Iran announces mass uranium production

[Odin]

From the AP:

By ALI AKBAR DAREINI, Associated Press Writer
1 minute ago

Iran is prepared to start "industrial scale" enrichment of uranium, the vice president said Monday, expanding a key nuclear process that the United Nations has demanded the country halt.

The announcement came as Iran celebrated the one-year anniversary of its first success in enriching small amounts of uranium at its Natanz enrichment facility in central Iran.

"Now we are entering the mass production of centrifuges and starting to launch industrial scale enrichment, another step toward the flourishing of Islamic Iran," Vice President Gholamreza Aghazadeh said at a ceremony at Natanz.

Aghazadeh, who heads Iran's Atomic Energy Organization, did not elaborate. Industrial-scale enrichment is the term Iran uses to mean a capability to produce greater levels of nuclear fuel — which would suggest Iran has increased the number of centrifuges working at Natanz.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was expected to speak later at the ceremonies and announce "good nuclear news," according to state-run TV. The Iranian press has speculated he will announce the installation of 3,000 centrifuges at Natanz.

The U.N. has imposed limited sanctions on Iran until it suspends enrichment a key process that can produce either fuel for a nuclear reactor or the basis of a warhead. The United States and its allies accuse Iran of seeking to build nuclear weapons, a claim the country denies.

Iranian state television reported Monday that an Iranian Revolutionary Guard general who is banned from traveling abroad under the sanctions has visited Russia without any difficulty.

Gen. Mohammad Baqer Zolqadr, who is also deputy interior minister for security affairs, was quoted on the state TV Web site as saying that his six-day journey to Moscow, which ended Monday, showed "the ineffectiveness of the resolution."

The resolution calls on all governments to ban visits by the 15 individuals and says that should such visits occur — presumably for exceptional circumstances — the countries should notify a U.N. committee.

Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Andrei Krivtsov confirmed that Zolqadr visited Russia. He told The Associated Press that the resolution does not prohibit visits by the listed individuals, but calls for heightened vigilance "directed first of all at people who are directly related to nuclear programs" — suggesting that Zolqadr was not.

The unveiling of new centrifuges at Natanz, in central Iran, would be a strong show of defiance toward the United Nations, which has vowed to ratchet up sanctions as long as Iran refuses to suspend enrichment. The Security Council has set a new deadline of late May.

Tensions are also high between Iran and the West following the 13-day detention of 15 British sailors by Iran. The sailors, who were seized by Revolutionary Guards off the Iraqi coast, were released on Wednesday, but since then have said they were put under psychological pressure by their captors to force them to "confess" to being in Iranian waters when captured, angering many in Britain.

Diplomats from developing nations were attending Monday's celebrations at Natanz, but diplomats from European Union boycotted to protest Iran's refusal of the U.N. demands, said the Foreign Ministry in Germany, which currently holds the EU presidency.

Iran's top nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, said his country was willing to negotiate with the West and offer assurances that its program is peaceful. But he said the West must accept its nuclear program as a fact.

"We are ready to reach understanding with the Westerners through a corridor of real negotiations — in the current situation, in which Iran's nuclear activities have been concluded," state television quoted Larijani as saying.

"The understanding regards assuring the other party about the peacefulness of Iran's nuclear activities," he said. "But we do not give in our rights."

Across Iran, school bells rang to mark the "national day of nuclear energy." The government sent out SMS messages of congratulations for the occasion to millions of mobile phone users.

In Tehran, some 200 students formed a human chain at Iran's Atomic Energy Organization while chanting "death to America" and "death to Britain." The students burnt flags of the U.S. and Britain.

On April 9, 2006, Iran announced it had first enriched uranium using an array of 164 centrifuges.

Iran has said its next step is to set up 3,000 centrifuges, but it is not clear where the project stands.

Experts say the Natanz plant needs between 50,000 to 60,000 centrifuges to consistently produce fuel for a reactor or build a warhead.

In the enrichment process, uranium gas is pumped into a "cascade" of thousands of centrifuges, which spin the gas at supersonic speeds to purify it. Uranium enriched to a low level, at least 3 percent, can be used as fuel, while at a far higher level, more than 90 percent, it can be used to build a weapon.

Iran currently has two cascades of 164 centrifuges each operating at an aboveground portion of the Natanz facility in central Iran. The two cascades have produced small quantities of non-weapons grade enriched uranium, U.N. nuclear inspectors have said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070409/...a/iran_nuclear

*********************************************************

So what exactly do we do now? Clearly this points out yet again the futility of taking the UN route, so anyone have any solutions to the Iranian drive for increased nuclear activity?

