April 9, 2007

Iran: We're Industrious

Once again, the analysts that predicted a 5-10 year development period for Iran before the mullahs could produce a nuclear weapon have underestimated the industriousness of the Islamic Republic. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced today that Iran has 3,000 centrifuges on line and producing fissile material -- a cascade that could produce weapons-grade material in less than two years:

Iran announced Monday that it has begun enriching uranium with 3,000 centrifuges, defiantly expanding a nuclear program that has drawn U.N. sanctions and condemnation from the West.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said at a ceremony at the enrichment facility at Natanz that Iran was capable of enriching nuclear fuel "on an industrial scale."

Asked whether Iran has begun injecting uranium gas into 3,000 centrifuges for enrichment, top nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani replied, "Yes." He did not elaborate, but it was the first confirmation that Iran had installed the larger set of centrifuges after months of saying it intends to do so. Until now, Iran was only known to have 328 centrifuges operating.

Iran can build a nuclear weapon by the time 2009 rolls around, and potentially sooner than that if the Iranians add more centrifuges to the cascade. Over the last couple of years, we have repeatedly heard that it would take the mullahs five years or more to master the technology and produce enough highly-enriched uranium. That story started falling apart eight weeks ago, when the IAEA abruptly changed its story on Iranian progress. Now the Iranians themselves have confirmed it.

The time frame for action to stop radical Islamists from developing nuclear weapons has collapsed. If diplomacy will do it, then the West needs to calculate the correct formula for ending Iranian research on nukes. If diplomacy won't do it -- and the EU-3 have tried it for years now -- then we need to start considering other options. Allowing the mullahcracy and Ahmadinejad to possess nuclear weapons with their publicly stated goal of wiping Israel off the face of the planet will be nothing short of suicidal.

Addendum: One of the reasons I linked to the USA Today article was its insipid headline: "Nuke program majorly expanded, Iran says". Majorly? Like, totally tubular, dude. I first thought that they pulled the term from a quote, and wondered when the Iranians had hired Valley Girls for spokespeople. Time to send the headline write back to English classes in order to improve his or her gnarly vocabulary. Grody.


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Iran: We're Industrious:

» Democrats Fracturing on Iraq Troop Funding from Ruminations of a Christian Conservative Geek
Well, that didn't take long. Senator Carl Levin (D-MI), Chairman of the Senate Armed Service Committee, is now contradicting what Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has said. WASHINGTON The chairman of the Senate Armed Services Comm... [Read More]

» Iranian Piracy/Brit Hostage Crisis Post-Mortem - Day 4 -- Update: Brits ban sailors from selling stories -- Iran blowing smoke about its nuke program? from Bill's Bites
Is Iran blowing smoke about its industrial level nuke program? Yeah, according to nuclear expert Jeffrey Lewis, writing at Danger Room. ... [Read More]

Comments (20)

Posted by bayam [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 9, 2007 5:56 PM

I think the Onion has the right idea- Bush should come up with an Iraq exit plan that goes through Iran. Let's withdraw from Iraq by cutting a swatch through Iran that includes Tehran. I'm guessing that might add 10 years to their nuke program.

If this country had succeeded in establishing a precedent for invading a nation, setting up a local government, and quickly exiting, Iran's behavior would be completely different today. Who would have guessed 4 years after the toppling of Saddam's statue that the US would be bogged down in a guerilla war with no end in sight...

Posted by RBMN [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 9, 2007 6:09 PM

Tehran has "taken the measure" of the "international community" and decided that they have nothing to worry about. I'd say that's a good guess.

Posted by docjim505 [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 9, 2007 6:09 PM

"Hello, 509th Bomb Wing? Operations officer, please.... Yes, I'll hold... Hello, Colonel Jones? This is W. I've got a little job I'd like for you boys to take care of..."


And, since I can't resist:

If this country had something like a really loyal opposition that spent its time thinking of ways to beat the terrorists instead of how to beat the president, Iran's behavior (and Sadr's, and Syria's, and North Korea's) would be completely different today. Who would have guessed that four years after the toppling Saddam's statue there would still be terrorists in Iraq, biding their time until the democrats in America can engineer an American withdrawal that will leave the country to their dubious mercies?

