Iran Could Have Nuclear Bomb in Three Years

[The_Professor]

Iran Could Have Nuclear Bomb in Three Years, Report Says
Julie Stahl

Jerusalem (CNSNews.com) - Iran could obtain nuclear weapons in less than three years - sooner than previously anticipated -- according to a new U.S. Intelligence assessment, CBS News reported late Thursday.

Previous assessments suggested Iran would not be able to obtain atomic weapons for about eight years, but the new report says Iran has overcome technical difficulties in enriching uranium that could speed up the process.

Iran has defied a United Nations Security Council demand to halt uranium enrichment, a key step in producing either nuclear fuel or nuclear bombs. Although Iran denies it, the West believes that nuclear bomb-making is Iran's ultimate goal.

The CBS report quoted former CIA officer Bruce Riedel as saying that the three-year time frame puts pressure on Israel to make a preemptive strike sooner rather than later.

Israel was the first to warn that Iran was planning to build a nuclear bomb under cover of its civilian nuclear program. The U.S. and Europe eventually adopted Israel's viewpoint, but it took more than a year for the U.S. to persuade U.N. Security Council members to impose sanctions on Iran.

Although Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has publicly called for Israel to be wiped off the map, Israel has not taken the lead in trying to stop Iran. Israeli officials argue that a nuclear Iran (which has many terrorist groups at its disposal) not only threatens Israel but the entire region and the world.

All along, Israel has believed that Iran was much closer to obtaining a nuclear weapon than the U.S. did, said Dr. Zvi Stauber, director of the Institute for National Security Studies in Tel Aviv.

"The implication is that everything is more pressing," said Stauber in a telephone interview on Friday.

If they are saying that Iran could have a bomb in three years, that means that the Iranians would master the technology much earlier and that is the big threshold for Iran to cross, said Stauber.

Stauber cautioned that no one really knows when Iran will master the technology that would enable it to obtain nuclear weapons. Western intelligence agencies are trying all the time to disrupt Iran's progress by clandestine means, he added.

Washington has said that it prefers to resolve the standoff with Tehran diplomatically, but it has not ruled out a military strike. Many Westerners have looked to Israel to take action like it did in 1981, when it bombed an Iraqi nuclear reactor shortly before it became operational.

Analysts say that an operation in Iran would be much more complicated since Iranian nuclear facilities are located in fortified, underground bunkers and dispersed throughout the country.

Stauber said there are still many options in terms of sanctions that could be applied to Iran before a military option is considered.

Former Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has been campaigning in the U.S. and Europe for economic sanctions - having companies, pension funds and countries to voluntarily withdraw their investments in Iranian interests. Such a scheme, he said, could greatly - and quickly -- impact the Iranian economy.

Earlier this week, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who has previously said that Iran poses an existential threat to Israel, said that he is "hopeful" that the threat of a nuclear Iran could be resolved "without a military operation."

Nevertheless, Stauber said, the Iranians are determined to continue with their nuclear policy.

Several weeks ago, Iran announced that it had already started enriching uranium on an industrial scale -- a boast that many analysts said was intended to force the West to accept the idea of a nuclear Iran.

Ahmadinejad and other Iranian officials repeatedly have said that the country will not abandon its nuclear program. Iran's deputy Interior Minister Muhammad Baqer Zolqadr warned on Thursday that Iran would attack American interests and Israel if its nuclear sites were targeted.

Stauber said that sanctions are not likely to be very effective, and sooner or later a military option will have to be considered. "It's a momentous decision," said Stauber. "Everybody is trying to avoid arriving at the junction [of making] that decision."

Find this article at: http://www.crosswalk.com/news/11539332/

[sirs]

But Professor....there are those, even here who advocate a "so what?".  That Iran should be allowed to make as many nukes as they want, and that we do nothing, unless one is detonated on some civilian populace like.....oh let's say, Tel Aviv.  and even then, if it's not done to us, we just sit it out, and let what's left of Israel then wipe Tehran off the map.       

[_JS]

What makes Iran less worthy of having nuclear weapons than other nuclear armed nations, including Israel, Pakistan, and India?

[BT]

What makes Iran less worthy of having nuclear weapons than other nuclear armed nations, including Israel, Pakistan, and India?

Their support for terrorist organizations is one damn good reason.

[sirs]

What makes Iran less worthy of having nuclear weapons than other nuclear armed nations, including Israel, Pakistan, and India?

Ohhhh, I don't know.  Perhaps the public declaration how some country shouldn't actually exist, and how his country should help bring that about.  Little things, like that would be another good reason

[_JS]

Their support for terrorist organizations is one damn good reason.

It is pretty damn difficult to carry around an atomic weapon, despite what Hollywood has portrayed. Our trouble in Iraq is to weapons that aren't anything close to WMD. In fact, much of it has nothing at all to do with Iran. Moreover, Iran is not a country with one mindset, there are many in Iran who disapprove of this, including high ranking Muslim clerics.

Ohhhh, I don't know.  Perhaps the public declaration how some country shouldn't actually exist, and how his country should help bring that about.  Little things, like that would be another good reason

Not really. Rhetoric is what it is. Iran has not been in a real war since it fought against Iraq, and that was a long and difficult war in which most of the use of WMD was employed by the side we supported.

