Iran could have nuclear bomb by mid-2009.

[LRPV]

Israel now fears Iran could have nuclear bomb by mid-2009
Yaakov katz and herb keinon , THE JERUSALEM POST May. 6, 2008

With Iran racing forward with its nuclear program, Israel now believes the Islamic Republic will master centrifuge technology and be able to begin enriching uranium on a military scale this year, The Jerusalem Post has learned.
The new assessment moves up Israel's forecasts on Teheran's nuclear program by almost a full year - from 2009 to the end of 2008. According to the new timeline, Iran could have a nuclear weapon by the middle of next year.
Iran, a senior defense official said on Tuesday, had encountered numerous technical obstacles on its way to enriching uranium but was now on track to master the technology needed to enrich uranium within six months.
Israel is also concerned that Teheran is developing a cruise missile that can evade interception by the Arrow, the IDF's anti-ballistic missile defense system. Iran is suspected of having smuggled Ukrainian X-55 cruise missiles and using them as models for an independent, domestic project. A cruise missile, which flies at low altitudes to dodge radar detection and interception, could be used to carry a nuclear warhead.
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said Tuesday that Israel had the ability to create the tools needed to ensure its continued existence. Hinting at Iran, Olmert said that nothing in the world could undermine or bring an end to Israel's existence.
In a speech to a Keren Hayesod group, Olmert said, "I am asking that you take this with you and tell it to your communities everywhere - the people of Israel are strong, the State of Israel is strong, there is no enemy that can destroy us."
"We will not place ourselves in a position where anyone will, in an effective manner, threaten us with destruction, because if there was one thing that has changed since the establishment of the State of Israel 60 years ago until today, it is not that here the Jews are safe in every situation, in every condition and that there will not be any dangers," Olmert said. "There are also dangers here, like in many other places.
"But here, my friends, the Jewish people can fight, and when it needs to, it fights, and when it fights, it wins."
Last week, Transportation Minister Shaul Mofaz said during a visit to the US that Teheran would likely achieve control of the technology to enrich uranium for an atomic bomb within a year.
In the past, the consensus in the intelligence community was that Iran had encountered technical difficulties with fuel enrichment and that its attainment of nuclear capability was much further off, Mofaz said, but a recent IDF Military Intelligence assessment showed that the Islamic Republic could go nuclear before the end of the decade.
Also Tuesday, NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer warned that more nations would follow the examples of Iran and North Korea and work to develop nuclear weapons. He said that the possibility that Syria was building a weapons-capable nuclear reactor before the IAF destroyed it on September 6 showed that NATO must find an answer to ballistic missile threats.
"The nuclear ambitions of Iran and North Korea threaten to set in motion a domino effect that will be difficult to contain," de Hoop Scheffer said in a speech at a missile defense conference at the Czech Foreign Ministry.
"If there is a serious suspicion that in Syria there was a facility in the making, it only increases the arguments... for finding a collective answer to a ballistic missile defense threat," the NATO chief said.
CIA Director Michael Hayden said last month that the alleged Syrian nuclear reactor would have produced enough plutonium for one or two bombs within a year of becoming operational.
"The number of states that possess ballistic missiles is already growing, slowly and surely," de Hoop Scheffer said. "The proliferation of ballistic missiles is a reality that concerns us all." AP contributed to this report.


Unless this is a media beat-up to distract Israelis from Olmerts situation, it seems likely a strike on Iran is on the cards. But is gunboat diplomacy going to work? Would a reactor of the nature the US offered North Korea pacify Iran and make the region feel safer?

[randomguy]

omg, in a few months they will upgrade that to beginning of 2009, then end of 2008, does the US or Israel have any actual hard evidence of Iran making a nuclear bomb? This smells like another Iraq. Bomb/invade Iran, kill a lot of people, oops they wernt actually building a nuke. For me, a strong feeling, or strong probability isnt hard evidence.

[0rphie]

fool me once - shame on you,
fool me twice - shame on me

[LRPV]

That's the problem, do you act on a strong suspicion and mediocre intelligence or wait till possession of a device is confirmed? Crying wolf with WMD has already been done to death.

