What Part Of Cannot, Do You Not Understand?

The FT is reporting today that Iran has enough uranium for a bomb! Oh dear. Except their reporting is very, very lacking in the physics and engineering department.

Here's what El Baradei recently said about Iran and the bomb:

SZ: In your report it says that Iran is gaining an ever greater mastery of uranium enrichment. Can the USA and Israel accept the fact that Iran is on the threshold of becoming a virtual nuclear power?

ELBARADEI: The question is, what can they do? What are the alternatives to direct negotiations? As long as we are monitoring their facilities, they cannot develop nuclear weapons. And they still do not have the ingredients to make a bomb overnight.

How hard is it to google this shit?

Update: As Paul Kerr, from Total WonKerr, just wrote to me in an email: "Here's the number of weapons you can make with LEU: zero." Any questions?

Update Two: Newshoggers has a good post up on this too.

Update Three: Arms Control Wonk has a good post on this and so does Cheryl Wolfer at Whirled View.

Sean Paul Kelley February 20, 2009 - 11:17am

Sean Paul Kelley's diary | printer friendly version |

( categories: Iran )

So, who cares, what are they going to do...

...nuke the middle east with one bomb and then be blasted out of existence? We need to get a grip and stop listening to the jingoistic propaganda spewed forth by our government. Come on folks; don't be so easy; the world is very different from the description of the MSM. They have no idea!

http://whatintheworld-icarus.blogspot.com/

Celsius 233 February 20, 2009 - 11:43am

Iran has "in theory" stockpiled sufficient raw material..

Iran 'has enough uranium for nuclear weapon'

By Anne Penketh, Diplomatic Editor

Friday, 20 February 2009

Iran has "in theory" stockpiled sufficient raw material to build a nuclear weapon, a senior UN official said yesterday. Western analysts have been expecting Iran to reach this symbolic threshold of so-called "break-out capacity" after accumulating enough low-enriched uranium which can then be upgraded to fuel for a small bomb.

There have been fears that once Tehran crossed the threshold of obtaining more than 1,000kg of low-enriched uranium, Israel might be tempted to take unilateral military action to prevent Iran from producing a nuclear weapon, particularly now that the hardline Likud leader, Benjamin Netanyahu, appears poised to become prime minister.

However, the official added that the UN nuclear watchdog had not detected that Iran was building a clandestine facility to produce the highly enriched uranium needed for bomb fuel, or that it had the necessary technical capabilities to do so at its existing enrichment plant in Natanz. "We think they're not there yet," he added. He also stressed that the Iranian enrichment programme was "under surveillance at all times".

The official was commenting on a report by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) which said that at the end of last month Iran had stockpiled a total 1,010kg of low-enriched uranium. Despite continuing to reject UN demands to halt its uranium enrichment programme, Iran insists that its nuclear programme is designed purely to generate electricity.

Other independent experts point out that even when Iran did have sufficient low-enriched uranium – between 1,000 to 1,700kg – to produce the 20-25kg of highly enriched uranium necessary for a small bomb, it would still need to overcome technical hurdles at Natanz and assemble a warhead. That could take between two to five more years.

The IAEA also said that Iran had actually slowed its expansion of uranium enrichment at Natanz. It had increased the number of centrifuges which refine uranium by only 164 in addition to the 3,800 running last November.

But the IAEA director general, Mohamed ElBaradei, warned in the report that Iran was refusing to allow UN weapons inspectors into a heavy water plant that could be used for a plutonium route towards a nuclear bomb, and was stalling IAEA investigators looking into intelligence allegations of past covert atom bomb work.

....

_{"Go confidently in the direction of your dreams! Live the life you've imagined." -Henry David Thoreau}

Tina February 20, 2009 - 11:47am

SP, ask yourself

why it's in the pink paper? hmm?

how's that water war situation around the KAveri?

dk February 20, 2009 - 11:52am

I just arrived today. Will let you know tomorrow. But

we had an interesting conversation last night about water in India.

^{“Is not our first thought to go on the road? The road is our source, our vault of treasures, our wealth. Only on the road does the ‘traveller’ feel like himself, at home.”

Ryszard Kapuscinski}

Sean Paul Kelley February 20, 2009 - 12:33pm

Sorry, but I have to disagree.

The author of the piece makes it clear what the material is:

They said Iran had accumulated more than one tonne of low enriched uranium hexafluoride at a facility in Natanz.