Anyway, why shouldn't Iran boast of its progress toward getting a Bomb? Dingy Harry and SanFran Nan have made it unmistakably clear that they'll never support an attack in Iran, so what has Ahmadinnahjacket got to fear from us?

Posted by Northern Neighbour [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 9, 2007 6:27 PM

Just a quick thought.

If the U.S. is willing to invade a country on the possible threat of there being weapons of mass distruction, what should the response be when a country, with open terrorist ties, brags about acquiring sufficient fissionable material to build a bomb and has a hate on for half the free world?


Posted by Carol_Herman [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 9, 2007 7:44 PM

We're short of information!

All we have, here, are what the press decides to publish. And, they are running the iranian commercials "claiming" to have found the cure for cancer. Ooops. Claiming to have found ways to build bombs bigger and better than any Israel has. If Israel said she had bombs. (She doesn't say.)

I'm more with the might being something you wouldn't "say" until you had to take them out. And, use some.

That's not iran's game!

The germans, by the way, CAN build bombs. Airplanes. Tanks. THAT'S THE ADVANTAGES HITLER TOOK! He did not pay one dime in "repatriation money" he was supposed to send to france and england, for causing WW1. He got away with it.

SO the first trick? Hilter didn't have to pay back the banks.

Sort'a like the trick the short-monkey-iranian-fella is trying. If it's not nukes. He's talking about a dead kid about to fly out of some hole. After a thousand years. It goes with other persian stories of carpet rides.

IF the iranians were really working with this volitile material, how come they haven't had an accident, yet?

Why are their discoveries presented like toothpaste commercials? So they sing that we have a yellow, and they know where it went. To mark roads, I guess. Or some such nonsense.

How will iran be hit, eventually? It all depends.

There's a huge, spill-over, population growing in India. Are they threw throwing flowers, yet?

Iran is not a master of the sea. SHe's got a very teeny, tiny, navy. And, if we wanted to? We could clear her out of her port. Meaning she wouldn't even have access to the sea.

Did she just pull Tony Baloney's pants down? Sure thang. It works for stripey pants diplomatic pants dancers, if you ask me.

While during WW2, the stinker, Montgomery only harrassed PATTON; Patton figured out a way, sometimes, from behind this cow's ass. (Until he ran into competitive problems with Eisenhower.)

Ike. He gave us 8 years just like the current dude is giving us. Full of heartburns. But at least the GOP mounted a "winnah."

Since 1952, all the new gadgets that have come along, have changed politics, some. From the days of small screens. TV's without remotes. Black & White days. To the more sophisticated stuff. WHich got replaced by computers. And, where today, the most seen repeats occur on U-Tube.

You want this Bush to do something? Why? The time's not right. And, the people think he's a goof-ball. Very UNserious about the real problems.

So Libby lost.

The pork in the Iraqi budget is still there. But the donks "took out the datelines." As if those lines stood a chance. Or weren't just a trickl.

IF Iran shoots a nuke? The results wouldn't be as soft as those that go to the starving North Koreans. And, they're still starving! People born there are getting smaller than the generation before. So, now you learn that Pigmies are a result of vitamin deficiencies. It effects stuff on an embyronic level.

And, if we do nothing at all for awhile? Our fleet is out in force around the Gulf. And, we even have better air bases, than just what we had at Diego Garcia; before.

The good stuff grows.

Or as the obvious would be, if it could be pointed out: WAITING JUST MEANS WE ARE KEEPING OUR POWDER DRY.

One reason Bush has ended up in trouble, is that four years, ago, after entering Iraq; he was supposed to turn the keys over to the House of Saud. There's been a lot of blood spilled on the ground. But from Chalabi, to George Tenet, to Paul Bremer; all those jerks came up cold.

