Image:
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
Over the past decade Iran has been cautiously, but steadily, putting in place all the elements it needs to construct a nuclear weapon in short order. But as James R. Clapper, director of National Intelligence, told the U.S. Senate in January, while the Iranians are “moving on that path ... we don’t believe they have actually made the decision to go ahead with a nuclear weapon.”
For several years experts have debated the possibility of a “breakout” scenario in which Iran makes a mad dash to complete and test its first bomb before other nations can act to stop it. That would require doing as much as possible to prepare for bomb making without tripping the alarms of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the source of most good intelligence about Iran’s declared program. From that point, Iran would then race to conduct a test quickly, perhaps in as little as several weeks. How close is Iran to achieving such an option?
Let us start with what we know. Since 2006 Iran has accumulated a stockpile of low-enriched uranium (LEU), containing 5 percent of the uranium 235 isotope, putatively to fuel future civilian nuclear reactors. If Iran were to enrich this material further, to the point at which 90 percent of it was uranium 235, it would provide the core of four nuclear bombs. Since February 2010 it has also been enriching uranium to 20 percent and has recently tripled the production rates of this material. It has also experimented with centrifuges that are three to six times more efficient than the first-generation centrifuges it is currently operating (the designs for which it got from Pakistan’s nuclear godfather A. Q. Khan). These are significant steps toward making a bomb. Producing 20 percent enriched uranium requires nine tenths of the time and effort needed to make bomb-usable uranium. The IAEA suspects that although Iran may well have suspended its dedicated nuclear weapon research program in 2003, by that time it had already learned enough to be able to make such uranium into a simple, testable nuclear weapon.
The state of Iran’s declared stockpile and production capabilities is fairly well known. But it may well have undeclared capabilities, materials and know-how. In addition to the facilities at Natanz and Fordow that the IAEA inspects regularly, it is reasonable to assume that Iran has invested in hidden enrichment facilities because both Israel and the U.S. have been threatening air strikes on these targets for many years. Although no one has reported evidence that Iran has bought nuclear weapons or material from the former arsenal of the Soviet Union or from North Korea, Iran’s leaders must have considered this option as well. We know that more than one bomb’s worth of fissile material went missing after the Soviet Union collapsed.
With the centrifuges now known to be operating, from where Iran stands today it would take at least five months to produce enough material for one bomb. As more centrifuges come online and production rates improve, this timeline will shorten. But any scenario that requires months between tripping the IAEA’s alarm and testing a bomb would mean taking a huge risk of being attacked, something Iran’s supreme leader Sayyid Ali Khamenei has so far assiduously avoided.
How then could Iran produce a nuclear bomb without getting bombed? The most worrisome scenario would be for it to “sneak out.” Iran would complete the conversion of its low-enriched uranium stockpile to 20 percent at declared facilities, as it is now doing. Simultaneously, it would install advanced centrifuges at a secret facility. At the chosen moment, it would stage an incident—say, an explosion at Fordow—that it would claim had dispersed such high levels of radioactivity that the area had to be quarantined for several weeks, making inspections impossible. (It could even blame the incident on an Israeli covert attack.) Under this cover, Iran would move the 20 percent uranium to the secret facility and complete the enrichment to weapons-grade levels. Because the U.S., Israel and the IAEA would be unable to determine whether declared stockpiles had been moved or where they had been moved to, they might find themselves unable to act. In this scenario, Iran could produce enough weapons-usable uranium to conduct a test in as little as a few weeks.
Rights & Permissions
See what we're tweeting about
43 Comments
Add CommentThe title of the print magazine version of this article: "Slinking Toward the Bomb." "Slinking" is a loaded word, and it appears in a declarative sentence, not in a question. It is a word chosen for its effect and not to convey any fact or truth.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd in the graphic in the print magazine, you appropriate Iran's flag for your own purposes by depicting it with a graphic of an old-fashioned bomb typically associated with hairy-eyed terrorists from the 19th and early 20th centuries. How juvenile. But more important, how inflammatory, how suggestive of bias and dishonest argument.
As of this writing, someone in charge of the web version appears to have come to his senses, responsibly rewritten the title, and removed the bomb from the Iranian flag.
The text of the article is not as bad but nevertheless relies so heavily on supposition as to suggest bad faith:
(1) "[Iran] may well have undeclared capabilities, materials, and know-how." Without any facts offered, this is a throw-away line. And what does the writer mean by "know-how?" Is it something regulated under the treaty, or is it just makeweight?
