Iran Admits Running Second Uranium Enrichment Facility

September 25th, 2009 By: Michael van der Galien | Tags: , , , ,

natanz nuclear facilityWell, this certainly is shocking:

Iran is under three sets of UN Security Council sanctions for refusing to freeze enrichment. The officials said that Iran revealed the existence of a second enrichment plant in a letter sent on Monday to International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei.

It had previously said it was operating only one plant, which is being monitored by the IAEA.

Of course what’s shocking isn’t that Iran has two, not one nuclear ‘energy’ facilities but that it revealed this to the UN. Interestingly enough, although the mad Mullahs admitted a second such facility exists they did not reveal its exact locations, “when it had started operations or the type and number of centrifuges it was running.”

So why would Iran mention the second facility?

As far as I am concerned there’s just one likely explanation: Iran is closer to developing a nuclear weapon than most experts suspect.

With a little bit of luck we’ll discover the second location ourselves before Iran tests its first nuclear weapon by bombing Israel.

But hey, nuclear weapons… Jewish settlements… it’s difficult to determine which one of the two is more urgent. Isn’t it? - Obama.

When do you all think Obama will start to focus on actual priorities, before or after it’s too late?

UPDATE

Hot Air says that the secret facility is probably located near Qom; Iran’s holy city. As the blog’s Allahpundit explains this city is ground zero for Shiite theological scholarship. If Israel hits the enrichment plant, Tehran will scream that it’s an attack on an Islamic holy city to rally the public towards religious war.”

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • SphereIt
  • NewsVine
  • TailRank
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

  1. hass
    September 25th, 2009 at 18:31
    Reply | Quote | #1

    FACT: Under the terms of Iran’s safeguards agreement with the IAEA, Iran is only required to inform the IAEA of the existence of a nuclear facility 180-days prior to the introduction of nuclear material into the facility, and not while it is merely under construction. In other words, Iran may be perfectly within its right NOT to have declared the facility earlier. See http://tinyurl.com/ycenhgd

  2. Jeb
    September 25th, 2009 at 22:09
    Reply | Quote | #2

    As far as I am concerned there’s just one likely explanation: Iran is closer to developing a nuclear weapon than most experts suspect.

    or maybe Ahmedinejad likes to grandstand.

    Hot Air says that the secret facility is probably located near Qom

    It appears to be closer to Eslamashahr than Qum.

    With a little bit of luck we’ll discover the second location ourselves before Iran tests its first nuclear weapon by bombing Israel.

    Can’t let the smoking gun be a mushroom cloud, right?

    Snark aside it is a troubling development, but must every development be an excuse for you to bash Obama? This was clearly in development well before he took office. Would it be reasonable to blame this development on Bush?

  3. Tully
    September 25th, 2009 at 22:32
    Reply | Quote | #3

    The idea that any US President is to blame for Iran’s ruling megalomaniacs acting like ruling megalomaniacs is a rather hollow one. Short of actual invasion or back-to-the-Stone-Age bombing, it’s tough to stop the Iranians from doing what they want to do within their own borders.

    That said, the point about Obama’s apparent priorities is well taken.

  4. Michael Merritt
    September 26th, 2009 at 03:47
    Reply | Quote | #4

    Coverage of Obama’s statements: http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN2550821720090926

    Obama pointedly declined to rule out the military option in dealing with the bitter standoff with Tehran but insisted he preferred to resolve it diplomatically.

    I guess if we’re going to compare Obama with Bush, I doubt he’d have said anything much differently.

    And, Russia may not be completely bought on sanctions, but the news I’ve seen is that they’re much closer to considering them than before. So, should things come to that on the Security Council, we’re in better shape than a couple months ago.

    We’re still building a missile defense system, and Khamenei is livid about that fact.

    I’m comfortable with the situation as it is right now.

  5. Doomed
    September 26th, 2009 at 04:04
    Reply | Quote | #5

    Heres the deal guys….Take it to the bank

    Obama Traded the missile shield for Russias help with Iran.

  6. mfellion
    September 26th, 2009 at 07:34
    Reply | Quote | #6

    It sure is funny the whining that is going around about Iran’s underground plant. Israel and American hawks say every week they are thinking of bombing the nuclear reactor and separation plant that is above ground. Not being completely stupid the Iranians build a separate underground plant that cannot be bombed. Now these same western busybodies complain that is a no no, violating some pac that Iran never signed. What hypocrisy! Israel has at least a hundred nuclear bombs and we said nothing. The US has thousands of bombs. The Iranians have been invaded once already by us after they complained our embassy was propping up the Shaw and his thugs. The truth is the Iranian Supreme leader said it would be immoral to use nuclear bombs and they were not building one. Why don’t we take the Iranians at their word and build on that to make sure we know they keep their word. Iran knows if they ever used a nuclear bomb against us or our allies Iran would cease to exist as a country. Iran’s oil will run out in 40 or so years. They have the means and the right to build nuclear reactors for power, lets get off their backs. We don’t have to like the thugs who run Iran. We don’t need to run the country to buy its oil. We just have to learn to live on the same planet with the Iranians.

  7. Michael Merritt
    September 26th, 2009 at 07:49
    Reply | Quote | #7

    Obama Traded the missile shield for Russias help with Iran.

    Maybe not:

    The United States had worked closely with France and Britain to corroborate the intelligence on the site, and kept those countries, as well as Israel, informed. But Obama administration officials said Russia and China were not made aware of the covert facility until this week.

    Obama personally briefed Russian President Dmitry Medvedev on Wednesday during a meeting at New York’s Waldorf Astoria Hotel. Afterward, Medvedev indicated for the first time that Russia would be open to harsher sanctions against Iran.

    The change in the plans was last week.

    I also wonder a little now even about Obama snubbing Brown on that meeting. He still might have been acting like an ass, but maybe Obama had bigger things to think about?

  8. Doomed
    September 26th, 2009 at 10:54
    Reply | Quote | #8

    NEW YORK (CNN) — Russian President Dmitry Medvedev met Wednesday with U.S. President Barack Obama, then signaled he could support sanctions against Iran over its efforts to develop a nuclear weapon

  9. Doomed
    September 26th, 2009 at 11:01
    Reply | Quote | #9

    As for the Russians and the Chinese knowing about these facilities?

    My guess is they are helping to build them. The Russians are signaling their intent to get on board the Obama freight train is a boost to the sagging Obama foreign policy all the while continuing their work on building these facilities in Iran.

    Why would they suddenly make such a dramatic shift in policy?

    Russia says it has scrapped plans to deploy missiles in a region near Poland after U.S. President Barack Obama canceled plans for a missile defense system in Central Europe.

    I think everyone underestimated the impact this shield was having upon Russia. Their gratitude is in outwardly at least appearing willing to help Obama and make him look good with his base.

    Will they actually do anything concrete? Highly doubtful but hey….everyone loves Obama right??

  10. Tully
    September 26th, 2009 at 17:56

    As for the Russians and the Chinese knowing about these facilities? My guess is they are helping to build them.

    Best bet is indirect help from China on design via the Norks, with Russia having the equipment contracts.

Comments are closed.

PoliGazette Comments Policy

PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree. Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors. Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.

(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should not be posted.

(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.

(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.

(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.

(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements. Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.

Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors by email only.