The context of these specific figures:

The new figures come in a report from the International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN’s nuclear watchdog, released on Thursday. This revealed that Iran’s production of low enriched uranium had previously been underestimated.

When the agency carried out an annual stocktaking of Natanz in mid-November Iran had produced 839kg of low enriched uranium hexafluoride – more than 200kg more than previously thought. Tehran produced an additional 171kg by the end of January.

The political significance of having this quantity of low enriched uranium:

Iran’s success in reaching such a “breakout capacity” – a stage that would allow it to produce enough fissile material for a bomb in a matter of months – crosses a “red line” that for years Israel has said it would not accept.

And the attendant limitations:

UN officials emphasise that to produce fissile material Iran would have to reconfigure its Natanz plant to produce high enriched uranium rather than low enriched uranium – a highly visible step that would take months – or to shift its stockpile to a clandestine site.

No such sites have been proved to exist, although for decades Iran concealed evidence of its nuclear programme.

A senior UN official added that countries usually waited until they had an enriched uranium stockpile sufficient for several bombs before proceeding to develop fissile material. He conceded that Iran now had enough enriched uranium for one bomb.

“Do they have enough low enriched uranium to produce a significant quantity [enough high enriched uranium for a bomb]?” he said. “In theory this is possible, [although] with the present configuration at Natanz it isn’t.”

Me, I don't want the reporter spoon feeding me their conclusions - just gimme the data. Requiring me to actually know something about the issue in order to be able to interpret said data is not a sin, MHO.

“The absence of any US-Iran bilateral channel...may have the perverse effect of reinforcing Iranian interest in progressing in the nuclear realm so that the US will be forced to take it seriously and engage it directly." ~ Richard Haass

JustPlainDave February 20, 2009 - 12:00pm

Dave, I hear what you are saying, but ask yourself this:

how many people read stories like this as closely and completely as you do? And how many just read the first two or three graphs? The headline is too inflammatory and too misleading. The fact is: sure, theoretically they have enough uranium to build one bomb, but in practice, in real engineering terms they do not. This isn't explained until the end of the article. How many regular folks read that far? And now that it's out on the wires, in the Times, etc. . . how much of the article is going to get mangled and misreported?

Again, as it usually is with you and I, we agree on the technical aspects, but you and I have a different view on the politics of it. You're concerned with the real, raw, data, I am concerned with teh bullshit hype that these things create and how an article like this can put Obama in a box and prevent your tagline, "The absence of any US-Iran bilateral channel...may have the perverse effect of reinforcing Iranian interest in progressing in the nuclear realm so that the US will be forced to take it seriously and engage it directly," from ever occurring. You, in my not so humble opinion, should be concerned with that as well. It's just as, if not more important.

Sean Paul Kelley February 20, 2009 - 12:32pm

But what's the alternative?

I'm somewhat receptive to the notion that we need be aware of how this plays and that the "hype" button has been pushed a few too many times [considerable, considerable understatement]. But in my view this isn't just as flat as they cannot produce a weapon. They have been making progress and stockpiling enough LEU for a breakout capability is a an important milestone, both as a technical matter and as a political matter (in terms of possible Israeli reaction, if absolutely nothing else).

I've now invested a couple of years of my life watching what looks more like a game of political tennis - with each side mainly taking turns seizing on morsels that support their particular interpretation and very few folks actually trying to lay out a middle ground - than it should. This should be a tango (all controlled passion and dynamic tension) and what it seems to be is slam dancing in the mosh pit (okay crappy analogy - I hereby resolve to stop trying to channel my inner Jeffery). I see a lot more stuff that seems to focus on scoring points than actually understanding where the Iranians are coming from in all this and what the thinking is behind their moves. I can't help but fear that this isn't much helping the counter-proliferation cause.

JustPlainDave February 21, 2009 - 12:15am

I think the alternative is

in your tagline. We have to talk to the Iranians to get a better idea of their "intent." We can't assume what their intent is without at least talking to them about it. Without preconditions to the talks. How can you have any idea to what an adversary is doing unless you talk to him--even if he doesn't tell you, you can get a better idea by reading between the lines, etc. . . and that's why this consistent hyping is so awful. It puts Obama in a terrible box and limits his actions.

