This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/julian-borger-global-security-blog/2013/feb/27/iran-nuclear-arak-heavy-water
The article has changed 6 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 3 | Version 4 |
|---|---|
| Iran heavy water plant revealed - again | Iran heavy water plant revealed - again |
| (8 days later) | |
| One of the perennial glories of British journalism is the capacity to take old news and give it new life by discovering it all over again. Such was the case on the front page of today's Daily Telegraph, which claims to have found that "Iran has activated the Arak heavy-water production plant" that in fact started operations in 2004, and was formally opened by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in 2006. | One of the perennial glories of British journalism is the capacity to take old news and give it new life by discovering it all over again. Such was the case on the front page of today's Daily Telegraph, which claims to have found that "Iran has activated the Arak heavy-water production plant" that in fact started operations in 2004, and was formally opened by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in 2006. |
| Exhibit A in the Telegraph story is a satellite photo with a red ring superimposed on the middle which purports to show some steam escaping. It reports: | Exhibit A in the Telegraph story is a satellite photo with a red ring superimposed on the middle which purports to show some steam escaping. It reports: |
| Western governments and the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] have held information about activity at Arak for some time. But today's exclusive images are the first to put evidence of that activity into the public domain. | Western governments and the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] have held information about activity at Arak for some time. But today's exclusive images are the first to put evidence of that activity into the public domain. |
| That is a pretty bold claim, given the wealth of reporting about the site over the years, since the existence of the Arak heavy water project was first reported in 2002. The picture above, dated October 2004, has some much better steam. The latest IAEA report on the Iranian programme, published earlier this month notes that "Based on recent images, the plant appears to continue to be in operation." This is what Olli Heinonen, the IAEA's former chief inspector had to say: | That is a pretty bold claim, given the wealth of reporting about the site over the years, since the existence of the Arak heavy water project was first reported in 2002. The picture above, dated October 2004, has some much better steam. The latest IAEA report on the Iranian programme, published earlier this month notes that "Based on recent images, the plant appears to continue to be in operation." This is what Olli Heinonen, the IAEA's former chief inspector had to say: |
| I really do not find news in this article. As repeatedly pointed out in the IAEA reports, the heavy water plant has been operational during last few years. The IAEA has used satellite imagery to confirm the operational status, but one cannot conclude from those images the amount of heavy water produced. | I really do not find news in this article. As repeatedly pointed out in the IAEA reports, the heavy water plant has been operational during last few years. The IAEA has used satellite imagery to confirm the operational status, but one cannot conclude from those images the amount of heavy water produced. |
| The Telegraph report says the IAEA has not been able to visit the site since 2011, but the Arak plant is not covered by Iran's safeguard's agreement. It does not produce radioactive material but heavy water (deuterium oxide, like water but with a heavier concentration of a certain hydrogen isotope, deuterium). That which will be used to moderate uranium fission in a reactor under construction nearby, which is being visited by IAEA inspectors. | The Telegraph report says the IAEA has not been able to visit the site since 2011, but the Arak plant is not covered by Iran's safeguard's agreement. It does not produce radioactive material but heavy water (deuterium oxide, like water but with a heavier concentration of a certain hydrogen isotope, deuterium). That which will be used to moderate uranium fission in a reactor under construction nearby, which is being visited by IAEA inspectors. |
| Spent fuel from the reactor could then be reprocessed to produce plutonium, which can in turn be used to make smaller, more powerful nuclear warheads than highly enriched uranium. Hence the proliferation concern, but Iran is a long way from that point. | Spent fuel from the reactor could then be reprocessed to produce plutonium, which can in turn be used to make smaller, more powerful nuclear warheads than highly enriched uranium. Hence the proliferation concern, but Iran is a long way from that point. |
| The Arak reactor is due to be ready next year, but some experts, including Heinonen, have doubts it will be operational on time. | The Arak reactor is due to be ready next year, but some experts, including Heinonen, have doubts it will be operational on time. |
| IR-40 needs up to 90 tons of heavy water for the first load. My Iranian sources tell me that they might still be short of that. Mr. Abbasi Davani [the head of the Iranian Atomic Energy Organisation] has recently stated that the reactor will start operation in early 2014, which might be optimistic in light of the heavy water production rate, and the fact that the actual fuel manufacturing has not yet started in Isfahan. Isfahan has so far converted uranium, produced pellets, but only a prototype fuel element has been manufactured. | IR-40 needs up to 90 tons of heavy water for the first load. My Iranian sources tell me that they might still be short of that. Mr. Abbasi Davani [the head of the Iranian Atomic Energy Organisation] has recently stated that the reactor will start operation in early 2014, which might be optimistic in light of the heavy water production rate, and the fact that the actual fuel manufacturing has not yet started in Isfahan. Isfahan has so far converted uranium, produced pellets, but only a prototype fuel element has been manufactured. |
| The new IAEA report notes that "the installation of cooling and moderator circuit piping was almost complete" at the Arak reactor, and that a prototype fuel assembly intended for the reactor was being subject to irradiation testing at the Tehran Research Reactor. | The new IAEA report notes that "the installation of cooling and moderator circuit piping was almost complete" at the Arak reactor, and that a prototype fuel assembly intended for the reactor was being subject to irradiation testing at the Tehran Research Reactor. |
| As Iran continues to move forward with the Arak reactor, in defiance of UN Security Council resolutions, there will inevitably be greater scrutiny of a possible plutonium route to a bomb. Mark Fitzpatrick of the International Institute of Strategies Studies said: | As Iran continues to move forward with the Arak reactor, in defiance of UN Security Council resolutions, there will inevitably be greater scrutiny of a possible plutonium route to a bomb. Mark Fitzpatrick of the International Institute of Strategies Studies said: |
| Iran has successfully moved the goalposts so that all we talk about is 20%-enriched uranium, taking attention away from all the other worrying things it is doing. | Iran has successfully moved the goalposts so that all we talk about is 20%-enriched uranium, taking attention away from all the other worrying things it is doing. |
| However, even if and when the Arak reactor starts working, the possible plutonium route to an Iranian bomb will far less immediate than the uranium route, as David Albright of the Institute for Science and International Security points out: | However, even if and when the Arak reactor starts working, the possible plutonium route to an Iranian bomb will far less immediate than the uranium route, as David Albright of the Institute for Science and International Security points out: |
| They would have to get the reactor to work and they would have to irradiate the fuel and then they would have to break their promise not to reprocess, which would be an enormous step, and then they would have to build the reprocessing plant. | They would have to get the reactor to work and they would have to irradiate the fuel and then they would have to break their promise not to reprocess, which would be an enormous step, and then they would have to build the reprocessing plant. |
| Meanwhile, all the necessary material and machinery for making a uranium warhead is in place, should Iran make the decision it wants to make a bomb, and more of that machinery is being installed all the time. Hence the focus on the uranium route. The plutonium option hovers in the background, and will loom larger in the coming months, but it is not the imminent threat that blurry satellite pictures imply. | Meanwhile, all the necessary material and machinery for making a uranium warhead is in place, should Iran make the decision it wants to make a bomb, and more of that machinery is being installed all the time. Hence the focus on the uranium route. The plutonium option hovers in the background, and will loom larger in the coming months, but it is not the imminent threat that blurry satellite pictures imply. |
| Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning. | Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning. |
| Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning. Enter your email address to subscribe. | Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning. Enter your email address to subscribe. |
| Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox every weekday. |