Should Israel Attack Iran's Nuclear Reactor?

[Bigfella]

Barak' View

Looks like Ehud Barak is taking a calmer view than some. I can just imagine some of the responses if anyone but an Israeli Defence Minister said this. Still, what would he know.

Barak Says Nuke - Armed Iran Couldn't Destroy Israel

By REUTERS

Published: September 17, 2009

JERUSALEM (Reuters) - A nuclear-armed Iran would not be capable of destroying Israel, Defence Minister Ehud Barak said Thursday in remarks that departed from long-running Israeli arguments about the threat posed by its foe.

"Right now, Iran does not have a bomb. Even if it did, this would not make it a threat to Israel's existence. Israel can lay waste to Iran," Barak said in a transcript of a newspaper interview obtained by Reuters before publication Friday.

Israeli leaders have repeatedly sounded alarms over Iran's atomic ambitions, pointing at President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's calls for the Jewish state to be "wiped off the map" and support for Islamist guerrilla groups arrayed along Israel's borders.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, a right-winger who brought the centre-left Barak into his coalition government, said he saw "eye to eye" with the Defence minister -- signalling a possible change in Israel's official rhetoric as world powers prepare to revive diplomatic engagement with Iran next month.

Tehran says its nuclear plans are peaceful and has resisted U.S.-led diplomatic pressure to curb its uranium enrichment, a process with bomb-making potential. Israel is assumed to have the Middle East's only atomic arsenal, developed in secret as a safeguard against a repeat of the World War Two Nazi genocide.

"I don't think we are on the brink of a new Holocaust," Barak said in his interview with Yedioth Ahronoth daily.

SANCTIONS SOUGHT

"Say Saudi Arabia buys, at some stage, two bombs. This would not mean it's all over for the country. Furthermore, I think Iran is a challenge for Israel and for the whole world. Now is the time for a diplomatic effort and toughened-up sanctions."

U.S. President Barack Obama has offered Tehran negotiations without preconditions but said he sought progress by year's end.

Failing that, Israel has urged sanctions targeting Iran's sensitive energy sector, but Russia and China are expected to block any such resolution at the U.N. Security Council.

Israel, which bombed an Iraqi reactor in 1981 and carried out a similar sortie against Syria in 2007, as hinted at pre-emptive strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities if it deems diplomacy a dead end. The United States has also not ruled out military intervention as a last resort.

"I would like to make clear that all options are open. We are not taking any options off the table," Barak said in the interview transcript, which was supplied by his office.

Barak's comments were excerpted in Yedioth Thursday and drew a supportive, if more cautious, response from Netanyahu.

"I know that we see eye to eye on this challenge and on this danger. It is certainly a very great danger," he told Israel's Channel Two television.

"But I think that what the Defence minister wanted to say, something that I believe, is that the State of Israel will be able to defend itself in any situation," Netanyahu said.

"I can say to you that we must make a great effort, and are making a great effort, to persuade the international community that this problem is not just our problem."

(Additional reporting by Allyn Fisher-Ilan; Editing by Angus MacSwan)

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2009/...iran.html?_r=1

[Silent Hunter]

No- at the moment.

[Bluesman]

No- at the moment.

The ONLY reason it would be 'no' is if the Israelis were confident that the Americans have got it.

With this president, given his predilection for choosing disastrous courses of action AND combined with his antipathy towards Israel, I think we know what the Israelis will do.

I disagree with TopHatter: he'll blink. Tha man's got no character.

[Dreadnought]

The ONLY reason it would be 'no' is if the Israelis were confident that the Americans have got it.

With this president, given his predilection for choosing disastrous courses of action AND combined with his antipathy towards Israel, I think we know what the Israelis will do.

I disagree with TopHatter: he'll blink. Tha man's got no character.

*Nice to see you Blues.:) A breath of fesh air.:))

[Castellano]

Just curious, do you plan to wander around every old thread you find to quibble with my old posts? It just seems a bit sad is all. I realize you probably feel a bit embarassed after your performance on a couple of recent threads, but chasing me around isn't going to make you look any better. Send a sonnet to dear Caroline, perhaps she will take you seriously.

