DUBAI, United Arab Emirates — Iran has enough highly enriched uranium to build “several” nuclear weapons if it chooses, the United Nations’ top nuclear official is now warning. But diplomatic efforts aimed at again limiting its atomic program seem more unlikely than ever before as Tehran arms Russia in its war on Ukraine and as unrest shakes the Islamic Republic.
Lisa Leutner, Associated Press
International Atomic Energy Agency Director-General Rafael Mariano Grossi gives a news conference at the Vienna Airport upon returning from Tehran, Iran, on March 5, 2022, in Vienna, Austria.
The warning from Rafael Mariano Grossi of the International Atomic Energy Agency, in response to questions from European lawmakers, shows just how high the stakes have become over Iran’s nuclear program. Even at the height of previous tensions between the West and Iran under hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad before the 2015 nuclear deal, Iran never enriched uranium as high as it does now.
For months, nonproliferation experts have suggested Iran had enough uranium enriched up to 60% to build at least one nuclear weapon — though Tehran long has insisted its program is for peaceful purposes. While offering a caveat that “we need to be extremely careful” in describing Iran’s program, Grossi bluntly acknowledged just how large Tehran’s high-enriched uranium stockpile had grown.
“One thing is true: They have amassed enough nuclear material for several nuclear weapons, not one at this point,” Grossi said.
The Argentine diplomat then referred to Benjamin Netanyahu’s famous 2012 speech to the United Nations, in which the Israeli prime minister held up a placard of a cartoon-style bomb with a burning wick and drew a red line on it to urge the world to not allow Tehran’s program to highly enrich uranium. While the 2015 nuclear deal drastically reduced Iran’s uranium stockpile and capped its enrichment to 3.67%, Netanyahu successfully lobbied then-President Donald Trump to withdraw from the accord and set up the current tensions.
“You remember there was to be this issue of the breakthrough and Mr. Netanyahu drawing things at the U.N. and putting lines — well, that is long past. They have 70 kilograms (155 pounds) of uranium enriched at 60%. … The amount is there,” Grossi said. “That doesn’t mean they have a nuclear weapon. So they haven’t proliferated yet.”
But the danger remains. Analysts point to what happened with North Korea, which had reached a 1994 deal with the U.S. to abandon its nuclear weapons program. The deal fell apart in 2002. By 2005 and wary of U.S. intentions after its invasion of Iraq, Pyongyang announced it had built nuclear weapons. Today, North Korea has ballistic missiles designed to carry nuclear warheads that are capable of reaching the U.S.
Iranian diplomats for years have pointed to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s preachings as a binding fatwa, or religious edict, that Iran wouldn’t seek an atomic bomb. However, Iranian officials in recent months have begun openly talking about the prospect of building nuclear weapons.
Talks between Iran and the West ended in August with a “final text” of a roadmap on restoring the 2015 deal that Iran until today hasn’t accepted.
ASSOCIATED PRESS
International Atomic Energy Agency Director-General Rafael Mariano Grossi, right, speaks with Iran's Foreign Minister Hossein Amirabdollahian, left, during their meeting March 5, 2022, in Tehran.
Iran’s mission to the U.N., responding to questions about Grossi’s remarks, insisted in comments to The Associated Press on Thursday that Tehran “is prepared to stick to its commitments within the framework of the (deal) provided the other parties do the same.”
“The Iranian nuclear program has never been about making nuclear weapons and enriching has nothing to do with deviating from it,” the mission said, despite Iran accelerating its enrichment after the deal’s collapse.
Iranian state television separately quoted Mohammad Eslami, the head of the country’s civilian nuclear program, as saying Tehran would welcome a visit by Grossi to the country.
As Iran’s rial currency plunges further to historic lows against the dollar amid its crises, Iranian officials including Foreign Minister Hossein Amirabdollahian also have made unsupported claims about American officials agreeing to their demands or frozen money abroad being released.
At the State Department, the denials about Iran’s claims have grown more and more pointed.
“We’ve heard a number of statements from the Iranian foreign minister that are dubious if not outright lies, so I would just keep that broader context in mind when you point to statements from the Iranian foreign minister,” State Department spokesperson Ned Price said Monday in a response to a question.
Price and others in President Joe Biden’s administration say any future talks with Iran remain off the table as Tehran cracks down on the months-long protests after the death of Mahsa Amini, a young woman detained in September by the country’s morality police. At least 527 people have been killed and over 19,500 arrested amid the unrest, according to Human Rights Activists in Iran, a group monitoring the protests.
