Share

Gates: Iran "Not Close" to Nuclear Weapon

by: Deborah Zabarenko  |  Reuters

photo
A security official keeps an eye on journalists during a tour of the nuclear power plant in Bushehr, Iran. (Photo: Reuters Pictures)

    Washington - Iran is not close to having a nuclear weapon, which gives the United States and others time to try to persuade Tehran to abandon its suspected atomic arms program, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said on Sunday.

    "They're not close to a stockpile, they're not close to a weapon at this point, and so there is some time," Gates said on NBC television's "Meet The Press."

    Gates' comments followed a televised interview with Adm. Mike Mullen, head of the U.S. military Joint Chiefs of Staff, who told CNN's "State of the Union" that he believed Iran has enough fissile material to make a nuclear bomb.

    "We think they do, quite frankly," Mullen said.

    Mullen had been asked about a watchdog report issued by the International Atomic Energy Agency last month that said Iran had built up a stockpile of low-enriched uranium. The reported stockpile of 1,010 kg would be enough - if converted into highly-enriched uranium - to make a bomb, analysts have said.

    The United States suspects Iran of trying to use its nuclear program to build an atomic bomb, but Tehran insists it is purely for the peaceful generation of electricity.

    Gates said there has been "a continuing focus on how do you get the Iranians to walk away from a nuclear weapons program" in the Obama and Bush administrations.

    U.S. President Barack Obama's administration favors diplomatic engagement with Tehran to defuse the dispute over its nuclear intentions, but has called Iran's nuclear program an "urgent problem" the international community must address.

    The challenge, Gates said, is finding a balance between sanctions to pressure Iran and incentives for engagement with the United States and Europe. A sharp decline in oil prices since last year increases the chances for a resolution. "There are economic costs to this program; they (the Iranians) do face economic challenges at home."

    Mullen Talks of "Very Bad Outcome"

    U.S. spy agencies believe Iran lacks enough weapons-grade uranium to make a bomb, but cannot rule it out, Adm. Dennis Blair, the U.S. director of national intelligence, told Congress last month.

    "Iran probably has imported at least some weapons-usable fissile material but (we) still judge it has not obtained enough for a nuclear weapon," he said. "We cannot rule out that Iran has acquired from abroad or will acquire in the future a nuclear weapon or enough fissile material for a weapon."

    He reiterated a view that Iran was undertaking two of three activities needed for a nuclear arms program - developing uranium-enrichment technology and nuclear-capable ballistic missile systems. U.S. intelligence agencies have said Iran suspended developing a nuclear warhead, the third activity.

    "Iran having nuclear weapons, I've believed for a long time, is a very very bad outcome - for the region and for the world," Mullen said.

    CIA Director Leon Panetta last week declined to discuss any possible new U.S. policies being considered in this area, saying this is classified.

    --------

    Additional reporting by Randall Mikkelsen; Editing by Randall Mikkelsen and Doina Chiacu.

  

»


Comments

This is a moderated forum.  It may take a little while for comments to go live. Be civil and on-topic, don't threaten or advocate violence, please keep it under 300 words. Thanks for participating.

So, according to Gates Iran

So, according to Gates Iran does not have enough nuclear material for a bomb, but according to Admiral Mullen, Joint Chief of Staff, it does have enough. Here's an instance where the military (the Admiral) tries to hold onto justification for more war--like attacking Iran to destroy its fissionable stockpile--while the civilian (holdover) insists there isn't enough; that Iran's "not close" to developing nuclear weapons. This may be why Gates was held over by Obama; he can be reasonable if his boss is, yet because he's a Bush holdover he can control the military, which must see Obama as much too willing to use means other than military to solve problems. Gates may even be insurance against extremists among the brass. Iran may demonstrate, also, why Obama had to modify(compromise on) his Iraq withdrawal plans, adding another three months (it was originally 16). The military would have been too outraged and, possibly, non-cooperative if he had insisted on the original timetable..

