British study says Tehran is at least five - more likely 10-15 - years away from having nukes.
By Tom Regan | csmonitor.com
A new study by the British International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) say that Iran is at least five years from being able to produce a nuclear weapon, but a more likely estimate is 10-15 years.
The report comes a month after a US government National Intelligence Estimate said that Iran was at least 10 years from being able to produce nuclear weapons.
The Chicago Tribune reports that the new IISS study was based on discussions with IAEA inspectors who have seen the Iranian facilities, and on conversations with Iranian political leaders and technical experts.
The report comes two weeks before "a crucial meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN's nuclear watchdog, that will decide whether to refer Iran to the UN Security Council for possible sanctions."
"If Iran threw caution to the wind and sought a nuclear weapon capability as quickly as possible without regard for international reaction, it might be able to produce enough highly enriched uranium for a single nuclear weapon by the end of the decade," said John Chipman, the institute's director.
A more likely scenario is that Iran will wait until it completes its industrial-scale centrifuge plant at Natanz, a process that is expected to take a least 10 years. But once completed, Iran could then turn out enough highly enriched uranium for several weapons within a few weeks, giving the international community little time to react, Chipman said.
A more likely scenario is that Iran will wait until it completes its industrial-scale centrifuge plant at Natanz, a process that is expected to take a least 10 years. But once completed, Iran could then turn out enough highly enriched uranium for several weapons within a few weeks, giving the international community little time to react, Chipman said.
In late August, China View reported that American media have noted that "Traces of bomb-grade uranium found two years ago in Iran came from contaminated Pakistani equipment, and are not evidence of an alleged clandestine nuclear weapons program."
"The biggest smoking gun that everyone was waving is now eliminated with these conclusions," said the Washington Post, quoting an anonymous senior official who disclosed the still-confidential findings on Tuesday [Aug. 23]. Scientists from the United States, France, Japan, Britain and Russia met secretly during the past nine months to scrutinize the data collected from Iran by inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
At the same time, the Associated Press reported that Iran had enough to produce "about 7 tons of the gas it needs for uranium enrichment" after it restarted the process in August.
The Guardian reports that one of the IISS study's authors, Gary Samore, says that Iran is not acting like its a country in a hurry to build a bomb.
"But Tehran is acting in a political way to limit international opposition to its activities. It is more likely that Iran would try to accumulate production capability over a much longer period of time, 10 or 15 years, before it makes a decision about whether it wants to produce nuclear weapons."
The New York Times reports that Iran's ability to produce weapons-grade plutonium "seems much more distant," while the report said it was "too difficult" to fully access Iran's biological and chemical weaponry.
The Times adds a word of caution, however, about previous IISS studies. It points out that in 2002, British Prime Minister Tony Blair used an IISS report to bolster his claim that Saddam Hussein had access to biological and chemical weapons. No weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq.
Columnist Pepe Escobar of The Asia Times writes that in the "high stakes nuclear poker game" going on between Iran and Britain, France and Germany, Iran has decided to "call Europe's bluff and turn the game around."
Former Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Velayati, currently a key advisor on foreign affairs to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, is quoted as saying that Iran now has the upper hand – and that's the consensus in Tehran. Velayati is a realist. If Iran is referred to the Security Council, "They will obviously set a deadline for Iran, and in the worst circumstances we would have to expect sanctions." Velayati thinks that both Russia and China may not veto the move for sanctions, "but they will try to moderate the Security Council's stances".
The Associated Press reported Monday that Russia opposes referring Iran to the United Nations Security Council. Moscow "does not see any basis for transferring the question, which the IAEA is dealing with actively and productively, to the Security Council," the Russian Foreign ministry said in a statement.
The Khaleej Times reports that in the unlikely case that Iran be referred to the Security Council for its nuclear program, Iranian officials "are fully prepared" for the consequences. The Iranians also pointed out that the "uranium conversion plant in Isfahan in central Iran was under the full surveillance of the IAEA" regardless of the breakdown of talks with Europe.
Independent columnist and military expert Gwynne Dyer writes in a column in The New Zealand Herald that all the "bold talk" in Washington about referring Iran to the UN Security Council is "so much moonshine." And, Mr. Dyer argues, this means that the best US course of action in the short-term is to do "nothing at all."
Iran's intentions are not certain, the government may be very different 10 years from now, and any US military action now, without proof that Iran really is seeking nuclear weapons, would be illegal. But none of those considerations stopped Bush from invading Iraq, and he is busily painting himself into a corner on this issue. Might he do it again?
Attacking Iran would achieve nothing in military terms, since the United States lacks the spare military capacity to invade and occupy such a large country. All it could do is bomb Iran's uranium enrichment facilities in Isfahan and elsewhere, and annoy Iranians to the point where they started causing trouble (and they could cause a great deal) in Iraq, the Gulf and the wider Middle East.
Meanwhile, Iran is also pursuing new contacts in its region of the world, as part of its plan to win support for its nuclear program. Indian External Affairs Minister K. Natwar Singh visited Tehran earlier this week. During his visit he reiterated India's support for "Iran's peaceful nuclear energy program within the framework of its international obligations and commitments" – a huge boost for the Iranians.
A recent Christian Science Monitor story raised the question of whether the biggest threat that Iran may pose to the US isn't its nuclear program, but its plans to "create by next year a euro-denominated exchange in oil, natural gas, and other petroleum products."
Ryan McGreal, of the Raise the Hammer blog, argues that Iran is hoping the idea, which is a calculated risk, will find enough supporters among countries and financial markets already starting to shed American dollars because of the US government's deficit and debt.
