Iran: UN Rebuke Prompted New Nuke Plans

(CBS/AP)  Iran had no intention of building 10 new nuclear facilities until it was strongly rebuked by the U.N. nuclear watchdog over its nuclear activities, a top official said Monday.

Vice President Ali Akbar Salehi told state radio that Iran needed to give a strong response to the International Atomic Energy Agency's resolution Friday demanding that Iran halt to construction of its newly revealed uranium enrichment facility and end all other enrichment activities.

A Cabinet meeting headed by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Sunday approved plans to build 10 industrial scale uranium enrichment facilities, a 10-fold expansion of the nuclear program that will likely significantly heighten tensions with the West.

The U.S. and its allies fear the facilities give Iran the capability to produce weapons-grade nuclear material and have called for an immediate halt to Iran's enrichment of uranium.

Iran has rejected such claims, saying its uranium enrichment facilities will only produce fuel for nuclear reactors to generate electricity.

The Cabinet ordered the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran to begin building new facilities at five sites that have already been studied and propose five other locations for future construction within two months.

The new sites are to be on the same scale of Iran's only other industrial enrichment plant currently in operation, near the town of Natanz in central Iran.

"We had no intention of building many facilities like the Natanz site, but apparently the West doesn't want to understand Iran's peaceful message," Salehi said.

Salehi, who is also the head of Iran's nuclear program, said the IAEA resolution backed by six world powers left no option for Iran but to give a firm response.

"The action by 5+1 (U.S., Britain, France, China, Russia and Germany) at the IAEA prompted the (Iranian) government to approve a proposal to build 10 sites like that of Natanz," he said.

Iran aims to generate 20,000 megawatts of electricity through nuclear power plants in the next 20 years. Iranian officials say the new enrichment facilities are needed to produce enough fuel for its future nuclear power plants.

Ahmadinejad told the Cabinet that Iran will need to install 500,000 centrifuges at the planned facilities to produce between 250 to 300 tons of fuel annually.

"We require multiple sites to produce nuclear fuel for us. We need at least ten new sites," Ahmadinejad said in comments broadcast on state TV Monday.

The International Atomic Energy Agency said earlier this month that about 8,600 centrifuges had been set up in Natanz, but only about 4,000 were enriching uranium. The facility is designed to eventually house 54,000 centrifuges.

But Iran's newly revealed enrichment site, which set off the latest cycle of concern and criticism over Tehran's nuclear intentions, is a small scale site near the holy city of Qom that will house 3,000 centrifuges.

[smoknmirrors]

????? ?????? ?????. The arrogance of a pecking chicken makes its frying all the more delectable. Eventually they will have to be taught that a thousand years of civilization does not begin until indoor plumbing is the standard.

[50BMS13]

In "IRANS" perfect world.....they would have enough nukes to bomb the whole world and let Allah sort it out. It will happen eventually if not intervened.

[krmopilci]

allahu akbar

[krmopilci]

i have beaten them.and left them unburried.

[Brokennews]

Looks like Iran has gone from giving the world a huge middle finger to giving two huge middle fingers to the world.

[krmopilci]

not to the world-to the usa

[nsok]

Yeah, they have given 2 middle fingers to the US. I wonder why? Is it because the US is trying to stop them from acquiring modern technology to power their country, and trying to villianize them on the world stage? How about the fact that the US supplied the Iraqis with weapons in order to start an 8 year war with Iran that left between 500,000 - 1,000,000+ people dead? How about the fact that the Americans have levelled Iraq and are now sitting on their doorstep? The Iranians have every right to give two huge middle fingers to the US.

[slownewsday-5]

What's the big deal?? Iran almost certainly has at least a few nukes already. I'm sure they got enough nuclear material after the fall of the USSR.

Pre-emptive attacks don't make sense, especially if we're expected to foot the bill.

[slownewsday-5]

So, again, Wrong, no actual response, just insults. Grow up.

[PaGuy1960]

You liberals stil think Iran is not up to anything? Even Obama finally is seeing that talking with them does not work. We hate to say we told you so.

[pdchapin]

Obama is playing this beautifully although probably not deliberately. By talking about talking, the onus of the failure lies with with Iranians. This makes it much easier to get other nations to support, or at least not complain too much if the US does anything.