If they are saying Iran is

If they are saying Iran is not close to nuclear weapons, does that mean they really are?

Now is the time that the

Now is the time that the only Country to ever have dropped the BOMB, to lead the World in taking them all apart. We must switch at least 50% of Our GUNS And BOMBS Budget over to building the Electric Car that we can Plug into Our Solar Powered Roofs. All that would put Generations to work on something useful!

The history of nuclear

The history of nuclear weapons is interesting. Aside from the two nuclear bombs dropped on Japan over 60 years ago, no country has attacked another with nuclear weapons. In our time it appears that possession of nuclear weapons is the great defense against attack. Who can take the chance? Does anyone think that we would have attacked Iraq if they actually had nuclear weapons?

We spend so much time

We spend so much time exploring hypotheticals about Iran, we are being diverted from the real truth. The real truth is that if Iran used a nuclear weapon against Israel or anyone else, they would be bombed back to before the stone age. I don't believe they are suicidal.

Beside the fact that Low

Beside the fact that Low Enriched Uranium, of which Iran has just enough to make ONE bomb, cannot be used to produce a nuclear device, and that the IAEA (who does have 'boots on the ground' in Iran which the CIA does NOT) states categorically, along with the US National Intelligence Estimate that Iran does not have a nuclear weapon capability, there are two real problems with Iran and the US. The first problem is with Israeli Hegemony and IAPAC and its power over our American government. Israel wants all its Arab neighbors under its thumb and their government is run by what amount to neo-cons. (war for profit). They want our soldiers and sailors to start or come in on a smackdown war for their benefit. The second problem is Khūzestān Province, which lies just across the Southern Iraqi border. This is where the bulk of Iran's oil fields lie, and was the reason for the Iran-Iraq war when Reagan used Saddam as his puppet warrior. It is also the reason in 1953 that the CIA and MI5 overthrew the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran and put our puppet dictator, the Shah back in after they had been deposed. "American Interests" whose names were BP and Exxon got to loot that country of its oil and want to loot it again! 'Its the oil, stupid.' I think I would like to ask Mullen, Gates or even Obama if they would be satisfied with the Iranian nuclear power program (which by the way the US started in the days of the puppet Shah) if the Iranians gave up Khūzestān Province to the ownership of Exxon-Mobile.

It is nice to see that the

It is nice to see that the Obama administration will not be a complete lackey for the oil companies. Iran is surrounded by countries with nuclear weapons or countries occupied by the US military which includes India, Pakistan, Israel, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Iraq. It has witnessed the unprovoked invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, two countries that correspond to having Russia invade and occupy Canada and Mexico and the US told not to worry about being next in line. The US government in the closing months of the Bush administration announced its plans to provide nuclear technology to the UAE which sits less than 50 miles across the gulf from Iran. The US has treated Korea, with its nuclear weapon with kid gloves while invading Iraq and Afghanistan. Iran has a democratically elected government which the British replaced with a dictator in 1953, just as the USA replaced a democratically elected government in Vietnam with a string of dictators while it thought there were offshore oil resources to be exploited. Iran knows that if it wishes to remain an independent country in control of its oil resources it must develop the means to protect itself from US aggression and terrorism. The only way it can do this is with the threat of detonating a nuclear device in its oil fields thus denying the US oil companies the prize they are seeking. If Iran is smart they will build a nuclear power plant in the heart of their oil fields where the our government's proxy, Israel will not be inclined to bomb it.

Let's help Iran come to our

Let's help Iran come to our way of thinking by cutting back the amount of crude oil we buy. Every windmill, every solar cell, that we install decreases our payments to OPEC and decreases the terrorism our petro-dollars are buying.

Do the math. They have the

Do the math. They have the equivalent of 20 nukes in their first refinement. Run the material a few more times, it will do the job. 1-3 year setback in the Iran program? Bomb them every year, twice to be nice and don't worry. Mark