Next week is important for Iran.

IAEA inspectors will have a look at the Qom enrichment site this weekend.  Good.  The surrepticious construction of this site badly undermined the position of those in the West who wish to find some way other than war to deal with Iran's nuclear program.  The site is the wrong size to be useful in enriching fuel for an electricity program.  It was hardened and placed inside a defended military base of the IRGC.  The simplest explanation for all that is that it part of a system for acquisition of weapons grade uranium.

At the same time the Iranian government seems to be struggling with an internal decision as to whether or not to ship its present stock of low enrichment uranium to some foreign country for fabrication into fuel rods for electric plants.  Why is there an internal struggle?  Is it because there are two parties; 1- The party that wants eventually to produce nuclear weapons and 2- The party that wants cheap electric power and better relations with the rest of the world (us).

The clock is running.  All options are still on the table.  This is not about justice.  It is about life and death for many.  pl

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/23/AR2009102303757.html?wpisrc=newsletter

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/23/AR2009102301853.html?sid=ST2009102400101

Comments

[N. M. Salamon]

Colonel:

as was stated by Iran, France's involvement in the production of 20% U for the medical reactor is unacceptable, for France has broken previous nuclear undertakings with IRan [and also provided Israel with nuclear bomb capacity].
I do wonder about your closing statement, Sir, whose life and death are on the line? the warmongers in Israel? USA? or the intended victims of the warmongers? If memory serves right all members of the famous 5+1 were warmongers in the last 100 years, while Iran had only tried to repel attacks by various members of the 5, and or their proxies. We know that Israel has had armed incursions to various countries, Iraq, Syria, Somalia, and who knows were else.

[J]

One has to wonder if the Israeli Likudniks and their Iranian hardliner counterparts aren't sharing talking-points. Both are like a bull in a china closet, and they sit on their brains more than they use them. And in the end both ordinary 'we-just-want-to-get-on-with-our-lives' Iranians and Israelis are the cannon fodder for the Israeli-Iranian nutjobs.

Next week is indeed important.

[Lysander]

Col Lang,

If these negotiations break down and Iran announces that it will enrich its own medical uranium to 20%, do you believe that will trigger a military response?

[William R. Cumming]

Question PL? There seems to be some open source evidence that the Quom site has been known about for several years? Is there a timeline on this and when did INTEL or IAEA conclude the site was a problem? Or did it just await Iran's announcement and disclosure? Offhand my guess is that at least 30 non-disclosed largely underground sites are actively working on Iranian WMD, but htis is just a guess, not even an educated guess. Iran is a large and largely mountainess country! Does the German government know of all the German contractors that have done work since 1979 for Iranian government and what those contracts were for? Do we (US) know what the Germans know?

[Pirouz]

Colonel, you're trying to interpret Iranian decision making through an American threat narrative. That just doesn't work.

For the Iranians, the international community has failed them many times in the field of nuclear technology. For example, they accuse ElBaradei of lying to them in the past, and they do have evidence to back up the claim. Previously, France has failed to live up to its nuclear agreements with Iran. And for well over a decade now, the Russians have failed to live up to their word on completing the Bushehr nuclear facility. Finally, earlier in the decade, the Europeans induced the Iranians to suspend enrichment, and contrary to popular Western conceptions, were quite content to drag out the negotiations indefinitely, effectively stalling Iran's nuclear program.

Based on previous experience alone, certain Iranian skepticism is well founded. And no, this does not necessarily include any military dimension into the Iranian decision making.

For some, purchasing without the complication of a LEU transfer (which down the road could be made hostage during negotiations) is preferable. For others, concentrating on MEU enrichment domestically is the way to go, there being no substitute for self-sufficiency. And finally, there are some who are arguing to accept the deal.

Hopefully soon, we'll know the result of their deliberations. But keep in mind, Colonel, no amount of American bullying will produce a Western desired outcome. So the "do this or else" mentality does not apply. The Iranians are mentally prepared for ramifications brought on by any military attack on its facilities. Are US interests in Afpak/Iraq and the global economy as well prepared, mentally or physically?

[Turcopolier]

pirouz

"Western threat narrative?" You must be an academic. Do you understand bombs? Do you understand dead kids buried under rubble that bounced twice? I am trying to warn you. pl

[Turcopolier]

WRC

Some phenomena are watched for decades. pl

[Turcopolier]

Lysander

If the Iranians continue to enjoy their resistance to the "Western Threat Narrative," war is probable. pl

[N. M. Salamon]

Pirouz:

No the USA and or EU and or OECD and or the rest of the world sans net oil producers are ill prepared to face a military blowback in case of Iranian war. One more oil shock and it is end of USA economy. The present price [$80/barrel] is on the knife edge of bringing on another recession [as did other oil s [IF total oil costs exceed 4-5% of USA GDP] shocks, last being 2008]. Marginal production costs of deep sea oil, oil sands etc exceed the present oil price, the required oil price is more than the USA economy can stand, especially as it is wasting untold energy resources [fuel, ammunition, logistics, etc] on her present [un]successful wars.

Please peruse article, and observe graph correlationg oil price and USA recession:
http://www.greenchipstocks.com/articles/peak-oil-recession/544

[William R. Cumming]

I believe Quom is also the center of Persian Islam but not sure.

[Fred]

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: ”…. Let me tell you that they are not able to do anything against the Iranian nation. ";

The President of Iran needs better advice.

