EU: Iran Could Have Enough Uranium for a Bomb by Year’s End
Oops: “New simulations carried out by European Union experts come to an alarming conclusion: Iran could have enough highly enriched uranium to build an atomic bomb by the end of this year,” the German the Spiegel reports. It goes on to say that “a new computer simulation undertaken by European Union experts indicates that the NIE’s time estimates might be dangerously inaccurate as well — and that Iran might have enough fuel for a bomb much earlier than was previously thought.”
The NIE, to refresh your memory, said that Iran wouldn’t be able to produce a nuclear weapon in years to come. The report was criticized by many, especially by Israel. Israel is now joined by European Union experts: not exactly the most hawkish people in the world generally, which should mean that even the anti-war American left can’t ignore this article and report.
As part of a project to improve control of nuclear materials, the European Commission Joint Research Centre (JRC) in Ispra, Italy set up a detailed simulation of the centrifuges currently used by Iran in the Natanz nuclear facility to enrich uranium. The results look nothing like those reached by the US intelligence community.
For one scenario, the JRC scientists assumed the centrifuges in Natanz were operating at 100 percent efficiency. Were that the case, Iran could already have the 25 kilograms of highly enriched uranium necessary for an atomic device by the end of this year. Another scenario assumed a much lower efficiency — just 25 percent. But even then, Iran would have produced enough uranium by the end of 2010.
For the purposes of the simulation, the JRC modelled each of the centrifuges individually and then hooked them together to form the kind of cascade necessary to enrich uranium. A number of variables were taken into account, including the assumption by most experts that Iran isn’t even close to operating its centrifuges at 100 percent efficiency. What is known, however, is that the Iranians are operating 18 cascades, each made up of 164 centrifuges. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad himself said last April that the country had 3,000 centrifuges in operation. At the time, most Western observers discounted the claim as mere propaganda. But the International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed Ahmadinejad’s assertion in November.
In short: according to the European Union, the West should act ASAP. If we don’t, Iran will might have nuclear weapons before the next president is elected. Whatever happens, Iran cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons. It will have too much power. It will be able to seriously threaten the existence and survival of Israel. The Mullahs could most certainly use them when provoked and perhaps even when they’re not provoked. Aside from that, the power balance in the region would change dramatically: Iran already is one of the region’s biggest powers, but with nuclear weapons it’s the biggest power, perhaps even by far (with region I don’t take India, Pakistan and China in consideration: merely the Arabic, Turkish and Persian Muslim world).
purely a baseless propaganda.All the centrifuge that iran is operating rite now is totally under iaea inspection and their enrichment rate is less than 6% the permitted rate of iaea.To make a aom bomb iran need to enrich uranium at around 84-90% atleast. Which they can not do hiding from iaea.Even if they proceed a percent more from 6% range it will be violation of international law and iaea will report that to unsc as iaea constantly monitoring the enrichment through cervailence camera.Even if the camera is off 4 1 min it will be violation of international law.In short nonsense propaganda.Under iaea supervisation enriching uranium within 6% range iran will never be able to produce wepean graded uranium.
I’m also skeptical, but I’m surprised you find this to be "propaganda," Sami. A bunch of nerds in Italy is propaganda? Towards what end?
Maybe they’re wrong, but I think it is rather telling that countless other nations have come out in defiance of our intelligence on the matter. Yet we’re supposed to be the warmongers.
I am not scared by Iran, still.
N.Podhoretz scares me more
That doesn’t surprise me.
hmmmmmm, manipulating the simulation result in order to push the agenda. There are wrong assumptions in the article including centrifuges working at 100% efficiency which is most likely not the case regarding Iran enrichment program. Also while Iran enrichment process is under supervision of IAEA, how they can produce enough HEU for nuclear weapon.
I see two problems. The first is that we’re talking about folks who are pretty much making guesses and expressing a wide range of timeframes. It’s a pretty big ballpark, IOW.The second problem is the bigger and more obvious one…which is "what the F$&^%K are we supposed to do stop it?" Invade, and hope they don’t sneak the centrifuges off to some other sympathetic entity? Make some educated guesses and bomb the shit out of them?BTW, that’s close to my educated guess…which is that Europe complains, we chime in, and then we all wait for Israel to do the dirty work. It all has a "lather, rinse, repeat" familiarity to it.
I would take Iran very seriously. It should be a UN charter that no further nations be allowed to attain nukes. Fair or not fair, if more nations are allowed to have them that increases the chance that they will be used in war or accidentally. Iraq was the sheep and Iran is the wolf in sheeps clothing. Simple.
Ah yes, the old high/low switcheroo. You can’t get there from here though. The current centrifuges and low-level enriched Uranium are under IAEA seal and surveillance and the Agency guarantee they couldn’t be redirected to be used for further enrichment to weapons grade without IAEA knowledge. You can’t get HEU without LEU and centrifuges, so all estimates are working from null data.
I don’t blame the JRC though. For one thing, it’s not based in Italy but in Brussels and the DG, noted nuclear physicist and arms control wonk Roland Schenkel, certainly had no hand in this research himself. Notice he’s mentioned in the Spiegel report but not in direct connection with any Italian research.
Funnily enough, I can find absolutely no mention of this report on the JRC website, yet JRC reports are meant "to be accessible to interested non-specialists and the media. " I’d love to read the original to see how Spiegel’s reporting matches up. If you find it, please let me know Michael. The Spiegel piece’s author is the magazine’s science correspondent and I’m sure he’s above making things up out of whole cloth just for the sake of a lurid story. (David Medienkritik thinks he’s a hack, though.)
Regards, C
See Michael, I told you Cernig would chime in!
Well that was content-free, Kevin. Do you want to address the issues or just snark at the meesenger? I thought such comments were agin Poligazette’s policy.
Regards, C
He said that he predicted you were going to "chime in", Cernig. I don’t see how that is a personal attack on you.
Anyway, we don’t welcome public debate about the comments policy. If you have a concern, send it by email. Don’t try to invoke the comments policy in your comments, as you are not an admin or editor here.
P.S. I tend to agree with Cernig’s assessment of the state of and intentions behind the Iranian nuclear program, so this isn’t ideological.
One persons Lancet study is another’s poor methodology. Until the study or simple spreadsheet is made public, not much can be said about supposed evidence about Iran. ArmsControlWonks have numerous posts about simple calculations involving Iranian U235 enrichment. Lets see if the simulations involve simple spreadsheets and calculators or actual computer modeling.
I’ve emailed the JRC asking if they can identify and provide a copy of the study. At the moment all I can find is a reference to hypothetical study papers referencing an imaginary state and based on various actual nations’ nuclear programs - intended as an exercise for students of non-proliferation techniques in preparing an inspection regime to prevent said hypothetical nation from producing a weapon.
Regards, C
Cernig, you can chime any day.
No, I’m in basic agreement with you on this.
My apologies, Kevin, I misunderstood your intent. At least you’re not saying I’m a sleeper agent for the Iranian Press Agency :-)
BTW, Ive a post at Newshoggers with a link to the PDF of the IAEA’s report today, and a theory on squaring the circle of allegations and denials surrounding the infamous "smoking laptop".
Regards, C
Michael?
"with region I don’t take India, Pakistan and China in consideration"
Why not? Pakistan is a major player in Middle East politics due to it’s predominantly Sunni Muslim character and is currently testing nuke-capable missiles able to reach Tel Aviv. It already has IRBMs with the range to hit Dubai. I know the State Dept acts as if a different page in the Atlas means an entirely different dimension but there’s no need for the rest of us to make the same mistake.
Regards, C