« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Iran To Have a Nuke in Two Years

By: streiff (Diary)  |  April 15th, 2010 at 02:08 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

New York Times
December 3, 2007

WASHINGTON, Dec. 3 — A new assessment by American intelligence agencies concludes that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 and that the program remains frozen, contradicting judgment two years ago that Tehran was working relentlessly toward building a nuclear bomb.

New York Times
April 15, 2010

WASHINGTON — Two of the nation’s top military officials said Wednesday that Iran could produce bomb-grade fuel for at least one nuclear weapon within a year, but would most likely need two to five years to manufacture a workable atomic bomb.

So how did we get from the point of the CIA declaring that Iran had abandoned its nuclear weapons program to them having a bomb as early as… now?

Easy. The first report was produced the the CIA which, if it had devoted as much time to fighting al-Qaeda as it did to sabotaging the effort to fight al-Qaeda we’d all be a lot safer, had no greater agenda than hurting the Bush Administration. Everyone at the time knew the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate was nothing more that a cheap political shot carried out by a horribly incompetent and unprofessional senior staff at Langley.

Now we have a Democrat president. A warm, cuddly, non-threatening seminar leading Democrat president so there is no percentage in spinning out false estimates any longer. Of course, gathering the pertinent intelligence is a lot easier now that we have a Democrat in the White House. The Iranians have changed out of their brown trousers and are no longer afraid of waking up with a Marine division and the 82d Airborne dropping by for a visit.

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • fusionism

    I think we just have to resign ourselves to a nuclear Iran, at this point. North Korea getting the bomb when Bush was in office should be a clear sign that there’s not a whole lot the U.S. can do to stop them, especially since we’re in two wars already.

    Obama will probably get sanctions imposed by the U.N…. but they won’t make any difference. As long as Iran wants to acquire a bomb, it’s going to push along until it finally has one. So much for our super power status. =(

    • steveinseattle

      One report estimates Iran will have enough fuel for a bomb and the other gives an estimate that they can have a bomb in 5 years. Those are two different estimates.

      Like IRAQ, IRAN has uranium mines and can produce nuclear fuel. Obtaining fuel is relatively easy. (There was a book “The radioactive boy? – about an American teenager who accumulated enough radioactive material to make a bomb.) Knowing how to make a bomb requires knowing how to make a warhead and that is difficult.

      That is why N. Korea can explode a bomb but only get Katy’s (Kilotons) from the explosion – not megatons. They still do not have the technology to make an effective warhead.

      That is why American policy is centered on protecting and destroying nuclear warheads – we don’t want the technology leaking out. And why we are trying to stabilize the former Soviet Union scientists that possess the knowledge and why we need to be so worried about Pakistan.

      • larueladue

        Even with all the help that they have received from Russia and others, Iran still doesn’t have enough weapon-grade uranium for a weapon. However, if they are able to acquire enough reactor-grade uranium and know-how to start up a reactor, they can create enough weapon-grade plutonium in short order.

        I have no doubt that this is what they will be doing with their new Russian-supplied reactor starting in August…

        And I have no doubt that they will be getting whatever help they need in constructing weapon from the Russians… They could probably have a weapon in a year or less, with help.

        • larueladue

          It is too late now to close the barn door. We just need to catch all the horses and keep them for ourselves…

  • rbdwiggins

    his policy of engagement and unilateral disarmament, coupled with what can only be interpreted as an obvious disdain for Israel, has taken us one giant leap and two full-steps toward a full-scale war in the Middle East.

  • mofat01

    I, for one, do not feel comfortable with a Fundamentalist Islamic country with an insane, maniacal dictator having a nuclear bomb in their hands. If Iran has a nuclear bomb they will have a huge deterrent to any actions taken by the United States or Israel, or anyone else for that matter. Iran can get away with a lot more after they get the bomb, because they can threaten nuclear retaliation or to give it to a terrorist group. Not to mention that if every other anti-American dictatorship sees that the United States will do nothing to stop a country from getting a nuclear bomb, they will feel emboldened and might attempt to get a nuke themselves, thus making moot the non proliferation treaty just signed.

    • http://impudent.blognation.us/blog kyle8

      Israel will try, but they really do not have the capability, they might be able to delay their program for a while, but that is it.

      Obama will certainly do nothing, My own view would be that if they announce they have a bomb, or do a test fire, then we give some nukes to Iran, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Kuwait.

      Let them work it out among themselves.

  • dustinfox

    Do people just not learn from history? Or did they even learn history? In a conversation with my 30 year old daughter today, about crossing the Atlantic in a ship, I jokingly said something about “the U-boats are gone now.” She said “what is that?” I think some people just do not want to face up to the possibility of another Adolph Hitler amassing weapons for evil purposes. But I also believe that many, in the younger generation, have not even learned history. Are we doomed to make the same mistakes as in the 1930s?