Well no, weasel, to be precise I set out to prove one more of your lies, and now it is proven.

I say lie and not mistake, since for you these errors always tend to curiously bend the same side and they are anything but innocent; to illustrate the point here are some more recent claims you have made just out of my head, showing what an intellectual hack you really are:


- Muslims have a legitimate grievance against the US for the massacres in East Timor (East Timorese are Catholics, and it was the Muslim government in Indonesia who butchered them)

- Muslims have a legitimate grievance against the US since the Nixon Administration was somehow to blame for the massacres/genocide in Bangladesh (Those massacres were perpetrated by Muslims on Muslims, and besides, suggesting some kind of US involvement in those events is a very strange argument, to say the least)

- Israel has been a serial attacker of its neighbors over the last 30 years (A complete lie, designed to whitewash the Islamic Republic record in the same period, that you laughably contend to be immaculate)

- Israel is a less secular country than other western democracies due to, or as proven by, its laws relating marriage (Not only illogical argument, factually false too)


I do not wander around your posts, I just stumble on all these lies in the threads I participate; God knows what other lies you have been spreading around, with the same demagogic technique as The Guardian or Le Monde…..for a guy who so often appeals to the judgment of the public here, one has to be quite an ignorant to think those would go unnoticed .

[Castellano]

I'm totally convinced that it has been sheer demagoguery as practiced by mainly European media that has enabled this crisis to get this far. Open societies are public opinion driven, and with public opinions utterly mislead about the gravity of the crisis, the few politicians who had the resolve to confront Iranian nukes were paralyzed. I am sure I’m not the only one who remembers the climate of opinion and the op-eds from 2003-4 onwards in outlets like The Guardian... THAT, and not some sober geostrategic calculus, is the main reason which has allowed the Iranian regime to buy time and get this far. All thanks to the work of a supposedly sophisticated anti-cowboy Europe – and I don’t mean that only War could have prevented it.

Even worse, it is this sort of demagogues that would advocate, and in fact would demand, to cut Israel loose if it attacks the Iranian nuke program as it probably should: and please, the argument on whether Iran would actually nuke Israel is not the point. The Guardian and other European media might seem serious - they are anything but. At least the Iranian regime has a good excuse, but these hacks should know better, they are revolting.

I don’t know if the actual technical points in the article below are correct, but the main analysis about the media certainly is:

Western Liberal Elites Have Made an Iranian Bomb a Reality

Posted By Leon de Winter On November 14.


If you want to know the scope of the illusions of Western liberal elites, you should read the fascinating editorial published in the Guardian on October 22, 2003. It shows [1] the willingness of these elites to disregard the cruel facts, the radical agenda, and the apocalyptic ambitions of the Iranian regime.

Six years ago, the regime in Tehran executed the same policies, and was driven by the same ideology, as today. And the same Western political elites tried everything in their power to distort the perception of their counterparts in Tehran in order to avoid the harsh truth: the mullahs want to crown Imam Khomeini’s Islamic Revolution with a nuclear weapon.

The Guardian wrote [2] that day:

Iran’s agreement to allow unlimited UN inspections of its nuclear facilities and to suspend its uranium enrichment programme marks a tremendous success for European diplomacy. It shows just what can be achieved when the European powers work together, rather than in opposition.

At the time, it was as clear, as it is now, that the three European ministers involved lied to themselves and to us. On their flight back, they knew that the surprising agreement they took home wasn’t even worth the paper it was printed on, but it was better to pretend that the mullahs were guys like them rather than accept the stubborn reality that some value systems and some concepts of human dignity are incompatible.

So in spite of all the facts, trends, and signs, the Guardian wrote:

Britain’s Jack Straw, France’s Dominique de Villepin and Germany’s Joschka Fischer have good reason to be pleased with their day’s work. Anxious perhaps not to tweak American noses, Mr Straw played down the significance of the achievement. He should not be so modest.