Now? Bush may be trying out James Baker. (But he's been around from before. There's notebooks full of stuff, among intelligence agencies, about this corrupt man. More information than you can shake a stick at.)

And, so?

Getting to nukes isn't a process that scares the pants off ya, like the ads for horror movies, with aliens coming out of the sea. That's all bullshit.

You don't think Bush can disappoint you?

Maybe, for you, it will be something else?

Posted by conservative democrat [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 9, 2007 7:49 PM

So according to docjim its those dirty,traitorous,evil democrats who are responsible for Iran trying to get a nuke. Nothing to do with Iran itself. Bush wants to bomb Iran but the evil Pelosi is hogtying him. Always the blame game, just throw it at the dems, hope it sticks. I guess Bush having most of our military tied down in Iraq has nothing to do with the boldness of the Iranians. Nice try doc, please come up with another talkingpoint OTHER than "its the evil dems at work again." Thats just lazy bunk. Think Iran won't retaliate if we bomb them? Lots of our boys sitting next door in Iraq.Bush is clueless when it comes to foreign policy,trying to blame the dems for his ignorance is childish. Just accept the fact goopers, your following dubya right over a cliff.

Posted by Bill Faith [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 9, 2007 8:11 PM

Ed, your trackback formula still doesn't seem to be working. Apparently the "1234" in the post URL and trackback URL don't match. I just looked to see if my trackback took on a post I know I left one on and there were two trackbacks there, neither one from me and neither one relating to the post. Found my trackback on a diffferent post I hadn't left it on.

Posted by Carol_Herman [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 9, 2007 8:24 PM

I don't know about you, but it seems words are coming down the pike, describing things. That aren't actually in the history books, yet.

First, and favorite: ABNER DINNERJACKET

I think I'll invite this one in. It cuts to the comic book character of the monkey trying to appear "like hitler." But is more "hitler-lite-in-his-shoes," than anything.

And, then there's the British Wavy.

Look at what Tony Blair went and did. The guy's without a spine.

For what it's worth; England just showed us she's not prepared in the "training of troops" department. Or? The 15 people, who passed themselves off as sailors and marines, somehow bypassed Training #101. How'd they get involved at sea, so poorly trained? What happened "up the ladder?"

Ya know, there was a time training really mattered. But then you weren't dealing with "affirmative action" chaps, either.

What a parade, you're watching.

I just can't wait for the day ONE DIPLOMAT decides to call a halt to the lies. Till then? Abner Dinnerjacket works for me.

I learned something new today, and am sharing it. Can't wait to hear how the British Wavy gets set to tunes.

Posted by unclesmrgol [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 9, 2007 8:28 PM


I like your thinking -- trash the area and don't bother rebuilding. It's what the Democrats want to do in Iraq, and I bet it would work wonders in Iran, too.

Posted by Carol_Herman [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 9, 2007 8:36 PM

"Trash the area" actually has some reality in it. And, it IS what Abner Dinnerjacket really fears!

He doesn't fear England. He doesn't fear france.

On the other hand, he is well aware of what getting hit will look like, if he crosses enough lines; and sends the American Admirals into "tactics."

Tactics, were MISSING from Tony Baloney's playbook.

Not just with the recent British WAVY episode. But missing, as well, in Basra. When the Brits tried to show the Americans how to hand over "stuff" to the House of Saud. FAILED BIG TIME.

We can wait.

There's no need to "go in and direct traffic" in Tehran.

What's there now needs to be toppled.

You think only the Shah got toppled?

So far, with the religious nuts in charge, Iran's discovered the down side. Sans a middle class. That would come if iran decides to build this.

There's a big youth department, not buying into the mullah mania.

It's what you don't see.

That can sometimes reach fruition.

All you really know, so far, is that our music (of all things!) plays well in iran. (And, in that department the Brits have musicans. Just as we do.)

What happens when the hard metal meets the road?

I'll bet that Tehran has the fears that some of their bets aren't gonna play well.

Lebanon, for instance. Do you know why?

Lebanon had better days before Nazrallah "brought the troubles."

