I was reading this in the Times and its an interview with David
Albright, President of the Institute for Science and International Security by the
Council on Foreign Relations. The most striking comment he made is that Iran, for all it talk of using nuclear power with Civilian goals, lacks the resources to do so. In reality they only have enough uranium for atomic weapons and not to provide electricity.
David Albright, a long-time expert on Iran's nuclear program, says that Iran will probably accumulate enough low-enriched uranium this year to "reach the first level of breakout capability, namely enough low-enriched uranium to make one nuclear weapon." And in an ironic twist, he says even though Iran's stated goal is to have a nuclear program for domestic power, it appears to be running out of uranium for such a plan. "It's one of the unfortunate ironies of the situation that while they don't have enough uranium for a civil nuclear energy program, they have plenty for a weapons program," Albright says. "Even if Iran runs out of uranium, they have more than enough to eventually produce tens of nuclear weapons." He urges the United States to seek tougher sanctions, but also to open wide-ranging negotiations with Iran.
Hardly a Hawk, but clearly realistic about Iran's intentions. Once Iran gets enough enriched uranium (which by all
accounts they do), that country will then "breakout" into the next stage and attempt to create Highly Enriched Uranium. In regards to Iran's supplies,
it appears Iran is running out of yellow cake. Was there ever a more harmless name that caused so much trouble? Mr.
Allbright argues that in an ironic twist, Iran's actions which have
limited its access to materials needed for a civilian program, leaving just enough for a significant weapons program.
Even if Iran runs out of uranium, they have more than enough to eventually produce tens of nuclear weapons. It's a situation where you have to wonder whether Iran's intention all along was to have the infrastructure to have a bomb program and it was never intending to achieve an indigenous civil nuclear electricity program.
Tens of Nuclear weapons, even if we cut them off from all supplies now. In regards to stopping the program
Albright points out how Pakistan was slowed in its development and South Africa gave up its program all together. I find this a flawed argument. Just because Pakistan was slower to develop doesn't change the facts that they detonated a bomb anyway and allowed
AQ Khan to create the worst nuclear proliferation scandal in history. As we speak, militant and terrorist groups are operating with impunity in that nation and one bad day could result in their seizure of atomic weapons. As for South Africa there are two reasons it worked there. One is Nelson Mandela, a very rare leader in this world. Secondly what threat exists to that country in the region.? The answer. nothing an Atomic weapon is needed for. In regards to military strikes
Albright is hardly supportive:
It's also important in this to remember that you want to avoid setting up this situation with Iran where you are forced to two choices, namely capitulation or military strikes. Military strikes are very unlikely to be effective unless you're willing to launch massive campaigns against the country and that means going to war against Iran. I don't think anyone wants to do that. And I'll also say, even in that case, you might not stop Iran from building nuclear weapons because in the end, the places that they would need to make nuclear weapons are not that large. And after being attacked, they would likely launch a Manhattan-style program [the code name for the U.S. secret program during World War II to produce the atomic bomb]. So I would still say that military options are just not feasible. That doesn't mean you can't apply pressure on Iran, and I would argue that if you're not going to favor military strikes, then you need to focus more on sanctions to get Iran to rethink its priorities on enrichment.
He calls for negotiations on many levels as a means to stop the program. It won't work. Iran wants the bomb for various reasons, each worse then before.
1. After the first Gulf War the Chief of Staff of the Indian army was asked what lesson did he learn, his reply: Don't fight the USA without a nuclear bomb. Iran knows this and is acting accordingly.
2. Weapons Proliferation is a profitable
business. Do not underestimate the plain old greed of people who recognize the profit that could be made selling
weaponized uranium or the
know how to highly enrich uranium. No grand conspiracy or
geo-political logic is required for this, just common sense.
3. The destruction of Israel. Its a real possibility if Iran has the weapons and to hope for the best that an atomic armed Iran is will
somehow be moderated by the extra
responsibility of joining the nuclear club is a risky hope at best.
President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe, holding balloons, celebrated his birthday on Saturday
