Iran to have Nuclear Bomb by 1986!!!

Tip of the hat to Arms Control Wonk and it's commentators.

We live in a dangerous era.  Terrorism, missiles, nuclear proliferation.  We are told that Iran is at the very doorstep of a acquiring a nuclear weapon, and something, even a military strike, must be done.

Have we heard this before?  At least two sources think we have:
1) A Feb. 27, 2006 article by The Gazette of Canada, and
2) A paper by Anthony Cordesman and Khalid R. Al-Rodhan and the respected Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington D.C.  (Extract of relevant facts)

These sources list just some of the numerous Iran-Will-Nuke-Us scares that have been issued over the last two decades.  This list includes:

1) In 1984, "The Iranians may have an atom bomb within two years, the authoritative Jane's Defense Weekly warned."  That would have given the Iranians nuclear weapons by 1986, or 20 years ago.

2) "Late 1991: In congressional reports and CIA assessments, the United States estimates that there is a `high degree of certainty that the government of Iran has acquired all or virtually all of the components required for the construction of two to three nuclear weapons.'  A February 1992 report by the U.S. House of Representatives suggests that these two or three nuclear weapons will be operational between February and April 1992."

3) "February 24, 1993: CIA director James Woolsey says that Iran is still 8 to 10 years away [By 2001-2003 - Weasel] from being able to produce its own nuclear weapon, but with assistance from abroad it could become a nuclear power earlier."

4) "January 1995: The director of the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, John Holum, testifies that Iran could have the bomb by 2003."

5) "January 5, 1995: U.S. Defense Secretary William Perry says that Iran may be less than five years from building an atomic bomb  [By 2000 - Weasel], although `how soon...depends how they go about getting it.'"

6) "April 29, 1996: Israeli prime minister Shimon Peres says `he believes that in four years, they [Iran] may reach nuclear weapons.'" [By 2000 again - Weasel]

7) "October 21, 1998: General Anthony Zinni, head of U.S. Central Command, says Iran could have the capacity to deliver nuclear weapons within five years.  [By 2003 - Weasel] `If I were a betting man,' he said, `I would say they are on track within five years, they would have the capability.'"

8) "January 17, 2000: A new CIA assessment on Iran's nuclear capabilities says that the CIA cannot rule out the possibility that Iran may possess nuclear weapons.  The assessment is based on the CIA's admission that it cannot monitor Iran's nuclear activities with any precision and hence cannot exclude the prospect that Iran may have nuclear weapons."

Please note: This list is by not means authoritative or complete.  There have been more urgent warnings of Iranian nuclear capability by alarmist great and small over the last twenty years.  They all have a similar ring to them.  They come with little supporting information.  They do not explain how the alarmist came to his conclusion.  They do not show any insight or track record that would lend any credibility to the alarmist.

Yet they are often believed.  Now, more so than ever, we are hearing that something must be done.  After two decades of alarmist lies that Iran is on the verge of nuclear power (with the often unstated corollary that  they are on the verge of nuclear attack), we are again being for the same pap.  The feeders are louder and more forceful now, but they have nothing new to offer.

20 years of dishonesty and failure is enough.  Please treat all alarmist warnings about the Iranian nuclear program the same way you would treat a man who has been lying to you for 20 years straight.  Because that is what they are doing again.  

•  Tip Jar

  Comments, complaints, conspiracies?

  by weasel on Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 11:45:23 AM PDT

•  great find, surprised Billmon didn't beat you

  to it, excellant points

  by gaspare on Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 11:47:46 AM PDT

•  If our press did their job, then they would

  uncover these quotes and put the latest threats from Cheney into context.

  by paige on Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 11:48:08 AM PDT

•  they very well may have had....

  they not been engaged with Iraq and a US backed Saddam at the time.

  its foolish to think that Iran will not have a nuke within 5-10 years.  Why would they not want one?  Look at how ridiculous North Korea is and the only reason they get away with any of it is due to the fact that they have a nuke.

  if you are trying to imply that Iran doesnt want a nuke or they are not capable of making one... thats craziness.  

