Abrupt Iran Decision To Move Nuclear Production Deep Underground Dubbed "Provocation" By US

Tyler Durden's picture

It always seems that just when there is a lull in news of geopolitcal tension, we get an update that the Iranian situation gets that more unstable. After a nearly year long hiatus brought courtesy of allegedly Israeli supervirus Stuxnet taking out Iran's entire nuclear infrastructure offline for many months, the topic of Iran's nuclear capability is once again back, and starting to stink up the join. The NYT has just reported that in an attempt to preempt a possible air strike by the US or Israel, "Iran is moving its most critical nuclear fuel production to a heavily defended underground military facility outside the holy city of Qum, where it is less vulnerable to attack from the air and, the Iranians hope, the kind of cyberattack that crippled its nuclear program, according to intelligence officials." Not surprisingly, Iran has ceased any ties with the US in terms of nuclear fuel delivery: "We will no longer negotiate a fuel swap and a halt to our production of fuel,” head of Iran’s atomic energy agency, Fereydoon Abbasi said “The United States is not a safe country with which we can negotiate a fuel swap or any other issue." Well, it took the US minutes to respond: "Tommy Vietor, a spokesman for the National Security Council, said that the Iranian plan “to install and operate centrifuges at Qum,” in a facility whose existence President Obama and Europeans leaders made public two years ago, “is a violation of their United Nations security obligations and another provocative act." Next up: an update of US Naval assets in the just passed week. Time to start focusing on those Straits of Hormuz again.

From the NYT:

The head of Iran’s atomic energy agency, Fereydoon Abbasi, spoke about the transfer in general terms on Monday to an official Iranian news service. He boasted that his country would produce the fuel in much larger quantities than it needs for a small research reactor in Tehran that produces medical isotopes.


The fact that Iran is declaring that its production will exceed its needs has reinforced the suspicions of many American and European intelligence officials that Iran plans to use the fuel to build weapons or to train Iranian scientists to produce bomb-grade fuel.

The time for "Kinetic" options is coming:

The officials involved in the discussions about Iran said the Bush White House asked the Central Intelligence Agency in the summer of 2008 to assess the feasibility of covert action to blow up or disable crucial elements of Iran’s nuclear facilities. But when the agency delivered the plans, they were quickly rejected, all the officials said, for fear that any kind of obvious attack on the facilities could touch off another conflict in the Middle East just as a new American president was assuming office.


The options were developed in part to assess whether a physical attack on the facilities would be significantly more effective than more subtle — and deniable — sabotage of the Iranian facilities, including cyberattacks. That presentation and subsequent discussions led to a detailed exploration of Iran’s vulnerability to a sophisticated cyberattack.


“There were a range of options from the highly kinetic to the other end of the scale,” one former official involved in the decision-making said, using the military’s jargon for the use of physical force against a target. The officials who described the discussions would not speak of the specific operations under consideration, which remain classified, but said that the Obama transition team had been fully briefed on the possibilities.

The only question is how hard will Israel push this time:

Early in 2008, the officials said, the United States denied a request from Israel for equipment that might have helped mount an air attack.


Vice President Dick Cheney was known to be a strong advocate of direct action against the facilities, either through covert means or by helping Israel build up its capability to strike. Mr. Cheney does not discuss the issue in his new memoir, published this week, other than to say that he favored an American military strike against Syria’s nuclear reactor in 2007, partly as a warning to Iran.

So just in time for the re-depression, time for war is here. Right on schedule.

And now, as promised, here is the updated US naval map.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
nope-1004's picture

Iran has oil.  US needs it.  Invasion imminent.

fuu's picture

Any nation with resources but without nukes is a US military victim waiting to happen.

Bring the Gold's picture

Reminds me of this Bill Hick's classic joke comparing the US to Jack Palance in Shane: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQ6kMWA2WRk

Bullionaire's picture

Thanks for the Hicks.  He is missed.



wanklord's picture

The only way Barry & Associates (including the Zionist warmongers) can justify a war against the Islamic Republic of Iran is by staging another false flag attack on continental United States: most likely a controlled nuclear explosion (dirty bomb) targeting a major urban concentration that may kill dozens of thousands of civilians. This operation will be carried out by the CIA in partnership with Mossad and MI6 to subsequently be blamed on AlQaeda working in conjunction with elements of Iran's IRGC and Pakistan's ISI. Besides that, Americans are a bunch of stupid animals easy to manipulate and subdue. The psychological impact of this event will elicit the brute and ignorant populace to demand a massive retaliation against the alleged perpetrators (explicitly Iran); the Obama administration will need the unconditional support of these mules in order to further their agenda.

