US cold war gift: Iran nuclear plant

[catmando]

We armed everybody over there back then.


chicagotribune.com >> Nation/World
U.S. Cold War gift: Iran nuclear plant
Now cited as evidence of weapons activity, facility was provided to shah's government

By Sam Roe
Tribune staff reporter
Published August 24, 2006

In the heart of Tehran sits one of Iran's most important nuclear facilities, a dome-shaped building where scientists have conducted secret experiments that could help the country build atomic bombs. It was provided to the Iranians by the United States.

The Tehran Research Reactor represents a little-known aspect of the international uproar over the country's alleged weapons program. Not only did the U.S. provide the reactor in the 1960s as part of a Cold War strategy, America also supplied the weapons-grade uranium needed to power the facility--fuel that remains in Iran and could be used to help make nuclear arms.

As the U.S. and other countries wrestle with Iran's refusal this week to curb its nuclear capabilities, an examination of the Tehran facility sheds light on the degree to which the United States has been complicit in Iran developing those capabilities.

Though the International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations nuclear watchdog, has found no proof Iran is building a bomb, the agency says the country has repeatedly concealed its nuclear activities from inspectors. And some of these activities have taken place in the U.S.-supplied reactor, IAEA records show, including experiments with uranium, a key material in the production of nuclear weapons.

U.S. officials point to these activities as evidence Iran is trying to construct nuclear arms, but they do not publicly mention that the work has taken place in a U.S.-supplied facility.

The U.S. provided the reactor when America was eager to prop up the shah, who also was aligned against the Soviet Union at the time. After the Islamic revolution toppled the shah in 1979, the reactor became a reminder that in geopolitics, today's ally can become tomorrow's threat.

Also missing from the current debate over Iran's nuclear intentions is emerging evidence that its research program may be more troubled than previously known.

The Bush administration has portrayed the program as a sophisticated operation that has skillfully hid its true mission of making the bomb. But in the case of the Tehran Research Reactor, a study by a top Iranian scientist suggests otherwise.

After a serious accident in 2001 at the U.S.-supplied reactor, the scientist concluded that poor quality control at the facility was a "chronic disease." Problems included carelessness, sloppy bookkeeping and a staff so poorly trained that workers had a weak understanding of "the most basic and simple principles of physics and mathematics," according to the study, presented at an international nuclear conference in 2004 in France.

The Iranian scientist, Morteza Gharib, told the Tribune that management of the facility had improved in the past three years. When asked whether sloppiness at the reactor might have contributed to some of Iran's troubles with the IAEA, Gharib wrote in an e-mail: "It is always possible, for any system, to commit infractions inadvertently due to lack of proper bookkeeping."



`This was not an oversight'

Jeffrey Lewis, an arms control expert at Harvard University, said bungling might be to blame for some infractions, but the Iranians clearly concealed major nuclear activities, such as building a facility to enrich uranium. "This was not an oversight," he said.

Another overlooked concern about the Tehran reactor is the weapons-grade fuel the U.S. provided Iran in the 1960s--about 10 pounds of highly enriched uranium, the most valuable material to bombmakers. It is still at the reactor and susceptible to theft, U.S. scientists familiar with the situation said.

This uranium has already been burned in the reactor, but the "spent fuel" is still highly enriched and could be used in a bomb. Normally, spent fuel is so radioactive that terrorists could not handle it without causing themselves great harm. But the spent fuel in Iran has sat in storage for so long that it is probably no longer highly radioactive and could be handled easily, the U.S. scientists say.

The fuel is about one-fifth the amount needed to make a nuclear weapon, but experts said it could be combined with other material to construct a bomb.

In an interview, Linton Brooks, head of the National Nuclear Security Administration, an arm of the U.S. Energy Department, said the U.S. would like to retrieve the U.S.-supplied fuel, but the top priority has been to get Iran to suspend its enrichment efforts.