  Not saying we should invade them but be realistic.  They are trying to build a nuke and they would be smart to do so.  Humans most basic need is O2 quickly followed by sense of physical safety.  I wouldnt feel safe if I was Iran unless I had a nuke.  

  by Hind2 on Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 11:49:40 AM PDT

  •  They'd be crazy...

    ...not to get nukes. The fact is, if they're a real threat, that's the only way to guarantee they'll never get attacked by the US. We attacked Iraq not because any serious person saw them as a threat, but because they were a relatively easy target and Bush and the neocons felt they needed to be made an example of.

    by metal prophet on Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 12:02:47 PM PDT

    •  That, alas, is the lesson

      Bush has taught the world. If you don't like you, we can and will attack you. Better get nukes and then we'll leave you alone and call you 'friend', like Pakistan.

      by Warren Terrer on Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 12:08:52 PM PDT

      •  or like N Korea

        in which case we'll just ignore you

        by surferal on Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 12:15:39 PM PDT

        •  N Korea

          sure called Bush's bluff in a big way. And the world is a little bit less safe as a result. Good for you, George Bush.

          by Warren Terrer on Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 12:26:01 PM PDT

          •  you'd think after their missle tests

            they'd be world enemy #1, but they haven't been in the press in weeks...

            NPT Lesson #1:  If you have nukes and the capbility to strike your neighbors, people don't fuck you

            by surferal on Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 12:28:00 PM PDT

            •  Absolutely

              Bush is really just a bully. He'll talk tough, but he won't walk tough, when he's up against a real threat.

              I have to say that sometimes this makes me think he really won't attack Iran. They may not have nukes, but attacking them won't exactly be a tickle party the way they thought Iraq would be. Sometimes I think Bush really does get that, and is just using rhetoric on Iran the same way he did with N Korea. After all, this diary shows that this rhetoric has a long, empty history.

              On the other hand, I worry that Bush has his head as far up his ass over Iran as he did over Iraq. He completely ignored the consequences of invading Iraq, and he's perfectly capable of doing the same when it comes to Iran. "They don't have nukes, so we can beat them." I don't think it would shock anyone to find that that's how Bush thinks.

              Unfortunately, I don't know what Bush really thinks about attacking Iran. I do fear, however, that I might find out what Bush thinks, in the form of a mushroom cloud.

              by Warren Terrer on Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 12:39:46 PM PDT

              •  what if time

                let's look at some factors:

                1.  The super-wealthy are insulated from any short-term  oil related economic implosions

                2.  Big business has been saving its profits for a rainy day rather than investing it in personnel or infrastructure

                3.  Oil companies know at some point they need to transition to a non-petroleum based US economy

                4.  Thanks to Saudis releasing more oil, our oil storage capacity is currently maxed out...meaning there is an insane amount of cash to be made if oil prices spike

                ...so let the missles fly...it would fuck China, Russia, and the EU just as much as us economically, but our elite has been prepared for this...the rest of the US and the world  be damned

                What does Bush have to lose?  he's on his way out and his party is on the ropes...why not go out in a blaze of "glory"

                by surferal on Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 12:52:09 PM PDT

  •  foolish?

    its foolish to think that Iran will not have a nuke within 5-10 years

    Its even more foolish to belive another WMD story from the Admin! They are also the ones coming up with the time estimate at the same time the IAEA is saying that there is no evidence to support any claim on an Iranian  weapons program.

    It may be a separate issue to desire the means to defend oneeslf from an impending American invasion, seeing as how two of Iran's neghbors have been attacked by the US, but also having a nuclear capability might also instigate a war, bcause, then there would be evidence.  

    by borkitekt on Sat Sep 23, 2006 at 03:32:03 AM PDT

•  yeah,

  but this time …

  by subtropolis on Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 11:50:28 AM PDT

•  Lots of boys crying wolf these days...

  by Arken on Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 11:59:04 AM PDT

•  Oh, shit!

