Iran and the bomb

[Skybird]

IRAN AND THE BOMB
https://think-again.org/der-iran-und-die-bombe/


After World War II, the four victorious powers, all in possession of nuclear weapons, sought to deny the remaining nations access to the bomb. This led to the creation of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in 1957 under the umbrella of the United Nations.

The IAEA enters into a bilateral agreement with the governments of the world - the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) - by which a country pledges to refrain from possessing bombs. To verify this pledge, governments then grant IAEA inspectors access to relevant nuclear facilities in their country - including Iran.

Uranium, nuclear power and the bomb

In this context, a few explanatory words on physics are necessary.

Uranium is a natural resource whose energy content per kilogram is a million times that of the same amount of coal or oil. This enormous potential can be released continuously over a period of years, for example to generate electricity in a nuclear reactor, or within a fraction of a second in the atomic bomb.

However, uranium as it occurs in nature is not suitable for either purpose. It consists of two components, only one of which provides energy. But it is this component, of all things, that accounts for less than one percent and must be "enriched" for technical applications: to 4 percent for common reactors, and to 90 percent for bombs.

So the low-enriched fuel for a reactor cannot be misused to build bombs, and a reactor cannot explode like a bomb for the same reason, although the opposite is often suggested. Neither in Chernobyl nor in Fukushima has there been a nuclear explosion.

A toothless tiger?

The IAEA advocates peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Now, to ensure that uranium is not misused for bombs, it must stop any enrichment beyond the said 4 percent. Enrichment facilities are huge; they consist of thousands of centrifuges that cannot be hidden in a garage from IAEA inspectors.

So how efficiently does the control work in practice? In the 1950s, only the four countries mentioned above, the USA, the USSR, the UK and France, had the bomb; today there are probably ten of them. The reason: The IAEA is a toothless tiger, because it can only control what is shown to it voluntarily. It cannot invade a country and comb it for weapons. And a state that has not signed an NPT can do whatever it wants anyway. There are half a dozen of those.

One of them is Israel. Its first prime minister, Ben Gurion, saw only one way to secure the existence of his small country surrounded by major hostile powers: Israel needed atomic bombs. If Arab tanks then came across the border, if bombs fell on Tel Aviv or Haifa, then one could strike back nuclear and destroy Damascus or Baghdad or Tehran. One would be ready for a devastating counterstrike. With conventional weapons, Israel would not be able to do that. So that's how the country developed nuclear bombs.

Enrichments in Iran

Naturally, nuclear-armed Israel is a thorn in the side of its neighbors. Some tried to catch up, apparently without success, with Israel also having a hand in it.

Iran had been bound by an NPT since the time of the Shah. It operated a number of facilities for research purposes that were regularly visited by IAEA inspectors. Activities intensified after the 1979 Islamic Revolution. In 2003, inspections revealed the presence of highly enriched uranium, which prompted the IAEA to call on Iran to immediately halt these activities - without success.

In 2005, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad came to power, and nuclear activities continued unabated. In 2007, Iran was publicly accused of breaching the signed NPT, and the UN Security Council imposed painful sanctions-including the freezing of foreign accounts. At the center of the criticism was a facility in Natanz, where uranium enrichment on a military scale is carried out on a hundred thousand square meters, underground in a concrete bunker. Here, thousands of centrifuges whirr away.

Iran's "peaceful" nuclear program.

Hassan Rouhani came to power in 2013. He sees his primary task as freeing the country from the sanctions that have been in effect for six years. Talks begin with the 5 members of the UN Security Council plus Germany, the "5+1". After two years of tough negotiations, they agree on a "Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)" that brings an end to sanctions against Iran and sets out boundary conditions for the nuclear program for the next 15 years. The peaceful nature of the program is emphasized in the comprehensive document. But there still remains a contradiction.

Even if Iran were interested in "peaceful nuclear physics research," it would not be a reason for enriching uranium on an industrial scale, as is done at Natanz or Fordow. The only reasonable assumption is that Iran is still working on making bombs despite the JCPOA, but that trade restrictions have been lifted for now.

