Iran Joins the Space Club, but Why?

By WILLIAM J. BROAD and DAVID E. SANGER - April 4, 2006 - NY TIMES

The spacecraft is small by world standards - a microsatellite of a few hundred pounds. Launched in October by the Russians for an oil-rich client, it orbits the earth once every 99 minutes and reportedly has a camera for peering down on large swaths of land.

But what makes this satellite particularly interesting is not its capabilities, which are rudimentary, but its owner: Iran. With last year's launching and another planned in the next few weeks, Tehran has become the newest member of the international space club.

The question now asked in Washington and other capitals is whether Iran's efforts are simply part of its drive to expand its technical prowess or an attempt to add another building block to its nuclear program. In that sense, it is the newest piece of the Iranian atomic puzzle.

To some government analysts and other experts in the West, Iran's space debut is potentially worrisome. While world attention has focused on whether Iran is clandestinely seeking nuclear arms, these analysts say the launchings mark a new stage in its growing efforts to master a range of sophisticated technologies, including rockets and satellites. The concern is that Tehran could one day turn such advances to atomic ends.

"It may appear tempting to dismiss Iranian efforts" as relatively crude, said Dr. John B. Sheldon, an analyst at the Center for Defense and International Security Studies in Britain who recently wrote a report on Tehran's space program. "But Iran has already demonstrated a persistence and patience that would indicate it is prepared to play a long game in order to achieve its ambitions."

Iran has publicly rejected the goal of developing unconventional arms. It says its space and rocket efforts are either entirely peaceful, aimed at improving the state's telecommunications and monitoring natural disasters (strong earthquakes shook Iran on Friday), or are military efforts meant to enhance its defenses with conventional weapons.

But some Western analysts note that such technologies can also have atomic roles and that a crucial element of a credible nuclear arsenal is the ability to launch a missile accurately and guide a warhead to its target. While Iran now depends on Russia to launch its satellites into orbit, it has vowed to do so itself, and is developing a family of increasingly large rockets. In theory, the biggest could hurl not only satellites into space but warheads between continents.

"The real issue is that they have a very large booster under development," said Dr. Anthony H. Cordesman, a military analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington who wrote a recent report on Iran's nuclear effort.

He said Tehran's bid to develop new rocket and space technologies might be nothing more at this point than its exploring of technological options, at times quite modestly, as in its recent effort to loft experimental satellites. "That doesn't mean the potential should be minimized," Dr. Cordesman said. "We know these states can achieve technical surprise."

On Sunday, Iran said it test-fired a fast underwater missile that could evade sonar and on Friday announced that it had launched a new rocket that can carry multiple warheads and elude radar. The military actions, accompanied by film clips on state television during a week of naval maneuvers, seemed calculated to defy growing pressure on Tehran. So far, American officials say they have not protested Iran's space program. Intelligence agencies reviewed information about the satellite launching last fall, but concluded that it warranted no action. Nor has the United States urged Russia - a key player in the current negotiations with Iran over its efforts to enrich uranium - to halt the launchings. But a senior American official who spoke anonymously because he was unauthorized to address the topic publicly said the United States was "taking another look" at pressing Moscow to end the space assistance as a way of pressuring Iran to stop the enrichment of nuclear material. Analysts across the political spectrum seem to agree that the Iranian missile and satellite programs bear watching, even if judged as presenting no current threat to the United States.

"It's clearly interesting to see what direction they're going," said David C. Wright, a space analyst at the Union of Concerned Scientists, a policy research group in Cambridge, Mass.

The United Nations Security Council is now debating possible sanctions against Iran because many states worry that Tehran's atomic push conceals a clandestine effort to acquire an atom bomb. American intelligence agencies estimate that it is 5 to 10 years away from having enough material for a nuclear weapon.

John D. Negroponte, the director of national intelligence, recently called the danger that Tehran "will acquire a nuclear weapon and the ability to integrate it with ballistic missiles Iran already possesses" a cause "for immediate concern."

Iran has missiles that can reach about 1,000 miles, or as far away as Israel and, as Mr. Negroponte put it, has "the largest inventory of ballistic missiles in the Middle East." American intelligence officials estimate that it might field an intercontinental missile by 2015, but such forecasts are always rough approximations. Scores of nations have satellites, including Algeria, Greece, Spain and Tonga. But only a dozen or so have rockets big and powerful enough to put satellites into orbit. In the Middle East, only Israel can now do so.

Tehran's effort to build a fleet of rockets, and to buy and make satellites, has received technical help from not only Russia but China, India, Italy and North Korea. Its effort began during the war between Iran and Iraq, from 1980 to 1988, when Baghdad fired many rockets and Tehran worked hard to respond in kind. A recent report by the International Institute for Strategic Studies, a respected arms analysis group in London, sketched the Islamic state's progress.

At first, Iran bought Russian Scud missiles and then learned how to make them on its own, calling them Shahab-1, Persian for shooting star. The missiles, 36 feet tall, can throw one-ton warheads roughly 200 miles. By 1991, Iran learned how to extend their range to about 300 miles, naming the new weapon Shahab-2. Iran fired waves of these missiles in 1994, 1999 and 2001 at the armed camps of the National Liberation Army of Iran, a dissident force based in Iraq committed to overthrowing the Islamic regime in Tehran. During that period, Iran also sought to develop a new, more powerful family of missiles, Shahab-3. Based on a North Korean model, they stand 56 feet tall.

In recent military parades, Iran has draped them with banners reading, "We will crush America" and "Wipe Israel off the map."

Iran cloaks its advanced rocket work in as much secrecy as possible, making it hard for Western analysts to discern the details. But they say many signs and declarations indicate that Tehran is working hard on missiles powerful enough to launch satellites into space or warheads between continents.

Charles P. Vick, an expert on the Iranian rocket program at GlobalSecurity.org, a research group in Alexandria, Va., said one strategy was apparently to stack a Shahab-1 or Shahab-2 atop a Shahab-3, making a tall missile with two stages. It might have a range of nearly 2,000 miles. Other variants, Mr. Vick said, would go further.

Dr. Cordesman and Khalid R. al-Rodhan of the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington said in a recent report that advanced models, if perfected, would "enable Iran to target the U.S. Eastern Seaboard."

Tehran has been more open about its satellite program, making many claims over the years but to date managing only baby steps. All the while, Iranian scientists have hailed the potential benefits of participating in the space age. In a conference presentation, S. Mostafa Safavi of Amirkabir University of Technology in Tehran discussed the value of earth-observation satellites for tracking floods, fighting fires, gauging earthquake damage, finding evacuation routes and identifying high-risk areas. He also praised reconnaissance satellites, able to peer down on the planet's surface with more powerful cameras, for their ability "to identify smaller features of military interest." For instance, Mr. Safavi noted their capacity to track "departing and arriving vessels at commercial and military ports," calling such observations "an important factor in intelligence surveillance."

In April 2003, the Iran Space Agency (www.isa.ir/en/rs) was founded to coordinate and publicize the nation's space efforts. The agency held meetings that drew experts from around the world, its agenda often centering on the use of space cameras to aid land planning and to manage natural catastrophes.

In May 2004, for instance, the agency sponsored a regional workshop in Tehran entitled: "Space Technology for Environmental Security, Disaster Rehabilitation and Sustainable Development."

Hassan Shafti, the agency's president, opened the session with remarks "in the name of God, the Compassionate and the Merciful," according to a transcript. He said the wise application of space technology would raise the quality of life, adding that his agency would play "an important role" in the design, manufacture and launching of Iranian and regional satellites.

But it turned out that a Russian company in the Siberian city of Omsk built Iran's first satellite, Sina-1, named after a Persian philosopher. And the Russian military launched the spacecraft from a remote base in the wilds of northern Russia. A day earlier, Iran's president declared that Israel "must be wiped off the map," producing global shockwaves that overshadowed the space debut.

Jonathan McDowell, a Harvard astronomer who publishes Jonathan's Space Report and tracks the Iranian program, said information about the satellite's mission came out slowly, with few details. "It's not clear how much of that is because of military involvement," he said, "or how much is because they don't know how to do public relations."

A month after the satellite's launching, Ahmad Talebzadeh, director of the Iran Space Agency, said Sina-1 could be used to spy on Israel but added that the wide availability of commercial satellite photos made such espionage unnecessary.

Dr. McDowell of Harvard said commercial imagery was often too old and imprecise for spying and setting military targets. "You want to check if the tanks or facilities have moved," he said. "You want to see with your own eyes."

It is unclear if and when Iran might acquire a satellite powerful enough to do such military reconnaissance, which can also give early warning of surprise attack. Experts say Sina-1 is too basic for anything more than general observations.

Dr. Sheldon of the Center for Defense and International Security Studies, a private group at Henley-on-Thames in England, said his own analysis suggested that Sina-1 was probably meant for telecommunications, not earth observations.

Iranian officials say that by 2010 they hope to have roughly a half-dozen satellites in orbit, including a large $132 million one known as Zohreh, or Venus. To be made and launched by Russia, the telecommunications craft is to relay data, audio and television signals.

Yiftah S. Shapir, a space analyst at the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies at Tel Aviv University, questioned Iran's ability to achieve its ambitious goals. "Iran is motivated," he said in a recent report, adding, however, that "the engine is stalled, and important projects are being delayed." He laid such failures "to the government's inherent inability to coordinate government agencies, resolve conflicting demands and mobilize the required resources."

Mr. Vick of GlobalSecurity.org said Iran has long discussed building a tiny satellite on its own and launching it atop one of its own rockets. In theory, he said, it might fly into orbit atop a Shahab-4 or similar Iranian vehicle. But Mr. Vick said the Iranians had given no clear indication of when they may attempt that milestone. "It's gone backwards and forwards several times, and left a lot of us wondering what is real and what isn't," he said in an interview. "For now, they're trying to absorb the technology to do this on their own."

Dr. Sheldon of the Center for Defense and International Security Studies predicted that Iran would one day master the fundamentals in regard to its nuclear, ballistic missile and space efforts but made no guess as to whether such accomplishments would take years or decades. "The Iranians," he said, "are prepared to play a long game."

Note: If Iran can build and test a nuclear weapon, and prove that it has the capability to build and launch a satellite, even a small one, it will join a new category of states that could be referred to as "mini-superpowers." A nation that can launch a satellite can theoretically build an ICBM. - [source]

it is also not beyond the realm of possibility that a sattelite could be caused to crash onto a major city

is this why NASA have been conducting Asteroid impact studies using probes the size of a microsatellites?