(2) "Iran's leaders must have considered" "buying nuclear weapons or material from the former arsenal of the Soviet Union or from North Korea. For this claim also, no shred of evidence is offered.
All in all a low-quality effort, one not worthy of the Belfer Institute or the pages of this magazine.
I have come here to say exactly what 'FedUpWithPropaganda' has said more eloquently than I might manage. I have been reading SciAm monthly since ~1968, shortly after leaving the USMC. I do not recall such propagandistic language disgracing the pages of SciAm in all of that time. That I have become accustomed to the fascist fearmongering I daily encounter in my media perusings is partly due to my understanding of who owns and controls these organs of deceit. I would never have expected such filth in my Scientific American where it has no place whatsoever.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is much to be outraged about in this current primitive world of ours but Iran seems a fount of sanity compared to the zionists and to my own country, the United States. The only worthy sentence in the entire article is the last sentence and is a reminder of America's corrupt nuclear policy which began at Hiroshima when Japan had, for months, been trying to surrender and our corrupted government completely ignored the overtures, lied to the people, and stalled long enough to be able to demonstrate on innocent human beings, mostly women, children, and the aged, that WE were now undisputed king of the (ant) hill. Tour the Peace Museum in Hiroshima and read the original American documents from that time displayed on the walls if you doubt this. President Ahmadinejad's offer will probably be given the same treatment because this issue is NOT about who has nuclear weapons. It is about fascist control of the Mideast.
There is no doubt that in the order of likely candidates for "first use", israel stands even above the U.S. The leadership and apparent general philosophy of psychopathy evinced both in word and, especially, deed by these two fascist states makes any threat from Iran seem almost absurd.
The obvious questions here are to DiChristina: 1) Whatever were you thinking (or who were you ...) to allow such garbage into the pages of Scientific American? And 2): Can we get John Rennie back?
I think you owe us all a deep apology, Madam.
William Bjornson
Aloha, Oregon USA
I am outraged at the article 'Slinking towards the Bomb'in the April Scientific American.What an emotively inflamatory heading for a scientific magazine.The article contained nothing new, there is still no evidence that Iran is contemplating building a nuclear bomb. The author seems to think that he can read peoples minds, when the leaders of that country have repeatedly said that they are not in this endeavour.What could one bomb do, against the hundreds of Israel and USA? Iran has never attacked another country. The only country to use nuclear weapons against other states is your own.I object again to this repulsive propaganda in what is supposed to be a scientific journal. Lynn Lister, New Zealand.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRE: "Slinking toward the Bomb" (Hardcopy title)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDear Editor
This article is a disgrace. For SciAm to promote such blatant propaganda is utterly unacceptable.
Graham T. Allison presumes to intelligently discuss the looming "crisis" in Iran vis-à-vis its potential for nuclear weapons development and what that means to the region (indeed, the entire world) and yet only mentions Israel in the contexts of being unable to bomb Iran's uranium enrichment centers and/or being falsely accused of setting off an explosion in an Iranian nuclear facility.
Apparently Mr. Allison, a purported expert, hasn't heard of the following facts: Israel's role in starting the nuclear arms race in the Middle East dating back decades; Israel's illegal development of 200-400 nuclear bombs with missile delivery capability; Israel's theft of nuclear material from NUMEC in Pennsylvania (owned and operated by pro-Zionist American Jews); Israel's theft of heavy water from a Norwegian freighter; Israel's refusal to sign on to the NPT (Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty) or IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) even as Iran has; Israel's joint (with South Africa) open air nuclear test in violation of the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty; IsraeIi Defense Minister Shimon Peres' offer to sell Apartheid South Africa nuclear weapons; Israel's historic refusal to allow outside inspections of their nuclear facilities and, to this day, its denial of what everyone in the world knows to be true: Israel is the single most dangerous threat in the region (and as that impacts oil supplies ergo prices ergo potential for catastrophic economic consequences) indeed, the world.
SciAm can do no less than to present a true picture of what the situation is. To think America went to war in Iraq primarily because of its suspicions that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, ignoring Israel's clear holding of same (numbering hundreds!) becomes the pinnacle of hypocrisy.
Israel must be held to every standard being asked of Iran or it's clear that Iran has no partner with which to dialog for peaceful resolution.
