The Associated Press is reporting that diplomats and intelligence agencies are at a loss to explain an apparent pause in Iran’s drive to enrich nuclear fuel:
Iran’s uranium enrichment program appears stalled despite tough talk from the Tehran leadership, leaving intelligence services guessing about why it has not made good on plans to press ahead with activities that the West fears could be used to make nuclear arms, diplomats said today.Outside monitoring of Iran’s nuclear endeavors is restricted to International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspections of declared sites, leaving significant blind spots for both the agency and intelligence agencies of member countries trying to come up with the full picture.
Still, Tehran’s reluctance to crank up activities at its declared enrichment site at Natanz when it seems to have the technical know-how is puzzling the diplomatic and intelligence communities. Some say it is potentially worrisome.
Diplomats accredited or otherwise linked to the Vienna-based IAEA, speaking on condition of anonymity in exchange for discussing restricted information on the Iranian program, said some intelligence services believed that the Natanz site was a front.
While the world’s attention is focused on Natanz, Iranian scientists and military personnel could be working on a secret enrichment program at one or more unknown sites that are much more advanced than what is going on at the declared site, they said.
I think the most likely reason for the apparent pause in the Iranian program is very simple; they are having problems overcoming the technological hurdles involved in making 3,000 centrifuges work the way they’re supposed to.
Having the technical “know how” and then actually carrying out the experiment are two totally different kettles of fish:
IAEA inspectors arrived at Natanz yesterday for a routine round of monitoring.But one of the diplomats said they were unlikely to find anything but the status quo—two small pilot plants assembled in 164 centrifuge “cascades” but working only sporadically to produce small quantities of non-weapons-grade enriched uranium and other individual centrifuges undergoing mechanical testing. That essentially has been the situation at Natanz since late November, he said.
There have been no signs of any activity linked to Iranian plans to assemble 3,000 centrifuges at Natanz and move them into an underground facility as the start of an ambitious program foreseeing 50,000 centrifuges producing enriched material, said the diplomats.
We tend to forget that Iran is a third world country, one of the most insular nations on earth. Ever since we exposed the A.Q. Khan nuclear black market network 3 years ago, it is likely that the kind of technical expertise that could help the Iranians get over the hump and start those centrifuges whirring also dried up. Since intelligence agencies (along with the IAEA) keep a close watch on nuclear scientists from countries like Pakistan and North Korea, they would know if Iran was receiving the kind of technical assistance that would help keep their nuke program on track.
In short, the Iranians may have hit a technological road block – temporarily. Given time and money, they will almost certainly be able to work through their problems.
This, in fact, was foretold by nuclear experts a year ago:
So, the real question, however, is how quickly Iran could assemble and operate 1,500 centrifuges in a crash program to make enough HEU for one bomb (say 15-20 kg).Albright and Hinderstein have created a notional timeline for such a program:
Assemble 1,300-1,600 centrifuges. Assuming Iran starts assembling centrifuges at a rate of 70-
100/month, Iran will have enough centrifuges in 6-9 months.Combine centrifuges into cascades, install control equipment, building feed and withdrawal systems, and test the Fuel Enrichment Plant. 1 year
Enrich enough HEU for a nuclear weapon. 1 year
Weaponize the HEU. A “few†months.
Total time to the bomb—about three years.
And that was based on things going relatively smoothly. What could go wrong?
Iran might not be able to meet such a schedule for bringing a centrifuge plant into operation. The suspension of manufacturing and operating centrifuges could be reestablished, or Iran might have trouble making so many centrifuges. In addition, Iran does not appear to have accumulated enough experience to operate a cascade of centrifuges reliably. Iran had assembled 164 centrifuges into a cascade just before the suspension, but it did not acquire sufficient experience in operating the cascade to be certain it would perform adequately. Centrifuges can crash during operation, causing other centrifuges in the cascade to fail—in essence, destroying the entire cascade. Thus, Iran might need a year or more of additional experience in operating test cascades before building and operating a plant able to make HEU for nuclear weapons.
In the last year, Iran has operated those 164 centrifuges successfully and enriched an extremely small amount of uranium about 5%. In order to build a bomb, they would have to operate a cascade using 10 times the number of centrifuges, for at least 12 months of constant, flawless operation in order to enrich a much, much larger amount of uranium to 85-90%.
Does this mean they don’t have a “dual track” program – a civilian program that is being inspected by the IAEA (at present) and a secret military program that no one knows about?
