Article

2006-01-13 Syria-Lebanon-Iran

IISS and CIA: No Iran Nukes for 10 Years. Trust Us.

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Anonymoose 2006-01-13 11:31|| || Front Page|| [12 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Taking into consideration the CIA's track record and current attitudes, I think it's clear that Iran would have nukes within 6 months.

I think the CIA's time has come. Bring back the OSS under WWII rules.

Posted by Silentbrick">Silentbrick 2006-01-13 12:08|| 2006-01-13 12:08|| Front Page Top

#2 I'm sure its yet another CIA 'Slam dunk'.....

Posted by CrazyFool 2006-01-13 12:24|| 2006-01-13 12:24|| Front Page Top

#3 Based on this report, I predict Iran will test their first nuke before the 4th of July, 2006. The only open question is whether that test will be over a city, a group of US ships in the Persian Gulf, or underground like everyone else.

Posted by Robert Crawford">Robert Crawford 2006-01-13 12:43|| http://www.kloognome.com/]">[http://www.kloognome.com/] 2006-01-13 12:43|| Front Page Top

#4 #2 I'm sure its yet another CIA 'Slam dunk'.....
Posted by: CrazyFool 2006-01-13 12:24

Psssssst...."Show them the IRAQ WMD trailer slides Mr. Secretary, show them the WMD trailer slides.....Yes, George. Yes, George."

Posted by Besoeker 2006-01-13 12:45|| 2006-01-13 12:45|| Front Page Top

#5 The CIA, like Besoeker, has failed so miserably in their ability to analyse the obvious (such as the fall of the Soviet Union and the rise of the Islamists) that when they speak, no one listens.

Posted by 2b 2006-01-13 13:06|| 2006-01-13 13:06|| Front Page Top

#6 IF the IAEA, the biggest pussweeds in the world, think Iran is "months away from a bomb" we should be worried. They have stymied this process for a long time, now they want to move in and shut them down.

Posted by Sneretch Gleang2265 2006-01-13 13:17|| 2006-01-13 13:17|| Front Page Top

#7 oops..my apologies Beoseker. I think I misread what you meant in your post and confused you with another poster. Sheesh...you think I'd learn.

Posted by 2b 2006-01-13 13:38|| 2006-01-13 13:38|| Front Page Top

#8 Hmm.

Iran already has 164 centrifuge machines installed at its pilot centrifuge plant at Natanz, but that is only a fifth of the total it needs before it is fully operational. The commercial-scale facility could ultimately house as many as 50,000 centrifuges, according to some estimates.

That's one.

Iran could alternatively use plutonium to produce nuclear weapons, but this route is also problematic for Tehran, analysts say. Plutonium can be produced as a by-product of fission carried out by Iran's Russian-built nuclear power reactor at Bushehr.

That makes two.

Iran is also constructing a heavy-water research reactor at Arak, which Dr Barnaby says would "very efficiently produce plutonium of the sort that is good for nuclear weapons." But this will not be ready until at least 2014, and probably later, the IISS has said.

That's three.

Three choke points to target. Not bad. Thank you, IISS!

Posted by Ptah">Ptah 2006-01-13 14:54|| http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org]">[http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org] 2006-01-13 14:54|| Front Page Top

#9 This is about the same as tracking a terrorist cell but waiting until they blast through a cockpit door before arresting them. Saddam's WMDs may be fantasy or they may be buried somewhere, but I'm relieved that we've put him out of business. And Saddam seems like a reasonable man compared to that nutjob president of Iran. Don't risk my civilization on ASSumptions about what Iran has and doesn't have. They've already made plenty of statements tantamount to declarations of war, and they've made it clear that they have plans to do some serious underground work. They're not looking for carrots down there, doc.

Posted by Darrell 2006-01-13 16:24|| 2006-01-13 16:24|| Front Page Top

#10 PHeww! 10 years? I was almost worried there.

Another slam dunk! On to Healthcare....

Posted by Danking70 2006-01-13 17:20|| 2006-01-13 17:20|| Front Page Top

#11 WEBEDEADWRONG

Posted by Captain America 2006-01-13 17:20|| 2006-01-13 17:20|| Front Page Top

#12 With the technology available at that time and after all the research done the Manhattan Project took 3 years to make a bomb. 10 years in the 21st C seems ludicrous

Posted by Ulotle Wholuse7269 2006-01-13 18:12|| 2006-01-13 18:12|| Front Page Top

#13 The important point is not when they get operational nukes, but when they get Russian air defence systems.

Posted by Omeang Grailet5065 2006-01-13 23:53|| 2006-01-13 23:53|| Front Page Top

11:45 Red Dog
11:44 Red Dog AU commish
16:19 Bird Dog
16:10 Bird Dog
10:01 Ray Gunn
09:55 AU commish
23:53 Omeang Grailet5065
23:52 .com
23:48 ed
23:45 anon
23:42 .com
23:38 twobyfour
23:36 Frank G
23:35 twobyfour
23:35 .com
23:34 Seafarious
23:28 3dc
23:25 Frank G
23:08 .com
23:03 twobyfour
23:03 SC88
23:01 .com
23:00 .com
22:58 .com