MelvilleSaysNo's picture

Bingo.  Couldn't have said it better myself.

Savyindallas's picture

That's a pretty good analysis, but it can't happen soon -at least not in the manner you suggest  -- Far too many agents in the CIA Al Quaeda division have been reassigned from Afghanistan/Pakistan to Libya. The CIA has had trouble recruiting for it's Al Quaeda division for years -  Part of the purpose of the Libya operation was to increase morale by allowing Al Quaeda agents an extended vacation looting, plundering and raping Libyan women. This will have the effect of dramatically increasing recuitment efforts.  The only way that CIA/Al Quaeda agents will be persuaded to leave the Libyan orgy will be when the Ghadaffi forces have regrouped and started killing them in great numbers from an insurgency to liberate the country from the "rats". That will take several months. Right now the Al Quada CIA agents are drunk with power and looted wealth, raping the locals and generally carrying on like the barbarian mercenaries that they are.  Under these conditions, there will be few available Al Qaeda agents available for serious Iranian operations-at the very earliest until next Spring. .

AldousHuxley's picture

US wealth is based on reserve currency status which is based on petrodollar recycling.


US doesn't need oil, but the world does. US wants oil to be traded in dollars to back up the fiat currency. This is America's control of the salt trade routes, silk trade routes, etc. America profits from controlling trade of oil by taxing it. Iran is planning to go live with a nuke to defend their bourse and get off of dollar inflation paying for jewish banksters gambling dues with their natural resources. diplomacy doesn't work when one country developes nukes. time for military action. Forget muslims vs christianity....religious leaders are just another form of political pawns. Forget freedom and democracy BS. It is about control of trade.


But what I see on the map is that carriers are moving away from Iran into China's waters.


BTW, this is where your tax dollars are going Americans. Politicians especially "conservative" republicans are laying off your kids' teachers (reduce their future income potential) saying government doesn't have money, but they do, they are just allocating for defense of banksters and their primary export: fiat currency.


This is all you need to know. Everything else is secondary. Tea party folks don't get it. Poor white republicans don't get it. bankster loving zionist democrats don't get it. Because the real powerful men behind the curtain don't want you to know.

bid the soldiers shoot's picture

I have to disagree about the U.S. not needing oil. That's like saying I don't need my bank balance to have one more digit, and go from 6 to 7.

Oil is traded in dollars because Saudi Arabia will only take dollars. I can only imagine that China has no objection to that. Getting rid of bottomless dollars for oil.

"That's the way they like it, Uh Huh."

DoChenRollingBearing's picture

@ wanklord

I worked for a while with one of the "three letters".  A false flag attack so vast would be IMPOSSIBLE to keep secret.

The only really "Hot Sexy Secrets" that ever are kept secret is if VERY FEW KNOW (please believe me on that).  That's why all the conspiracy theories that are complicated (9/11 theories, aliens at Area 51, JFK's assassination theories) are all wrong.

"Three can keep a secret if two of them are dead."  Old saying.  Of course, it's not that bad, but once you have more than, say, 10 people in on a MASS MURDER, that WOULD get out.  A dirty bomb killing thousands would need more than 10 people...

Count on it.

Bring the Gold's picture

Weak sauce Dochen, even Jackie O thinks JFK was done in by a conspiracy.


Btw, conspirators are quite often killed. It helps to kill them when folks don't even know there was a conspiracy, let alone which random suicides and accidents to connect to a plot. Sorry, but in the real world complex conspiracies are banal, they have happened since Uruk and Ur. It's only in the post Enlightenment era - when the propaganda matrix really got started - that those who benefit a bit off the system started to be spoonfed from cradle to grave that conspiracies don't exist.

Btw 9/11 was a conspiracy any way you slice it and a complicated one at that whether you believe the official story or alternate theories. Either way your post makes you look like a rube who is blissfully ignorant of how the real world works.

That you didn't have the clearance to get into the real stuff doesn't mean shit, other than that you weren't in. What is clear from your post is that you are in some serious ass denial about how the real world works and has worked since ancient times. Read some fucking history.