This policy of delusion — talk to the mullahs, threaten them with boycotts, accept their regime as a legitimate expression of Iran’s popular will, but never threaten, let alone use, “hard power” — was continued without a single gesture of goodwill from Tehran.

The hardcore establishment of the Islamic Republic only feels revulsion for the decadent and infidel Western diplomats who come begging for some cooperation. The mullahs know that the Western media and the political organizations to which these politicians belong will never allow the threat of a violent confrontation over Iran’s nuclear program, so year after year they smilingly welcomed these straw puppets and enjoyed themselves, using the simple tricks they practiced to gain precious time.

After years of delusional European diplomacy, the Iranian nuclear project has spread to hundreds of locations. It is undeniably a majestic operation, Iran’s most impressive achievement in modern history. The mullahs succeeded in creating the conditions for the construction of a nuclear bomb — and by controlling Hezbollah and Hamas, they forced the Israelis into passivity.

Even more impressive is how they controlled the Americans by helping to kill thousands of American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. Instead of drawing America’s fury, the mullahs convinced two administrations that a peaceful Iraq is impossible without Tehran’s willingness to stop the flow of roadside bombs, instructors, and various weapons across its borders. Basically, they took the American army hostage in Iraq — and they never saw the shadows of vengeful B-52s gliding over the roofs of their buildings.

No, they witnessed American politicians incapable of demonstrating the will to carry on to the media and their voters. The wings of the American eagle were clipped by a group of cheating and manipulating religious men who perfectly understand the mechanisms of the Western media game. They knew that a direct military confrontation with America would leave their palaces in rubble, but they also knew that a steady stream of dead American soldiers would strengthen the broad opposition in America to the war. In particular, opposition to war in Iraq and to a possible war against Iran, because these conflicts were President Bush’s, a man incessantly ridiculed in the Western media. The mullahs correctly concluded that they could play the liberal Western elites — trained in the sacred neo-Marxist concept that all major conflicts in the world are socio-economic in nature and all cultures are equal — and secretly expand their nuclear installations.

This is how the editors of the Guardian celebrated the agreement with the mullahs and, en passant, expressed their contempt of President Bush:

Factions within the Bush administration will be skeptical that any deal struck without direct US involvement will stick. US concerns about Iran’s links to terrorism will not be affected by this agreement. Iran will doubtless remain an axis-of-evil rogue state in George Bush’s florid lexicon. But Washington must not try to undermine this accord. To date, its polarising, aggressive pressure tactics have mostly made a difficult problem worse. Europe demonstrated yesterday that there is a different, more effective way. And it is not the American way.

In other words, those stupid Yankees fail to see that you have to treat the mullahs respectfully and not upset them by calling them part of an axis of evil in order to get a deal.

The Europeans could have confronted the mullahs, but after two devastating world wars they have lost the ability to actively defend their interests. They cannot absorb the prospect of the ultimate sacrifice of their sons. And since the Vietnam War, America’s room to operate is regulated by the liberal media, which is deeply influenced by European cultural relativism and secular pacifism. As a result, players who are aware of these characteristics of modern Western societies (i.e., Vladimir Putin, the Arab dictators, and the mullahs in Tehran) calculate their steps in sync with the limitations of Western modi operandi.

The project of the Shiite bomb has spread over so many sites that only a devastating attack by American forces could make an end of it, with terrible collateral damage. The Israelis can only execute some tactical destruction, in the hope that it will delay the project.

The Europeans were never serious in stopping the mullahs. They only have “soft power” in their arsenal, because the liberal European ideology has no chapter about European exceptionalism, European idealism, European ability to bleed, sweat, and suffer for its own sacred values and traditions. The Europeans, concerned about oil imports, commercial interests in Iran, and the loss of influence in Tehran to Moscow and Beijing, fear Israeli action more than an Iranian bomb. President Obama, who would have been an excellent editorial writer for the Guardian, is even more European than the Europeans.

Well, they got what they were looking for.

