Latest news with #IranianScientists
Japan Times
2 days ago
- Politics
- Japan Times
What will it take to end Iran's nuke program? An army.
In the weeks since the U.S. attacked the Iranian nuclear program with 30,000-pound "bunker busting' bombs and submarine-launched Tomahawk missiles, we've heard wide variation in how much damage has been done overall. American President Donald Trump's claim that the U.S. had "obliterated' the Iranian nuclear program was widely challenged and current assessments have broadly settled on "severe damage' that has set back the program 12 to 24 months. What is largely not disputed is that 800-plus pounds of enriched uranium remains somewhere in Iran; that some number of the critical enrichment machines (gas centrifuges, cascade structures, precision bearings) are likely still in Iranian hands; and, indisputably, that the scientific knowhow to produce an atomic bomb still exists in the minds of Iranian scientists, engineers and technologists who survived the strikes. When Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel and Trump met last week, they were in agreement: Iran can never be permitted to have a nuclear weapon. But from there, the beliefs diverge. Israel probably wants more strikes to find and destroy the uranium stockpile and machinery, and to assassinate leading scientists. Trump likely wants to avoid more strikes, seeking to find a diplomatic and economic solution that doesn't drag the U.S. further into another Middle East war. But the fact is, neither of these approaches would achieve that ultimate goal of ensuring the Tehran regime never produces a viable nuclear arsenal. So, what would it actually require? Certainly, more than the American people, their elected officials and the military would be eager to undertake any time soon. One way to think about this is to look at the 2003 invasion of in Iraq. Yes, we all know it turned out that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein didn't have a nuclear weapons program. But, paradoxically, the mission intended to find it must be considered a military success in terms of achieving its objective. That effort provides a blueprint for what it would take to truly obliterate a nation's weapons research programs. I remember the invasion of Iraq clearly. Immediately after 9/11, I was promoted to a one-star rear admiral's rank and head of the Navy's new tactical antiterrorist think tank, called "Deep Blue.' My mission was to come up with ways to defeat al-Qaida forces who had perpetrated the attack on the U.S. Given our focus on finding and eliminating terrorist groups in Afghanistan, I was surprised to hear more and more discussion in the Pentagon about invading Iraq. Operational plans were underway to remove Saddam's regime, on the presumption that he had a capable program for weapons of mass destruction. That intelligence turned out to be wrong. But at the time, the objective for the military was to destroy what we believed was an extensive Iraqi nuclear program. I remember reviewing those plans and they were far, far from a series of precision strikes. They included an initial force of more than 150,000 ground troops (U.S. and British); another 200,000 supporting troops; almost 2,000 combat aircraft for 24,000 sorties in the first six weeks, with 65,000 airmen supporting; and more than 100 naval warships 60,000 sailors. Several thousand highly trained special forces members were also to be engaged. Ultimately, nearly 40 nations participated in the operation that began in 2003, including a major NATO training mission which I would eventually command. The plan also envisioned that Shiite Muslim militias — opposed to Saddam's Sunni-led regime — would rise up and fight alongside our forces. I recall another rear admiral speaking in football parlance that "Shias go long,' like NFL wide receivers. Wishful thinking aside, here's the point: This was a massive undertaking that ultimately cost the U.S. trillions of dollars, thousands of combat deaths and tens of thousands of life-changing wounds and countless Iraqi civilian lives. It was costly, bloody and painful. Nonetheless, every government lab was inspected and neutralized; key scientific personnel were identified, interrogated and placed under surveillance. Machinery was destroyed and factories converted to other uses. But this required, above all, boots on the ground. It