"... the deep space fireworks display will give scientists and engineers valuable insights into what might be needed someday to divert or destroy a comet on a collision course with Earth." "It's considerably brighter, there's considerably more material coming off than I thought," Yeomans said, watching the initial impact images come in. "The predictions on the science team were all over the map. Someone won a fairly large-size pool here with a long-shot prediction of a rather extraordinary impact. "We've got an object the size of a washing machine going in here creating a crater and ejecta that's just enormous. At least that's the way it looks like now. ... One of our science team members actually predicted the impact would release sub-surface pressure and we'd have a far bigger explosion than they anticipated. That may be what happened, I don't know." source

Iran shoots down spy plane from Iraq

Iran Focus

Tehran, Iran, Apr. 09 - Iran said on Sunday that it shot down an unmanned spy plane from Iraq in the south of the country.

"This plane had lifted off from Iraq and was busy filming the border regions", the semi-official daily Jomhouri Islami wrote.

The plane's structural markings and systems have given officials "information", the report added, without elaborating.

There have been reports that the United States has been secretly sending unmanned surveillance planes into Iran to gather intelligence about the country's nuclear sites.

THE IRAN PLANS

Would President Bush go to war to stop Tehran from getting the bomb?

by SEYMOUR M. HERSH

Issue of 2006-04-17 - Posted 2006-04-10

The Bush Administration, while publicly advocating diplomacy in order to stop Iran from pursuing a nuclear weapon, has increased clandestine activities inside Iran and intensified planning for a possible major air attack. Current and former American military and intelligence officials said that Air Force planning groups are drawing up lists of targets, and teams of American combat troops have been ordered into Iran, under cover, to collect targeting data and to establish contact with anti-government ethnic-minority groups. The officials say that President Bush is determined to deny the Iranian regime the opportunity to begin a pilot program, planned for this spring, to enrich uranium.

American and European intelligence agencies, and the International Atomic Energy Agency (I.A.E.A.), agree that Iran is intent on developing the capability to produce nuclear weapons. But there are widely differing estimates of how long that will take, and whether diplomacy, sanctions, or military action is the best way to prevent it. Iran insists that its research is for peaceful use only, in keeping with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and that it will not be delayed or deterred.

There is a growing conviction among members of the United States military, and in the international community, that President Bush's ultimate goal in the nuclear confrontation with Iran is regime change. Iran's President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has challenged the reality of the Holocaust and said that Israel must be "wiped off the map." Bush and others in the White House view him as a potential Adolf Hitler, a former senior intelligence official said. "That's the name they're using. They say, 'Will Iran get a strategic weapon and threaten another world war?' "

A government consultant with close ties to the civilian leadership in the Pentagon said that Bush was "absolutely convinced that Iran is going to get the bomb" if it is not stopped. He said that the President believes that he must do "what no Democrat or Republican, if elected in the future, would have the courage to do," and "that saving Iran is going to be his legacy."

One former defense official, who still deals with sensitive issues for the Bush Administration, told me that the military planning was premised on a belief that "a sustained bombing campaign in Iran will humiliate the religious leadership and lead the public to rise up and overthrow the government." He added, "I was shocked when I heard it, and asked myself, 'What are they smoking?' "

The rationale for regime change was articulated in early March by Patrick Clawson, an Iran expert who is the deputy director for research at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and who has been a supporter of President Bush. "So long as Iran has an Islamic republic, it will have a nuclear-weapons program, at least clandestinely," Clawson told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on March 2nd. "The key issue, therefore, is: How long will the present Iranian regime last?"

When I spoke to Clawson, he emphasized that "this Administration is putting a lot of effort into diplomacy." However, he added, Iran had no choice other than to accede to America's demands or face a military attack. Clawson said that he fears that Ahmadinejad "sees the West as wimps and thinks we will eventually cave in. We have to be ready to deal with Iran if the crisis escalates." Clawson said that he would prefer to rely on sabotage and other clandestine activities, such as "industrial accidents." But, he said, it would be prudent to prepare for a wider war, "given the way the Iranians are acting. This is not like planning to invade Quebec."

One military planner told me that White House criticisms of Iran and the high tempo of planning and clandestine activities amount to a campaign of "coercion" aimed at Iran. "You have to be ready to go, and we'll see how they respond," the officer said. "You have to really show a threat in order to get Ahmadinejad to back down." He added, "People think Bush has been focussed on Saddam Hussein since 9/11," but, "in my view, if you had to name one nation that was his focus all the way along, it was Iran." (In response to detailed requests for comment, the White House said that it would not comment on military planning but added, "As the President has indicated, we are pursuing a diplomatic solution"; the Defense Department also said that Iran was being dealt with through "diplomatic channels" but wouldn't elaborate on that; the C.I.A. said that there were "inaccuracies" in this account but would not specify them.)

"This is much more than a nuclear issue," one high-ranking diplomat told me in Vienna. "That's just a rallying point, and there is still time to fix it. But the Administration believes it cannot be fixed unless they control the hearts and minds of Iran. The real issue is who is going to control the Middle East and its oil in the next ten years."

A senior Pentagon adviser on the war on terror expressed a similar view. "This White House believes that the only way to solve the problem is to change the power structure in Iran, and that means war," he said. The danger, he said, was that "it also reinforces the belief inside Iran that the only way to defend the country is to have a nuclear capability." A military conflict that destabilized the region could also increase the risk of terror: "Hezbollah comes into play," the adviser said, referring to the terror group that is considered one of the world's most successful, and which is now a Lebanese political party with strong ties to Iran. "And here comes Al Qaeda."

In recent weeks, the President has quietly initiated a series of talks on plans for Iran with a few key senators and members of Congress, including at least one Democrat. A senior member of the House Appropriations Committee, who did not take part in the meetings but has discussed their content with his colleagues, told me that there had been "no formal briefings," because "they're reluctant to brief the minority. They're doing the Senate, somewhat selectively."

The House member said that no one in the meetings "is really objecting" to the talk of war. "The people they're briefing are the same ones who led the charge on Iraq. At most, questions are raised: How are you going to hit all the sites at once? How are you going to get deep enough?" (Iran is building facilities underground.) "There's no pressure from Congress" not to take military action, the House member added. "The only political pressure is from the guys who want to do it." Speaking of President Bush, the House member said, "The most worrisome thing is that this guy has a messianic vision."

Some operations, apparently aimed in part at intimidating Iran, are already under way. American Naval tactical aircraft, operating from carriers in the Arabian Sea, have been flying simulated nuclear-weapons delivery missions - rapid ascending maneuvers known as "over the shoulder" bombing - since last summer, the former official said, within range of Iranian coastal radars.

Last month, in a paper given at a conference on Middle East security in Berlin, Colonel Sam Gardiner, a military analyst who taught at the National War College before retiring from the Air Force, in 1987, provided an estimate of what would be needed to destroy Iran's nuclear program. Working from satellite photographs of the known facilities, Gardiner estimated that at least four hundred targets would have to be hit. He added:

I don't think a U.S. military planner would want to stop there. Iran probably has two chemical-production plants. We would hit those. We would want to hit the medium-range ballistic missiles that have just recently been moved closer to Iraq. There are fourteen airfields with sheltered aircraft. . . . We'd want to get rid of that threat. We would want to hit the assets that could be used to threaten Gulf shipping. That means targeting the cruise-missile sites and the Iranian diesel submarines. . . . Some of the facilities may be too difficult to target even with penetrating weapons. The U.S. will have to use Special Operations units.

One of the military's initial option plans, as presented to the White House by the Pentagon this winter, calls for the use of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon, such as the B61-11, against underground nuclear sites. One target is Iran's main centrifuge plant, at Natanz, nearly two hundred miles south of Tehran. Natanz, which is no longer under I.A.E.A. safeguards, reportedly has underground floor space to hold fifty thousand centrifuges, and laboratories and workspaces buried approximately seventy-five feet beneath the surface. That number of centrifuges could provide enough enriched uranium for about twenty nuclear warheads a year. (Iran has acknowledged that it initially kept the existence of its enrichment program hidden from I.A.E.A. inspectors, but claims that none of its current activity is barred by the Non-Proliferation Treaty.) The elimination of Natanz would be a major setback for Iran's nuclear ambitions, but the conventional weapons in the American arsenal could not insure the destruction of facilities under seventy-five feet of earth and rock, especially if they are reinforced with concrete.

There is a Cold War precedent for targeting deep underground bunkers with nuclear weapons. In the early nineteen-eighties, the American intelligence community watched as the Soviet government began digging a huge underground complex outside Moscow. Analysts concluded that the underground facility was designed for "continuity of government" - for the political and military leadership to survive a nuclear war. (There are similar facilities, in Virginia and Pennsylvania, for the American leadership.) The Soviet facility still exists, and much of what the U.S. knows about it remains classified. "The 'tell' " - the giveaway - "was the ventilator shafts, some of which were disguised," the former senior intelligence official told me. At the time, he said, it was determined that "only nukes" could destroy the bunker. He added that some American intelligence analysts believe that the Russians helped the Iranians design their underground facility. "We see a similarity of design," specifically in the ventilator shafts, he said.

A former high-level Defense Department official told me that, in his view, even limited bombing would allow the U.S. to "go in there and do enough damage to slow down the nuclear infrastructure - it's feasible." The former defense official said, "The Iranians don't have friends, and we can tell them that, if necessary, we'll keep knocking back their infrastructure. The United States should act like we're ready to go." He added, "We don't have to knock down all of their air defenses. Our stealth bombers and standoff missiles really work, and we can blow fixed things up. We can do things on the ground, too, but it's difficult and very dangerous - put bad stuff in ventilator shafts and put them to sleep."

But those who are familiar with the Soviet bunker, according to the former senior intelligence official, "say 'No way.' You've got to know what's underneath - to know which ventilator feeds people, or diesel generators, or which are false. And there's a lot that we don't know." The lack of reliable intelligence leaves military planners, given the goal of totally destroying the sites, little choice but to consider the use of tactical nuclear weapons. "Every other option, in the view of the nuclear weaponeers, would leave a gap," the former senior intelligence official said. " 'Decisive' is the key word of the Air Force's planning. It's a tough decision. But we made it in Japan."

He went on, "Nuclear planners go through extensive training and learn the technical details of damage and fallout - we're talking about mushroom clouds, radiation, mass casualties, and contamination over years. This is not an underground nuclear test, where all you see is the earth raised a little bit. These politicians don't have a clue, and whenever anybody tries to get it out" - remove the nuclear option - "they're shouted down."

