Iran Nuclear Program
I) Introduction Iran started their nuclear program since 1979 and claimed that the purpose is “for peaceful” but the West believes that Iran is developing weapons.The UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency published a report which complained that it had been unable to “provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared material and activities in Iran” and that it continued to have “serious concerns regarding military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear program”.II) Content 1) The military force Iran wants to build deliverable nuclear weapons quickly and it may well want, at some points, to develop the bombs themselves.
This is deeply worrying to Israel ( tai vi sao). _ It also alarms nearby states, which fear Iranian power and could lead some of them – Saudi Arabia, Egypt, perhaps Turkey – to seek nuclear weapons of their own. Many fear that this would make the region which is not stable much more terrible. _ The possibility of an Iranian bomb comes closer with every revolutions of the centrifuges in its underground enrichment plants.
Israel’s director of military intelligence, General Kochavi, says that Iran has obtained 4 tones of uranium enriched to 3. 5% and another 100kg enriched to 20%. It could possibly enrich from 20% to 90% and thus, the uranium would be enough for up to four nuclear weapons. General Kochavi says that it would only take the Iranians a year to make a crude device and another one or two years to put together a nuclear warhead that would fit on a ballistic missile. _ For Israel, there is no more opportunity to effectively deal with the Iranian.
Although Iran has shown some intent to return to the bargaining table with the West, little progress made in the past and Iran continues expand its uranium-enrichment capabilities with the ongoing installation of centrifuges at Natanz and Fordow, which is known as its two enrichment plant. _ Although Israel likes the use of sanctions to make Iran stop its nuclear activities, there appears to be an implicit assumption within Irael that the military force would be required to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons.
Even the attack would be costly; Israel considers it to be a “price worth paying to remove what it considers to be an existential threat to the country”. ( Nuclear Fallout) 2) The Sanction It is true to say that If Iran were to gain a weapon only for its own protection, others in the region might then feel they need weapons too. “Saudi Arabia has said it will arm- and Pakistan is thought ready to supply a bomb in exchange for earlier Saudi backing of its own program. Turkey and Egypt, the regional powers, might conclude they have to join the nuclear club. ” A Middle East with five nuclear powers riven by rivalry and sectarian feuds, each would have its fingers permanently twitching over the button, in the belief that the one that pressed first would be left standing”. There’s no wonder that some people want a pre-emptive strike. However, military action is not the best solution for stopping the nuclear program in Iran. There are 3 reason why military force is not an option: First, even Israel was successful in solo missions against the weapons program of Iraq, in 1981, and Syria, in 2007; striking Iran would be much harder.
Iran’s sites are spread out and some of them demand repeated hits. Iran has a number of nuclear and related missile facilities – some with hardened features- that are widely dispersed across the country, with the most well protected facilities in Iran. If an attack were designed to damage Iran’s ability to construct a nuclear weapon, it would be necessary to destroy four main targets : the uranium-enrichment halls at Natanz and Fordow; the Arak reactor and Iran’s existing stockpile of enriched uranium. All of them located in hardened area which make them difficult to be destroyed in an air launched attack.
The Natanz underground plant is constructed of two-meter thick concrete walls and buried beneath estimated 10 meters soils, making it challenging target. The Fordow uranium-enrichment facility located in Tehran would be even be more difficult site for Israel to destroy since it is deeply buried in rugged mountain terrain. A successful air-launched attack on this facility would need to penetrate through a considerable volume of the mountain to collapse the facility’s interior space, which Israel munitions would struggle to achieve, and although any centrifuges operating during an attack would probably be destroyed from the ground shock, they ould be replaced relatively quickly if the facility survived and the required equipment were available. The biggest question is whether an Israel strike would have any impact on the centrifuge chamber at Fordow, said to be buried 80 meters deep. The answer is: Yes, there could be a 35% ~ 90% chance of the Israel weapons arriving at just the right place and at least one bomb would penetrate the facility if the Israel military use the F-15Is aimed the GBU-28 and GBU-27 and repeat hit several times. But even if things went off, Iran would retain the capacity to repair and reconstitute its program.
Even a successful Israel strike might thus delay Iran’s progress by only three or four years. An American attack might gain five years or even ten; it could drop more bombs on more of the sites, and much bigger bombs – its B-2s carry GBU-57, weighing almost 14 tones. An American attack thus remains a possibility, and will continue to be one up to the day Iran fields weapons. But America is unlikely to rush into a strike following an Israel mission. American has its own reason not to attack Iran now. Iran is a vast populous and sophisticated country, thus, it may have secret sites to escape.
Even if all its sites are hit, Iran’s nuclear know-how cannot be bombed out of existence. Nor can its network of suppliers at home and abroad. Perhaps America could bomb Iran every few years. But how would it know when and where to strike? The fail of American strike in Iraq and Afghanistan has demonstrated that a war could raise the threat of retaliation. The idea that a bomb is the only defense against an American enemy might become stronger than ever. There’s no doubt that America prefer to wait and that is one reason why it is seeking to hold Israel back.
Second, the West is implementing the sanction which is designed to get Iran stop enrichment and the nations concerned about centered on sanctions as their favored policy tool. It is true that sanctions have not achieved their strategic goal of changing Iran’s nuclear policy. Nor have they met tactical success in bringing Iran return to the negotiations nuclear program. But sanctions are helping to limit Iran’s ability to quickly assemble a nuclear weapon. Sanctions have helped to restrict Iran’s ability to employ its advanced centrifuges in larger numbers. The UN Panel of Experts Established Pursuant to Resolution 1929 concluded in May 2011 report that Iran has difficulty producing some of the critical “choke points” items that are necessary to sustain and advance its centrifuge enrichment program. ” The Panel of Experts’ also concluded that sanctions are blocking the trade of items related to nuclear and missile activity and thus slowing development of the programs. Iran’s missile program is dependent on foreign supply of items such as aluminum powder for production of fuel.
Previously, Iran has been purchased the powder item from China but in recent months, Chinese have tightened controls on such exports. As a result, the sanction made Iran to change suppliers, which in turn is considered as difficulties to missile engineers. Additionally, the sanctions are restricting Iran’s ability to use the international financial system in support of illicit trade. “Following the EU decision, there is only one Europe-based financial institution – the Paris branch of Bank Tejarat – is available for use of Iran today. More importantly, Iran is unable to conduct business in either dollars or Euros. It therefore cannot repatriate payment except through barter. “As of August in 2011, Iran had over $20 billion locked up in escrow accounts in China, $3. 4 billion in India and almost $4 billion in South Korea. “ Even though it is not a purpose of the sanctions to restrict Iranian trade overall, they are contributing to unemployment and inflation which are reported to be 15% in Iran. There also are reports of food shortages, hoarding and a drying up of investments.
Foreign reserves are running low and the economy is becoming distorted as legitimate trade shifts to the informal sector. Iran is facing a higher cost of doing business. However, America still wants to put stricter sanction which target Iran’s central bank by penalizing any foreign financial institutions doing business with it. As a result, the European Union has imposed an embargo on Iranian oil. Iran’s economy is mostly reliant on oil and gas exports, which account for 50% ~ 70% of the government’s revenues. Thus, it is estimated that Iran’s oil exports may fall about 60% of their former level. Finally, Conclusion