Comments

You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name

Your e-mail (optional)

Website (optional)

	My Original Nic Pic-a-Nic Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Foto

Submit your comments on this article

Syria-Lebanon-Iran

Iran five years away from bomb: Pentagon

2006-08-31

THE US military is operating on the assumption that Tehran is five to eight years away from being able to build a nuclear bomb, The Washington Times reported today.

The five-year window provides the Bush administration time to decide whether to launch air strikes to cripple Tehran's atomic program, the newspaper said, citing defence sources familiar with discussions inside the Pentagon. But the sources said they suspected the projected time-frame underestimated Iran's determination to build a bomb as quickly as possible, the newspaper reported.

Asked about the report, a Pentagon spokesman said the US military never commented on contingency planning. "The United States government has been very clear about its approach to dealing with Iran. The president and the State Department are working diligently with the international community to include organisations like the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) and the United Nations to address diplomatically the troublesome activities of the Iranian government," air force Major Patrick Ryder, said in an email response to Reuters.

Posted by:tipper

#21 If you wanted to defang Iran would you be satisfied with just cruise missiles and JDAMs?

At this point? Yes. There has already been significant discussion here at Rantburg about how an Iranian campaign should not entail any boots on the ground. Aerial bombardment must play a key role in compromising both Iran's nuclear ambitions and it's leadership.

Per 'moose's assessments vis Iran's petrol supplies those, too, can be addressed by munitions and ordnance. Again, not boots on the ground. Cripple Iran's economy? Same thing. Nail the feeder conduits to the Kharg Island pumping and loading complex. Not good enough, nail the complex itself. Military bases? Ditto. Tehran's statehouse or the mullahs' chalets? Likewise.

Is there nothing that well targeted ordnance can't solve? Possibly, but let's give it every chance we can before spilling any more precious American blood. Especially in such an unworthy shithole as Iran.

Posted by: Zenster 2006-08-31 20:35

#20 I agree with you Zen, but in this case we do have quite a bit of verifiable and accurate intelligence.

Without wishing to be too contentious, mcsegeek1, accurate by what measure or standards? Have we been provided with photographs or blueprints (however verifiable [or not] those might be)? I doubt it. Eye-witness accounts of Iran's nuclear program are worth every bit as much as court room eye-witness testimony, namely, pretty well worthless.

As I mentioned, we may have been able to gather atmospheric sampling indicating the purity of Iran's enriched isotopes. Personally, I doubt this rather highly. Given the massive expenditure Iran has undertaken with this project, it is quite likely that they scrub all exhausted environmental air and processing fumes before release into the atmosphere. Again, how will we obtain the least clue?

Once more, while I most certainly do not have access to the intelligence gathered about Iran, all of their actions point towards denial of access to even the least significant facts. Ergo, the most critical indicators must be sheathed in numerous layers of defense. All of this points to worst case reasoning.

All the more reason to act 'immediately' as you said.

I'm glad to know we agree, mcsegeek1. Let's hope that Washington DC purchases a clue.

Posted by: Zenster 2006-08-31 20:24

#19 Every President faces a foreign policy challenge early in its administration.

Presidents are pretty limited in what they can do in their last two years, especially if they don't have control of Congress.

If you wanted to defang Iran would you be satisfied with just cruise missiles and JDAMs?

Absent unequivocal provocation from Iran, I am starting to believe Bush will do nothing but tee this up for his successor so that Iran can be the early foreign policy challenge.

Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-08-31 19:08

#18 I know what to do, let's fuck around for 4 1/2 years before we worry about it.

Posted by: bigjim-ky 2006-08-31 18:50

#17 Per the really long thread where .com showed up in the other day, it is incumbent upon me to mention how any attack on Iran need not necessarily be this very instant.

I'll grant Bush (as if it were even within my power), the leeway to opt for intervention before or after the November elections. Whether I agree with him or even like him or not, he is the de facto leader of his political party and entitled to make whatever decisions that will best affect the electoral outcome for the republicans.

Past that, Bush has no wiggle room when it comes to Iran. The mullahs must have their nuclear arms plucked off like a fly's wings.

