Centerfield

First, Negroponte has been quoted lately as saying between 2 to 3 years. This seems to go along with Israeli claims. It is quite possible that eliminating Iranian nuclear scientists will slow things down. It is possible they are encountering problems.

I think the points missed in your question are all the other fears surrounding Iranian nuclear research. These issues fuel the pressure now building.

1. The full extent of Iranian facilities are unknown. Perhaps this is why a senior Iranian defense minister has gone missing in Turkey. There are a few dozen suspected sites Westerners have never inspected and reports of some trace enrichment materials exceeding the level you mentioned.

2. The danger is Iran supplying others with nuclear material, designs and eventually a bomb. No one thinks at this moment Iran would fire nukes at somebody from their territory, even if they had a few. If China or others supply Iran with enriched material, they could manufacture a bomb. The new bombs we are going to build will never be tested. They are based on proven designs. If Iran can obtain advanced designs (see the laptop Intel discovered) they can leap frog to a bomb faster than their suspected rate of knowledge.

3. The knowledge they are acquiring will allow them to set up new shops and continue their quest, even after an attack. Negroponte and others have long said that allowing Iran to obtain such knowledge is ALMOST as dangerous as the weapons themselves. A Russian minister recently told the Duma that he is worried Iran is already diverting knowledge into military programs. Some think this is behind the Russians slowing down their reactor contract.

4. A strike on numerous sites would slow them down. If there are so many secret facilities we cannot see, then that changes to predictions about when Iran will get the bomb. Yes? One cannot argue four years and then say strikes won’t work now because there are dozens of sites we don’t know of that are working on nuclear weapons.

5. Many Republicans feel that if they lose in 2008, America will miss the opportunity to delay Iran before the date of 2010 is reached. Of course, by the time we spot them tipping their ICBMs it will be too late. Yes? Therefore striking Iran does not necessarily mean doing so JUST as they roll out weapons.

6. The media is reporting what Kerry, Clinton, McCain and even Obama have been saying for a while. I think Obama has seen the polls and is guessing Giuliani and Clinton might be right about what will decide the next election. So Democrats shift their outrage and hawkishness to Iran to compensate for retreating from Iraq? I note that Bill Clinton has just said "diplomacy" is the way to stop Iran, while Hillary gave AIPAC a different spin weeks ago. These two can play good cop bad cop all the way to 2008.

7. Gaddafi complains that his country wasn't rewarded for a South African-like de-arming. He must be annoyed with NK's more generous offers, but Gaddafi was actually supporting terror and being so close to Europe has caused some mistrust by the absurd notion he has of Democracy. In any case, if Iran wasn't diverting resources to WMD, then why would they risk such isolation and domestic unrest over programs they don't have? At this point, intelligence should be concerned over continued cooperation between Syria, Iran and North Korea. Negroponte's estimate is based only what we think we know.

8. India has a bomb, but the world isn't considering a strike on Bombay. It is the convergence of behavior, technical intensions, affiliations and the unknown unknowns. It is not just a bomb, but numerous mobile delivery systems, networks of terror and foreign help that make waiting for nuclear ICBMs a dangerous proposition. As Iran beefs up its security and air defense, it will pose much greater dangers to pre-emption several years from now.

Contrary to what you claim, media and the internet is flooded with arguments against attacking Iran. As usual, we are confronted by a lack of criteria for self-defense and what constitutes evidence. Shall we forget Iran used WMD against Iraqis? Shall we forget they threaten to invade Kurdistan unless "bandits" are stopped? When you declare to wipe Israel off the map, four years to the bomb, is not something one waits four years to prevent.

I would argue that now, with Saudi Arabia threatening to export more oil and sting Iran, with world opinion against the Mullahs, we should continue to send mixed signals as we prepare for action. I am not saying attack, but only when Iran realizes the threat is real, will they step back.

excuse the typos....thanks (like "is" is an "are")
I don't know who's worse, spell check or me.

