Iran Now Has 6,000 Centrifuges For Uranium: Report

RSS stumble digg reddit del.ico.us news trust mixx.com

ALI AKBAR DAREINI | July 26, 2008 05:37 PM EST | AP

Compare other versions »

Show your support.
Buzz this article up.
Vice President and head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization, Gholam Reza Aghazadeh, addresses the media following talks with the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA, Mohamed ElBaradei, in Vienna, Austria, on Thursday July 24, 2008. These talks come less than a week after a meeting between a senior Iranian nuclear negotiator and the six world powers ended with no progress. (AP/Hans Punz)

TEHRAN, Iran — Iran's president said Saturday his country now possesses 6,000 centrifuges, a significant increase in its nuclear program that is certain to further rankle the United States and others who fear Tehran is intent on developing weapons.

The new figure is double the 3,000 uranium-enriching machines Iran had previously said it was operating.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's announcement, reported by the semi-official Fars news agency, comes a week after the U.S. reversed course in negotiations over Iran's nuclear program by sending a top American diplomat to participate in talks between Tehran and world powers.

The bend in policy had prompted hopes for a compromise under which Iran would agree to temporarily stop expansion of enrichment activities. But the White House said Saturday's development did not facilitate a resolution.

"Announcements like this, whatever the true number is, are not productive and will only serve to further isolate Iran from the international community," said White House spokesman Carlton Carroll.

Iran, which insists its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes, declared in April that it was aiming to double the 3,000 centrifuges it was running in its underground uranium enrichment plant in Natanz.

"Islamic Iran today possesses 6,000 centrifuges," Fars news agency quoted Ahmadinejad as saying Saturday in an address to university professors in the northeastern city of Mashhad.

Washington and its allies have been demanding a halt to Iran's uranium enrichment _ something Tehran has repeatedly refused to do.

Story continues below
advertisement

The July 19 talks in Geneva were aimed at trying to reach a deal with Iran, and in exchange, the six world powers _ the U.S., Germany, Britain, France, Russia and China _ would hold off on adopting new U.N. sanctions against Iran. The country is already is under three sets of U.N. sanctions for its refusal to suspend enrichment.

But participants in Geneva said Iranian negotiators skirted the freeze issue despite the presence of U.S. Undersecretary of State William Burns.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice later accused Iran of not being serious at the Geneva talks. She warned that Iran would face a fourth set of U.N. penalties if it does not meet a two-week deadline to agree to freeze suspect activities and start negotiations.

On Saturday, Iran's chief delegate to the IAEA, Ali Ashgar Soltanieh, lashed back at U.S. criticism of his country's role in the Geneva talks.

His U.S. counterpart, Gregory L. Schulte, told the British Daily Telegraph in an interview published earlier this week that Tehran's chief negotiator delivered a "rambling" discourse in Geneva instead of focusing on the talks.

Soltanieh told The Associated Press on Saturday that Schulte's comments "further damage his credibility and that of his country." He described the Geneva talks as "successful and constructive."

Ahmadinejad asserted Saturday that Iran's interlocutors had agreed to allow it to continue to run its program as long as it was not expanded beyond 6,000 centrifuges, state radio reported.

"Today, they have consented that the existing 5,000 or 6,000 centrifuges not be increased and that operation of this number of centrifuges is not a problem," state radio quoted Ahmadinejad as saying.

A report by the U.N.'s nuclear monitoring agency that was delivered to the U.N. Security Council in May said Iran had 3,500 centrifuges, though a senior U.N. official said at the time that Iran's goal of 6,000 machines running by the summer was "pretty much plausible."

In the enrichment process, uranium gas is pumped into a series of centrifuges called "cascades." The gas is spun at supersonic speeds to remove impurities. Enriching at a low level produces nuclear fuel, but at a higher level it can produce the material for a warhead.

The workhorse of Iran's enrichment program is the P-1 centrifuge, which is run in cascades of 164 machines. But Iranian officials confirmed in February that they had started using the IR-2 centrifuge, which can churn out enriched uranium at more than double the rate.

A total of 3,000 centrifuges is the commonly accepted figure for a nuclear enrichment program that is past the experimental stage and can be used as a platform for a full industrial-scale program that could churn out enough enriched material for dozens of nuclear weapons.

Iran says it plans to move toward large-scale uranium enrichment that will ultimately involve 54,000 centrifuges.

