Subterfuge: “something intended to misrepresent the true nature of an activity”. That definition pretty much explains Iranian activity over the past few years. An article in the NYT explores Iranian president Ahmadinejad’s recent statement about the P-2 centrifuge, and makes a good case about what role Pakistan’s A.Q.Kahn played, in helping the Iranian regime along in their quest for a nuke bomb.
“The new claim focuses renewed attention on Iran’s rocky relationship with Mr. Khan, who provided it with much of the enrichment technology it is exploiting today. If Mr. Ahmadinejad’s claim is correct, it probably indicates that relationship went on longer and far deeper than previously acknowledged. Mr. Khan and his nuclear black market supplied Iran with blueprints for both the more elementary machine, known as P-1, and the more advanced P-2.”
And:
“Last year, Pakistan said its investigation into the Khan network was closed. But the Iranian crisis has led to renewed questioning of Dr. Khan, American intelligence officials and European diplomats say. So far his answers have been vague, investigators say. Iran, for its part, has said virtually nothing about its P-2 program. The International Institute for Strategic Studies, an arms analysis group in London, said in a report last year that Iran’s failure to provide more information about its P-2 program led many analysts to suspect that the advanced centrifuges formed “the nucleus of a secret enrichment program.” David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security, a private research group in Washington that monitors the Iranian program, said Mr. Ahmadinejad’s declaration, whether political rhetoric or technical reality, now gave the world “something to further investigate and worry about.”
“Tehran says its nuclear program is entirely peaceful and meant for producing nuclear power. But the Bush administration argues otherwise. “A. Q. Khan was not in the business of civil nuclear power development,” Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said in an interview for the documentary. “Why, if you only intended a civil nuclear program, would you have lied about activities at Natanz?” Later she added, “Why are they still unwilling to answer some of the questions that the I.A.E.A. has?”
Iran cannot be trusted, and neither can any time table predicting their progress on achieving a Shii’a nuke bomb. The IAEA’s intitial assement of the Iranian P-2 program needs to be reviewed, their 2004 statement does seem to be as ‘air tight’ as once thought. More here. KGS