One has to wonder if the Iranians have considered this possible scenario:

Suppose someone (it really doesn't matter who) contrives to beg, buy or steal a nuclear weapon from somewhere. They put it on a ship; no messing around trying to make a missle perform like you want. They then sail the ship somewhere near Israel. (Not even, necessarily, into a harbor -- for an atomic weapon, close would be good enough.) And set it off.

Israel would doubtless be moved to strike back -- but where? If Iran has nuclear weapons, even if there is no evidence that they were involved, I would think that the comments of their government over the past couple of years make it almost certain that the surviving Israelis would lob at least some of their nuclear weapons into Iran. If, on the other hand, Iran does NOT have nuclear weapons, the surviving Israelis are vastly less likely to shoot in that direction.

Which is to say, by demonstrating that they have nuclear weapons, the Iranians are making themselves hostage to any anti-Israel terrorist who comes along. Even if they, themselves, take absolutely no actions in that direction and know nothing about anyone who does. Sure doesn't sound like a good situation to be in.

This is an excellent point I have been trying to make for years. The Democrat position is, if we are ever attacked here with WMD (by any WMC or WMC we think Iran has) we will incinerate Tehran. Some call this the Don Corleone strategy proposed by Ted Koppel a few years back and posted here. This retaliatory policy is just plan BS. If we can't even accuse Iran of EFPs in Iraq, built in Iran, how will we PROVE any attack here was from Iran? Why not NK or Chavez? And would Americans ever approve of such retaliation without PROOF?

If you review my links posted here in other threads you can see that 1. NK, Syria and Iran share intelligence and data. 2. NK and Iran are building missiles that can be fired remotely from cargo ships and even trains. 3. Chavez, Russia, China, all contribute to this clandestine possibility and our military is already taking measures to protect our coasts from sea launched rogue missile launches. Cruise missiles will soon become more available as well. As delivery systems get better, including silent subs and nameless drones, it will be impossible to find the origin of terror. The Democrat hard line on "only retaliation", is foolish after 9/11. Republicans have been short on new criteria of self-defense. Jon's question brings up these other questions and I agree that many in Iran are worried about their President's strategy and activities. If they continue to make fingerprintless weapons and boast of advanced new instruments of Allah, many wonder on the Iranian street that a Western attack is simply a pre-emption to cut off their President’s declared extreme aims. That would be to wipe Israel off the map, drive the West out of the Middle East and spread Iranian led Shura into Asia and Africa. Not even Hitler was that bold in the days before his invasions.

> The full extent of Iranian facilities are unknown.

Yep. And the same is true of the rest of the world. Maybe we should conquer the world so there's no spot we have to worry about any more.

Of course, that's impractical. If we declared war on the entire world, we'd lose (do you want that to happen?). We can get much more done looking at the evidence we actually have rather than our fears.

> 4. A strike on numerous sites would slow them down.

Oh, goody. Now it'll be 4 1/3 years before they get their bomb instead of 4. Would it really be worth all the expense, when you get so much more effect by waiting?

Maybe some of it has to do with the idea that The Bush administration had decided to put the issue of uranium enrichment aside (the Russians may be supplying Iran as early as April) after deciding that Iran might already have procured sufficient fissile material to make warheads. Europe is largely not on board with the U.S. when it comes to Iran.

An attack on Iran in the current environment would be utterly disastrous. It's not even totally clear that Iran is doing anything illegal. And, even if they are, arguably, the US has been violating the NPT agreement for years because the original agreement called for the nuclear powers to move toward disarmament. I'm not saying we should disarm, but the idea of a preemptive strike--that would probably only be partially effective anyway--would only worsen our standing in the world, alienate what is apparentlya fairly pro-American Iranian public, and probably create an open season for terrorist acts against the US.