Graham Allison should know that military threats against states is against the UN Charter and in specific violation on UN SC resolution 487. Furthermore, there is no evidence that Iran has any weapons program; and in fact there is evidence that it doesn't. Please see my article in Foreign Policy that sets the record straight:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/01/19/stop_the_madness?page=full
Also, see why the P5+1 nations are helping Iran gather enriched Uranium:
http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2012/0525/By-not-lifting-sanctions-West-and-Obama-are-helping-Iran-enrich-uranium
Simply a decrepid story ment to insight/inflame tensions between differing factions of the human race.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs a National Geographic Scociety has nearly confirmed "The Out of Africa Hypothsis" you can see we are all one and the same , blood, sweat, tears all the same.
This artical would like to seperate nations of people from another by way of their differences. I see a rather large source of this type of propoganda. Look to the energy sector ..who controls it and who benifits from it's control. I would sudgest a book at this point. Please read " The Prize" as the contents clearly point out the channels power for national development of economic power and the flow of energy. Subversion and dervisive targeting for the sake of controling energy. It's costing my extended family over there lives.
This magazine would support such activity to my fellow humans? Are you mad bro? Maybe those @ Scientific American should go hang out with those war crimes capialists Bush and Cheney and the rest of them'thar dogs.
As for me this artical is nothing but trash to wipe my bottom :)
There will be millions of survivors.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe big question is ....is the genetic bomb threat real. All signs says yes.
This "article" sounds as if it came from someplace such as Debka.net.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm surprised the editor(s) of Scientific American would allow the release of such unintellectual tripe.
So, when North Korea and Pakistan got their nukes, why haven't we met them with "a devastating attack", as the author puts it?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJapan trying to surrender? You must be kidding. They did not want surrender under the terms being offered. Better their children die than ours. You must have forgotten the fire bombings of Tokyo that killed more than those who died in Hiroshima. If you were a marine then you should know the history of WWII in the Pacific. No more a vicious war was ever waged by an implacable enemy. They got what they deserved.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisProbably Iran as many other countries, has right now the technology for building a nuclear weapon, but it doesn't matter, as everybody knows that nuclear bombs are just to be shown in military catalogs, and to sit comfortably on them while negotiating. The issue of the Iran nuclear activities is different: they have not enough oil refining capacity to cover internal consumption, so they are in dependency from foreign suppliers, as the USA is, and if they can reduce their oil derived energy use by increasing number and size of nuclear power plants, this will make them more independent, meaning more sovereign, and thus their politics less subject to influences by foreing pressures. That's all folks! Salut +
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat is an wholly unscientific article like this, based entirely upon conjecture and more properly, on imagination about what Iran COULD CONCEIVABLY do -- for example faking a nuclear accident to contaminate one entire nuclear facility! --doing in what presents itself as a scientific journal. And as the lead article at that!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat's next, an article on how the US Department of Health might start a secret campaign of implanting tracking chips in every newborn American? Heck, they COULD do it, so maybe they will? This is the quality of work in Prof. Allison's scare article.
Scientific American has shamed itself here. Allison is a former advisor to President Ronald Reagan. He publishes in outfits like the Council of Foreign Relations and is clearly packing an agenda.
An article like his would be find as an alarmist op-ed in a journal like Foreign Policy, or more appropriately in Commentary. It sure doesn't deserve to be lodged in what porports to be a journal of objective scientific inquiry.
Dave Lindorff
editor
ThisCantBeHappening!
www.thiscantbehappening.net
Yeah sciam should have no room for completely hypotheticals about mostly political agendas. I suggest pulling and apologising for the articles content and location. Did Fox News buy SCIAM at some point when I wasn't looking? J/K Fox would never allow such liberal and public commentary that sciam affords. Just a small propaganda article that doesn't belong - pull it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is a science magazine. If I want political propaganda I tune into Fox News where I know I'll disagree. This article is a disgrace to Scientific American. Don't do anything like this ever again.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIs this from Faux News? Since the US and Israel have hundreds of nukes, at the least, I don't blame the Iranians for wanting at least one or two. Get off the propaganda garbage. Only the religious fanatic nut cases believe it any more.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm a Navy veteran (Vietnam) and I remember the Tonkin Gulf lies that killed 60,000 American kids, maimed millions of other, and killed well over a million Vietnamese. And as a reminder, the only Weapons of Mass Destruction back in 2001 were on the mean streets of our cities!
