UN nuclear chief seeks ’progress’ on wider Iran probes before world powers talks

Goober

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 23, 2009
24,691
116
63
Moving
UN nuclear chief seeks

TEHRAN, Iran — The head of the U.N. nuclear agency pushed Monday for a breakthrough pact with Iran to resume inspections into suspected secret atomic weapons work and possibly set in motion further dealmaking when envoys from Tehran and world powers gather later this week in Baghdad.

The mission by International Atomic Energy Agency chief Yukiya Amano — his first to Iran since taking the post in 2009 — raised speculation about greater flexibility by Iranian officials as they struggle to balance the blows from Western sanctions and their insistence never to abandon the country’s nuclear program.

But any Iranian co-operation — including possibly opening up a military site to U.N. inspectors — will carry reciprocal demands that the West may consider reaching too far, too soon.

Tehran has already signalled its goal before Wednesday’s talks: Pressing the U.S. and Europe to roll back sanctions that have hit critical oil exports and blacklisted the country from international banking networks. The West’s opening gambit, meanwhile, may aim at one of Iran’s most prized advances — its ability to make nuclear fuel.

A main concern is Iran’s production of uranium enriched to 20 per cent, which is far higher than needed for regular energy-producing reactors but used in medical research. The U.S. and allies fear the higher-enriched uranium could be quickly boosted to warhead-grade material.

Iran denies it seeks nuclear arms and says its reactors are only for power and medical applications.
U.S. officials have said Washington will not backpedal from its stance that Iran must fully halt uranium enrichment. But speculation is increasing that the priorities have shifted to block the 20 per cent enrichment and perhaps allow — at least for the moment — Iran to maintain lower-level nuclear fuel production.

Iranian officials could package such a scenario as a victory for their domestic audience. In Israel, it would likely be greeted with dismay and widen rifts between the Obama administration and Israeli officials who keep open the threat of military action against Iran’s nuclear sites.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warned against concessions, saying world powers should make “clear and unequivocal demands” that Iran stop all of its nuclear enrichment activity.

“Iran wants to destroy Israel and it is developing nuclear weapons to fulfil that goal,” Netanyahu said at a conference for civil servants in Jerusalem. “Against this malicious intention, leading world powers need to display determination and not weakness. They should not make any concessions to Iran.”

In Warsaw, Iran’s ambassador to Poland, Samad Ali Lakizadeh, said Monday that he believes the Baghdad talks offer a “very good chance and opportunity to solve many problems, provided that our rights are respected” — a reference to U.N. nuclear treaties that permit signatory nations, such as Iran, to enrich uranium.

Optimism for the Baghdad round was further boosted by the U.N. nuclear chief’s visit to Iran — just days after talks with Iranian envoys in Vienna that were described as making progress.

Amano is focused on getting Iran agreement to allow IAEA probes of various high-profile Iranian sites, including the Parchin military complex southeast of Tehran, where the agency believes Iran in 2003 ran explosive tests needed to set off a nuclear charge. The suspected blasts took place inside a pressure chamber.

Iran has never said whether the chamber existed, but describes Parchin as a conventional military site. Iran, however, has blocked IAEA inspection requests for more than four years.
 