As for proliferation: I agree 100%. But I blame that on Clinton in not keeping the Indians and Paks from testing nukes back in the 90s. That was the clarion call that proliferation was occurring.

Sean Paul Kelley February 21, 2009 - 12:52am

Heh. I was thinking more the alternative in media...

...coverage. Iran I know we pretty much agree on! And, yeah, we need to talk to them - closely, intimately, and for a long time. It'll be good for both of us (the west and Iran). What's the worst that could happen if we resolutely focus on talking and keeping talking? We end up talking to a bunch of Mullahs that we don't agree with or necessarily like all that much - at least this group represent sufficient power that the talk matters. We talk to all sorts of people we don't like and get bupkiss out of it because, really, they don't matter. Might as well get something out of the gum flapping.

On the topic of media coverage, I'm really uncomfortable with some of the things that I see in the media criticism coming out of the commentariat. Very commonly expressed notion being that "MSM" needs to "get it right" - except that getting it right seems largely to be about not disagreeing with whatever part of the commentariat is trying to flay them on that particular day. One of the big gaps that I see in the media coverage are the medium-term pieces - the ones that give a couple of years worth of context and development on a story and tie all of the parts together better than a 600 word wire story can. (Don't even get me started about the gaps in broadcast media - gap is more predominant than the coverage, MHO.) This was something that would really have made a difference in the Iraq coverage and Afghanistan is really crying out for it right now. There are some longer (and quite influential) magazine pieces out there, but much of the stuff that I've seen is way more travelogue and "I was there" than synthesis. To some extent, this is a gap that I think the commentariat could have a role in filling, but large segments of it are moving in the opposite direction - even shorter pieces. None of us have the time, I guess, given the conspicuous lack of salary associated with posting.

JustPlainDave February 21, 2009 - 10:32am

look we found elliot abrams

i was wondering where that guy got to. Steve Clemons in Washington Note breaks it down
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/2009/02/the_elliott_abr/
Good blog all around - nice tone, natty criticisms of the old school. also the fact that Bob Schieffer picked the Peter Sellers political classic 'Being There' as a top movie pick for some political movie nite, is interesting stuff.
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/2009/02/what_one_learns/
Clemons lauds his Pollard = Bad, Libby = Good argument in the Jerusalem Post as a yummy development. hilarious!
--
Hongpong.com

HongPong February 20, 2009 - 11:31pm

El Baradai (sp) has thouroghly...

...debunked that report. Said as long as they monitor Iran's nuclear program, Iran won't be building any nukes. After the lies and bullshit from B2; I believe El Baradai. He said the truth and never lied; he has credibility, which Obama is losing daily.

http://whatintheworld-icarus.blogspot.com/

Celsius 233 February 21, 2009 - 8:09am

What Iran's nuclear milestone means

(via Foreign Policy blog)
By Jacqueline Shire
(Jacqueline Shire is a senior analyst at the Institute for Science and International Security and a widely cited expert on Iran's nuclear program.)

There are plenty of reasons to pay close attention to Iran's nuclear progress, but the new International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report showing that the country has accumulated 1010 kg of low-enriched uranium is not at the top of my list.

That's not to say that this milestone is insignificant. We now know that Iran has accumulated enough low-enriched uranium (LEU) to yield sufficient high-enriched uranium for a single nuclear weapon should Iran decide to seize the material, which is under IAEA safeguards, further enrich it, and in violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, use the material in a nuclear warhead. Luckily, given the international crisis this action would certainly provoke, Iran is unlikely to attempt the feat.

We've also learned that Iran has achieved its objective of successfully operating several thousand centrifuges. This has been a gradual process that began in earnest two years ago.

The report generated further concern because of a discrepancy in the accounting of Iran's uranium. According to senior U.N. officials, the discrepancy, which resulted in the underreporting of LEU in the November 2008 report by 209 kg, was an engineering miscalculation on Iran's part and not a deliberate attempt to mislead the IAEA. The net effect is that Iran crossed the so-called breakout threshold a few months earlier than expected.
(N.B.: the "discrepancy" issue is addressed by Jeffery Lewis at ACW, cited above)
...
Potentially more troubling is Iran's refusal to allow IAEA inspection of nuclear facilities not covered under traditional safeguards, in particular places where centrifuges are manufactured and stored. The consequence is that the IAEA has little knowledge of how many centrifuges Iran is manufacturing and where they are. It is conceivable therefore that Iran could make centrifuges that are not destined for the inspected site at Natanz, but for a clandestine facility. Because of another change that Iran unilaterally made to its safeguards relationship with the IAEA, it has declared that it will only inform the IAEA of new nuclear facilities six months before they become operational.
...

http://tinyurl.com/bvrswr

"It is conceivable therefore that Iran could make centrifuges that are not destined for the inspected site at Natanz, but for a clandestine facility."