Here is a deconstruction of this propaganda! The author Graham T. Allison is a "political scientist" not a scientist, nuclear physicist or engineer. The author states that Iran is making Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU) defined as > 20% U235 since Feb. 2010. Deconstruction: No sources were provided, but let us assume for argument that that is true. The first A-bomb made by the US was 85% enriched was 50kg (110 lbs). Most weapons today are greater than that, with 97% being achieved. The technical difficulties in construction have to do with achieving a perfect symmetry of the implosion of the critical mass when triggered. Just to give you an idea - it would require an INFINITE CRITICAL MASS at 6% enrichment. IT WAS VERY DIFFICULT TO ACHIEVE THIS IN A SPHERE THE SIZE OF 17cm - 6.7inches - WHICH WAS DROPPED ON HIROSHIMA. "Producing 20 percent enriched uranium requires nine tenths of the time and effort needed to make bomb-usable uranium." Deconstruction:. Wiki states that "weapons-usable" is anything over 20% enrichment. Enrichment from 20% to 22% would fit the author’s description. The author would like you to believe that achieving 20% HEU is 90% of the way to "weapons grade" HEU. Contrary to this argument - Scott Ritter, retired marine weapons inspector in Iraq said that it would take 3000 centrifuges running 24 hrs per day, 7 days a week for 1 year to produce enough U235 the size of the Hiroshima bomb. "It has also experimented with centrifuges that are three to six times more efficient than the first-generation centrifuges it is currently operating” Deconstruction: Note the key words "EXPERIMENTED WITH." No where does he maintain successful use of advanced centrifuges. REASON: Because all their centrifuges explode due to molybdenum contamination. There are sources to back this up which I cited previously - Scott Ritter, former nuclear weapons inspector in Iraq."The IAEA suspects that although Iran may well have suspended its dedicated nuclear weapon research program in 2003, by that time it had already learned enough to be able to make such uranium into a simple, testable nuclear weapon." Deconstruction: Note key words "the IAEA suspects." The IAEA has already admitted that it does not have a single shred of evidence that Iran is developing weapons grade material. Note the artistry by which the author shifts from one premise based on speculation to another with the tacit predicate already made that from 20% to "weapons usable" is 90% of the way. This guy should be a politician for the sheer beauty of the deception that he spins
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor a science magazine to print such UNPROVEN material is outrageous.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is NOTHING SCIENTiFIC about this man's speculation, which is driven by a near paranoia of what Iran MIGHT do IF IT WERE able to.
His glib assumptions and "reasonable conjecture" are laughable and pitifully ironic when he tries to come up with ways to prevent them from achieving this, because he infers Iran is willing to commit national suicide by threatening to use the weapon.
The only nation that has ever used one is us, the USA. Every other nation has used as a deterrent against attack. Considering how often Iran is threatened with overwhelming military force for a variety of reasons over the last few decades (the Nuke issue is for the last decade only) a far more likely reason for them to build such a weapon would be for deterrence NOT use.
Iran's leadership may be fundamentalist idiots who are dragging their nation backward as they create a pariah state, but one thing they have NEVER demonstrated is a suicidal streak.
And there is HARD evidence they definitely do NOT want to commit national suicide regardless of the temptations "all Muslims must feel" to be martyred for the cause. (snark)
And that evidence was the Iran/Iraq war where they fought a better armed Iraqi war machine to a standstill despite casualties in the hundreds of thousands.
Such a desire to "live" as a nation so to speak does NOT sit well with the assumptions that Iran wants to go nuclear in order to commit national suicide as this article infers.
I can only assume that SciAm's follow up will be a "reasonable" article rebutting the "beliefs of climatologists" that the world is experiencing human induced warming.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSuch arguments are no more assumptive and as fueled by their own sense of being able to intuit the truth despite facts as the writer of this article is.
Wow
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI see the Iranian propoganda machine is in full swing here.
Never attacked anyone...Try one of the biggest sources of covert terrorism in the world today.