simply could not have been done in Iraq with a handful of airstrikes and clusters of Tomahawk missiles. Now let's look at Iran. It is nearly four times the size of Iraq, with a population roughly twice as large. Unlike the case in Baghdad, we know with absolute certainly — because of international inspectors — that Iran has an active and impressive program to build not only nuclear weapons but also ballistic missiles to deliver them. Thus, the challenge to obliterate that capability is immense, far greater than in Iraq. It would require invading Iran with hundreds of thousands of ground troops, occupying the country and systematically dismantling the state. Could we do that? Yes, but the costs would be enormous. Would the Iranian people greet us as liberators and turn their nation into a democratic beacon in a turbulent region? Uh, we heard exactly that about Iraq. Didn't work out well. If our leaders are going to call for obliterating the Iranian nuclear program, they need to be clear-eyed. Perhaps someday an overwhelming military option may be needed, but for now let's see what we can accomplish at the bargaining table. And tell the Israelis to cool their jets, literally. Any potential deal needs to include a guarantee of open inspections by international bodies anywhere, anytime; no uranium enrichment within Iran (if the regime truly wants low-enriched material for an energy program, it can come from a neutral third site); termination of long-range ballistic missile research and testing; and no further support to terrorist or proxy groups threatening the U.S., Arab states or Israel. In return, we can offer a graduated series of steps to relieve sanctions; cooperation on peaceful nuclear power; and economic incentives — for the Europeans, a peaceful Iran could be a very attractive investment opportunity. Over the long haul, we can always go back to the Pentagon and pull out the war plans to invade Iran — and the Tehran leadership knows it. But we shouldn't kid ourselves about what can be accomplished strictly with low-cost and low-risk airstrikes. To truly obliterate the Iranian nuclear plan would be shockingly costly and painful. Far better to try again diplomatically. The ghosts of Iraq demand no less. [Bio]James Stavridis is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist, a retired U.S. Navy admiral, former supreme allied commander of NATO and vice chairman of global affairs at the Carlyle Group.[/bio]
Bloomberg
5 days ago
- Politics
- Bloomberg
What Would It Take to End Iran's Nuclear Program? An Army
In the weeks since the US attacked the Iranian nuclear program with 30,000-pound 'bunker busting' bombs and submarine-launched Tomahawk missiles, we've heard wide variation in how much damage has been done overall. President Donald Trump's claim that the US had 'obliterated' the Iranian nuclear program was widely challenged, and current assessments have broadly settled on 'severe damage' that has set back the program 12 to 24 months. What is largely not disputed is that 800-plus pounds of enriched uranium remains somewhere in Iran; that some number of the critical enrichment machines (gas centrifuges, cascade structures, precision bearings) are likely still in Iranian hands; and, indisputably, that the scientific knowhow to produce an atomic bomb still exists in the minds of Iranian scientists, engineers and technologists who survived the strikes.
Arab News
19-06-2025
- Politics
- Arab News
Israeli scientists reel after Iranian missile strikes premier research institute
REHOVOT, Israel: For years, Israel has targeted Iranian nuclear scientists, hoping to choke progress on Iran's nuclear program by striking at the brains behind it. Now, with Iran and Israel in an open-ended direct conflict, scientists in Israel have found themselves in the crosshairs after an Iranian missile struck a premier research institute known for its work in life sciences and physics, among other fields. While no one was killed in the strike on the Weizmann Institute of Science early Sunday, it caused heavy damage to multiple labs on campus, snuffing out years of scientific research and sending a chilling message to Israeli scientists that they and their expertise are now targets in the escalating conflict with Iran. 'It's a moral victory' for Iran, said Oren Schuldiner, a professor in the department of molecular cell biology and the department of molecular neuroscience whose lab was obliterated in the strike. 