That was the situation in July 2015, when the JCPOA was passed with much patting on the back, flags, and incense. Then in 2017, an inspection took place in which the IAEA confirmed Iran was in "full compliance."

Unquestionably military in nature

This good impression was disrupted in early 2018 when Israeli intelligence in Iran came across documents that revealed beyond doubt the military nature of the nuclear program. Among them was a PowerPoint presentation, apparently intended for policymakers, in which scientists report on plans to design, build and test five nuclear bombs of 10 kilotons explosive power each, as well as suitable launchers.

This finding was reason for Donald Trump to terminate the agreement. As of August 2018, trade sanctions were reimposed-not just on Iran, but on any companies now doing business with the country.

The celebrated Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action had thus gone up in smoke, and Iran was openly threatening to produce weapons-grade uranium in the fall of 2019; the centrifuges for it had already been obtained.

Enough for a bomb?

The current U.S. administration is also maintaining sanctions against Iran, "the JCPOA is dead" says President Biden, and rightly so.

Since January 2020, Iran has been unabashedly enriching and currently has, according to the IAEA, 87.5 kilograms of 60% uranium. What is this "good" for? The obvious guess: it is source material for bombs with 90% enrichment or more.

And lo and behold, during a visit in January 2023, IAEA inspectors actually discover minute amounts of 84% uranium, almost weapons grade. Where could that have come from? Most likely, it was simply produced in this very facility, since the step from 60% to 90% is comparatively small.

In preparation for the IAEA visit, the material enriched to over 60% was then removed from the inspected part of the plant, but apparently not thoroughly enough, and so the inspectors then encountered the banned substance. That's the way it might have been.

So it is quite possible that Iran is in possession of material to build a nuclear bomb. That would not be good news for the world, and certainly not for Israel.

[mapuc]

The most important question in all this has to be:

Will they USE it/them against Israel ?

We have had this discussion before and I agree on what one of you wrote. They gonna use it as blackmail against Saudi-Arabia and other Islamic countries. Not so much against Israel
(can have missed some words)

Markus

[Jimbuna]

I've mixed feelings when it comes to nuclear weapons.

Who decides who can have them and what is the criteria used to assess such potential users?

[Skybird]

^ Completely wrong question.

Am I willing to rely on the good intentions of my counterpart when he raises his hand to put his loaded gun on my forehead?

^ This is the only relevant question, and finding an answer while there is still a very little time left, is mandatory. Europe does not care, so much is clear since many years. But what about the Israelis, the Arabs and the Americans?

Our counterpart in this case vowed to wipe Israel off the earth, supports international terrorism, kills and tortures oppositional voices, and poisons girls in schools via air ventilation so that they collapse and must be treated in hospital for days - and cannot go to demonstrations.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

I've mixed feelings when it comes to nuclear weapons.

Who decides who can have them and what is the criteria used to assess such potential users?

Excellent point.


Currently there is only one country who has used nuclear weapons.


Another inconvenient observation: The US has not invaded any country that possesses nuclear weapons.



Other countries pay attention to stuff like this.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Platapus

Excellent point.


Currently there is only one country who has used nuclear weapons.


Another inconvenient observation: The US has not invaded any country that possesses nuclear weapons.



Other countries pay attention to stuff like this.

Precisely and the exact points I had intended to raise as the discussion developed.

[Skybird]

No. These points above may or may not hold ground, it does not matter, what matters is what they acchieve: self-paralysis.

When I mean you not well and have proven that since years and decades, and I hold a pistol in my hand, and start raising the arm to point it at you, and you do not make me stop that movement before I completed it, then you are - sorry, stupid. Not rational, not moral, not reasonable, not moderate, but simply stupid.

And the risk goes beyond war. It includes the risk of proliferating bomb-capable nuclear material to Islamic terror groups.

The West shies away form the unwelcomed conclusion since twenty years. Europe has given up on keeping Iran form beign nuclear armed, and did so long time ago already. But what is about America, Israel, the Arabs? Turkey?

Nothing but troubles with nuclear Iran. Nothing but steeply risen risks and dangers. Heck, I would prefer a nuclear armed Iraq to a nuclear Iran.