The CIA considered such a possibility but could find no evidence to support it although there were troubling indications of military research and development of centrifuge technology. It would come as a huge surprise indeed if the Iranians were enriching uranium using sophisticated cascades and thousands of centrifuges in secret while appearing to make only marginal progress publicly.
Could the CIA be that wrong about the Iranian program? Considering their track record, the answer is yes. The Israelis believe the Iranians are less than 2 years from having a workable bomb, hence their own sabre rattling recently.
Anthony Cordesman may have divined the real reason for the slowdown in the Iranian nuclear program:
Anthony Cordesman, an Iran specialist at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, suggested an additional possibility linked to theories that Tehran was forging ahead with its enrichment program at undisclosed locations: fear that any major progress at Natanz could provoke military action by Israel or the United States.“It’s a known facility and more and more of the subject of discussion as a possible Israeli or U.S. target,” Mr. Cordesman said from Washington. “So, do you use this facility now or wait to see what threat you face?”
I think the left is right about this one. I think Bush fully intends to attack the Iranian nuclear facilities before he leaves office – especially if he thinks his successor won’t. Considering the possible problems that the Iranians are having with their program, this just doesn’t make any sense.
We have time – time to build the kind of international coalition that we failed to do on Iraq. The Europeans are already on board. Even Russia and China agree that a nuclear Iran is unacceptable. Bombing them at this point without applying progressively more painful sanctions is stupid. If necessary, we could blockade their ports or if worse came to worse, destroy their oil facilities. Yes, these are both acts of war – acts committed against a country that declared war on the United States 28 years ago. But even bombing their oil facilities would be far preferable to the kind of sustained, massive air attack that would be necessary to interrupt the Iranian drive for nuclear weapons.
I agree that a nuclear armed Iran is as bad as it gets for the peace and security of the world. But they’re not there yet and may be nowhere near the point where they are a threat.
4:37 pm
Wow.
An excellent excellent post Rick. Seriously.
I would only add that it appears China is coming on board for sanctions against Iran with some energy assurances from Saudi Arabia.
Also, not only is this not the time to launch an alpha strike on Iran’s facilities (and certainly not a ground incursion), but it’s also a good time to tone back the rhetoric a bit, let Iran stew a while as it’s former supporters begin to back away from it, and see what happens.
5:43 pm
Rick,
In addition to the problems you cite, the Iranian’s have not yet demonstrated the capability to make the cascade feedstock (Uranium Hexafluoride gas (UF6)) sufficiently pure. The stock the Iranians successfully fed into their 164 centrifuge cascade was high-quality Chinese stock imported a few years ago. They have a limited amount of Chinese stock since we successfully pressured the Chinese not to give them anymore. The Iranian feed stock contains impurities which cause cascade crashes. In fact, after the successful test using the Chinese feed stock, the Iranians tried some of their own and partially crashed the cascade.
The reason purity is so critical is that centrifuges spin at about 80-100k RPM, or about 10 times faster than a hard disk drive. At those speeds, even a small level of impurity in the stock will throw the centrifuges (which are 3-6ft in length) out of balance and then BAD things happen.
Until the Iranian’s resolve their UF6 purity issues, they’d be fools to feed anymore of their stock into any cascade, clandestine or otherwise. I haven’t seen any info on how Iran is progressing with this problem in the last few months, but I haven’t looked all that hard either.
And like you say, the Iranians have other technical hurdles to surmount – probably ones they don’t even know about yet. That is one reason why the IC’s estimates are longer than figures commonly cited by the “attack Iran now” crowd. It could be 3 years if everything goes perfectly. What are the chances of that happening? This is the same problem with the IC’s ballistic missile capability assessments back in the mid-1990’s. They were roundly criticized by the “neocons,” including Rumsfeld, but it turns out the IC had it right all along.
7:43 pm
Thank God we’re worrying about rumors about someone else’s nuclear program. I mean have been paying way too much attention to solving the problems right here in the USA.
5:40 am
The CIA wrong on an iranian nuclear weapons program? C’mon, that’s like saying they were wrong about Iraqi WMD.
Get past that thinking. It is pro-terrorist.
7:43 am
7:56 am
Jonathan:
Out of the last 20 comments left on this site, you have left 11 of them.
My spam catcher can’t tell the difference between anything you write and ads for Viagra.
You are having conversations with yourself, going wildly off base, posting comments not even tangentially related to the post. And when you respond to someone, you never respond directly but rather bring up new straw men, logical fallacies, and fantasies that only a leftist twit believes.
In short, you annoy me. From now on, your comments will be held in moderation. And if I think them germane, I will post them. If not, I will delete them.
Don’t like it? Get your own damn blog.