Ahmadinejad called the U.S. participation in the latest round of nuclear talks "a victory for Iran." In the past, the U.S. said it would join talks only if Iran suspends uranium enrichment first.

"The presence of a U.S. representative ... was a victory for Iran, irrespective of the outcome. ... The U.S. condition was for Iran to suspend enrichment but they attended (the talks) without such a condition being met," Ahmadinejad was quoted as saying in the state radio report.

On Wednesday, Ahmadinejad praised the U.S. participation at the talks as a step toward recognizing Tehran's right to acquire nuclear technology.

___

Associated Press Writer George Jahn contributed to this report from Vienna.

TEHRAN, Iran — Iran's president said Saturday his country now possesses 6,000 centrifuges, a significant increase in its nuclear program that is certain to further rankle the United States and o...
TEHRAN, Iran — Iran's president said Saturday his country now possesses 6,000 centrifuges, a significant increase in its nuclear program that is certain to further rankle the United States and o...
 
 

Comments
64
Pending Comments
0

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:
Page: 1 2 Next › Last » (2 pages total)
- Daniboy See Profile I'm a Fan of Daniboy permalink

Obama will use diplomacy with Iran. We can get rid of our military if Barack is our leader.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:01 PM on 07/26/2008
- andvoodoo2 See Profile I'm a Fan of andvoodoo2 permalink

We can never get rid of our military. A good offense is the best defense. But, at least we can get out of these BS "wars" the repugs created for the sole pourpose of making rich men richer. And, we can finally get back to treating the soldiers who make up our military with the respect they deserve.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:17 AM on 07/27/2008
- Ramirez See Profile I'm a Fan of Ramirez permalink

0bama would never use our military for offensive purposes.

I think you meant to say that "the best offense is a good defense."

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:09 AM on 07/27/2008
- jackstpaul See Profile I'm a Fan of jackstpaul permalink

Why to expect more countries will pursue nuclear technology, and what an attack on Iran will have on those imperatives:

1. Cost of oil and other energy sources. To the extent that the cost of oil increases, and hits a higher-than-previous minimum plateau, nations can be expected to seek cheaper energy sources, e.g. nuclear. Corollary: To the extent that other sources of energy, e.g. oil, will eventually run out, nations have incentives to seek other sources, e.g. nuclear.

2. To the extent the US and/or others attack nations far enough along in developing nuclear technology to pose a threat of having nukes soon-enough, nations have incentives to develop nuclear weapons--secretly--as a counterthreat to any potential attacker. See: N. Korea.

An attack on Iran will produce an unprecedented and enormous display of oil"s instability and insecurity as reliable energy source in market terms.

An attack will demonstrate a form of state-terrorism against other states and the already-understood reality that major powers will resort to violence to control other nations. Exponential increase in enmity re: US and/or others; increased desire to arm self to develop self-defense/retaliatory capacities.

Would the US/et al. attack every nation moving forward seeking nuclear tech? Would it serially attack Iran/et al. ongoing to prevent future nuke development? How could Iran-as-NOW be a singular exception re: those two issues to warrant an attack?

It would be extremely destabilizing long-term.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:16 PM on 07/26/2008
- Ramirez See Profile I'm a Fan of Ramirez permalink

Nuclear power is a marvelous technology, and nations should be encourage to develop alternate energy sources, including nuclear.

Nuclear weapons, however, are not to be allowed. The first step to ridding the world of nuclear weapons is a ban on new nuclear-armed states.

The nuclear weapons club is closed. If your application to the club is late, sorry. No new members.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:15 AM on 07/27/2008
- andvoodoo2 See Profile I'm a Fan of andvoodoo2 permalink

And if a country decides to join the club anyway, what do you propose?
Unless we ALL get rid of our nuclear weapons, I could hardly blame another country for wanting to be as armed as the rest of us.
Do I want rogue nations to have nuclear weapons? Of course not. Do I blame them for wanting them? Not at all.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:29 PM on 07/27/2008
- UnbiasView See Profile I'm a Fan of UnbiasView permalink

Obama better get in there quick and talk with them so Iran can jerk us around again like they always do.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:40 PM on 07/26/2008
- yappnmutt See Profile I'm a Fan of yappnmutt permalink

the usa needs a coupla pakistani quickie store owners to blow up a 7/11 so iran can be bombed for good reason.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:30 PM on 07/26/2008
- abouttime See Profile I'm a Fan of abouttime permalink

"On Wednesday, Ahmadinejad praised the U.S. participation at the talks as a step toward recognizing Tehran's right to acquire nuclear technology."

