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
Syria-Lebanon-Iran
US won't launch preemptive strike against Teheran
2006-12-05
From JPost, extra hand lotion required.
Predicting Iran will obtain nuclear weapons by the end of the decade, the defense establishment's new and updated assessment for 2007 does not foresee the United States undertaking a preemptive strike on Iran's nuclear installations, The Jerusalem Post has learned.

The chances of an American strike are deemed "low," according to assessments by the security establishment. Israel also believes that international diplomatic efforts to stop Iran will fail, security sources said.

In an interivew with the Post in late September, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said US President George W. Bush would prevent the Iranians from obtaining a nuclear bomb. Asked whether he felt Bush would one way or the other stop Iran going nuclear, Olmert responded: "I believe so."
He hasn't said anything different, has he?
In April, after President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced Iran had passed one of the major hurdles in its race to obtain nuclear power and had, for the first time, successfully enriched uranium, a high-ranking IDF officer told the Post that Iran would obtain nuclear independence in a matter of months. At the time, a battery of 164 centrifuges was used to enrich the uranium to 3.5 percent. To produce highly-enriched uranium at 90%, Iran would need to operate thousands of centrifuges without interruption for a period of several months.
Except they don't need 90%; they need (I've read) perhaps 20%. An enrichment of 20% will sustain a chain reaction, you just need more uranium.
Ahmadinejad announced plans last month to build 60,000 additional centrifuges, leading Israel to believe that it was only a matter of time before Iran developed a nuclear capability. Pakistan encountered similar difficulties in its nuclear program but eventually overcame them.

The assumption in the defense establishment is that even if sanctions were imposed on Iran today, they would not be effective in deterring the regime from continuing with its nuclear plans. The Democratic takeover of the US Senate and Congress has also led to the prediction that President George W. Bush will not be able to order a military strike.
They don't know Dubya very well.
In addition, the prediction is that Bush's administration is headed towards talks with Iran, expected to be one of the recommendations of the Baker-Hamilton report on America's options in Iraq to be presented to the US president on Wednesday.
Because we should always try to meet our enemies 'half-way'.
The UN Security Council demanded in July that Teheran suspend enrichment, but Iran instead has expanded that work, recently setting up a second experimental chain of 164 centrifuges to produce small amounts of low-enriched uranium.

Teheran has said it intends to activate 3,000 centrifuges by late 2006 and then increase the program to 54,000 centrifuges. Iranian officials say that would produce enough enriched uranium to fuel a 1,000-megawatt reactor, such as that being built by Russia and nearing completion at Bushehr.
Or perhaps a dozen bombs in yields of 10 to 50 kT.
Experts estimate Iran would need only 1,500 centrifuges to produce a nuclear weapon.
Posted by:Steve White

#10  The assessment is from "The defense establishment". If it was from the Pentagon, they'd have said so. If it was from the White House, they'd have said so. Hell, they quoted Olmert, so why not the Pentagon or the White House?

But they can't pin this "assessment" on either of them, so they fall back on the shadowy, unnamed "defense establishment", and hope lazy readers will read into it what they can't say out loud for fear of being called on it and proven to stuff words into other people's mouths.

This didn't need the hand-lotion pic, but the Morton Salt Dispenser pic.
Posted by: Ptah   2006-12-05 15:12  

#9  Well, geeze, we'd be pretty stupid to tell 'em if we were, huh?
Posted by: mojo   2006-12-05 14:12  

#8  i'ma bettin' when that one's translated, it'll be the snark o' the day, EoZ, lol!
Posted by: BA   2006-12-05 13:45  

#7  Were you attempting Greek, Hebrew or Russian, Elder of Zion? 'Cause it didn't come out on my screen, either.
Posted by: trailing wife   2006-12-05 12:30  

#6  eee-yi-ee-yi-oo ?

Well okaay, then, EoZ... ;-)
Posted by: .com   2006-12-05 12:00  

#5  Ã Ã­ àéï àðé ìé- îé ìé ? åàí ìà òëùéå àéîúé
Posted by: Elder of Zion   2006-12-05 11:45  

#4  I noticed one glaring omission for the "defense establishment's new and updated assessment for 2007." Whether or not ISRAEL would conduct the strike. This could be good cop/bad JOOO thingy.
Posted by: BA   2006-12-05 11:27  

#3  Bush still needs a spine replacement, that should take a couple o' weeks.
Posted by: wxjames   2006-12-05 11:11  

#2  Well, Joe, the Russians leaving would be a good thing. The US has always tried to avoid killing Russian "experts" in our military actions. Once their numbers are significantly reduced, a significant constraint on military action will be removed.
Posted by: RWV   2006-12-05 08:02  

#1  No longer 60,000 > Russian XPerts forecast Radical Iran may go up to well over 100K by EOM December 2006. Between January-April 2007 > iff nothing changes, Rusia will deem Iran as self-sufficient, i.e. can produce enuff indigens nuke materials for Bombs-Warheads without foreign assistance.
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2006-12-05 01:02  

00:00