About the biggest source of covert terrorism, are you talking about the CIA/MI6/Mossad or Iran?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis article is pure bullshit, and I am very disappointed that Sci. Am would even publish it! The author would have you believe that 20% enrichment is enough for a bomb. It isn't. This political hack doesn't know the difference between "weapons usable" and "weapons grade." (Look up the difference on Wiki, numbskull!) Getting to 20% is not 90% of the way to producing a bomb. The Iranians can't achieve "weapons grade" uranium because their centrifuges explode due to Molybendum contamination - a problem only the US and Russia have solved. Constructing even a crude bomb at 20% is technologically nearly impossible because of the symmetry requirements for triggering such a device with implosives. The bomb dropped on Hiroshima was 85% enriched and had a spherical critical mass of radius 6.7inches. To make a bomb at 20% would require a critical mass sphere radius very much larger. At 6%, the radius would be infinite! This article goes beyond mere propaganda to deliberate outrageous lies or incompetence - the kind of lies or incompetence that provoke people to support needless indefensible war.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI too have subscribed to SA since the mid-sixties and am deeply disappointed in its deterioration since the sale to a German outfit. Whether or not Iran builds a bomb is irrelevant - I'm sure they'd never use it. Israel and the US have so many weapons they would annihilate every human and animal (except perhaps the insects) should Iran explode a nuclear bomb over another country. I cannot understand the warmongering in Israel and the US. Pakistan and North Korea are far more likely to use a nuclear bomb.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't thin I'll renew my subscription - the magazine is rapidly becoming as informative as FOX News,
My father was a special weapons tech for the Navy in the early 50's. Before he died, we talked about what he did and what his thoughts were. I was shocked when he drew up a simple A-Bomb based on a civil war cannon. All that was needed was an "amount" of U235 in two portions, one being the projectile for the cannon and the other portion being the target. He said, "just light the fuse and run like hell!" It was a sarcastic remark but it made the point.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere IS NO REASON to be enriching uranium beyond the 3% required for reactor fuel. ANYTHING higher than that is evidence for wanting to make a bomb.
That's the worst SciAm article that I've ever seen. Please don't do it again... ever.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisActually 20% low enriched uranium is a good grade for Small Modular Reactors, the reactors will run longer on one fuel charge, making them intrinsically safer and more economical.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is a lot more difficult than just blasting two chunks of U-235 together, and you need about 50 kg of >80% enriched uranium, no small amount. It takes much less plutonium-239 which can be made with a basic graphite pile reactor.
The fact that most of people are unaware is that any nation state can make Nuclear Weapons if they want to, and the key is to remove the motivation to do so. As was done with Nuclear Armed South Africa and the Ukraine. The major problem is pretty effectively described in this USA Foreign Policy Flowchart:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/thebeerbarrel/4729916544/
So if you have Oil and given any excuse YOU WILL BE INVADED, Iraq had no WMD's but they had Oil, so INVASION, Libya signed a deal with the US to forsake Nuclear Weapons, shutdown their Nuke program, co-operated in anti-terrorist intelligence, in exchange for normalcy, but first opportunity to get at that Oil - invasion. Syria, vastly worse than Libya, no branding of Assad as an International War Criminal, No Invasion, Heck they won't even arm the freedom-fighters, why? - Not much Oil there.
Few people realize that the entire Iran problem was created by Big Oil when the democratically elected, modern prime minister of Iran was overthrown in a CIA led coup, in which the CIA was recruited as simply a proxy, private terrorist organization working for Big Oil. The whole mess in Iran all started there, and as usual the Big Oil miscreants never pay one iota for all the death, suffering & destruction they have wrought upon the Earth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax
So, the Nuclear Proliferation problem, I'm afraid it is just one more facet of the Oil Problem. Oil - the Devil's Tears.
50Kg of U235 is a "small" portion, volume wise. One needs only to come up with a method to smack two 25Kg 'portions' together fast enough. On the other hand, plutonium-239 must be "compressed" through the arrangement of specifically shaped explosive charges that ALL must detonate at the same time. A plutonium bomb is a hundred times more complicated to construct... whereas one could probably take a 25Kg chunk of U235 and attach it to Richard Petty's bumper and do the same on Bobby LaBontie's bumper and run them in opposite directions on the Daytona Speedway... A head-on collision has a good chance of wiping out that portion of the Florida coast!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this(Little Boy was essentially a cannon with U235 while Fat Man was 'Squeezing the Orange' with Pu239.)