'They managed to harm the crown jewel of science in Israel.' Iranian scientists were a prime target in a long shadow war During years of a shadow war between Israel and Iran that preceded the current conflict, Israel repeatedly targeted Iranian nuclear scientists with the aim of setting back Iran's nuclear program. Israel continued that tactic with its initial blow against Iran days ago, killing multiple nuclear scientists, along with top generals, as well as striking nuclear facilities and ballistic missile infrastructure. For its part, Iran has been accused of targeting at least one Weizmann scientist before. Last year, Israeli authorities said they busted an Iranian spy ring that devised a plot to follow and assassinate an Israeli nuclear scientist who worked and lived at the institute. Citing an indictment, Israeli media said the suspects, Palestinians from east Jerusalem, gathered information about the scientist and photographed the exterior of the Weizmann Institute but were arrested before they could proceed. With Iran's intelligence penetration into Israel far less successful than Israel's, those plots have not been seen through, making this week's strike on Weizmann that much more jarring. 'The Weizmann Institute has been in Iran's sights,' said Yoel Guzansky, an Iran expert and senior researcher at the Institute for National Security Studies, a Tel Aviv think tank. He stressed that he did not know for certain whether Iran intended to strike the institute but believed it did. While it is a multidisciplinary research institute, Weizmann, like other Israeli universities, has ties to Israel's defense establishment, including collaborations with industry leaders like Elbit Systems, which is why it may have been targeted. But Guzansky said the institute primarily symbolizes 'Israeli scientific progress' and the strike against it shows Iran's thinking: 'You harm our scientists, so we are also harming scientific cadre.' Damage to the institute and labs 'literally decimated' Weizmann, founded in 1934 and later renamed after Israel's first president, ranks among the world's top research institutes. Its scientists and researchers publish hundreds of studies each year. One Nobel laureate in chemistry and three Turing Award laureates have been associated with the institute, which built the first computer in Israel in 1954. Two buildings were hit in the strike, including one housing life sciences labs and a second that was empty and under construction but meant for chemistry study, according to the institute. Dozens of other buildings were damaged. The campus has been closed since the strike, although media were allowed to visit Thursday. Large piles of rock, twisted metal and other debris were strewn on campus. There were shattered windows, collapsed ceiling panels and charred walls. A photo shared on X by one professor showed flames rising near a heavily damaged structure with debris scattered on the ground nearby. 'Several buildings were hit quite hard, meaning that some labs were literally decimated, really leaving nothing,' said Sarel Fleishman, a professor of biochemics who said he has visited the site since the strike. Life's work of many researchers is gone Many of those labs focus on the life sciences, whose projects are especially sensitive to physical damage, Fleishman said. The labs were studying areas like tissue generation, developmental biology or cancer, with much of their work now halted or severely set back by the damage. 'This was the life's work of many people,' he said, noting that years' or even decades' worth of research was destroyed. For Schuldiner, the damage means the lab he has worked at for 16 years 'is entirely gone. No trace. There is nothing to save.' In that once gleaming lab, he kept thousands of genetically modified flies used for research into the development of the human nervous system, which helped provide insights into autism and schizophrenia, he said. The lab housed equipment like sophisticated microscopes. Researchers from Israel and abroad joined hands in the study effort. 'All of our studies have stopped,' he said, estimating it would take years to rebuild and get the science work back on track. 'It's very significant damage to the science that we can create and to the contribution we can make to the world.'
