What's new

US gearing up to attack Iran's nuclear sites.

Why all here thinks that US will go for a strike against Iran. That too in a situation where US is tired of the wars in Iraq and Afg in addition to their economic problems.
 
US has contingency plan for Iran nukes: Petraeus
Monday, 11 Jan, 2010



WASHINGTON: The United States has developed contingency plans to address Iran's nuclear ambitions if negotiations falter between the Islamic republic and Western nations, a top US general said Sunday.

“It would be almost literally irresponsible if CENTCOM were not to have been thinking about the various 'what ifs' and to make plans for a whole variety of different contingencies,” said General David Petraeus, who heads the US Central Command that oversees the Middle East, the Gulf region and Central Asia, AFP reports.

Petraeus declined to comment on reports that Israel, which says Iran presents an existential threat to the Jewish state, may attack its arch-foe's nuclear facilities.

But he told CNN the facilities “certainly can be bombed” even though they are reportedly heavily fortified. “The level of effect would vary with who it is that carries it out, what ordnance they have, and what capability they can bring to bear,” he added.

Without elaborating on the contingency plans, the general said it could be some time before Washington decides whether to execute them and that diplomatic efforts would continue in the meantime.

Tehran is at loggerheads with Western nations, which charge it is developing nuclear weapons under the cover of a civilian nuclear energy program. Iran denies the charges.

The United States is leading efforts to slap a fourth round of UN sanctions on Iran after it failed to meet an end-of-year deadline to accept a deal offered by five permanent UN Security Council members — Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States — plus Germany.

Iran gave the West until the end of January to accept its own proposal and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Saturday that Tehran will not back down “one iota” in the face of international pressure over its atomic work.

The top US military officer meanwhile said Iran has a “strategic intent” to develop nuclear weapons but urged a new diplomatic push to stem Tehran's nuclear drive, warning that a strike on the Islamic republic would be “very destabilizing.”

“I think that would be an incredibly destabilizing outcome and potentially generate a nuclear weapons race in that part of the world,” Admiral Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told CNN.

“I think an attack would also be, by us or by anybody else, be very destabilizing.

US officials have repeatedly insisted they are keeping “all options on the table,” which includes a military option, when it comes to Iran.

When it comes to Iran's alleged intent to develop nuclear weapons, Mullen stressed it was “important that leaders throughout the world do everything we can to make sure that, one, they don't consummate it and, two, we don't get to a point where an attack is imminent.”

Leading US Senator Joe Lieberman, an independent who usually votes with the Democrats, said economic sanctions were not enough.

“We have to do everything we can not just to put economic sanctions on Iran because of their development of nuclear weapons but to support the people of Iran, to cry out against the human rights abuses, the terrible repression of the demonstrators and just the freedom of average citizens in Iran.”

Mass protests broke out as a part of what has been dubbed the opposition “Green Movement” in June over hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's controversial re-election.

Opposition demonstrators also clashed with security forces during the Shia mourning ceremonies of Ashura in Tehran on December 27, leading to the deaths of at least eight people and hundreds of arrests, according to police.

Republican Senator John McCain, who lost his White House bid to President Barack Obama in 2008, said the public disenchantment with Iran's hardline regime evidenced by the protests meant “this regime's days are numbered.”

DAWN.COM | World | US has contingency plan for Iran nukes: Petraeus
 
No, it have been proved that iran has way to many uranium inrichment plants to just be making nuclear power.
Correct.

Uranium-235 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Uranium-235 is an isotope of uranium making up about 0.72% of natural uranium. Unlike the predominant isotope uranium-238 it is fissile, i.e. it can sustain fission chain reaction. It is the only fissile isotope that is a primordial nuclide or found in significant quantity in nature.
The U-235 isotope of uranium is the only one so far that we can induce a chain reaction. There are two types of chain reactions -- controlled and uncontrolled. The 'uncontrolled' chain reaction is the type that go ka-boom and can kill a lot of people.

Any controlled chain reaction needs only less than %20 enrichment level.

