Iranian Atomic Work Nears Bomb Capability, U.S. Says

[slipslidingaway]

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=auytDMOLyTjE

"Sept. 9 (Bloomberg) -- Iran’s nuclear work is approaching a “dangerous and destabilizing” point at which the Persian Gulf country could build a bomb, the U.S. envoy to the United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency said.

“Iran is now either very near or in possession already of sufficient low-enriched uranium to produce one nuclear weapon, if the decision were made to further enrich it to weapons grade,” Ambassador Glyn Davies said today in a statement prepared for the IAEA’s 35-member board of governors, which is meeting for a third day in Vienna.

This “moves Iran closer to a dangerous and destabilizing possible breakout capacity,” Davies added, in some of the strongest comments yet used by a U.S. official about the threat posed by Iran’s nuclear program. He repeated President Barack Obama’s overtures to Iran for direct negotiations and said the administration in Washington is committed to a negotiated resolution to the international dispute over Iran’s work.

Iran, holder of the world’s No. 2 oil and natural gas reserves, is under three sets of UN Security Council sanctions for refusing to halt uranium enrichment, a process to isolate an isotope needed to generate fuel for a nuclear power reactor or, in higher concentrations, to make a weapon. The government in Tehran says it wants to generate power and rejects Western allegations that it seeks to build an atomic bomb..."

[Howardx]

1. "if the decision were made to further enrich it"

so not that close after all...

[slipslidingaway]

4. Agree, maybe not so close - FWIW another artiicle...

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/10/world/middleeast/10intel.html

"...The statement by the ambassador, Glyn Davies, was intended to put pressure on American allies to move toward far more severe sanctions against Iran this month, perhaps including a cutoff of gasoline to the country, if it failed to take up President Obama’s invitation for serious negotiations. But it could also complicate the administration’s efforts to persuade an increasingly impatient Israeli government to give diplomacy more time to work, and hold off from a military strike against Iran’s facilities..

In interviews over the past two months, intelligence and military officials, and members of the Obama administration, have said they are convinced that Iran has made significant progress on uranium enrichment, especially over the past year.

...As American and Israeli officials expected, Iran turned over to European nations on Wednesday what it called a new set of “proposals” for negotiations over its nuclear program. American officials said they had not read them, but Susan E. Rice, the American ambassador to the United Nations, said the Iranian response must be “serious, substantive and constructive” to meet Mr. Obama’s test.

The White House has given Iran a late-September deadline to begin substantive negotiations, or face additional sanctions..."

[create.peace]

2. we need to work to downplay this in our daily lives

i have an iranian friend, living in iran, who says the powers that be will not prevail against the young people. this is important to know. they need support from us, just in treating them, the iranian people, as not dark age mentality.

[slipslidingaway]

5. Not sure it matters what we do, but we need to be aware of what the

administration is doing and saying.

:shrug:

Sad to say, but we're all pawns :(

[Howardx]

7. im not sure its the administration saying this

right now its only this ambassador.

[slipslidingaway]

8. True n/t

[Howardx]

10. i remember pre iraq war

the us ambassador was always contradicting the head of iaea.

[slipslidingaway]

16. And in the end we know who was right :( n/t

[AntiFascist]

3. Good news for the MIC...

all going according to plan, for them.

[slipslidingaway]

6. Hope not :( n/t

[AntiFascist]

9. Iran acknowledged that it purchased nuclear technology from AQ Khan...

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/02/22/1077384639885.html

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/02/13/EDFH15SIR8.DTL&feed=rss.opinion

"Former Dutch Prime Minister Ruud Lubbers is on record as saying that the government of The Netherlands knew Khan was stealing nuclear secrets but let him go on two occasions after the CIA said it wanted to continue to monitor his movements."

[Howardx]

11. interesting what gets left out

when youre vaulting the propaganda

""It happens that some of those were from some sub-continent countries," Asefi added, stressing that Tehran had informed the UN's nuclear watchdog - the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) - about the purchases."

[AntiFascist]

12. So what is your point exactly?

I can understand the CIA wanting to monitor the nuclear proliferation network, including all countries involved, but I don't understand the inaction of the Bush and other administrations, particularly in relation to Khan's activities. If Iran ends up with a powerful nuclear bomb capability, then they (at the very least) allowed it to happen on purpose. Neoconservatives have been waiting for this for decades.

[Howardx]

13. my point is

your 5 year old article is not relevant.

[AntiFascist]

14. My relevant point is based on the more recent 2009 SFGate article...

"Thus, the real question is not if A.Q. Khan is guilty, but what the extent is of the international arms ring." - referred to in the article as being similar to Iran-Contra.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/02/13/EDFH15SIR8.DTL&feed=rss.opinion#ixzz0QkGUVLNa

[slipslidingaway]

15. Thanks for the links, sadly I have not been following the story

very much lately.