Pakistan and India, on the other hand, have been in numerous wars with one another and both have ties to terrorist groups in the Jammu and Kashmir region.

[Plane]

It is pretty damn difficult to carry around an atomic weapon, ..........

I wish you were right , but you are not , the bigest atomic bomb that they might make would not need anything more than a pickup truck to carry it.

The suitcase bomb , or the ICBM warhead are quite small and easy to transport , hopefully this level of sophistication isn't availible.

But if the bomb  they built weighed a thousand pounds it could be delivered by the aircraft they have.

[_JS]

The weapon they build will be similar to Pakistan's as it is the same technology they are using (A.Q. Khan's technology). It is not overly advanced, but is very expedient.

From my understanding only the United States and Soviet Union ever developed the technology necessary to develop the so-called (suitcase nukes, which is really a misnomer). Even then the usefulness of these weapons is highly debatable and this was arguably the two most advanced nuclear weapons programs in history.

Moreover, I think there is an inflated view of Iran. It is very much a country where people attend school and work for a living. Teenagers listen to rap music (and make their own). More women attend university than men (a growing concern for the conservative mullahs). There is a constant battle between the liberal and conservative theologians, similar to what is seen here. In most ways the people are more free in Iran than they are in Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Iraq. Americans put a great deal of emphasis on what the president says, but the truth is that most Iranians don't care - especially the young people.

[The_Professor]

Well, if you check back, I advocated bombing the heck out of their nuke facilities. No, some folks here were so worried about the fallout, physical and political. Do I think you can stop nuclear proliferation? Nope, BUT you can slow it down some.

"What makes Iran less worthy of having nuclear weapons than other nuclear armed nations, including Israel, Pakistan, and India?"

Probably, because they are scumbags as is evidenced by their rhetoric(wiping Israel off the face of the Earth), as well as their action (visible and tangible support for terrorism throughout the world).

I have also listened to many in Europe recently advocate a softer approach to Iran and I see no reason why it should succeed. This is yet another evidence of their decadent outlook.

[_JS]

Probably, because they are scumbags as is evidenced by their rhetoric(wifing Israel off the face of the Earth), as well as their action (visible and tangible support for terrorism throughout the world).

Wow. They are "scumbags" based on the rhetoric of how many people?

I'm sure that from another point of view some of the administration's rhetoric and American support for certain regimes can easily label us as "scumbags."

Quite an academic argument there.

[sirs]

Ohhhh, I don't know.  Perhaps the public declaration how some country shouldn't actually exist, and how his country should help bring that about.  Little things, like that would be another good reason

Not really. Rhetoric is what it is. Iran has not been in a real war since it fought against Iraq, and that was a long and difficult war in which most of the use of WMD was employed by the side we supported.

Pakistan and India, on the other hand, have been in numerous wars with one another and both have ties to terrorist groups in the Jammu and Kashmir region.

Ahhh, so rhetoric means nothing.  When a President of a country pledges something, we simply need to ignore it.  Gotcha.  And of course, you can point out the pertinent quotes where by Pakistan &/or India have pledged to wipe out another country, I'm sure

[_JS]

Ahhh, so rhetoric means nothing.  When a President of a country pledges something, we simply need to ignore it.  Gotcha.  And of course, you can point out the pertinent quotes where by Pakistan &/or India have pledged to wipe out another country, I'm sure

Rhetoric has to be understood in the course of political and historical context. We should not follow Derrida and simply deconstruct the text itself with no recognition of the world surrounding it.

I have no need to point out rhetoric between Pakistan and India as they have been in actual heated conflict with one another in recent years. So much so that the DOD did a study in 2002 on what a nuclear war between the two nations might actually look like.

Remember that Iran is within reach of four nuclear powers (Israel, Russia, Pakistan, and India) not to mention the United States and United Kingdom. A neutral third party would likely see this as a reasonable defensive response.

[The_Professor]

Probably, because they are scumbags as is evidenced by their rhetoric(wifing Israel off the face of the Earth), as well as their action (visible and tangible support for terrorism throughout the world).

I'm sure that from another point of view some of the administration's rhetoric and American support for certain regimes can easily label us as "scumbags."

However, I don't CARE about THEIR outlook. Sometimes, you need to do what needs to be done regardless whether other nations AGREE with you. What is this, a popularity contest?

[Xavier_Onassis]

The best thing to do would be for the US to broker a deal where ALL the Middle East would give up nukes. This would include Israel, of course.

Several years ago, on some talk radio program, some clown with some sort of accent called in with a tale of how during the Reagan years he was sitting atop the Aswan Dam with a suitcase nuke of some sort, waiting orders from Washington or something. I tend to think he was full of crap and not for real, but I suppose it could have been possible.

Blowing Aswan would result in many millions of Egyptians taking an involuntary dip in the Mediterranean or perhaps just the Nile Delta.

Iran has as much right to have a nuke as anyone else. I argue that no one should have this right.

Ahmedinejad does not actually have the power to control Iranian foreign policy. The president of Iran has much less power than is generally supposed. The Ayatollahs have control over this, not Ahmedinejad.

[The_Professor]

XO: "The president of Iran has much less power than is generally supposed. The Ayatollahs have control over this, not Ahmedinejad."

Gee, THAT makes us all feel a lot safer!