It strikes me as odd when an administration famous for consistently maintaining a coherent single voice on important issues suddenly starts broadcasting conflicting signals on a critical issue like nuclear weapons proliferation.
Just looking at open-source material it's pretty clear to me what's happening here. It's not about a nuclear threat at all. It's about maintaining zombie programs. If we don't nip this BS in the bud, expect it to grow into a three ring circus of distraction.
CNN is reporting that the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mullen, appeared on a CNN show called State of the Union and claimed that Iran
has enough fissile material to make a nuclear bomb.
This is based on a recent ISIS analysis of an IAEA report:
The quantity of LEU in the form of uranium hexafluoride accumulated by Iran, which equates to approximately 700 kg of low enriched uranium (where the uranium mass is given), is sufficient for the production of enough weapon-grade uranium for a single nuclear weapon, should Iran take the decision to further enrich its LEU stockpile. [emphasis added]
An obvious question then is how long will it take to enrich the uranium?. Fortunately, there is a calculator for that on the FAS site. Based on the ISIS numbers you get a ballpark number somewhere between 1 and 3 YEARS assuming they were plowing ahead with enrichment directly under the IAEA's nose. This may be one reason why the FAS is saying DON'T PANIC.
I'll overlook the obvious propaganda play of naming a show "State of the Union" and then quoting a guest as making statements on "CNN's State of the Union" the way FOX et al have done. Let's look at news sources from Europe. After all, they will have to live with the threat of Iranian missiles and their fallout (both political and otherwise) so we expect them to have an interest in getting the story right.
Reuters reported Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was on Meet the Press and said:
They're [Iran] not close to a stockpile, they're not close to a weapon at this point.
How do we resolve this apparent breakdown in message discipline? Ironically, I think FOX News gives us the money quote from their interview with Mullen:
Mullen said he has not been given "any instructions one way or the other" on whether to continue working on an anti-ballistic missile shield that has been in development and was to be deployed in East Europe.
"There are an awful lot of reviews that are ongoing under President Obama, and there's an awful lot on the -- on all of our plates. So that's a review that will, I think, take place.
Oh really? .... Admiral Mullen wants us to believe he no idea how the Obama administration wants to handle the Bush administration's Star Wars Lite? That's odd for something so important. He must have been snoozing during the campaign. Obama made it clear on several occasions that he is not interested in supporting a system that is not proven to work. Right now, that system is far from proven.
What exactly is this system supposed to do, anyway? Allegedly, they will defend Europe from .... IRAN. Never mind the fact that Russia has always taken a dim view of this due to a firm belief they are the real targets for these weapons.
In fact, Medvedev is clearly trying to push this point to conclusion in upcoming talks scheduled for next week between Russia's Foreign Minister and Secretary of State Clinton.
He has good reason to be optimistic. Last week, senior administation officials, including Joe Biden, have communicated privately and directly to the Russians
The message to Russia is that if a threat from Iran "doesn't materialize, then there is not as much of a need" for missile defense.
This is consistent with reports published earlier this week in European news sources reporting:
The U.S. plan to deploy missile shield technology in Europe could be among the big-ticket defense items to face major funding cuts in President Barack Obama's first federal budget proposal.
The Czech Republic has more than a passing interest in this since they are slated to be a deployment site. Thus, it is understandable they would be more explicit in their reporting:
U.S. officials suggested yesterday that deployment of the missile shield radar in the Czech Republic could be pushed back by a decade, the Czech News Agency reported.
"My impression, that they have more or less confirmed, is that it is a question of 10 years," Czech opposition lawmaker Libor Roucek said after European Parliament members met with administration officials in Washington.
Previous estimates had the European missile defense elements beginning operations in 2012.
So who were these unnamed officials? Turns out CNN International covered these meetings.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton signaled Tuesday that the United States might rethink plans for a missile defense shield in Europe if Iran decides against pursuing nuclear weapons.
Ahhhhhhhhhh..... so now it makes more sense.
Here's the piece that pushes this whole Rubick's cube into focus: The missile defense shield (an unproven technology against an unverified threat) is a military boondoggle scheduled for the budgetary chopping block. It is also vehemently opposed by a major global player, and that means it is in jeopardy of missing it's previously scheduled rollout.
The only way to keep it alive is to raise the prospect of an imminent threat. Sound familiar? You betcha!