The attention given to the nuclear option has created serious misgivings inside the offices of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he added, and some officers have talked about resigning. Late this winter, the Joint Chiefs of Staff sought to remove the nuclear option from the evolving war plans for Iran - without success, the former intelligence official said. "The White House said, 'Why are you challenging this? The option came from you.' "

The Pentagon adviser on the war on terror confirmed that some in the Administration were looking seriously at this option, which he linked to a resurgence of interest in tactical nuclear weapons among Pentagon civilians and in policy circles. He called it "a juggernaut that has to be stopped." He also confirmed that some senior officers and officials were considering resigning over the issue. "There are very strong sentiments within the military against brandishing nuclear weapons against other countries," the adviser told me. "This goes to high levels." The matter may soon reach a decisive point, he said, because the Joint Chiefs had agreed to give President Bush a formal recommendation stating that they are strongly opposed to considering the nuclear option for Iran. "The internal debate on this has hardened in recent weeks," the adviser said. "And, if senior Pentagon officers express their opposition to the use of offensive nuclear weapons, then it will never happen."

The adviser added, however, that the idea of using tactical nuclear weapons in such situations has gained support from the Defense Science Board, an advisory panel whose members are selected by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. "They're telling the Pentagon that we can build the B61 with more blast and less radiation," he said.

The chairman of the Defense Science Board is William Schneider, Jr., an Under-Secretary of State in the Reagan Administration. In January, 2001, as President Bush prepared to take office, Schneider served on an ad-hoc panel on nuclear forces sponsored by the National Institute for Public Policy, a conservative think tank. The panel's report recommended treating tactical nuclear weapons as an essential part of the U.S. arsenal and noted their suitability "for those occasions when the certain and prompt destruction of high priority targets is essential and beyond the promise of conventional weapons." Several signers of the report are now prominent members of the Bush Administration, including Stephen Hadley, the national-security adviser; Stephen Cambone, the Under-Secretary of Defense for Intelligence; and Robert Joseph, the Under-Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security.

The Pentagon adviser questioned the value of air strikes. "The Iranians have distributed their nuclear activity very well, and we have no clue where some of the key stuff is. It could even be out of the country," he said. He warned, as did many others, that bombing Iran could provoke "a chain reaction" of attacks on American facilities and citizens throughout the world: "What will 1.2 billion Muslims think the day we attack Iran?"

With or without the nuclear option, the list of targets may inevitably expand. One recently retired high-level Bush Administration official, who is also an expert on war planning, told me that he would have vigorously argued against an air attack on Iran, because "Iran is a much tougher target" than Iraq. But, he added, "If you're going to do any bombing to stop the nukes, you might as well improve your lie across the board. Maybe hit some training camps, and clear up a lot of other problems."

The Pentagon adviser said that, in the event of an attack, the Air Force intended to strike many hundreds of targets in Iran but that "ninety-nine per cent of them have nothing to do with proliferation. There are people who believe it's the way to operate" - that the Administration can achieve its policy goals in Iran with a bombing campaign, an idea that has been supported by neoconservatives.

If the order were to be given for an attack, the American combat troops now operating in Iran would be in position to mark the critical targets with laser beams, to insure bombing accuracy and to minimize civilian casualties. As of early winter, I was told by the government consultant with close ties to civilians in the Pentagon, the units were also working with minority groups in Iran, including the Azeris, in the north, the Baluchis, in the southeast, and the Kurds, in the northeast. The troops "are studying the terrain, and giving away walking-around money to ethnic tribes, and recruiting scouts from local tribes and shepherds," the consultant said. One goal is to get "eyes on the ground" - quoting a line from "Othello," he said, "Give me the ocular proof." The broader aim, the consultant said, is to "encourage ethnic tensions" and undermine the regime.

The new mission for the combat troops is a product of Defense Secretary Rumsfeld's long-standing interest in expanding the role of the military in covert operations, which was made official policy in the Pentagon's Quadrennial Defense Review, published in February. Such activities, if conducted by C.I.A. operatives, would need a Presidential Finding and would have to be reported to key members of Congress.

" 'Force protection' is the new buzzword," the former senior intelligence official told me. He was referring to the Pentagon's position that clandestine activities that can be broadly classified as preparing the battlefield or protecting troops are military, not intelligence, operations, and are therefore not subject to congressional oversight. "The guys in the Joint Chiefs of Staff say there are a lot of uncertainties in Iran," he said. "We need to have more than what we had in Iraq. Now we have the green light to do everything we want."

The President's deep distrust of Ahmadinejad has strengthened his determination to confront Iran. This view has been reinforced by allegations that Ahmadinejad, who joined a special-forces brigade of the Revolutionary Guards in 1986, may have been involved in terrorist activities in the late eighties. (There are gaps in Ahmadinejad's official biography in this period.) Ahmadinejad has reportedly been connected to Imad Mughniyeh, a terrorist who has been implicated in the deadly bombings of the U.S. Embassy and the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut, in 1983. Mughniyeh was then the security chief of Hezbollah; he remains on the F.B.I.'s list of most-wanted terrorists.

Robert Baer, who was a C.I.A. officer in the Middle East and elsewhere for two decades, told me that Ahmadinejad and his Revolutionary Guard colleagues in the Iranian government "are capable of making a bomb, hiding it, and launching it at Israel. They're apocalyptic Shiites. If you're sitting in Tel Aviv and you believe they've got nukes and missiles - you've got to take them out. These guys are nuts, and there's no reason to back off."

Under Ahmadinejad, the Revolutionary Guards have expanded their power base throughout the Iranian bureaucracy; by the end of January, they had replaced thousands of civil servants with their own members. One former senior United Nations official, who has extensive experience with Iran, depicted the turnover as "a white coup," with ominous implications for the West. "Professionals in the Foreign Ministry are out; others are waiting to be kicked out," he said. "We may be too late. These guys now believe that they are stronger than ever since the revolution." He said that, particularly in consideration of China's emergence as a superpower, Iran's attitude was "To hell with the West. You can do as much as you like."

Iran's supreme religious leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, is considered by many experts to be in a stronger position than Ahmadinejad. "Ahmadinejad is not in control," one European diplomat told me. "Power is diffuse in Iran. The Revolutionary Guards are among the key backers of the nuclear program, but, ultimately, I don't think they are in charge of it. The Supreme Leader has the casting vote on the nuclear program, and the Guards will not take action without his approval."

The Pentagon adviser on the war on terror said that "allowing Iran to have the bomb is not on the table. We cannot have nukes being sent downstream to a terror network. It's just too dangerous." He added, "The whole internal debate is on which way to go" - in terms of stopping the Iranian program. It is possible, the adviser said, that Iran will unilaterally renounce its nuclear plans - and forestall the American action. "God may smile on us, but I don't think so. The bottom line is that Iran cannot become a nuclear-weapons state. The problem is that the Iranians realize that only by becoming a nuclear state can they defend themselves against the U.S. Something bad is going to happen."

While almost no one disputes Iran's nuclear ambitions, there is intense debate over how soon it could get the bomb, and what to do about that. Robert Gallucci, a former government expert on nonproliferation who is now the dean of the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown, told me, "Based on what I know, Iran could be eight to ten years away" from developing a deliverable nuclear weapon. Gallucci added, "If they had a covert nuclear program and we could prove it, and we could not stop it by negotiation, diplomacy, or the threat of sanctions, I'd be in favor of taking it out. But if you do it" - bomb Iran - "without being able to show there's a secret program, you're in trouble."

Meir Dagan, the head of Mossad, Israel's intelligence agency, told the Knesset last December that "Iran is one to two years away, at the latest, from having enriched uranium. From that point, the completion of their nuclear weapon is simply a technical matter." In a conversation with me, a senior Israeli intelligence official talked about what he said was Iran's duplicity: "There are two parallel nuclear programs" inside Iran - the program declared to the I.A.E.A. and a separate operation, run by the military and the Revolutionary Guards. Israeli officials have repeatedly made this argument, but Israel has not produced public evidence to support it. Richard Armitage, the Deputy Secretary of State in Bush's first term, told me, "I think Iran has a secret nuclear-weapons program - I believe it, but I don't know it."

In recent months, the Pakistani government has given the U.S. new access to A. Q. Khan, the so-called father of the Pakistani atomic bomb. Khan, who is now living under house arrest in Islamabad, is accused of setting up a black market in nuclear materials; he made at least one clandestine visit to Tehran in the late nineteen-eighties. In the most recent interrogations, Khan has provided information on Iran's weapons design and its time line for building a bomb. "The picture is of 'unquestionable danger,' " the former senior intelligence official said. (The Pentagon adviser also confirmed that Khan has been "singing like a canary.") The concern, the former senior official said, is that "Khan has credibility problems. He is suggestible, and he's telling the neoconservatives what they want to hear" - or what might be useful to Pakistan's President, Pervez Musharraf, who is under pressure to assist Washington in the war on terror.

"I think Khan's leading us on," the former intelligence official said. "I don't know anybody who says, 'Here's the smoking gun.' But lights are beginning to blink. He's feeding us information on the time line, and targeting information is coming in from our own sources - sensors and the covert teams. The C.I.A., which was so burned by Iraqi W.M.D., is going to the Pentagon and the Vice-President's office saying, 'It's all new stuff.' People in the Administration are saying, 'We've got enough.' "

The Administration's case against Iran is compromised by its history of promoting false intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. In a recent essay on the Foreign Policy Web site, entitled "Fool Me Twice," Joseph Cirincione, the director for nonproliferation at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, wrote, "The unfolding administration strategy appears to be an effort to repeat its successful campaign for the Iraq war." He noted several parallels:

The vice president of the United States gives a major speech focused on the threat from an oil-rich nation in the Middle East. The U.S. Secretary of State tells Congress that the same nation is our most serious global challenge. The Secretary of Defense calls that nation the leading supporter of global terrorism.

Cirincione called some of the Administration's claims about Iran "questionable" or lacking in evidence. When I spoke to him, he asked, "What do we know? What is the threat? The question is: How urgent is all this?" The answer, he said, "is in the intelligence community and the I.A.E.A." (In August, the Washington Post reported that the most recent comprehensive National Intelligence Estimate predicted that Iran was a decade away from being a nuclear power.)