  If Iran gets the bomb...then I'll never have been born!!!

  by Mikey on Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 12:00:03 PM PDT

•  Excellent !

  The link to that Arms Control site is a worthy offering in itself.

  Always amazing how a bit of history suddenly illuminates what's really afoot in today's headlines. Soon they'll have it down to an hour ("...Iran should have the capacity to deliver nuclear weapons by 3:47PM tomorrow afternoon...or at least by 4.")

  by adios on Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 12:04:32 PM PDT

•  Well then

  they must have them by now, right?

  by Warren Terrer on Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 12:06:42 PM PDT

•  By 1986???

  My God, that Ahmadinejad is fast! He must have done it while everybody was mesmerized and not even blinking during that speech! He's like the second coming of the Muhammassiah! We better bomb that motherfucker's ass!!!

  by Little on Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 12:11:19 PM PDT

•  RECOMMENDED nt

  by Little on Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 12:12:10 PM PDT

•  Now, with Iran,

  nuclear weapons are at issue. And yet look at the self-defeating irrationality of the Bush team's maneuvering. How do we hope to pressure Tehran into abandoning its nuclear project? Why, by making our threat explicitly nuclear.

  Seymour Hersh, citing a "former official", reported that US warplanes near Iran "have been flying simulated nuclear-weapons delivery missions -- rapid ascending maneuvers known as 'over the shoulder' bombing -- since last summer." Such an exercise puts on display an American readiness to use tactical nuclear weapons against Iranian nuclear facilities. Whether the maneuvers have actually been carried out or not, even authoritative reports of them represent an extraordinarily irresponsible brandishing of the heretofore unthinkable weapon: To keep you from getting nukes, we will nuke you.

  As if that were not irrational enough, the Bush administration chose this month, in the thick of its nuclear standoff with Tehran, to reveal plans for a new nuclear weapons manufacturing complex of its own -- a major escalation of US nuclear capacity. This represents a movement away from merely maintaining our thousands of warheads to replacing them. The promise of new bombs to come, including the so-called bunker-buster under development, may be the final nail in the coffin of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which binds Washington to work for the elimination of nukes, not their enhancement.

  James Carroll
  Descent into anger and despair
  The Boston Globe
  April 17, 2006

  by adios on Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 12:16:40 PM PDT

•  Arms Control Wonk

  can be dumb sometimes. Apparently the person who started it is a PhD from the University of Maryland. However, not all their commentary operates off the best assumptions.

  by Beet on Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 12:18:47 PM PDT

•  Manhattan Project

  The secret Manhattan Project started in 1942 and produced a working atomic bomb by July, 1945.  Using 1940s technology, obviously.  Therefore any country with enough money to spend ought to be able to arm itself with nuclear weapons within three years if it wants to.

  by rmwarnick on Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 12:21:26 PM PDT

  •  Right, and...

    the Apollo project put a man on the moon in 8 years using 1960s technology. Yet no one would say that any country could put a man on the moon in 8 years. Even the Russians would be hard pressed to do it if they put everything they had into it.

    The fact is that technology hasn't diffused quite as much in the post-WW2 era as it did before then, when a country like Germany or Japan could arm itself with the most modern technology in just a few years. Today, the most up to date technology, even decades old, is out of reach for most countries. Heck, even we are still using the 50-year old B-52 frame.

    by Beet on Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 12:25:22 PM PDT

•  Example of Iraqi program

  In his book State of War: The Secret History of the C.I.A. and the Bush Administration, James Risen discusses the Iraqi uranium enrichment effort that took place prior to the first Gulf War.

  The Iraqis used the low-tech Manhattan Project method known as gaseous diffusion.  The project went unnoticed by the CIA because they were looking for evidence of newer technology.  In 1991 during the war, the gaseous diffusion plant was destroyed by bombing-- not because anybody knew what it was, but simply because there was a big industrial building there that looked like a good target.

  by rmwarnick on Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 12:40:28 PM PDT

•  oh, you're being lazy.