Another part of the Americans’ exasperation — and increasingly of the Europeans as well — comes from Iran arming Russia with the bomb-carrying drones that repeatedly have targeted power plants and civilian targets across Ukraine. It remains unclear what Tehran, which has a strained history with Moscow, expects to get for supplying Russia with arms. One Iranian lawmaker has suggested the Islamic Republic could get Sukhoi Su-35 fighter jets to replace its aging fleeting comprised primarily of pre-1979 American warplanes, though such a deal hasn’t been confirmed.
Such fighter jets would provide a key air defense for Iran, particularly as its nuclear sites could increasingly be eyed. Israel, which has carried out strikes to halt nuclear programs in Iraq and Syria, has warned it will not allow Iran to obtain a nuclear bomb.
For now, Grossi said there was “almost no diplomatic activity” over trying to restore the Iran nuclear deal, an agreement he now describes as “an empty shell.” But he still urged more diplomacy as Tehran still would need to design and test any possible nuclear weapon.
“We shouldn’t give up,” he said.
-
Analysis: Stakes rise as Iran can fuel ‘several’ atom bombs
AP file
For months, U.S. officials balked at sending M1 Abrams tanks to Ukraine, insisting they were too complicated and too hard to maintain and repair.
On Wednesday, that abruptly changed. Ukraine's desperate pleas for tanks were answered with a sweeping, trans-Atlantic yes.
The dramatic reversal was the culmination of intense international pressure and diplomatic arm-twisting that played out over the last week. And it resulted in in a quick succession of announcements: The U.S. said it will send 31 of the 70-ton Abrams battle tanks to Ukraine, and Germany announced it will send 14 Leopard 2 tanks and allow other countries to do the same.
AP file
For months, U.S. officials balked at sending M1 Abrams tanks to Ukraine, insisting they were too complicated and too hard to maintain and repair.
On Wednesday, that abruptly changed. Ukraine's desperate pleas for tanks were answered with a sweeping, trans-Atlantic yes.
The dramatic reversal was the culmination of intense international pressure and diplomatic arm-twisting that played out over the last week. And it resulted in in a quick succession of announcements: The U.S. said it will send 31 of the 70-ton Abrams battle tanks to Ukraine, and Germany announced it will send 14 Leopard 2 tanks and allow other countries to do the same.
-
Analysis: Stakes rise as Iran can fuel ‘several’ atom bombs
Christian Murdock/The Gazette via AP, File
WHAT ARE THE ABRAMS?
M1 Abrams tanks have led American battle assaults for decades.
Carrying a crew of four, the Abrams was first deployed to war in 1991. It has thick armor, a 120 mm main gun, armor piercing capabilities, advanced targeting systems, thick tracked wheels and a 1,500-horsepower turbine engine with a top speed of about 42 miles per hour (68 kilometers per hour).
Crews interviewed in a 1992 Government Accountability Office review after the Persian Gulf War praised its high survivability and said “several M1A1 crews reported receiving direct frontal hits from Iraqi T-72s with minimal damage.”
More recently, the battle titans led the charge to Baghdad during America’s 2003 invasion of Iraq, as 3rd Infantry Division units conducted what was dubbed “Thunder Runs” to break through Iraqi defenses.
The Abrams' powerful jet engine can propel the tank through almost any terrain, whether heavy snow or heavy mud, said Kevin Butler, a former Army lieutenant who served as an Abrams tank platoon leader. Butler recalled a muddy exercise in the late 1990s at Fort Stewart, Georgia, where he’d voiced concern about the tanks getting stuck because it had already stuck the Humvees.
The Abrams, he said, "didn’t even notice” the mud.
Christian Murdock/The Gazette via AP, File
WHAT ARE THE ABRAMS?
M1 Abrams tanks have led American battle assaults for decades.
Carrying a crew of four, the Abrams was first deployed to war in 1991. It has thick armor, a 120 mm main gun, armor piercing capabilities, advanced targeting systems, thick tracked wheels and a 1,500-horsepower turbine engine with a top speed of about 42 miles per hour (68 kilometers per hour).
Crews interviewed in a 1992 Government Accountability Office review after the Persian Gulf War praised its high survivability and said “several M1A1 crews reported receiving direct frontal hits from Iraqi T-72s with minimal damage.”