Associated Press
19-06-2025
- Politics
- Associated Press
Israeli scientists reel after Iranian missile strikes premier research institute
REHOVOT, Israel (AP) — For years, Israel has targeted Iranian nuclear scientists, hoping to choke progress on Iran's nuclear program by striking at the brains behind it. Now, with Iran and Israel in an open-ended direct conflict, scientists in Israel have found themselves in the crosshairs after an Iranian missile struck a premier research institute known for its work in life sciences and physics, among other fields. While no one was killed in the strike on the Weizmann Institute of Science early Sunday, it caused heavy damage to multiple labs on campus, snuffing out years of scientific research and sending a chilling message to Israeli scientists that they and their expertise are now targets in the escalating conflict with Iran. 'It's a moral victory' for Iran, said Oren Schuldiner, a professor in the department of molecular cell biology and the department of molecular neuroscience whose lab was obliterated in the strike. 'They managed to harm the crown jewel of science in Israel.' Iranian scientists were a prime target in a long shadow war During years of a shadow war between Israel and Iran that preceded the current conflict, Israel repeatedly targeted Iranian nuclear scientists with the aim of setting back Iran's nuclear program. Israel continued that tactic with its initial blow against Iran days ago, killing multiple nuclear scientists, along with top generals, as well as striking nuclear facilities and ballistic missile infrastructure. For its part, Iran has been accused of targeting at least one Weizmann scientist before. Last year, Israeli authorities said they busted an Iranian spy ring that devised a plot to follow and assassinate an Israeli nuclear scientist who worked and lived at the institute. Citing an indictment, Israeli media said the suspects, Palestinians from east Jerusalem, gathered information about the scientist and photographed the exterior of the Weizmann Institute but were arrested before they could proceed. With Iran's intelligence penetration into Israel far less successful than Israel's, those plots have not been seen through, making this week's strike on Weizmann that much more jarring. 'The Weizmann Institute has been in Iran's sights,' said Yoel Guzansky, an Iran expert and senior researcher at the Institute for National Security Studies, a Tel Aviv think tank. He stressed that he did not know for certain whether Iran intended to strike the institute but believed it did. While it is a multidisciplinary research institute, Weizmann, like other Israeli universities, has ties to Israel's defense establishment, including collaborations with industry leaders like Elbit Systems, which is why it may have been targeted. But Guzansky said the institute primarily symbolizes 'Israeli scientific progress' and the strike against it shows Iran's thinking: 'You harm our scientists, so we are also harming (your) scientific cadre.' Damage to the institute and labs 'literally decimated' Weizmann, founded in 1934 and later renamed after Israel's first president, ranks among the world's top research institutes. Its scientists and researchers publish hundreds of studies each year. One Nobel laureate in chemistry and three Turing Award laureates have been associated with the institute, which built the first computer in Israel in 1954. Two buildings were hit in the strike, including one housing life sciences labs and a second that was empty and under construction but meant for chemistry study, according to the institute. Dozens of other buildings were damaged. The campus has been closed since the strike, although media were allowed to visit Thursday. Large piles of rock, twisted metal and other debris were strewn on campus. There were shattered windows, collapsed ceiling panels and charred walls. A photo shared on X by one professor showed flames rising near a heavily damaged structure with debris scattered on the ground nearby. 'Several buildings were hit quite hard, meaning that some labs were literally decimated, really leaving nothing,' said Sarel Fleishman, a professor of biochemics who said he has visited the site since the strike. Life's work of many researchers is gone Many of those labs focus on the life sciences, whose projects are especially sensitive to physical damage, Fleishman said. The labs were studying areas like tissue generation, developmental biology or cancer, with much of their work now halted or severely set back by the damage. 'This was the life's work of many people,' he said, noting that years' or even decades' worth of research was destroyed. For Schuldiner, the damage means the lab he has worked at for 16 years 'is entirely gone. No trace. There is nothing to save.' In that once gleaming lab, he kept thousands of genetically modified flies used for research into the development of the human nervous system, which helped provide insights into autism and schizophrenia, he said. The lab housed equipment like sophisticated microscopes. Researchers from Israel and abroad joined hands in the study effort. 'All of our studies have stopped,' he said, estimating it would take years to rebuild and get the science work back on track. 'It's very significant damage to the science that we can create and to the contribution we can make to the world.' ___ Goldenberg reported from Tel Aviv, Israel. This story was submitted to Israel's military censor, which made no changes.