Last year, the Bush Administration briefed I.A.E.A. officials on what it said was new and alarming information about Iran's weapons program which had been retrieved from an Iranian's laptop. The new data included more than a thousand pages of technical drawings of weapons systems. The Washington Post reported that there were also designs for a small facility that could be used in the uranium-enrichment process. Leaks about the laptop became the focal point of stories in the Times and elsewhere. The stories were generally careful to note that the materials could have been fabricated, but also quoted senior American officials as saying that they appeared to be legitimate. The headline in the Times' account read, "RELYING ON COMPUTER, U.S. SEEKS TO PROVE IRAN'S NUCLEAR AIMS."

I was told in interviews with American and European intelligence officials, however, that the laptop was more suspect and less revelatory than it had been depicted. The Iranian who owned the laptop had initially been recruited by German and American intelligence operatives, working together. The Americans eventually lost interest in him. The Germans kept on, but the Iranian was seized by the Iranian counter-intelligence force. It is not known where he is today. Some family members managed to leave Iran with his laptop and handed it over at a U.S. embassy, apparently in Europe. It was a classic "walk-in."

A European intelligence official said, "There was some hesitation on our side" about what the materials really proved, "and we are still not convinced." The drawings were not meticulous, as newspaper accounts suggested, "but had the character of sketches," the European official said. "It was not a slam-dunk smoking gun."

The threat of American military action has created dismay at the headquarters of the I.A.E.A., in Vienna. The agency's officials believe that Iran wants to be able to make a nuclear weapon, but "nobody has presented an inch of evidence of a parallel nuclear-weapons program in Iran," the high-ranking diplomat told me. The I.A.E.A.'s best estimate is that the Iranians are five years away from building a nuclear bomb. "But, if the United States does anything militarily, they will make the development of a bomb a matter of Iranian national pride," the diplomat said. "The whole issue is America's risk assessment of Iran's future intentions, and they don't trust the regime. Iran is a menace to American policy."

In Vienna, I was told of an exceedingly testy meeting earlier this year between Mohamed ElBaradei, the I.A.E.A.'s director-general, who won the Nobel Peace Prize last year, and Robert Joseph, the Under-Secretary of State for Arms Control. Joseph's message was blunt, one diplomat recalled: "We cannot have a single centrifuge spinning in Iran. Iran is a direct threat to the national security of the United States and our allies, and we will not tolerate it. We want you to give us an understanding that you will not say anything publicly that will undermine us. "

Joseph's heavy-handedness was unnecessary, the diplomat said, since the I.A.E.A. already had been inclined to take a hard stand against Iran. "All of the inspectors are angry at being misled by the Iranians, and some think the Iranian leadership are nutcases - one hundred per cent totally certified nuts," the diplomat said. He added that ElBaradei's overriding concern is that the Iranian leaders "want confrontation, just like the neocons on the other side" - in Washington. "At the end of the day, it will work only if the United States agrees to talk to the Iranians."

The central question - whether Iran will be able to proceed with its plans to enrich uranium - is now before the United Nations, with the Russians and the Chinese reluctant to impose sanctions on Tehran. A discouraged former I.A.E.A. official told me in late March that, at this point, "there's nothing the Iranians could do that would result in a positive outcome. American diplomacy does not allow for it. Even if they announce a stoppage of enrichment, nobody will believe them. It's a dead end."

Another diplomat in Vienna asked me, "Why would the West take the risk of going to war against that kind of target without giving it to the I.A.E.A. to verify? We're low-cost, and we can create a program that will force Iran to put its cards on the table." A Western Ambassador in Vienna expressed similar distress at the White House's dismissal of the I.A.E.A. He said, "If you don't believe that the I.A.E.A. can establish an inspection system - if you don't trust them - you can only bomb."

There is little sympathy for the I.A.E.A. in the Bush Administration or among its European allies. "We're quite frustrated with the director-general," the European diplomat told me. "His basic approach has been to describe this as a dispute between two sides with equal weight. It's not. We're the good guys! ElBaradei has been pushing the idea of letting Iran have a small nuclear-enrichment program, which is ludicrous. It's not his job to push ideas that pose a serious proliferation risk."

The Europeans are rattled, however, by their growing perception that President Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney believe a bombing campaign will be needed, and that their real goal is regime change. "Everyone is on the same page about the Iranian bomb, but the United States wants regime change," a European diplomatic adviser told me. He added, "The Europeans have a role to play as long as they don't have to choose between going along with the Russians and the Chinese or going along with Washington on something they don't want. Their policy is to keep the Americans engaged in something the Europeans can live with. It may be untenable."

"The Brits think this is a very bad idea," Flynt Leverett, a former National Security Council staff member who is now a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution's Saban Center, told me, "but they're really worried we're going to do it." The European diplomatic adviser acknowledged that the British Foreign Office was aware of war planning in Washington but that, "short of a smoking gun, it's going to be very difficult to line up the Europeans on Iran." He said that the British "are jumpy about the Americans going full bore on the Iranians, with no compromise."

The European diplomat said that he was skeptical that Iran, given its record, had admitted to everything it was doing, but "to the best of our knowledge the Iranian capability is not at the point where they could successfully run centrifuges" to enrich uranium in quantity. One reason for pursuing diplomacy was, he said, Iran's essential pragmatism. "The regime acts in its best interests," he said. Iran's leaders "take a hard-line approach on the nuclear issue and they want to call the American bluff," believing that "the tougher they are the more likely the West will fold." But, he said, "From what we've seen with Iran, they will appear superconfident until the moment they back off."

The diplomat went on, "You never reward bad behavior, and this is not the time to offer concessions. We need to find ways to impose sufficient costs to bring the regime to its senses. It's going to be a close call, but I think if there is unity in opposition and the price imposed" - in sanctions - "is sufficient, they may back down. It's too early to give up on the U.N. route." He added, "If the diplomatic process doesn't work, there is no military 'solution.' There may be a military option, but the impact could be catastrophic."

Tony Blair, the British Prime Minister, was George Bush's most dependable ally in the year leading up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. But he and his party have been racked by a series of financial scandals, and his popularity is at a low point. Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, said last year that military action against Iran was "inconceivable." Blair has been more circumspect, saying publicly that one should never take options off the table.

Other European officials expressed similar skepticism about the value of an American bombing campaign. "The Iranian economy is in bad shape, and Ahmadinejad is in bad shape politically," the European intelligence official told me. "He will benefit politically from American bombing. You can do it, but the results will be worse." An American attack, he said, would alienate ordinary Iranians, including those who might be sympathetic to the U.S. "Iran is no longer living in the Stone Age, and the young people there have access to U.S. movies and books, and they love it," he said. "If there was a charm offensive with Iran, the mullahs would be in trouble in the long run."

Another European official told me that he was aware that many in Washington wanted action. "It's always the same guys," he said, with a resigned shrug. "There is a belief that diplomacy is doomed to fail. The timetable is short."

A key ally with an important voice in the debate is Israel, whose leadership has warned for years that it viewed any attempt by Iran to begin enriching uranium as a point of no return. I was told by several officials that the White House's interest in preventing an Israeli attack on a Muslim country, which would provoke a backlash across the region, was a factor in its decision to begin the current operational planning. In a speech in Cleveland on March 20th, President Bush depicted Ahmadinejad's hostility toward Israel as a "serious threat. It's a threat to world peace." He added, "I made it clear, I'll make it clear again, that we will use military might to protect our ally Israel."

Any American bombing attack, Richard Armitage told me, would have to consider the following questions: "What will happen in the other Islamic countries? What ability does Iran have to reach us and touch us globally - that is, terrorism? Will Syria and Lebanon up the pressure on Israel? What does the attack do to our already diminished international standing? And what does this mean for Russia, China, and the U.N. Security Council?"

Iran, which now produces nearly four million barrels of oil a day, would not have to cut off production to disrupt the world's oil markets. It could blockade or mine the Strait of Hormuz, the thirty-four-mile-wide passage through which Middle Eastern oil reaches the Indian Ocean. Nonetheless, the recently retired defense official dismissed the strategic consequences of such actions. He told me that the U.S. Navy could keep shipping open by conducting salvage missions and putting mine- sweepers to work. "It's impossible to block passage," he said. The government consultant with ties to the Pentagon also said he believed that the oil problem could be managed, pointing out that the U.S. has enough in its strategic reserves to keep America running for sixty days. However, those in the oil business I spoke to were less optimistic; one industry expert estimated that the price per barrel would immediately spike, to anywhere from ninety to a hundred dollars per barrel, and could go higher, depending on the duration and scope of the conflict.

Michel Samaha, a veteran Lebanese Christian politician and former cabinet minister in Beirut, told me that the Iranian retaliation might be focussed on exposed oil and gas fields in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates. "They would be at risk," he said, "and this could begin the real jihad of Iran versus the West. You will have a messy world."

Iran could also initiate a wave of terror attacks in Iraq and elsewhere, with the help of Hezbollah. On April 2nd, the Washington Post reported that the planning to counter such attacks "is consuming a lot of time" at U.S. intelligence agencies. "The best terror network in the world has remained neutral in the terror war for the past several years," the Pentagon adviser on the war on terror said of Hezbollah. "This will mobilize them and put us up against the group that drove Israel out of southern Lebanon. If we move against Iran, Hezbollah will not sit on the sidelines. Unless the Israelis take them out, they will mobilize against us." (When I asked the government consultant about that possibility, he said that, if Hezbollah fired rockets into northern Israel, "Israel and the new Lebanese government will finish them off.")

The adviser went on, "If we go, the southern half of Iraq will light up like a candle." The American, British, and other coalition forces in Iraq would be at greater risk of attack from Iranian troops or from Shiite militias operating on instructions from Iran. (Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, has close ties to the leading Shiite parties in Iraq.) A retired four-star general told me that, despite the eight thousand British troops in the region, "the Iranians could take Basra with ten mullahs and one sound truck."

"If you attack," the high-ranking diplomat told me in Vienna, "Ahmadinejad will be the new Saddam Hussein of the Arab world, but with more credibility and more power. You must bite the bullet and sit down with the Iranians."

The diplomat went on, "There are people in Washington who would be unhappy if we found a solution. They are still banking on isolation and regime change. This is wishful thinking." He added, "The window of opportunity is now."

US dismisses Iran attack claims

10th April 2006 -

The US has rejected suggestions that it might be preparing to use nuclear weapons against targets in Iran.

A report in The New Yorker magazine said the US was increasing planning for a possible air attack on Iranian nuclear facilities. It said one option being considered was a tactical nuclear strike against underground nuclear sites.

Dan Bartlett, a senior adviser to President George W Bush, said the report was "ill-informed".