More recently, the battle titans led the charge to Baghdad during America’s 2003 invasion of Iraq, as 3rd Infantry Division units conducted what was dubbed “Thunder Runs” to break through Iraqi defenses.
The Abrams' powerful jet engine can propel the tank through almost any terrain, whether heavy snow or heavy mud, said Kevin Butler, a former Army lieutenant who served as an Abrams tank platoon leader. Butler recalled a muddy exercise in the late 1990s at Fort Stewart, Georgia, where he’d voiced concern about the tanks getting stuck because it had already stuck the Humvees.
The Abrams, he said, "didn’t even notice” the mud.
-
-
Analysis: Stakes rise as Iran can fuel ‘several’ atom bombs
AP file
WHY THE U.S. KEPT SAYING NO
The Abrams' jet engine needs hundreds of gallons of fuel to operate.
It will burn through fuel at a rate of at least two gallons per mile (4.7 liters per kilometer), whether the tank is moving or idling, Butler said, which means a constant supply convoy of fuel trucks must stay within reach so it can keep moving forward.
The U.S. worried that the fuel demands would create a logistical nightmare for Ukrainian forces. While an Abrams can storm through the snow and mud, fuel trucks can't. In addition, like any jet engine, the Abrams' turbine needs air to breathe, which it sucks in through filtered rear vents. When those vent filters get clogged — whether by sand, as soldiers reported to GAO in 1992, or by debris they might encounter in Ukraine — they can't perform.
“The Abrams tank is a very complicated piece of equipment. It’s expensive, it’s hard to train on. ... It is not the easiest system to maintain. It may or may not be the right system,” The under secretary of defense for policy, Colin Kahl, told reporters last week at the Pentagon.
The Abrams also will require months of training. Ukrainian forces will have to learn how to operate its more complex systems, and how to keep it running and fueled.
Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, pictured
AP file
WHY THE U.S. KEPT SAYING NO
The Abrams' jet engine needs hundreds of gallons of fuel to operate.
It will burn through fuel at a rate of at least two gallons per mile (4.7 liters per kilometer), whether the tank is moving or idling, Butler said, which means a constant supply convoy of fuel trucks must stay within reach so it can keep moving forward.
The U.S. worried that the fuel demands would create a logistical nightmare for Ukrainian forces. While an Abrams can storm through the snow and mud, fuel trucks can't. In addition, like any jet engine, the Abrams' turbine needs air to breathe, which it sucks in through filtered rear vents. When those vent filters get clogged — whether by sand, as soldiers reported to GAO in 1992, or by debris they might encounter in Ukraine — they can't perform.
“The Abrams tank is a very complicated piece of equipment. It’s expensive, it’s hard to train on. ... It is not the easiest system to maintain. It may or may not be the right system,” The under secretary of defense for policy, Colin Kahl, told reporters last week at the Pentagon.
The Abrams also will require months of training. Ukrainian forces will have to learn how to operate its more complex systems, and how to keep it running and fueled.
Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, pictured
-
Analysis: Stakes rise as Iran can fuel ‘several’ atom bombs
Ronen Zvulun/Pool Photo via AP
THE ARM-TWISTING TURNABOUT
Despite all the drawbacks expressed by the U.S., when all was said and done, it came down to political realities and a diplomatic dance.
Germany had been reluctant to send the Leopards, or allow allies to send them, unless the U.S. put its Abrams on the table, due to concerns that supplying the tanks would incur Russia’s wrath. The U.S., meanwhile, argued that the German-made Leopards were a better fit because Ukrainian troops could get them and get trained on them far more quickly and easily.
The impasse frustrated European allies, such as Poland, who wanted to send Leopards but couldn’t without Germany’s OK. Thus began the more fierce negotiations.
U.S. and German officials both used the word “intensive” to describe the talks that ultimately led to the tank turnabout by both countries.
“This is the result of intensive consultations, once again, with our allies and international partners,” Chancellor Olaf Scholz, pictured, said in an address to German lawmakers on Wednesday.
Echoing Scholz, a senior U.S. administration official said talks had been going on for some time but “in a much more intensified way over the last number of weeks.” The official spoke on condition of anonymity to provide details on the decision.
From President Joe Biden on down, calls were made, including to Scholz. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and Army Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, spoke and met with their German counterparts and other allies.
Last Friday, the pressure was palpable. Top defense leaders from more than 50 countries met at Ramstein Air Base in Germany to discuss Ukraine's ongoing weapons and equipment needs. Tanks were a key subject. Leaders from countries that have Leopard tanks met with the new German defense minister.