It has never made sense to talk to the mullahs. It is their core business to confuse and mislead, create chaos, kill opponents, torture students, organize terrorism, and weaken Western resolve. They do what they do because they are defined by it. If they were to stop what they are doing, they would give up their identity and the soul of the Shiite revolution. The mullahs are close to fulfilling the central dream of Imam Khomeini’s revolution: a weapon that can destroy Israel and undermine Western nations.

It’s too late. The mullahs won. Only the desperate and heroic people in the streets of Iran can turn the tide.

Article printed from Pajamas Media: Pajamas Media

URL to article: Pajamas Media Western Liberal Elites Have Made an Iranian Bomb a Reality

[Castellano]

Mihais reply

I like your writing style directly to business; to respond properly, I needed to do some research, hence the long delay:

C,
1.Every Western and Arab intelligence service has it's eyes on them(and I bet many of the technicians working for the western companies are used as humint,as well as many opposition sympathizers so we're not deaf and blind)

These is what John Bolton said recently in the course of a debate on this issue with Martin Indyk, which suggests it could be accurate, since Indyk did not challenge these points and opposes any military action against Iranian nukes. I don't know if they are true, but if they are, it changes the whole approach to the timing of this:

"We need to get out of the fantasy, that we have a real handle on what Iran’s program is.

People confidently assert that Iran has x-amount of low enriched uranium. Well, they have x-amout of low enriched uranium that’s been declared to the the IAEA. Is that all they have?

We don’t know

Have they enriched any other beyond 3,5 percent of U235 isotope?

We don’t know

Do they have redundant facilities other that Qom?

We don’t know

Do they have facilities which have the second generation centrifuges which is between 5 and 8 times more efficient than the original AQ Khan design?

We don’t know

...."



AEI - Should Israel Attack Iran?

2.OeE has repeatedly stated that Iran CANNOT build a nuclear weapon outside IAEA supervision.I trust the colonel more than any Israeli hand wringing.Any expulsion of IAEA experts and B-2's take-off.

Why you say “Israeli hand wringing”? Just to make it clear, I do not pretend to know what I don’t know, and my position in this is not based on an article or something like that - I just think that it is insane to allow this to get this far. That’s all.

And about the B-2’s taking off…I’ll just say this: if I read him well President Obama thinks the natural order of the World is Peace – on the other hand he is highly intelligent and he might learn, but up until now when in doubt he votes present.

3.IF Iran gets WMD's in sufficient numbers to detter any conventional attack(a SF scenario at this moment),MAD comes into play

I’m not sure is SF.

About MAD…there are many ways to use nukes, not only actually nuking somebody. And Iran with nukes would almost certainly provoke an increase of violence in the ME. And then is the worst consequence of it all that I want to discuss - a nuke race involving the Saudis, Egypt, possibly Turkey and Syria. And it is precisely here where the MAD doctrine goes crazy, no matter what Kenneth Waltz says in the outlandish theory “The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: More May Better,”.

If it was only Iran that got hold of nukes, then it would be a plausible to argue that MAD would deter them from using their nukes, and they could actually sober up, although they are quite a deranged and fanatical bunch, and all evidence indicates they'll be provoking conflicts left and right the moment they get their hands on nukes.

But it turns out that what you are looking at within the next 10 years, is half a dozen countries in the ME playing three dimensional chess with one another in a multipolar nuclear environment, which all but guarantees a nuclear exchange at some point.

Not only that, as I said before, it makes sense to play deranged in nuclear poker. Have you thought about the implications for Europe and its relations with the ME? I find that this crucial aspect is seldom considered, and is one of the main reasons that make Iran's program 'unacceptable'

4.All the nukes didn't prevent USSR,(a country orders of magnitudes more powerfull in every aspect than anything Iran could be) to starve and fall.

I think is more or less clear that this regime will fall, and sooner rather than later. But I think not soon enough - which opens the question about the inheritance of the nukes, another aspect I think neglected by the proponents of MAD as the only policy; ie. it wasn't written that the inheritance in the USSR was going to be smooth.

5.Nobody attacked Israel because they lack the capability to defeat Israel in a conventional war.

