupendously difficult. All those things require very complex engineering feats requiring technical knowledge and information. Still,information has to be used to make something physical and that is very difficult.”
————-
Again, it depends upon which DESIGN you are talking about.
The design of a U235 bomb is simple: You shoot one subcritical mass of U235 into another subcritical mass of U235.
The problem is that it is very difficult to separate the small percentage of U235 that is in uranium ore out from the most more prevalent U238 isotope. Chemically, they are identical — so you have to use the slight difference in weights. Either by gaseous diffusion or with centrifuges.
Plutonium , by contrast, differs chemically from uranium and can be isolated with chemical engineering processes –although the high radiation requires remote controls.
However, as the Manhattan Project discovered, the simple gun design will NOT work with plutonium. You basically have to cast the plutonium as a hollow sphere (so the material is dispersed widely enough to not fission) and then collapse the plutonium into a small point.
(The plutonium is so active that –in a gun design — fission begins when part A is still some distance from part B and the resulting squib blows part A away before fission can progress to any extent. You needs several generations of the chain reaction to generate major explosive force. So you need for the pieces to stay together for several milliseconds??)
Plutonium implosion is a very difficult design –although some info has leaked out. You have to layer a mix of slow and fast explosives around the sphere and detonate them at multiple points simultaneously –even slight differences in timing will cause failure. The slow and fast explosives have to be designed so that multiple EXPANDING explosions are bent into a converging , compressive shock wave.
Aside from some small tactical artillery shells, I think most of the US nuclear inventory in the late 1950s-1960s were based on the complex plutonium design -because plutonium was easier to extract than U235.
October 4th, 2009 at 2:02 pm
All this how long does it take untill they have nuclear wepaons speculation is fun, because there are so many countries out there that could easily get nukes before the Iran will get them according to the most pessimistic projections.
October 4th, 2009 at 2:09 pm
A big anomaly in this Iran affair –that is NOT being discussed by the US News Media — is that Iran’s new facility is NOT designed to protect an illegal, covert activity.
It is more what you would expect for a legal enrichment facility that will be inspected by IAEA but which may be attacked by some Israeli fighters carrying small bombs.
The new facility has very shallow cover that would not protect it even from conventional bombs. If Iran wanted a protected facility, it would be tunneling into those high mountain that are NORTH of Tehran –toward the Caspian Sea — and not into small hills in the flatland of central Iran.
Plus the photos of the new facility show it is being constructed by “Cut and Cover” — you dig a hole, build the facility, and then cover it with 5 meters or so of dirt. While US spy sats watch all the time and the US develops a detailed blueprint.
Tunneling into a high mountain would not only put 1000 feet of granite overhead, it would also allow you to conceal a lot more. You could dog leg the tunnel 20 meters after the front entrance and head in a different direction so that an attacker does not know where under the mountain you are. Plus what you are building inside is totally hidden from view.
Since I told the NY Times this — I am starting to wonder if the US news media is running a con on the American people again.
October 4th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
I think I’d want Da Bomb if I had all those UNDECLARED Israeli nukes aimed at me. Especially with Netanyahoo in the house.
Can’t speak for the Iranis, of course.
October 4th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
Armscontrolwonk has an article on some nasty infighting going on within IAEA.
Including why release of info re Iranian weaponization capabilities may be more related to IAEA internal politics than any new info.
See http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/2484/safeguards-v-expo
October 4th, 2009 at 2:33 pm
Re Don Williams
I am no kind of an expert on these matters but there has been a considerable improvement in conventional explosives since WW 2. Is it possible that a gun type PU bomb might now be made to work using the improved conventional explosives?
October 4th, 2009 at 2:43 pm
Re SLC at 20: “Is it possible that a gun type PU bomb might now be made to work using the improved conventional explosives?”
————–
I doubt it — the obstacle is velocity of detonation and I don’t think we have gotten a significant increase in speed since the 1950s. The newly developed RDX was being made at the Holston Amno Plant in Kingsport , Tenn during the Manhattan project for example.
(Something that rings the gong for those who follow the details of the Rosenberg case, the Venona project and the spies that did not get caught – or that got off lightly. )
October 4th, 2009 at 2:52 pm
What is a concern is the advancements in U235 extraction that have occurred since the 1950s. The Manhattan Project’s gaseous diffusion plant at Paducah,KY , for example, required enormous amounts of electricity — which is why it and Oak Ridge were placed in the TVA region. It also required tons of sintered nickel to withstand the highly corrosive, uranium hexafluoride.
When the fucking CIA let Abdul Qadeer Khan steal the centrifuge designs, they really opened up a can of worms:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Qadeer_Khan#Early_life
October 4th, 2009 at 3:15 pm
Speaking of Iran, is Mr. Yglesias going to comment on the revelation in the British Daily Telegraph concerning Mr. Ahmandinejads’ ethnic background. Looks like he joins Goldstone, Chomsky, Marx, Heydrich, Kaganovitch, Finkelstein, et al as just another Jewish antisemite.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/2009/10/04/2009-10-04_iran_president_mahmoud_ahmadinejad_is_secretly__jewish.html
October 4th, 2009 at 3:15 pm
The neocons are restless, and the fact that Eliot Abrams gets to talk about how Iranians really want to be bombed without being told to shut the fuck up is a sign of how fucked the US media is.
October 4th, 2009 at 3:32 pm
Re SLC at 23: “concerning Mr. Ahmandinejads’ ethnic background. Looks like he joins Goldstone, Chomsky, Marx, Heydrich, Kaganovitch, Finkelstein, et al as just another Jewish antisemite.”
Was that why he was invited to speak at Brandeis? Knew the secret handshake?
Or is this just a clever ploy to aid and abet Ahmandinejad’s political rivals in Iran? Kinda like the rumor that some tried to spread about Adolf in WWII?
October 4th, 2009 at 3:34 pm
I’m waiting for SLC to tell me that HE knew Ahmaddinejad was too clever to be a Persian goy.
October 4th, 2009 at 3:41 pm
[...] Matthew Yglesias: One interesting aspect of the Iran nuclear debate has been the behind-the-scenes disagreement from various western intelligence agencies as to what exactly the Iranians are doing. Everyone agrees that their enrichment activities could be helpful in building a nuclear weapon, but the US intelligence community reached the judgment some time ago that Iran was not actively researching warhead construction. Israeli intelligence hotly disputes this, with the French and German intelligence agencies somewhat closer to the Israeli position than the American one. More recently, British intelligence came around to agreement with France and Germany. But Mohammed ElBarredei, head of the IAEA and the guy who tried to warn the world that the Bush administration was full of it on Iraqi nuclear issues, has been in the US camp. Today, however, comes word that the IAEA staff seems to think ElBarredei has this wrong and they’ve concluded that Iran has acquired “sufficient information to be able to design and produce a workable” nuclear weapon. [...]
October 4th, 2009 at 4:10 pm
Given that the source for this story appears to be the National Post of Canada, and given that that is the same paper that made-up the “Iranians make jews wear gold stars!!!” claim back in 2006, shouldn’t we just dismiss anything reported there about Iran out of hand?
The corrupt NYT may think this is newsworthy, the past history of this story’s source says otherwise.
October 4th, 2009 at 6:10 pm
Re Don Williams @ #25
Or is this just a clever ploy to aid and abet Ahmandinejad’s political rivals in Iran? Kinda like the rumor that some tried to spread about Adolf in WWII?
Which rumor was that? The one which claimed that the fuhrer had only one nut?
October 4th, 2009 at 6:32 pm
Oh, really? Please, Professor, list for us all of the nations Iran has started wars with in the past 131 years. You know, because history tells you so much.
October 4th, 2009 at 6:37 pm
Re SLC at 29: “Which rumor was that? The one which claimed that the fuhrer had only one nut?”
———–
Nein. I refer to the story that Adolf’s ancestry was not 200 proof Aryan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Patrick_Hitler#In_Nazi_Germany
A different rumor from yours. Unless Jewish circumcision goes farther than I had thought.
