The Human Costs of Bombing Iran
 

12th April 2006 23:37

The Human Costs of Bombing Iran



The Human Costs of Bombing Iran


By Matthew Rothschild

April 11, 2006

George Bush didn’t exactly deny Seymour Hersh’s report in The New Yorker that the Administration is considering using tactical nuclear weapons against Iran.


Neither did Scott McClellan.


Bush called it “wild speculation,” and McClellan said the United States would go ahead with "normal military contingency planning."


Those are hardly categorical denials.


So let’s look at what the human costs of dropping a tactical nuclear weapon on Iran might entail.


They are astronomical.


“The number of deaths could exceed a million, and the number of people with increased cancer risks could exceed 10 million,” according to a backgrounder by the Union of Concerned Scientists from May 2005.


The National Academy of Sciences studied these earth-penetrating nuclear weapons last year. They could “kill up to a million people or more if used in heavily populated areas,” concluded the report, which was sponsored by the U.S. Department of Defense.


Physicians for Social Responsibility examined the risks of a more advanced buster-bunker weapon, and it eerily tabulated the toll from an attack on the underground nuclear facility in Esfahan, Iran. “Three million people would be killed by radiation within two weeks of the explosion, and 35 million people in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India, would be exposed to increased levels of cancer-causing radiation,” according to a summary of that study in the backgrounder by the Union of Concerned Scientists.


While Congress last year denied funding for a new nuclear bunker-buster weapon, the Pentagon already has a stockpile of one such weapon in the arsenal: the B61-Mod11, according to Stephen Young, a senior analyst at the Federation of the American Scientists.


That the Administration is considering using such a weapon against Iran is “horrifying and ludicrous,” says Young.


But it is now Bush Administration doctrine to be able to use such weapons. The new “National Security Strategy of the United States of America,” which Bush unveiled in March, discusses the use of nuclear weapons in an offensive way. “Our deterrence strategy no longer rests primarily on the grim premise of inflicting devastating consequences on potential foes,” it states. “Both offenses and defenses are necessary. . . . Safe, credible, and reliable nuclear forces continue to play a critical role.”


Even more explicit is the Pentagon’s draft of a revised doctrine for the use of nuclear weapons, which was revealed by Walter Pincus of The Washington Post last September.


It envisions using nuclear weapons for “attacks on adversary installations including WMD, deep hardened bunkers containing chemical or biological weapons.” It says that the United States should be prepared to use nuclear weapons “if necessary to prevent” another country from using WMDs.


This is a mere amplification of the Nuclear Posture Review of December 31, 2001, which stated: “Nuclear weapons could be employed against targets able to withstand non-nuclear attack (for example, deep underground bunkers or bio-weapon facilities).”


If the United States used nuclear weapons against Iran, it would be violating the Nuclear NonProliferation Treaty, which prohibits nations that possess nuclear weapons from dropping them on nations that don’t.


But in the Bush Administration, planning to do this is just “normal” behavior.


And a million casualties or more?


For Bush, that is evidently not a disqualification.


plz pray
Sardarzada

Iran Strike 'any Time'
 

IRAN STRIKE 'ANY TIME'
AN attack on Iran could be launched at any time by the US, a former British ambassador warned yesterday.

Sir Jeremy Greenstock, UN envoy before the Iraq invasion, said: “Military action is an option from now on.”

But he urged the US to use diplomacy before resorting to force. He said: “The use of force in most circumstances is a sign of failure by diplomacy.

“It not only has to be seen as a last resort but as an extremely reluctant last resort.” Sir Jeremy also urged America to get UN backing.
plz pray,
Sardarzada

Iran Could Produce Nuclear Bomb in 16 Days, U.S. Says
 

12th April 2006 20:15
Iran Could Produce Nuclear Bomb in 16 Days, U.S. Says

April 12 (Bloomberg) -- Iran, defying United Nations Security Council demands to halt its nuclear program, may be capable of making a nuclear bomb within 16 days, a U.S. State Department official said.

Iran will move to ``industrial scale'' uranium enrichment involving 54,000 centrifuges at its Natanz plant, the Associated Press quoted deputy nuclear chief Mohammad Saeedi as telling state-run television today.

``Using those 50,000 centrifuges they could produce enough highly enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon in 16 days,'' Stephen Rademaker, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for International Security and Nonproliferation, told reporters today in Moscow.

