IRAN

[Preechr]

Cash dispute delays opening of Iranian reactor
Mark Tran and agencies
Monday March 12, 2007
Guardian Unlimited


A construction worker assembles part of Iran's nuclear power plant in the southern port of Bushehr. Photograph: Mehr News Agency/EPA

A dispute over funding has delayed the start of Iran's first nuclear power plant, the state-run Russian company building the facility said today.

"It will be impossible to launch the reactor in September, and there can be no talk about supplying fuel this month," the Russian group Atomstroyexport said in a statement after the collapse of bilateral talks last week over late Iranian payments.


The nuclear facility at Bushehr, under construction in an $800m (£414m) agreement between the Russian and Iranian governments, has been shrouded in controversy.

Of the two reactors at Bushehr, one is in an advanced stage of completion, while the other has not been worked on for some time and is not currently scheduled to be finished. Completion of the facility has been much-delayed over the years and it was supposed to have been ready in 2005.

The US has long opposed the project on the grounds that Iran has sufficient oil and gas reserves for power generation, and that nuclear reactors are expensive, unnecessary and could be used for military purposes.

Although the project is allowed under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, the US has provided Russia with intelligence information pointing to the existence of an Iranian nuclear weapons programme. Despite this, the Russians pushed ahead with the project.
The delay in the Bushehr project comes amid reports of tension between Moscow and Tehran on Iran's nuclear programme.

Russian news agencies today reported a source in Moscow as saying that Iran was abusing Russia's stance on its nuclear programme.

"Unfortunately, the Iranians are abusing our constructive relations," news agencies quoted the source as saying. The source added Iran "cannot play forever" on its good relations with Russia and "it is unacceptable for us to have an Iran with a nuclear bomb or the potential to create one".

Iran today issued a bank note with a nuclear symbol in a move seen as an example of its determination to press ahead with uranium enrichment in the face of international sanctions.

The new note for 50,000 rials (£2.80) also reflected rising inflation, a fact that has led to growing criticism of the president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. It is worth more than twice the previous highest-denomination note.

The UN security council imposed sanctions on Iran in December after it ignored a resolution demanding that it halt enrichment. The five permanent members of the council plus Germany are now considering further sanctions against Iran.

The US and some of its European allies have accused Iran of seeking uranium enrichment as a part of a secret programme to build nuclear weapons.
Enriched uranium is used as fuel in nuclear reactors but, enriched to a higher level, can be used in atomic bombs. Iran denies that it trying to build nuclear bombs, saying its program is strictly limited to generating electricity.

[GAsux]

I haven't seen a single nuclear energy/weapons expert advocate an form of military action against Iran. I'm not remotely close to familiar with all the workings of nuclear technology, but I understand that unlike the Iraq model, Iran has a much broader nextwork or nuclear facilities which are spread out, some in well populated areas. Further, most agree that there are likely underground facilities that remain unidentified.

From what I've read, no one in the nuclear non-proliferation field believes that any form of military strike will prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. They agree that it may delay the process a few years, but that ultimately at this point it is virtually impossible to stop the process.

Iranian strikes, whether from Israel or the US help the Iranians play the victim card and would probably go a long way towards national unity.

The Iraq war taught the Iranians some valuable lessons. If you have nukes (China, N. Korea) you have bargaining leverage with the U.S. No degree of airstrikes is going to lessen their resolve to get nukes, and as long as they have the technical know how, they'll find a way to make it happen.

For a change, I actually believe in this case diplomacy is the lesser of two evils. Accepting the inevitable and planning on how to deal with it effetively seems to me a better choice then isolation and force.

[Preechr]

Welcome to Team Anti-Semite.

You just wait till Abcdxxx gets here... You're in for it now, buddy.

[Abcdxxxx]

Why? All he said is he thinks Iran's bomb is inevitable, and that we should take diplomatic measures. That's not even close to saying Iran's bomb is a necessary great step towards world peace.

I read GA's post, and didn't have much to add. It's all just a guess. One thing though.... Iran's labs haven't been secret for a few years now.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4617398.stm
http://www.atomicarchive.com/Almanac...cilities.shtml

[GAsux]

Again I don't claim to be a proliferation expert, nor do I claim to fully understand the science of bomb making to include materials, triggers, etc. I would agree that Iran's main labs have probably all been discovered, but I'm willing to bet that they've been at least moderately successful in maintaining secret nuclear related facilities as well.

In virtually every single case regarding intelligence estimates of countries nuclear capabilities, they were vastly underestimated. But even so, assuming we could or have located every single nuclear weapons related facility in Iran, it would be a near impossible task to destroy every single one. And even if you could, you're still talking about a temporary solution. As long as they still have the brain power, they'll always be able to rebuild, unless we're talking about some kind of annual strike package.

Again, for me personally you're looking at either regime change or some kind of diplomacy/disincentive arrangement to maintain stability in the region because I don't see air strikes being an effective long term solution.

[Abcdxxxx]

"Again, for me personally you're looking at either regime change or some kind of diplomacy/disincentive arrangement"

I would agree those are probably the most likely methods for the problem, but I wouldn't rule out the possibility of an attack just based on the task itself. The point would be to make a dent, and destroy the key elements with a goal of setting their program back to around 1995. That would only require 3-4 key strike points, and as they get further along, the target becomes even more central.

I also think people are a bit caught up in this idea of the US and Israel making this strike, as if they're the only ones with any contention for these developments. If Iran gets their bomb, you will see Afghanistan, and Iraq turn into a ball of insanity.

[GAsux]

What political impact do military strikes have though, and are they worth it? Even if you can set the program back, even a decade, what does what would presumably be a unilateral strike from either the U.S. or Israel do to it's credibility, not to mention the impact it would have on the Iranian regime? Doesn't pre-emptive air strikes afford Iran the opportunity to strengthen its position internally by rallying the people against what would then be an enemy no only in words but in deeds?

A pre-emptive air strike based on information from the intelligence community that is already facing serious credibility issues based on what transpired in Iraq seems like a ridiculously risky move. In my opinion, you would not only strengthen the Iranian regimes internal position, but allow for them to build a reasonable international case against the "unprovoked" aggressive U.S./Israeli tactics.

Seems like it might provide a stop gap and buy more time, but I can't see air strikes solving the problem unless we intend to carry them out every 5-10 years.