Iran's secret nuclear plant
James Forsyth 3:12pm
With the recession and Afghanistan, Iran often drops off the new agenda but the nuclear issue hasn’t gone away. The Washington Post’s article today about the recently revealed nuclear facility at Qom shows that the plant was almost certainly part of a nuclear weapons programme.
The paper reports that communication intercepts revealed that Iran only planned to place 3,000 centrifuges in the plant. It would take that number of centrifuges twenty years to produce enough low-enriched uranium for a civilian power plant. But 3,000 centrifuges would produce enough weapons-grade uranium for two to three bombs a year.
Qom is due to be inspected by UN inspectors on Sunday and now that its existence is know it is highly unlikely that the Iranians would continue to use it for military purposes. However, the existence of the Qom plant indicates that there are probably other secret facilities elsewhere in Iran. Any attempt to stop Iran’s clandestine nuclear programme will require knowing where those facilities are.
Previous
JohnW
October 24th, 2009 4:25pm Report this commentThis is the same "secret" facility that was INCLUDED in the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate that Iran was not developing nuclear weapons, is it not?
Ali Mostofi
October 24th, 2009 4:58pm Report this commentYawn! Yes Yawn describes this news. Ask any Iranian, that is an Iranian that puts Iranian cultural values above xenophobic theocratic ideologies, and they will tell you that the money for excessive "research", could have been better spend over ground on hospitals at places like Natanz, than on centrifuges underneath the towns.
Anyone who criticizes the theocrats is deemed to be pro-US or Israeli, in the liberal press of the world. So those that want non-violent regime change, who are more capable to run Iran, are never represented in the western press. The whole country are portrayed as followers of this rediculous regime. Moreover the regime pretends to have some moral authority in the middle east to persue its nuke phobia because there is a danger from the US forces in the area.
The solution is simple. Help Iranians to have better Iranians in power. Talk to them and let their voices be heard, not the mullahs.
Austin Barry
October 24th, 2009 6:15pm Report this commentAli Mostofi
Agree absolutely, but with the US expediting its requistion for bunker buster bombs and modified B1 bombers in which to carry them, and this week carrying out joint air defence exercises with Israel, I suspect that we are moving to the end game, particularly as that wimpish peacenik prize-winner with the collapsing popularity ratings may just want to prove that he is a tough guy. And, anyway, the terrorism-sponsoring Mullahs should be given a spank and put back in their place if their fellow Iranians haven't got the bottle to do it.
Ali Mostofi
October 24th, 2009 6:57pm Report this commentAustin Barry
The only way to solve this problem, is just like it was solved in the 60s, when we had a similar situation.
Imagine peace marches, massive peace marches in Iran, followed by intense questioning by good reporters of what the regime can do if there was mass general strike.
The people of Iran are shedding their "eye for an eye" recent morality for the more ancient one that pre-date the "turn the other cheek".
We all look up to the three wise men who were predicted by the great sage Jamasp thousands of years before of the coming of three Sayaoshants for each Age. The folks in Qom think it is their guy called Mahdi for the Age of Aquarius, etc.
This is what it's all about. Ancient Astrologers have written at great lengths about all this, and yet we all sit there bemused in the 21st Century.
Madness prevails. The answer is simple. Give the secular people of Iran some columns, and stop making these wackos look respectable in these columns. Ignore them, and they will soon be out of the picture.
JONNY
October 24th, 2009 7:38pm Report this commentSo we get Israel, which has sneakily contrived its own illegal nukes attacking Iran for trying to get them.
Ha Ha Ha Ha.
That's my Israel.
Bardirect
October 24th, 2009 10:21pm Report this comment3,000 centrifuge machines cannot enrich to 20% for a power plant but can enrich to 850% for a bomb?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enriched_uranium
Ewiak Ryszard
October 25th, 2009 12:05am Report this commentIran should not arouse concern. Georgia is the most dangerous flashpoint. The Bible says: "At the appointed time [the king of the north = Russia] will return back [will regain the influence, which it lost after the break-up of the Soviet Union] and come into the south [many indicate that this might be Georgia], but it will not be as the former [1921] or as the latter [2008]. For the dwellers of coastlands of Kittim [the West] will come against him, and he will be humbled, and will return." (Daniel 11:29,30a) Then Iran will be humbled also. "But ships will come from the direction of Kittim, troubling Asshur [Russia] and troubling Eber [inhabiting on the other side the Euphrates]." (Numbers 24:24a, BBE)
At that time, peace will be taken from the earth and the "great sword" - nuclear sword - will be used. (Revelation 6:4) However, it will be neither the great tribulation nor "the end of the world" (Armageddon). As Jesus foretold, that will be "the beginning of birth pains". (Mathew 24:7,8)
If the Heavens planned a full return of Russia (and much suggests this) the present economic crisis will deepen. Then also the European Union and NATO will not stands.
In the same way the earlier prophecy had fulfilled: "And (he) [the king of the north = Russia] will go back (to) his land with great wealth [1945]; and his heart (will be) against the holy covenant [state atheism]; and will act effectively; and turned back to his own land [the break-up of the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact, the return of Russian troops to country]." (Daniel 11:28)
Amadeus Plonquer
October 26th, 2009 3:47pm Report this commentWhat exactly is the point of having a 'nuclear deterrent' if we're not prepared to use it.
The only time in history such a deterrent was actually used was when Truman melted Hiroshima. And he had so much fun he did it again at Nagasaki a few days later. Japan has behaved very nicely ever since.
The question we should really be asking is not whether we should continue playing stupid games with Iran but where should we melt after Tehran? Does Iran have a Glasgow?
Back to top