Under the international nuclear non-proliferation treaty, Iran has the right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes. But the UN Security Council, saying Iran has failed to prove it is not building weapons, has demanded Iran stop enrichment by Aug. 31 or face economic sanctions. This week, Iran offered "serious talks" on its nuclear activities but did not promise to stop enriching uranium.

While Brooks downplayed the proliferation risk of the Tehran Research Reactor, some experts believe the facility is so important to Iran's nuclear program that it would be targeted in the event of a U.S. military strike on Iran.

"Its purpose is mainly advanced training and producing a cadre of nuclear engineers," said Paul Rogers, an arms control expert at the University of Bradford in England. "So it's one of the facilities that is really quite significant."

Exactly how significant is unclear. The Tehran reactor provided the foundation for Iran's nuclear program, but that program now consists of numerous other facilities as well. And over the years, Iran has obtained nuclear aid from various sources, including Russia and the black market network of Pakistani scientist A.Q. Khan. China also has supplied research reactors.

[catmando]

By Sam Roe
Tribune staff reporter
Published August 24, 2006

Most of the world's nuclear research reactors, which train students or produce radioisotopes for medicine, fall under IAEA restrictions. Agency inspectors have visited the Tehran facility several times in recent years. Iran says its nuclear program, including the U.S.-supplied reactor, is solely for peaceful purposes.

When arguing for tough penalties on Iran, U.S. officials have pointed to activities in the U.S.-supplied reactor.

In 2004, John Bolton, the State Department's senior arms control official at the time, told a congressional panel that Iran's covert nuclear weapons program was marked by a "two-decades-long record of obfuscation and deceit." He cited experiments in the reactor as part of the evidence.

Several months later, Bolton told another congressional panel that Iran had received technological assistance from companies in Russia, China and North Korea in an attempt to develop missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons.

Countries that provide Iran such technology "ought to know better," said Bolton, now the American ambassador to the United Nations. If foreign companies aid Iran, the U.S. "will impose economic burdens and brand them as proliferators."

What Bolton didn't note: America's role in Iran's nuclear program.

That role has complicated U.S. efforts to gain support for greater restrictions on Iran. For instance, the U.S. wants Russia to take a firmer stance on Iran's nuclear program and has been critical of Russian efforts to help Iran build a nuclear power plant.

But Russia has noted the U.S. had no problem providing Iran a research reactor and highly enriched uranium when it was politically expedient.



CIA helped restore shah

Those who defend the U.S. say it should not be faulted for aiding Iran in the past. "It's not the international community's fault for helping Iran exercise its rights in the past" to develop nuclear energy for peaceful uses, said Lewis, the Harvard expert. "It's Iran's fault for not living up to its safeguards obligation."

Iran's nuclear program can be traced to the Cold War era, when the U.S. provided nuclear technology to its allies, including Iran. In 1953, the CIA secretly helped overthrow Iran's democratically elected prime minister and restore the shah of Iran to power.

In the 1960s, the U.S. provided Iran its first nuclear research reactor. Despite Iran's enormous oil reserves, the shah wanted to build numerous nuclear power reactors, which American and other Western companies planned to supply.

Yet today, the U.S. argues that Iran does not need to develop nuclear power because of those same petroleum resources.

In 1979, when the shah was overthrown and U.S. hostages taken, America and Iran became enemies; Iran's nuclear power program stalled.

The U.S. refused to give Iran any more highly enriched uranium for its reactor, and Iran eventually obtained new fuel from Argentina. This fuel is too low in enrichment to be used in weapons but powerful enough to run the facility. To this day, the reactor runs on this kind of fuel from Argentina.

In 2003, shortly after IAEA officials inspected the U.S.-supplied reactor, Iran acknowledged it had conducted experiments on uranium in the reactor between 1988 and 1992--activities that had not been previously reported to the agency.

The IAEA rebuked Iran for failing to report these experiments and expressed concern about other activities at the reactor. These included tests involving the production of polonium 210, a radioisotope useful in nuclear batteries but also in nuclear weapons.