Gradually, the German stance began to publicly soften, leading to Wednesday's announcements. Asked repeatedly what changed, Biden administration officials sidestepped. Asked directly about German pressure, Biden told reporters, “Germany didn’t force me to change our mind.”
Ronen Zvulun/Pool Photo via AP
THE ARM-TWISTING TURNABOUT
Despite all the drawbacks expressed by the U.S., when all was said and done, it came down to political realities and a diplomatic dance.
Germany had been reluctant to send the Leopards, or allow allies to send them, unless the U.S. put its Abrams on the table, due to concerns that supplying the tanks would incur Russia’s wrath. The U.S., meanwhile, argued that the German-made Leopards were a better fit because Ukrainian troops could get them and get trained on them far more quickly and easily.
The impasse frustrated European allies, such as Poland, who wanted to send Leopards but couldn’t without Germany’s OK. Thus began the more fierce negotiations.
U.S. and German officials both used the word “intensive” to describe the talks that ultimately led to the tank turnabout by both countries.
“This is the result of intensive consultations, once again, with our allies and international partners,” Chancellor Olaf Scholz, pictured, said in an address to German lawmakers on Wednesday.
Echoing Scholz, a senior U.S. administration official said talks had been going on for some time but “in a much more intensified way over the last number of weeks.” The official spoke on condition of anonymity to provide details on the decision.
From President Joe Biden on down, calls were made, including to Scholz. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and Army Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, spoke and met with their German counterparts and other allies.
Last Friday, the pressure was palpable. Top defense leaders from more than 50 countries met at Ramstein Air Base in Germany to discuss Ukraine's ongoing weapons and equipment needs. Tanks were a key subject. Leaders from countries that have Leopard tanks met with the new German defense minister.
Gradually, the German stance began to publicly soften, leading to Wednesday's announcements. Asked repeatedly what changed, Biden administration officials sidestepped. Asked directly about German pressure, Biden told reporters, “Germany didn’t force me to change our mind.”
-
-
Analysis: Stakes rise as Iran can fuel ‘several’ atom bombs
AP Photo/LIBKOS, File
HOW LONG WILL IT TAKE?
Timing for both delivery of the tanks to Ukraine and the training of Ukrainian troops is fuzzy. U.S. officials would only say that it will take “many months” to deliver the Abrams tanks, but that the Leopards will arrive faster.
Doug Bush, assistant secretary of the Army for acquisition, said the U.S. no longer buys new Abrams, but uses older ones as “seed vehicles” and refurbishes them. Doing that, however, isn't quick or easy, he said.
The training can begin more quickly, and the Pentagon is developing a program.
“We want to make sure that they (the tanks) fall on ready hands, and that the Ukrainians know how to use them, they know how to keep them running, and they’ve got the supply chain in place for spare parts and supplies," said National Security Council spokesman John Kirby.
Bush said the Ukrainians have shown they have the knowledge and capabilities to learn new systems quickly.
“We can often abbreviate and accelerate what we can do in terms of training for Ukrainian army soldiers,” he told reporters Wednesday. "With enough motivation and dedicated 24/7 access to them, we can train people really quickly,” he said. "The U.S. Army knows how to do that.”
AP Photo/LIBKOS, File
HOW LONG WILL IT TAKE?
Timing for both delivery of the tanks to Ukraine and the training of Ukrainian troops is fuzzy. U.S. officials would only say that it will take “many months” to deliver the Abrams tanks, but that the Leopards will arrive faster.
Doug Bush, assistant secretary of the Army for acquisition, said the U.S. no longer buys new Abrams, but uses older ones as “seed vehicles” and refurbishes them. Doing that, however, isn't quick or easy, he said.
The training can begin more quickly, and the Pentagon is developing a program.
“We want to make sure that they (the tanks) fall on ready hands, and that the Ukrainians know how to use them, they know how to keep them running, and they’ve got the supply chain in place for spare parts and supplies," said National Security Council spokesman John Kirby.
Bush said the Ukrainians have shown they have the knowledge and capabilities to learn new systems quickly.
“We can often abbreviate and accelerate what we can do in terms of training for Ukrainian army soldiers,” he told reporters Wednesday. "With enough motivation and dedicated 24/7 access to them, we can train people really quickly,” he said. "The U.S. Army knows how to do that.”
