IAEA Report to Reveal Details of Iranian Military Nuclear Program

Neon

ネオン
Donator
Mar 23, 2008
51,784
18,532
513
Kingdom of Charis
#1
Duck and cover, Johnny...

APNewsBreak: Diplomats say UN agency will reveal new info on alleged Iranian nuclear arms work

VIENNA — The U.N. atomic agency plans to reveal intelligence next week suggesting Iran made computer models of a nuclear warhead and other previously undisclosed details on alleged secret work by Tehran on nuclear arms, diplomats told The Associated Press on Friday.

Other new confidential information the International Atomic Energy Agency plans to share with its 35 board members will include satellite imagery of what the IAEA believes is a large steel container used for nuclear arms-related high explosives tests, the diplomats said.

The agency has previously listed activities it says indicate possible secret nuclear weapons work by Iran, which has been under IAEA perusal for nearly a decade over suspicions that it might be interested in develop such arms.

But the newest compilation of suspected weapons-related work is significant in substance and scope. The diplomats say they will reveal suspicions that have not been previously made public and greatly expand on alleged weapons-related experiments that have been published in previous reports on Iran’s nuclear activities.

It also comes as the drumbeat of reports about possible military action against Iran’s nuclear facilities intensifies.

Israeli President Shimon Peres said Friday that international community is closer to pursuing a military solution to the standoff over Iran’s nuclear program than a diplomatic one. The comments, from a known dove, assumed added significance because they followed unsubstantiated reports that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was seeking his government’s support for a strike against Tehran.

British media have separately cited unnamed British officials as saying London was prepared to offer military support to any U.S. strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

In Vienna, the diplomats — from IAEA member nations — asked for anonymity because their information was privileged. One of them said the material drawn up by IAEA chief Yukiya Amano will be in an annex running around 12 pages and attached to the latest of a regular series of agency reports on Iran’s nuclear enrichment program and other activities that could be used to arm nuclear missiles.

Previously undisclosed information contained in the annex, said the diplomats, will include:

— Intelligence from unnamed member states that a bus-sized steel container, located at the Iranian military base of Parchin is likely being used for nuclear-related high explosives testing of the kind needed to release an atomic blast. The agency has satellite imagery of the container.

— Expanded evidence that Iranian engineers worked on computer models of nuclear payloads for missiles.


Significantly, said the diplomats, these alleged experiments took place after 2003 — the year that Iran was believed to have stopped secret work on nuclear weapons, according to a 2007 U.S. intelligence assessment. But diplomats have told the AP that Tehran continued arms-related experiments in a less concentrated way after that date, a view reflected by recent IAEA reports that have detailed suspicions that such work may be continuing up to the present.

The annex will also say that more than 10 nations have supplied intelligence suggesting Iran is secretly developing components of a nuclear arms program — among them an implosion-type warhead that it wants to mount on a ballistic missile.

It says that two foreign “sources” — apparently countries or nongovernment groups within countries — have helped Iran develop a weapons design, without naming them. And it details how Iran bought “dual use” — peaceful or military — nuclear technology from the black market network of renegade Pakistani scientist A. Q. Khan, as well as alleged preparations for a nuclear weapons test.


The upcoming report is meant to ratchet up pressure on the Islamic republic to stop four years of stonewalling of IAEA experts seeking to follow up intelligence of such secret weapons-related experiments.

Iran denies such activities, asserting that they are based on intelligence fabricated by Washington. It also denies that its uranium enrichment program — under U.N. Security Council sanctions because it could manufacture fissile warhead material — is meant for anything else but making nuclear fuel.

In his previous report in September, Amano said he was “increasingly concerned” about a stream of intelligence suggesting that Iran continues to work secretly on developing a nuclear payload for a missile and other components of a nuclear weapons program.

He said “many member states” are providing evidence for that assessment, describing the information the agency is receiving as credible, “extensive and comprehensive.”

That report warned of the “possible existence in Iran of past or current undisclosed nuclear related activities” linked to weapons work. In particular, said the report, the agency continues to receive new information about “activities related to the development of a nuclear payload for a missile.”