MHz

Time Out
Mar 16, 2007
41,030
43
48
Red Deer AB
(this is almost part II of the above or this article for local consumption only and the words are actually quite hollow)
Defense Minister Ehud Barak says Israel would accept an Iranian reduction in nuclear enrichment to 3.5 percent in accordance with a proposal by the P5+1.
Israel's official position is that Iran must halt all enrichment, but most analysts say it doesn't represent a viable negotiating stance.
Barak and Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu are the key Israeli officials pushing for military action against Iran, and Barak's statements are believed to represent some flexibility on Netanyahu's part.
However, analysts say Israel will almost certainly insist all enrichment activities at the nearly impentetrable Fordow facility near Qom be halted entirely as a part of any agreement with Iran over its controversial nuclear program.
Iran also enriches uranium at the Natantz site. However – while Natantz has been fortified – both Jerusalem and Washington have the military capacity to neutralize it with relative ease.
Barak's statement came after Netanyahu succeeded in forging a 94-seat "super-coalition," which is believed to have strengthened his hand both domestically and in Washington for dealing with Iran.
And, those beliefs appear to be borne out in the offer the P5+1 — the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany — plan to make Iran in Baghdad on Wednesday.
Sources say the P5+1 will demand Tehran stop enriching uranium to 20 percent; move all 20 percent enriched uranium out of the country; and stop all nuclear activity at Fordow.
Including Fordow is widely believed by international observers to be a nod from the P5+1 to Israel.
The P5+1 is also expected to demand "full transparency" and "permanent human monitoring" by the UN nuclear watchdog at Iran's key nuclear sites, as well.
In exchange, the P5+1 will aid Iran in operating a small reactor that can be used for medical research isotopes, and will not push for further U.N. sanctions.
However, the P5+1 is not expected to ease the European Union embargo on Iranian oil set to go into effect July 1 — which analysts say is key for Tehran.
The embargo will reduce Iran’s already impacted oil exports by 500,000 barrels a day — and will likely remain in place until Tehran not only reaches an agreement, but demonstrates compliance with it.
The G8 countries over the weekend said they have no intention to give Iran what is most important to it without a suitable agreement in place.
Barak's statement that Israel is willing to compromise shifts the onus to Iran in Baghdad and gives them a plausible way out of the international sanctions that are crippling the Islamic Republic's economy.
Analysts say, if Iran chooses to press on with its nuclear program despite Israel showing flexibility and backing a fair offer – then an Israeli military strike is much harder to criticize should it be launched.
Report: Israel May Back World Powers on Iran - Defense/Security - News - Israel National News
 

earth_as_one

Time Out
Jan 5, 2006
7,933
53
48
MHz: Iran has a medical isotope reactor which requires 20% HEU. Due to US/Israeli led sanctions, Iran cannot buy 20% HEU, so they have to make their own. Any deal limiting Iran to 3.5% HEU production, would also have to include a guaranteed source of 20% HEU.

Regarding IAEA inspections:
Iran is not obligated to allow UN inspection teams access to anywhere. Access to Iranian conventional weapon testing facilities would be off limits. The US and other countries have a record of violating inspection agreements to illegally gather intel on conventional weapons systems as well as command, control and communication systems and then used that intel to bomb targets identified by that illegally gathered intel.

UN 'spied on Iraq' | World news | The Guardian

Washingtonpost.com: U.S. Spied on Iraq Via U.N.

BBC News | Middle East | Unscom 'infiltrated by spies'

Given the above record of abuse and illegal activity, Iran has reason to be wary of UN weapon inspectors and their true motivations.
 

Goober

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 23, 2009
24,691
116
63
Moving
MHz: Iran has a medical isotope reactor which requires 20% HEU. Due to US/Israeli led sanctions, Iran cannot buy 20% HEU, so they have to make their own. Any deal limiting Iran to 3.5% HEU production, would also have to include a guaranteed source of 20% HEU.

Regarding IAEA inspections:
Iran is not obligated to allow UN inspection teams access to anywhere. Access to Iranian conventional weapon testing facilities would be off limits. The US and other countries have a record of violating inspection agreements to illegally gather intel on conventional weapons systems as well as command, control and communication systems and then used that intel to bomb targets identified by that illegally gathered intel.

UN 'spied on Iraq' | World news | The Guardian

Washingtonpost.com: U.S. Spied on Iraq Via U.N.

BBC News | Middle East | Unscom 'infiltrated by spies'

Given the above record of abuse and illegal activity, Iran has reason to be wary of UN weapon inspectors and their true motivations.

According to the NPT they have to allow access.
 

earth_as_one

Time Out
Jan 5, 2006
7,933
53
48
I should clarify that statement. The IAEA would have to have supporting evidence. If they don't then Iran is under no NPT obligation to allow access.
 

Goober

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 23, 2009
24,691
116
63
Moving
I should clarify that statement. The IAEA would have to have supporting evidence. If they don't then Iran is under no NPT obligation to allow access.