"It is time for Iran to make a choice. We've made our choice. We will continue to work closely with our allies to find a diplomatic solution, but there must be consequences for Iran's defiance, and we must not allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon."

Once the November elections are past, as the leader of this planet's sole superpower, it will be Bush's mandate by this world's entire population (Muslims included) to put paid to Iran's pursuit of atomic weapons.

Posted by: Zenster 2006-08-31 17:38

#16 The possession of nukes by Iran would have apocalyptic results for the entire world, and, as Zenster says, "the repercussions will last for decades".

So, pre-emptive strike is necessary.

When a pre-emptive strike is necessary, the best is to do it as soon as possible.

Nothing can be improved by waiting. The only thing that would change is that the pre-emptive strike would come too late.

Posted by: leroidavid 2006-08-31 17:22

#15 The only way to know for certain is to invade, conquer, and go through the equipment and the files.

And if we're wrong, which I doubt, we can say "Sorry, dudes!". And replace their stoopid regime anyway.

Posted by: gorb 2006-08-31 17:15

#14 This estimate is just wrong. It took the USA much LESS time in WWII (starting from basically scratch.) Iran has access to some prior art from China/Pakistan.

This estimate is just wrong. Zenster has the right idea. Iranian nukes are just unacceptable and we need to act NOW to prevent it.

Posted by: Leigh 2006-08-31 11:39

#13 "without any accurate and verifiable intelligence, we are obliged to use worst case logic"

I agree with you Zen, but in this case we do have quite a bit of verifiable and accurate intelligence. All the more reason to act 'immediately' as you said.

Posted by: mcsegeek1 2006-08-31 11:33

#12 Let us not forget a more similar and much more recent case...

Libya was thought to be years away, right up till they chickened out and turned it all over to us.

Posted by: AlanC 2006-08-31 10:14

#11 The Pentagon was confident the USSR was five to ten years away from the bomb - right up until one went 'boom.'

I don't think the Pentagon estimates included the communist cabal within the Manhattan Project at the time.

Posted by: Grung Thomock1532 2006-08-31 10:07

#10 The actual nuke bomb is just an secondary artifact.

The real issue is know-how and motivation. In this regard, the so-called intelligence community is meaningless, as the Iranian regime has been very clear about their motivation and ambitions. Their know-how increases by the day.

Our bombing nuke facilities is merely a time spacing measure. The real objective should be the removal of the Iranian regime and its terrorist groups.

Posted by: Captain America 2006-08-31 08:20

#9 The only way to know for certain is to invade, conquer, and go through the equipment and the files. Anything from a greater distance than that is merely philisophers observing the shadows at the back of the cave.

Posted by: trailing wife 2006-08-31 07:53

#8 The Pentagon was confident the USSR was five to ten years away from the bomb - right up until one went 'boom.'

Posted by: Glenmore 2006-08-31 07:21

#7 But -- Is Rome burning?

The point is, that without any accurate and verifiable intelligence, we are obliged to use worst case logic. That predicts the Iranians are much farther along than we think.

Admittedly, there are certain techniques, such a air sampling that might reveal the presence of heavy isotopes liberated during the enrichment process. Quite obviously, our government is not going to tip its hand regarding these surveillance methods.

What must be remembered is that Iran is pursuing this on a truly grand scale. They imported subway boring machines to rapidly create underground tunnels and chambers. They have already laid out facilities for testing of high explosives related to the fabrication of HE lenses. These focus the initial implosion of the critical masses.

Beyond this, one prime indicator that Iran cannot be trusted and certainly expects the worst is that many of their facilities have been hardened to some extent, either by placing them undergound or partially burying them. This alone strongly suggests that they have expected from day one that an effort to interdict their activities will be attempted.

All of this further concretes the need to view Iran in the light of worst case scenarios. Should it happen, Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons will go down as one of the most monumental strategic blunders of this new century. The repercussions will last for decades if not longer and the upshot will involve destabilization of the entire Middle East, renewed nuclear proliferation amongst many other Islamic nations and the near-certain guarantee that a limited nuclear war will happen at some future point. If not with Israel (a most likely outcome) then among each other (due to sunni and shiite differences) or, at the very worst, the delivery of a device to terrorists who will detonate it on American soil.

