Ex-nuclear official: Iran has material for 1 to 2 atom bombs
Olli Heinonen, one of the IAEA's leading experts on Iran, says 'this constitutes a threat.'
By Reuters Tags: Iran Iran nuclear UN IAEAIran has stockpiled enough low-enriched uranium for one to two nuclear weapons, but it would not make sense for it to cross the bomb-making threshold with only this amount, a former top United Nations nuclear official was quoted as saying.
 |
Former deputy director general of the IAEA Olli Heinonen at a press conference with a top Iranian nuclear negotiator in Tehran in August, 2007. |
| Photo by: AP |
In unusual public remarks about Iran's disputed nuclear program, Olli Heinonen, the former chief of UN nuclear inspections worldwide, told the French Le Monde newspaper that Iran's uranium reserve still represented a "threat."
Until he stepped down earlier this month for personal reasons, Heinonen was deputy director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency and head of its nuclear safeguards department, which verifies that countries' nuclear programs are not being diverted for military use.
A no-nonsense Finn, Heinonen was one of the UN agency's leading experts on Iran, which denies Western suspicions that its nuclear program is aimed at making bombs despite intelligence indications to the contrary, which he investigated for years.
In the interview published on Thursday, Heinonen said the Islamic Republic now possessed three tons of low-enriched uranium, material which can be used to fuel nuclear power plants, or form the core of a bomb if refined much further.
"In theory, it is enough to make one or two nuclear arms. But to reach the final step, when one only has just enough material for two weapons, does not make sense," Heinonen said in the interview just before he left office.
In comments translated from English to French, he suggested this was not sufficient to constitute a serious bargaining chip in any negotiations with the United States, the Islamic Republic's old adversary.
"But this constitutes a ... threat," he said, apparently referring to Iran's LEU stockpile.
Heinonen said the United States estimated that Iran would need a year to convert its low-enriched uranium to higher-grade material, adding that this was a not a "bad estimate."
Top Pentagon officials told the U.S. Congress in April that Iran could produce enough highly enriched uranium for a single nuclear weapon in as little as a year - but would probably need three to five years to assemble, test and deploy it.
World powers hope that new UN, U.S. and European sanctions imposed on Iran since June will persuade it to enter negotiations on its nuclear program which the West hopes will lead to a suspension of all uranium enrichment activity.
Iran, which says its nuclear work is aimed at generating electricity so that it can export more of its gas and oil, has repeatedly ruled out halting enrichment, while keeping the door open for talks.
Heinonen is probably best known for giving a closed-door presentation to diplomats on Iran in 2008 which indicated links between projects to process uranium, test explosives and modify a missile cone in a way suitable for a nuclear warhead.
His department's five-year investigation based on Western intelligence funneled to the agency helped harden IAEA concerns that Iran might have worked to develop a nuclear-armed missile and was still doing so.
Tehran says the intelligence is forged and that its atomic work is solely for peaceful purposes.
Why Facebook Connect?
Comment on Haaretz.com articles with your Facebook login, and share your thoughts on your own wall.
- Latest
- Most Viewed
- Most Rated
- Open all
Bla.
Is he still hiding from the IAEA Director General, Ukia Amano, who recently visited Israel? How many nuclear weapons does Israel possess?
Officials from the IAEA did NOT take his work serious and eventually forced him to resign because he fabricated documents. Google all you want folks, it's all there ! He's still at it and getting well paid for it.
el-baraedi publish these findings when He was in office at IAEA? ALL the iranian proxies have Ran Ruff Shot, delay tactics one after the next, guess what? Still enriching URANIUM? Where is the Accountability for threats to the civilzed WORLD? Have We Not Learned From The Past Especially WW2?
what you in Israel started..... The genie is out of the bottle.....
It's in the works folks,.
"low-enriched uranium for one to two nuclear weapons" sounds to me a contradiction: you need at least 95% enriched uranium for bombs. So they still a long way to go.
iran is not a threat! it has never been...... JUST KIDDING! the problem with iran is its administrations behavior towards israel! wipe jewish state from map...holocaust never existed....jews lie and try to rule the world...and so on........ THE IRANIAN REGIME MUST AND WILL BE REPLACED! if that means use of excessive force then it will be!not only by israel but the entire western world.no matter if iran has nukes or not they wont save the regime.