Not For Reuse's picture

dude, he is right, you are an idiot. stfu & reread what he wrote. Pay attention this time

Bring the Gold's picture

Actually what I wrote is correct anyone with a smidgen of historical knowledge would know that complex conspiracies have and DO exist.

Dochen threw out three unrelated stories that have nothing to do with one another not to mention the UFO one is obviously meant just to discredit belief in either of the other very believable and earthly theories.

Also the Government's own theories (yes there are MORE than one) regarding 9/11 are in fact COMPLEX CONSPIRACIES. So Dochen is wrong any way you slice it.

I got an idea how about you fuck off and go back to school and take a rhetoric class or too. And speaking of rhetorical, does it hurt when you attempt to write a sentence?

bid the soldiers shoot's picture

very good.

My favorite conspiracy and/or conspiracy to cover up is that of USS Liberty. The conspiracy from which no one benefited. The cover up which absolutely no one believes.

Bring the Gold's picture

Yeah funny that one. There were also the terror attacks in DC no less where cars were blown up in related issues. South Korean intel has also been busy in the US and has gotten away with it. Sure seems like you can get away with whatever you want as a US ally if you are friends with the right families who have been running the show since at least the reconstruction if not 1812.

bid the soldiers shoot's picture

False flag attacks these days are not just painting swastikas on the wings of your airplanes before they strafe hospitals, and burning the Reichstag and blaming the communists.

They are also WMD. False causa belli.

Deep underground production facilities reported by the New York Times.

WMD all over again. Somebody email Hans Blick.

natty light's picture

Then how were we able to keep D-Day a secret, making Hitler think we would invade the Balkans instead of Normandy France?

Also there is compartmentalisation.

trav7777's picture

your statement isn't even remotely accurate.

The Germans knew we were coming ashore and roughly when.  A series of dumbshit appeasement compromises by Hitler regarding placement of armor as well as having to abandon the first invasion date due to weather were responsible for the apparent unpreparedness

Bring the Gold's picture

That and the whole Eastern Front thing...

Bring the Gold's picture

Like the Adam Weishaupt avatar, nice subtle touch for those who know history.

I Told YOU So's picture

brilliant   -no sarc here-

trav7777's picture

a dirty bomb wouldn't even kill a dozen civilians much less the numbers you suggest. 

Bicycle Repairman's picture

Weren't you the guy who said Fuk-u-shima was a non-event?  I think you underestimate the danger of nuclear poisons.

NidStyles's picture

More like a US Government accident waiting to happen. It's not like the Military actually wants to be involved.

john39's picture

true.  Iran is not Libya or Yemen...  they can and will make it very painful if the U.S. or Israel attacks.

CrashisOptimistic's picture

Iran's oil production is way past peak.

China is their primary customer.

They aren't worth bombing and their customer would object.


DaveyJones's picture

I think we should invade them to make sure they're peaceful

Arrowhead's picture

and take all their fancy ass rugs

MarketTruth's picture

"Military men are just dumb stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy." -- Henry Kissinger

Judge Holden's picture

You reminded me of this gem from The Onion (circa 2003):

Bush Orders Iraq To Disarm Before Start Of War

WASHINGTON, DC—Maintaining his hardline stance against Saddam Hussein, President Bush ordered Iraq to fully dismantle its military before the U.S. begins its invasion next week. "U.S. intelligence confirms that, even as we speak, Saddam is preparing tanks and guns and other weapons of deadly force for use in our upcoming war against him," Bush said Sunday during his weekly radio address. "This madman has every intention of firing back at our troops when we attack his country." Bush warned the Iraqi dictator to "lay down [his] weapons and enter battle unarmed, or suffer the consequences.

CTG_Sweden's picture




"Iran's oil production is way past peak.

China is their primary customer.

They aren't worth bombing and their customer would object.



I doubt that the US/Israel conflict with Iran primarily is about oil. Perhaps indirectly since oil gives a country the financial means which gives some political power.