[Pirouz]

Colonel, I don't know if you understood me correctly. By western threat narrative, I am referring to your attempt at perceiving Iranian intentions, by which you apparently seem heavily influenced by the current rhetoric that's now flowing unabated in the Western media. Simply put, from the Iranian perspective, it is not a question of acquiring a bomb versus not acquiring a bomb; rather, it's a question of fully protecting their nuclear rights under the NPT or giving up those rights.

Bullying will not work on the Iranians. All it does is make 'em stand their ground that much firmer. Surely the Bush years (post-Khatami) have demonstrated that.

So while it may comfort you to think that there is a real potential for the US-Israel entity to heap a nuclear holocaust upon the people of Iran, so be it. But may I suggest you're simply getting too caught up in the moment's rhetoric.

One more important item I neglected to state in my previous post. For Iran to receive its previous supply of MEU (from Argentina) for the Tehran research reactor, it took a whopping five years after IAEA approval for it to make its way to Iran. And you wonder why certain Iranians are skeptical of this latest offer?

[par4]

In a fair and just world the IAEA would also be in Israel checking their sites. This wink wink double standard stinks to high Heaven.

[Patrick Lang]

pirouz

"you apparently seem heavily influenced by the current rhetoric" You don't know me or you would understand that I am little influenced by anyone's rhetoric, including yours. pl

[N. M. Salamon]

Colonel:

I undersdtand war, seen it, not as much as you, and am opposed to it.

I am aware that there are insane voices in USA, such as mr. Bolton, ex UN rep of USA, who propose N-bomb treatement for IRan, all for being protective of Israel. It is possible that the likes of Mr. Cheney et al, all without militarty and or war experience might want to save the world from Nuclear Iran, by sending her back to the stone age [as re IRaq, afganistan, Somalia, and maybe Pakistan] with the help of brave pilots flying at 10 000 meters and dropping bombs, but the blow back might be too much to bear for Uncle Sam. One fire, and no more oil, especially not for the creditors of Uncle Sam, then the SH*T hits the fan! The bloddy french revolution, or the USA Civil War will look like a tea parties respectively [300 million guns in civil hands].

Your patriotism to the well being of USA is unquestionable. The only q form my point is whether your belief in the invincibility of USa power in attacking IRan is realistic enough with respect to possible outcomes. No one, but the Chinese leadership knows their reaction, which no doubt was already discussed without any input by any other sovereign nation, after all China has long history with many ups and downs, spanning over 3000 years.

I agree it is not a Question of Justice, except in the sense how China and Japan view it - as they control the short leash of USA finances.

Some public previewers of the near future clearly questioned whetehr the USA will go down peacefully, as did USSR in the 1990-s, or will, like a mad dog, take world down with themselves.

I trust the present admionistration, but not necessarely all the high ranking USA officers - only time [3-10 years at most] will tell.

[Robert in SB]

Pirouz,
Someday's your the bug; someday's your the windshield.
You must be a fascinating dinner guest.

[Patrick Lang]

Robert in SB

Another way to say that is that "some days you eat the bear, some days he eats you." pl

[Patrick Lang]

NSM

We would destroy Iran if we wished. What would happen to us after that is another question. That does not mean that some of us are not mad enough to do it. pl

[Andy]

Pirouz,

There are ways for Iran to protect it's NPT rights that don't give others at least the impression that Iran wants nuclear weapons. Iran's conduct and lack of transparency is feeding the likes of Bolton and bolstering his and the neocon's position.

[Grae Castle]

Col,
I'm sensing a taughtness in your post (and your comments to your commentors) on this subject. it's as if there's something afoot, something in the wind, something that's really troubling you about the current situation - whether seen or unseen.

perhaps i'm wrong, but if not that's a concern to me and perhaps others who follow you, as your perspective on this matter has typically been a refuge from msm (there's concern....but, saner, more rational heads will prevail...and all that).

it's an unusual tone so i'm asking you if is there's something you can address publicly that's brought this stark "life and death" observation forward?

are there sufficient mad men running around the corridors (of the capitals most ready) to go???

quel dommage!

[Turcopolier]

GC

Yes, there are enough mad men, and the Iranians are enabling them. p

[Babak Makkinejad]

All:

You guys best calm down and take a deep breath.

No one is going to war over a few thousand pounds of raw uranium.

The moment for war is passed - the most likely time for that was in 2006.

US-Iran strategic option is to settle the Cold War with each other or to continue with the cold war.

This is not an entirely Iranian decision.

[Jose]

IMHO, the problem I see is that certain Iranian factions benefit from open confrontation with the "Western Powers" versus others.

If we strike, we lose Iran and the Islamic World forever and we will have to live with the consequences of our actions.

If Dumbya was smart enough not to strike, I doubt Follbama will authorize an attack.

Only ones that would win would be the radical Muslims we are trying to defeat/contain and those who stand to gain from our mistakes.

[eakens]

Babak,

With all due respect we've already gone to war over uranium or plutonium which didn't even exist.

[William R. Cumming]

My guess is that there will be pre-emptive wars under President Obama, especially if he serves a full eight years. But not in Iran!
And by the way the structure of the Administration IMO has moved Pre-emptive Warfar up not down from the Bush Adminstration. Too long an explanation for this blog and comment. Iran's focus will be on S.Asia and E. Asia within a very short time. It's love affair with thwarting and dueling with the "Great Satan" is about to be overtaken by events elsewhere. The domestic US energy picture looks now as if it might be revolutionized by large natural gas discoveries and their development.The US culture, society, and political system was build on "cheap" energy and it is looking now like that may gone on the rest of this century. So much for the "Green Revolution" which still makes sense but not on costs.