Rademaker was reacting to a statement by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who said yesterday the country had succeeded in enriching uranium on a small scale for the first time, using 164 centrifuges. That announcement defies demands by the UN Security Council that Iran shut down its nuclear program this month.

The U.S. fears Iran is pursuing a nuclear program to make weapons, while Iran says it is intent on purely civilian purposes, to provide energy. Saeedi said 54,000 centrifuges will be able to enrich uranium to provide fuel for a 1,000-megawat nuclear power plant similar to the one Russia is finishing in southern Iran, AP reported.

``It was a deeply disappointing announcement,'' Rademaker said of Ahmadinejad's statement.

Weapons-Grade Uranium

Rademaker said the technology to enrich uranium to a low level could also be used to make weapons-grade uranium, saying that it would take a little over 13 years to produce enough highly enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon with the 164 centrifuges currently in use. The process involves placing uranium hexafluoride gas in a series of rotating drums or cylinders known as centrifuges that run at high speeds to extract weapons grade uranium.

Iran has informed the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency that it plans to construct 3,000 centrifuges at Natanz next year, Rademaker said.

``We calculate that a 3,000-machine cascade could produce enough uranium to build a nuclear weapon within 271 days,'' he said.

While the U.S. has concerns over Iran's nuclear program, Rademaker said ``there certainly has been no decision on the part of my government'' to use force if Iran refuses to obey the UN Security Council demand that it shuts down its nuclear program.

Rademaker is in Moscow for a meeting of his counterparts from the Group of Eight wealthy industrialized countries. Russia chairs the G-8 this year.

China is concerned about Iran's decision to accelerate uranium enrichment and wants the government in Tehran to heed international criticism of the move, Wang Guangya, China's ambassador to the United Nations said.


[url]http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?[/url]

plz pray,
Sardarzada

Iran nuclear planning 'similar to Iraq'
 

Iran nuclear planning 'similar to Iraq'
11/04/2006 - 09:53:09

US administration officials say they remain committed to a diplomatic solution to ensure Iran does not obtain nuclear weapons, but they will not rule out military action as an option, even as they try to calm down talk about military planning.

“I know here in Washington prevention means force,” President George Bush said yesterday.

“It doesn’t mean force necessarily, in this case, it means diplomacy,” the president added, calling recent newspaper and magazine reports about US military planning on Iran “just wild speculation”.

Current and former government officials involved in war-planning discussions over the past five years say the US has drafted a menu of options. One official said the attention on Iran has increased markedly in recent months.

All of the officials spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the information.

The planning is similar to the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, which has been captured in books including Bob Woodward’s Plan Of Attack. Similar blueprints also have been done, but never used, on any number of adversaries, including North Korea.

The plans are aimed particularly at facilities scattered across Iran known to be or suspected of being tied to the nuclear programme. Within those sites, there could be hundreds of individual targets. The options include:

:: Special operations aimed at sabotaging various sites or clearing a safe pathway into the country for an air attack.

One of the officials said such missions, often to populated areas, would be dangerous in such a closed country as Iran and probably could not be accomplished without leaving fingerprints.

:: Air and sea-based strikes that would use a variety of munitions including earth-penetrating bombs that would target underground bunkers.

In some cases, several bombs would need to be fired at the same target to reach the most fortified facilities, a security strategy the Iranians adopted based on lessons learned during the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s.

:: Some combination of the above.

The Iranian regime insists it wants only to produce uranium for peaceful civilian purposes, such as electricity generation. Yet Iran operated a covert nuclear programme for two decades, and the US and a number of its allies believe the regime’s aim is a nuclear weapon.

National Intelligence Director John Negroponte told US Congress in February that Iran is as much as a decade away from producing a nuclear weapon. But some estimates put that as low as three years.

Even the best-laid plans to go after the nuclear programme may be flawed in execution.

Two officials with extensive military experience said airstrikes would be a key option. But they said the US Air Force often overstates the accuracy of precision strikes, which would be needed in Iran.

War planners have to figure out how to handle Iran’s expected retaliation. The country could order terrorist attacks through Hezbollah.

Iran could also try to cripple the world economy by putting a stranglehold on the oil that moves through the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow, strategically important waterway running to Iran’s south.

Perhaps the best-known site linked to the nuclear programme is the Natanz uranium-enrichment facility, located about 160 miles south of Tehran.