Introduction to Nuclear Power
Enrichment. The concentration of the fissionable isotope, U-235 (0.71 percent in natural uranium) is less than that required to sustain a nuclear chain reaction in light water reactor cores. Natural UF6 thus must be "enriched" in the fissionable isotope for it to be used as nuclear fuel. Light-water reactor fuel normally is enriched up to about 4 percent U-235. However, different levels of enrichment for a particular nuclear fuel application may be specified. The UF6 gas that remains has less than normal concentrations of U-235 in it and is therefore called “the enrichment tails”, “depleted uranium”, or simply “DU”.
So what happens in an 'enrichment' process is that the few U-235 quantity in any amount of natural uranium is extracted and stored. As more U-235 is accumulated in a concentrated form, the possibility of a chain reaction increases. The higher the concentration the greater the control mechanism required in order to prevent the chain reaction from becoming -- uncontrollable. The best way is to keep the concentration below %20. The above source shown that a light-water reactor can sustain a controlled chain reaction with only %4 concentration of U-235. The higher the concentration of U-235, the less mass of this chunk of uranium. That is why nuclear weapons warheads have %90 U-235. Same for reactors on nuclear powered warships...

Nuclear marine propulsion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Naval reactors are of the pressurized water type which differ from commercial reactors producing electricity in that:

* they have a high power density in a small volume; some run on low-enriched uranium (requiring frequent refuelings), others run on highly enriched uranium (>20% U-235, varying from over 96% in U.S. submarines (They do not need to be refueled as often[1] and are quieter in operation from smaller core[2]) to between 30–40% in Russian submarines to lower levels in some others),
The reason for this high level of U-235 concentration is limited space on missiles and warships. But on land, we have no such limitations, so for peaceful power generation of electricity, there is no need to go above %10 concentration, other than for research purposes. The IAEA is not comprised of fools. The inspectors found many evidences, technical and otherwise, that Iran is enriching U-235 above the usual requirement for supposedly 'civilian' power generation purposes. Greater than %20 enrichment level is for either nuclear propulsion or a nuclear warhead. Iran is nowhere ready to have a nuclear navy.
 
It is a bad news, US will start murdering again.
And it is useless to talk with US reasonally, they are superpower, the only way we can do to counter US is to make us strong.

i agree, and i think iran should build nukes!
 
i agree, and i think iran should build nukes!

Iran has every right to protect itself from any aggressor so does it posses the right to build nukes.

If yankeez can Jews can Hindus can whats so wrong with them?

Are they too dangerous ? even than americans who even eat their own allies!:hitwall::hitwall:

We must support iran's nuclear program for civil purposes but if it faces any threat it must build a nuke to protect its sovereignty.:pakistan:
 
The US is in no position to fight wars at multiple fronts. Especially, considering that wars in Afghanistan and Iraq haven't even reached any conclusion yet. Not to mention, the US economic situation which is in doldrums. A war against Iran will plunge the war in Afghanistan into disarray. Also, we can expect some fireworks from Iran as they'll not sit idle. Israel will be targeted indiscriminately. Something that the US can barely afford. Such contingency plans are only for domestic consumption and to please Israel. The Iranians on the other hand realize this very well and utilize their political chess game.
 
iran-and-israel-nukes-cartoon.jpg
 
US / Israel will NEVER attack iran,, I have been saying this repeatedly, mark my words.

They know very well that biggest divide among muslims is Sunni/Shia phenomenon, they will never make the mistake of removing this barrier & give muslims reason to unite ,,, This is just a "Noora Kushtee" (WWF Wrestling).

P.S. Iran has said it in BOLD letters that they will not make WMDs coz they go against islamic doctrine of NOT attacking civilians ...
 
U.S., European security officials discount Iran-Al Qaeda links

(Reuters) - U.S. and European officials are downplaying allegations that Iran and al Qaeda have recently stepped up cooperation in preparation for possible attacks on U.S. and other Western targets.

The officials, who are familiar with security issues, and private experts, discounted recent news reports about a possible new deal between Iran and what remains of al Qaeda's core leadership, now headed by Ayman al Zawahiri, long-time deputy to the late Osama bin Laden.