This has been explained to you on countless posts- try to keep up.
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty [NPT]
Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons [NPT]
Provisions
The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, also referred to as the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), obligates the five acknowledged nuclear-weapon states (the United States, Russian Federation, United Kingdom, France, and China) not to transfer nuclear weapons, other nuclear explosive devices, or their technology to any non-nuclear-weapon state. Nuclear weapon States Parties are also obligated, under Article VI, to "pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control." Non-nuclear-weapon States Parties undertake not to acquire or produce nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive devices. They are required also to accept safeguards to detect diversions of nuclear materials from peaceful activities, such as power generation, to the production of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices. This must be done in accordance with an individual safeguards agreement, concluded between each non-nuclear-weapon State Party and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Under these agreements, all nuclear materials in peaceful civil facilities under the jurisdiction of the state must be declared to the IAEA, whose inspectors have routine access to the facilities for periodic monitoring and inspections. If information from routine inspections is not sufficient to fulfill its responsibilities, the IAEA may consult with the state regarding special inspections within or outside declared facilities.
 

Goober

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 23, 2009
24,691
116
63
Moving
Not to military installations they don't, Iran is doing it as a courtesy. (even though the IAEA is riddled with spies on any inspection)

And guess what will happen if they are denied access to areas as you mention - say Parchin-
 

MHz

Time Out
Mar 16, 2007
41,030
43
48
Red Deer AB
And guess what will happen if they are denied access to areas as you mention - say Parchin-
Nothing, same as has happened in the past 5 years. Same reason NATO isn't flying over Syria, it isn't safe to do so. Iran is an 'enemy' that can fight back. Once our leaders attack they would have to see it through or 'everybody' would thumb their noses at them next time a 'demand' came down the pipe. Even a long war would crack NATO.
I assume two reactors would allow them to export electricity as well as turn inner cities into electric only and gas is for long stretches.

Now that China has a slush fund they can switch to quality long lasting products that also come at a premium price, even with sanctions in place Iran has more 'real money' than any Western Nation and their resources are a short hop away.

Speaking of a short hop Israel is making a deal with Greece about building an exporting gas-plant on Cyprus. Say there is a 5 year development phase and all through that time Iranian gas to Europe is blockaded, Israel has a force built customer base and prices could vary, the on/off valve would certainly be the stick that would keep nations in line. That deal includes 20,000 commandos and the right to patrol the skies with Israeli aircraft.
Think that plan is still going to work at that time-frame now that Syria didn't get overthrown, if they were meant to be at this time? (how does Assad prove he didn't 'sell-out' like Arafat did just so they could be the 'ruler' till they suicided him) Since attacking Iran isn't doable without getting so weak that other smaller nations would clean us up the scraps with little trouble. Lebanon under a NATO friendly rule would seal the whole Med. Sea gas-field even to the point Turkey is a customer rather than an exporter herself.

Just wondering if you are allowing for a wide range of events being involved with Iran and this power station issue? Little more that two-faced to insist on how Iranian inspections are going when Israel is inspection free even to this date. Iran has Russia, I'm quite sure somebody would sell Iran those very weapons should sher be attacked with those same types of things. You don't build an array of nuclear devices when your whole military strategy is defense based. Killing yourself so you can't be taken isn't always the best strategy. Learn and decide if it does offer something better for the common person before chopping off something.
You build fast little darty things to defend them and unless you can stop the universe's background radiation you aren't going to be sneaking in.

That new round of sanctions over the weekend is supposed to prove what? Iran only wants the power and medical grades. With things like STUXNET existing nobody is going to be wandering around any R&D military places that are equal to Area 51 in terms of secrecy. Get over it already, that is two escaped fishes now. Time to change your fishing pattern, this current fish in the pond has wizened up to the types of lures that exist. Guess who wins then?
 
Last edited:

Goober

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 23, 2009
24,691
116
63
Moving
Taking Maybe for An Answer - By Jon B. Alterman | Foreign Policy

Among the worst military outcomes is a partially successful strike, which would likely sharpen rather than blunt Iranian nuclear weapons ambitions. After all, the mullahs would reason, no country with nuclear weapons ever has been attacked. Iran could rebuild the damage from a strike itself, or it could purchase technology and materiel overseas. If nuclear facilities allowed under the Non-Proliferation Treaty were attacked, Iran would likely withdraw from the agreement, further loosening constraints and shielding the nuclear program from the world's view. Such an attack would also threaten to shatter international efforts to press for a change in Iranian behavior and unleash a range of second-order effects that would spike oil prices, drive the fragile global economy into a tailspin, and leave a trail of death from the Mediterranean Sea to the Indian Ocean.