Ahmadinijad's job is an elected position. If you don't like him, do things that will help him lose the election. Same thing with the Iranian parliment. It comes up for a vote in 2012. One thing that will ensure hard-line Iranian victories is to attack Iran. Don't do it if you want Ahmadinijad out.
And when Iran starts consuming their own fuel in their reactors, Iran will prove Israel to be liars. Iran understands this, because while Israel is playing checkers, Iran is playing chess. Iran now sees it can badly damage Israel by using their Uranium to generate electricity to prove Israel wrong. It is a trap. Israel continues to fall for this trap daily. Iran knows that no Israeli politician can avoid falling for this trap.
I wish a regional war will take place soon. In fact something very radical must occur in order to change the status quo. However, Israel is hesitating because it fears the potential of not being a major determent over the region's affairs in the next status quo.
would be to reintegrate Iran into the western sphere as equal partner. Iran's younger well educated population wish to be part of the modern world.The politics of isolation and sanctions have not worked,or only in China's and Russia's favor.Solving the IP conflict would help too.
As does Israel when it come to building settlements.
so what !!!
This is old news and sanctions take alittle time to work
pa'am hi tatzli'ach im yirtzeh hagoral. Yisrael lo gomeret. Am Yisrael chai!
That a no news. It needs several months to enrich these 3.5% to more than 90% for a bomb. IAEA would notice any diversion. The consumption of a single 1000Megawatts central need several tons per year. As Iran needs 20 centrals like Busherh they have a lot to work . Stop being paranoiac .
At last, someone is speaking Emet about Iran. IMHO, the free world should unite to defang the Irani tiger. If carrots do not work (and so far they have not worked), I would favor the use of sticks. We ignore Iran at our peril.
Just curious: Let's say Israel has a nuclear device. Please let us know when Israel has ever called for the extermination of a country like the Ayatollahs do daily? That is the question the Jew-haters routinely like to avoid.
Who is Israel threatening? Is Israel an irrational theocratic regime governed by ancient religious dogma?
Israel has nukes, why not a country like Iran. In fact: 1) Iran never invaded another country, Israel did 2) Iran is not occupying another country, Israel is 3) Iran is not in defiance of UN resolutions like Israel
As an expatriate Iranian I would like to know if you would be prepared to immigrate to Teheran, or at least come for your next holidays?
and neither did Hitler until he took Poland in 1939!!
Israel has invaded Egypt Syria and Jordan after being attacked. Israel today does not occupy any other country. Iran indeed defies the International Community not Israel.
December 23 2006 - UN Security Council Resolution 1737 demands a suspension of uranium enrichment. According to international law, security council resolutions are binding, whereas UN general assembly resolutions are non binding on member states. Proof your claim is wrong. Please change your stance in light of this fact.
Tom, Iran is supplying the insurgents in Iraq that blow up US and Iraqi people - that is not invading? Iran supplies Hizbollah and Hamas - that is not invading? Iran teamed up with Turkey who has attemped to break the blockade on Gaza to supply more arms to Hamas - that is not invading? Syria is teaming up with Iran who has invaded Israel and sits on her boarder - that is not invading? Second, Israel occupies Israel. When Iran invaded the US embassy and took US hostages - that is occupying another country. Third, Iran is in defiance of UN resolutions - that is why they have the watered down sanctions. Fourth, even the UAE has come out and denounced the development of Iran's nukes. This is an Arab country. Hence, the Arab world is just as frightened of Iran. The Arab world has never been threatened by Israel's "supposed possession of nukes."
its always easy to summarize the ME when you ignore facts like 1) a UN member is not allowed to call for the destruction of an other UN member state. 2) israel has never vowed to wipe an UN member state off the map; Iran has. 3)iran is a theocracy with a poor record for different branches of government/the press keeping each other in check. Israel is a vibrant country that pays a salary and a pension to arab parliamentarians who speak their mind openly. it has a press that doesn't shy away from asking hard questions (do you ever listen to army radio). i could go on but i am running out of time due to the high volume of especially stupid posts.