"Conceivable", "could", "may acquire the capacity"...all the familiar words and phrases that serve as a coda concluding or summarising most discussions concerning Iran's nuclear program. The simplest interpretation is that they are chundering along, developing expertise at accumulating LEU (at 3-5% enrichment) whilst operating several thousand centrifuges and sorting the cascading throughput, and concurrently using the "potential" - and at this point, that's all it is - for HEU production as their stick to attract carrots from the West. Until someone can point to direct and incontrovertible evidence that there is "diversion" of the IAEA-monitored LEU stream elsewhere beyond Natanz to some allegedly "hidden" HEU facility, then all the hyperventilating about "the Iranian nukes" is for propaganda purposes, and can only serve the narrow interests of, e.g., right-wing Israeli policies.
For an in-depth discussion on HEU processes and how Iran "may" integrate them into its current enrichment program, here is a recommended article:

A Witches’ Brew? Evaluating Iran’s Uranium-Enrichment Progress
[by] David Albright and Jacqueline Shire

http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2007_11/Albright

_{“les Etats-unis, c’est le seul pays à être passé de la préhistoire à la décadence sans jamais connaitre la civilisation…”...Georges Clemenceau}

barrisj redux February 21, 2009 - 7:44pm

Interesting piece by James Acton...

...putting quite a bit more context around the under-reporting issue.

http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/2198/safeguards-in-iran-and-elsewhere

JustPlainDave February 22, 2009 - 10:27am

Mullen Says He Thinks Iran Has Enough Nuclear Material for Bomb

By Nadine Elsibai

March 1 (Bloomberg) -- Admiral Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that he believes Iran has enough nuclear material to eventually make a bomb, concurring with a United Nations report.

“We think they do, quite frankly,” Mullen said on CNN’s “State of the Union” program today about the UN report. “Iran having a nuclear weapon, I’ve believed for a long time, is a very, very bad outcome for the region and for the world.”

The UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency said Feb. 19 that Iran’s stockpile of low-enriched uranium has increased about 60 percent since November to about 1,010 kilograms (2,227 pounds) of the material.

It would take 630 kilograms of low-enriched uranium to yield 15 to 22 kilograms of weapons-grade uranium, enough for the production of a nuclear weapon under the supervision of an expert bomb-maker, London’s Verification Research Training and Information Center estimates.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates, speaking on NBC’s “Meet the Press” program today, said Iran isn’t yet “close to a stockpile. They’re not close to a weapon at this point. And so there is some time.”

Iran, with the world’s second-largest oil and natural gas reserves, is accused by the U.S. of having an illicit nuclear weapons program, funding Islamist terrorist groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas, and interfering in Iraq, something the Islamic Republic denies.

more blah

_{"Go confidently in the direction of your dreams! Live the life you've imagined." -Henry David Thoreau}

Tina March 1, 2009 - 3:29pm

Gates contradicts Mullen on Iran N-case

PressTV, March 1

US Defense Secretary says that Iran is not close to having a nuclear weapon, contradicting recent comments made by a US military official.

"They're not close to a stockpile, they're not close to a weapon at this point, and so there is some time," Robert Gates said Sunday on NBC.

This is while earlier in the day, head of the US military Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen in an interview with CNN had stated that Iran had enough fissile material to make a nuclear bomb. "We think they do, quite frankly."

Compared with recent comments by Mullen, Gates' comments indicate a much more positive approach towards Iran's nuclear program, which according to Tehran is designed purely for the civilian and peaceful applications of the technology.

_{They sicken of the calm, who knew the storm.}

Raja March 2, 2009 - 10:39am

Search

latest

User login

Navigation

Create new account

Team Agonist

Thoughtful

Global

Timely

Who's online

Online users:

Syndicate

What Part Of Cannot, Do You Not Understand?

Comment viewing options

Premium Advertising

Our Friends

Agonist Page on FaceBook

Agonist Facebook Activity