Inspectors also were curious why some uranium was missing from two small cylinders. Iran said the uranium probably leaked when the cylinders were stored under the roof of the research reactor, where heat in the summer hit 131 degrees.

When inspectors took samples from under the roof, they indeed found uranium particles. But inspectors did not think Iran's explanation about leaking cylinders was plausible.

Eventually, Iran acknowledged the missing uranium had been used in key enrichment tests in another facility.

[xer0xed]

lol, nice

[ironman1964bc]

Iran is a signatory of the NP Treaty, so they are entitled to have a nuclear reactor just like the other 35 countries who have them are. Iran has also passed every inspection with flying colors. All this war mongering is all about the worry that Iran will develop nukes 10 years down the road, there is no proof that they are actually doing that. Of course, when you have idiots like Col Hunt and Sean Hannity on Fox News every night foaming at the mouth over the annhilation of Iran's nuclear program, then people tend to get brainwashed.

In the mean time, no one seems to be raising a stink over the billions given to India to help with their nuclear program. India is one of the 3 countries that thumbed their nose at the world and didn't sign the NP Treaty which Iran did sign and has followed to the tee. Israel and Pakistan are the other 2 non-signatories of the Treaty. In fact, Israel has 400 illegal nukes, so even if Iran was to make a couple, do you really think they would be stupid enough to use them with 400 pointing right back at them, plus 3 nuke subs that Israel now has. Geez, no wonder Iran wants to arm themselves, wouldn't you?

And don't give me the excuse that the Iranian president said that Israel should be wiped off the map. That is not what he said. Save the lies and war mongering for Hannity.

The easy solution is to disarm Israel's nukes and even the odds, of course we all know that is not going to happen because Israel wants to keep their 400-0 advantage.

[RangerX]

Originally Posted by ironman1964bc

Iran is a signatory of the NP Treaty, so they are entitled to have a nuclear reactor just like the other 35 countries who have them are. Iran has also passed every inspection with flying colors. All this war mongering is all about the worry that Iran will develop nukes 10 years down the road, there is no proof that they are actually doing that. Of course, when you have idiots like Col Hunt and Sean Hannity on Fox News every night foaming at the mouth over the annhilation of Iran's nuclear program, then people tend to get brainwashed.

In the mean time, no one seems to be raising a stink over the billions given to India to help with their nuclear program. India is one of the 3 countries that thumbed their nose at the world and didn't sign the NP Treaty which Iran did sign and has followed to the tee. Israel and Pakistan are the other 2 non-signatories of the Treaty. In fact, Israel has 400 illegal nukes, so even if Iran was to make a couple, do you really think they would be stupid enough to use them with 400 pointing right back at them, plus 3 nuke subs that Israel now has. Geez, no wonder Iran wants to arm themselves, wouldn't you?

And don't give me the excuse that the Iranian president said that Israel should be wiped off the map. That is not what he said. Save the lies and war mongering for Hannity.

The easy solution is to disarm Israel's nukes and even the odds, of course we all know that is not going to happen because Israel wants to keep their 400-0 advantage.

Great post...

[1devil]

Originally Posted by ironman1964bc

Iran is a signatory of the NP Treaty, so they are entitled to have a nuclear reactor just like the other 35 countries who have them are. Iran has also passed every inspection with flying colors. All this war mongering is all about the worry that Iran will develop nukes 10 years down the road, there is no proof that they are actually doing that. Of course, when you have idiots like Col Hunt and Sean Hannity on Fox News every night foaming at the mouth over the annhilation of Iran's nuclear program, then people tend to get brainwashed.

In the mean time, no one seems to be raising a stink over the billions given to India to help with their nuclear program. India is one of the 3 countries that thumbed their nose at the world and didn't sign the NP Treaty which Iran did sign and has followed to the tee. Israel and Pakistan are the other 2 non-signatories of the Treaty. In fact, Israel has 400 illegal nukes, so even if Iran was to make a couple, do you really think they would be stupid enough to use them with 400 pointing right back at them, plus 3 nuke subs that Israel now has. Geez, no wonder Iran wants to arm themselves, wouldn't you?