And because they lacked a safe a fallback position w/out the Soviet umbrella - therefore risking what ME tyrants fundamentally want: to perpetuate their murderous regimes.

6.During the Cold War,there were dozens if not hundreds of wars by proxy on every continent except Europe and somehow nobody pushed the button.So I would not be to worried about Israel's lack of means to pursue it's security interests(i.e kick Hamas from time to time) even if Iran gets the nuke.

HAMAS & PoG. I do think is extremely dangerous to have these two with some sort of nuclear umbrella. One never knows how a War would end, and they'll be more War, is in the nature of these terrorist gangs, specially HAMAS.

[HillTribe]

Iran War Games to defend nuclear sites

Increasingly it looks like we are a step closer to the threshold.

[Crocodylus]

Israel should not attack Iran's nuclear reactor - and this is why.

I do not remember the book, but somewhere I read that Tehran's desire to develop nuclear reactors has to do with reduced petroleum reserves. If Iranian oil reserves were to drop low enough, many competing countries will try everything to secure what remains - short of invading Iran outright. The establishment of political influence among Iranian leaders is one way to do this.

Iran's development of nuclear capability is Tehran's way of preparing for the worst, IMHO. The Iranians are not necessarily looking to attack the West, but they know that, as producers of petroleum, they must keep exporting or else be the target of various machinations on part of more industrialized countries. After decades of petroleum extraction, Iran's reserves are running low and now they must choose either to reduce exports and direct most production to satisfying domestic energy demand, or to maintain current export levels and reduce the amount of oil directed to satisfying domestic demand. Developing nuclear energy is one way for the Iranians to have it both ways.

However, there is the fear among Western governments that Tehran can use its nuclear capability to control oil shipments out of the Persian Gulf. Not only would the US and other Western governments be nervous, but also Saudi Arabia and other countries that depend on petroleum exports for their economic prosperity would have reasons to worry.

If I were Tehran, I'd go easy on the development of nuclear energy - whether for civilian or military use - and amplify the range of alternative energy options. For instance, there are many locations in Iran where electricity can be produced from wind or solar energy. Might be expensive at first, but the long-term benefits are significant.

On the other hand, if there is no option other than retention of nuclear capability for military use, I'd be very quiet and not tell anyone anything - and I would sponsor the construction of civilian reactors that can be converted to military production in a few days. Anything to get the UN weapons inspectors off my back :))

[Crocodylus]

One reason why Iran's program is unacceptable

Not only that, as I said before, it makes sense to play deranged in nuclear poker. Have you thought about the implications for Europe and its relations with the ME? I find that this crucial aspect is seldom considered, and is one of the main reasons that make Iran's program 'unacceptable'.

Well... for one Europe is right next door, so for Iran to acquire nuclear capabilities and scare the rest of the ME into an arms race would be less than appetizing. It would probably force Europe to go nuclear as well - which would then make Moscow nervous, forcing the Russians to step up their nuclear capability as well. The IAEA would be having a migraine.

Not to mention that the Suez Canal is in the vicinity as well. I do not know if this Canal is as important as it once was, but using it does save European Asia-bound shipping a 12,000 Km detour around Cape Town.

However, I believe that the most important consequence of an ME nuclear arms race - at least from an economic standpoint - is the partial or total paralysis of petroleum exports. Europe would lose a good part of its foreign oil imports. Azerbaijan and other petroleum/LNG producers in Central Asia would feel the heat if Iran were to go nuclear. What if the Iranians were to send nukes into Azerbaijan or Turkmenistan in a bid to paralyze petroleum/LNG exports to Europe?

[Mihais]

Crocodylus,France and UK are nuclear powers.

[Crocodylus]

Why hasn't anyone mentioned Bushehr?

Crocodylus,France and UK are nuclear powers.

Sorry about that. I forgot to factor that in. Thanks.

If Iran can be prevented from acquiring nuclear capability, that's good. However, with shrinking petroleum reserves, for Tehran nuclear reactors look more and more tempting by the day. Couple this with Israeli & Western concerns that the Iranians might try producing nukes using them and we have a pressure cooker just waiting to burst

It's funny that so far no one on this thread has mentioned Bushehr. For your consideration I have an article from GlobalSecurity.org .