While most of the Mideast just waits around.

Abner Dinnerjacket is a jerk.

Lucky for him, though, that Tony Baloney Blair is an even bigger jerk.

Posted by unclesmrgol [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 9, 2007 9:16 PM

Northern Neighbour,

Maybe we should just learn from our "mistakes" and wait until the first mushroom sprouts before acting?

Posted by RBMN [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 9, 2007 9:29 PM

I think Iran may experience a rash of "industrial accidents" before they ever get close to assembling a warhead. And it could be at the hands of Israel, since they always seem to be number one on Iran's target list. Let Iran be on the receiving end of some surprise asymmetrical warfare for a change. See how they like it.

Posted by Neo [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 9, 2007 9:29 PM

Those zaney Europeans now thin that a little preemption might be a good idea.

It's funny about those folks who keep changing their minds.

The're so .. nuanced.

And, get this, Iran has a 10% stake in the world's largest uranium enrichment plant in France.

Well, at least we know who won't be heading up any preemptive attack to save .. the nuanced.

Posted by Only_One_Cannoli [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 9, 2007 9:31 PM

yo, captaindude

the usa today dudes made their title majorly less bodacious.

Posted by tony [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 9, 2007 11:13 PM

Iran is no more of a problem now then it was 15 years ago. They won't have a nuclear weapon for at least 10 years, and even if then. It takes 5 times the amount of centrifuges they now have in order to process enough for even one bomb, and they are currently under UN sanctions that will make it even harder to get more centrifuges for their program.

We are having a hard enough time in Iraq without even thinking of starting another war. We don't even have the man power now to fight on another front. Iran will not be like Iraq was. They will offer up an entirely different battle scenario for us.

Free Tibet

Posted by Carol_Herman [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 9, 2007 11:29 PM

And, what new lessons did you learn last week?

Are you still a sucker for the "iran has nukes and will rule the world, soon. For those who don't talk about aliens landing, I guess this is their new meat?

Iran's not close to having a functioning army. So, whether they have warheads ahead, or just warts and zits, it's not something that leads to world domination.

And, I learned a few things. Abner Dinnerjacket is a good name for the leader whose gonna show us his nuts. I mean his nukes. Sort'a like expecting Richard Simmons to get pants.

Or Borat's writer/director, to pick up pen. Or pencil. And, write the British Wavy.

You did learn, of course, that the sailors and marines that were captured were a bit under-trained, didn't ya? Sure, the gal had a gun. And, they had training in waving their weappons; hopefully not shooting at each other during "practice."

But for a sea operation, in waters considered somewhat drangerous; it seems the Brits have cut back on the actual training of troops that they do.

What ever happened to the word "trained" that appears in front of words like 'sailor,' 'solidier,' 'policeman.' 'Spy."

You really can lose a lot of people if you just dump them out there. And? Shouldn't credentialling them to be out there "halp" them somehow cope with a raiding party that wants to take them away?

I did read today that the British command decided the 15 returnees, with their goody bags, are not entitled to money. So there goes the lucra. Must feel like death to them now? Or how contestants on American Idol feel when they're "cut."

What Abner Dinnerjacket has elevated to a science, is the crap you can buy when you face college tests; and you buy your answers off the Internet. Dinnerjacket is buying his nuke plans from others.

Will his plans mature and work?

Will Dubai's?

With money, my mom used to say, you could buy honey.

Now, why would someone go out of their way to buy shit? Beats me.

But Abner Dinnerjacket gets more front-page space than pelosi. Hmm? Maybe, pelosi should start to threaten she's building nukes in her office? Everytime she farts, the alarms would go off to evacuate the building.

There are bigger problems out there.

Some of it has to do with the way democracy is always slow to react to rat's nests. Doesn't mean, in the last chapter, hitler won anything.

Heck, even the 15 Britsh WAVY's are coming up short, on the money end. Do you finally feel sorry for them?

