Comments on: Argentina, Iran and Nuclear Weapons

By: DWPittelli

DWPittelli — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 21:41:08 +0000

A bombing in the early 1990s doesn’t do much to disprove an end to a weapon program in 2003. But I agree with your conclusion for another reason.

It is, I believe, uncontested that Iran is using centrifuges to enrich uranium. This uranium can either be used to fuel electric-generating reactors, or to make nuclear weapons. Iran would have no problem obtaining reactor fuel (low-enriched uranium, LEU) from Russia, among other sources. This LEU is all that is needed for electricity generation, but is worthless for weapons unless one has centrifuges or another such technology to further enrich it.

Electricity generation is an economic activity. Russia could provide LEU for less money than Iran can make its own, and so Iran has economic incentive to purchase Russian LEU. Giving up the enrichment cycle would also end the military/treaty problems Iran has with the rest of the world due to its enrichment and related processes. There is no economic or political upside for Iran to perform its own enrichment, if its goal is electricity generation.

Therefore, Iran is aiming to build nuclear weapons, or at least is aiming to have other nations think that it is aiming to build nuclear weapons. (Perhaps, like Saddam in his last years, they want their regional enemies to fear they have such weapons, and so they effectively frame themselves for the “crime” or treaty violation to the extent they think the great powers will allow them.)

Even in the latter case, I don’t see how anyone could conclude that their activities are more likely innocent than not (they did after all pursue uranium enrichment in secret, despite being a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and their program still lacks transparency), and I don’t see how we can be expected to know when they have stopped pretending to have a bomb program, and started to actually have one.

By: ras

ras — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 19:27:07 +0000

Why have there been no major terrorist attacks on US soil since 9-11? Cuz the presence of US troops on their borders is intimidating the terror-sponsoring states. That’s why the mullahs hit Argentina instead of hitting the US. Bringing those same troops home too soon would end that deterrent.

By: Techie

Techie — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 18:09:11 +0000

Believe me, I’d love to be in Buenos Aries right now. MA is way too frickin cold

By: DRJ

DRJ — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 08:07:10 +0000

Thanks for visiting, Ivan, and for your country’s assistance in Desert Storm.

By: Iván

Iván — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 07:13:59 +0000

That’s right, it’s belivied here in Argentina that the mullahs take a “revenge” for our negative to continue with the collaboration on the nuclear issue. It was our president Carlos Menem who decide that, after the shameful attitude of our country in the previous years towards the international community.

Some very narrow minded people here, still believes we receive the bombs because of the involvement in the First Iraq War. In spite of being Iran the first enemy of Iraq…

We give a little help to you americans in that war…yeah, that were great times!!

By: narciso

narciso — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 04:32:52 +0000

This seems a more plausible excuse then the previous one, where the Buenos Aires bombingswere attributed to revenge for Argentina’s support of the Gulf War (which was against Baathist Iraq)or for the targeted killing of Hussein Mussawi in 1989 in Southern Lebanon. Not surprising, the Iranian’moderate’Hashemi Rafsanjani from a pistaccio dynasty whose statements in the past have made it plain his desire to nuke Israel along with high IRGC officials like Mohsen Rezai and Arvid Vahidi are on the indictment sheet. As a careful examination of the details of the Vienna (home of the IAEA) hit on Kurdish exile Quassemlou would reveal a similar pattern leading
to Ahmadinejad

By: buzz

buzz — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 03:36:49 +0000

“As long as Iran lacks a reliable, long-range delivery method for 100’s of nukes, it doesn’t have any real deterrant to US actions.”

All they need is a truck or boat. Actually attacking the US itself probably isn’t in the cards. Having the means to shut down the oil fields or shipping is probably all they need.

By: luagha

luagha — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 03:30:29 +0000

To Jayhub:

Nuclear ‘breeder reactors’ are made with plutonium only. They are called ‘Breeder reactors’ because you start with 2% enriched plutonium and end with 4% enriched plutonium, energy output, and radiation. (This is a big simplification.) You then reprocess the fuel to take out some of the enriched plutonium; lather, rinse, repeat.

Some countries don’t build breeder reactors because they are a proliferation risk – they create more of the kind of plutonium that is the easiest to process and use for nuclear bombs. Also, non-breeding reactors seem to be cheaper at the moment.

(While all reactors ‘breed’ fuel in this way, the design of the reaction can be managed as to how much fuel you want to ‘breed’ and how much to ‘burn’ with a variety of tradeoffs involved.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_breeder_reactor

By: Another Drew

Another Drew — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 01:15:13 +0000

Iran’s probable goal is to reassert its’ historical hegemony over the ME. Having WMD is a powerful arguement for dealing with reluctant supplicants; but, is a neccessity for dealing with a powerful, regional opponent (Israel) who will have to be destroyed for Iran to attain these goals.

As long as Iran lacks a reliable, long-range delivery method for 100’s of nukes, it doesn’t have any real deterrant to US actions.

By: JayHub

JayHub — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 19:35:14 +0000

One more point about Iran’s desire for security in the Middle East. Iran’s interest in nuclear weapons predates the mullahs. The Shah apparently envisioned Iran having nuclear weapons and Iran allegedly carried out experiments in which plutonium was extracted from spent nuclear fuel and assembled a nuclear weapon design team in the mid-70’s (the only use for plutonium is nuclear bomb). Now the Shah was probably worried about Iraq and, later, 8 months before Israel obliterated Iraq’s Osirak nuclear plant with eight F-16’s, Iran attacked and damaged it with two F-4’s (at the beginning of the Iran-Iraq) war. Later in the war Iraq attacked Iran’s Bushehr reactor six times and destroyed it. Shia’s and Sunni’s, Arabs and Persians, have been fighting each other for a thousand years.