Let's recognize any country's right to aquire nuclear technology.
OR
Lets recognize no country's right to aquire nuclear technology.

Or, let the countries who want to make money from a country that has the right to aquire nuclear generation of electricty declare that profits are what is gong on here. - And who gets to produce low level fuel for what countries and who those countries should be. Is the decision to force a country to become dependent on others corporate/national dictates based on the threat of annililation and death and suffering of its population?
Follow the money....

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:42 PM on 07/26/2008
- UnbiasView See Profile I'm a Fan of UnbiasView permalink

That doesn't make any sense to me, it's like saying we should allow everyone to carry a gun no matter of their history or past record.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:42 PM on 07/26/2008
- tommybones See Profile I'm a Fan of tommybones permalink

Iran hasn't invaded another nation in over 250 years, which is the polar opposite of the U.S. and Israel, who have invaded and occupied nations continually for the past 60+ years. What "history" and "past record" are you referring to? Meanwhile:

In 1953, the CIA backed a coup that DEPOSED THE DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED PARLIAMENT, resulting in the INSTALLATION of a brutal DICTATOR (and CIA puppet) who REPRESSED the Iranian POPULATION while CATERING TO THE UNITED STATES multi-national corporations FOR THE BETTER PART OF 25 YEARS. It need not be mentioned how we would react if Iran backed a coup that overthrew our democracy, forcing us to live under a dictator for generations, while systematically stealing our resources. The years of repression led to a rise in Islamic fundamentalism. Extremism relies on anger and hopelessness as its greatest recruitment tool, and the decades of U.S.-sponsored repression took its toll on the people. The Islamic revolution removed the U.S puppet and resulted in the much talked about hostage crisis. Looking in context at the egregious U.S. meddling in Iran, can we really complain about the taking of our embassy in Tehran? Especially when one considers the fact that the President Carter, in the midst of the uprising, sent a General to the embassy in Tehran to help facilitate yet another military coup, to re-install the Shah. I'm not condoning the hostage taking, but merely putting into correct context.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:28 PM on 07/26/2008
- darthdarcy See Profile I'm a Fan of darthdarcy permalink

I have little doubt that the next four years will be much worse than even the last 8 years...

The attack upon Iran will change everything and destabilize the entire world eventually...not just the Middle East...

Our government as the Republicans showed this week repeatedly no longer about caring for our people but being in the business of War and spreading and causing wars for the sake of funneling money to the corporations who they do serve...

So there will be bloodshed and senseless destruction from here on in...

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:41 PM on 07/26/2008
- tommybones See Profile I'm a Fan of tommybones permalink

There is no doubt that the neocons want war with Iran. The war plans were already leaked to the British Press.

First, a blitz of cruise missiles and bunker-busters, many with "low-yield" nuclear payloads, targeting weapons systems, defense systems, government buildings, infrastructure, etc the likes of which make the initial "shock and awe" of 2003 seem like child's play. This will result in enormous casualties, mostly civilians, with many more likely over time (the Iraqi civilian death toll has surpassed one million as we speak), as well as creating an explosion of regional instability. At the same time, we would step up our hypocritical support of terrorist operations in southern Iran, in hopes of creating a coup that would install a "friendly" government; one who would keep the population in line, while catering to our corporate needs, as is the usual M.O.

Iran would attempt a relatively modest retaliation, targeting our soldiers in Iraq and possibly the State of Israel, causing untold numbers of civilian casualties, as well as thousands of American casualties.

Iran will also take the handcuffs off of the formidable Sadr militia in Iraq, which has been chomping at the bit to drive the U.S. out of the country. A battle with the extremely popular Sadr will enflame Shia passions nationwide, resulting in an explosion of anti-American backlash in the highly Shia country.

U.S. soldiers would "defensively" kill thousands of additional "liberated" Iraqi citizens, making a bad situation infinitely worse.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:52 PM on 07/26/2008
- tommybones See Profile I'm a Fan of tommybones permalink

It doesn't end there...