Acquired from “many” member states, the information possessed by the IAEA is “extensive and comprehensive ... (and) broadly consistent and credible,” said the report.

The U.S. and its Western allies on the Security Council hope the upcoming report will be strong enough to persuade the IAEA board at its mid-November meeting to report it anew to the council. It was the board that first referred Iran to the Security Council in 2006 — a move that led to a series of sanctions punishing Tehran for its nuclear defiance.

If that fails, they would like a board resolution setting a deadline of only a few months for Iran to start cooperating with the agency’s probe — or face the prospect of renewed Security Council referral at the next board meeting in March.

One of the diplomats said that Iran was given a copy of the annex earlier this week, giving a chance for comment that would be included when the report is shared with board members. Iran initially refused to accept a copy of the report, he said, reflecting its rejection of the allegations.

A call requesting comment left on the cell phone of Ali Asghar Soltanieh, Iran’s chief delegate to the IAEA, was not immediately returned.
 

nikoloslvy

I wear my sunglasses at night...Anyone want fries?
Donator
May 5, 2003
4,937
121
753
#2
no one cares thanks to the lefts war on war in iraq.the propaganda has worked completely. any mention of any kind of nuclear threat will be regarded as bogus.
 

Party Rooster

Unleash The Beast
Apr 27, 2005
40,304
7,454
438
The Inland Empire State
#3
no one cares thanks to the lefts war on war in iraq.the propaganda has worked completely. any mention of any kind of nuclear threat will be regarded as bogus.
Yet they were mostly supportive of a buildup in Afghanistan. Come on, you're smarter than that.

I remember reading last week of some "report" that said a lot of guys weren't going home from Iraq, that a lot would be redeployed around Iran and we'd increase the presence of aircraft carriers in the area.
 

Motor Head

HIGHWAY TRASH REMOVAL
Jan 23, 2006
10,385
419
243
Land of hicks and rubes.
#4
Didn't somebody hack their system and put in a virus that destroyed most of what they were trying to accomplish?

I miss the days of Mutually Assured Destruction as a deterrent to the dickheads of the world.
 

Neon

ネオン
Donator
Mar 23, 2008
51,784
18,532
513
Kingdom of Charis
#5
Didn't somebody hack their system and put in a virus that destroyed most of what they were trying to accomplish?

I miss the days of Mutually Assured Destruction as a deterrent to the dickheads of the world.
Stuxnet. It mostly just delayed them a lot.
 

Hate & Discontent

Yo, homie. Is that my briefcase?
Aug 22, 2005
15,777
1,343
628
#6
Yet they were mostly supportive of a buildup in Afghanistan. Come on, you're smarter than that.

I remember reading last week of some "report" that said a lot of guys weren't going home from Iraq, that a lot would be redeployed around Iran and we'd increase the presence of aircraft carriers in the area.
Being moved to the Iran/Afghanistan border, maybe. We're still leaving Iraq.

Stuxnet. It mostly just delayed them a lot.
A few GBU-28s would have worked a lot better.
 
May 24, 2004
3,231
503
608
Queens, NY
#8
The sooner Israel (or whomever) deals with this problem, the better.

Hundreds of Katyushas randomly striking Israel beats a nice, big mushroom cloud over Jerusalem or Tel Aviv.
 

Neon

ネオン
Donator
Mar 23, 2008
51,784
18,532
513
Kingdom of Charis
#9
The sooner Israel deals with this problem, the better.

Hundreds of Katyushas randomly striking Israel beats a nice, big mushroom cloud over Jerusalem or Tel Aviv.
More likely a dirty bomb. I highly doubt Iran would overtly nuke Israel because they know Israel would respond in kind. However, they would absolutely sell some material to Hizbullah or Hamas or Al-Qaeda for a dirty bomb attack in Tel-Aviv or London or New York.
 

Hate & Discontent

Yo, homie. Is that my briefcase?
Aug 22, 2005
15,777
1,343
628
#10
Be careful what you wish for.
More likely a dirty bomb. I highly doubt Iran would overtly nuke Israel because they know Israel would respond in kind. However, they would absolutely sell some material to Hizbullah or Hamas or Al-Qaeda for a dirty bomb attack in Tel-Aviv or London or New York.
Or they sell a complete nuke to them and you see a mushroom cloud over Israel. The US is far less likely, IMO, simply because iran has no prayer of stopping us from retaliating, and we would wipe them off the fact of the earth. Israel would do the same, fo course, but Iran might think they'd have a chance of deflecting long enough, denying involvement, or the nuke disabling or stalling Israel's ability to immediately retaliate.
 

Neon

ネオン
Donator
Mar 23, 2008
51,784
18,532
513
Kingdom of Charis
#12
Good article Neon, but using bold font loses its value if you use it for over 70% of the post.:action-sm
Yeah. I generally read the article and highlight the important parts as I go. I didn't notice how much I bolded until I posted the thread.

Or they sell a complete nuke to them and you see a mushroom cloud over Israel. The US is far less likely, IMO, simply because iran has no prayer of stopping us from retaliating, and we would wipe them off the fact of the earth. Israel would do the same, fo course, but Iran might think they'd have a chance of deflecting long enough, denying involvement, or the nuke disabling or stalling Israel's ability to immediately retaliate.
I was thinking plausible deniability. I don't know how nuclear forensics work, but if some terrorist cell detonated a dirty bomb in the US, how easily could it be tied back to Iran on the basis of the actual nuclear material? I'd think they could disguise any money trail or something. Point is, they would be banking that the evidence wouldn't be strong enough to justify a merciless American nuclear strike on Iranian civilians.
 

nikoloslvy

I wear my sunglasses at night...Anyone want fries?
Donator
May 5, 2003
4,937
121
753
#13
Yet they were mostly supportive of a buildup in Afghanistan.
you know as well as i do that we will be bombarded with comparisons between the road to war ala wmd's in iraq and any reports about Iranian nukes.you will see the code pink wing out in full force giving us two options:

A there are no Iranian nukes or B they should be allowed to have them.

i have always maintained that the anti iraq war shpiel was simply anti war period.this was a move by the suicidal pacifist left regardless of the specific gripes.it didn't matter to the left what the actual case for war was it was more important for them to end it.

the righteous war in Afghanistan all the sudden isn't so righteous anymore now that the political football of iraq is non exsistent.turns out iraq wasn't the "eye off the ball" sine the real game was to end any american war.the dialogue,rhetoric and propaganda has become so coarse and loud that you now have republican candidates beating the peace drum buckets away from Afghanistan even though the party cant politicly (or in my opinion ethically) wash its hands of it.

side note folks: where is the outrage at the politically driven n.i.e. by certain elements within the cia that claimed iran wasn't working on nukes?
 

nikoloslvy

I wear my sunglasses at night...Anyone want fries?
Donator
May 5, 2003
4,937
121
753
#14
I remember reading last week of some "report" that said a lot of guys weren't going home from Iraq, that a lot would be redeployed around Iran and we'd increase the presence of aircraft carriers in the area.
gee wouldn't it be great if a certain country could be strong enough to deal with its own neighbors or at the very least give us a place close to the problem where we could have a base of operations to deal with issue...we heard you ...no wmd's.
 

nikoloslvy

I wear my sunglasses at night...Anyone want fries?
Donator
May 5, 2003
4,937
121
753
#16
you know as well as i do that we will be bombarded with comparisons between the road to war ala wmd's in iraq and any reports about Iranian nukes.you will see the code pink wing out in full force giving us two options:

A there are no Iranian nukes or B they should be allowed to have them.

i have always maintained that the anti iraq war shpiel was simply anti war period.this was a move by the suicidal pacifist left regardless of the specific gripes.it didn't matter to the left what the actual case for war was it was more important for them to end it.

the righteous war in Afghanistan all the sudden isn't so righteous anymore now that the political football of iraq is non exsistent.turns out iraq wasn't the "eye off the ball" sine the real game was to end any american war.the dialogue,rhetoric and propaganda has become so coarse and loud that you now have republican candidates beating the peace drum buckets away from Afghanistan even though the party cant politicly (or in my opinion ethically) wash its hands of it.

side note folks: where is the outrage at the politically driven n.i.e. by certain elements within the cia that claimed iran wasn't working on nukes?

donnjx2
I work in the US Air Force as a Spec Ops Intelligence Analyst, 27 SOW.
I'm pretty sure we read that IAEA report before many of you. Factually, what is the conclusive evidence that literally proves Iran is developing a nuclear weapon? Absolute zero. Compare this report to the faulty report that catapulted us into Iraq in 2003 - you may be surprised at the similarities.
Don't embarrass yourself by neglecting the facts. You can make Ron Paul sound funny, but you make yourself look like a fool.
A there are no Iranian nukes.


FreeAmericaRP2012
Join the revolution for freedom and liberty! Don't be fooled again! Also the IAEA says nothing what michele bachmann stated as fact, Ron Paul was factually correct. Also it's important that you realize that Ahmadinejad's statement of wiping Israel off the map is a mistranslation.
Imam (Khomeini) ghoft (said) een (this) rezhim-e (regime) ishghalgar-e (occupying) qods (Jerusalem) bayad (must) az safheh-ye ruzgar (from page of time) mahv shavad (vanish from).
I hope you come around to the truth.
A there are no Iranian nukes.

http://www.youtube.com/all_comments?v=QaZCwFNhDMA
 

Party Rooster

Unleash The Beast
Apr 27, 2005
40,304
7,454
438
The Inland Empire State
#17
i have always maintained that the anti iraq war shpiel was simply anti war period.this was a move by the suicidal pacifist left regardless of the specific gripes.it didn't matter to the left what the actual case for war was it was more important for them to end it.
That's all well and good but, how do you explain the fact that you said it was the the "suicidal pacifist left" that would be driving this. Seems more like Paultards to me. :action-sm
 

nikoloslvy

I wear my sunglasses at night...Anyone want fries?
Donator
May 5, 2003
4,937
121
753
#18
That's all well and good but, how do you explain the fact that you said it was the the "suicidal pacifist left" that would be driving this. Seems more like Paultards to me. :action-sm
You're smiley is not allowing me to respond adequately, please remove it.

Would it make you happy if I said the anti war crowd? Do you think i care where that voice comes from? Why is the label of the person spouting the bad position important to you? Its a bad position period. Stop trying to label me as a party hack. You want play semantics and label games?...fine I'll play.

I see Pauls anti war stance as a McGovernite leftist position. He's basically a leftist with right leanings. A Neoliberal if you will as coined by the American Spectator.


I correctly predicted what the talking points would be to a fucking T from day one.
 

Party Rooster

Unleash The Beast
Apr 27, 2005
40,304
7,454
438
The Inland Empire State
#19
Why is the label of the person spouting the bad position important to you? Its a bad position period.
Why is it important to you? You do it all the time.

Stop trying to label me as a party hack.
Stop doing hacky things. You're more informed than to resort to that kind of shit.

You want play semantics and label games?...fine I'll play.

I see Pauls anti war stance as a McGovernite leftist position. He's basically a leftist with right leanings. A Neoliberal if you will as coined by the American Spectator.
I see him as right wing with leftist leanings on two things only: Immigration and interventionism.

I correctly predicted what the talking points would be to a fucking T from day one.
Except a vast majority of the left are giving the current administration a current pass on this because he's one of theirs. It seems the loudest objection right now is from people that lean right on almost every other political plank.

I'm actually agreeing with you on most of your points with Iran and its nuclear ambitions, just trying to point out that there's people that lean left on other things who also agree with you and you piss them off when you lump them in with the Code Pink crowd.
 

nikoloslvy

I wear my sunglasses at night...Anyone want fries?
Donator
May 5, 2003
4,937
121
753
#20
I will relent with the caveat on the correct labeling of paul (i'm not gonna repost the american spectator article on paul as i'm sure you've read it by now).

I will step back and rephrase to "the anti war crowd" .