Those who drew definitive conclusions based on normal defence and intelligence planning "are not knowledgeable of the administration's thinking on Iran", he said. The US has previously refused to rule out military action, but Mr Bartlett said again that the US was committed to a diplomatic solution on the issue of Iran's nuclear development.

UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said talk of a US nuclear strike was "completely nuts".

Iran has branded the reports as a "psychological war launched by Americans because they feel angry and desperate regarding Iran's nuclear dossier". "We will stand by our right to nuclear technology... Iran is not afraid of threatening language," Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said on Sunday.

Western powers fear Iran is developing a nuclear bomb. Iran says its nuclear programme is for civilian use.

'World war'

The US magazine article, by journalist Seymour Hersh, makes three claims.

The first is that US clandestine activities inside Iran have been increased, and the second is that planning for a possible air attack has been intensified. The third claim is that one option still on the table is the use of tactical nuclear weapons to ensure the destruction of well-protected Iranian nuclear facilities.

Mr Hersh also quoted a former senior intelligence official as saying that President Bush and others in the White House were referring to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as a potential Adolf Hitler threatening another world war.

Speaking to the BBC, Mr Hersh said many US allies felt Iran was two to 10 years away from developing a nuclear bomb and that the real aim was regime change. "No matter what Iran would do, I think in the short run some people are afraid the president will want to go - just as he wanted to go on Iraq," he said. He said he believed the president felt military action against Iran was something only he could do. "It's messianic, I quote somebody as saying," he said. Planning for military action had moved beyond the contingency stage and into direct operational planning, he added.

Referring to Mr Straw's comments, he said there were questions about how much information the US government was sharing with its European allies.

'Vulnerabilities'

Retired General Anthony Zinni, the former head of US Central Command, said on Sunday any plan to use military force against Iran was risky. "The Iranians will retaliate, and they have many possibilities in an area where there are many vulnerabilities, from our troop positions to the oil and gas in the region that can be interrupted, to attacks on Israel, to the conduct of terrorism," he told the Associated Press news agency.

Talk of military strikes against Iran have been prompted by Iran's refusal to halt nuclear work.

Last month, the UN Security Council gave Iran 30 days to halt its nuclear research, or run the risk of action such as possible sanctions. - BBC

U.S. military studying use of nuclear weapons, admits Rumsfeld

Big News Network.com Monday 10th April, 2006

U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld admitted the U.S. military was studying the use of nuclear weapons to penetrate underground weapons stores, almost three years ago.

On the weekend respected investigative journalist Seymour Hersh, quoting U.S. intelligence and defense officials, disclosed plans by the Bush administration to wage an air attack on Iran, possibly including the use of nuclear weapons.

The White House, while not confirming or denying the claim, said it was pursuing diplomacy to resolve the Iran nuclear stand-off.

Given the spread of nuclear sites across Iran, and the underground location of many of them, Hersh said, military planners, given the goal of totally destroying the sites, had little choice but to consider the use of tactical nuclear weapons. "Every other option, in the view of the nuclear weaponeers, would leave a gap," a former senior intelligence official told Hersh. "'Decisive' is the key word of the Air Force's planning. Its a tough decision. But we made it in Japan."

Adding weight to the claim the administration is seriously considering the nuclear option is an exchange between a reporter, Rumsfeld, and former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Richard B. Myers, at a Pentagon press briefing on May 20 2003, a few weeks after the Iraq invasion.

The reporter asked why the administration was requesting a bill that prohibited the study, or development, of nuclear weapons exclude study of certain nuclear weapons.

At first Myers said he could not address the issue. The reporter then addressed the question to Rumsfeld.

"I'm referring to removing the Spratt ban on development of 5-kiloton or less nuclear weapons for use on the battlefield," clarified the reporter.

"The only thing we've done that I know of is that we have proposed that the absolute ban on the study of a deep-earth penetrator has been removed from the bill at our insistance, because we do intend to study a variety of types of deep earth penetrators, for very good reason," responded Rumsfeld.

"Sir, I'm sorry to interrupt," said the reporter. "But again, I'm very puzzled, because I've only covered the Pentagon a few months, and I know you are a detailed man, sir. And the fact is that the Senate Armed Service Committee and the House, there are two separate provisions. One is for the continued spending of $15.5 million a year to pursue the robust penetrator, you know, with a possible nuclear payload. The second is to..."

Rumsfeld interrupted, "To pursue?. I think it's to study."

"To study, to study," said the reporter.

"It's not to develop," said Rumsfeld. "It's not to deploy. It's not to use. It's to study."

"To study the penetrator," responded the reporter. "But what I'm referring to, sir, is the vote in the Senate committee and the legislation that would remove the current ban, the so-called, the Spratt ban, after Congressman Spratt, that would restrict the testing and development of, study of weapons, nuclear weapons..."

"Testing and development of study," interrupted Rumsfeld again. "What does that mean?"

"Sir, the study and possible development of weapons of 5 kiloton or less for use on the battlefield, not a bunker buster, sir, but a tactical battlefield weapon. That," responded the reporter.

"I think you're leaping to a conclusion as to what a study would produce," interjected Rumsfeld again. "I am aware of that."

"And the proposal that we've made is precisely what I said. It is to permit the study of less than 5-kiloton weapons. That is a fact," added Rumsfeld.

"Okay," said the reporter. "What would that kind of weapon possibly in the arsenal be used for?"

"We don't know," said Rumsfeld. "That's why we want to study it. And we're kind of inclined to think that the idea that we should not be allowed to study such a weapon is not a good idea. We think it, for one thing, I, and then I'll ask Dick to comment on the possible use against, for example, chemical or biological storage areas, where a conventional weapon could have a disastrous effect and a low-yield nuclear weapon conceivably could have an effect that would be, that would mitigate some of the problems with a conventional weapon. But the, it's important to appreciate that to the extent the United States is prohibited from studying the use of such weapons, for example, for a deep earth penetrator, the effect in the world is that it tells the world that they're wise to invest in going underground. And that's not a good thing, from our standpoint."

At this point Rumsfeld looked to Myers and asked if he wanted to comment on it. "You bet," responded Myers, notwithstanding his earlier reluctance. "Let me just add to that that, as the secretary said, study is needed here because, for a couple of things. The threat, in many cases, is going deep underground. I'm not going to just focus on the penetrator, but that's where the threat's going. The threat is also going to chemical, biological and, ....weapons, and we know that. There's a greater and greater proliferation. And so we've got to study the effects of how you might deal with these weapons."

"Conventional weapons, as the secretary said, if you had chemical munitions or biological munitions and you wanted to destroy them, in some cases do nothing more than just spread the biological or the chemical weapons, creating a larger hazard than you'd have when it would be contained. Nuclear weapons have some, can have some effect on those," Myers continued.

"So this is exactly what the secretary said. It's a study. It seems like a very prudent thing to do. It has nothing to do with the development or the fielding or even the employment of these types of weapons. But the study seems like a prudent thing to do."

"I don't want to prolong this," said Rumsfeld, "but it is terribly important that people not hype this and create misimpressions in the public about it by misusing words or being imprecise in the use of words, and saying things like "pursue," which you did. We should be very precise as a to what it is. It is a study. It is nothing more and nothing less. And it is not pursuing, and it is not developing, it is not building, it is not manufacturing, it is not deploying, and it is not using," said Rumsfeld.

"Well," responded the reporter, "why study something if you're not at least considering some..."

"My goodness gracious," interrupted Rumsfeld. "I can't believe you would say that, Jamie. You study things to learn."

"But it seems a bit disingenuous to say this is only a study," said the reporter.

"That's exactly what it is," interrupted Rumsfeld.

"and it's not leading to anything else," continued the reporter.

"It may or may not," said Rumsfeld. "People study things all the time that don't lead to things."

"But when you study something," said the reporter, "the implication is that you're interested in it and you'd like to see what the potential is."

"That's true," conceded Rumsfeld. "And we're doing that for a variety of things, for deep earth penetrator."

"But why else would you have a study," continued the reporter, "except to possibly give you information that would lead you to make decisions that possibly might, and you just outlined some reasons why nuclear weapons..."

"You, I'll answer your question," Rumsfeld interjected again. "You make a study for a very simple reason, to learn whether you do believe that that is a need, something that's needed, something that would be useful. And we're going to look at a variety of different ways, conceivably, to develop the ability to reach a deeply buried target. That's what you do things, you study things, that's what you do in the pharmaceutical business. That's what you do in defense business. That's what you do in all, and many of the things you study you never pursue."

Almost three years after that exchange the use of such weapons in an attack on Iran is reportedly creating serious misgivings inside the offices of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, with some officers talking about resigning. Late this winter, the Joint Chiefs of Staff sought to remove the nuclear option from the evolving war plans for Iran, without success, a former intelligence official told Hersh.

A Pentagon adviser on the war on terror confirmed there was a resurgence of interest in tactical nuclear weapons among Pentagon civilians and in policy circles. He called it "a juggernaut that has to be stopped." He too confirmed some senior officers and officials were considering resigning over the issue. "There are very strong sentiments within the military against brandishing nuclear weapons against other countries," the adviser told Hersh.

Bush backs diplomacy to curb nuclear Iran as Washington talks of war

By Alec Russell in Washington - (Filed: 11/04/2006)

President George W Bush insisted yesterday that he could not allow Iran to have nuclear arms, as reports that the Pentagon had updated plans for air strikes triggered alarm on both sides of the Atlantic. Mr Bush stressed diplomacy was his preferred approach to Iran and dismissed as "wild speculation" claims that hawks were considering using a nuclear "bunker-buster" bomb to hit underground nuclear facilities.

"The doctrine of prevention is to work together to prevent the Iranians from having a nuclear weapon," he said. "It doesn't mean force necessarily. In this case it means diplomacy."

But he left little doubt that, if diplomacy failed to curb Teheran's nuclear ambitions, he would be willing later in his presidency to consider authorising air strikes. "We do not want the Iranians to have a nuclear weapon, the capacity to make a nuclear weapon or the knowledge about how to make a nuclear weapon," he said, addressing students in Washington. "The good news is that many in the world have come to that conclusion," he added, before referring to his 2002 linking of Iraq, Iran and North Korea. "I got out a little early on the issue by saying 'axis of evil' but I meant it. I saw it as a problem."

