The Jerusalem Posts claims that Iran will have nukes in 2009, attributing this to the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS .) Only upon reading the article are we presented with a bity of nuance: According to the IISS paper by Mark Fitzpatrick, by the end of 2009 Iran will have obtained enough low-enriched uranium which could hypothetically be used to make 1 nuclear bomb if it is subjected to further enrichment. However this doesn't stop IISS from claiming "the question of how Iran can be stopped from having the Bombwill become increasingly urgent" -- despite the utter lack of any evidence that Iran is in fact seeking the bomb in the first place.
In short, this is nothing more than speculation and scaremongering especially considering some facts left out of the IISS report and the Jersualem Post article, both of are reaching oh so hard to make a rather tenuous connection between low-enriched nuclear fuel manufactured at a civilian, IAEA-monitored facility and an Iranian nuclear weapons program (which has thus far inconveniently failed to materialize, thus explaining the need to engage in such speculation instead.)
The fact is that Iran's enrichment program is conducted under IAEA safeguards and monitors, and cannot be used to make highly-enriched uranium without being noticed (it would take months just to make the necessary changes to the centrifuge pipes, even before the additional enrichment started.)
Could Iran one day possibly make HEU from LEU? Yes -- so could any other country with an enrichment program (BRazil, Argentina, etc.) But is there any actual evidence that Iran plans on doing so? No actually there's contrary evidence because contrary to IISS's claim that Iran has offered nothing but non-response counter-proposals, Iran has made concrete offers to place additional restrictions on its nuclear program, beyond its legal obligations, in order to further ensure that the enrichment program cannot be used to make bombs -- for example by opening its enrichment program to international participation. This proposals was endorsed by both American and international experts but was simply ignored by the US.
Notice also how the IISS report speaks of a nuclear weapons "capability" -- this is a deliberate conflation of a perfectly legal nuclear energy program with nuclear weapons. As I have written before about this sort thing:
The absence of any actual evidence of an Iranian nuclear-weapons programme is being smoothed over through the use of ambiguities. This is usually done by conflating a nuclear-weapons programme with a nuclear-energy programme . . . For example, in addition to overt references to a weapons programme, there may be references to Iran's nuclear "threat", or vague statements about Iran's nuclear "ambitions", or even more tenuously, allusions to Iran's "intentions" to obtain a nuclear-weapons "capability". . . The ambiguity is useful precisely because such questions don't have to be answered, provided the implied "threat" is communicated.
And finally note how the IISS paper resorts to the old and familiar tool of a false choice fallacy on Iran by framing the issue in a manner according to which coercive diplomacy (aka sanctions) or outright aggression are supposedly the only ways to deal with Iran and its alleged rush to "get the bomb" -- conveniently leaving aside the option of simply accepting Iran's inalienable and perfectly legal right to enrich uranium.
SO in short the IISS paper by Mark Fitzpatrick is pushing an agenda and should not be considered to be objective.
The same disgusting British LIE FACTORY, The International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) said in 2002 that Iraq had nuclear bombs.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2245505.stm
Posted by: Paolo | January 30, 2009 at 05:45 PM