Any single one of these outcomes is entirely unacceptable. All of them represent a tremendous loss of human life if not genocide, a devastating blow to the global economy and a completely senseless empowerment of the most brutal despots our modern world has ever seen.

Is it worth risking any of this solely for the sake of desiring a greater degree of certainty regarding Iran's potential progress towards obtaining atomic weapons? I don't think so.

Posted by: Zenster 2006-08-31 04:26

#6 I'd like to hear what Old spook thinks of this article...

me too.

..and Perhaps John could lend a hand also.

Iran has acquired
engineering plans
tec
manufacturing machinery
tools
precision instruments

from many sources...

Nations
Individuals
Industries
Corps/Co
Universities
Their own research

from the likes of..

A.Q. Khan & the Perverse Klub
Pootie & the Pootetes
Kimmie & the Norklings
Frogistan courtesy Jacques Strap

many Biggie Rat Traitors from many countries..

opinion,
I have very little faith in the '5 years away from the bomb' assumption.

Posted by: RD 2006-08-31 03:17

#5 Like everyone else, I wish I (we) knew precisely where things stand... Reasoning it out I come up with...

If it's impossible to say when they will have a nuke, then it's impossible to say. The infamous #2: the known unknown.

But -- Is Rome burning? I don't know. It's certainly disconcerting not knowing any more than we do and simultaneously having little or no faith in our intelligence services. That defines the new brinkmanship.

Perhaps we know more than we make public. We were informed of this program by an exiled Iranian dissident group, after all, who obviously have (had?) well-placed connections in Iran. No telling how many of these brave souls might have been burned in letting us know, since we went public with it. Are they still delivering quality intel? Perhaps they are. Perhaps not.

I'd like to hear what Oldspook thinks of this article...

Posted by: cruiser 2006-08-31 02:42

#4 Iff the Burg's articles today, from or pertaining to NORTH KOREA, is accurate, Radical Iran is just one or more plane flight(s) away from having a bomb. The CSIS org believes Iran has a handful of Dick-Dastardly, "Unhand her, Dan Backslide" nukies already. YOOHOO, DUBYA, CAN WE HAVE A DRAFT NOW!?

Posted by: JosephMendiola 2006-08-31 02:35

#3 You certainly have the part right about Ahmadinejad living in a cartoon universe.

Posted by: Zenster 2006-08-31 02:04

#2 USA: It's true, world; We're the Great Satan alright. Would you like to nuke me now or wait 'til you get home?

Ahmadinahijab: Nuke him now! Nuke him now!

USA: You keep outta this! He doesn't have to nuke you now!

Ahmadinahijab: He does so have to nuke me now! [to world community] I demand that you nuke me now!

[The world community readies a nuke. As Ahmadinahijab sticks his tongue out at the USA, he is nuked. Ahmadinahijab walks back over to the USA, gunsmoke pouring out of his nostrils]

Ahmadinahijab: [to USA] Let's run through that again.

USA: Okay.

USA: [deadpan] Would you like to nuke me now or wait till you get home.

Ahmadinahijab:[similarly] Nuke him now, nuke him now.

USA: [as before] You keep outta this, he doesn't have to nuke you now.

Ahmadinahijab: [re-animated] Hah! Thats it! Hold it right there! [to audience] Pronoun trouble. [to USA] It's not "he doesn't have to nuke you now", it's "he doesn't have to nuke me now!"

[Pause]

Ahmadinahijab: [angrily] Well, I say he does have to nuke me now!! [to the world community] So nuke me now!

[The world community nukes Ahmadinahijab again]

Posted by: gorb 2006-08-31 01:55

#1 There is no possibility of obtaining a valid assessment regarding Iran's progress towards fabricating nuclear weapons. Their constant dissembling, extensive subterfuge and outright lies make a joke of the entire concept. Any proposed solution must address the issue on an immediate basis. Anything less is fiddling while Rome burns.

Posted by: Zenster 2006-08-31 01:39

00:00