It’s weird thinking of Adolf Hitler’s nephew living on Long Island, New York under a different name. Wonder if he had any Jewish neighbors who invited him over for drinks?
October 4th, 2009 at 6:47 pm
Actually, Mel Brooks could probably make a pretty funny play about Adolf Hitler’s nephew dating a rebellious Jewish girl on Long Island, Her liberal family grudging accepting it at first, then discovering the secret and trying to cover up the scandal before others in the Jewish community finds out.
Mother to Father: ” I told you we should have let her date that nice black boy at Columbia –but would you listen? Nooo.”
October 4th, 2009 at 8:59 pm
Re Don Williams
The 1 nut rumor has been around for a long time. Ron Rosenberg discusses it in his book about the fuhrer. There are two rumors about the fuhrers’ ancestry. One which Mr. Williams mentioned concerning his maternal grandmother being knocked up by a son of the family in which she was serving as a maid. The other that his real biological father was one Adolf (sometimes called Alois) Schicklgruber. Like Wagners’ alleged biological father, Ludwig Geyer, there is no evidence of recent Jewish ancestry in Schicklgrubers’ background.
October 4th, 2009 at 10:19 pm
Does Iran have the design for a nuclear warhead? Yes, they do. In his 2006 book State of War, James Risen told the story of a U.S. intelligence op gone wrong.
Risen alleged that the CIA carried out an operation in 2000 (Operation Merlin) intended to feed the Iranians flawed warhead blueprints. This backfired and may actually have aided Iran, as the flaw was detected and corrected by a former Soviet nuclear scientist the operation used to make the delivery.
October 5th, 2009 at 12:01 am
[...] IAEA Staff Pushing for More Aggressive Report on Iran - Matthew Yglesias [...]
October 5th, 2009 at 4:57 am
I found your blog on google and read a few Thanks for the information you mentioned here, I’m looking forward to see your future posts. Cheers !! Please come visit my site Glendale Business Directory when you got time.
October 5th, 2009 at 4:58 am
I am deeply in love with every single piece of information you post here. Will be back often to read more updates! Please come visit my site Kansas City Yellow Page Business Directory when you got time.
October 5th, 2009 at 6:33 am
[...] IAEA Staff Pushing for More Aggressive Report on Iran - Matthew Yglesias [...]
October 5th, 2009 at 2:11 pm
Ahmadinijead is right about Apartheid Israel and everyone including the let’s suck up to the Zionists for a bit and see how it plays out French know it. The Land of Milk & Honey is The Threat to World Peace. Not Iran. Why aren’t we talking about tough sanctions and/or nuking them?
October 5th, 2009 at 2:36 pm
Required Reading:
Patrick J. Buchanan
Bitter Fruits of Mideast Wars
by Patrick J. Buchanan
10/02/2009
Impending today are two of the most critical decisions Barack Obama will ever make, which may determine the fate of his presidency, as well as the future of the United States in the Near and Middle East.
The first is whether to approve Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s request for thousands more U.S. troops he says he needs to prevent “mission failure” — i.e, to stave off a U.S. defeat in Afghanistan.
The second is whether Obama will start up the road of “crippling sanctions” to war with Iran, to prevent Tehran from moving closer to a capacity to produce nuclear weapons.
If Obama approves McChrystal’s request, what will it buy him?
Rising costs and casualties, deepening division in his party and his war-weary country, but no light at the end of a seemingly endless tunnel.
Indeed, it seems certain that 45,000 new U.S. troops would be but a down payment on an army of hundreds of thousands, for the years that it would take to build an Afghan army that can defend the government and people against a Taliban embedded in a Pashtun tribe that is half the population. And the odds that our Afghan allies would survive when we left would be no greater than the odds our Cambodian and Vietnamese allies would survive our departure in 1973.
Yet if Obama rejects McChrystal’s request, he risks resignations by generals and Republican savagery for lacking the moxie of Mr. Bush, when he doubled down in Iraq, named Gen. David Petraeus commander and agreed to a surge of 30,000 troops, which prevented a defeat the Baker Commission had all but predicted in 2006.