I agree, however, with the point that the Democratic position that we will simply incinerate Iran if they nuke us is enough ignores the real issue which is not whether or not the Iranians would attack Israel, but the effect that an Iranian nuke program would have on the rest of the region. You are probably talking about a big-time nuclear arms race. With all the millenial talk about the Iranians, I think their reasons for seeking nukes are much more of this world: (1) they want to be the dominant power in the region and see nukes as a necessity for great power status; and (2) they really are concerned about a US attack (remember the "Axis of Evil" and regime change?) and think that the only real way to deter the US is with nukes; and (3) Ahmadinejad's economic policies have been a complete failure and he (and the mullahs) are playing the nationalist card to distract people from the problems with the economy. By portraying this as an attempt to deprive Iran of their legitimate rights, Ahmadinejad can play to the nationalist sentiment even of those that don't like his policies. I don't take seriously the idea that Iran would really nuke Israel out of the blue--doing so would spell the end of the regime, whether or not nukes were fired back.

Jon,
Your remarks are absurd. The rest of the world is not Iran. Most of the world is ooposed to an Iran with nukes. Gee, I wonder why? I listed many reasons why Iran is a different situation. You ignore them for your own reasons. Russia, India, France, Britain, the US, Israel, Pakistan and China have not declared to wipe Israel off the map. They do not directly support terror groups, nor do they vow to defeat the US or the West. What are you drinking, or smoking? Funny, pot and booze doesn't effect my thinking like that.

Striking Iran would slow them down more than 1/2 year. Please explain your expert opinion. You even gave the reasons yourself. Saddam's attack set Iran back decades. Now if you think they have so many secret facilities that an attack wouldn't matter, then how can you defend your prediction of when Iran will have the bomb? And Iran has many other WMD. NK, Gaddafi, South Africa have agreed to inspection and WMD disarmament. NK may not follow through, but it’s a start. The world is behind these efforts. Only Americans laugh at the Iranian risks. More than two hundred Americans have died in Iraq at the hands of Iranian weapons. We removed Saddam and Taliban, have never invaded Iran, and Iran try to kill us and threaten Israelis (not to mention killing Shia and Sunnis that have died as a result of their extremist support to BOTH sides in Iraq.

It isn't clear Iran is doing anything wrong? More Left Wing BS. Iran certainly murdered Jews in Argentina. Iran certainly supplies Hizb'Allah to destroy Lebanon democracy. Iran has bee shown to have information purchased from Khan to make warheads (see IAEA reoprt). Yes, that laptop is a lie and Iran speaks the truth. LOL Iran has offered its military and scientific information to all who oppose the US. I could go on but what is the point? One believes what one wants to believe, yes?

One can overlook the Don Corleone argument all they like, but that is the view of most Democrats who advocate only a blind strike in retaliation. They have little clue about determining who attacked us. Iran will probably leave the CIA a calling card, yes? Pre-emption is a dirty world. You list "reasons" why Iran is seeking nukes. I don't buy them nor do most Iranians. I think our safety should not be based on such speculation. Europe does indeed agree with Republicans (and many Democrats) that Iran should not be allowed to get nukes. Russia and China are against it too (a t least they say that for the press). Only the Left in America, Chavez and extremists try to come up with a defense of Iran....

Truly amazing. If Israel had not hit Iraq, Saddam would have nukes to make our prevention pointless. Now I bet many would have loved that. We would have never been willing to remove Saddam with nukes. And Saddam stopped Iranian nukes because he knew that would have put him in danger. Yes, Iranian nukes are our fault. We bad. And Iran should be a regional power advancing its form of Shura. When it comes to principle, the Left sees the worst offender: America. America started on its path to nukes long before Bush. They used WMD long before Bush. They sent hit squads around the world to kill people they didn’t like.

I suppose it was a bad thing to force Gaddafi and Kimmie away from nukes. Iran is a different case. They are far less dangerous, aren’t they.

Obama and Hillary have made their statements, yes?

I see that Iran with the bomb, doesn’t worry anyone here. Nor, does anyone here thinking slowing them down is smart. Maybe we should just give them nukes and show them we are their friends. Now I see the light ya all. And by the way, I never saw Obama try to sound blacker than in Selma. Now that was a bit tacky, ya all.