8:04 am
9:50 am
I don’t try to be annoying and I’m sorry that I annoy you, I shall try to improve. I’m used to a freewheeling conversation style, I cut my online rhetorical teeth on usenet where anything goes and there is no moderation at all. On usenet every statement you make is challenged and you have to be prepared to back up anything you claim with documented facts.
It is a documented fact that Rumsfeld overruled Shinseki’s estimate of the number of troops needed for the occupation of Iraq, I have provided links to that fact. It is also a documented fact that Abizaid confirmed Shinseki’s original estimate to have been correct in hindsight, I have provided a link to that fact. I have also provided a link to the fact that Rumsfeld threatened to fire anyone who even mentioned planning for the occupation. Do you think that Brigadier General Scheid lied when he made that statement? “A cadet will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do.” – U.S. Military Academy Honor Code
The Army’s own counter insurgency manual calls for a troop to population ratio of twenty troops per one thousand civilians. The arithmetic involved is grade school level to show that the US forces in Iraq are now and have been woefully inadequate to fight a counter insurgency war. That is why the effort in Iraq has been so remarkably unsuccessful, despite the best efforts of our honorable troops. The kinetic combat portion of the war went remarkably well, the counter insurgency part of the operation has been a major flop.
Unlike virtually all your other posters, I have provided links to reputable information sources for my claims.
When I’ve gone off topic it is in answer to posts that other people have made.If I have made logical fallacies or errors of fact I wish that you would point them out to me so that I may correct the error of my ways. Almost none of your other posters seem to want to respond to my posts so I have to conclude that they either agree with me or have no answer to the points that I make.
If I have presented conspiracy theories, I wish that you would point them out to me so that I may correct my thinking. If I have presented straw men, I wish that you would point them out to me since it is not my intention to present such arguments.
I note that there are very few actual conversations on your blog, most all of the posts either agree with your positions or disagree with them and they are mostly statements of opinion rather than facts.
I have been posting over at Balloon-Juice.com, they have a very freewheeling conversational style there although it is too much of a leftist echo chamber for my tastes. I’m not interested in me-too type posting. Everyone’s point of view is expressed, both left and right and I haven’t seen anyone get banned for anything yet. There are a lot of ad hominem arguments and personal insults, I don’t care for either and don’t engage in such.
I’m sort of surprised that you do not welcome more traffic, postings and click throughs. The more active your blog is, the more traffic you are going to attract. I find the comments section of most blogs a good bit more interesting than the blog posts themselves, I’m interested in conversation. If I wanted just to read or hear other peoples opinions I could stick to the newspapers, television or radio, but I find them boring and banal.
After this post I fully expect to be banned, you do not appear to wish to have your opinions or those of your fellow conservatives vigorously challenged and I’m unable to keep from doing that.
I’ve been banned from quite a lot of sites, both left and right for challenging dogma in a vigorous manner, If I get banned from one more, I’ll just move on somewhere else.
Anyway, take care and have a good day. I wish you luck in your online endeavor.
11:14 am
This Jonathan charecter sounds like the kind of surrender monkey that is making Presdient Bush’s job of protecting America from terrorism all the harder.
The incredible strength and fortitude our God Blessed President is showing in the face of so much puling and saniveling from the terorist fifth column at loose here in the bastion of freedom is inspiring.
2:47 pm
Yes we didn’t find what we thought would be in Iraq, but is it just a coincidence that the WMD programs in Syria and Libya were alot further along than we thought(Saddam had plenty of nuke scientists in both countries)?
4:20 pm
Jonathan,
If you read this site at all for the last year, you’d probably know that I’m a former member of the intelligence community. I don’t know how or why you make the jump from Iran’s program to Iraq’s, but you seem to point out that since the Intelligence Community (which is much, much, much more than just the CIA) was wrong on Iraq then they must be wrong on Iran as well. Intelligence, by its very nature, is inexact and is perceived to have a rate of inaccuracy that is uncomfortably high. Given the fact that intelligence failures are more often made public and bandied about than successes are, it’s not surprising that the general public gets the impression that the IC is purposely biased or incompetent or both.
In the intelligence world there is an important distinction between evidence and proof. Rarely is an analyst afforded the latter, so judgments are made on incomplete, contradictory and even inaccurate evidence. Often, intelligence analysts have to make judgments but are careful to caveat what we do and don’t know. Unfortunately, policy people (like Presidents)view such nuance as simply CYA by the IC. Policy people, naturally, want perfect information and a black-and-white answer on questions like whether a nation has WMD’s or not. They are continually frustrated when the IC cannot answer a question definitively.
