The intelligence on Iraq's nucle
The intelligence on Iraq's nuclear activities proved to be dead wrong after U.S.-led forces invaded last year, but in next-door Iran, there's no question that a vast and varied nuclear infrastructure is rising (or, in some cases, burrowing underground). The Iranians say they intend only to generate electricity and conduct generate electricity . But the same technology that can produce reactor fuel to light Iran's cities can be kept running to make the fissile material for atomic weapons--a goal that is widely suspected.-----Iran and the bomb What will it take to thwart Tehran's nuclear aims?
Even as public attention remains fixed on the deadly insurgency in Iraq, a standoff with neighboring Iran could mushroom into the first international crisis in George Bush's second term. The United States estimates that Iran could field its first nuclear weapon in three to seven years, a prospect Bush has branded ''intolerable.
'' Hoping to avert another Mideast war, the three leading European Union powers--Britain, France, and Germany--have been trying to pull off a deal with Iran to curtail its nuclear ambitions.
The EU-3 are proposing that Iran forswear work to enrich uranium or reprocess plutonium--the key processes in making atomic weapons--and cooperate fully with the IAEA, which has been probing Iran's secretive nuclear work with mixed success. In return, Iran would receive a light-water nuclear reactor (a type that reduces the risk of diversion to weapons use), as well as atomic fuel and future trade benefits. Spent reactor fuel would be removed from the country. Iran has been resisting the main EU demand to suspend all of its work on nuclear fuel for the duration of negotiations. The wrangling late last week jeopardized a potential deal.
A skeptical Bush administration has stayed away from the European effort, neither endorsing nor trying to block it. Administration hawks have quarreled with those favoring dialogue with Tehran: As a result, the administration has been unable even to issue a formal strategy on Iran.
Yet across the administration's spectrum of views, there is apprehension. ''Even the most dovish Middle East watcher in this government is pretty realistic about Iran's intentions,'' says one U.S. official. ''Iran is not going to fulfill any agreement with the EU.''
The Pentagon is revising contingency plans that originated with the Clinton administration for attacking Iran's nuclear plants. Officials describe the planning as routine for a global trouble spot and say that Bush continues to look for a diplomatic solution. Since late summer, they have also studied options in case Israel, as it has hinted, decides to hit Iran's nuclear sites in raids reminiscent of its 1981 attack on Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor.
The Bush administration recently agreed to sell Israel 500 bunker-busting smart bombs of a sort that could be used in such an operation. Secretary of State Colin Powell has urged Israel to give diplomacy time to work, and few officials doubt that strikes would be costly, inflaming anti-U.S. and anti-Israeli passions, spawning terrorist reprisals, and giving extremists a boost across the Islamic world.
Hit or miss. Opinion is divided on whether U.S. military action would justify the risks. ''You can't have confidence you could get everything, but you sure could have confidence you could get a lot of it,'' a high-ranking official, who considers pre-emption an eventual possibility, said in an interview. ''It's not the case militarily that you have to get everything to really set their program back.''
By Iranians generate electricity
The intelligence on Iraq's nuclear activities proved to be dead wrong after U.S.-led forces invaded last year, but in next-door Iran, there's no question that a vast and varied nuclear infrastructure is rising (or, in some cases, burrowing underground). The Iranians say they intend only to generate electricity and conduct generate electricity . But the same technology that can produce reactor fuel to light Iran's cities can be kept running to make the fissile material for atomic weapons--a goal that is widely suspected.-----Iran and the bomb What will it take to thwart Tehran's nuclear aims?
Even as public attention remains fixed on the deadly insurgency in Iraq, a standoff with neighboring Iran could mushroom into the first international crisis in George Bush's second term. The United States estimates that Iran could field its first nuclear weapon in three to seven years, a prospect Bush has branded ''intolerable.
'' Hoping to avert another Mideast war, the three leading European Union powers--Britain, France, and Germany--have been trying to pull off a deal with Iran to curtail its nuclear ambitions.
The EU-3 are proposing that Iran forswear work to enrich uranium or reprocess plutonium--the key processes in making atomic weapons--and cooperate fully with the IAEA, which has been probing Iran's secretive nuclear work with mixed success. In return, Iran would receive a light-water nuclear reactor (a type that reduces the risk of diversion to weapons use), as well as atomic fuel and future trade benefits. Spent reactor fuel would be removed from the country. Iran has been resisting the main EU demand to suspend all of its work on nuclear fuel for the duration of negotiations. The wrangling late last week jeopardized a potential deal.
A skeptical Bush administration has stayed away from the European effort, neither endorsing nor trying to block it. Administration hawks have quarreled with those favoring dialogue with Tehran: As a result, the administration has been unable even to issue a formal strategy on Iran.
Yet across the administration's spectrum of views, there is apprehension. ''Even the most dovish Middle East watcher in this government is pretty realistic about Iran's intentions,'' says one U.S. official. ''Iran is not going to fulfill any agreement with the EU.''
The Pentagon is revising contingency plans that originated with the Clinton administration for attacking Iran's nuclear plants. Officials describe the planning as routine for a global trouble spot and say that Bush continues to look for a diplomatic solution. Since late summer, they have also studied options in case Israel, as it has hinted, decides to hit Iran's nuclear sites in raids reminiscent of its 1981 attack on Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor.
The Bush administration recently agreed to sell Israel 500 bunker-busting smart bombs of a sort that could be used in such an operation. Secretary of State Colin Powell has urged Israel to give diplomacy time to work, and few officials doubt that strikes would be costly, inflaming anti-U.S. and anti-Israeli passions, spawning terrorist reprisals, and giving extremists a boost across the Islamic world.
Hit or miss. Opinion is divided on whether U.S. military action would justify the risks. ''You can't have confidence you could get everything, but you sure could have confidence you could get a lot of it,'' a high-ranking official, who considers pre-emption an eventual possibility, said in an interview. ''It's not the case militarily that you have to get everything to really set their program back.''
By Iranians generate electricity