Given that the Iranian government has completely mismanaged the country and was forced to steal the last election, it desperately needs a foreign enemy. Obama is refusing to play that role. I expect that the Iranian government will continue to become more provocative in an attempt to get a rise from the US. But by doing so they'll lose support in other countries. That Russian and Chinese are even willing to talk about increased sanctions indicates the Iranian problem. I expect that eventually the Iranians will do something so provocative that the US will have to respond but, unlike Iraq, this time most of the world will blame Iran for the conflict and not the US.

Ironically, if McCain was president he would probably be ranting and raving like Bush did and provide the foreign menace that Iran needs. The Iranian nuclear program would continue but we would not have an excuse to do anything about it. The probability of war would be less, but the probability of an Iranian nuke would be higher.

[PaGuy1960]

Obama is playing what? He has no control of the situation at all. He came in thinking he would get hem to the table and b0w t him, Well guess what, this is the real world. Iran will do what they please. You are apparently one of the few that hasn't accepted that yet.

[markj2]

They want "NUKES", well give them what they asked for, about 1/2 dozen small tactical nukes in the right places will solve the problem. One for the Mulahs,one for their unelected president, one for each nucular site that we know of and one for each army/air force base.Then the people can elect there own Government and control their destiny.

[krmopilci]

one can tell you have never fought.go play your video games.

[bubbadubba]

Now the UN will do the usual thing an back down.
UN- What a joke.

[chevyhotrod]

bubba,
These are all your friends that sit on the left and agree with our new President Obama on how to handle world affairs.

What a joke, is right on the mark. This is nothing new, it has been this way for a long, long time.

[krmopilci]

why don't you than cooperate with un,like international war crime tribunal?or geneva conventions?when you are strong enough,you don't care for un.

[mick7744]

Since the US has technically been at war with Iran since that rogue state (and President Ahmadinejad as one of the so-called 'students') invaded the US Embassy in Tehran in November 1979, I see no legal impediment to bombing every one of their nuclear facilities out of existence.

Of course, to insure the safety of the American military personnel carrying out the mission, the Iranian Air Force should be permanently grounded...and maybe the Republican Guard too.

Why should THEY always be the ones who get to interpret the rules their way? Since they have no regard for anyone else?s rules or indeed for the rules of civilized behavior, give `em what they deserve.

This Mullah-infested outlaw regime can never be allowed nuclear capability. Sooner or later, one of these Koran-thumping clowns will announce that God has personally directed him to nuke everyone who disagrees with them.

If the Ayatollah Khomeini taught us anything, it's that so-called Muslim holy men are far more murderous than ordinary folk. They must be stopped NOW! The present mob of Iranian leaders should join him in hell...ASAP.

[pdchapin]

We're not 'technically" at war with Iran. War requires a declaration by Congress. The invasion of the US Embassy was an act of war that would have legally justified such a declaration, but we never did. Actually, in the modern world you'll see very few declared wars since the rules covering such things were written for a different time. For instance, if the US did declare war on Iran, US troops in all other countries would have to be interned for the duration. Legally we wouldn't be able to even bring them back to the US and the obligation to enforce this would actually lie with this country not the neutral nations where they are currently stationed. For example, if a GI in Japan were to fly back the US, we would have to return him to Japan. "Interned" however only means that they can't leave the country. During WWII, US pilots who were forced to land in Sweden lived in a hotel in Stockholm and spend their days as flight instructors for the Swedish air force.

[50BMS13]

Iran is a problem that will not go away and is only going to get worse. Religion is the problem. When killing is done in God's name, sanity and willingness to co-operate with other nations goes out the window. If there was no religion in Iran and they wanted a nuke, there would be little to worry about cause no human would use it on another or fear the same retaliation. With religious fervor and fanatisicm, Logic is not part of the equation. Killing and death are all acceptable options. Hence why we must bomb their nuclear sites. They will not co-operate NO MATTER WHAT!

[armik80]

Iam agree with you but for stop them we do not need another war or dialog ,we need to support iranian opp like maryam rajavi elected presiedent of national cunsiel of iranian resistance based in & out side iran -paris

[ibsteve2u]

by armik80 November 30, 2009 4:06 AM EST "Iam agree with you but for stop them we do not need another war or dialog ,we need to support iranian opp like maryam rajavi"

I guess the question is does America's right - our Republicans - like
Maryam Rajavi?

'Cuz if they do, we'll probably be in trouble again, like when our right rigged the Iraq War on Ahmed Chalabi's words, even though his history was full of rot.

See:

http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/media/features/9226/

and:

http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_timeline_of_the_2003_invasion_of_iraq

Our right likes corrupt people...they can make more money.