Why western countries afraid so much if Iran develop nuclear weapon? If Iran`s arch enemy Israel had nuclear weapon why should not Iran? I think if Iran developed nuclear weapon there will be remain permanent peace in Middle East.India and Pakistan both had nuclear weapons so from last 20 years no war occurred between them.America and Russia both had these weapons so after second world war not war is there.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis article does resemble propaganda more than Science. There is an unstated bias that it is okay for the US and Israel to have nuclear weapons but it is not okay for Iran to have nuclear weapons. Why?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe last paragraph sums up the bias pretty well. The best way to stop nuclear proliferation in Iran is a pre-emptive attack? No. The best way to stop nuclear proliferation is quite obvious, but rarely stated. That is for EVERY country to give up these horrible and useless weapons. If the US were sincere, it would offer to give up its nuclear arsenal if all other countries did the same. Nuclear weapons are unique in that it is relatively easy to track and detect them. Thus an agreement to get rid of stockpiles could actually be enforced and no country could cheat without being caught.
But as long as the US wants a double standard; that is, it is okay for the US to have Weapons of Mass Destruction but not okay for other countries to have Weapons of Mass Destruction, especially countries that refuse to serve the US, support the US, or allow their resources to be exploited by the US.
There is no Science in this story. I am disappointed that SciAm decided to publish such partisan propaganda. My respect for SciAm is reduced.
Yeah, a plutonium bomb is more difficult, but enrichment to > 80% is more difficult too. Six of one, half dozen of the other. Israel went straight to plutonium, didn't bother with Uranium. And No, smashing to chunks of uranium together with race cars would be a total fizzle. So there is more to the gun concept than what you said, to make an effective weapon, and they ain't going to "wipe out the Florida coast". An unsophisticated weapon would be about as large as a conventional weapon explosion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo the point that counts is any nation state can make nuclear weapons, by enrichment (three or more methods of that now), accelerators (more expensive but practical for weapons materials) and basic graphite or heavy water reactors. You can't stop that by any technological means. You can only coerce politically, economically and militarily. And it helps a lot if you quit invading countries to get at their Oil, which gives them a MIGHTY STRONG incentive to have a Nuclear Deterrent.
And it also helps if you quit pumping up the price of Oil, by helping Big Oil blockade commercial Nuclear Energy - their only competition, and buying Oil which is used to finance EXTRAORDINARILY EXPENSIVE WEAPONS programs. Take SCIAM's patrons at Shell Oil, they are trying to circumvent sanctions against Iran to funnel one $billion in Oil payments to the Gov't of Iran. Money that likely will be used to buy & build weapons to kill Americans. Thanks Shell Oil, thanks a lot.
"...Why western countries afraid so much if Iran develop nuclear weapon?..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBecause, then they won't be able to invade Iran to get at their Oil & Gas, that's why.
See the above flowchart I linked, of US foreign policy.
That wouldn't work. You are preaching a fantasy world. The first nation that violates the ban would blackmail & conquer all the other nations, creating a new empire. And without Nuclear Weapons, Arms Merchants and Financiers would be happily creating expensive "little wars" everywhere like they loved doing pre-1945.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBesides, Biological Weapons are MUCH WORSE than Nuclear Weapons, and Chemical Weapons just as bad, and both of those are even harder to suppress.
We should be VASTLY MORE CONCERNED about super-rich fanatics, with $billions in private capital, who can afford to develop biological weapons capable of killing billions of people. Take Ted Turner, multi-billionaire, he has proclaimed the World's population needs to be reduced to about 300 million. Don't you think that is mighty damn scary?
"The best way to deter Iran from making the decision to build a bomb in the short term is to maximize the likelihood that such a decision will be discovered and met by a devastating attack."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo, that's the wrong word and quite an editorial slip-up! The constant threat of attack as long they have no nuclear weapons is the best way to INCITE Iran to decide to build a bomb. Not "deter," that's the opposite meaning and doesn't fit the context.
US foreign policy in this matter is like a (self-proclaimed) policeman, who leaves armed criminals alone to do as they please, but beats up anyone he suspects of trying to get a gun, particularly if they won't pay the bribe. It provides a strong incentive to get a gun as fast as possible to avoid future troubles.
Thank goodness there are readers here to balance out the garbage. I dont suppose any of the commentors have listened to `David Wilcock Interviews Drake -Mass Arrests of the Illuminati- DivineCosmos - 3-28-12.mp3 at http://kiwi6.com/folder/81p11ko430
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would love your opinion.
If nothing else the chap called Drake will be lifting the spirits & the courage of many.
First bomb makes it clear that Iran is expected to build many bombs
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe propaganda is Iran's lies
Slink is accurate and good, but stealth is better.
Iran will lie until it brags that it has struck Israel and killed all the Jews in its reach
Who is the moron that celebrates the death of Japanese men women and children?