And you have inside information to the contrary ?
Mr. Heinonen is the former chief of UN nuclear inspections worldwide? Well the UN, tell me: isn't that a organisation which is known to be anti-semitic and biased against Israel? If we have to believe right-wing Israelis this guy isn't credible because of his past at the UN.
Wingnuts have reality problems. They insist reality is what they want to believe. So, the man who has been in charge of monitoring the Iranian program; the author of all those IAEA reports detailing exactly what is going on, is an evil guy until he makes a few comments in an interview which they agree with.
Mr. Olli Heinonen submitted his resignation 1 July, and the Harvard Belfer Center announced he was to become a Senior Fellow on 2 July. Mr. Olli Heinonen had some disagreements with IAEA Director-Generals El-Baradi and Yukiya Amano over the veracity of some data supplied by intelligence services. Mr. Heinonen was unusual in that he was promoted from within, having been Director of Operations B before being appointed Deputy Director Safeguards. Usually the later post is drawn from industry. Whom gets the job next should be enlightening.
hahaha how many bombs have Israel? maybe still secret? hahaha
The issue is that Iran is a threat to the region and to the world. Iran is a major exporter of terrorism.
All Nuclear States should destroy all their nukes and let our Planet be in peace.
CAPICHE?
In fact according to an article in the Helsinki Times he was asked to resign after it was discovered he was using fraudulent documents about Iran's nuclear program to increase the hype about it all within Western Opinion. Here is the link: http://www.helsinkitimes.fi/htimes/international-news/11701-heinonen-pushed-dubious-iran-nuclear-weapons-intel-.html
Same type of noises made prior to the illegal, immoral, and totally unjustified invasion of Iraq. Let's bury this one in file13.
Iran is making a mockery out of the whole democratic states. While everybody is "analysing" their ability of producing atom bombs or not, Iran is gaining precious time and the civilized world will realize the "threat" only when it will be too late for them to change anything. Only then America and Europe will understand "OK START PANIC !"
Sure as true as the WOMD Saddam once had! I'm just waiting for the Chamberlain argument.
Iran is not going to build a N-weapon because it is hugely costly and does not serve any purpose. Infect it will elemental to its interests. That is what the US and Israel would like to see and are promoting it. Iran knows full-well that 10 or even 100 N-bomb can withstand against 200 or 300 or 10,000 of Israeli/US arsenal. So why should she do it? It is nonsensical and Olli assertion is nonessential too.
you 100% right
Mr. Heinonen certainly was hard-line on the subject of Iran, and many in the IAEA disagreed with his unquestioning acceptance of the Bush administration provided 'laptop' documents. He was very diligent and extremely qualified. Given his opinions, I could take great confidence in the IAEA reports on Iran inspections and safeguards. He served as the head of both Operations A and Operations B before becoming Deputy Director Safeguards. Mr. Heinonen was always careful to separate his opinion from his factual findings.
There is something self-contradictory in Russia's behavior. On the one hand she objects to Iran enriching Uranium even to the low 3.5% level for power plants, and on the other hand supplies Iran with such processed product which allows Iran to keep her stock of Uranium. A good solution for the contradiction would be for Russia to demand from Iran partial payment "in kind" for future reactors it will build, that is, pay for the fuel bars by giving to Russia the enriched Uranium used to produce them. This should be acceptable to Iran, after all, they claim that their Uranium is enriched to serve as fuel. The fact is that Iran does not have enough Uranium to run many power plants, so they will run out of the stuff soon enough. Problem solved.
What you described is pretty much what the Brazil-Turkey-Iran deal was all about and people criticized the deal to no end. Russia was suppose to be one of the fuel suppliers along with France. If the deal went through it would have ended all threats because Iran would have nothing to process into 90% enrichment grade. Iran could have claimed they played hardball with the West and won. It was a great deal. There are reports the deal is still alive. Hopefully, Iran manages to get the deal through and cut the Western war chant at its knees.