Bushehr

The nuclear facility at Brushehr was the focus of a considerable amount of controversy, especially in the United States. The reactor was being built under an agreement between the Russian and Iranian governments for $800-million. Although originally intended to be the location of a German-built reactor in the 1970s, the new reactor was to be built to Russian design specifications, though the original reactor buildings exterior appearance would remain essentially the same. There were two reactors at Bushehr, one was in an advanced stage of completion the other had not been worked on for some time and was not scheduled to be completed as of 2006.

Iran was a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), though it had not ratified two additional protocols to the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) Program 93 + 2, which was designed to prevent states from developing nuclear weapons covertly, despite IAEA inspections, as Iraq was able to do prior to the Gulf War. Iran maintained that it would not ratify 93 + 2 due to it being denied civilian nuclear technology for Bushehr, despite its positive record with the IAEA.

Nuclear power industry contacts between Iran and Russia were based on the inter-governmental agreements of 25 August 1992, on cooperation in the civil use of nuclear energy and in the construction of a nuclear power plant in Iran.

Opposition to Bushehr
On 23 February 1998, the US State Department reaffirmed US opposition to Iran's nuclear program. The United States argued that Iran had sufficient oil and gas reserves for power generation, and that nuclear reactors were expensive, unnecessary, and could be used for military purposes. The United States strongly opposed the project, which was permitted under the NPT, and had in the past provided Russia with intelligence information pointing to the existence of an Iranian nuclear weapons program. Despite this, the Russians proceeded with work on Bushehr.

US opposition to Russian construction of Bushehr rested on three main issues. First was that weapons grade plutonium could be extracted from the reactor allowing the Iranians to construct nuclear weapons. Secondly, the US feared that the Russians and the Iranians were using Bushehr as a cover for the transfer of other sensitive technology that would normally be prohibited. Finally, the US was concerned that the knowledge gained by Iranian scientists working at Bushehr could further Irans nuclear weapons program.

US pressure to prevent the construction of Brushehr had not been limited to Russia. On 6 March 1998, during a visit by US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Ukraine announced that it would not sell turbines for use with reactors at Bushehr. The contract had been worth $45 million. Five days later, Vice President Gore met with Russian Prime Minister Chernomyrdin and discussed, among other things, US concerns over Russian exports of nuclear and missile technology to Iran.

Iran claimed that its nuclear program was for peaceful power-generation purposes and that it would help free up oil and gas resources for export, thus generating additional hard-currency revenues. The US had countered that Iran did not possess sufficient natural reserves of nuclear fuel, meaning that it would be dependant on costly imports to sustain a nuclear power program.

Using their own imagery satellites, the Israeli military was undoutedly also monitoring the progress towards completion of the first Bushehr reactor. Although the reactor was not designed to produce material for nuclear weapons, the spent fuel from the reactor could be reprocessed to yield plutonium, which was why the reactor was under International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards. As with the Iraqi Osiraq reactor two decades ago, Israel was thought to face a choice as to whether to attack the Bushehr reactor before it becomes operational. Between 2002 and June 2008 Israel, as well as the United States refused to take the possibility of a preemptive strike out of the equation. Israel even staged a military exercise in March 2008 seen as specifically geared toward preparing for such an attack.

The United States had consistantly resisted negotiating with Iranian authorities, and had stipulated a desire that they suspend enrichment activities as a prequisite. With UN Security Council Resolutions calling for this suspension passed in 2006, the United States continued to hold to this requirement for negotiations, and refused to remove the possibility of a preemptive military strike to halt such activities. By the end of July 2008, however, the United States had suggested its desire to return to a diplomatic forum to resolve the dispute. It had offered to send the Under Secretary of Defense to the next round of negotiations with Iranian authorities, which it had previously resisted.