I also suspect that the Iranians, just like other Muslim and Arab nations underestimate what political leaders in the West can get away with. For instance, I´m not sure that the EU would revoke the free trade agreement with Israel if Israel would nuke Iran. In fact, I think that it is more likely that Israel would be able to keep its free trade agreement with the EU. Provided that a military action is very limited in time the effect on the public opinion can be very limited. Since successful influencing of the public opinion, especially among gentiles, to a very large extent resembles schooling dogs and other animals over time, actions that are carried out within a very limited time frame and are not reported on during a longer period of time may have a very limited impact on the general public. But perhaps nukes would extend the time media would cover an attack? For that reason, I suppose that conventional weapons would be a better choice.   


Somehow it also seems as if Arab and Muslim leaders do not even ponder about the reasons why western politicians did not care about the extermination of perhaps 5 million kulaks in the Soviet Union in the 1930s. The extermination of the kulaks was well known among politicians in the 1930s. Trotsky mentioned the extermination of the kulaks in one book and also stated that millions had been killed. 


Nor do the Arab/Muslim leaders ponder about why the West did not give the non-communist rebels in Russia arms, ammunition and cans from WWI stores during the Russian civil war in 1918-19. Instead, the West destructed WWI weapons on a large scale. At one point, the non-communist rebels controlled 90 % of the country. It would not have been hard to let the non-communist rebels win. I think that a guy by the name Antony Sutton wrote a book called "Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution" 20-30 years ago. Apparently, this book is considered as mainstream literature and has been reviewed in mainstream press. I think that the Swedish daily newspaper Svenska Dagbladet reviewed this book, but I´m not sure.


But perhaps the Iranian regime hopes that Israel will attack and that this will cause increased support for the regime? My impression is that the birth rate has been too high in Iran which in turn has caused a high unemployment and discontent in the general public. If Israel nukes Iran this event may eclipse the discontent caused by unemployment and lack of freedom for decades. 


Furthermore, I don´t know whether Obama would oppose an attack on countries like Iran and Pakistan or not. The most important politicial issues for Obama seems to health care insurance for more people and appointing supreme court justices who are opposed to discrimination against coloured people and also are approved of by lobby organizations. But I really wonder whether the fact that he partially grew up with a Muslim stepfather in Indonesia has made Obama more pro- or anti-Islam. Arabs and muslims can in some cases be scornful towards people of sub-Saharian descent due to the fact that black people were slaves in Muslim societies in the past. If Obama does not want to attack countries like Iran and Pakistan and the neocons want that, I think that QE3 and similar measures in order to prop up the stock prices are less likely. But since Federal Reserve has announced the interest rates will be kept very low for the next two years I doubt that there is a major conflict between Obama and the neoconservatives. However, I suppose that Obama is stupid if he wants an attack on a major oil producer shortly before the next election. If there currently is a 50/50 risk for a recession, I don´t think that increased oil prices is a smart move if the economy won´t pick up until November 2012. The question is whether the consequences of an attack on Iran would last more than a few weeks or a few months.


OrestesPenthilusQuintard's picture

OK, but Sutton's work is NOT mainstream here.  He's dismissed as a kook.

CTG_Sweden's picture



"OK, but Sutton's work is NOT mainstream here.  He's dismissed as a kook."


Well, Sutton´s conclusions are not mainstream in Sweden either. I think they are regarded as irrelevant in both Sweden and the United States. But they were not extremely contradictory to Swedish (and American, I suppose) official, historical writing since historians previously have not argued about to which extent the West let the Bolsheviks win or not. Everybody, especially communists in the West, have taken for granted the West did everything they could to overthrow the Bolshevik regime.

I don´t think that any Western mainstream historian has claimed that the West did everything they could to overthrow the Bolshevik regime. The principal information added by Sutton is that some Wall Street bankers actually bankrolled the Bolshevik revolution. The difference between Sutton and some other authors is that his description of this support is far more politically correct than some other authors. That is probably why some mainstream media reviewed his book. The fact that a Swedish banker, Olof Aschberg, owned a bank with 700 employees in Moscow in the 1920s is no secret.

George W. Bush once indirectly admitted that the US could have done a lot more to support the anti-communist rebels in 1918-19 when said something like:

- We didn´t think that the bolsheviks would go as far as they did.

I don´t think that Bush told us the truth in his speech. Western leaders knew in 1918 that the bolsheviks had executed under age members of the royal family and many others. Communism in 1918 was far more radical and brutal in 1918 than under Chrustjev or Breshnev. In 1918, they would not have expelled a guy like Alexander Solshenytzin. They would have shot him in the head.