All told, there are many ways a military option could fail, and even more ways that its outcome would be impossible to judge. There is a better option. An Iranian nuclear program that has more intrusive inspections and narrower areas of uncertainty, as the International Atomic Energy Agency is reportedly seeking, puts the United States in a better position than it is in now. A precedent for this exists: Despite more than a decade of drama after the U.S.-led war on Iraq in 1991, the resulting inspections regime was enough to stymie any Iraqi nuclear ambitions. What was left was mostly smoke and mirrors and public relations, intended to bolster the regime rather than threaten its neighbors.

There is substantial international support for such an approach, ranging from governments who want to bolster multilateralism to those that fear a disruption in energy supplies. While Russia and China in particular seem reluctant to hand the United States a victory, these countries would prefer successful U.S.-led management of the crisis to chaotic conflict. One way the United States can sustain international unity is quietly to remind these states that it retains a war option, while doing everything possible to find diplomatic alternatives to it.
 

earth_as_one

Time Out
Jan 5, 2006
7,933
53
48
Asked a question on the Iran thread - drop over and give a reply.
Normally questions end in a question mark.
one of these thingies: ?????

QUOTE=Goober
This has been explained to you on countless posts- try to keep up.
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty [NPT]
Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons [NPT]
Provisions
The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, also referred to as the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), obligates the five acknowledged nuclear-weapon states (the United States, Russian Federation, United Kingdom, France, and China) not to transfer nuclear weapons, other nuclear explosive devices, or their technology to any non-nuclear-weapon state. Nuclear weapon States Parties are also obligated, under Article VI, to "pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control." Non-nuclear-weapon States Parties undertake not to acquire or produce nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive devices. They are required also to accept safeguards to detect diversions of nuclear materials from peaceful activities, such as power generation, to the production of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices. This must be done in accordance with an individual safeguards agreement, concluded between each non-nuclear-weapon State Party and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Under these agreements, all nuclear materials in peaceful civil facilities under the jurisdiction of the state must be declared to the IAEA, whose inspectors have routine access to the facilities for periodic monitoring and inspections. If information from routine inspections is not sufficient to fulfill its responsibilities, the IAEA may consult with the state regarding special inspections within or outside declared facilities.
Seems rather arrogant... But I'll bite... How much nuclear material is suspected of being diverted to this site that Iran is alleged to have used to test nuclear weapon designs????

My understanding is none. I believe the accusation made by a biased source based on the contents of an allegedly stolen laptop acquired by a biased source allegedly yielded circumstantial evidence that this site might have been used to high speed test detonators required for nukes. High speed detonators may have other uses that don't involve nukes.

If Iran grants the IAEA access to this site and they don't find a trace of HEU or any conclusive evidence linking the site to a nuclear weapon, then they have nothing.

A good chance the US and other hostile to Iran entities might get a good look at legal Iranian conventional weapons which are non of the IAEA's business. Since the IAEA has a history of passing illegally collected intel on behalf of "hostile to Iran" powers, I'd say Iran is quite right to limit what IAEA instruments are allowed to the site. Iran should also assume that the IAEA will be infiltrated by spies and complete a thorough search of areas visited by the IAEA for eaves dropping and monitoring devices clandestinely left behind by IAEA inspection teams like they did in Iraq in the 1990's...
 
Last edited:

MHz

Time Out
Mar 16, 2007
41,030
43
48
Red Deer AB
But I'll bite... How much nuclear material is suspected of being diverted to this site that Iran is alleged to have used to test nuclear weapon designs.
None because they haven't been pursuing that path. The forced inspections are to try and find out what the hell they are blowing uop that is recording seismic shock waves. Iran already told the West that it was exploring fuel/air explosions. Does that mean microscopic particles of their normal crude sent into a super fine mist and then exploded, much like a grain elevator exploding but repeatable?
 

earth_as_one

Time Out
Jan 5, 2006
7,933
53
48
I wouldn't be so certain about that MHz. Likely Iran researched nuclear weapon designs clandestinely until 2003:
IAEA says foreign expertise has brought Iran to threshold of nuclear capability - The Washington Post

But all the evidence since supports the conclusion that Iran froze the program by 2003. Likely Iran's nuclear weapon research documentation is stored clandestinely on paper somewhere in Iran. I doubt the IAEA will find it...