David Albright, president of the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security, describes the site as a complex in a 75-foot-deep hole, covered by layers of materials. It is unclear whether that includes concrete.

The site is designed to hold a cascade of 50,000 centrifuges that could be used to enrich uranium, but Albright said the Iranians have shown signs that they are having problems with the technology.

One outstanding question for the International Atomic Energy Agency is whether there is a hidden, undeclared nuclear programme.

Albright said inspectors have found a number of inconsistencies in Iranian documents and a laptop associated with the programme. He believes there has to be a parallel programme.

As tensions increase, the talk of war planning could make the diplomatic dialogue with Iran even more difficult. “It makes negotiations much harder because Iran is left with the view that, no matter what we negotiate, the US is going to attack,” Albright said.

Meanwhile, Iran could easily create back-up nuclear sites. A gas centrifuge facility, for instance, could be moved to a warehouse in an industrial area, making it very difficult to find.

There are disputes now about the quality of the intelligence on Iran.

Some officials say it has improved, thanks to soil samples, overhead reconnaissance, old-fashioned spying, information from the IAEA and other intelligence. But not everyone is sold.

Embarrassed by the flawed oversight in the run-up to Iraq, members of US Congress are pressing the Bush administration for details on Iran. A spokesman for Negroponte declined to comment on specific issues regarding Tehran.

plz pray,
Sardarzada

Warning on dollar!
 

12th April 2006 11:32
Warning on dollar! :ohmy: :ohmy:

Asian Development Bank sounds alarm on dollar
Reuters

TUESDAY, MARCH 28, 2006



TOKYO Asian countries need to prepare for a possible sharp fall in the dollar and should allow their currencies to appreciate collectively if that happens, a senior Asian Development Bank official said Tuesday.

"Any shock hitting the U.S. economy or the global market may change investors' perceptions, given the existing global current account imbalance," Masahiro Kawai, the bank's head of regional economic integration, said at a news conference.

"Our suggestion to Asian countries is, don't take this continuous financing of the U.S. current account deficit as given. If something happens, then East Asian economies have to be prepared."

Kawai said the chances of a rapid fall in the dollar were still small, but it could cause a significant turmoil in Asia if it happened.

"If the U.S. dollar goes down in the future, it would be best for East Asian countries to allow appreciation collectively," so that the costs of adjustment could be divided among them, he said.

"I don't think the possibility is high," Kawai said of a dollar plunge, "but it is like avian flu: the possibility of avian flu spreading all over Asia or the world is limited, but once it spreads, it would have tremendous impact."

Kawai said that by East Asia, he meant emerging East Asian markets, excluding Japan.

Kawai said the Manila-based development bank's planned establishment of an Asian currency unit, made up of a basket of Asian currencies, would help monitor the collective path of regional currencies in relation to the dollar.

The benchmark has been delayed by disputes over inclusion of the Taiwan dollar.

But Kawai played down suggestions that an Asian currency unit, or ACU, could foreshadow a single Asian currency in the manner of the European currency unit, which existed for two decades before the creation of the euro in 1999. "The ECU had an official status, but the ACU has no such official status," he said. "We are not in the position to decide whether this should become a real currency or not." $@

He added that a sharp decline in the dollar, which could result from any shock to the U.S. economy and disorderly adjustments of global imbalances, would harm trade in Asia and reduce the value of dollar-denominated assets in the foreign reserves of Asian countries.

The ADB has said allowing greater exchange flexibility in emerging East Asia would lessen the need for foreign exchange reserve accumulation by central banks and thus help contribute to an orderly resolution of global balance of payments imbalance.


TOKYO Asian countries need to prepare for a possible sharp fall in the dollar and should allow their currencies to appreciate collectively if that happens, a senior Asian Development Bank official said Tuesday.

"Any shock hitting the U.S. economy or the global market may change investors' perceptions, given the existing global current account imbalance," Masahiro Kawai, the bank's head of regional economic integration, said at a news conference.

"Our suggestion to Asian countries is, don't take this continuous financing of the U.S. current account deficit as given. If something happens, then East Asian economies have to be prepared."

Kawai said the chances of a rapid fall in the dollar were still small, but it could cause a significant turmoil in Asia if it happened.

"If the U.S. dollar goes down in the future, it would be best for East Asian countries to allow appreciation collectively," so that the costs of adjustment could be divided among them, he said.