That is, "Iran started on its path to nukes long before Bush. They used WMD long before Bush. They sent hit squads around the world to kill people they didn’t like." the rest of the typos I can live with.

Max,

A lot of ad hominem arguments against Jon disguised as geopolitical analysis. Very few, other than the extremes, are defending Iran's pursuit of nukes. But, it is not irrational to think that Bush's policies have at least created a surface rationale.

And the difference between Iraq and Iran is obvious; Iraq's program was concentrated in one location and was relatively easy to take out. Iran's is not; we don't even know where everything is and any attack would have to be massive.

Obviously, much of this comes down to how much you believe the Iranians are really in teh grip of millenialist fervor such that they would actually use nukes against Israel or the West. It is obvious that the Iranian regime is awful. But making the equation that Iran supported terrorists in Argentina that killed Jews, so they would naturally be willing to nuke Israel just is nonsensical.

That's not to say that Iran nukes is not a very serious problem, as I argued earlier, and I agree that the Democrats have a very shortsighted view of the problem. But it's no more shortsighted than deciding we should bomb countries to eliminate their weapon programs. Iran is not Iraq--Iran has the resources to recover from an attack and make things worse than they are now. I don't think we should necessarily rule out military force, at least rhetorically, but I am very skeptical of preemptive attacks in this context. Ranting and raving against people that disagree with you doesn't make your argument stronger. And, by the way, it's not only the Chavez leftists that think an attack would be a mistake--many foreign policy analysts think that, although I guess by your reasoning, anyone that thinks that way is inherenctly a left-wing radical.

You refuse to answer logically. Iran worked on a program secretly before Bush was president. Their program was revealed by the same group that today claims Iran’s programs are far more extensive than the West suspects. Saddam destroyed a critical Iranian research reactor and set Iran back decades. Now suddenly you are an expert on how far a new attack would set them back?. You should stick to facts. Yes? Talking about Bush this and Bush that is an attempt to divert the conversation. Both Kerry and McCain said Iran with a bomb is not acceptable. The UN backs this, so what exactly do you not understand? That Kerry, Clinton, Edwards, Obama, Giuliani, McCain, Romney mean that they would not use force?

You repeat my argument that already there may be numerous facilities we don't know about, so how can you say when Iran will have a bomb? Negronponte has said his estimate does not include possible outside sources of enriched material or the activity of facilities we do not know about, or have not been allowed to inspect.

Again. What part of this ad hominem do you not understand?

You really are quite dense on this thread. I stated the fact that Iran helped terrorists (Hizb’Allah) to kill JEWS (as opposed to Israelis) in Argentina. They support and supply terrorist operations in Iraq, Lebanon and Gaza, not to mention the well documented "hits" in Europe of critics or "un-Islamic Muslims. You consider these "facts” just opinions offered by an "extremist" like myself? BS. You need to Google much more Marcus. And where have I ever said that Iran's first move would be to launch a nuke at us from their territory? My whole point was that present Salami tactics call for the opposite. They state clearly on the internet that their leverage is being able to hit us in a way that will be hard to prove and even harder to stop.

You end your comment by paying the same meaningless lip service to the unfortunate possibility of Iranian nukes. Yes, cry a tear as we enter the coming era of extortion. Yes, ignoring Iran (and Hillary and Obama don't sound like they are ignoring Iran these days) is just as bad as delaying their nukes by bombing should they refuse after four years the will of the international community. Gaddafi disarmed. South Africa disarmed. North Korea is making an attempt to give up nuclear weapon research, yet Iran, which we never invaded and share a common foe (AQ and Taliban) with, started its nuke program because of Bush. Sure, and AQ hit us on 9/11 because Bush attacked Afghanistan, rahter than Reagan helping them drive the Soviets out.