Additional Reactors
Iran had also been considering the construction of three to five additional reactor facilities, which might or might not be located at Bushehr, for an estimated cost of $3.2 billion. A 5 September 2001 Moscow Times report indicated that the Russians would be submitting plans for the construction of additional reactors at Bushehr and that negotiations could begin as soon as December 2001, though the number of reactors being proposed was unclear and it was not apparrent how much the project might cost. It was estimated that the total cost of building the reactor complex at Bushehr may be roughly $4-6 billion since construction began in 1976.

During a March 2001 Moscow summit between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Iranian President Mohammed Khatami, Khatami confirmed plans to order a second reactor after the first was delivered, possibly by late 2002. The Iranian leader signaled his intention to proceed with a second contract that could be worth up to $1 billion.

On 26 July 2002 the Russian government indicated that it planned to continue building new nuclear reactors in Iran as part of a draft plan outlining potential areas of economic, industrial and scientific cooperation with Iran over the coming decade. The document approved by Prime Minister Mikhail M. Kasyanov outlined plans to build three more reactors at the Bushehr site. The document also indicated that Russia would offer to build two more reactors at a new nuclear power station at Ahwaz, a city about 60 miles from Iran's border with Iraq. These plans were apparently shelved after complaints by the United States.

In was reported on by IRNA on 26 August 2003, that Iran had received from Russia feasibility studies for a second reactor at Bushehr. According to that report, Russian specialists believed that it would be more practical to build two reactors from scratch rather than continue working on the reactor that had been abandoned by Siemens under pressure from the United States. The studies had been achieved by the time of Russian Atomic Energy Minister Alexander Rumyantsev's visit to Tehran in December 2002.

Calls for additional power plant construction were made again by the Chairman of Majlis Energy Commission in October 2004, who sought approval for 9 more power plants. Alaeddin Boroujerdi, the head of parliament's National Security and Foreign Policy Commission, said in November 2006 that the AEOI had been given 20 licenses for the establishment of additional nuclear power plants. However, by July 2008 Iran was said to be looking to build only 19 more reactors, six of them by 2020. One of these reactors was reported to be planned for construction in Darkhoyen, construction of which had been announced in December 2005.

Nuclear Weapons Potential
President Mohammad Khatami said on 23 December 2002 that Iran was committed to its obligations and had no intention to develop nuclear weapons. He said that Iran's willingness to send spent fuel back to Russia showed that it did not want to use it for weapons, since the nuclear waste from Bushire plant would be taken to Russia for safekeeping.

According to Paul Leventhal of the Nuclear Control Institute, if Iran were to withdraw from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) and renounce the agreement with Russia, the Bushehr reactor could produce a quarter ton of plutonium per year, which Leventhal said was enough for at least 30 atomic bombs. Harmon W. Hubbard raised similar concerns in an April 2003 article titled "Plutonium from Light Water Reactors as Nuclear Weapon Material" published by the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center (NPEC). Another report published by the NPEC in 2004 reiterated the concerns about light water reactors and plutonium production.

Normally for electrical power production the uranium fuel remains in the reactor for three to four years, which produces a plutonium of 60 percent or less Pu-239, 25 percent or more Pu-240, 10 percent or more Pu-241, and a few percent Pu-242. The Pu-240 has a high spontaneous rate of fission, and the amount of Pu-240 in weapons-grade plutonium generally does not exceed 6 percent, with the remaining 93 percent Pu-239. Higher concentrations of Pu-240 can result in pre-detonation of the weapon, significantly reducing yield and reliability. For the production of weapons-grade plutonium with lower Pu-240 concentrations, the fuel rods in a reactor would have to be changed frequently, about every four months or less.

From this article, I gather that the Iranians just want to have some nuclear reactors for civilian use, but the fact that Russia supplied the equipment suggests (to Western governments, at least) that the manufacture of nuclear weapons might be among Tehran's intentions.

It's very unlikely that - as long as the Islamic Republic of Iran exists - Western countries will sell any nuclear reactor technology to the Iranians. Even so, just the possibility of a deal is intriguing. Thus, why don't we ponder for a moment how a nuclear reactor deal between Western governments and (a pro-West, democratic) Iran would come to pass in the current situation?