"I don't think the possibility is high," Kawai said of a dollar plunge, "but it is like avian flu: the possibility of avian flu spreading all over Asia or the world is limited, but once it spreads, it would have tremendous impact."

Kawai said that by East Asia, he meant emerging East Asian markets, excluding Japan.

Kawai said the Manila-based development bank's planned establishment of an Asian currency unit, made up of a basket of Asian currencies, would help monitor the collective path of regional currencies in relation to the dollar.

The benchmark has been delayed by disputes over inclusion of the Taiwan dollar.

But Kawai played down suggestions that an Asian currency unit, or ACU, could foreshadow a single Asian currency in the manner of the European currency unit, which existed for two decades before the creation of the euro in 1999. "The ECU had an official status, but the ACU has no such official status," he said. "We are not in the position to decide whether this should become a real currency or not." $@

He added that a sharp decline in the dollar, which could result from any shock to the U.S. economy and disorderly adjustments of global imbalances, would harm trade in Asia and reduce the value of dollar-denominated assets in the foreign reserves of Asian countries.

The ADB has said allowing greater exchange flexibility in emerging East Asia would lessen the need for foreign exchange reserve accumulation by central banks and thus help contribute to an orderly resolution of global balance of payments imbalance.:pp :pp :pp


[url]http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/03/28/business/adb.php[/url]

plz pray,
Sardarzada

US intelligence on Iran N-threat ‘inadequate’
 

WASHINGTON: The United States doesn’t have enough good intelligence to know whether or not Iran will be capable of producing nuclear weapons in the near future, top congressional intelligence committee members said on Sunday.

Iran said earlier on Sunday it would not abandon its work on nuclear enrichment, which the United Nations has demanded it halt, and was prepared to face sanctions from abroad.

Asked on Fox News Sunday when Iran might be capable of producing nuclear weapons, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Peter Hoekstra, a Michigan Republican, said: “I’d say we really don’t know.

“We’re getting lots of mixed messages,” Hoekstra said. “We’ve got a long way to go in rebuilding our intelligence community. We don’t have all of the information we would like to have.

Jane Harman of California, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, concurred. “Our intelligence is thin,” she told Fox News. Reuters


plz pray,
Sardarzada

US will go for other states after Iran and Iraq, says Margolis
 

* Well-known journalist calls Bush’s statements on Iran’s N-programme ‘ridiculous and nonsense’



LAHORE: Renowned American journalist Eric Margolis has said that the US will “go for” Pakistan and Saudi Arabia after Iraq and Iran.

“We have leaks from reliable sources that after Iraq and Iran, the US plans to go for Pakistan and Saudi Arabia,” Margolis said in an interview with IWT NEWS on Saturday. Margolis supported Iran’s nuclear weapons programme, saying that it poses no threat to the world community. US President George W Bush’s statements on Iran’s nuclear programme were “ridiculous and nonsense”, he said. “Iran has no nuclear bombs and no capability to bomb a country with these weapons,” Margolis said.

He said that Iran’s longest-range missile, Shahab-III, had a maximum range of 1,200-1,500 kilometres, which meant that Iran could not attack North America or Western Europe. “No substantial evidence has yet been found that Iran has nuclear weapons, and anyone saying that Iran is a threat to the world is lying and deceiving the world,” Margolis said. He said that Bush’s statement about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction had “proved baseless”. The US and Israel were planning to attack Iran’s nuclear infrastructure and major military installations, he said.

Margolis said that Iran had been trying to acquire nuclear weapons since 1970, when it signed an agreement with Israel to provide it with nuclear warheads and medium range missiles. He said that Pakistani intelligence sources had told him that decades ago, Iran had offered to pay for Pakistan’s entire defence budget for 10 years in exchange for nuclear technology. “Why shouldn’t Iran have nuclear weapons? It is surrounded by nuclear powers like Pakistan, Russia, Israel and India,” Margolis said. He said that the US was providing India with nuclear secrets and the latest nuclear technology in spite of the fact that the latter had not signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty. He said that India is developing submarine-launched missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads, and Inter-Continental Ballistic Missiles with a range of 7,000 miles. “With these weapons, India can strike even the US, but the Bush administration is still providing India with modern nuclear technology,” he said. He said that the US had supplied Israel with bomber airplanes, which could travel to Iran and even Pakistan. It had also given Israel around 500 “penetrating bombs, which are very lethal”.