The deal was limited to a one-time provision of fuel rods for the small Iran research reactor, and would have required about one-half of Iran's enriched Uranium. Of course this is not enough to solve the Iran problem, because they keep enriching Uranium. Since Iran wants to build another 20 or so nuclear power plants, what I am suggesting will completely exhaust their Uranium supply, unless they find more Uranium in Iran. I give Turkey and Brazil credit for a constructive idea, but let us expand it to the necessary dimensions.
Why? you tell me/us.Could it be they are trying ever so hard to be NUMBER ONE again? After Gorbachef decided and introduced PERIS TROIKA AND GLASNOST? Putin is the CULPRIT ONCE A KGB man allways oneNo change.As for Medvedev he is but a puppet that Putin pulls his strings. After all said and done the crux of the matter is: WITHOUT RUSSIA Iran would not be able to function in the world of NUCLEAR POWER.Idon't see the problem you solved? where? how? You say Iran does not have enough Uraninum to run many powere plants? Who is talking abot multiple power plants anyway? One or two MAX would achieve the dirty work.But I like your summery running out of stuff and soon enough we'll breath a SIGH OF RELIEF? Well hope remains eternal dear Logios.
this islamic republic is a Sham from the word go they stole the so-called democratic election from the PEOPLE their leader I would use the word supreme never the less created militia's to quell the oppostion with BRUTE force are you following me, They the (illegal) manglomanic cult fanatic's which is really what they are WON'T listen to a word anyone says. Their eyes are glazed over with intent and that intent sir is to DESTROY Israel. You must put this all in the context the iranians are. Really all this rambling can be put very simply iran IS A IMMENANT THREAT to not only the middle east but to the Nation Of Hashem !!!
How much lowly-enriched Uranium (to 3.5% of U235) Iran has was made public recently by the US, is a well-known fact, and in under IAEA supervision. If Iran wants to enrich this amount to bomb-appropriate level (about 70%), it will have to end IAEA supervision first, and then will need a year to do the job. Then it will need to build a bomb and perhaps test it. In any case, the world will have about a 1-year lead time to prepare and perhaps take preventive measures, such as bombing the centrifuges. So things are very much under control. Publishing such non-enriched news again is just fear mongering. You can go to sleep comfortably.
First, the US does not know how much uranium Iran has - the intelligence estimate has been publicized as being incorrect. The US does not know what is going on in Iran - that has been publicized as well. Second, in the WSJ - Robert Morganthal, former DA of NY, talked of the subversive nature of Iran and its pursuit of nukes, which he found just being DA of NY. He pointed this out to the US in around September of 2009. Please read the interview. Third, the IAEA only lookes at what they are given to look at. The IAEA does not have the capability of exray vision to see what they are not shown. Fourth, once uranium is enriched to 20% - the exceleration to to military grade is quite rapid.
Sally, the US is a member of the IAEA and knows what the IAEA knows. The information you received in this article is from the IAEA, so now we heard it at least twice. Ergo, there was no need for the article. Do you agree to this at least? Now, it is always possible that Iran has some hidden factory which enriches more Uranium. Not so likely, because Iran is being watched by satellites, but theoretically possible. My suggestion to you then is that you should never go to sleep but keep worrying. However, at least with respect to this article, you should try to be coherent and see what it says.
Are you a nuclear physicist? or the equivalent what? You are merely regurgitating what you read somewhere no doubt. But have no inkling the crux of the scientific nature of the beast. Every body thinks they know all about nuke fission and the comprehensiveness of the subject.Funny people.As for you madam Sally get thee to a book and read on science technology particularely on NUCLEAR SCIENCE .
What's the point of all this? We've known for ages that Iran had enough uranium IF it had the technology and made the decision to refine it to weapons grade. If the 'no-nonsense' Finn had anything to say on either of those points, we'd all listen, otherwise it's just nonsense.
Your sources for what Iran can or will do being ?
