US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta stated: The United States, and the president's made this clear, does not want Iran to develop a nuclear weapon. That's a red line for us. And it's a red line obviously for the Israelis so we share a common goal here. If we have to do it, we will do it.

Pelley: What is it?

Panetta: If they proceed and we get intelligence that they're proceeding with developing a nuclear weapon then we will take whatever steps are necessary to stop it.

Pelley: Including military steps?

Panetta: There are no options that are off the table.

Panetta: The consensus is that, if they decided to do it, it would probably take them about a year to be able to produce a bomb and then possibly another one to two years in order to put it on a deliverable vehicle of some sort in order to deliver that weapon. 60 Minutes 1/29/2012 www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-57367997/...tentMain;contentBody

Summary: US and Israel have a common no cross zone - Iran developing a nuclear weapon where war is not off the table. Estimated time 1-2 years plus 1-2 years to integrated into a delivery vehicle.

The question is - what constitutes proof that Iran is developing a nuclear weapon? Is it production of weapons grade uranium? Completion of the IR-40 heavy water reactor? Is it evidence of further implosion testing?

Given a timeframe of 1-2 years there can be a number of political shifts with sanctions and possible governmental shifts in Syria. This could also impact the situation in Iran.

Is it kicking out the IAEA inspectors? That's what North Korea did that signaled their turn to nuclear weapons. Plus, if I recall correctly, they announced it.

A retired general in the Israeli Defense Force, the Director of the Crown Center for Middle East Studies at Brandeis University, and a former high-ranking member of Israel's Foreign Ministry also have questions.

Panetta believes there is a strong likelihood that Israel will strike Iran in April, May or June — before Iran enters what Israelis described as a “zone of immunity” to commence building a nuclear bomb. Very soon, the Israelis fear, the Iranians will have stored enough enriched uranium in deep underground facilities to make a weapon — and only the United States could then stop them militarily. www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/is-israe...IQANjfTkQ_story.html

there are so many questions to start with - did Panetta really say this and why?

The article was written by the Washington Post - since then - no comment.
Panetta and the Pentagon both declined comment on the Post report. in.reuters.com/article/2012/02/03/nuclea...dINDEE81200Q20120203

Is this any great surprise? Earlier we reported that the Israel Defense Minister considered a war before nukes was better than a war with Iran with nukes (nucleardiner.com/archive/item/a-nuclear-...-nukes?category_id=6).

But no one can tell - is Israel going to go to war with Iran? And what will be the US options?
IF they do go to war - can they take out an adequate number of nuclear facilities to slow down Iran's nuclear program? Even the deeply buried targets? Or not? If the US were to support Iran - could the targets be removed?

If a war is begun - would it coalesce the general population around an otherwise unpopular government?

Iran's Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said "You see every now and then in this way they say that all options are on the table. That means even the option of war," . "This is how they make these threats against us" "Well, these kinds of threats are detrimental to the U.S" . "The war itself will be 10 times as detrimental to the U.S." during Friday prayers in Tehran. He said Iran will support any nation or group that fights against Israel.

"The Zionist regime is really the cancerous tumor of this region and it needs to be removed and will be removed," Khamenei said to a cheering crowd.

His comments came after stern comments Friday from Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak.
"Today, unlike in the past, there is a broad global understanding that it is crucial to stop Iran becoming nuclearized and that no options should be taken off the table," he said.
Barak said allowing Iran to continue on its path will be far more complex and dangerous in blood and money than cutting it off now.
"Those who say in English, 'later,' may find later is too late," he said.
www.cnn.com/2012/02/03/world/meast/iran-...googledmn_topstories

Per Khamenei: If the US were to go to war against Iran would it be 10 times as detrimental to the US?
Per Barak: is it better to go to war now than to wait?
Earlier Panetta said during the 60 minute interview that Iran is a year away from nuclear weapon and 2-3 years away from a viable delivery system - but Barak implies that Iran's nuclear capability is more imminent. Is this true? Or is it the fear that the new uranium enrichment plant will shorten the time to produce nuclear weapons material?