The Independent
16-06-2025
- Science
- The Independent
Here's what it means to enrich uranium – and why it raises concerns
Late last week, Israel targeted three of Iran 's key nuclear facilities – Natanz, Isfahan and Fordow – killing several Iranian nuclear scientists. The facilities are heavily fortified and largely underground, and there are conflicting reports of how much damage has been done. Natanz and Fordow are Iran's uranium enrichment sites, and Isfahan provides the raw materials, so any damage to these sites would limit Iran's ability to produce nuclear weapons. But what exactly is uranium enrichment and why does it raise concerns? To understand what it means to 'enrich' uranium, you need to know a little about uranium isotopes and about splitting the atom in a nuclear fission reaction. All matter is made of atoms, which in turn are made up of protons, neutrons and electrons. The number of protons is what gives atoms their chemical properties, setting apart the various chemical elements. Atoms have equal numbers of protons and electrons. Uranium has 92 protons, for example, while carbon has six. However, the same element can have different numbers of neutrons, forming versions of the element called isotopes. This hardly matters for chemical reactions, but their nuclear reactions can be wildly different. The difference between uranium-238 and uranium-235 When we dig uranium out of the ground, 99.27 per cent of it is uranium-238, which has 92 protons and 146 neutrons. Only 0.72 per cent of it is uranium-235 with 92 protons and 143 neutrons (the remaining 0.01 per cent are other isotopes). For nuclear power reactors or weapons, we need to change the isotope proportions. That's because of the two main uranium isotopes, onlyuranium-235 can support a fission chain reaction: one neutron causes an atom to fission, which produces energy and some more neutrons, causing more fission, and so on. This chain reaction releases a tremendous amount of energy. In a nuclear weapon, the goal is to have this chain reaction occur in a fraction of a second, producing a nuclear explosion. In a civilian nuclear power plant, the chain reaction is controlled. Nuclear power plants currently produce 9 per cent of the world's power. Another vital civilian use of nuclear reactions is for producing isotopes used in nuclear medicine for the diagnosis and treatment of various diseases. What is uranium enrichment, then? To 'enrich' uranium means taking the naturally found element and increasing the proportion of uranium-235 while removing uranium-238. There are a few ways to do this (including new inventions from Australia), but commercially, enrichment is currently done with a centrifuge. This is also the case in Iran's facilities. Centrifuges exploit the fact that uranium-238 is about 1 per cent heavier than uranium-235. They take uranium (in gas form) and use rotors to spin it at 50,000 to 70,000 rotations per minute, with the outer walls of the centrifuges moving at 400 to 500 metres per second. This works much like a salad spinner that throws water to the sides while the salad leaves stay in the centre. The heavier uranium-238 moves to the edges of the centrifuge, leaving the uranium-235 in the middle. This is only so effective, so the spinning process is done over and over again, building up the percentage of the uranium-235. Most civilian nuclear reactors use 'low enriched uranium' that's been enriched to between 3 per cent and 5 per cent. This means that 3–5 per cent of the total uranium in the sample is now uranium-235. That's enough to sustain a chain reaction and make electricity. What level of enrichment do nuclear weapons need? To get an explosive chain reaction, uranium-235 needs to be concentrated significantly more than the levels we use in nuclear reactors for making power or medicines. Technically, a nuclear weapon can be made with as little as 20 per cent uranium-235 (known as 'highly enriched uranium'), but the more the uranium is enriched, the smaller and lighter the weapon can be. Countries with nuclear weapons tend to use about 90 per cent enriched, 'weapons-grade' uranium. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Iran has enriched large quantities of uranium to 60 per cent. It's actually easier to go from an enrichment of 60 per cent to 90 per cent than it is to get to that initial 60%. That's because there's less and less uranium-238 to get rid of. This is why Iran is considered to be at extreme risk of producing nuclear weapons, and why centrifuge technology for enrichment is kept secret. Ultimately, the exact same centrifuge technology that produces fuel for civilian reactors can be used to produce nuclear weapons. Inspectors from the IAEA monitor nuclear facilities worldwide to ensure countries are abiding by the rules set out in the global nuclear non-proliferation treaty. While Iran maintains it's only enriching uranium for 'peaceful purposes', late last week the IAEA board ruled Iran was in breach of its obligations under the treaty.