I suppose by your argument Syria also didn't have the technology to manufacture those nukes in their secret facility Israel felt compelled to obliterate in the so-called Operation Orchard. My point? who needs the technology when you have friends like the PDRK? If Syria came THAT close to acquiring them, Iran can come even closer, as they have even more capable scientists. But then again, you probably are of the opinion that Israel launched a covert highly risky mission into Syria to bomb some useless patch of desert, aren't you?
The Amalekites are not building an arsenal of iron weapons with which to slay the ancient Israelites.
Because of the little HITLER IN iran that wants to become big man of M,E YOU ARE GOING TO SEE A RACE FOR NUCLUR know how. The other ME nations are worried.
So what, no one is going to use nukes in the ME neither Iran nor Israel. What you are going to tell the bomb kill Jews Not Arabs.
Since when has Iran cared about Arabs? Strangely enough, most Arab countries actually fear and despise the empire of Iran and its non transparent agenda... some even more than Israel.
Maybe Ofir can't see the difference between despotic regimes fearing a nation that is likely to inspire their subjects to revolt and the countries they have their fingers wrapped around, but hopefully others can.
If Iran had nukes,, all it would have to do is test one and all threats of attack against Iran would end.
that the existence of these 'regimes' you speak of is justified. You're right, most of them are not democratic at all and definitely don't keep their citizen's welfare as a top priority. What I'm saying is that the gov't of Iran does not care about Arab people - so it is stupid to think that the reason they'd hold back from attacking Israel is because of Israel's Arab's citizens.
I have a lighter and fuel sufficient to burn down my village as well as a car capable of breaking every speed limit on earth, and you would shudder just to think what I could do with all the knives in my kitchen..
Yet I STILL would not trust you with a nuclear bomb :)
Nick, so go ahead and use them on youself or maybe you can't because you are in a straightjacket.
Hey Nick , do you thing is reasonable to compare knives, fuel and breaking speed limits to exploding an atomic bomb ?
American Intelligence agencies and the IEAE don't agree. As a matter of fact the only group of people who do agree are Israelis who want Americans to take care of the "problem" for them.
And who's to say it isn't the Israelis who are willing and the US instead who are demanding they leeaver it to othem? But of course you belong to the intelligence community and would know things of this sort, wouldn't you?
The title is sensationalist, but in the text Heinonen is actually saying something reassuring i.e. that amount of low-level material that Iran has is quite insufficient for the mullahs to even THINK about attempting to make those "1 to 2 bombs".
it is pointless to spin the blame on the text, Johnny. The level is not insufficient to attempting to make them. It is insufficient strategic wise, not enoufh to bargain with.
to make
We have enough to blow your lips off, no matter where on earth you run. Don't worry, be happy.
Israel and US don't question other countries' existence and do not threaten to wipe another countries from the face of the Earth. Israel reportedly had nukes for almost 50 years and never used them or theaten to use them in spite of several wars that occurred during that time. It's not the fact of having or not having nukes, it's whether any government or country can be entrusted with that. That's why India's nukes are safe and Pakistan's are not...
to blow up other countries with it buddy..gosh, that's the main argument here, not who has it, but who's stupid enough to use it, and Iran is, because they said they would, like 50 times!
Please don't twist bad translations to make it sound worst, yes Iran is a threat to Israel but not from nukes any time soon. There are about 15 countries that have made nukes and about 30 that have nukes or could make them quickly. US nukes are in many NATO countries including Turkey. With S. Africa, Brazil, Argentina and some ex-Soviet countries having make nukes in the past.
In fact, Israeli cool-headedness regarding its nukes is quite amazing. In several of those wars (1967, 1973), Israel's very existence was at stake. If its enemies had won, Israel - and its people - would not exist today.
No actually these 2 countries don't question the existence of others, rather they just accept the existence and then occupy them.
Israel would have used it....if there was a real existential threat. And, make no mistake israel will be the next one to use it like its Daddy US whenever it fights a real conventional army and starts to lose.
It said "remove the Zionist entity from the map," on an Iranian news service, IN ENGLISH, before it was removed a few months later, gibbering fool. Who the heck are you to refute the translations of an official Iranian government news service?