Iraq was a classic case of this conflict that I’m sure will be studied by intelligence professionals for years to come, but the problems with Iraqi WMD intelligence go way beyond policy-intel squabbles. A combination of factors led to the mistaken judgment that Iraq had current stockpiles of WMD’s which I’ll briefly cover in a minute. What is certain is that Iraq did have WMD programs. There is an important distinction there. People like you are always quick to point to the lack of actual weapons but conveniently ignore that Iraq’s programs were in hibernation and the regime had every intent of reconstituting them once sanctions were lifted. The argument over capability vs actual weapons is an important one and is an issue that applies to Iran as well.
Once the regime fell, you may remember there was a lot of confusion throughout 2003 about what happened to the WMD’s. It took us so long to find the truth because the Iraqi’s didn’t know for sure either. In fact, in interviews with senior Iraqi military and government officials after the war, most believed that Iraq probably did have weapons and some were surprised we did not find them. I’d encourage you to read the entire Iraqi Perspectives Project report (http://www.jfcom.mil/newslink/storyarchive/2006/ipp.pdf) as it provides a very clear pictures of the regime’s inner workings as well as explains the conflicting evidence on Iraqi WMD’s. Although I can’t provide direct quotes here since the PDF won’t allow you to copy-and-paste text, read pages 91-95. That provides the best explanation for why the IC made the misjudgments it did. Looking back on it now, it’s difficult to see how analysts could have come to any other conclusion. Where the IC did make a mistake was regarding the certainty of WMD’s. The “slam dunk” comment is a case-in-point. No professional intelligence analyst would every say such a thing. Tenet was never a professionally trained analyst, just look at his biography. He’s a policy/politics guy, not an analyst.
In any event, the discussion on this post is about Iran, not Iraq. Let’s talk about that evidence vs proof thing for a minute. Iran has a proven nuclear program. There is a lot of evidence they desire and are working toward a nuclear weapon capability. Can that be proved? No, and it’s unlikely it will be. A “Zimmermann telegram” level of intelligence confirmation is unlikely. So, we have to make a judgment based on the evidence. Right now none of the evidence is incontrovertible, but taken as a whole, I think it’s reasonable to posit that Iran does have the desire to either have weapons or the capability to weaponize in a short amount of time. Want to see some of that evidence? Take a look at the unresolved issues in the IAEA’s latest report (http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2006/gov2006-64.pdf). Why is Iran building the reactor at Arak? (http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/1300/technical-cooperation-for-arak) Why is Iran neglecting it’s energy sector, which could provide energy independence long before nuclear will, while spending billions on nuclear infrastructure? Why is Iran putting most of its money in it’s nuclear program into the fuel production cycle and not reactors. The Iranians will have poured billions into an extensive fuel production capability in order to fuel one reactor – Bushehr. The Iranians have plans for additional reactors but no agreements have been signed to say nothing of breaking ground. This situation is akin to me buying my own refinery and gas station in order to keep my Honda fueled. Logically, if the Iranians were so desperate for nuclear energy, they’d spend their money on reactors first and buy the fuel on the open market and THEN develop a fuel infrastructure. They’re doing it ass-backwards. Why?
I could go on and on. The Iranian deception and obfuscation about their activities are legendary. We have Libya and Khaddafi to thank for disclosing the AQ Khan program and Iran’s clandestine activities.
In short, the circumstantial evidence is compelling but not conclusive. It’s compelling enough for even France to take action, even if it’s only diplomatic. That says something. So what’s your answer Jonathan besides cheap potshots?
6:43 pm
Andy:
Thanks for taking the time to give me a professional perspective. I haven’t been here very long and I was unaware that you are an intel professional. I could tell that you were knowledgeable from your post #2 on this thread.
I’ve been lurking over at Intel-Dump.com where there are several knowledgable people and after reading many posts over a period of time I have come to much the same conclusion as you state in your post.
I realize that intel is a land of smoke and mirrors with rarely any clear cut answers, that’s one of the reasons that I react so stongly to things like “slam dunk there are WMDs”. I’m not trying to take “cheap shots” so much as I’m trying to stimulate some debate on issues.
You are obviously privy to far more information than I am, I’m just a lower middle class guy with an internet connection and a burning desire to know more than I do. That being said, I would have assumed that if there were any evidence of WMD programs in Iraq the Bush administration would have made sure to make the information public, particularly so after the very embarrassing lack of any WMDs in Iraq. To the best of my recollection I have not read of any such WMD program in Iraq.