And don't give me the excuse that the Iranian president said that Israel should be wiped off the map. That is not what he said. Save the lies and war mongering for Hannity.

The easy solution is to disarm Israel's nukes and even the odds, of course we all know that is not going to happen because Israel wants to keep their 400-0 advantage.

Of course Israel wants to keep it's advantage. Is this self serving? Yup. So what. Lots of countries violate international treaties. Lots of countries ignore UN resolutions. Lots of countries fail to follow the rules of engagement during times of war. Blah, blah, blah. This is the real world folks. Countries do whatever they can to maintain a strategic advantage. Sometimes one country's interests result in negative consequences for another. That's real life. Trust me if the roles were reversed Iran would be following the same strategy the US and Israel are.

[RangerX]

Originally Posted by 1devil

Of course Israel wants to keep it's advantage. Is this self serving? Yup. So what. Lots of countries violate international treaties. Lots of countries ignore UN resolutions. Lots of countries fail to follow the rules of engagement during times of war. Blah, blah, blah. This is the real world folks. Countries do whatever they can to maintain a strategic advantage. Sometimes one country's interests result in negative consequences for another. That's real life. Trust me if the roles were reversed and Iran would be following the same strategy the US and Israel are.

Another great post...

[etech]

Originally Posted by ironman1964bc

And don't give me the excuse that the Iranian president said that Israel should be wiped off the map. That is not what he said. Save the lies and war mongering for Hannity.

What about aljazeera. Are they lying and war mongering?
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exer...CE0E9957EA.htm

"Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has openly called for Israel to be wiped off the map."

How about the BBC. Are they lying and war mongering?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4384264.stm
" Iran leader defends Israel remark
Iran's president has defended his widely criticised call for Israel to be "wiped off the map".

Attending an anti-Israel rally in Tehran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said his remarks were "just" - and the criticism did not "have any validity".

His initial comment provoked anger from many governments, and prompted Israel to demand Iran's expulsion from the UN.

Egypt said they showed "the weakness of the Iranian government". A Palestinian official also rejected the remarks. "


How about the China Daily Are they lying and war mongering?
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/en/doc/...ent_266771.htm
" Iran parades new missiles daubed with threats to wipe Israel off map
( 2003-09-23 21:57) (Guardian)

Iran yesterday defiantly showed off six of its new ballistic missiles daubed with anti-US and anti-Israel slogans in a move sure to reinforce international concern over the nature of its nuclear programme.

At the climax of a military parade marking the outbreak of the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war, the enormous Shehab-3 missiles were rolled out painted with the messages, "We will crush America under our feet' and "Israel must be wiped off the map." "

The Scotsman.
ditto
http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=2152412005
"Iran president: Wipe Israel off map

Iran's ultra-conservative new president has broken his silence on Israel and declared the Jewish state was a "disgraceful blot" that should be "wiped off the map".

With these words President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad set himself a foreign policy course sharply at odds with that of his moderate predecessor.

Harking back to language used by of the founder of Iran's Islamic revolution, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who repeatedly called for the destruction of Israel, the hard-line president also called Israel a "fabricated" entity.

His fiery words were certain to further heighten tensions over Iran's disputed nuclear programme."

[MosesChrist]

Look no futher than FOX News.

[stevothedevo]

And they helped Saddam to power and armed him

And they armed and helped the Taliban to power.

Now they fight both - it's called creating a false economy in arms trading and gun running - and laughable 'foreign policy."

They assassinated Central American leaders, they armed contra cocaine dealers to remove governments...


And they wonder why they get a WTC attack.......how arrogant and naive.

[etech]

Originally Posted by stevothedevo

And they helped Saddam to power and armed him

The US helped a leader of the baath party to power. Saddam then took over from him, violently I believe. You always have to remember that many actions taken were in the context of the cold war and fighting communism. Stating a fact of an action taken without the context of why it was taken is usually misleading.

And they armed and helped the Taliban to power.