The latest thinking in Washington is that, as a last resort, if diplomacy is deemed to have failed, the Pentagon would launch an aerial campaign. It would target two key sites, the uranium enrichment plant at Natanz and the uranium conversion facility at Isfahan. Or the campaign would be a broader one against strategic military sites. One former administration official with close ties to the Pentagon told The Daily Telegraph that America's embroilment in Iraq and Afghanistan meant that few in authority favoured action against Iran. Military commanders are worried about possible retaliation against the 130,000 United States troops in Iraq and also that Iranian forces could shut down the Persian Gulf.

But in spite of domestic political difficulties, Mr Bush is known to be determined not to duck the challenge posed by Iran's hardline president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Michael Rubin, a former Pentagon adviser on Iran, said Europe should not doubt the administration's determination to confront the regime. "Many critics say there wasn't enough planning [before the war in Iraq]," he said. "Well, we are taking into account the critics' suggestions. "The lesson of Iraq is that you pursue diplomacy while you plan for war and hopefully you won't need to do the latter. Europe may wish that the US's concerns just evaporate. "That wish is the quickest path to military action because ultimately the US is not going to sacrifice what it seriously believes is a threat to its national security on the whims of 'old Europe'."

The transatlantic debate over how to confront Iran has returned to the top of the agenda following an article by Seymour Hersh in yesterday's New Yorker. The veteran reporter claimed that the administration would consider deploying a nuclear "bunker-buster", and senior soldiers were so alarmed at the prospect they were considering resigning in protest. US forces were already in Iran assessing targets, he added.

Sen John Kerry, Mr Bush's defeated Democratic rival in 2004, seized on the report to accuse the administration of "shoot-from-the-hip cowboy diplomacy".

However, Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, has dismissed the idea of a nuclear strike against Iran as "completely nuts". - telegraph.co.uk

Iran expects 'good nuclear news'

(Filed: 11/04/2006)

The head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organisation has confirmed that the country has enriched uranium to the level needed to fuel nuclear power stations.

"I am proud to announce that we have started enriching uranium to the 3.5 per cent level," nuclear head Gholamreza Aghazadeh said in a televised address.

He claimed that the pilot enrichment plant in Natanz, south of Tehran, started working yesterday.

The news was widely expected in Iran. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was yesterday quoted as saying that Iranians would hear "good news" on their country's nuclear programme.

"After hearing all the good news tomorrow [Tuesday] night, Iranians should prostrate themselves before almighty God," Mr Ahmadinejad said.

But the announcement has provoked criticism from Washington. Scott McClellan, White House spokesman, warned that Iran was "moving in the wrong direction" with its nuclear programme. The announcement was also a big setback to UN efforts to get Iran to suspend its uranium enrichment activities. Iran has been referred to the UN Security Council after failing to convince the international community that its nuclear activities are aimed a producing nuclear power, and not weapons. The world body has demanded Iran suspend its uranium enrichment work and on March 29 asked the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to report on Tehran's compliance in 30 days. IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei is expected to visit Iran this week and any announcement of advances in uranium enrichment work by Iran could cast a cloud over his visit.

Iranian nuclear officials have previously said enriching uranium to 3.5 per cent would require the operation of 164 centrifuges, which spin it at supersonic speeds to increase the concentration of uranium's most radioactive isotope.

Washington has said repeatedly it wants to resolve the nuclear standoff by diplomatic means. But analysts say advances in uranium enrichment technology by Iran may be the tripwire for America or Israel to take military action. - telegraph.co.uk

Israel: World should stop Iran's nuke plan

Joshua Brilliant UPI Israel Correspondent JERUSALEM, April 11, 2006

Shortly after Iran said it managed to enrich uranium, Israel called for "a broad and determined international coalition" to stop Teheran's nuclear project. The Israeli call followed Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's report that on Sunday Iran produced enriched uranium with the purity needed for a nuclear power station.

The Iranian news agency, IRNA, quoted the Head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization Gholam-Reza Aqazadeh as saying they produced uranium enriched to 3.5 percent in its Natanz facility. According to some reports Aqazadeh said he hoped that a uranium enrichment complex of 3,000 centrifuges would be ready by March 2007.

A Western expert who spoke to United Press International on condition of anonymity said that a facility with 3,000 centrifuges would be "Very significant." It would take a year to complete the facility and assuming everything goes well" two more years to produce the first bomb.

Such a capability has been concerning Israel for decades. In an address in to the Netanya Academic College's Center for Strategic Dialogue last week, the defense minister's political-security adviser, retired Maj. Gen. Amos Gilad noted the extremists have won more power in Iran. They closed 30 newspapers and parliament lost its restraining capability.

"Ahmadinejad is not crazy" Gilad said. The Iranian directive is "to develop a nuclear weapon," he said.

Israel is a small country and hitting its coastal area could leave tens of thousands of dead and contaminate an area for years, a defense expert maintained.

In an article to be published in the Yediot Aharonot newspaper, Thursday, the head of Israel's National Security Council, retired Maj. Gen. Giora Eiland said an Iranian nuclear umbrella would complicate matters. If Israel tries military and diplomatic pressure to stop Hezbollah Katyusha attacks from Lebanon and fails, it would think of an escalation. However with such an umbrella it would have to take into account "other considerations than those that guide us today."

"Imagine a situation in which Iran has a nuclear weapon and a group of Christian fanatics, or worse, Jews, blows up the mosques on the Temple Mount," Eiland continued. The Temple Mount, that the Muslims call Haram e-Sharif, is Islam's third holiest site.

A Western expert suggested Iran's reports about enriching uranium were a signal to the West that has been trying to stop Iran's program.

"You want to roll us back? Forget it. We're in the driver's seat," the expert suggested the Iranian statements mean.

Ahmadinejad's announcement was made shortly after former president Hashemi Rafsanjani told a Kuwaiti agency that a cascade of 164 centrifuges produced the enriched uranium. That indicates the rivalry inside Iran's leadership. Both claim credit for it, said the expert.

It is difficult to know whether the announcement reflects a sense of hubris or an attempt to "declare victory" before expressing readiness to talk business, the expert continued.

Recent Iranian statements "show a great deal of nervousness" and the technology behind the latest "boasting... is less (sic)than meets the eye," the expert said. It indicates "a growing sense of vulnerability and anxiety on their part " and is not something that happens "in the normal scheme of things."

Israeli officials have reacted cautiously to the news from Iran. Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz did not comment, but the Foreign Ministry's spokesman Mark Regev said that, "Iran's latest announcement serves as further example of the real danger in delaying concrete diplomatic measures in the face of continued Iranian refusal to comply with international demands to stop its nuclear activities. Israel believes that the Iranian nuclear program should be confronted by a broad and determined international coalition."

In a TV debate Tuesday night the former head of Israel's Northern Command, retired Maj. Gen. Yossi Peled, said Israel must prepare to face Iran alone. He said he did not believe diplomatic efforts could stop the Iranians and "Israel does not have the luxury of waiting endlessly." "It is a matter of very.... few years," Peled added.

The air force's former commander, retired Maj. Gen. Eitan Ben-Eliyahu said Israel has been preparing to cope with this threat "for decades." He advocated a broad front with the United States in the lead. Military action "could last days, possibly weeks and needs a logistic backup accompanied by a prolonged diplomatic activity. It is going to be a campaign... (and in it) we will have a weighty respectable role that would accompany the diplomatic moves," Ben-Eliyahu said.

The 1981 bombing of Iraq's nuclear reactor was an Israel-only operation and lasted a few minutes but the Iranian case will be different, he added. "We need very through preparations... So we wait another week, prepare a better plan.It's better to reduce the risks that something will not be perfect," he said. - politicalgateway.com

Rice urges UN to take 'strong steps' against Iran

By Roula Khalaf in London and Gareth Smyth in Tehran and FT Reporters - Published: April 11 2006 - ft.com

Condoleezza Rice, US secretary of state, on Wednesday said Iran's work on uranium enrichment was further proof Tehran was defying the international community and would require "strong steps" by the United Nation's Security Council.

"I do think the Security Council will need to take into consideration this move by Iran," Ms Rice said, urging the council to take "strong steps to make certain (to) maintain the credibility of the international community."

Russia and France on Wednesday joined the US in condemning Iran as Mohamed El-Baradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency was due to fly to Tehran in the hope of preventing the country mastering a technology that could be adapted to make nuclear weapons.

Iran said on Tuesday it had taken a significant step towards mastering nuclear technology, in defiance of western attempts to curb its nuclear ambitions. President Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad announced on national television that Iran had joined "the nuclear countries of the world", describing this as a "historical achievement".

On Wednesday Russia's foreign ministry issued a statement saying: "It goes counter to the decisions of the International Atomic Energy Agency and the statement of the UN Security Council. Iran should stop all work to enrich uranium, including research."

French foreign minister Philippe Douste-Blazy urged Iran to halt its 'dangerous activities'. He added: "The announcement by the Iranian authorities of the starting of 164 centrifuges is worrying. If this announcement is confirmed, it goes squarely against the repeated demands of the IAEA and the United Nations Security Council."

In his TV on address on Tuesday President Ahmadi-Nejad insisted that Tehran would go on to produce industrial fuel but said the purpose remained energy production, not nuclear weapons.

Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, former Iranian president and head of the powerful Expediency Council, told the Kuwait news agency that Tehran had enriched uranium at low levels from a cascade of 164 centrifuges, a move experts said marked a breakthrough.

Tuesday's announcements came two weeks after the UN Security Council called on Tehran to halt its uranium enrichment work, in the hope of preventing it from mastering the technology that could be adapted to make nuclear weapons.

Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the IAEA, will report on Iranian compliance to the Security Council at the end of the month.

The Iranian statements coincide with a raging debate in Washington over recent reports that the US is considering military strikes against Iranian nuclear installations.

Reacting to the reports from Tehran, the White House on Tuesday night warned that Iran was moving in the "wrong direction". Scott McClellan, White House press secretary, said Iran's "defiant statements and actions only further isolate the regime from the rest of the world and further isolate the Iranian people". If Iran "refuses to change its behaviour", Mr McClellan said the US would discuss "next steps" with other members of the Security Council.

Gholam-Reza Aghazadeh, head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organisation, said Iran intended to have 3,000 centrifuges in use by March. He said Iran was "completing" a process "for producing nuclear fuel for power plants using low-enriched uranium at between 3.5 and 5 per cent. This enrichment level is used for the production of fuel for nuclear reactors while much higher levels of enrichment are needed for atomic weapons."

Nuclear experts cautioned that although Iran may have taken a big step forward, it could still be years away from acquiring the capability to produce the industrial scale and highly enriched uranium needed to detonate nuclear bombs.