Obama is facing an awful choice.
Committing 45,000 more troops to Afghanistan will not assure victory, McChrystal is telling the president, but denying him the 45,000 troops may ensure an American defeat.
Being forced to make this Hobbesean choice will surely affect Obama’s decision on Iran. Seeing what a decade of war has done to his country, he cannot want a third war with a nation more populous than Iraq and Afghanistan combined.
Yet that is where the sanctions regime is inevitably headed.
The dilemma: The regime, backed by the Iranian people, is not going to give up its treaty rights to nuclear power, or the ability to generate it from yellow cake to enriched uranium. However, the knowledge and capability Iran gains from its investment in nuclear power will bring it to the edge of the red zone — the ability to “break out” and, perhaps in a matter of months, produce the highly enriched uranium that is the core of atom bombs.
Other countries that rely on nuclear power, Japan and South Korea, surely have the capability to produce an explosive device. They have preferred life without nuclear weapons.
Will Iran also be content with this, knowing that if it explodes a device, the Saudis, Egyptians and Turks will follow, that Israel would put a hair trigger on its nuclear arsenal, that the United States would retaliate massively against Iran if any nuclear weapon were detonated by Islamic terrorists on American soil?
The sanctions road appears headed for dead end, or war.
“Smart sanctions” that punish Iran’s leaders are not going to persuade them to give up a nuclear program for which they have already suffered and sacrificed greatly. And a cutoff of gasoline to Iran would hit hardest not the Revolutionary Guard but Iran’s middle class, which tends to be anti-regime and pro-Western.
As for an attack on Iran, what would be the purpose of bombing Natanz, when IAEA inspectors says that its thousands of centrifuges are producing only nuclear fuel, which has never left the facility?
When Israel bombed the Osirak reactor outside Baghdad in 1981, which was subject to inspections, Saddam Hussein started a secret program to build bombs. Would not an attack on Iran’s facilities that are under IAEA inspection lead inevitably to a regime decision to go for a bomb as the only deterrent against Israel or the United States?
As one steps back and looks at a decade of U.S. intervention and war in the Middle East, what has it all availed us?
Iraq cost 4,000 U.S. dead, 30,000 wounded and a trillion dollars. It divided our country, alienated the Arab world, and left scores of thousands of Iraqi dead, and hundreds of thousands wounded, widowed and orphaned.
The Shia who now run the country are moving away from us, and closer to Iran, as we depart.
In Afghanistan, after eight years, we face a longer and bloodier war or, says McChrystal, “mission failure.” With Iran, we are heading up a sanctions escalator toward yet another war. And 10 years of involvement has not brought the Palestinian conflict a centimeter closer to resolution.
The killers of 9-11 were over here because we were over there. How has being over there benefited us, to compensate for the cost?
October 5th, 2009 at 5:35 pm
Norman Mailer’s grand finale “The Castle In The Forest” effectively demolished the hoary old rumor that Hitler was a secret Jew. He himself had the rumor thoroughly investigated before he became Chancellor. The supposed Jewish burgher who knocked up the grandmother never existed. I forget the town right now but there wasn’t a Jew in town – they’d all been kicked out centuries before and none had ever returned. The one bizarre aspect of Hitler’s ancestry that might be true is that his father had married his own daughter and little Adolph was a product of incest.
Re Ahmadinijead…let’s say he is a Jew – how does that make him a vay is mere – anti-semite? Because he condemns Israel? Because he rebukes The Holocaust Industry – its relentless and monotonous invocation everytime Israel is up to its old tricks like murdering scores of Palestinian civilians to feel good after a nice brisket sandwich? He questions the morally contaminated use of The Holocaust. Read what he says. The reportage on his statements here in ZOG is a cartoon of what he has said. And, let’s not forget his appearance on Larry King. They got along like Myron Cohen and Stanley Myron Handelman. Or is Larry King a Jew-hating Jew too, SLC?