  0.) courtesy of Wiki:

  U.S.-Iran nuclear co-operation in the 1950s and 60s

  The foundations for Iran's nuclear programme were laid during the Cold War, in the late 1950s under auspices of the U.S. within the framework of bilateral agreements between the U.S. and Iran. A civil nuclear co-operation programme was signed as soon as 1957 with the U.S. under the Atoms for Peace program. The Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was ruling Iran at that time, and after Mohammed Mossadegh's 1953 overthrow supported by the CIA, the regime appeared sufficiently stable and friendly to the West that nuclear proliferation would not become a threat.
  In 1959 the Tehran Nuclear Research Center (TNRC) was established, run by the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI). The TNRC was equipped with a U.S.-supplied 5-megawatt nuclear research reactor, operational from 1967 and fuelled with highly enriched uranium.[2] Iran signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in 1968 and ratified it in 1970. With the establishment of Iran's atomic agency and the NPT in place, plans were drawn by the Shah Mohammad Pahlavi to construct up to 23 nuclear power stations across the country together with the USA by the year 2000.

  by borkitekt on Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 12:57:42 PM PDT

•  Fastest way to a bomb (materials) is a reactor

  Two ways to make a nuke.  Enriched Uranium (over 90% U235) or with Plutonium (P239). Plutonium is likely preferred.  Need less of it (about 10kg in this case) to make a bomb, and the bomb is much lighter.

  All the Repub hoopla (unofficial Senate committee report) aside, the enriched uranium (90% weapons grade, not the 3.6% used in fuel rods) is likely at least 3 years away.  Lots of things to track (or bomb in some cases): processing plants for the ore; uranium hexaflouride plant, those 5000 or so cascaded centrifuges; technicians; special materials (remember those tubes?); and lots of raw uranium ore, since Iran has very little in the ground.

  Best bet is to get a reactor up and running, then get the P239 out of the used fuel rods. The Russian-built light water reactor at Bushehr (ironical name) is supposed to be operational end of 2007, with Russia supplying the first reactor full of fuel rods. Since Iran is part of the NPT, they are supposed to return the used rods to Russia who then takes care of the fissionable plutonium. Similar to the deal we had going with the US building North Korea's reactors and taking back the fuel rods. If they're hell bent on bombs, they break the treaty after the Bushehr plant is operational and start rapidly cycling their own 3.6% fuel rods through the reactor, then take out the P239.

  Iran also has plans for a heavy water reactors (good for about 40kg of P239, or 4-6 bombs per year) built by India.  That's just getting going, including the heavy water plant.  So that's years away as well. All of this is to get the raw material.  Putting the bomb together is doable for Iran, but certainly not trivial.  Maybe add another year.  Probably want to do at least one underground test. That's more or less the path Israel took (unofficially anyway) in the late 60s.

  The Repubs will have you believe Iran is only months away.  Load of crap.  If they were that technically astute and able to hide everything, we'd probably be worrying about the genetically altered sharks (with friggin laser beams) that Iran was deploying in the Strait of Hormuz.  The science and nuts and bolts of making the materials for a bomb may be boring, but they are somewhat predictable.

  by Habitat Vic on Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 01:17:29 PM PDT

  •  or,

    buy pre-enriched uranium.

    by borkitekt on Sat Sep 23, 2006 at 03:19:10 AM PDT

•  This is one time

  I'd actually like to see "BREAKING" in the title.

  Nice job.

  by Cousin Vinny on Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 01:22:38 PM PDT

•  And I hear the USSR will be open soon

  as vacation land for lawyers in love. :)

  Seriously...

  Thanks for the "periodical piece", weasel. Most excellent work!

  by cskendrick on Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 01:41:18 PM PDT

•  Throw "humor" and "snark" tags on this bad boy

  This stuff's funny. :)

  by cskendrick on Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 01:42:09 PM PDT