Japan was no longer a threat.
We need to take out the leaders in Iran and free the people
Western countries don't live in fool`s paradise.Iran already developed nuclear bombs.That is why he again and again challenging Israel and America don't dare to attack on us otherwise ready for horrible consequence.Israel and America knew this that is why they are only giving hollow threats repeatedly to Iran .Only fools believed their hallow threats
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDear SA, This article presents only inuendo and speculation. It is an utterly disgusting example of propagandistic filth and is beneath your. Have you no sense of irony that the media bemoans loss of readership yet does not serve up the content to deserve it ? May I suggest you you that the real currency in your product is *trust* and *integrity*. As a subscriber since the 1980's those are the elements that have been worth my supporting you. Everyone knows what betrayal feels like: when you print stuff like this you might just as well tear up your subscribers list.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think international society have complicated more than normal this issue for Iran , so we can get result that this is more close to a political play than a IAEA issue, i mean many political positions from many countries are related to this issue. therefore this is a table that big powers wants solve their problem here and Iran nuclear subject is a card here. as you mentioned in your article there are many scenarios that Iran could have nuclear bombs and could not.they know themselves and this news is only their strategies for public ( as you heard many times antithesis declarations from Iran and US authorities about what is Iran's goal and its situation in achieving to nuclear bomb.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think the World Corporate/Big Oil powers are more concerned that Iran will start an indigenous commercial Nuclear Power program and Nuclear Enrichment program whereby it can sell commercial Nuclear Power, especially small Modular Reactors and Enriched Uranium to Energy Hungry developing nations that can't afford expensive Oil & LNG.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe World Corporate/Big Oil powers have been trying to stifle the Nuclear Fuel cycle so they can control nations by cutting off their Energy supply, like they are now doing to Argentina, and did to Bolivia.
Nuclear Energy is the power of Democracy, any nation can easily store enough Nuclear Fuel to run its economy for decades, even centuries, and get out from under the thumb of the World Corporate Energy monopoly.
It is easy to build small modular reactors in factories, deliverable by ship to any nation, a 10-30 yr energy supply @ 10-100MW output between refueling. 20% Low Enriched Uranium is a ideal fuel for those SMR's. The Energy Hegemonists don't want anybody to have those. That would mean Energy Independence for EVERY NATION ON EARTH with energy costs about 1/10th current price of Oil & LNG. They just can't allow two-bit countries like Iran exporting SMR's and 20% Low Enriched Uranium fuel.
The problem of Iran's nuclear program could be solved in a question of weeks: if Israel were to agree to submit its very substantial nuclear program to IAEA oversight it would give Iran's leaders the perfect cover to agree to similar oversight. And I might add that I for one would sleep a lot better. My biggest fear is not a nuclear Iran but a trigger-happy Israel with a large stockpile of nuclear weapons.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe article would have had a lot more credibility had reputed expert Allison addressed the question of Israel's clandestine nuclear program in it since it is a central component of Iran's desire to acquire a bomb.
Every country has Inalienable Rights to develop its own nuclear weapon. Such rights is NOT exclusive to a few countries such as US, Russia, China, England, France, India, Israel, etc. It is hypocritical and double standand without merit. The world is better off if all countries possessing the weapon of mass destruction get rid of their own first before asking others not to develop their own.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhere is the bomb on Iran's flag?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis politically motivated article, if honest, should be asking the following question:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy belligerent nations like Israel and the United States of America that keeps invading other nations because of territorial greed, gepolitical dominance and resources gathering often based on lies and fabricated evidences, that have acumulated thousands of nuclear bombs, that have used nuclear weapons on CIVILIANS and threaten their enemies with them, can IMPOSE thenselves to the position of global nuclear disarmament GURUS and opose nations like Iran to have the ONLY convincing mean of deterence to protect their nation and resources from been enthusiastically taken by the barbarians?
This politically motivated article, if honest, should be asking the following question:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy belligerent nations like Israel and the United States of America that keeps invading other nations because of territorial greed, gepolitical dominance and resources gathering often based on lies and fabricated evidences, that have acumulated thousands of nuclear bombs, that have used nuclear weapons on CIVILIANS and threaten their enemies with them, can IMPOSE thenselves to the position of global nuclear disarmament GURUS and opose nations like Iran to have the ONLY convincing mean of deterence to protect their nation and resources from been enthusiastically taken by the barbarians?