**scratches head** hhhhmmmmm 2 Carriers in the gulf already, increased military (the surge) in iraq, boy the direction it appears to be going looks like loads of fun for everyone !

[Ice]

We do absolutely nothing besides put pressure on the government to stop. There are moderates in the Iranian government who are probably getting fed up with Awantadinnerjacket's nuclear policy. Attacking would be a horrible idea for the following reasons:

A) Oil goes up... economy goes bad... Remember what happened with the small British hostage crisis?

B) A united Iran that hates the West is not a good thing.

C) I really don't feel like adding another 3 trillion dollars to our deficit for a war that could have been avoided.

[Odin]

We do absolutely nothing besides put pressure on the government to stop.

Can you be more specific? What more pressure can we put? There is no will to do more in the UN (seemingly anyway) and 2 aircraft carriers in the gulf and no shortage of rhetoric....

I personally think we should talk to them directly and attempt to come up with a solution that everyone saves face on, and if direct talks dont work then bomb the facilities, because short of these 2 options it seems everything else has already been tried.

There are moderates in the Iranian government who are probably getting fed up with Awantadinnerjacket's nuclear policy.

Fair enough, but the supreme leader isnt a moderate and at the end of the day he makes the policy.

Oil goes up... economy goes bad... Remember what happened with the small British hostage crisis?

Yes and that will hurt, on this point I dont have a good rebuttal. This would be a high price for that war.

A united Iran that hates the West is not a good thing.

given the state of the U.S. and the lack of influence/credability/prestige the U.S. has currently I dont think its going to slip much further then it is. Yes they might scream louder but would you rather have a minority who can enrich uranium and all those potential outcomes screaming? Or a majority without the capacity to enrich? Given what I know about the Iranian political system I'll take the later.

I really don't feel like adding another 3 trillion dollars to our deficit for a war that could have been avoided

I dont want any more deficits either, its killing me as it is, but a "war that could have been avoided" without the explination of how it could be avoided is thin mate.

Nothing personal, you and I seem of a similar mind, but this conflict seems to be heading in one direction and I am not seeing many solutions popping up.

[Devastatin Dave]

There really isn't a military option unless it within (meaning revolution). The only military action I could see at this point would be air strikes. I don't know, this is a real bugger...

[KukriKhan]

There really isn't a military option unless it within (meaning revolution). The only military action I could see at this point would be air strikes. I don't know, this is a real bugger...

And the day after the air strikes, the IRG moves into southeastern Iraq(where we've pushed the Baghdad badguys with our surge) and southern Afghanistan... voila! in 6 months you have 'Greater Iran' and Sunni/Kurdistan remaining. And zero international support.

Not a pretty picture. Talk, I guess. And talk somemore. And talk again.

[Odin]

And the day after the air strikes, the IRG moves into southeastern Iraq(where we've pushed the Baghdad badguys with our surge) and southern Afghanistan... voila! in 6 months you have 'Greater Iran' and Sunni/Kurdistan remaining. And zero international support.

Well that assumes we leave intact thier ability to move into these area's dosent it? I suspect that airstrikes will envitably lead to targeting military infrastructure as well (I am not advocating that, its just my read on the evolution of the event).

I also think that any land grab by Iran, in a weakened state, will envoke a reaction from Sunni majority states in the region. Iran is a powerful nation but its ability to act unilaterally is some what contigent on regional support for its policies which it dosent have.

[gunslinger]

And the day after the air strikes, the IRG moves into southeastern Iraq(where we've pushed the Baghdad badguys with our surge) and southern Afghanistan... voila! in 6 months you have 'Greater Iran' and Sunni/Kurdistan remaining. And zero international support.

Not a pretty picture. Talk, I guess. And talk somemore. And talk again.

I really don't think that scenario is too worrisome. The U.S. military has lost a lot of face due to the inability to end the insurgency in Iraq, but it is still nearly invincible in a "conventional war" against an army like the IRG. I'm sure the U.S. generals and policymakers would actually love to see the Iranian army come storming across Iraq's borders. Such overt actions are much easier to explain to the French, Germans, Russians, etc. than the fact that Iran is already comitting acts of war by supporting the insurgency in Iraq.

[BigTex]

And the day after the air strikes, the IRG moves into southeastern Iraq(where we've pushed the Baghdad badguys with our surge) and southern Afghanistan... voila! in 6 months you have 'Greater Iran' and Sunni/Kurdistan remaining. And zero international support.

Not a pretty picture. Talk, I guess. And talk somemore. And talk again.