Iran has a nuclear break out capibility. Likely they are withing a few months of building functional nukes... perhaps years from putting one on an ICBM. That's where they are likely to remain unless attacked or face a circumstantial threat....
 
Last edited:

MHz

Time Out
Mar 16, 2007
41,030
43
48
Red Deer AB
If they wanted one they could have bought some from Russia. They can already launch satellites, that is ICBM range if nobody could shoot, since everybody can why would you build for that when you have 200MPH torpedoes and their own home-spun cruise missiles? Again a false lead as Iran is defensive, with the prize under your feet you don't prepare to go away and fight a war in some other place far, far away.

Build a strong defense and sit back and wait and watch.

How about the view when all the reports are examined, same or does it point to sloppy reporting and playing favorites to Washington's wishes?

Who was Iran ever going to invade? You don't go around blowing up your customers, no matter what, if anything you raise the price of your exports to them. They are catching onto the free market system much faster than the West, probably because they spend less time trying to figure out how to stab their partners in the back .

Any hype about Iran seeking the bomb is part of their whining game for 1979. They don't like it when a prey gets aways, even 1 every 20 years is too fast a rate, so far it is running about 3 in 60 yrs.

Iran has a valid reason for a nuclear power plant, lets her export more product. No gain in a bomb that will never be used, those things are not cheap, that cost alone could wire the Nation with power to every village, along with the appliances it runs. Is the West pissed of knowing that is what they should have done when they were the high rollers. Now all we have is a bunch useless weapons. Supper goes to the best shot I guess. lol
 

Goober

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 23, 2009
24,691
116
63
Moving
BBC News - Iran enrichment 'at higher level' - IAEA

Iran enrichment 'at higher level' - IAEA

UN nuclear inspectors have found traces of uranium enriched at 27% at Iran's Fordo nuclear site, a confidential report obtained by the BBC suggests.

The report by the nuclear watchdog IAEA comes a day after Iran and world powers held talks on Iran's nuclear programme.

Iran says the aim of the Fordo site is to enrich uranium for civilian use up to a maximum of 20%, and the latest readings could be accidental.

Analysts say 27% would bring Iran closer to making weapons-grade uranium.

The latest report by the International Atomic Energy Agency says Iranian officials told inspectors that the production of such particles "may happen for technical reasons beyond the operator's control".

Iran insists its nuclear work is purely peaceful, but Western countries fear it is seeking nuclear weapons, which require uranium enriched up to 90%.

Access sought

After the latest high-level talks in Baghdad, EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton said "significant differences" remained, but some common ground had been found.
 

earth_as_one

Time Out
Jan 5, 2006
7,933
53
48
According to Iran, the trace amounts of greater than 20% HEU was the result of technical problem and not intentional. Enrichment centrifuges have to be adjusted periodically by technicians to maintain 20% HEU output. During this process, its normal for the centrifuges to produce trace amounts of greater than 20% HEU.

If I understand the process, the centrifuges have to be tuned to produce 20% HEU. That means producing a sample of HEU for testing, measuring the sample for purity and then making adjustment based on measured purity.. They have to repeat this process until they have tuned the centrifuges to produce exactly 20% HEU. The tuning process normally results in trace quantities of greater than 20% HEU and is not a violation of Iran's NPT obligations or agreements.

Of course the IAEA is investigating further to confirm the source of the :trace" amounts of greater than 20% HEU but even they aren't suggesting what they found was significant, deliberate or abnormal. They seem to accept the Iranian explanation as plausible/likely and are not making a big deal out of it.

Hostile to Iran sources are using this routine incident to falsely claim that trace amounts of greater than 20% HEU proves Iran's true intentions, which is complete BS...

If Iran was producing greater than 20% HEU, they wouldn't be doing it at site where the IAEA conducts regular inspections. It would be done at a secret site... if such a site exists.

I've been following this story for years.Most likely Iran has a nuclear breakout capability. They likely have warehouses of centrifuges set aside as "spares" and secret enrichment sites which are empty and inactive. If Iran decides to pursue nuclear weapons, they'd probably have these sites up and running within days/weeks. Likely they are months away from testing a nuclear weapon... And that's where Iran is likely to stay, unless they are attacked or face an existential threat. Israel and other countries may not be happy with this situation, but Iran can have this kind of a capability and still operate within the confines of their NPT agreements and obligations.