Graham Allison of Bellfer Center at Harvard: "A stockpile of uranium enriched at 20 percent shrinks the potential time line for breaking out to bomb material from months to weeks. In effect, having uranium enriched at 20 percent takes Iran 90 yards along the football field to bomb-grade material," gsn.nti.org/siteservices/print_friendly.php?ID=nw_20111007_1664

"We will not abandon our just nuclear course, even if we cannot sell one drop of oil," Rostam Qasemi told, according to IRNA. ibnlive.in.com/news/iran-says-oil-ban-wi...r-work/227257-2.html

USAToday: Qassemi, the oil minister, reiterated Iran's argument that the EU oil embargo will not cripple Iran's economy, claiming that the country already has identified new customers to replace the loss in European sales that accounted for about 18 percent of Iran's exports. Oil sales account for about 80 percent of Iran's foreign revenues.

"We've made the necessary planning to deal with that. We have friends in the world and will assist each other," he said. "We won't back down a single step under political pressures and won't give up our right position even if we can't sell a single barrel of oil." In contrast, he said, the ban would rebound on oil consumers.
"If Iran's oil is totally deleted from the market, then a terrible tension will be created. The costs will be intolerable. The option of imposing a total ban on Iran's crude exports is unenforceable," he said.

Western forces also have boosted their naval presence in the Gulf led by the American aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln. www.usatoday.com/news/world/story/2012-0...2956282/1?csp=34news

Question - is it tough talk or real? Can Iran continue with sanctions in place, reduced oil sales and the reduced value of their currency on the world market? Does Iran have other customers that would be willing to pick up the loss of sales to the EU? And if so - it will be VERY interesting to see who that could be.

Iran's nuclear program spans from uranium mining - to uranium conversion - to fuel fabrication - to their Tehran research reactor that uses fuel plates at 20% to the Arak IR-40 heavy water research reactor with natural uranium fuel rods (not yet in operation) - to uranium enrichment at several sites. They have a two path approach to potentially produce weapons-usable nuclear materials - uranium enrichment for HEU and the IR-40 to produce plutonium. Based upon IAEA reports, the Iranian's have not yet produced weapons materials.

Iran has the Bushehr nuclear power plant (BNPP) for commercial power production and the stated goal of producing fuel pins for the BNPP. The basis for Iran's nuclear program is broad and extensive. It is because they have developed such a broad and diverse base of capability that many believe that bombing Iran's program may slow them down but it will not stop them.

IAEA inspectors were not allowed to visit the Pachin military site or talk with an identified leader in their program during the week of Feb 2. If the Iranian's would have allowed this visit it may have helped answer some of the key questions concerning their research in the area of nuclear weapons. By denying the inspectors access it throughs additional doubts on Iran's motives.


Special thanks to James Fallows at the Atlantic - www.theatlantic.com/james-fallows/ We appreciate the link!

The question then is - would an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities slow their nuclear program or not? Is it worth risking a full out war in the Middle East if the outcome is uncertain? Or does this uncertainty over the outcome then dictate either a full war or no war?

US President Obama states: "We do have a pretty good bead on what is happening with their nuclear program," "Do we know all the dynamics inside of Iran? -- absolutely not. "One of the difficulties is Iran itself is a lot more divided now than it was, knowing who is making decisions at any given time inside of Iran is tough.

"We have done extensive planning over the last several years about all our various options... we are prepared to exercise these options should the need arise," he said, but stressed he was seeking a diplomatic solution to the showdown."

"My number one priority continues to be the security of the United States. But also, the security of Israel. And we're going to make sure that we work in lockstep, as we proceed to try to solve this -- hopefully diplomatically."
Obama said the Islamic republic was "feeling the pinch" of ever tougher sanctions imposed by the international community, and dismissed concerns that Tehran could retaliate by striking US soil, saying such a strike was unlikely.
"I've been very clear -- we're going to do everything we can to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon and creating a nuclear arms race in a volatile region," he said.
Per a Pre-Super Bowl interview with NBC as reported by AFP - www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/AL...896011e481c454233.21

The Iranian nuclear news continues - as Britain's foreign secretary warns that if Iran gets nuclear weapons it could turn the Middle East into a battleground for a new cold war, Hokayem from the Institute of Strategic Studies seeks Iran as only bombast, risk-taking and incompetence in Iran's recent moves, and the US national security advisor Donilon heads to Israel for continued discussions while the President's spkesman Carney told reports that sanctions are impacting the Iranian economy and therefore the Iranian regime.

