Irani nuclear program & American concern

[SURB]

Iran Has Enough Enriched Uranium for Two Weapons, Panetta Says


By Bob Willis
June 27 (Bloomberg) -- Central Intelligence Agency Director Leon Panetta said today that the U.S. believes Iran has enough low-enriched uranium to produce two nuclear weapons that could be ready for delivery within two years.
“We think they have enough low-enriched uranium right now for two weapons,” Panetta said on ABC’s “This Week” program. “They do have to enrich it fully in order to get there. It would probably take a year to get there, probably another year to develop the kind of weapon delivery system in order to make that viable.”
Iran says its nuclear program is for civilian purposes such as power generation and has rebuffed United Nations Security Council demands to suspend uranium enrichment. The Security Council imposed a fourth set of sanctions on Iran on June 9, backed by Russia and China, while the U.S. Congress approved sanctions last week.

“They clearly are developing their nuclear capability and that raises concerns,” Panetta said. “It raises concerns about, you know, just exactly what are their intentions and where they intend to go.”


Panetta said Iran “continue to work on designs” to turn their capability into weapons systems, and that “there is a continuing debate right now” within Iran “as to whether or not they ought to proceed with the bomb.”
Asked how likely an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities within two years was, Panetta said Israeli officials “feel more strongly that Iran has already made the decision to proceed with the bomb.”
He said Israel, with which the U.S. shares intelligence on Iran, was aware that sanctions would have an impact. “They’re willing to give us the room to try to change Iran diplomatically and culturally and politically as opposed to changing them militarily.”
Group of Eight leaders expect Israel may decide to take action against Iran out of concern that the country is building nuclear weapons, Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi said yesterday.
Since “Iran is not guaranteeing a peaceful production of nuclear power, the members of the G-8 are worried, and believe absolutely that Israel will probably react preemptively,” Berlusconi told reporters in Huntsville, Ontario, after a two- day meeting with other G-8 leaders. He didn’t elaborate.
Israeli government spokesman Mark Regev in Jerusalem declined to comment on the Panetta remarks, while a call to the mobile phone of Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast in Tehran was not immediately answered.


Iran Has Enough Enriched Uranium for Two Weapons, Panetta Says - BusinessWeek

A two year prediction looks like some type of deadline to me.Plus G-8 talking about preemptive strike or any action by Israel is a very strong statement;seams like G-8 will support any action against Iran.

 

[usachemo]

This may just be a stronger attempt to get a diplomatic response. If Iran sees that the major economic players are now coming together against them, not just US and UK, they may begin to back away from their weapons program. We also have to remember that it is their "legal" right, according to the NPT, to enrich up to 20%.

Iran Has Enough Enriched Uranium for Two Weapons, Panetta Says


By Bob Willis
June 27 (Bloomberg) -- Central Intelligence Agency Director Leon Panetta said today that the U.S. believes Iran has enough low-enriched uranium to produce two nuclear weapons that could be ready for delivery within two years.
“We think they have enough low-enriched uranium right now for two weapons,” Panetta said on ABC’s “This Week” program. “They do have to enrich it fully in order to get there. It would probably take a year to get there, probably another year to develop the kind of weapon delivery system in order to make that viable.”
Iran says its nuclear program is for civilian purposes such as power generation and has rebuffed United Nations Security Council demands to suspend uranium enrichment. The Security Council imposed a fourth set of sanctions on Iran on June 9, backed by Russia and China, while the U.S. Congress approved sanctions last week.

“They clearly are developing their nuclear capability and that raises concerns,” Panetta said. “It raises concerns about, you know, just exactly what are their intentions and where they intend to go.”


Panetta said Iran “continue to work on designs” to turn their capability into weapons systems, and that “there is a continuing debate right now” within Iran “as to whether or not they ought to proceed with the bomb.”
Asked how likely an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities within two years was, Panetta said Israeli officials “feel more strongly that Iran has already made the decision to proceed with the bomb.”
He said Israel, with which the U.S. shares intelligence on Iran, was aware that sanctions would have an impact. “They’re willing to give us the room to try to change Iran diplomatically and culturally and politically as opposed to changing them militarily.”
Group of Eight leaders expect Israel may decide to take action against Iran out of concern that the country is building nuclear weapons, Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi said yesterday.
Since “Iran is not guaranteeing a peaceful production of nuclear power, the members of the G-8 are worried, and believe absolutely that Israel will probably react preemptively,” Berlusconi told reporters in Huntsville, Ontario, after a two- day meeting with other G-8 leaders. He didn’t elaborate.
Israeli government spokesman Mark Regev in Jerusalem declined to comment on the Panetta remarks, while a call to the mobile phone of Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast in Tehran was not immediately answered.


A two year prediction looks like some type of deadline to me.Plus G-8 talking about preemptive strike or any action by Israel is a very strong statement;seams like G-8 will support any action against Iran.

 

[SURB]

Well i would say that the IAEA must take things in control and see if Iran is following the NPT rules and regulations.And the International community must not become overactive against just one nation in the Middle east.Must strengthen the IAEA and talk through this platform.Take serious steps if iran fails to comply the IAEA safeguards.Then also the first option should be sanctions than overt aerial strikes (and that too based on some intelligence reports and saving the interests of just one nation in the region.)

 

[SABRE]

... than overt aerial strikes (and that too based on some intelligence reports and saving the interests of just one nation in the region.)

What if Iran responses with massive ballistic missile attacks on Israel? or US forces in the region? They can also exploit insurgency in Afghanistan to bog down US.

I don't see a quick solution. Disarming Israel may help but that doesn't solve the conventional imbalance Iran has against Israel, UAE and Saudi Arabia and even the extra-regional forces in the region. Iran would still strike with missiles if threatened.

 

[justone]

What if Iran responses with massive ballistic missile attacks on Israel? or US forces in the region? They can also exploit insurgency in Afghanistan to bog down US.

I don't see a quick solution. Disarming Israel may help but that doesn't solve the conventional imbalance Iran has against Israel, UAE and Saudi Arabia and even the extra-regional forces in the region. Iran would still strike with missiles if threatened.

It is dangerous situation Iran could be hiding something about there nuclear program that where the problem is. Iranian have some secrets that we don't know about that the scary part about this whole mess. When Iran get nuclear weapons that changes there position in the region. When U.S. made the decision to drop the bomb in World War 2 it open up hell on earth.

 

[SABRE]

It is dangerous situation Iran could be hiding something about there nuclear program that where the problem is. Iranian have some secrets that we don't know about that the scary part about this whole mess. When Iran get nuclear weapons that changes there position in the region. When U.S. made the decision to drop the bomb in World War 2 it open up hell on earth.

Every nations is sovereign and they don't like being bullied by other states. Crippling their fighting capability may lead them to acquire weapons of last resort and bring in place a suicidal regime - one which is willing to use WMDs since they have nothing to loose and destruction of the opposition as greater good to the world. West needs to realize this fact.

Today the major states who are facing U.S and U.N sanctions are reportedly pursuing nuclear weapons program. I.e. DPRK, Iran and Myanmar. Libya gave up but is regretting it now. Syria is pursuing chemical and biological weapons.

By putting sanctions on Iran, US is only pushing it towards nuclearization. Military sanctions - and ban on sells of arms by Russia and China - will leave little options with Iran except to go nuclear. I am not sure if they are working on nuclear weapons. I have yet to see credible proves by U.S that Iran is working on the bomb and credible proves from Iran that it is not. But Iranian missile program hints that at least existential deterrence might come about (that is Iran acquires or makes the N-Bomb, gives out vague signals that is possess the capability but officially does not acknowledge it ... like Israel).

The Western spoon feeding of the concept that N-Weapons and missiles are expensive and hence developing and underdeveloped states should not acquire them is also a flawed concept. underprivileged states find it expensive in short run but in long run it is very feasible for them. Instead of acquiring multi-billion dollars weapons every year or so they just have to spend few billion dollars to develop handful of nuclear weapons which will deter even the most powerful of armies. Conventionally Iran is quite underprivileged compared to U.S and Israel.

My suggestion would be give Iran breathing space and carrots instead of sticks. Hope and expectation of more carrots will slow them down if they are developing Nukes and will also be obliged to open doors to IAEA's full inspection (at least to known facilities). It will then provide enough time for U.S and IAEA to determine Iran's intentions, backed by credible evidence, and certainly enough time to decide on course of action against or may be in favor of Iran.

 

[amirhessam]

In America they say about Iran's nuclear program and so far no evidence of a nuclear Iran is not present.
Iran is a regional power.

 

[Deterrence Wonk]

In America they say about Iran's nuclear program and so far no evidence of a nuclear Iran is not present.
Iran is a regional power.

Regional powers can possess nuclear weapons...just look at Israel.

An excerp from GTI GlobalNewswire:

A well-executed fielding of the advanced IR-2M and IR-4 centrifuges might double the speed at which Iran could produce sufficient bomb-grade uranium for a weapon from low-enriched material, reducing the wait period to 9-12 months from the 18-24 months required at present, U.S. government insiders said. The potential for Iran's uranium enrichment program to produce nuclear-weapon material has raised concerns in Washington and other capitals, but Tehran has insisted its nuclear ambitions are strictly peaceful.

 

[Beatmaster]

Every nations is sovereign and they don't like being bullied by other states. Crippling their fighting capability may lead them to acquire weapons of last resort and bring in place a suicidal regime - one which is willing to use WMDs since they have nothing to loose and destruction of the opposition as greater good to the world. West needs to realize this fact.

Today the major states who are facing U.S and U.N sanctions are reportedly pursuing nuclear weapons program. I.e. DPRK, Iran and Myanmar. Libya gave up but is regretting it now. Syria is pursuing chemical and biological weapons.

By putting sanctions on Iran, US is only pushing it towards nuclearization. Military sanctions - and ban on sells of arms by Russia and China - will leave little options with Iran except to go nuclear. I am not sure if they are working on nuclear weapons. I have yet to see credible proves by U.S that Iran is working on the bomb and credible proves from Iran that it is not. But Iranian missile program hints that at least existential deterrence might come about (that is Iran acquires or makes the N-Bomb, gives out vague signals that is possess the capability but officially does not acknowledge it ... like Israel).

