Just a short note from Amman about the IAEA report on Iran …
In February, after the last IAEA DG report came out, I warned readers not to buy IAEA DG Mohamed ElBaradei’s analysis that “the pace of installing and bringing centrifuges into operation [in Iran] has slowed quite considerably since August…”
Quite the opposite. I hypothesized that Iran was accelerating installation by working on many cascades at once. That meant, in the short term, Iran might bring fewer cascades on-line, but that in the long-term they would bring cascades on-line in big bunches:
… I suspect the Iranians are actually scaling up their installation work. Here is my hypothesis:
Initially, the Iranians were building one cascade at a time, like a succession of small art projects. They had limited experience installing cascades and probably a small number of trained personnel. So, in the Board Reports, one would see a pattern: a few cascades, one or two under vacuum and a handful under installation. In the next report, the cascades under vacuum testing would have become operational, while a few more of the ones under installation had graduated to vacuum testing.
Now, Iran seems to have shifted to mass assembly. Installation on all the cascades in the second module has proceeded more or less simultaneously. So instead of small, but steady, increases in the number of centrifuges, I would expect the installation to resemble a step function in the future — with each increase being relatively large. Hence, the nine cascades about to brought into operation.
Looking at the IAEA report, and the chart I created, I think it is pretty clear that my hypothesis is correct: The Iranians are going faster now.
Blog Posts
Get E-mail Updates
Steady or accelerating, it’s for “peaceful purposes”.
“We have said several times that we want the nuclear energy for industrial and peaceful purposes. But they continuously say that Iran is seeking nuclear bombs. By doing this, they are hated by our nation,” Khamenei said (Jay Deshmukh, Agence France-Presse I/Google News, June 4).”
Could it be all this talk about the Iranian centrifuges is but fear mongering to create an artificial crisis to push the CTBT, FMCT & START+ and provide a basis for killing the NMD?
— Anon · Jun 6, 09:31 AM ·
“I hypothesized that Iran was accelerating installation by working on many cascades at once.”
So why are there less cascades under construction now?
Regards, Steve
— Cernig · Jun 6, 11:44 AM ·
from LA Times, June 6,‘09
IRAN:Good News and Bad News in UN Report on Nuclear Program
by Borzou Daragahi in Tehran
link text
— Méliès · Jun 7, 12:09 AM ·
The explanation of upper post is quite simple.
Iran installs elder IR1 centrifuges at Natanz, and the most advanced models at unknown places fos well known security reasons :)
— unknown · Jun 7, 04:11 AM ·
“Iran might bring fewer cascades on-line, but that in the long-term they would bring cascades on-line in big bunches:”
That’s actually quite standard for high risk projects.
Start with a small batch. (Development)
Add a larger batch when the small batch works properly. (Deployment, and refinement)Add multiple large batches after staff gets skills. (Incompetents were already kicked out, and people from the old batch can help with theirs experience.)
Considering IR-1 problems are not showing show stopper problems, they would probably install them into places where they are installed already. (Natanz) When they would retool theirs manufacturing lines, and when they would have a reliable new design, they would install the new design at new locations (hardened against air strikes) first, old installations would be updated last.
How much Iran pays per worker?
I would be more worried about lack of uranium for processing. A lack of nuclear fuel could drive Iran civilian program into a purely military (lets make few nukes, and keep them in a secure storage like Israel do) project.
— raghar · Jun 7, 03:22 PM ·
The question is, how many cascades have to come on line for how long before Israel’s red lines are crossed?
According to USIC, once the BoE was beginning to be prepped for fuel, it was attacked.
It is likely Israel will wait until the President’s plea runs dry at the end of the year before they take military action, or will they?
— J House · Jun 8, 11:19 AM ·
J House: While the US remains in control of Iraqi airspace, US agreement is required for an Israeli airstrike.
— kme · Jun 9, 03:36 AM ·
kme: I hope you’re right, but I’m not sure. The Isreali military has not lacked audacity in its operations. An Iraqi airspace incursion would be bold, certainly, but not inconceivable.
Let’s hope this remains in the realm of the hypothetical.
— Captain_Canuck · Jun 9, 11:48 AM ·
Kemp says he doesn’t quite get why Iran continues to install these so-called IR-1 centrifuges, given their performance problems.
Well this issue left the realm industrial viability long ago.
It’s election time in Iran and the fact that number of installed centrifuges has risen to 7,000 has been a frequent Ahmadinejad campaign slogan.
— K.Y · Jun 9, 03:05 PM ·
There is a reason why an Israeli attack has failed to materialize year after year.
Surely Israelis realize “more time” simply translates as “more difficult”.Is the expected Iranian retaliatory response to such attack, diminishing somehow?Is Obama led administration more inclined to give the green light now than Mr Cheney’s was then?Are Iranian missiles becoming less capable?Are Iranian air defenses becoming more porous as days pass by? Iranians are gaining valuable info while systematically proceeding with the enrichment process as the stockpile of LEU is growing fast.Israelis also realize no Iranian government (pro or anti-reform) will accept a reversal of enrichment rights in the foreseeable future.There must be a good reason why Israel is so vocal about its determination to attack Iran!
Where is the element of surprise?Did Israelis advertise their attack on Osirak?Why Israelis who so openly display a lack of confidence in any negotiations with Iran,do not proceed with other “options on the table”?Are Israelis worried about world’s public opinion?Since when?If you believe you’ll end up attacking anyway,what’s the point of announcing it?The public opinion has been prepared for it for years now.Is Israel worried about the world getting shell shocked if they do it?
There is a simple explanation for all that.An attack didn’t happen because it was determined by Israel that such attack will alienate Iranian people,destroy any chance of moderation in Iranian policies and most of all “any attack” would’ve all but guaranteed a NUCLEAR ARMED Iran!
People often fail to see that there are substantial differences between Osirak and Iranian enrichment program.While the Iraqi program (at the time) depended solely on Plutonium extraction from a large target (unfinished reactor).Destruction of this asset(reactor) meant a “dead end” for Iraq’s nuclear weapon program.Iran however can easily miniaturize the enrichment facilities ,kick inspectors out,withdraw from NPT (embolden by an enraged Iranian population) and produce a nuclear device in short few years.
People often (correctly) remark that such attack would set Iran’s program back 3,5 or even 10 years,what they fail to mention is,such attack would also guarantee a nuclear armed Iran after the 3,5 or 10 years!
There are really two possible option as far as preventing Iran from going nuclear.
1-An Iraqi style occupation of Iran.
2-Convincing, discouraging, persuading…of Iranian leaders from following a nuclear path for as long as possible.Who knows,maybe in 15-20 years a moderate or even pro-Western government could be in charge in Tehran.A government which may in a S.African fashion dismantle the whole Uranium Enrichment aspect of Iranian program.
This brings me to,“what’s the point for all this threatening language then?”.
Well with option 1 clearly unattainable, there is only ONE real option on the table for Israel.
Portray yourself as trigger happy,gun swinging fellow as much as possible.This may force US/Europeans to put a lot of limitation and inspection on Iranian nuclear program in the upcoming negotiations(to satisfy a seemingly trigger happy Israel).A war wary Iran may in fact cede to these demands hoping to end further escalations with Israel and the West.
— K.Y · Jun 9, 04:43 PM ·
No, the problem for Israel is that the success of an attack is not likely without US help and for Israel, a failed attack is worse than no attack at all.
— Andy · Jun 10, 10:01 AM ·
I only say this for Iran’s future:
Goodbye Iran,Hello North Korea!
— Mahyar · Jun 14, 05:18 AM ·