Israel will use the Iranian attack as a call to "defense" (in spite of the fact that Israel is pushing for a U.S. led attack against Iran more than anyone) and unleash an overwhelming attack both on Iran AND Lebanon, adding thousands to the civilian death toll. At this point, Israel will no longer be shackled by the constraints of world public opinion and will implement the already existing plan to annihilate Hezbollah and replace the elected government of Lebanon with a puppet government that will allow them to "solve" the "Palestinian refugee problem" once and for all. Israel will also use the window of opportunity to finish the ethnic cleansing of Palestine.

Turkey will launch their own invasion of northern Iraq against the Kurdish population, leading to tens of thousands of additional civilian casualties.

Saudi Arabia will have their hands full trying to ruthlessly contain the Shia rebellion that will no doubt erupt in their oil-producing region. Syria, Jordon, Turkmenistan, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Egypt will be flooded with refugees from Palestine, Lebanon, Iraq and Iran, causing a humanitarian crisis of biblical proportions. Millions will be at risk of starvation. Millions more will be homeless. Additionally, civilian uprisings in Pakistan will threaten to unhinge the already precarious Musharef regime, resulting in a potential coup within a nuclear-enabled state by radical Islamists.

Russia will use this window of opportunity to "clamp down" on "terrorists" in Chechnya.

And so on.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:49 PM on 07/26/2008
- cunuck See Profile I'm a Fan of cunuck permalink

Pakistan already has nuclear weapons and is far, far more unstable than Iran. I would be more worried about Pakistan. Iran has shown itself to be much more amenable to peaceful dialogue than Pakistan.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:16 PM on 07/26/2008
- UnbiasView See Profile I'm a Fan of UnbiasView permalink

Pakistan also isn't threatening to use them on other countries.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:43 PM on 07/26/2008
- tommybones See Profile I'm a Fan of tommybones permalink

Please provide a shred of evidence to back your inference that Iran is threatening to use nuclear weapons against "other countries." (the world would be a much better place, if only citizens used their brains instead of merely parroting erroneous propaganda given to them by their corporate overlords).

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:30 PM on 07/26/2008
- MourningDude See Profile I'm a Fan of MourningDude permalink

So is this WhyBarackObamaSpentSo much time sabre rattling over Iran during his Berlin speech?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:21 PM on 07/26/2008
- Destin See Profile I'm a Fan of Destin permalink

If Iran was smart, they'd keep doing whatever they feel they need to do, even if it provokes US and Israeli attacks. Why? Cause that's the quickest way to bring their enemies to their knees. Someone mentioned an attack would double the price of oil. LOL, shirley they must be kidding.

The only limit to the price of oil, would be the amount of money available to be hoarded in the entire planet in all currencies. Oil going up by a factor of 100x would not be a stretch. Plus, it's bound to make the other "superpowers" angry and prone to retaliate. ;)

And let's not forget, OPEC will be very upset. If you think the 1973 oil crisis where we had NO GAS AT ALL was bad when Nixon pissed em off, just wait til you see what they can do now. ;)

From 73-74, gas went only from 38 cents to 55 cents a gallon. All was punishment by OPEC against nations that supported Israel. ;) And that gas crisis was far more crippling than the minor 1979 oil crisis that everyone blames on Carter. That '79 crisis was only Iran, not all of OPEC. So if you thought that was bad, wait til OPEC cuts us off if we mess with Iran now. ;)

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:14 PM on 07/26/2008
- GZLives See Profile I'm a Fan of GZLives permalink

"Iran vehemently denies those allegations and says it is interested in enrichment only for its nuclear power program."

And the Holocaust cartoon contest was only because we wanted to share our great of sense of humor with our Jewish friends.

And that Holocaust denial convention we organized was only because the most studied event in modern history could always use more investigation especially by such experts as David Duke.