[Josip Broz]

like hell Iran don't have a nuclear bomb. sure they do. they just don't know when they should use it.

[epictetus]

like hell Iran don't have a nuclear bomb. sure they do. they just don't know when they should use it.

Totally agree. And I would be surprised if other countries in the region didn't have one stashed somewhere.

[LRPV]

Totally agree. And I would be surprised if other countries in the region didn't have one stashed somewhere.

Somehow I don't think you can just "stash" a nuke and not bother with a testing and maintenance regime....

[INAT]

Maybe the title should be Iran could drop petro-dollar and switch to the petro-euro by mid-2009.

[LRPV]

Maybe the title should be Iran could drop petro-dollar and switch to the petro-euro by mid-2009.

If you have been reading the news in 2007-8 you would know Iran has been lobbying for this move.

[INAT]

If you have been reading the news in 2007-8 you would know Iran has been lobbying for this move.


Indeed I have they were going to do that in 2006.If they open up a Iranian oil market and invite other OPEC countries to sell there it will mean big trouble for the US no doubt.

[egyptian73]

that is fine , we all should celebrate in 2009 the balance in strategic threat in the the middle east .

not only israel should have nukes , every country that respects itself should have nukes in order to make any other country to think thousand time before attacking her .

you may say that iran wants to destroy israel , but also israel wants to destroy iran . so why not to have some few nukes !!

[Dr_ColoSSus]

not only israel should have nukes , every country that respects itself should have nukes in order to make any other country to think thousand time before attacking her .

you may say that Iran wants to destroy israel , but also israel wants to destroy Iran . so why not to have some few nukes !!


Are you F**king kidding me? Iran having nukes is as bad as the nazi's having nukes in WWII. Israel has never used its nuclear weapons nor has it ever threatened anyone with them. Do you honestly believe the Iranian thoecracy would do the same? You can't possibly be that deluded?

There is enough sh*t going on in the ME. I fail to see how the proliferation of nuclear weapons will help the situation.

I wonder if you will still stand by the last line of your post when the entire region you live in is on fire.:cantbeli:

[sosed]

If we assume Syria builded plutonium nuclear reactor to make material for nuclear weapons in short time, how could we know if Iran allready doesn't have this kind of reactor operational in secret places deep under ground and enough material for bombs? Maybe they allready have bomb, but didn't test it to not show the evidence?

[egyptian73]

Are you F**king kidding me? Iran having nukes is as bad as the nazi's having nukes in WWII. Israel has never used its nuclear weapons nor has it ever threatened anyone with them. Do you honestly believe the Iranian thoecracy would do the same? You can't possibly be that deluded?

There is enough sh*t going on in the ME. I fail to see how the proliferation of nuclear weapons will help the situation.

I wonder if you will still stand by the last line of your post when the entire region you live in is on fire.:cantbeli: when i will fuvcking kidding with you i will tell you .

but iam not kidding at all . please think logically and stop saying the rude words you hear in american movies , if iran has the nukes it will never attack israel at all .
because of the religious muslim sites in israel and the fact that millions of the arabs and muslims lives there .

nukes are not to be used , but they are considered the final solution if any country attacks you , so they are defensive weapons .

so if the big countires have nukes no war wil happen in the middleeast cuz every nation will not allow itself to be defeated so avoiding war will be better .

[PanzerMaster]

Maybe the title should be Iran could drop petro-dollar and switch to the petro-euro by mid-2009.

I was writing the same.

Abandoning the dollar for oil trade is a terrible blow for USA, more than terrorists and rogue states. But the general populace has not capacity of reasoning about this. Better utilize more visualizing threat like nuclear bomb.

[PanzerMaster]

Are you F**king kidding me? Iran having nukes is as bad as the nazi's having nukes in WWII. Israel has never used its nuclear weapons nor has it ever threatened anyone with them. Do you honestly believe the Iranian thoecracy would do the same? You can't possibly be that deluded?

There is enough sh*t going on in the ME. I fail to see how the proliferation of nuclear weapons will help the situation.

I wonder if you will still stand by the last line of your post when the entire region you live in is on fire.:cantbeli:

I don't like the regime in Iran at all. I also cannot exclude that the nuts mullah in charge of Iran can use the bomb in some event...