No, the US helped the mujahadeen(Afghanis) fight the Soviet invasion of their country. The US then left them on their own. The taliban then formed and took over in the power vacuum that was present.

Now they fight both - it's called creating a false economy in arms trading and gun running - and laughable 'foreign policy."

Considering that peace and trade has more benefits to the economy then strife and war I don't follow your premise. I have never understood the argument that rich and powerful men have to have a war to make money. There are many more safer and profitable ways of making money then stirring up war and terrorists.

They assassinated Central American leaders, they armed contra cocaine dealers to remove governments...

Remember that pesky cold war thing again please.

And they wonder why they get a WTC attack.......how arrogant and naive.

Bin Laden indicated that it was his anger at having US troops(infidels) in Saudia Arabia (the Islam holy land) that sparked his anger at the US. Of course the troops were left over from the first Gulf war when the coalition kicked Sadam out of Kuwait.


BTW, which mod did you piss off? CrazyTall can't handle this forum for me.

[ironman1964bc]

Originally Posted by etech

What about aljazeera. Are they lying and war mongering?
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exer...CE0E9957EA.htm

"Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has openly called for Israel to be wiped off the map."

How about the BBC. Are they lying and war mongering?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4384264.stm
" Iran leader defends Israel remark
Iran's president has defended his widely criticised call for Israel to be "wiped off the map".

Attending an anti-Israel rally in Tehran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said his remarks were "just" - and the criticism did not "have any validity".

His initial comment provoked anger from many governments, and prompted Israel to demand Iran's expulsion from the UN.

Egypt said they showed "the weakness of the Iranian government". A Palestinian official also rejected the remarks. "


How about the China Daily Are they lying and war mongering?
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/en/doc/...ent_266771.htm
" Iran parades new missiles daubed with threats to wipe Israel off map
( 2003-09-23 21:57) (Guardian)

Iran yesterday defiantly showed off six of its new ballistic missiles daubed with anti-US and anti-Israel slogans in a move sure to reinforce international concern over the nature of its nuclear programme.

At the climax of a military parade marking the outbreak of the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war, the enormous Shehab-3 missiles were rolled out painted with the messages, "We will crush America under our feet' and "Israel must be wiped off the map." "

The Scotsman.
ditto
http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=2152412005
"Iran president: Wipe Israel off map

Iran's ultra-conservative new president has broken his silence on Israel and declared the Jewish state was a "disgraceful blot" that should be "wiped off the map".

With these words President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad set himself a foreign policy course sharply at odds with that of his moderate predecessor.

Harking back to language used by of the founder of Iran's Islamic revolution, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who repeatedly called for the destruction of Israel, the hard-line president also called Israel a "fabricated" entity.

His fiery words were certain to further heighten tensions over Iran's disputed nuclear programme."

Ahmadinejad's speech was mis-translated. What he really said was that the Israeli regime or policies should be wiped out in regards to their treatment of their neighbors. Ahmadinejad also believes that all Jews should leave Palestine and go to Europe or the US where they would be welcome instead of occupying someone elses land. He doesn't condone mass murder or annhilation. The ironic thing is that Israel usually does. In fact, they would love to annhilate Iran but its OK for them to say that kind of stuff while other ME countries can't. I may be the minority, but I am more worried about the country that has 400 illegal nukes than a country that has 0. Russia wanted to annhilate us for 40 years but they knew they couldn't without getting wiped out themselves. What would have happened if we didn't have any nukes during those 40 years? This is why only 1 ME country having all the nukes is not a good idea, especially when they haven't signed any treaties and have shown in the past that they do what they want and thumb their nose at the rest of the world.

Even if you believe what Ahmadinejad said, that doesn't compare to some of the quotes that Jewish leaders have spouted over the years. There is a thread on that in this forum. If you want to get rid of the war mongerers, you would have to start withn bombing Fox News, not Iran. Fox News is in war mongering, annhilation mode just about every night.