He said that a US or Israeli attack on Iran could be “very dangerous”, as Iran had the ability to “punish American forces in Iraq”. He said that the present Iraqi government was a Shia government which is very close to Iran. “So an attack on Iran can outrage the Shia community of Iraq,” he said. Margolis said that Iran had the ability to launch “commando attacks” on US forces in the gulf. “Iran can attack US bases in Bahrain, Kuwait and Qatar. Iran can hamper oil exports from the area, which will create a major panic in the world and in the US,” he said.

“Iranians are prepared to take huge casualties (to defend themselves) because they are a dedicated and nationalistic nation, whereas the US lacks this advantage,” Margolis said, adding that Iran can even send troops to Iraq.

plz pray,
Sardarzada

USA Plans to Drop A-bombs on Iran's Nuclear Projects
 

The USA plans to strike Iran. This seems to be a hackneyed statement. Media outlets have used thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of such headlines over the recent several years. On the other hand, there is still no solution to the Iranian nuclear problem that would suit everyone and take account of the USA's intention to use military methods of pressure. One may thus infer that such headlines will cThis time the 'secret' plans to attack Iran appeared on the pages of the Washington Post newspaper and New Yorker magazine. According to their publications, the Pentagon and the CIA are considering an opportunity to strike nuclear centers in Natanz and Isfahan. The US administration, the newspapers wrote, plans to use tactical nukes (B61-11 bombs) to target underground facilities (the power of the B61-11 bombs may reach 300 kilotons).

New Yorker wrote that President George W. Bush was considering an opportunity of striking a nuclear blow on Iran. Bush's intention has to face serious opposition both in the political and in the military establishment of the USA. Many senior officers said they would send in their resignations if Bush's plans to attack Iran were meant to come true.

Senator Bill Frist, visiting Moscow, commented on the publications in the American media. The senator said during a press conference that the media was exaggerating the information about the use of military power in Iran. However, the official added that Iran had violated the non-proliferation treaty and conducted secret nuclear research for 20 years.

Britain's Foreign Secretary Jack Straw has released more emotional remarks in response to the imminent attack of Iran. The official said that the above-mentioned articles in Washington Post and New Yorker could be only described as delirious publications. Straw said that no one was going to bomb Iran and use nuclear weapons for it. Nevertheless, the Financial Times wrote that such remarks were very typical of Mr. Straw. Prime Minister Tony Blair has never released such a statement to reject any possibility of the bombing of Iran. The Financial Times concluded that that there could be a conflict between the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister of Great Britain as regards to the Iranian nuclear program.

Iran has not had any distinctive reaction to the above-mentioned statements yet. The Vice President of Iran said that the country had achieved bigger progress in the field of atomic energy and promised to expose the information on the matter in the next couple of days. The vice president emphasized that Iran was still determined to cooperate with the IAEA, Teheran-based news agency IRNA reports.

The Iranian administration is apparently used to dealing with a variety of plans to strike Iran on a monthly basis. Iran perceives such news as an element of pressure on the part of the US administration. It is worthy of note that Iran takes quite an active part in the ideological standoff. Last week, for example, Iran held a sensational military exercise to demonstrate its missiles, superfast torpedoes and invisible vessels.

One may not say that the military power of Iran has had quite an impression on the USA. However, the articles in Washington Post and New Yorker appeared timely afterwards, just two days after the maneuvers in Iran ended.



[url]http://english.pravda.ru/world/asia/10-04-2006/78988-iran-strike-0ontinue[/url] to appear in newspapers all over the world.