But remember: the atomic bomb, with his "mutual destruction assured" keep peace in this world for 50/60 years. What If we found a nuclear Iran, now less scared, actually becoming less aggressive?

[Dr_ColoSSus]

The problem you are overlooking is that Iran getting nuclear weapons actually INCREASES the likelyhood of nuclear war. Why? Because at the moment Iran is not a threat to Israel, but if it aquires nuclear weapons it will become a threat. You and I both know that Israel will not not allow such a threat to exist. In short, Iran will just be painting a huge bulls eye on it's back. It would not run this risk unless it was planning to use it's weapons....or start a war with Israel.

However, In this day and age enough countries have nuclear wepaons. The world does not need any more. Especially not in a region that has a history of ethnic conflict and division.

I cannot believe than anyone who could claim to be sane or intelligent would actually think Iran getting nukes would be a good think for middle east peace. All it will do is provoke Israel, and then we will see how good this will be for the region.

[Dr_ColoSSus]

But remember: the atomic bomb, with his "mutual destruction assured" keep peace in this world for 50/60 years. What If we found a nuclear Iran, now less scared, actually becoming less aggressive?


I have considered this possibilty, but the scenario you describe applied to the cold war.

The Soviet/Western mindset was more rational, and less ****e to resorting to suicide to hurt it's enemy than a Radical Islamic one. That is why the concept of MAD would not work in the ME.

[PanzerMaster]

The problem you are overlooking is that Iran getting nuclear weapons actually INCREASES the likelyhood of nuclear war. Why? Because at the moment Iran is not a threat to Israel, but if it aquires nuclear weapons it will become a threat. You and I both know that Israel will not not allow such a threat to exist. In short, Iran will just be painting a huge bulls eye on it's back. It would not run this risk unless it was planning to use it's weapons....or start a war with Israel.

However, In this day and age enough countries have nuclear wepaons. The world does not need any more. Especially not in a region that has a history of ethnic conflict and division.

I cannot believe than anyone who could claim to be sane or intelligent would actually think Iran getting nukes would be a good think for middle east peace. All it will do is provoke Israel, and then we will see how good this will be for the region.


Yes, your points are also valid. I was only speculating and feeding the debate on this topic.


I have considered this possibilty, but the scenario you describe applied to the cold war.

The Soviet/Western mindset was more rational, and less ****e to resorting to suicide to hurt it's enemy than a Radical Islamic one. That is why the concept of MAD would not work in the ME.


But (again speculating) are we sure that all of the people of power of influence, in Iran, are nuts warmonger?

Is possible that a nuclear Iran will breed inside him a new elite more pragmatical that know the full risk of a nuclear war? A sort of new ruler class made of secular businessman, military, intellectuals... that will abandon rhetoric and proceed on more practical objectives.

[Dr_ColoSSus]

But (again speculating) are we sure that all of the people of power of influence, in Iran, are nuts warmonger?



It is more than likely that they are not. However I believe that if Iran had leaders such as those you describe it would not be trying to aquire nuclear weapons. The people that rule Iran, are not exactly an accurate cross section of it's population.

[hell]

Indeed I have they were going to do that in 2006.If they open up a Iranian oil market and invite other OPEC countries to sell there it will mean big trouble for the US no doubt.

That's already happening (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Oil_Bourse). Of course, selling their oil in only Rials would boost their economy and the value of their currency like no other, not to mention hurt the US dollar, but they won't be selling oil based on their own currency exclusively. Well, not in my opinion anyway.


But remember: the atomic bomb, with his "mutual destruction assured" keep peace in this world for 50/60 years.[/I]?

You really believe that? I mean, how many wars have there been over the last 50+ years? Nuclear proliferation hasn't kept countries in check anymore than the machine gun kept empires from ever waging war again, as was the plan with the advent of that weapon.

[PanzerMaster]

...

You really believe that? I mean, how many wars have there been over the last 50+ years? Nuclear proliferation hasn't kept countries in check anymore than the machine gun kept empires from ever waging war again, as was the plan with the advent of that weapon.

Absolutely there were a lot of war (proxyes, the Cold War) and conflicts in that period.