You discount everything Iran's President has stated publicly. You ignore the Syria/ Iran WMD agreements or Iran's support and supply of terrorists. You call my cogent points as to why Kerry believed a nuclear Iran was unacceptable in 2004 (including Obama, Edwards and Hillary) as unacceptable now. What has changed? Bush is now the real evil? Iran's history is based on their fear of us and not an ideology that supports Islamic extremism? You don’t even dare to touch the stupidity of the Don Corleone argument, so retaliation is hardly a satisfactory response to growing threats. What is, polite requests and ignored diplomacy? How about tougher sanctions?Maybe unverifiable agreements would be a better option.

Or amybe we should pull another Iraq plan and call Iran lost as well? Thank God Kennedy has more balls than that in '62.

A slight technical correction. The fissile isotopes are U-235 (not 239) and Pu-239. While >90% U-235 is ideal for making a nuclear bomb, one could be made with as low as 40% U-235. It just requires a substantial amount more material to do so.

"If Iran decided to build a clandestine plant in early 2006, it could assemble enough additional usable centrifuges for this plant of 1,500 centrifuges by the end of this year or early next year. It would only need to assemble at its past rate, or about 70-100 centrifuges per month, to accomplish this goal.
In the meantime, Iran would need to identify a new facility where it could install centrifuge cascades, since it is unlikely to choose Natanz as the location of a secret plant. It would also need to install control and emergency equipment, feed and withdrawal systems, and other peripheral equipment. It would then need to integrate all these systems, test them, and commission the plant. Iran could start immediately to accomplish these steps, even before the final testing of the 164 machine cascade at Natanz, but final completion of the clandestine plant is highly unlikely before the end of 2007.
Given another year to make enough HEU for a nuclear weapon, where some inefficiencies in the plant are expected, and a few more months to convert the uranium into weapon components, Iran could have its first nuclear weapon in 2009. By this time, Iran is assessed to have had sufficient time to prepare the other components of a nuclear weapon, although the weapon may not be small enough to be deliverable by a ballistic missile.
This result reflects a worst-case assessment, and Iran can be expected to take longer. Iran is likely to encounter technical difficulties that would delay bringing a centrifuge plant into operation. Factors causing delay include Iran having trouble in the installation of so many centrifuges in such a short time period, or Iran taking longer than expected to overcome difficulties in operating the cascades as a single production unit or commissioning the secret centrifuge plant."

from, The Clock is Ticking, But How Fast?
By David Albright and Corey Hinderstein
The Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS)
March 27, 2006

"Tuesday, 31 January 2006
Agence France Presse, WASHINGTON - Iran is building a secret tunnel north of Tehran as part of efforts to conceal a clandestine nuclear weapons program, an exiled opposition leader charged today.

The claim, the latest in a string of revelations about the alleged program, came hours after the five permanent UN Security Council members agreed to refer Tehran to the full council over its disputed nuclear program...

The tunnel complex was being built in mountainous slopes in an area identified as Mini City, northeast of Tehran, supervised by Iranian Revolutionary Guards, opposition figure Alireza Jafarzadeh told reporters.

The claim could not be independently verified. Washington has accused Tehran of using its civilian nuclear program as a cover for developing atomic weapons. Iran denies the charge.

Mr Jafarzadeh said information on the alleged project was passed to the exiled opposition movement within the past few days from sources within the Iranian nuclear program.

"Iran has been building another secret tunnel near Tehran that is intended for nuclear research and development," he said, adding that construction on the project, code-named Hormuz, started in March 2005.

The project includes double-layered concrete walls, a layer of lead, a vertical shaft 50 metres deep and four branched parallel tunnels, six to nine metres wide, all of which were consistent with potential use in a nuclear program, Mr Jafarzadeh said at a press conference here.

"This is significant, because it is yet another indication that Iran is moving its nuclear weapons program underground," he said."

NCRI

There are a number of items that smell, even in this year old report.

For entertainment value.......

Iran options ( see bottom of link)

Known facilites

known missile sites

a follow up on an earlier remark about a missing Iranian defense deputy

Operation Sea Dragon would bear the load of an Iranian strike

primate evolution

No hoggery intended...