Although Iran's announcement will alarm western governments, it could also facilitate a diplomatic climbdown. Iran could announce that having achieved this level of expertise it is now ready to suspend further enrichment.

'Britain seriously concerned over Iran's atomic work'

April 12, 2006 By Indo Asian News Service

London, April 12 (Xinhua) Britain was seriously concerned over Iran's uranium enrichment activities, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said in a statement Wednesday.

'The latest Iranian statement further undermines international confidence in the Iranian regime and is deeply unhelpful,' the statement said.

Straw urged Iran to suspend its atomic work immediately and return to talks.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced Tuesday that Iran had successfully enriched uranium, but stressing that it did not want to seek to develop nuclear weapons.

EU says Iran nuclear announcement "regrettable"

BRUSSELS, April 12 (Reuters) -

Iran's announcement that it has enriched uranium is regrettable but the European Union will continue to press for a diplomatic solution to the dispute over its nuclear programme, a spokeswoman said on Wednesday.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced on Tuesday that Iran had produced the enriched uranium needed to make nuclear fuel for the first time.

"This is regrettable," said Emma Udwin, a spokeswoman for Benita Ferrero-Waldner, the EU's commissioner for external relations. "We will continue to seek a diplomatic solution, but such announcements are not helpful."

Europe's three main powers -- Germany, France and Britain -- called off 2-1/2 years of talks on closer ties with Iran after it announced in January that it would resume enrichment work.

The so-called EU3 has made a renewed suspension of all enrichment-related activity a condition for restarting negotiations. Tehran refused, saying enrichment is a sovereign right it will not give up.

Tehran says its nuclear programme is aimed solely at producing electricity and is not, as Washington and the European Union say, a cover for developing atom bombs.

At a meeting on Monday, European foreign ministers reviewed options for restrictive measures against Iran drafted by EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana, including possible visa bans and financial sanctions if Tehran pressed on with sensitive nuclear activity.

A spokeswoman for Solana, Cristina Gallach, said the Iranian announcement "goes in the wrong direction".

"It goes against the decisions of the IAEA board; it goes against the U.N. Security Council and the whole international community, precisely when the Security Council has told Iran that it has to comply with its obligations," she said.

The Security Council has told Iran to halt all sensitive atomic activities and on March 29 asked the IAEA, the U.N. nuclear watchdog, to report on its compliance in 30 days.

"Therefore once again we urge Iran to return to full suspension of enrichment and all related activities," Gallach said. - alertnet.org

Urgent: Iran should be more cooperative on nuclear issue: Chinese ambassador

UNITED NATIONS, April 12 (Xinhua) --

Chinese Ambassador to the United Nations Wang Guangya on Wednesday required that Iran be more cooperative on its disputed nuclear program.

"I hope the Iranians take note of the reaction (of the international community) and be more cooperative," Wang told reporters at UN headquarters in New York.

He also appealed to all parties concerned to exercise restraint, to act constructively, and not to take actions that might further aggravate the situation. Enditem

International conflict looms large as Iran announces it is now a nuclear power

12.04.2006 URL: Source:

Yesterday evening the Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced that his country has successfully begun enriching uranium, joining the 'club of nuclear powers'. He stressed that Iran is not striving to possess nuclear weapons.

The former president of Iran Hashemi Rafsanjani reported that at the nuclear facility in Natanza a cascade of 164 centrifuges has been successfully launched, in which enriched uranium is being developed 'by industrial methods'. By evening the head of the Iranian nuclear programme Golyamreza Agazade confirmed that low-enriched uranium intended for use as a peaceful energy source has been produced in Iran. He says that Iranian scientists have successfully enriched uranium which contains a 3.5% level of the isotope uranium-235. Golyamreza Agazade reported that by the end of this year Iran is planning to launch up to three thousand centrifuges as part of the development of the national nuclear programme.

For military atomic production Iran will need tens of thousands of centrifuges. Teheran does not yet have that number of installations, but the successful development of one cascade suggests that it has the technology for this production. It may therefore be gradually expanded until it reaches the required scale. And no one can guarantee that after this Iran will not start producing highly-enriched uranium for military purposes.

An Iranian diplomatic source emphasized in conversation with a Vremya Novostey correspondent that 'in recent years Teheran has already given enough evidence of the peaceful nature of its nuclear programme'. Therefore, he says that Iran will definitely not return to the moratorium on research into uranium enrichment which it needs to carry out in order to possess peaceful atomic energy.

US President George Bush may now be regretting that he personally promised not to carry out an attack on Iran. This joyous news was heard yesterday at the John Hopkins University in Washington. President Bush confirmed his commitment to 'looking for a diplomatic solution to the dead-locked situation concerning Iran' and stressed the importance of working alongside Europe and Russia to 'prevent' the emergence of nuclear weapons in Iran.

'I know that here in Washington 'prevention' means using force.But this is not necessarily true. In this case 'prevention' means using diplomacy,' explained the president. It is a question of 'multinational diplomacy'. According to the president, the essence of the diplomacy is in 'sending messages to the Iranians, clear messages that if they want to be accepted in the international community, they must abandon their military nuclear ambitions'.

The White House chief reported that information about plans to launch a nuclear attack on Iran are 'wild speculation'. This description is referring to scenarios published a few days ago in the magazine New Yorker and newspaper Washington Post for an anti-Iranian military operation, which had supposedly already been drawn up by American generals. According to versions published by the famous journalist Seymour Hersh, the Pentagon has decided to follow the principle that 'like cures like' and make Iran abandon its nuclear programme with the help of a tactical nuclear weapon. This would be used by the USA to strike underground bunkers containing Iranian command points and, as the Americans suspect, secret laboratories and nuclear installations.

The task of impressing the ideals of 'multinational diplomacy' on Iran has fallen to the General Secretary of the International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA) Mohammad Al-Baradei. Today he is beginning a two-day visit to Iran. Whatever was said in Washington, from international legal perspective Mr. Al-Baradei is the only international official with the power to severely punish or pardon Iran. He has a joint mandate from the IAEA and the Un Security Council. At the session of 29th March the Security Council instructed Al-Baradei to prepare a comprehensive report on the Iranian nuclear programme within the next month. His visit to Teheran has come at precisely the mid-point of this period. However, yesterday's nuclear revelations from the Iranian leaders have greatly increased the probability that the Security Council will decide to introduce sanctions against Iran.

The Russian Foreign Ministry yesterday confirmed their support for Al-Baradei's mission and called the IAEA 'the only respected international body which has the necessary expertise and powers to check that states are observing their obligations in connection with the Treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons'. The Head of the Russian Foreign Ministry Sergei Lavrov yesterday appealed for Teheran to cooperate with the IAEA in every possible way.

However, it seems as if Teheran did not heed his call.

Iran's Ahmadinejad: West will burn in nations' fury

Tehran, Iran, Apr. 12 - Iran's radical President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in a fiery sermon demanded that "Iran's enemies", or the West, bow down before Iran and apologize for having held back Tehran's nuclear program for three years. He also warned the West that it would "burn" in the "fire of the nations' fury".

"Those who insulted the Iranian nation and set back Iran's movement for progress for several years must apologise", Ahmadinejad said at a rally in the eastern town of Rashtkhar. His comments were aired on state television and carried by the official news agency.

"You must bow down to the greatness of the Iranian nation", he said, addressing the West.

He added that if the United States continued to seek to use "bullying" tactics then "every nation of the world" would chant "Death to America" and "Death to Israel".

"If you do not return to monotheism and worshipping god and refuse to accept justice then you will burn in the fire of the nations' fury", Ahmadinejad said.

He once again accused the West of launching a "psychological war" against Iran.

On Tuesday, Ahmadinejad declared that Iran had joined the Nuclear Club.

"I officially announce that Iran has joined the world's nuclear countries", Ahmadinejad said in a speech that was broadcast on state television.

The UN Security Council adopted a "Presidential Statement" unanimously on March 29 giving Iran 30 days to suspend all of its uranium enrichment activities and resume its cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency. - iranfocus.com

Iran Could Produce Nuclear Bomb in 16 Days, U.S. Says

April 12 (Bloomberg) -- Iran, defying United Nations Security Council demands to halt its nuclear program, may be capable of making a nuclear bomb within 16 days, a U.S. State Department official said.

Iran will move to ``industrial scale'' uranium enrichment involving 54,000 centrifuges at its Natanz plant, the Associated Press quoted deputy nuclear chief Mohammad Saeedi as telling state-run television today.

``Using those 50,000 centrifuges they could produce enough highly enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon in 16 days,'' Stephen Rademaker, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for International Security and Nonproliferation, told reporters today in Moscow.

Rademaker was reacting to a statement by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who said yesterday the country had succeeded in enriching uranium on a small scale for the first time, using 164 centrifuges. That announcement defies demands by the UN Security Council that Iran shut down its nuclear program this month.

The U.S. fears Iran is pursuing a nuclear program to make weapons, while Iran says it is intent on purely civilian purposes, to provide energy. Saeedi said 54,000 centrifuges will be able to enrich uranium to provide fuel for a 1,000-megawat nuclear power plant similar to the one Russia is finishing in southern Iran, AP reported.

``It was a deeply disappointing announcement,'' Rademaker said of Ahmadinejad's statement.

Weapons-Grade Uranium

Rademaker said the technology to enrich uranium to a low level could also be used to make weapons-grade uranium, saying that it would take a little over 13 years to produce enough highly enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon with the 164 centrifuges currently in use. The process involves placing uranium hexafluoride gas in a series of rotating drums or cylinders known as centrifuges that run at high speeds to extract weapons grade uranium.

Iran has informed the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency that it plans to construct 3,000 centrifuges at Natanz next year, Rademaker said. ``We calculate that a 3,000-machine cascade could produce enough uranium to build a nuclear weapon within 271 days,'' he said.

While the U.S. has concerns over Iran's nuclear program, Rademaker said ``there certainly has been no decision on the part of my government'' to use force if Iran refuses to obey the UN Security Council demand that it shuts down its nuclear program.

Rademaker is in Moscow for a meeting of his counterparts from the Group of Eight wealthy industrialized countries. Russia chairs the G-8 this year.

China is concerned about Iran's decision to accelerate uranium enrichment and wants the government in Tehran to heed international criticism of the move, Wang Guangya, China's ambassador to the United Nations said. - bloomberg.com

Russians and Chinese join attack on Iran

PARISA HAFEZIIN TEHRAN - April 13th 2006 -

IRAN was condemned yesterday by the world's leading powers, including Russia and China, for advancing its atomic programme in defiance of the United Nations.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran's president, declared on Tuesday that his country had produced its first batch of enriched uranium and would press ahead with industrial-scale enrichment. That kept Tehran on a collision course with the UN and with western countries who fear Iran is seeking atomic arms, not just fuel for power stations as it insists.