plz pray,
Sardarzada

Rice Calls for 'Strong Steps' Against Iran
 

By BARRY SCHWEID

WASHINGTON
Denouncing Iran's successful enrichment of uranium as unacceptable to the international community, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Wednesday the U.N. Security Council must consider "strong steps" to induce Tehran to change course.
Rice also telephoned Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, to ask him to reinforce demands that Iran comply with its nonproliferation requirements when he holds talks in Tehran on Friday.
While Rice took a strong line, she did not call for an emergency meeting of the Council, saying it should consider action after receiving an IAEA report by April 28. She did not elaborate on what measures the United States would support, but economic and political sanctions are under consideration.
The European Union is considering travel restrictions on Iranian officials, but White House and State Department spokesmen said what the Security Council might be asked to do was under discussion.
"It's time for action and that is what the secretary was expressing," Scott McClellan, the White House spokesman, said. "The president wanted to make sure that she made that very clear to all that were listening."
On March 29, the Security Council adopted a statement that gave Iran 30 days to clear up suspicion that it wants to become a nuclear power. The statement demanded Iran comply with IAEA demands that it suspend enrichment and allow unannounced IAEA inspections.
If Iran goes ahead with its enrichment program the United States and European allies are certain to press for a Council resolution.
"You can be sure that it needs to be more than a presidential statement at this point," McClellan said.
Asked if the United States would be running a risk of a disagreement with other members of the Council by pushing for strong measures, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said, "There is now a consensus Iran should not be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapons program."
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, announcing on Tuesday that his country had crossed the line into enrichment, said Iran's objectives were peaceful. Iran is said by many analysts to lack the equipment, including a nuclear reactor, to make nuclear weapons.
But Rice brushed aside suggestions Iran was far from the goal the United States and its allies suspect _ nuclear weaponry.
She said the world believes Iran has the capacity and the technology that lead to nuclear weapons. "The Security Counil will need to take into consideration this move by Iran," she said. "It will be time when it reconvenes on this case for strong steps to make certain that we maintain the credibility of the international community."
"This is not a question of Iran's right to civil nuclear power," she while greeting President Teodoro Obiang Nguema Moasogo of Equatorial Guinea. "This is a question of, ... the world does not believe that Iran should have the capability and the technology that could lead to a nuclear weapon."
At the private Arms Control Association, executive director Daryl Kimball said the administration should consider direct talks with Iran on the nuclear issue. And, he said in an interview, "the administration should be extending non-aggression pledges rather than implied threats in order to weaken Iran's rationale for a nuclear weapons program."
"Otherwise," Kimball said, "the Bush administration is creating a self-fulfilling prophecy of failure and military confrontation."
At the private Center for Strategic and International Studies, analyst Anthony Cordesman said, "What we need to understand when we call for strong action by the Security Council, we may not expect it today or on this particular round."
But, Cordesman added in an interview, "this issue is not going away. The more Iran pushes the tolerance of the international community to its limits, the more support the United States can count on in the future."
"This is a very complex and uncertain process," he said.

plz pray,
Sardarzada

Iran threatens to end UN contacts
 

Iran's chief nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, has said his country will suspend contacts with the UN's nuclear watchdog if sanctions are imposed.
He also said Iran would "hide" its nuclear programme if it was attacked.
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Iran's threats further isolated it from the international community.
The Security Council has set a deadline of 28 April for a freeze in uranium enrichment, the focus of concerns that Iran could acquire nuclear weapons.

Iranians can threaten but they are deepening their own isolation

Condoleezza Rice
The US is trying to rally support from the Security Council for tougher action against Iran, including sanctions - a move currently being resisted by Russia and China.
Speaking after a meeting with the Greek foreign minister during an official one-day visit, Ms Rice said Iran's threats were "emblematic of the kind of Iranian behaviour seen over the past couple of years".
Ms Rice said the international community was not prepared to allow Iran "under cover of a civil nuclear programme to acquire the technologies that could lead to a nuclear weapon".
Ms Rice said the Security Council must now issue something more concrete than last month's "presidential statement", which gave Iran 30 days to comply with International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) directives.
'Force not solution'
"Military action against Iran will not lead to the closure of the programme. If you take harsh measures, we will hide this programme. Then you cannot solve the nuclear issue," Mr Larijani warned.
"They [the Western countries on the IAEA board] have to understand they cannot resolve this issue through force," Mr Larijani told a conference on Iran's controversial nuclear energy programme in Tehran.
At the same conference, former President Hashemi Rafsanjani said Tehran had no intention of diverting nuclear material for a military programme at the moment.
The BBC's Frances Harrison in Tehran says the implication of his comments is that this might be possible in the future. Our correspondent adds that Mr Rafsanjani is still a key power broker in the Iranian administration.
Both men said they were keen on negotiations to reassure the West that Iran's programme is peaceful, but not negotiations to stop Iran having a nuclear programme altogether.
Iran insists its nuclear programme is for civilian energy purposes only. The US and several other nations say they do not believe this.
The IAEA says there is so far no proof that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons - but it talks of an "absence of confidence that Iran's nuclear programme is exclusively peaceful", and of a "policy of concealment" pursued by Tehran.

plz pray,
Sardarzada