You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Syria-Lebanon-Iran
Elbaradei confirms Iran only a few months away from a bomb
2005-12-05
IAEA chairman Muhammad ElBaradei on Monday confirmed Israel's assessment that Iran is only a few months away from creating an atomic bomb. If Teheran indeed resumed its uranium enrichment in other plants, as threatened, it will take it only "a few months" to produce a nuclear bomb, El-Baradei told The Independent. On the other hand, he warned, any attempt to resolve the crisis by non-diplomatic means would "open a Pandora's box. There would be efforts to isolate Iran; Iran would retaliate; and at the end of the day you have to go back to the negotiating table to find the solution."
Just like what happened with Sammy, right?
Posted by:Dan Darling

#23  Since we know Pres. Hostagetaker wants to nuke the Jooooooz, should we start a pool on when Teheran will look like this:



I got dibs on April 1 2006

'Cause FOOL Prez Hostagetaker is blinded by is Islamofuk zeal...
Posted by: BigEd   2005-12-05 18:57  

#22   DepotGuy, Get out of the warehouse and smell the fresh air. Do you really think the Israelis didn't know what they were doing when they attacked the Liberty?

Anyone got a camera? Thisn a 80 lb. Northern Buchannonite.
Posted by: Shipman   2005-12-05 18:44  

#21  "It would be such an ignorant thing to do /
If the muslims love their children too..."

...

"Oh sh*t."
Posted by: BH   2005-12-05 16:20  

#20  Mike it depends on what type of warhead they use. An implosion type can fizzle (plutonium/uranium mix). A shotgun type doesn't fizzle. In fact although the shotgun type is crude it has an extremely high percentage of always working. During the Trinity tests the labs had no worries about their shotgun type nuke going off, the tests always were about the implosion devices (you had to get the lens and tampers perfectly correct for it at the time).
Posted by: Valentine   2005-12-05 16:15  

#19  So what help would we be?

Glinesh, were not talking about Osirik here. Perhaps you are the one in need of some fresh air?
If military intervention in Iran comes to fruition, Israel at best will act as support. They would be best advised to concentrate their efforts watching their ass on their backdoor in the aftermath of such an event.
In regards to Iranian intentions, just a guess but I'd say more then one "unhidden" imam would have a problem the nuclear fallout in Gaza and over The Dome of the Rock.

Posted by: DepotGuy   2005-12-05 15:40  

#18  DG That assumes that the asshats think like we do.

Bingo. No amount of Western thought can fully embrace the mullahs' obsessive theological fervor. We are talking about a centuries old grudge that goes to the very core of Middle Eastern hatreds and repeated humiliation at the hands of Israel's superior armed forces. There is no way to comprehend just how crucial it is for these madmen that Israel be annihilated.
Posted by: Zenster   2005-12-05 14:26  

#17  On the bright side, for the next 10 years or so, Iranian missiles can only target as far as Europe.

Great!
NN UK
Posted by: Nockeyes Nilsworth   2005-12-05 14:26  

#16  DepotGuy, Get out of the warehouse and smell the fresh air. Do you really think the Israelis didn't know what they were doing when they attacked the Liberty? If they believe the continued existence of Israel is at stake, they won't consult with anyone before taking action unless they think it will help them in preserving the life of Israel. And I don't blame them one wit.

Further, it is far from Israel's best interest for the U. S. to do the heavy lifting. First there is no assurance the U. S. will do it. Second, it is highly unlikely the Congress would ever approve such action or that any administration would proceed with such an unprovoked attack without Congressional approval. Third, if the U. S. did decide to attack the first stop would probably be the Mossad as their humint is much better than ours. So what help would we be?

Further, the deleterious effects to Israel of Iranian posession of nukes are not limited to detonation over Israel or even to detonation at all. Posession itself is a sufficient threat to justify Israeli action, in my opinion, and I suspect most Israelis'.

It is very important to Israel that Iran not have a successful test of a nuke and I expect them to take actions independent of any other country to prevent one. If they don't, we're in really deep kim chi.
Posted by: Glinesh Hupereting4138   2005-12-05 13:53  

#15  DG That assumes that the asshats think like we do. Deterrence worked because both sides believed in MAD. This gave the analysts some confidence in their ability to estimate INTENTIONS.

We do not know that the mad mullahs think this way. Have you been listening to the madness about the "Hidden Imam?" Therefore, we have to evaluate them based on CAPABILITIES. I thank that they still believe we will collapse if they hit us hard enough.

I do not know whether the USA or Israel have the spine to deal with this before Iran goes operational. If the mullahs use a weapon, all bets are off.
Posted by: SR-71   2005-12-05 13:40  

#14  Didn't the CIA assure us a few months ago that Iran was at least 10 years away from the bomb? Can we just put a big red X through that anachronism of an agency now? Please?

On the bright side, for the next 10 years or so, Iranian missiles can only target as far as Europe.

The cargo holds of ships will, however, suffer from no such constraints. If you have real estate in US port cities it's time to sell and move inland.
Posted by: AzCat   2005-12-05 13:30  

#13  We must take Iran at its word.

Irans "word" is a steaming loaf of camel dung.
If Iran had nukes, I'm sure there is more then one "madman" that would advocate the first order of business is to blow their load on Israel. However, the benefits of nuclear capability for defensive posture far out way a most assuredly, complete incineration of their country.
Posted by: DepotGuy   2005-12-05 13:01  

#12  There would be efforts to isolate Iran; Iran would retaliate; and at the end of the day you have to go back to the negotiating table to find the solution.

