Gates: Iran "not close to a weapon at this point"

By Cernig

This is the closest anyone from the Obama administration has ever come to admitting that the hype over Iran's nuclear program is just hype:

"They're not close to a stockpile, they're not close to a weapon at this point, and so there is some time," Gates said on NBC television's "Meet The Press."

That first part is an admission, of sorts, that the current meme of saying Iran has enough of the wrong kind of uranium for a bomb is simply scaremongering and bad science. The second part is an admission of sorts that there's no sign at all of Iran trying for a breakout - which would involve kicking out the IAEA's inspectors and switching of suveaillance cameras - or even of any kind of current Iranian nuclear weapons program at all, just like the 2007 NIE said.

Given both of those, "some time" means at least two years from the siren-wailing moment that Iran tells the IAEA to get out and quits the NPT, if that ever happens. It's far more likely, as the IAEA head Mohammed el-Baradei believes, that Iran is seeking the capacity to build a nuclear weapon at short notice. It's a path several other nations have already gone down - notably Japan. Such a course gives a nation a virtual deterrent, a potential ability to respond with nuclear weapons to aggression, without involving it in the many political problems of actually having nukes.

If so, it's entirely unclear why the US is pressuring its allies to sanction Iran or looking for sticks to go with carrots in negotiations, things Gates is still banging the drum about even though he's made this admission. Iran would actually be showing more forebearance and more sense than non-NPT nuke weilders India, Pakistan and Israel - all of whom receive military aid from America instead of a constant barrage of threats and punishments. One can only suspect its all more about the slur of an embassy held hostage three decades ago than any actual modern threat.

Comments

[Russ Wellen]

Steve wrote:

One can only suspect its all more about the slur of an embassy held hostage three decades ago than any actual modern threat.

Also, as was recently pointed out to me, because of the two 1983 Beirut bombings: the US Embassy and the Marine barracks, both attributed by many to Hezbollah. As well as the 1985 killing of Beirut station CIA chief William Buckley.

Fabled terrorist Imad Fayez Mughniyah was implicated in many such attacks. They just named a street after him in Tehran!

[bilejones]

I'm just waiting for some-one to point out that Niger has enough uranium to make hundreds of bombs.

[Steve Hynd]

Hi Russ,

Named a street after a terrorist who carried out attacks two decades ago? Sheesh, start bombing already! The UK can join in - there's a "Bobby Sands Street" in Tehran too!

Would the person who mentioned that like to discuss the Irgun, who metamorphed into Israel's political leadership cadre, and the annual Likudnik celebration of the bombing of British HQ? If we're talking decades old atrocities as justification for hostilities, then surely we need to talk about them all.

http://cernigsnewshog.blogspot.com/2006/07/irgun-conundrum.html

Regards, C

[Peter G.]

Hello Cernig
I believe I detect a slight alteration in your previous views regarding Iran's nuclear intentions. The idea that Iran is seeking the capacity to create weapons on short notice rather than not being interested in them at all is one that I believe. They are certainly exploring all the fundamental technologies. Actually creating a uranium bomb is simplicity itself but the process of converting material to weapons grade makes the "short term" one of many months, even years depending on the installed base of functional centrifuges. Even if Iran were to renounce the NPT and pursue a full militarization of nuclear technology creating a deliverable inventory of weapons sufficient to create a credible deterrent would take some years. Unfortunately only a small inventory would be enough to cause panic in Tel Aviv. That remains the wild card.

[Steve Hynd]

Hi Peter,

"I believe I detect a slight alteration in your previous views regarding Iran's nuclear intentions."

Its only slight, but yes. I've said since before the 2007 NIE that only small lab-scale experiments in weaponization seem ever to have occurred. Creating a virtual deterrent capability is, however, in accord with those and also with Iran's stated peaceful, civilian intentions. Occam's Razor says its the best fit to known facts and I acknowledge that.

Regards, C

[Peter G.]

Indeed Cernig
If the situation is,as I believe, one of Iran's wanting to acquire a virtual ability to manufacture nuclear weapons they would certainly remain within the rules of the NPT. I remain concerned about that wild card however. Saddam Hussein played many stupid games with the UN's weapons inspectors to his own great disadvantage. In creating doubt about whether or not he had completely divested himself of chemical weapons he armed his enemies with a casus belli or perhaps more accurately a casus foederis that the neocons ran with and greatly expanded upon. I think it would very much in Iran's interest to be as transparent as possible in this matter. It wouldn't take much more than some poor intelligence and the wrong Israeli government to start some serious shit.