nuclear-news

New Iran Nuclear Report Should Not Be Signal to Attack Bloomberg, By the Editors Aug 31, 2012  The latest report on Iran’s nuclear program  from the International Atomic Energy Agency  gives ample ammunition to Israeli leaders who argue that they need to bomb now. The report confirms what we have long understood, that Iran  is working to build a nuclear weapons capability.

But that’s all. The report doesn’t change the calculus about whether Israeli airstrikes would be the best way to stop Iran’s nuclear weapons effort, and it doesn’t say Iran is building a weapon.

The IAEA’s latest update makes four important things clear. First, that Iran has recently been putting less energy into developing its main uranium enrichment facility at Natanz, and a lot more into expanding production at the hardened bunker at Fordow, near the holy city of Qom.

Second, that the pace at which Iran is producing uranium enriched to 20 percent picked up sharply in February and has continued at that pace — the report has a handy graph showing that trend. Uranium enriched to about 3.5 percent is used for civilian power plants . Iran says it needs the 20 percent fuel for a medical reactor. But from that stage it’s a lot quicker to enrich to weapons grade, which is about 90 percent.

Both changes coincide with the period in which Israel  has been threatening to bomb Iran. It’s hard to determine which is the chicken and which the egg: Israel’s threats or Iran’s dash to build a bombproof production line ……

much remains unknown about Iran’s nuclear program — including other facilities. But then again, if their existence is unknown, they can hardly be targeted with bombs.

Apart from the U.S. electoral calendar, these are probably some of the reasons PresidentBarack Obama ’s administration insists there is still more time to pressure Iran into compliance using economic sanctions that only started to bite in July.

Nor does the latest IAEA report change any of the calculations we have mentioned before about the uncertain wisdom of airstrikes conducted by Israel alone. As General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Thursday, these would delay but not stop the Iranian program. Also, the repercussions of an Israeli attack are impossible to predict, and any gain from a delay would probably be lost to an all-out rush by Iran to weaponize after it ejects IAEA monitoring. An Israeli attack without international backing could also help Iran by unraveling sanctions.

None of that means Israel won’t act. If anything, Dempsey’s comment Thursday that he doesn’t “want to be complicit” if Israel chooses to strike suggests he thinks the decision could be close. That may be, but the latest IAEA report, as worrying as it is, does not amount to a trigger. The timing of an Israeli attack would remain political, linked to U.S. presidential elections, and that would be a mistake. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-31/new-iran-nuclear-report-should-not-be-signal-to-attack.html