(Antony C. Sutton´s book Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution was published in 1974 by Arlington House Publishers.)


trav7777's picture

wtf part of Lev Bronstein bein a cousin of Karl Mordechai and the rest of the agitators and players behind the marxist movement all being cousins is exactly not mainstream?

I mean, yes, I'm aware that they like to hide behind local names and all that, but the communist movement was at that time seen as ENTIRELY fed by cousins (and it was).  Is it an accident that we have so many cousins now that are effectively marxist, from hollywood outward?  I mean the post-weimar fight was between a clan pushing marxism and the nationalists led by the gestalt of evil.

Mugatu's picture

Weapons of Mass Destruction?

Haven't I heard that one before?  


Maybe we can't make cars as nice as the Germans or a computer as cheap as the Chinese, but we make some really neat war toys.  Time to make use of our best made products - boom toys.



bigkahuna's picture

The US military does not want to be involved because the conflict is at the behest of the global banking cartel. The US military is supposed to be guarding the US national security, not running around the world for plunder. That is why the US military does not want to be involved--and that goes for Afghanistan as well as Iraq, Yemen, Libya and Egypt also.

What will happen is most likely another false flag attack in the US to convince people that the US national security is threatened and troops will deploy.

Do not be mistaken, if the US wants to roll up Iran - it would be nasty and quick. None of this lets be your buddy and throw out your dictator bs.

Raymond Reason's picture

The sad thing is US Protestants will support an attack 100%.  Very sad. 

Rodent Freikorps's picture

How do you know that?

Why only Protestants?

narapoiddyslexia's picture

The catholics, hindoos, and the jews will be right there, too. Pile on! Pile on fer God!

Rodent Freikorps's picture

Isn't it weird that everyone except Shi'ites, Russia, and China hate Iran?

Even Arabs hate Iran.

DosZap's picture


Two reasons,

One, FEAR, Two, their PERSIANS, not Arabs.

Pants McPants's picture

Care to qualify that statement?

Also, you need a ride to the re-enlistment station?  Happy to provide.

Rodent Freikorps's picture

Arabs in general, and Sunnis do not have a very high opinion of Iran.

The Saudis are going to just buy some nukes. The whole region is about to go nuclear.

I'd sign up tommorrrow if they'd lower their standards.

They'd never let me carry a rifle, though. The bastards would have me maintaining high power RF equipment these days.

Tompooz's picture

Apart from Al Qaida calling Iranian shi'ites "infidels", it's more the other way round, Rodent. Iranians do not have a very high opinion about the Arabs. (except Ali, Hasan and Hussein of course, their shi'ite saints)

Americans have little idea how sophisticated Iranian intellectuals can be.    Just keep demonizing the whole lot and maybe the sheeple will fall for that Al Qaida "link" for a second time..  

Bicycle Repairman's picture

I'll keep an eye out for dissenting atheists.  No I won't.  Who the f#ck do you think you are kidding?

DosZap's picture




We PLUNDER nothing, and that's the issue.

WE blow hell out of everything, get thousands of our soldiers killed, and the so called Collateral damage inflicted in the process, and then after it's over, WE(THE American taxpayers), foot not only the bill financially for the invasions, and attacks,but WE REBUILD the shit we destroyed!!!!.

We Do not TAKE over their OIL Fields, there is NO recompense to U.S. WE ( Taxpayers) at all.

Example IRAQ, WHO is getting the benefit of the OIL sales, and receiving the Crude?.

Damn sure is not the U.S.

john39's picture

that's what cattle are for...   the multinationals/big banks make money on every stage of the process.  fascism, through and through. 

narapoiddyslexia's picture

Bullshit. The oil companies are benefitting, as are the oilfield support companies like Cheney's old company.


See the link - http://www.forbes.com/sites/brianwingfield/2010/08/31/as-u-s-troops-move-out-of-iraq-oil-companies-move-in/

bigkahuna's picture

It is the banking cartel. The US plunders for the cartel. I know the US military has no desire to do the work of the cartel--but the people who give the orders are the cartel. What people do not understand is that there has been a coup in the US. The people are no longer in control -- oh yeah, it has been this way for a long time now--just getting a little more fast paced, thats all.

Arius's picture

"What people do not understand is that there has been a coup in the US. The people are no longer in control"


have the people ever been in control????

not that i know of...not in the US...not anywhere else....the people are just sheep....get over it...