Condoleezza Rice, the US secretary of state, said the UN Security Council, which last month told Tehran to halt all enrichment work, should respond with unspecified "strong steps" to maintain the credibility of the international community. Asked if the Security Council might impose sanctions on Iran, a White House spokesman said: "That's a possibility ... that's one option that's available."

Russia and China, who have veto rights at the Security Council, have hitherto opposed sanctions. Yesterday, Sergei Lavrov, Russia's foreign minister, also warned the use of force was no answer to the stand-off over Iran. "If such plans exist, they will not be able to solve this problem," he said. "On the contrary, they could create a dangerous explosive blaze in the Middle East, where there are already enough blazes."

George Bush, the US president, has dismissed media reports of plans for strikes on Iran as "wild speculation".

Those who condemned Iran's announcement included China's ambassador to the UN, who said Tehran's enrichment move was "not in line with what is required of them by the international community". Russia's foreign ministry urged Iran to stop all enrichment work, while Britain, France and Germany, the EU states behind last year's deal to suspend Iran's enrichment work, were also critical.

Kofi Annan, the UN secretary general, urged all parties to return to talks and "cool down the rhetoric".

But a senior Iranian official ruled out any retreat. "Iran's nuclear activities are like a waterfall which has begun to flow. It cannot be stopped," he said. In Tehran, Iranians celebrated the news their country had mastered nuclear technology. Volunteer Islamic militia set up celebration tents at roadsides, handing out sugary cakes and ladling out orange squash to passers-by. One militiaman shouted "We are so happy and proud of our young nuclear scientists."

Elsewhere, schoolchildren wearing bibs embossed with "nuclear power is our irrevocable right" chanted slogans and waved the national flag.

Mohamed El Baradei, the head of the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency, is due to visit Iran today to seek Tehran's co-operation with the Security Council. - scotsman.com/

Iran ignores calls to halt atomic work

By Parisa Hafezi Thu Apr 13, TEHRAN (Reuters) -

Iran will ignore renewed international calls to halt uranium enrichment, its president said, casting a shadow over Thursday's visit for nuclear talks by the head of the U.N. atomic watchdog. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) chief Mohamed ElBaradei said he would urge top officials in Tehran to end sensitive atomic work, less than 48 hours after Iran drew world condemnation for saying it planned industrial-scale enrichment.

"Our answer to those who are angry about Iran obtaining the full nuclear cycle is one phrase, we say: Be angry and die of this anger," Ahmadinejad said late on Wednesday, in comments reported by the official IRNA news agency. "We will not hold talks with anyone about the Iranian nation's right (to enrichment) and no one has the right to step back, even one iota."

His triumphant declaration on Tuesday that Iran had enriched uranium to a level used in power stations and that it wanted to expand production on a large scale, drew rebukes from world powers, including Russia and China. China said it would send a top envoy on arms control, Assistant Foreign Minister Cui Tiankai, to Iran and Russia from Friday to try to defuse the nuclear standoff.

"We hope the relevant parties can exercise restraint and not take measures that will escalate the situation," a Foreign Ministry spokesman said.

The United States said the U.N. Security Council, which can impose sanctions, must take "strong steps." Washington and other Western nations accuse Iran of using its civilian nuclear program as a cover to build weapons, a charge Tehran denies. Washington has said it wants a diplomatic solution to the dispute, but has left a military option open.

French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy dismissed talk of possible military strikes as "absolutely not topical."

The Security Council, which can impose sanctions, has told Iran to halt all sensitive atomic activities and asked the IAEA to report on its compliance by the end of April, prompting ElBaradei's one-day visit. "I am going to discuss (bringing) Iran in line with the request of the international community, to take confidence- building measures, including suspension of uranium enrichment until outstanding issues are clarified," ElBaradei said.

"WISHFUL THINKING"

"I would like to see Iran ... come to terms with the request of the international community," he said on arrival in Tehran early on Thursday, shortly after Ahmadinejad made his remarks. But IAEA diplomats were cautioning against expecting any deal to emerge even before Ahmadinejad's latest defiant remarks. "It's wishful thinking to think Iran would shut down the nuclear process entirely now," a diplomat at the IAEA said in Vienna. "They have obviously achieved a significant advance at the research and development level and want to present it as a fait accompli to strengthen their bargaining position with the West."

Three European powers -- Britain, France and Germany -- had been in talks with Iran on suspending its enrichment but called them off in January after Tehran said it would resume the work.

Diplomats at the Security Council said the five permanent council members plus Germany would meet to discuss Iran in Moscow next week. But they said the council was unlikely to take action before receiving ElBaradei's report.

The level of enrichment needed for nuclear bombs is far higher than the 3.5 percent Iran says it has achieved. Experts say it would take Iran two decades to produce enough highly enriched uranium for one bomb from its current 164 centrifuges. But Tehran says it wants to install 3,000 centrifuges, which experts say could produce material for a warhead in one year.

ElBaradei made no comment on his way to meet Gholamreza Aghazadeh, head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization.

An Iranian official said ElBaradei would also meet Ali Larijani, secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council. - yahoo.com

Iran President: 'We Are a Nuclear Country'

Iran President Declares Country Is Nuclear Power; IAEA Chief Says No Signs of Weapons Diversion

By ALI AKBAR - The Associated Press TEHRAN, Iran -

Iran's president declared Thursday his country would not retreat on its uranium enrichment activities, and the visiting head of the U.N. atomic watchdog agency said he had not seen any diversion of nuclear material for weapons purposes, although "the picture is still hazy."

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad signaled there would be no concessions in talks with Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, who arrived to head off a confrontation with the U.N. Security Council. "We have not seen diversion of nuclear material for weapons purposes, but the picture is still hazy and not very clear," ElBaradei told reporters after talks with Iranian nuclear officials.

ElBaradei said he had discussed with the Iranians the U.N. request for Iran to suspend uranium enrichment for a period of time until questions over its nuclear program had been resolved.

Iran's chief nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, told the same news conference that such moves were not acceptable. "Such proposals are not very important ones," he said.

Hours earlier, Ahmadinejad had said enrichment was a red line for Iran in the talks with the United Nations. "We won't hold talks with anyone about the right of the Iranian nation (to enrich uranium) and no one has the right to retreat, even one iota," Ahmadinejad was quoted as saying by the official Islamic Republic News Agency.

Iran says its uranium enrichment is for power-generating purposes, while the West says it is intended for nuclear weapons. Western diplomats and experts familiar with Iran's program say it is still far from producing any weapons-grade uranium. "Our answer to those who are angry about Iran achieving the full nuclear fuel cycle is just one phrase. We say: 'Be angry at us and die of this anger,'" Ahmadinejad said.

Enriched uranium is used for fuel in power-generating reactors and warheads of nuclear weapons. But Western diplomats and experts familiar with Iran's program say Iran still is far from producing any weapons-grade uranium.

The U.N. Security Council has given Iran until April 28 to stop all enrichment activity.

Iran has rejected the demand and announced Tuesday that, for the first time, it had enriched uranium with 164 centrifuges a step toward large-scale production. Iran's deputy nuclear chief, Mohammad Saeedi, said Wednesday that Iran intends to move toward large-scale uranium enrichment involving 54,000 centrifuges, signaling the country's resolve to expand a program the United Nations has demanded it halt. "Today, our situation has changed completely. We are a nuclear country and speak to others from the position of a nuclear country," IRNA quoted the president as saying Thursday.

The five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council the United States, Russia, China, Britain and France met Thursday to discuss the developments in Iran.

"We are obviously following this very carefully and we want to see what the outcome of the discussions between ElBaradei and the Iranian government is, and when we get information on that we'll consider what to do next," U.S. Ambassador John Bolton said afterward.

Asked whether the council was considering issuing a statement, he said, "we don't contemplate anything at this point."

Also Thursday, China said it is sending an envoy to Iran and Russia to discuss the dispute over Tehran's nuclear ambitions. Assistant Foreign Minister Cui Tiankai is due to leave on Friday. "Recently, there were some developments of the Iranian nuclear issue," said Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao. "We expressed our concern. ... We hope the parties should exercise restraint and not take any actions that lead to further escalation so we can solve the question properly through dialogue and diplomacy."

At the United Nations a day earlier, China expressed strong concern over Iran's announcement that it had successfully enriched uranium and called on Tehran to suspend enrichment. However, both China and Russia have repeated their opposition to any punitive measures against Iran.

The IAEA is due to report to the Security Council on April 28 whether Iran has met its demand for a full halt to enrichment. If Tehran has not complied, the council will consider the next step. The U.S. and Europe are pressing for sanctions, a step Russia and China have so far opposed.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Wednesday the Security Council must consider "strong steps" to induce Tehran to change course. Rice also telephoned ElBaradei to ask him to reinforce demands that Iran comply with its nonproliferation requirements when he holds talks in Tehran on Friday.

Iran's nuclear chief, Gholamreza Aghazadeh, said the United States had no option but to recognize Iran as a nuclear power. But he said Iran was prepared to give the West a share in its enrichment facilities to ease fears that it may seek to make weapons.

"The best way to get out of this issue is for countries that have concern become our partners in Natanz in management, production and technology. This is a very important confidence-building measure," he told state-run television. - abc news

BRITISH TROOPS JOINED MOCK INVASION OF IRAN

By Brian Lironi Political Editor

JACK STRAW came under more pressure last night after it emerged British officers took part in a mock invasion of Iran.

The Foreign Secretary has insisted there is no prospect of Britain and the United States launching an Iraq-style military strike.

But now Ministry of Defence officials have admitted that military planners took part in a war game at a US base in Virginia in July 2004. Operation Hotspur was set in 2015 and the focus was a fictional country called Korona.

But it had exactly the same borders as Iran and military experts said the characteristics of the enemy were Iranian.

A Foreign Office spokesman said last night: "The Foreign Secretary has made his position very clear that military action is inconceivable. The Foreign Office regards speculation about war, particularly involving Britain, is unhelpful at a time when the diplomatic route is still being pursued."

Last week, Iran's president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad admitted they had created enriched uranium, a key part of nuclear technology. - sundaymail.co.uk/

Iran: Send in the Marines?

Despite Denials, U.S. Plans for Iran War