Iranian Nukes: Maybe Not So Soon After All
Brian Doherty | December 3, 2007, 7:20pm
A new National Intelligence Estimate just released today concludes that Iran has stopped active efforts at building its own nukes. CNN's report.
"We judge with moderate confidence that the earliest possible date Iran would be technically capable of producing enough highly enriched uranium for a weapon is late 2009, but that this is very unlikely," the report says. A more likely time frame for that production is between 2010 and 2015, it concludes.
The Bush administration doesn't think this means we can rest easy, though:
U.S. National Security adviser Stephen Hadley expressed hope after Monday's announcement, but he said Iran remains a serious threat.
"We have good reason to continue to be concerned about Iran developing a nuclear weapon even after this most recent National Intelligence Estimate," he told reporters at the White House. "In the words of the NIE, quote, Iranian entities are continuing to develop a range of technical capabilities that could be applied to producing nuclear weapons if a decision is made to do so."
The Inter-Press Service reported last month, based on "accounts of the process provided by participants to two former Central Intelligence Agency officers," that what seems to be this very NIE has actually been ready to go for nearly a year. I'm not 100 percent convinced by that sourcing, but Kevin Drum at the Washington Monthly is, and notes:
This NIE was apparently finished a year ago, and its basic parameters were almost certainly common knowledge in the White House well before that. This means that all the leaks, all the World War III stuff, all the blustering about the IAEA — all of it was approved for public consumption after Cheney/Bush/Rice/etc. knew perfectly well it was mostly baseless.
The National Intelligence Estimate at issue.
Ebeneezer Scrooge | December 4, 2007, 12:49am | #
a nuclear bomb by 2010 is only two years away
By the time they've turned that into a real bomb, they may have actually figured out missiles.
From the test results I've seen reported, it doesn't sound like Iran needs a nuke just yet......but maybe in, oh, say, three years or so, the time would be ripe.
Persians hate Arabs. Arabs hate Persians. Sort of. But they both hate Israel because it's The In thing to do.
So if they actually figure out how to blow Israel off the map, they can stand up and beat their chests for a few minutes. Then they'll return to their regularly scheduled attempts to bash each other's brains out.
Given what Hezb. did to Israel recently, I wouldn't put it past Iran to try nuking Israel. Not that it's our problem, just saying.
a global superpower with a thirst for oil and a ruling party in the grips of a militarist/religious ideology.
On the militarist/religious ideology front, we still don't hold a candle to Iran.
Does anybody believe that those guys are suicidal? Have they given any sign of that?
Now that's a really funny question.
Remind me who's religion it was that came up with the idea of a suicide bomber. I'd say "suicidal" doesn't mean just exactly the same thing to them, that it does to us here in the West. And between Hezbollah and Hamas, Iran sponsors suicide bombers, even if the bombers themselves aren't Iranian.
There are lots of reasons to fear the Iranians getting their hands on a nuke, because there are lots of ways you can play that card once you've got it. I wouldn't bet on them being rational players, any more than I'd bet for or against this latest "they don't have nukes after all" report.
More than anything, I'd bet that if the Iranians did get a nuke, they wouldn't be able to afford to maintain it for very long. Which means, if they've got half a brain (and they clearly do), and then they go and actually build one, then there is good reason to think that they plan on actually doing something with it.....
If we got hard evidence they were actually putting one together, then I for one would in fact get nervous.
Ebeneezer Scrooge | December 4, 2007, 4:02am | #
They had at least three Wise Men, which is more than we've got in DC right now.
thoreau, I wouldn't be so fast to jump to that conclusion. Consider:
King George has got his ass in a sling over Iraq and he knows it. It ain't popular. It can't keep going, there's got to be a resolution.
But who in their right mind would even pretend that you can settle Iraq down without Iranian cooperation? Ain't gonna happen. Even King George can see that.
So how do you get out of the sling? Think, think, think.....
The problem with Iran is They Got Nukes in the oven. Based on -- ?? -- a combination of "intelligence" and Iranian blather (which alternates between "we can build nukes if we want them" and "we don't have no stinking nukes man").
This latest "intelligence" report is BS, pure and simple. Does anybody at all believe that we really know what the Iranians are up to in their secret underground bunkers?
Nope.
So what is King George going to do? Well if their ain't no Iranian nukes in the oven, then the Iranians aren't quite so much the bad guys after all. Right?
The biggest reason we can't settle Iraq down is that the Iranians want a big say in what happens with their neighbor (rational). So if we suddenly learned that Iranians weren't so bad after all, and we started working WITH them on Iraq, well....
It is remotely possible that this headline grabbing "intelligence" report is the shrewdest political move King George has made yet. [at least that we see from where we sit on the outside of the white house]
If we suddenly begin finding ways to cooperate with Iran in about Iraq in coming months, then I'm going to have conclude that King George is at least as rational as you seem inclined to believe the Iranians are.
I for one don't know if the Iranians are rational or not.....sometimes the evidence says yes, sometimes no.