"This should not be overblown," said one U.S. official, who asked for anonymity when discussing a sensitive subject.

"This has been a very strange relationship for a decade or more," the official added. "We're not seeing any change in that relationship at the moment."

There have long been reports of on-again, off-again tactical cooperation between Tehran's leaders and al Qaeda. The two share an adversary in the United States, yet follow different sects of Islam. Iran is overwhelmingly Shi'ia Muslim, whose followers are viewed as heretical by al Qaeda's strict Sunni Muslims.

Several recent developments brought the question of improving relations between al Qaeda and Iranian government entities or proxies into the public spotlight. This month, the U.S. Treasury announced that it was imposing sanctions on Iran's Ministry of Intelligence and Security for human rights abuses and for "its support of terrorist groups."

A Treasury statement alleged that Iran had provided support to three violent militant groups: al Qaeda, the Lebanese Shi'a militia Hezbollah and the Palestinian group Hamas. U.S. and other officials and experts have long alleged close relations between Iran and Hezbollah and less-extensive dealings between Iran and Hamas.

The Treasury alleged that in the case of al Qaeda, the Iranian intelligence agency had "facilitated the movement of al Qaeda operatives in Iran and provided them with documents, identification cards and passports." The Treasury also charged that Iran had helped to finance and arm al Qaeda's affiliate in Iraq and to negotiate the release of Iraqi al Qaeda prisoners.

Britain's Sky News reported that Iran had reached a deal two years ago with al Qaeda's core leadership, led by Zawahiri, to provide militants with advanced explosives training, some funding and safe haven. This, in turn, sparked reports in other British and U.S. media that Iran's improved relationship with al Qaeda could somehow heighten the threat of possible attacks on the Olympic Games in London this summer.

The U.S. official stressed that Washington was not "being dismissive" of the possibility of Iranian-related attack threats or the possibility of some cooperation between Tehran and al Qaeda.

RELATIONSHIP SEEN AS FRAUGHT AND TENUOUS

But U.S. and European government experts said their best available information suggested that relations between Iran and al Qaeda's central leadership remained fraught and tenuous at best. While greater cooperation could not be ruled out, evidence of a real improvement in relations was thin, they said.

"The relationship between al Qaeda and Iran is best described as complicated," one U.S. official said. "The Iranians keep watch on what al Qaeda facilitators are up to. Sometimes the Iranians crack down on their activities; other times they don't. Al Qaeda moving fighters or money is one thing, while planning major terrorist attacks against the West from Iranian soil is probably something they won't allow.

"Al Qaeda is not necessarily friendly to Iran," the official continued, noting that for years Iran has reportedly held a number of top al Qaeda officials, including relatives of Osama bin Laden, in off-again, on-again conditions of detention or house arrest.

The official continued: "Al Qaeda is sort of like a nasty parasite to Iran. It feeds off its ability to operate in Iran, with or without the Iranians' approval. It is unclear if Iran knows exactly what to do with al Qaeda; when to let them conduct facilitation activities, or when to wrap them up. This policy fluctuates, but Iran should know, a parasite always damages its host and therefore it must be removed."

A European official said there is reason to believe that Iranian authorities have and do act as "facilitators" for al Qaeda elements form time to time, turning a blind eye as operatives move to and from Pakistan's tribal areas. The Iranians also arrest and recapture al Qaeda prisoners from time to time, the official said.

But the official said there was no evidence of Iran linking up recently with al Qaeda's fugitive senior leadership nor that they planned attacks together. Al Qaeda's senior leadership is "not in a position to do that and Iran would not want to cozy up to a Sunni terrorist group that kills Shia."

Bruce Riedel, a former CIA Middle East expert who has advised President Barack Obama on policy in Southwest Asia, said that he did not take recent reports about improved relations between Iran and al Qaeda very seriously. The history of their dealings, he said, remained "murky."

U.S., European security officials discount Iran-Al Qaeda links | Reuters
 

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom