Iran to Have Nuclear Bomb in a Few Months?
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Iran to Have Nuclear Bomb in a Few Months?
This marks a dangerous phase in Iran's nuclear defiance. Tehran is now using a kind of prototype centrifuge that enriches uranium almost 50 times faster. Pictured: The Natanz nuclear enrichment facility in Iran. (Photo by Majid Saeedi/Getty Images)
The Iranian government is shortening its nuclear breakout time -- the amount of time required to produce enough weapons-grade uranium for a single nuclear weapon. Tehran has accomplished this through several steps in the last few months.
Iran's government first increased its enriched uranium stockpile beyond the 300 kilogram limit; it enriched uranium to levels beyond the cap of 3.67 percent, and then activated 20 IR-4 and 20 IR-6 advanced centrifuges. The Iranian leaders even boasted that their government is now exploring new uranium enrichment programs and producing centrifuges.
Most recently, the head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, Ali Akbar Salehi, declared that Iran has an adequate supply of 20% enriched uranium., "Right now we have enough 20% uranium," he told the Iranian Students News Agency, ISNA, "but we can produce more as needed". He added that the country is resuming uranium enrichment at a far higher level at the Fordow nuclear facility -- an underground uranium enrichment facility which is reportedly located on one of bases of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) -- injecting uranium gas into centrifuges, and operating 60 IR-6 advanced centrifuges.
This marks a dangerous phase in Iran's nuclear defiance. Tehran is now using a kind of prototype centrifuge that enriches uranium almost 50 times faster.
Iran's nuclear breakout time in 2015 was estimated at less than one year. Tehran has advanced its nuclear program since then. In an interview with Iran's state-owned Channel 2, Salehi admitted that the "nuclear deal" initiated by then-US President Barack Obama not only failed to restrict Iran's nuclear program; it actually helped Iran to advance its nuclear program through the flow of funds thanks to the lifting of sanctions. "If we have to go back and withdraw from the nuclear deal," he stated , "we certainly do not go back to where we were before ... We will be standing in a much, much higher position."
Although Iran is a party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), it refuses to allow the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to inspect its sites. The IAEA is also not allowed to inspect or monitor Iran's military sites, where nuclear activities are most likely being carried out.
Among the many concessions that the Obama administration granted to the Iranian government, one was accepting the Iranian leaders' demand that military sites would be out of the IAEA's reach. Because of this surrender, at various high-profile sites such as the Parchin military complex, located southeast of Tehran, the regime has been free to engage in nuclear activities without the risk of inspection.
The Iranian leaders keep claiming that their nuclear activities are solely for peaceful purposes. This claim is bogus. If the Islamic Republic is advancing its nuclear program for peaceful purposes, why has Tehran repeatedly failed to report its nuclear facilities, including those at Natanz and Arak, to the IAEA?
Also, why does the Iranian government keep refusing to answer the IAEA's questions regarding a secret nuclear facility , reportedly located in the suburbs of Tehran? Two nonpartisan organizations based in Washington -- the Institute for Science and International Security and the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies -- last year released a detailed report on Iran's clandestine nuclear activities at this site.
In addition, why did the Iranian government place an S-300 anti-aircraft missile system at the Fordow underground nuclear site after the 2015 nuclear agreement? Finally, why does the Iranian regime never adequately address reports about its efforts to obtain illegal nuclear technology and equipment? Germany's domestic intelligence agency, the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution, revealed in its annual report for 2016 that the Iranian government had pursued a "clandestine" path to obtain illicit nuclear technology and equipment from German companies "at what is, even by international standards, a quantitatively high level."
The truth is that, from the perspective of the ruling clerics of Iran, obtaining nuclear weapons is a must to help Tehran advance its hegemonic ambitions to dominate the region. Also, by having nuclear weapons, the Iranian government can more powerfully support terror groups and proxies to destabilize the region without being concerned that the West might strike Iranian military targets.
Most of all, in the view of the ruling clerics, having nuclear weapons can ensure the survival of their theocratic, anti-American and anti-Semitic establishment.
That is why, before it is too late, which it is fast becoming, it is incumbent on the US and the international community to take seriously Iran's nuclear advances and urgently address its rush to obtain nuclear weapons.
Dr. Majid Rafizadeh is a business strategist and advisor, Harvard-educated scholar, political scientist, board member of Harvard International Review, and president of the International American Council on the Middle East. He has authored several books on Islam and US foreign policy.
Tags
Who is online
326 visitors
A good investment these days might be in purchasing shares in corporations that build fallout shelters.
isn't there another ME country that totally denies having nuclear weapons and is not subject to inspection by the IAEA?
If only one of those countries you are insinuating about could have nuclear weapons, which one would you prefer it to be? One that is an American ally or one that chants "Death to America" and burns the Stars and Stripes. "Neither one" is NOT an answer.
equal accountability from all parties would be the basis for any serious negotiations in the future.
As I expected, you did not answer the question. You were given 2 possibilities, and were to choose one. Your failure to choose one is the answer I expected from you.
Here are the actual facts:
1. Currently there's probably only one Middle Eastern country that has Nuclear Weapons-- Israel.
2. I said "probably" the only one because "Well informed sources" have made statements implying that the U.S. is in the process of negotiating (or perhaps even secretly already in the process of actually building) a reactor for Saudi Arabia.
But to the best of my knowledge, this has not been confirmed-- it may not be true .(and by the term "Well informed sources" I am definitely not referring to some of the "Know It Alls" on NT ) .
3, It seems pretty certain that Iran has not yet developed Nukes.
4.In the past two Arab countries had nuclear reactors under construction, but they knocked out by "the country that does the job that no one else is willing to do" (No-- not Mexico!)
P.S: Israel has not denied that they have nukes-- neither totally denied nor partially denied! (Anyway-- what would a "partial denial" be?)
There's not the slightest doubt in the mind of any well informed person that Israel has nukes.
Your comment that they "Totally denied" having them is a " totally uniformed" comment! False-- and misleading!
Total denial?
Then how would you explain numerous articles to the contrary...to cite but one example:
‘Dayan pushed PM Meir to consider using nuclear weapons in 1973 war’
Former government aide says the defense minister, badly shaken on day two of the Yom Kippur War, suggested the ultimate option… and Meir told him to ‘forget it’
That article was in the media-- and online on the Internet back in 20213-- and there were others. (How could they "consider" the possiblity of using in nukes-- if they didn't have any?)
And BTW-- that's about Israel having them way back in 1973 -- a long time ago!
Just because Israel "probably" has nuclear weapons. Doesn't mean we should allow Iran to have them.
Iran has several well train militias operating in Iraq and Syria. One of them even getting a low grade dirty nuclear weapon and setting it off against US troops in the area would be more than enough to start WWIII.
Everyone knows I am not an Israeli cheerleader; but at least they have shown restraint in using their nuclear weapons. Want to risk Iran being the same if they get access to them?
Just because Israel "probably" has nuclear weapons. Doesn't mean we should allow Iran to have them
I suppose I wasn't clear-- I don't think we should let Iran develop nukes. (And I'm glad that the nuclear reactors being built both by Saddam Hussein and later by Syria were destroyed by Israel-- despite worldwide condemnation of the israeli attack that destroyed Saddam's reactor)
And BTW I don't think Israel "probably" has nukes-- from what I know they definitely have them! And contrary to what someone here said-- they have never "totally denied it".
(A few years ago the best estimate was that at the time they had 200... but whatever the number, they ensure that no nation would be stupid enough to seriously threaten their existence).....
Krishna, who are you talking to? Yourself?
Who? Me?
Well, I wouldn't be so sure about that. That would make Hamas, Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad pretty stupid, would it not? Now that I think about it, they really MUST be pretty stupid.
Let alone the unbelievable restraint they've shown against Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Is there another country that would put up with years of rockets and missiles raining on its civilians and incendiary balloons and kites setting fires to its forests, crops and orchards, and NOT totally invade that country? Would the USA put up with it?
Thank you for the clarification. I agree with you on the reactors in Iraq and Syria needing to be destroyed. I don't like the fact Israel violated international law to do it; but in this case I am willing for the US to take it on the chin to support them.
Sorry, my turn not to be clear. I was using "probably" the same way you were. I agree Israel definitely has nuclear weapons; and has had them for quite some time.
Equal accountability?
Yes, Israel has nuclear weapons. No, they are not going to give them up. Good luck trying to force them to.
Just because Israel has nuclear weapons doesn't mean Iran gets them as well.
The US already had negotiations with Iran under Obama. See how well those turned out? What leverage does the world have left to negotiate with Iran? Think Russia, China, or even the EU or going to let those snap back sanctions take hold. Iran has repeatedly violated both the nuclear and missile agreements; but no sanctions from the Security Council.
you didn't answer mine.
that ship has sailed. years ago halliburton sold iran replacement parts for an old french nuclear reactor thru a shell company to end-run earlier sanctions. the french reactor produces weapons grade material as a by product. iran has been producing weapons grade material for years.
probably better than what we face now, but we'll never know.
Okay, I'll answer yours. My answer is:
Maybe.
Now you can answer mine.
That tells us just how useless the IAEA is, and why they cannot be relied upon. The information Israel provides is much more accurate and dependable.
You know, I'm starting to wonder about the expression "International Law" since there isn't an unbiased court on Earth where an argument could be presented - and I include the "general public" in that as well. .
So the non binding agreement signed by Obama was a worthless piece of shit. Thank you for your honesty. It hasn't been close to 10 years that Obama promised and Iran has violated both the nuclear and missile deals several times.
What we are facing now are the results of the worthless piece of shit deal Obama agreed to. No snap back sanctions; and Iran doing what they want when they want. No deal, and no 400 million back to Iran, would have been far better. Let NATO, Russia, and China decide if they want to end sanctions and green light Iran having nuclear weapons. As it is now this is a US failure; and we will be the ones dealing with a nuclear Iran very shortly.
IMO none of those groups has ever seriously threatened Israel's existence-- perhaps it would be more accurate to say that they haven't posed a real threat to wiping out the country, even though they made threats..
When Iran finally get nukes, IMO they won't use them. After all-- Israel is such a tiny country that dropping a few nukes on them would be the end of any hopes for a future Paalestinian state-- which would make Iran very unpopular in the Arab world-- to say the least!
(To say nothing of the fact that in all likelihood all of Jordan and much of the rest of the Arab world east of the Meditteranean would be showered in radioactivity
Ironically, the actual power a nation gets from having nukes comes not from using them-- but rather merely by possessing them the threat of nuclear retaliation is present which would make other nations think twice before launching large scale war against them.
Finally, IIRC,"usually reliable sources" have said that Irael has one-- possibly two-- submarines capable of delivering missiles with nuclear warheads constanrtly cruising back and forth somewhere along the Iranian coast....
And that's in addition to have one of the best Air Forces in the Middle East as well and land to land missiles-- if Iran attacked them in a big way the resulting damage Iran would suffer by a bigly Israeli retaliation would be YUGE!
LOL. Do you really think they give a shit about that. They'd be heroes. They'd be creating more Muslim "martyrs". Did the Muslim pilots that rammed the WTC buildings, or the planners of that attack against the USA, care that there were Muslims working in those buildings?
We are in agreement on Iran Buzz.
Iran doesn't give a shit about the Palestinians any more than the rest of the Arab world does. They are a tool that has far outlived their usefulness to Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, and Lebanon. Iran still uses them in a proxy fight against Israel.
I don't think Iran would be brazen enough to attack Israel directly; unless it was all out war. They would us one of their militias, or one of the Palestinian radical factions to set off a dirty bomb to attack US forces in the region, or Israel.
That would accomplish the same thing, potentially kick start WWIII.
I'll drink to that! Unfortunately we're a little too far apart to click glasses.
As horrendous as that attack was-- it didn't wipe out the U.S.
But here's a key point-- all 21 (or is it 22?) Arab countries with I believe the exception of Tunisia is a dictatorship.
Their people suffer. Eventually their citizens would turn their anger towards their governments and overthrow them.
Their dictators know that-- so they need to turn the peoples' anger away from their leaders. How do to that? Create a scapegoat... Israel!
As long as they can keep their population hating Israel and furious at Israel, their people won't turn their anger toward the real cause of their suffering-- their own leaders!
So their leaders have a vested interest in keeping Israel in existence!
(In the meantime they can co ti ually rant and rave about wanting to destroy Israel, and launch terror attacks that can be pretty horrendous. But I think there's a distinct possibility that they don't want Israel actually destroyed-- they need it as a scapegoat!).
That is true.
BTW, here's a satirical article that speaks to that very point:
Iran Reaffirms Resolve To Fight Israel Down To Last Palestinian
The satirical article is very amusing - but true.
Looks like The United Kingdom, Russia, France, China, Germany and the European Unions inspection process has been going well.
Trade before all else.
So much for those snap back sanctions so heavily touted by Obama. So desperate for a deal he overlooked that the UN Security Council would never all it to be brought to a vote; much the less approve it.
Non-Binding doesn't have the "Kick" it used to have.
the UN Security Council would never all it to be brought to a vote; much the less approve it.
Any UN Security Council resolution can be vetoed by any of the 5 permanent members-- so its basically powerless. (If the U/S/ introduces a resolution, either Russia or China can kill it by veto-- conversely, any Russian or Chinese resolution can be vetoed by the U.S. or the UK-- or even by france if they're in the mood).
And in the unlikely event that any meaningful resolution could be passed-- the UN has no power to enforce it any way!
t
And it never did!
(When the spirit moves you, you might want to look up the definition of "non-binding")
See "John Kerry" for importance of Non-Binding. ?
I understand perfectly how the UN Security Council works; which is why the idea of snap back sanctions was a joke. Obama knew it and didn't care. He wanted a deal, any deal, for his legacy.
As for enforcement. I don't think NATO had an issue enforcing (and violating) the UN Security Council Resolution on Libya. Afghanistan also comes to mind. While the UN may not be able to enforce resolutions; members of the Security Council are more than capable.
As individual members....
that was money well spent /s
If only we had a deal with Iran that allowed us to inspect their facilities when we wanted to so we could keep an eye on what they were up too. Oh wait, we did. Never mind.
Yep, could have kept an eye on all their nuclear doings except the ones in their military facilities and their secret ones.
So does the IAEA which is why I have trouble trusting them.
(amended comment) I just realized you might have meant the IAEA has trouble admitting, I thought at first you meant the Iranian govt.
No Buzz, you're right, having no access at all is far better than some access.
IMO, for IAEA, some access is no better than no access.