The Western spoon feeding of the concept that N-Weapons and missiles are expensive and hence developing and underdeveloped states should not acquire them is also a flawed concept. underprivileged states find it expensive in short run but in long run it is very feasible for them. Instead of acquiring multi-billion dollars weapons every year or so they just have to spend few billion dollars to develop handful of nuclear weapons which will deter even the most powerful of armies. Conventionally Iran is quite underprivileged compared to U.S and Israel.

My suggestion would be give Iran breathing space and carrots instead of sticks. Hope and expectation of more carrots will slow them down if they are developing Nukes and will also be obliged to open doors to IAEA's full inspection (at least to known facilities). It will then provide enough time for U.S and IAEA to determine Iran's intentions, backed by credible evidence, and certainly enough time to decide on course of action against or may be in favor of Iran.

I do understand what you say and i partly can agree to it.
However some things are not complete in your story.
As you mentioned credible evidence is needed to be able to act against Iran.
On the other hand the risk of having Iran that "might" make a bomb is big enough to do what ever it takes to stop it.
The reason why i say this? Is simple there is not a single nation in the direct region of Iran that would welcome a nuke capable Iran.
Israel, Saudi Arabia, Turkey to name a few.
Specially Israel and the Saudies seem to have serious problems with it.
Why do you have to see credible evidence provided by the US and Allies before you judge if its true or not? While Iran already openly admitted to have nuclear ambition under the pretext of civilian means and uses.
Not saying if they have or not have what i do say is that the info spread by Iran itself aint exactly accurate.

Anyway perhaps i am wrong and perhaps we are all wrong, as none of us can say whats fact or not a fact.
What i do know however is that the region near Iran and Iran itself are way to unstable to allow nukes not to mention the fact that it would tip the balance way to much and again israel and the Saudies will shake heaven and earth to stop it.

 

[Mobius 1]

Saudi Arabia and Israel should have no fear from an Iranian nuclear weapons program. Israel has Jerusalem and Saudi Arabia, Mecca. Both are holy sites in Muslim religion, and Iran wouldnt dare to risk harming them via direct impact or fallout. The US and other western countries, however, have a logical fear. There is already suspiscion about Iran harboring terrorists and funding them, and so, as a direct result, equipping them with small nuclear weapons, or possibly "Dirty bombs" to use as a weapon. Iran has more to fear from the US and the rest of the world with the actual use of a nuclear weapon, Nuclear weapons are meant to be a deterrent, which is what Iran is trying to do. Its no secret that Iran wants the west gone. To them, we are seen as "morally corrupt" and as "imperialists". The old leaders want the old culture back, and they're trying to salvage as much as possible through any means. With what the US has done with the other middle eastern countries, Iran is merely trying to protect itself.

 

[LGB]

Actually Jerusalem isn't mentioned in the Koran, Muhammad never visited it while alive, and the Al Aqsa Mosque often is a site for picnics and soccer. Shia place less stress on Jerusalem that Sunni. Assuming the Iranian regime is rational in Western terms is problematic.

Saudi Arabia and Israel should have no fear from an Iranian nuclear weapons program. Israel has Jerusalem and Saudi Arabia, Mecca. Both are holy sites in Muslim religion, and Iran wouldnt dare to risk harming them via direct impact or fallout. The US and other western countries, however, have a logical fear. There is already suspiscion about Iran harboring terrorists and funding them, and so, as a direct result, equipping them with small nuclear weapons, or possibly "Dirty bombs" to use as a weapon. Iran has more to fear from the US and the rest of the world with the actual use of a nuclear weapon, Nuclear weapons are meant to be a deterrent, which is what Iran is trying to do. Its no secret that Iran wants the west gone. To them, we are seen as "morally corrupt" and as "imperialists". The old leaders want the old culture back, and they're trying to salvage as much as possible through any means. With what the US has done with the other middle eastern countries, Iran is merely trying to protect itself.

 

[My2Cents]

Saudi Arabia and Israel should have no fear from an Iranian nuclear weapons program. Israel has Jerusalem and Saudi Arabia, Mecca. Both are holy sites in Muslim religion, and Iran wouldnt dare to risk harming them via direct impact or fallout.

Riyadh, the capitol of Saudi Arabia is only 500 miles south-west of Shiraz in Iran. Mecca is another 500 miles south-west of Riyadh. The prevailing wind is from west to east. Mecca should be perfectly safe if Riyadh is nuked. Sound like a perfect fit for the older versions of the Shahab-3, with an upper range of 800 miles even if everything went wrong there is no way to get near Mecca. The newer versions are supposed to be able to reach 1200 miles, but just pack some extra payload weight, like extra countermeasures, and that won’t be a problem.

Tel Aviv is trickier because it is only 35 miles north-west of Jerusalem, but that is less important than that the Israeli’s can respond in kind. Of course, if the decision makers believe that the resulting chaos and conflict would result in the return of the 12th Imam they might consider it a small price to pay.