The question continues - will Iran back away from their nuclear program - before Israel or another nation initiates war or before they establish a nuclear weapon capability? Here are the summaries for the news stories:

UK Foreign Secretary Hague: "[The Iranians] are clearly continuing their nuclear weapons programme," Hague told the Daily Telegraph. "If they obtain nuclear weapons capability, then I think other nations across the Middle East will want to develop nuclear weapons.
"And so, the most serious round of nuclear proliferation since nuclear weapons were invented would have begun with all the destabilising effects in the Middle East. And the threat of a new cold war in the Middle East without necessarily all the safety mechanisms. That would be a disaster in world affairs." www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/feb/18/ira...e-east?newsfeed=true


Emile Hokayem, of the Institute of Strategic Studies, sees only bombast, risk-taking and incompetence in recent Tehran's latest moves: "The Iranians may win something in terms of perception, but all in all they are on the losing side."
On paper, Iran's conventional military capabilities are no match for its enemies. But its forces are tough, battle-hardened and highly motivated: the naval arm of the Revolutionary Guard corps has experience in "assymetric warfare" using swarm tactics that combine small fast boats, missiles and mines that could play havoc in the strait of Hormuz.
"The fundamental problem is that Iran's friends and enemies both overestimate its power and influence," says Hokayem. "The west believes its own perceptions. Israel's officially endorsed existential concern about Iran makes Israelis feel more vulnerable and more nervous … than warranted, which is massively counterproductive. In Washington, the hawks exaggerate to create a sense of urgency. The Gulf states hype things, too. But if you look at the substance, Iran doesn't come across as a particularly powerful country. It's trying to find its place in the international system and it's failing. We need to rightsize the Iranian challenge." www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/feb/17/ira...israel-west-analysis

Carney: "The sanctions have had a positive — well, they've had a harmful effect on the Iranian economy, a disruptive effect on the Iranian regime, and that was the intention. We will continue to pressure an isolate Iran unless and until it changes its behavior," he said. news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/concerns-ove...sends-223359210.html

According to the Iranian oil ministry website on Sunday - Iran has halted oil shipments to Britain and France. If so, this is significantly earlier than the planned boycott by the EU to begin in July. The 27-nation EU accounts for about 18 per cent of Iran's oil exports.
(www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/02/19/i...clear-expansion.html)

Stopping oil shipments in the middle of winter could have a negative impact on the economies of Britain and France - the question is will they or not? Will the EU's plan to impact Iran's economy backfire and impact the EU's or will they be able to make up the reduction in oil from other countries including Russia or Saudi Arabia?

While humorously one of the nations that will benefit from imposing sanctions on Iran i.e. Russia is going to make higher profits due to increased oil prices. Definitely a win-win situation if you're Russia.

Russia is now the world’s largest oil producer, pumping about 10 million barrels of oil a day, slightly more than Saudi Arabia. Of this, Russia exports seven million barrels a day. Most of it goes to customers in Europe and Asia, although small amounts from Siberia make it as far as the West Coast of the United States. www.nytimes.com/2012/02/17/business/glob...kNND4xzfqqRWtlOhQhIQ

Perhaps it is time to consider Russian oil stocks again!

How would Israel attack Iran - NY Times reporter considers the difficulties that Israel would face if they were to attack Iran's nuclear facility. According to the Pentagon - it would be a huge and highly complex operation being far different then ISrael's "surgical" strikes on the nuclear reactor in Syria in 2007 and Iraq's Osirak reactor in 1981 (www.nytimes.com/2012/02/20/world/middlee...adlines&emc=tha2)

Given that Israel would want to strike Iran’s four major nuclear sites — the uranium enrichment facilities at Natanz and Fordo, the heavy-water reactor at Arak and the yellowcake-conversion plant at Isfahan — military analysts say the first problem is how to get there. There are three potential routes: to the north over Turkey, to the south over Saudi Arabia or taking a central route across Jordan and Iraq. (NYTimes).