But a big bad world war was avoided, also thanks to the atomic bomb.
I think a lot of people share my tought.

[Hollis]

Absolutely there were a lot of war (proxyes, the Cold War) and conflicts in that period.

But a big bad world war was avoided, also thanks to the atomic bomb.
I think a lot of people share my tought.

I tend to agree with you. Often in the world the choices of what is obtainable, ranges from real bad to bad. Allowing Iran to have "the bomb" could create a climate of a ME cold war, which obviously would be better than a hot war, except for maybe for the long run view.


If Iran needs security and that is their major concern, we should allow it. If they are wanting to rebuild a empire, than that is a different issue. Iran has a lot of control in this and also has a lot at stake. Sometimes the biggest fear is not what the other person will, do, it is making the right choices.

[ZARDOZ]

Nope.

In 1974 or 75 an Egyptian general said, and I paraphrase, “The day after we get the Arab bomb Tela Aviv will disappear.” This is why they all want it, this is why Saddam wanted it, one of them wants to be the “hero” that destroys Israel.

When it comes to "absolute" statements like this one, sure it plays well the the people, and gets "knee jerk" reactions from everyone else...

But what has always bothered me is, "Why is a nuke considered the ultimate weapon?" Yes it has massive destruction and we have photos of its use to create a stigma, but a Biological weapon can have more impact if used properly. I would also think that Bio-weapons would be much easier to obtain from rouge agents or to create in labs without detection from the world community. The fire bombings of WWII killed more and did more destruction than the nukes used. In those cases its contex of use, a single very powerful weapon versus the oldest common weapon of all time only used in massive capacity. Analogy, a tiger can kill you, but so can a swarm of ants. Either way you are dead (and I would think the tiger would be the preferable way to go).

It is logical to think that some Middle East countries has some bio-weaponery yet they have not used it on Israel (Thank the heavens), so if they came into possession of a Nuke, would they use it? What are the pros and cons of these WMD's use? A biological could kill a larger population base and leave structures standing, yet if it spreads to slowly and or does not kill the host quickly it leaves the opportunity for the attacked to quarantine populace to minimize damage and a chance to find out who attacked. Resulting in a counter attack of equal or greater magnitude.

A nuke has immidiate shock value, but leaves area unuseable for a number of years. Infrastructure is in ruins and more than likely a nation developing nukes for the first time does not have one of greater yield. Delivery by rocket or plane would alomost certainly point to attacker and Israel would have a counter attack ability in place (do they not have submersible delivery?)

I am not a fan of any more countries developing nuclear weapons, but one can hope that if one does that they are not crazy enough to actually use it. Their absolute destruction would almost be guaranteed. The Bio-weapon point seems to already back this up.

[Protected]

Another radical conspiracy theory. First Iraq had nuclear bombs now it is Iran. I have not seen any credible proof of an Iranian nuclear program. Just a bunch of lies part II.

[SilentType]

They could have one tomorrow for all our intel can tell us. I learned a long time ago not to put so much stock in the intelligence community that you go with dates of when things will or will not happen.

[ronaldo413]

The problem you are overlooking is that Iran getting nuclear weapons actually INCREASES the likelyhood of nuclear war. Why? Because at the moment Iran is not a threat to Israel, but if it aquires nuclear weapons it will become a threat. You and I both know that Israel will not not allow such a threat to exist. In short, Iran will just be painting a huge bulls eye on it's back. It would not run this risk unless it was planning to use it's weapons....or start a war with Israel.

However, In this day and age enough countries have nuclear wepaons. The world does not need any more. Especially not in a region that has a history of ethnic conflict and division.

I cannot believe than anyone who could claim to be sane or intelligent would actually think Iran getting nukes would be a good think for middle east peace. All it will do is provoke Israel, and then we will see how good this will be for the region.

israel should have nuke egypt should have nuke arabia saudia should have nuke iran should have nuke and then peace cold case war the enemy of enemy is my friends. watch yur back everyone :-*$

[ronaldo413]

I have considered this possibilty, but the scenario you describe applied to the cold war.