[Jimbuna]

Israel in particular is a good example but is it not reasonable that the likes of Iran fear an attack from them?

[Skybird]

Again, completely wrong question.



I cannot say it any clearer than I already have.

[mapuc]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Again, completely wrong question.



I cannot say it any clearer than I already have.

Can't get following out of my mind-After having read your comments.

As soon Iran has built a few nukes-they will put them on ballistic missile and send these towards Israel and perhaps 1 or 2 against Saudi-Arabia.

Markus

[Catfish]

Just a thought.
If no one cares to attack a country that has the bomb there are two ideas:
1. Do not let them get the bomb.
2. If they have it and act like madmen, bomb them into oblivion.
The latter would apply to North Korea and Russia, now.

[Skybird]

“To be or not to be is not a question of compromise. Either you be or you don't be.” - Golda Meir.

Nuclear deterring an enemy who has nukes like you but in other regards is more primitive and poorer than you, does not work - because you have more to lose than him. Or does anyone think trading the annihilation of New York or Los Angeles can be calculated against the annihilation of Pyong Yang? For somebody who really, truly hates the West/the US, such a trade must sound like a bargain.

Not letting the other have/getting nukes is the only way to go. Regarding Iran, I am of this opinion since twenty years and longer, since I was there.

Also, additional to proliferation it is another risk involved, and that is the risk of an uncontrolled nuclear arms race, and that in a madhouse of this planet where religious fanatism rules and generations- and centuries-old open bills remain unsettled. Lousy idea to accept that happening - very lousy idea.

Leasing his quote from Golda Meir again, slightly altering it: "Peace will come when the others will love their children more than they hate us.”

But what about the unscrupolous governments at the top of a country's hierarchy? They do not care for the people they rule. We can see that clearly in Iran. That government kills its people. Or does the fascist government in Russia care for its own people? Does that of North Korea?

Russia and north Korea we cannot prevent from getting nukes anymore, but both mean trouble, especially proliferation of nuclear technology from NK. We still can prevent Iran, to not allow another evil being added to the world. If we always just tolerate all the monsters being bred in the world, then one day the crowd under our bed becomes unignorable, and one night we are eaten in our sleep.

I really think we should bomb those key installations back into the stone age, we shoudl have done that already 10 years ago, 15 years, with doing all what is needed to accheive that task. Just that. If that means to flatten a full mountain, then keep the bombs falling until it is no more, but is a hole in the ground. I think that since many years. Two wars of desire were launched by the West in the ME since 1991, plus one lets call it a war or reaction. Iran is an operation of need. Whether it turns into a lasting war, is up to Iran - but their nuclear program, the key installations and bomb material must be destroyed, their specialists killed.

The European Chamberlainism of past years over Iran was not helpful - except for the Iranian bomb program.

Bitter. We live in interesting times. Thats a Chinese curse: may you live in interesting times.

[mapuc]

I do understand we have to see it from the Israels point-of-view.

With a country(Iran) Who is fighting Israel by proxy(sending weapons to Hizbollah and other fraction who fight the Israelis)I would understand if Israel conduct a type of strike in Iran or perhaps It's USA who's going to do it.

Markus

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by mapuc

I do understand we have to see it from the Israels point-of-view.

And Europe's. Its not just the Israelis.

Iran however is too big and far away for Israel, I think they cannot do this all by themselves. The key installations are all buried deep into mountains now, thanks to the West who has given them the time to do that. You probably need several air waves to clean an aprppach ally intot he tasrghet areas, to supress air defence and air forces, and then drop nuke after nuke onto thes emo8ntains unto, they are flattened, so to speak.

Or, with an even greater political fallout, you drop one dirty bomb per location, toxifying the places for tens of thousands of years - and then risk they send suicide teams taking surviving equipment and material away, like the workers at Chernobyl got sacrified as well. I think the second scenario has the far greater political fallout - with the first already being "not nice".

Air Cav or commando operations I see no chance to succeed. So, no ground forces except special forces marking targets.

[Catfish]

Or use the next iteration of stuxnet.