Posted by jehu [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 10, 2007 12:32 AM

Iran is going to get nukes. Period. So it's important to understand that's really where the discussion begins, rather than where it ends. And the fact North Korea and Pakistan have nukes is equally, if not more alarming than the inevitability of Iranian nukes. It's hard for me to blame the Iranians... nuclear weapons make a country invasion-proof. Obviously there are risks inherent to proliferation, but our best bet probably would be to spend billions on developing really, really good radiological detectors to prevent a weapon from being smuggled into the US.

Posted by TokyoTom [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 10, 2007 1:06 AM

The time frame for action to stop radical Islamists from developing nuclear weapons has collapsed. If diplomacy will do it, then the West needs to calculate the correct formula for ending Iranian research on nukes. If diplomacy won't do it -- and the EU-3 have tried it for years now -- then we need to start considering other options. Allowing the mullahcracy and Ahmadinejad to possess nuclear weapons with their publicly stated goal of wiping Israel off the face of the planet will be nothing short of suicidal.

Ed, what are you smoking? This Administration has done everything but make us safe (and the world a safer place) - up until the point that it decided to cut its tremendous losses in North Korea and to sign up to Clinton's deal with Kim Jung Il AFTER allowing him to develop and test a nuke.

We invaded Iraq precisely because we knew there could be no Iraqi mushroom cloud. Focussing aggressively on a axis of evil with which whom we refused to have direct negotiations simply made North Korea and Iran redouble their efforts, while we hobbled ourselves in Iraq.

Alright, Bush has helped North Korea get nukes. Now you wanna help him to help Iran?

Who does any of this benefit, other than demagogues abroad and the "defense" establishment at home and in Israel?

Posted by docjim505 [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 10, 2007 6:16 AM

My, oh my! The moonbats are out in force on this one!

PROBLEM: There is reason to believe that Iran, a nation bitterly hostile to the United States, is attempting to manufacture nuclear weapons. Given their support of terrorism, this is bad new for everybody.

What to do?

1. Military action

2. Diplomacy

3. Nothing

4. Blame Bush because he invaded Iraq and didn't bomb North Korea

Serious people discuss the merits and flaws of options (1) and (2). Ignorant people naturally gravitate to option (3).

Moonbats can't resist option (4). As an aside, it amazes me that they have no trouble ascribing evil motives and / or outright stupidity to Bush, but can't seem to grasp that Ahmadenijad might have evil intentions of his own.

For those who believe that diplomacy is the way to go, please tell me:

1. Is Iranian possession of nuclear weapons acceptable to you?

2. What will we promise Iran in exchange for a verifiable halt to their nuke program?

3. What should we do if they refuse to stop their program?

TokyoTom wrote (April 10, 2007 01:06 AM):

We invaded Iraq precisely because we knew there could be no Iraqi mushroom cloud.

Yeah, that was kind of the idea: to get rid of Saddam BEFORE he got nukes. Because we didn't do that with Kim Jong-Poofy Hair and apparently won't do it with Iran, we're in the trouble with them that we are.

Posted by penigma [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 10, 2007 7:19 AM

Yes Jim,

If we merely goose-stepped to the whims of Mein Furher, we'd all be happy bunnies.

If we only showed those darn Mullahs that there isn't any independent thought, they'd be really, really scared, and they'd shrivel up into the cowardly little balls they really, really are.

Ed, why is it you left out the fact that nearly every expert considers the claims by I'madinnerjacket (sorry i can't spell his name) to be highly exagerated? More than that, considering Ahmadenijad is considered to be losing power to more moderate voices, why is it do you think he made this boast now?

Finally, put the "wipe Israel off the face of the Planet" in context please. As I recall, the comment was akin to "if Israel doesn't change it's approach toward the Palestinians, someday it will be wiped off the face of the Earth." Perhaps he said it elsewhere, but let's remember, Ahmadenihad is not either in total control, nor the singular voice, of Iran - and his comments were decrying the abusive relationship between the Palestinians and Israel - and that without change, violence between Israel and the Arab world, is inevitable.

Exageration seems to be the hallmark of extemists Ed, are you sure you want to be one?