As for Tenet, I really have no way of judging his qualifications. A private citizen can only assume that the Director of the CIA would have access to the best and latest information and would not deliberately distort that information for political purposes. That assumption was apparently wrong and Tenet did indeed distort information.
When dealing with the rhetoric coming from the Bush administration now, I use the old adage which Bush so famously mangled “fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me”. When you combine the falsehoods coming from Tenet with some of the pollyannaish statements from other members of the Bush administration it gives little reason to believe anything they say.
Was not the White House Iraq Group “cherry picking” intel in order to make the threat from Iraq appear greater than it was? Looking at the Downing Street Memo it would certainly appear that way to the layman. As I understand it, no official sources have either denied the authenticity of the DSM or questioned it’s accuracy. Is that so?
The quote above would lead the layperson to believe that Saddam was indeed contained and that he was no threat to either his neighbors or the US. I’d be interested in your take on this.
My personal opinion is that striking directly against Iran at the present time would be a foolhardy thing to do, given that our ground forces are all committed already and that the Iranians showed during the Iran Iraq war that they have no problem with taking staggering losses in order to achieve a military objective. From what I understand Iran actually sent waves of children to clear mine fields, each one clutching a plastic key to get them into paradise.
Once again, thanks for taking the time to try and educate me and any others that might be reading this.
6:48 pm
And that was based on things going relatively smoothly. What could go wrong?
One presumes that there are active efforts to “enhance” Murphy’s Law’s effect on the Iranian program. Every failure will be possibly blamed on Western intelligence agencies. I wouldn’t want to be a worker/scientist in the Iranian program, even disregarding the possibility of Western military attack.
7:46 pm
Andy – I really don’t think that anyone wants to leave our nation vulnerable to nuclear attack from any of our enemies, Iran included. But the underlying theme that I see in your message here is that we have an administration that not only recognizes those dangers, but is actually doing something about them.
Given the Bush administration’s horrendous track record in Iraq, do you really believe that this is the proper leadership for such an enterprise?
8:15 pm
...head…exploding…from too much moronic sarcasm from Smith….
7:15 am
Shawn, people like you have been calling us morons for years. But we shut you up because Presdient Bush won twice.
You know where you can put your hate.
1:34 pm
Bill Arnold is wise to point out the likelihood that we have, directly or indirectly (i.e. in direct covert operations or by aiding Kurds or Arabs working in Iran) sought to slow down or disrupt the rush to nuclear weapons in Iran.
Bush takes a lot of heat for the state of things in Iraq. What seldom gets examined (of necessity, due to the nature of such operations) is the greatly-expanded deployment of special forces aince 9/11, much of it fostered and supported by the much-maligned Donald Rumsfeld. Iran and Iraq are pressing issues now, but Africa and Latin America (for instance) have the potential to be huge problems in the mid-term. Effective leadership looks at those issues too and on that measure this administration has done a lot of things right.
2:30 pm
Darrell: Is that you?
You said:
You know where you can put your hate.
Mr Moran, in reply to me, wrote above:
Is a “leftist twit” more stupid or smarter than a “moron”.
11:43 pm
Tehran’s reluctance to crank up activities at its declared enrichment site at Natanz
Perhaps it is as simple as they moved the whole thing to a new site, believing there might be a US attack at Natanz.
4:58 pm
Mon. Links
Lee solves the chickenhawk problem.Teflon Don can write. Walking on HistoryRick Moran on 24. RWNHCheney has a pair, says Kim. And Rightly SoCarter supports terror. Who cares? (h/t, Powerline)LaShawn on education:I strongly advocate Christian parents takin
1:58 am
Submitted for Your Approval
First off… any spambots reading this should immediately go here, here, here, and here. Die spambots, die! And now… here are all the links submitted by members of the Watcher’s Council for this week’s vote. Council li…
10:27 am
[...] Right Wing Nut House, “Iranian Nuke Program Stalled?†[...]
2:15 pm
Hmmm..in view of the problems you’re having with Jonathan, I hesitate…but here’s the info on Iran’s mirror site. And it comes from the same Iranian dissidents who busted Iran’s nuke program in the first place:J O S H U A P U N D I T: The nuclear project Ahmadinejad didn’t brag about. I wrote about this almost a year ago.
In any event, the threat we face from Iran is conventional in nature at this point. And it can be dealt with without having to invade and occupy the country.I won’t spam the board with another link, but look on my site if you like under `Operation Mullah Stomp.’
Let’s not let the Bush Administration stupidity in post war Iraq or his silly attitudes about `Arab democracy’ blind us to the fact that we’re in a war, and we had better win.
ff