And the Anti Semitic art show we exhibited in Tehran was only because we just wanted to see what the Nazis who did the same thing in 1939 Berlin experienced ... hahahaha its all in fiun you know. We love the Jews.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:24 PM on 07/26/2008
- larry278 See Profile I'm a Fan of larry278 permalink

To make a long story much longer & much more boring: There are Iranians who are capable of crafting very delicate instruments, a great many of them. The guesses are that a rogue Pakistani scientist gave Iran Pakistan's nuclear technology. The Iranians are determined to have nukes. Don't be surprised if Iran makes the equipment needed to make nukes. North Korea may also share its nuclear secrets with Iran. Iran has oil to pay for secrets. To paraphrase Oppenheimer, you can't keep a law of nature secret. Oppie said that to Gen Groves who was boss of the Manhattan Project when Groves wanted iron clad assurances that A bomb technology would be kept secret. To repeat Iranians are very clever & determined.
It may prove to be difficult to destroy Iran's nuke labs & factories.
Yes, the Israelis & Americans are also very clever & very determined.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:29 PM on 07/26/2008
- Heavy See Profile I'm a Fan of Heavy permalink

And we didn't even get any mangos out of it.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:46 PM on 07/26/2008
- diboss See Profile I'm a Fan of diboss permalink

Let's all remeber that the nation of Iran has never attacked another nation.
This silly idea that the Iranians want bombs just so they can go on a suicidal attack against Israel is stupid fearmongering.

Why is it certain countries believe only they are responsible enough to have nuclear power. If the west wants Iran to stop enriching, I think all they have to do is 1) agree to supply Iran with enriched uranium useful for nuclear power and 2) Give Iran a security pledge that it will be defended if attacked.

I bet they wont offer 2. Then do we still have a reason to be surprised that Iran wants its own nuclear technology (and maybe bomb) to be in control of its own security.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:45 PM on 07/26/2008
- UnbiasView See Profile I'm a Fan of UnbiasView permalink

The past does not determine the future.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:49 PM on 07/26/2008
- LeftLeanWing See Profile I'm a Fan of LeftLeanWing permalink

The Iranians are probably just going thru the motions , so that Israel or the United States would attack the facilities and the Price of Oil would double.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:32 PM on 07/26/2008
- wadenelson1 See Profile I'm a Fan of wadenelson1 permalink

Is it possible that Iran having a few nukes would actually STABILIZE this region of the world?

We keep being told "They're madmen! They only want to wipe Israel off the map!"

Well, a few nukes won't do that. And a few hundred, well, then it turns into a MAD scenario. Nobody's THAT crazy.

Scientists can tell where a nuke came from from the fallout. So is proliferation REALLY an issue, if we (or Israel) could trace where a bomb / uranium came from? The supposed "Terrorist bomb?"

What would be the result of us, or Israel blowing away Iran's nuclear facilities, centrifuges, along with tens of thousands of their scientists, their wives and children.?

A blood-revenge lasting for decades?

It seems to me diplomacy is the only answer. We'll give you ANYTHING you want in return for shutting down the nuke program. F-15's, daisy cutters, AWACs, guarantees of protection for your oil markets, maybe even a solar energy program so you can sell power long AFTER the oil is all gone.

The other choices all seem lose:lose.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:22 PM on 07/26/2008
- MourningDude See Profile I'm a Fan of MourningDude permalink

EvenBarackObamaSaid that Iran having a nuke would be a "game changer", and is warmongering over them now.

If he would offer a responsible path to peace, I might even consider voting for the guy, but he isn't. His incessant movement to the right has placed him beyond many responsible Republicans on foreign policy. He sounds more like a Neocon than most people that libs call Neocons.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:23 PM on 07/26/2008
- tommybones See Profile I'm a Fan of tommybones permalink

Good point.

Let's logically look at the Iranian "threat". What would happen to Iran if they attacked either Israel or the United States, either directly or through a secondary agent with a nuclear weapon? The answer is simple; they would be wiped from the face of the earth in a few hours. Israel has the capability to do this all by themselves. The United States clearly could do it as well. So, an attack by Iran would essentially be a call for mass suicide by the Iranian government. That makes little sense. As nasty as the Iranian government can be to its own population, they haven"t given the slightest hint that they are in fact a suicidal nation. Additionally, a nuclear attack by Iran on Israel would result in the deaths of perhaps MILLIONS of their fellow Muslims and Arabs, and the utter destruction of many Muslim holy lands. They would make the occupied territories uninhabitable for the Palestinian people, thereby undermining the very spine of their anti-Israel stance. Why would this appeal to them? What would this accomplish?

What makes a lot of sense, in fact it's as clear as day at a mere glance, is the concept that Iran is only our "enemy" because they refuse to cater to U.S. and Israeli hegemony in the region. The "threat" is nothing more than a red herring, used to fool the American public into supporting imperial policies in the region under the guise of "self-defense."

    Favorite    Fl