According to this article the goal would be to stop uranium enrichment by bombing the centrifuge plants at Natanz and Fordo - ie so that the Iran's could not continue enriching to 20% or beyond if they were to decide to weaponize, and

the heavy water reactor in Arak - which is not yet operational nor has it been fueled - since once it is operational it can produce weapons plutonium that could be used for a bomb.

The yellowcake conversion facility provides the feed stock for the uranium enrichment (after it is converted to UF6) and for the fuel fabrication plant for the heavy water reactor which uses national uranium (i.e. uranium that is not enriched and can be used as-is). Natural uranium is around 99.7% uranium-238 and can be used as the fuel in a heavy water reactor without enrichment as the heavy water absorbs less neutrons and can therefore sustain a chain reactor.

Commercial nuclear reactors use uranium that enriches the amount of U-235 to 4-5% through the use of centrifuges or other means. Research reactors commonly use less than 20% U-235 although some still operate on enrichments of 70-90% U-235.

Plutonium-239, a weapons-usable material, is produced in nuclear reactors through the absorption of a neutron in uranium-238. Therefore heavy water reactors which use natural uranium also are good for producing weapons plutonium. This is the primary concern with Iran's heavy water research reactor.

That's from Richard Burt, speaking on behalf of Global Zero.

He's not the first to have said this.
Sinan Ülgen says that this is not the case for Turkey, particularly if the United States will give Turkey security assurances. He argues that Turkey wants civilian nuclear power but is much less interested in nuclear weapons. In fact, Turkey has signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the Chemical Weapons Convention, and the Biological Weapons Convention—the four most comprehensive treaties governing the spread of weapons of mass destruction (WMD). More than the United States has done.

Iran stops oil to France and UK - sounds bad but is it?

The 27-nation EU accounts for about 18 per cent of Iran's oil exports.
but

France only imports 3% of its oil from Iran 58,000 barrels/day and

The UK only imports less than 1% of their oil from Iran
www.energymarketprice.com 2/20/12

So perhaps this is more of a shot across the bow - a tit-for-tat.
But overall not so bad perhaps.

HAHAHAH Perhaps the best way to consider Iran - humor - enjoy www.xtranormal.com/watch/13077773/super-inspectors

In November, 2011 an IAEA report - based on what it called "credible" information - indicated that Iran had built in 2000 a large explosives containment vessel at Parchin to conduct hydrodynamic experiments. This week they were turned away from visiting the Parchin site. What does it mean?

ISIS writes:
A key issue for the International Atomic Energy Agency ( IAEA) is whether Iran has a parallel military nuclear program that can provide nuclear weapons if the regime decides to build them. Understanding that issue depends critically on what Iran’s military nuclear entities have achieved already. Newly aquired information sheds light on one of Iran’s most important and least understood military nuclear organizations, the Physics Research Center, which operated in the 1990s and was later consolidated into successive military nuclear organizations. The new information also demonstrates the incompleteness and inadequacy of Iran’s declarations to the IAEA about its past and possibly on-going military nuclear efforts. isis-online.org/uploads/isis-reports/doc...t_23February2012.pdf

The question then is does Iran denial of the IAEA inspectors to the Parchin site signal that they have something to hide or is it a military site that has no nuclear-related research and the Iran government is protecting their defense assets?

Likewise was the "credible" information credible? If so it implies that Iran had completed explosives testing possibly in support of a weapons program and that there is a branch of the government outside of their civilian atomic branch that is conducting the work. If the work was stopped in 2003 when the US invaded Iran - Part II - then as the US IC reports the worked ended and they no longer see a weapons program in Iran.

Confusing - you bet. It is assessed by the US IC Iran DID have a nuclear weapons program and stopped in 2003. The point the IAEA is trying to answer is - did Iran in the past pre-2003 have a weapons program and NOT declare it?

The main point is - its unclear what is true at this point.

David Albright thinks that the cleanup at Parchin is now complete. He presents before and after overhead photos of the site, with the changes called out.

ISIS reports: On July 10, 2012 Abdollah Nouri, an Iranian reformist politician and cleric, proposed that Iran hold a national referendum that would give the Iranian people the power to decide the future of Iran’s nuclear program. 1 He argued that recent economic sanctions against Iran combined with threats of war were starting to have detrimental effects. Publics around the world and in Iran should support Nouri’s call, despite the unlikelihood of the Iranian regime holding a referendum that would truly let the people of Iran decide the future of the country’s nuclear policy. Nonetheless, an Iranian national debate on the nuclear issue is long overdue, and Nouri’s call is a step in the right direction.
www.isisnucleariran.org/brief/detail/sup...r-irans-nuclear-pro/

Could this mean that sanctions do work? Or could work depending on what the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and the President choose next?

ABC News Reports: IAEA chief Yukiya Amano has urged Iran to give access, saying wrecking crews at the site have removed buildings, moved soil and carried out other activities that "may hamper our future verification activities." He also has said that information about Parchin indicates activities "may have been undertaken related to the development of nuclear explosive devices," adding that early access "is very important to clarify this issue."
abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/i...7052380#.UDU4aaBAUgd

"Nuclear Fantasy - Washington is fixated on Iran’s nuclear program, which has not produced a single weapon, but the full-throttle competition between Pakistan and India to acquire more sophisticated nuclear weapons has gone almost unremarked. India is on the verge of joining the elite nuclear "triad" club-states with the ability to survive a first strike by an adversary and deliver a retaliatory strike by land, sea, or air. Pakistan, meanwhile, has been testing its short-range “shoot and scoot” battlefield nukes.

“Both sides speak of the possibility of a limited nuclear war. But even those who speak in these terms seem to understand that this is fantasy—that once started, a nuclear exchange would be almost impossible to limit or contain,” writes Pulitzer Center Senior Editor Tom Hundley in an article featured in Foreign Policy. "The first launch would create hysteria; communication lines would break down, and events would rapidly cascade out of control. Some of the world's most densely populated cities could find themselves under nuclear attack, and an estimated 20 million people could die almost immediately.”" ( pulitzercenter.org/reporting/pakistan-nu...t=reporting/race-end)

Okay let me get this straight - what am I suppose to be worried about...?

Iran is coming up with a number of claims of sabotage for which they have provided no evidence. Photos of damage might be a place to start.

Iran has accused the Siemens company of planting explosive devices in nuclear equipment bought by Iran. Siemens says that it has sold no such equipment to Iran, so it could hardly have boobytrapped it. (BBC)

A somewhat stranger report is that last month Iranian troops found a rock near the Fordow plant that concealed equipment for transmitting information. When they tried to move it, it blew up. Reports have come from Iran and its enemies earlier about simulated rocks with monitoring equipment. Although numerous people have put forth ideas for such things, their existence seems unlikely. What would they be monitoring? There are several possibilities, like vehicle movement, but the operations of the plant would be much more difficult, very likely impossible.

Last week, at the IAEA meeting, Fereydoun Abbasi-Davani, head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, claimed that explosives had been used to cut electrical power lines to Fordow.

None of these claims has been backed up with evidence. Photographs would be helpful although probably not definitive. Showing us the alleged explosives from the Siemens equipment would not be entirely convincing; there's no way to know they actually came from the equipment.

The BBC report speculates on the explosives-in-equipment story:

I would add one other possibility. Abbasi-Davani last week suggested that the IAEA was involved with the sabotage of the power lines. It could be that Iran is ramping up claims as a basis for further limiting IAEA access or, in the worst case, insisting that the IAEA inspectors leave Iran.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said in an interview published on Monday he was willing to make a deal on limiting his country's stockpile of enriched uranium but expressed doubt in the West's willingness to negotiate in good faith. "We have always been ready and we are ready" to make a deal that will address Western concerns, he was quoted as saying in an interview with the Washington Post.

"We have given many sound proposals as well," the Iranian president said.

"Fundamentally, we have no concerns about moving forward with the dialogue, we have always wanted a dialogue. We have a very clear logic: We do believe that if everyone adheres to the rule of law and everyone respects all parties, that there will be no problems." www.ddinews.gov.in/International/Interna...eadlines/iranian.htm

Ahmadinejad says - we have always wanted a dialogue...
is it a face saving way of coming to the table given the impact of the sanctions?
Or is it cultural differences?
Or is it just another way to buy time while they continue to enrich uranium?

Either way, given the number of times the international community has come to the table it will be difficult as the "trust bank" is pretty low. But it may be an opportunity to begin the process of building trust as well.