There's almost no way they could win in an offensive conventional war agaisnt the USA and Britian. They'd definately try, but for one thing the only strength Iran has against the USA in a conventional role is the terrian of Iran. We may not be able to easily invade, but bombing and defending the borders is very possible, and Iran knows that.

We've already seen their inability to control the radicals in their government with them taking 15 hostages. What do you think will happen once they have nuclear weapons or just nuclear waste?

[Ice]

Can you be more specific? What more pressure can we put? There is no will to do more in the UN (seemingly anyway) and 2 aircraft carriers in the gulf and no shortage of rhetoric....

More economic and travel sanctions through the UN and independently.

I personally think we should talk to them directly and attempt to come up with a solution that everyone saves face on

Yes, I agree.

, and if direct talks dont work then bomb the facilities, because short of these 2 options it seems everything else has already been tried.

Not a good idea.

Fair enough, but the supreme leader isnt a moderate and at the end of the day he makes the policy.

The supreme leader is whatever power the people give him. Making moderates out of every day Iranians is the start to a Moderate Iranian Government.

Yes and that will hurt, on this point I dont have a good rebuttal. This would be a high price for that war.

Very high. It would send the US economy into a deep recession.

given the state of the U.S. and the lack of influence/credability/prestige the U.S. has currently I dont think its going to slip much further then it is. Yes they might scream louder but would you rather have a minority who can enrich uranium and all those potential outcomes screaming? Or a majority without the capacity to enrich? Given what I know about the Iranian political system I'll take the later.

Oh, it can get MUCH MUCH worse. Like I said, a war with Iran would cripple our economy due to the fact they can cause even more instability in the already volatile Middle East.

I dont want any more deficits either, its killing me as it is, but a "war that could have been avoided" without the explination of how it could be avoided is thin mate.

It's simple, don't go to war. There isn't a reason for us to go war with Iran. They are 5 (liberal) to 10 (conservative) years away from developing one nuclear bomb which they would never use. All the Iranians want is nuclear power for their country and perhaps a bomb to deter invasion by foreign forces. I'm not saying it makes it right, but coupled with the fact that we have plenty of time and they are in no immediate hurry to use the bomb, there really isn't a reason to go gung ho and start an unnecessary conflict.

Nothing personal, you and I seem of a similar mind, but this conflict seems to be heading in one direction and I am not seeing many solutions popping up.

Like I said, these things take time. Diplomacy isn't a one night thing. Let's not rush this issue and see where it can lead us.

[Odin]

More economic and travel sanctions through the UN and independently.

Perhaps we disagree on the effect of any UN sanction, what was that Iranian generals name who was just in Moscow that was apart of the current ban ? It isnt working without full implementation by the soviets and the chinese, they dont seem to be on board.

The supreme leader is whatever power the people give him. Making moderates out of every day Iranians is the start to a Moderate Iranian Government.

I am not educated enough about the process of how one becomes a supreme leader in Iran to offer a counter argument. Currently though, he is not a moderate.

It's simple, don't go to war. There isn't a reason for us to go war with Iran. They are 5 (liberal) to 10 (conservative) years away from developing one nuclear bomb which they would never use. All the Iranians want is nuclear power for their country and perhaps a bomb to deter invasion by foreign forces. I'm not saying it makes it right, but coupled with the fact that we have plenty of time and they are in no immediate hurry to use the bomb, there really isn't a reason to go gung ho and start an unnecessary conflict.

I honestly agree, my position is based on the current situation though. It dosent appear to be heading in the direction you are noting as far as the time line. Our carriers arent there just for show I just havent seen any historical precedent for it.

Like I said, these things take time. Diplomacy isn't a one night thing. Let's not rush this issue and see where it can lead us.

I agree, I want to talk to these people 1 on1 and figure it out. I am not concerned with loss of prestige or recognition, I want Rice to visit Tehran and start a conversation with them now, so if your time line is correct by then we can recognize and monitor thier peaceful civilian nuclear program.

But, thats not the way it seems to be progressing.

[Vladimir]

Just wanted to borrow something from Lemur that expresses my thoughts on Iran:

I suspect this is the case. We have a situation where every major group believes that it will get to run the death camps. They have a long history of winner-take-all, and zero experience of compromise. At the moment, from their perspective we are either getting in the way of their righteous cleansing of the infidels, their neighbors.

I understand your concern but my goal is a stable government that isn't overtly hostile to the West, even if it is imperfect. That would ease everyone's concerns.

Unfortunately the word "comprehensive" has become synonymous with "inaction".