The Soviet/Western mindset was more rational, and less ****e to resorting to suicide to hurt it's enemy than a Radical Islamic one. That is why the concept of MAD would not work in the ME.
kool neither iran or israel are radical islamic

[Rictor]

I don't mean to sound rude, but anyone who seriously believes that Iran would launch a nuclear attack on any nation, including Israel, even if they had the warheads and delivery systems tomorrow, is operating in some other reality.

The notion that a country would commit suicide just because a few clerics happen to pay lip-service to anti-Israeli rhetoric, is absurd. Like every other country, Iran considers its own interests above any ideological BS, and it's crystal clear that they would be obliterated if such an attack were to take place.

[Age Of Empires]

"Iran could have nuclear bomb by mid-2009"

Great news !

But what does it really mean ?

Something very important - this is a total revision of the results of WW II.
Around 60 years after the end of WW (( the old world order is finished..
Whether the new one will come with next WW like it has been 20 years after
ww 1 in the 30s years of 20 th century or the process will be peaceful ?
I hope on the second variant.
Iam almost sure that Usa will not attack Iran , they have no decision for the sequences afterthat !
About Isreal , surely they want to do this , but have they balls for that ?
------

2-3 more thoughts from me
What was one of the most important results from WW (( - its creation of the country Israel
60 years Usa and their western allies supported Israel with $ and highly technological weapons (including jews atomic bombs) against the arab states around.
But now this balance is under pressure.
That's why iam saying , that nuclear Iran will be direct revision for the results of WW II.

[V.I.D.]

2-3 more thoughts from me
What was one of the most important results from WW (( - its creation of the country Israel
60 years Usa and their western allies supported Israel with $ and highly technological weapons (including jews atomic bombs) against the arab states around.
But now this balance is under pressure.
That's why iam saying , that nuclear Iran will be direct revision for the results of WW II.
_________________________________________________________

What is your problem, being too young or too suicidal? Both?
Get a life kiddo, there are plenty of good books around (not involving total anihillation of peoples).

"jews atomic bombs" :)

[Erik Sleivöks]

2-3 more thoughts from me
What was one of the most important results from WW (( - its creation of the country Israel
60 years Usa and their western allies supported Israel with $ and highly technological weapons (including jews atomic bombs) against the arab states around.
But now this balance is under pressure.
That's why iam saying , that nuclear Iran will be direct revision for the results of WW II.

Hmmm….

What on earth makes you think that the creation of Israel was one of the most important results of WW II?

Rather a complete lack of historical knowledge…:cantbeli:

It is completely right that the US have supported Israel, however it was also the case for Iran for 30 of the 60 years of Israel’s existence.
Both ways; Iran supporting Israel and US was supporting Iran…

It is also probably right that Israel have nuclear weapons, but they “probably” came from the French and not at all from the US. However I completely fail to understand who of the Arab “brothers” (Bereadar) that is menaced by these “probable” Israeli weapons.

The big issue in your posting is not at all any “balance” or otherwise results of WW II, but rather a good example of Islamic education.
When one mix religion (any religion) politics and doctrines, one produces people that are narrow minded, short sighted, and worst of all… IGNORANT!!!:cantbeli::cantbeli:

[LRPV]

"Iran could have nuclear bomb by mid-2009"

Great news !

But what does it really mean ?

Something very important - this is a total revision of the results of WW II.
Around 60 years after the end of WW (( the old world order is finished..
Whether the new one will come with next WW like it has been 20 years after
ww 1 in the 30s years of 20 th century or the process will be peaceful ?
I hope on the second variant.
Iam almost sure that Usa will not attack Iran , they have no decision for the sequences afterthat !
About Isreal , surely they want to do this , but have they balls for that ?
------

2-3 more thoughts from me
What was one of the most important results from WW (( - its creation of the country Israel
60 years Usa and their western allies supported Israel with $ and highly technological weapons (including jews atomic bombs) against the arab states around.
But now this balance is under pressure.
That's why iam saying , that nuclear Iran will be direct revision for the results of WW II.


By saying that the Second World Wars most significant out come was the creation of Israel and that Iran possessing a nuke equates to a reversion to your interpretation of history makes me think you are either a rampant anti-Jew with no depth of knowledge about WW2 or you post under the influence of drugs.

Pick one. I have.