What if China decided that we shouldn't have any nukes. Does that mean you think it is OK for them to bomb every silo and nuclear facility we have? Hell, we talk about doing it every day to Iran.

[stevothedevo]

Originally Posted by ironman1964bc

Ahmadinejad's speech was mis-translated. What he really said was that the Israeli regime or policies should be wiped out in regards to their treatment of their neighbors. Ahmadinejad also believes that all Jews should leave Palestine and go to Europe or the US where they would be welcome instead of occupying someone elses land. He doesn't condone mass murder or annhilation. The ironic thing is that Israel usually does. In fact, they would love to annhilate Iran but its OK for them to say that kind of stuff while other ME countries can't. I may be the minority, but I am more worried about the country that has 400 illegal nukes than a country that has 0. Russia wanted to annhilate us for 40 years but they knew they couldn't without getting wiped out themselves. What would have happened if we didn't have any nukes during those 40 years? This is why only 1 ME country having all the nukes is not a good idea, especially when they haven't signed any treaties and have shown in the past that they do what they want and thumb their nose at the rest of the world.

Even if you believe what Ahmadinejad said, that doesn't compare to some of the quotes that Jewish leaders have spouted over the years. There is a thread on that in this forum. If you want to get rid of the war mongerers, you would have to start withn bombing Fox News, not Iran. Fox News is in war mongering, annhilation mode just about every night.

What if China decided that we shouldn't have any nukes. Does that mean you think it is OK for them to bomb every silo and nuclear facility we have? Hell, we talk about doing it every day to Iran.

OMG - Someone with a brain finally enters the site!!!!
I predict that your truth and honesty will mean you are hated here. People here don't like the truth, only warmongering pro western jingoism.

[ironman1964bc]

Here is another good article from a good source*basically saying what a load of BS this latest war mongering is. It is just like the crap we all use to hear before we invaded Iraq.

http://www.informationclearinghouse....ticle14698.htm

[etech]

Originally Posted by ironman1964bc

Ahmadinejad's speech was mis-translated. What he really said was that the Israeli regime or policies should be wiped out in regards to their treatment of their neighbors. Ahmadinejad also believes that all Jews should leave Palestine and go to Europe or the US where they would be welcome instead of occupying someone elses land. He doesn't condone mass murder or annhilation. The ironic thing is that Israel usually does. In fact, they would love to annhilate Iran but its OK for them to say that kind of stuff while other ME countries can't. I may be the minority, but I am more worried about the country that has 400 illegal nukes than a country that has 0. Russia wanted to annhilate us for 40 years but they knew they couldn't without getting wiped out themselves. What would have happened if we didn't have any nukes during those 40 years? This is why only 1 ME country having all the nukes is not a good idea, especially when they haven't signed any treaties and have shown in the past that they do what they want and thumb their nose at the rest of the world.

Even if you believe what Ahmadinejad said, that doesn't compare to some of the quotes that Jewish leaders have spouted over the years. There is a thread on that in this forum. If you want to get rid of the war mongerers, you would have to start withn bombing Fox News, not Iran. Fox News is in war mongering, annhilation mode just about every night.

What if China decided that we shouldn't have any nukes. Does that mean you think it is OK for them to bomb every silo and nuclear facility we have? Hell, we talk about doing it every day to Iran.

Do you really believe that aljazeera mistranslated what Ahmadinejad said?

Look at the date from the Chinadaily report. This is not something new. There is a consistent message from Iran. The leadership of Iran is fueling hate of the US and Israel. Granted it may just be a political ploy on their part. Blame all of the problems in Iran on those damn Jews and anyone who helps them, but that has been done before hasn't it. Remember what that led to. Of course Ahmadinejad denies that outcome also.


Where do you get the idea that Israel wants to annhilate Iran? They just don't want a country that sponsors terrorists to have nuclear weapons. That seems pretty reasonable to me.

You have to remember also. Israel has had nukes for a long time and has not used them. If Israel wanted to wipe nations off of the face of the map they could have done it long ago. They haven't. Your argument falls apart at that point.