Ummmmmmmmm...not necessarily, Mr. Peace Prize.
Posted by: tu3031   2005-12-05 12:55  

#11  DepotGuy, did you miss the part where Iranian hardliners declared that even the complete destruction of Iran would be worthwhile if they were able to obliterate Israel? Are you willing to permit any test of their intentions?

We must take Iran at its word. It's about time Iran's madmen were held to their statements. Their incessant fomenting of regional instability, be it through incendiary rhetoric or outright sponsorship of terrorist organizations needs to come with a price tag. Now that they've included nuclear capability on the bill of goods, there are irresistable reasons for putting paid to their vicious conniving.
Posted by: Zenster   2005-12-05 12:17  

#10  "IAEA chairman Muhammad ElBaradei on Monday confirmed Israel's assessment that Iran is only a few months away from creating an atomic bomb."

Well, he certainly did his job to spec: hem, haw, consult, ponder, delay, report ... until it's too late.
Posted by: Xbalanke   2005-12-05 12:16  

#9  With all due respect, there are a couple of opinions that are usually expressed regarding this topic that don’t make sense to me.
The first is that Israel will take matters into their own hands to resolve this crisis.
Even assuming Israel has the capacity to do the job (big assumption) they cannot, and more importantly, will not strike without US complicity. Therefore if there were no other options, it’s a forgone conclusion the US, as usual, would do the heavy lifting.
And the second is that Iran once armed with nuclear weapons will automatically unleash a first strike on Israel.
Irans fiery rhetoric plays well to its domestic anti-Israel crowd but a first strike would immediately eliminate all their perceived long-term benefits of a nuclear-armed nation.
Not only would such a venture alienate them from the rest of the world (including most of the Islamic republics), it would quite literally would be suicide.
Posted by: DepotGuy   2005-12-05 12:03  

#8  On the other hand, he warned, any attempt to resolve the crisis by non-diplomatic means would "open a Pandora's box.

Fat lot of good ElBaradei's diplomatic prinking about has done. This SOB has literally fiddled while Rome burned and yet does not have the requisite testicular endowment to admit that it is now time to use military force.

I've been saying this for-effing-evah. ElBaradei has far too many conflicts of interest to ever have been trusted with this mission. His inability to act against his native Egypt's nascent covert nuclear program should have served prompt notice to all involved that this limp-d!ck wasn't about to do anything of substance about Iran. ElBaradei has obviously placed his Arab geneology before any obligation to the world body he serves. If Iran ever launches a single nuclear weapon, ElBaradei should be capped for his perfidy. [spit!]
Posted by: Zenster   2005-12-05 11:42  

#7  That's right Mike. The Iranians never stopped enriching Uranium with their undeclared centrifuges. On the bright side, for the next 10 years or so, Iranian missiles can only target as far as Europe.

On the down side, if the mullahs, as they have said many times, are willing to die in order to nuke the Jews, what are they willing to do to nuke several hundred Great Satan cities or even the cities of the Little Euros Demons. We are gonna have to decide whether is gonna be Death to America or Death to Iran.

As for testing, the never bothered to test its gun type Uranium bomb. It was too simple. The Pakistani's know which of their various Chinese supplied designs they were able to make work and which fizzled. I expect that data is firmly in Iranian hands.
Posted by: ed   2005-12-05 09:23  

#6  ...Which means they've got the fu*king bomb NOW, it's just going to take them five months to assemble/deploy it.
Now, here is a point I haven't yet seen brought up. The Iranians got most, if not all, of their weapons technology from the Pakis - who have had at LEAST one known fizzle, and probably more. I'm not going to count on a miracle on that account, but we HAVE to take into consideration the fact that if they do not test one first - which would probably bring down the wrath of Curtis LeMay upon their beturbaned heads - they have to face the STRONG possibility that all they have are some very expensive doorstops.

Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski   2005-12-05 08:55  

#5  And this dweeb won the nobel[sic] peace prize???

for their efforts to prevent nuclear energy from being used for military purposes and to ensure that nuclear energy for peaceful purposes is used in the safest possible way

I don't know whether to laugh or cry. So I'll do both.
Posted by: Rafael   2005-12-05 06:38  

#4  SO we've gone from a 5 year away estimate being harked over the last year or so to a sudden "a few months" WTF?? My question is once the first nuke comes off the 'production line' how long untill warhead two, three, four and so on. I'd imagine not long so if in say six months they start production then a year form now we could see Iran armed with perhaps ten or twenty warheads deployed and rapidly becoming BMD systems worse nightmare! I still say an Israeli strike is our only hope as the rest of the west sure as hell ain't gonna stand up against these atomic jihadis.
Posted by: Shep UK   2005-12-05 06:31  

#3  The "pandora's box" is the circus the IAEA and the EU have been screwing with.

There will be no nuclear armed Iran. 25 years of Death to America in the streets of Iran precludes it.

Brutal destruction of the MM's and their base is the only alternative. Do it now not later.
Posted by: Mahou Sensei Negi-bozu   2005-12-05 05:23  

#2  any attempt to resolve the crisis by non-diplomatic means would "open a Pandora's box. There would be efforts to isolate Iran; Iran would retaliate; and at the end of the day you have to go back to the negotiating table to find the solution."

Huh? talk about a useless f*ck.
Posted by: Red Dog   2005-12-05 04:37  

#1  Guess that means the Israelis will bomb shortly after the March election when Sharon will be elected the new PM.
Posted by: phil_b   2005-12-05 03:57  

00:00