Comments on: More Time, Please: Ahmadinejad’s Legitimacy and Iran’s Nuclear Talks

By: Scott Lucas

Scott Lucas — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 15:13:35 +0000

Bill,

Your efforts much appreciated,

By: Bill Davit

Bill Davit — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 15:12:23 +0000

Scott,

I don’t believe we have to work throught the calculator Western agencies have already done that. It is why they are so insistent on getting 70 to 80% Iran’s stock. It is almost the exact amount of stock required for one bomb. As we have seen in the news Iran is balking at this and I believe so because they know it would remove the option of pursuing a bomb if they wanted. As I stated earlier read up on Mark Hibbs on the whole issue of nuclear proliferation. He had a reacent article at Nucleonics Week referenced in this article: http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/2505/reading-mark-hibbs-in-washington and in the comments section Mark corrected the author about Iran’s perceived difficulties of enrichment. The author quoted Mark as saying Iran had difficulties and Mark corrected him saying they don’t and even stated they don’t have an idea of why idea of why the idea of outside enrchiment came about. Interestingly alot of sites reported on this and it turns out to be false because Mark did not say what was reported. I will do some more digging and see what I come up with.

Thx
bill

By: Scott Lucas

Scott Lucas — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 08:28:13 +0000

WIMV,

Thank you for this. I would be very grateful for any reader who has the expertise and time to work through the numbers, using this calculator. Is Iran’s claim valid that the deal for 80 percent of its stock to be reprocessed in Russia an unnecessary oversupply of its medical research reactor? Or is it just Tehran’s political device to delay any agreement?

By: Megan

Megan — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 06:40:48 +0000

Islamic Republic Newspaper Front Page Headline says “Iran Rejects sending uranium outside the country”. Translation? No third party deal. The Islamic Republic newspaper is the one with Khomeini’s picture on the top left hand side in this link: http://www.peykeiran.com/Content.aspx?ID=8602

Without reading the entire article I cannot say if the headline accurately reflects the content.

By: whereismyvote

whereismyvote — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 18:14:09 +0000

Here is a calculator

http://www.wise-uranium.org/nfcue.html

By: Patrick Disney

Patrick Disney — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 14:30:49 +0000

My old high school math teacher would tell Iran’s state media: “Show your work!”

By: Scott Lucas

Scott Lucas — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 14:26:51 +0000

Patrick,

Much appreciated. The Iranian line, as put forward in state media this week, was that the 20% enriched fuel stock would be enough for 115 years for the medical research reactor. No calculations, on lines of Acton above, were provided.

By: Patrick Disney

Patrick Disney — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 13:46:56 +0000

Scott, you say Iran has serious objections to the deal, of which “The most straightforward is that the 80 percent of uranium stock to be shipped to Russia is far more than is necessary to keep Iran’s medical research reactor — the catalyst for this proposal in June — operating for the rest of its lifespan.”

But James Acton of the Carnegie Endowment disagrees. He says that the shipment will power the TRR for about year–and he does us the favor of showing his work. He says:

“According to NTI, the Tehran Research Reactor (TRR) requires 115.8 kg of 20% enriched fuel. We don’t know the average enrichment of the LEU at Natanz (the maximum is known to be 4.4%), so let’s assume it’s 4% (nice round number and all that). Let’s also assume that the ratio between the product and tails assays is 10, roughly the same as for enrichment from natural uranium to LEU for power reactors. I don’t know for sure this assumption is valid but I believe it is.

If you crunch the numbers (very straightforwardly) then you find that 1040 kg of uranium from Natanz is needed to produce one load of fuel for the TRR. If you assume the average enrichment of the LEU at Natanz is 3.5% then 1390 kg is required. Very much in the right ball park.”

By: Doug

Doug — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 11:09:20 +0000

There is the fantasy dialog of diplomacy and saving face, the convoluted twisted language of an agreement or treaty where both sides can declare “we won”, and then there is the truth. Any agreement, even if seeming to be temporarily successful, will have nothing to do with the truth. Come hell or high water, Iran will continue a secret program of some sort to make a bomb. They do not need or want fuel rods from France.
But I agree that even as sinister and dangerous the making of missiles with nuclear warheads is, and even though if the current path continues it will happen, it’s not now the main issue. At the moment, the political power struggle in Iran is more important. Not all the pawns on the chess board have been taken or moved into strategic places. Focusing on Nuclear War now is like making an early “Check” declaration in a chess game: It’s the sign of an amateur, and almost always leads to early defeat by the one making the challenge before rallying his backup pieces. The Knights are flashy, but watch out for the “Bishops” and don’t risk the “Queen” too soon.

By: Arshama

Arshama — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 07:23:49 +0000

Scott,

What was in your coffee this morning? Sometimes I have the impression that you like to provoke Iranian readers. And I really wonder about Western commentators, who still believe in sensible reactions from this regime, whose principal strategies are mocking, confusing and creating chaos throughout the world.
Meanwhile they even instrumentalize the pilgrimage to Mecca for these purposes:
http://aawsat.com/english/news.asp?section=2&id=18627
Give them more time, and you will receive your “Islamic” nukes.