Kondracke falsely claimed Iran nuclear estimates range "between six months and two years"
SUMMARY: On Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume, Roll Call executive editor Mort Kondracke falsely claimed that "depending on who you listen to," it will take Iran "between six months and two years" to produce "the material that they need for a nuclear weapon." In fact, many estimates -- including those within the U.S. Intelligence Community -- suggest that it could take Iran significantly longer to develop a nuclear weapon.
During the "All Star Panel" segment on the March 14 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume, Roll Call executive editor Morton. M. Kondracke falsely claimed that "depending on who you listen to," it will take Iran "between six months and two years" to produce "the material that they need for a nuclear weapon." In fact, many estimates -- including those within the U.S. Intelligence Community -- suggest that it could take Iran significantly longer to develop a nuclear weapon.
The New York Times reported on March 5 that "[e]stimates of just when Iran might acquire a nuclear weapon range from alarmist views of only a few months to roughly 15 years." The Times further reported that "American intelligence agencies say it will take 5 to 10 years for Iran to manufacture the fuel for its first atomic bomb."
During a February 2 Senate Intelligence Committee hearing, committee chairman Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS) stated: "The intelligence community assesses that ... Iran, if it continues on its current path -- and we hope we could see some action by the [United Nations] Security Council and others working on this -- but they will likely have the capability to produce a nuclear weapon within the next decade." Roberts repeated this assessment in a March 1 op-ed in The Hill.
In an August 2, 2005, article, The Washington Post reported that a recently completed National Intelligence Estimate -- representing a "consensus among U.S. intelligence agencies" -- "projected that Iran is about a decade away from manufacturing the key ingredient for a nuclear weapon."
In a January 12 issue brief on Iran's nuclear program, David Albright and Corey Hinderstein of the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) stated that "Iran could have its first nuclear weapon in 2009." They noted, however, that "[t]his result reflects a worst case assessment, and thus is highly uncertain." Albright and Hinderstein added that intelligence community analysts believe that Iran will not develop a nuclear weapon by 2009 because of the likelihood that Iran will encounter significant "technical difficulties":
Given another year to make enough HEU [highly enriched uranium] for a nuclear weapon and a few more months to convert the uranium into weapon components, Iran could have its first nuclear weapon in 2009. By this time, Iran is assessed to have had sufficient time to prepare the other components of a nuclear weapon, although the weapon may not be deliverable by a ballistic missile.
This result reflects a worst case assessment, and thus is highly uncertain. Though some analysts at the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] believe that Iran could assemble centrifuges quicker, other analysts, including those in the US intelligence community, appear to believe that a date of 2009 would be overly optimistic. They believe that Iran is likely to encounter technical difficulties that would significantly delay bringing a centrifuge plant into operation. Factors causing delay include Iran having trouble making so many centrifuges in that time period or it taking longer than expected to overcome difficulties in operating the cascades or building a centrifuge plant.
On March 9, retired Lt. Gen. Moshe Ya'alon, former chief of staff of the Israeli Defense Forces, spoke at the Hudson Institute about the possibility of an Israeli military strike against Iran's nuclear program. According to a March 10 article by French news agency Agence France Presse, Ya'alon "maintained that in six to 18 months Tehran would have the knowledge to produce nuclear weapons, and within three to five years it would have such weaponry if its plans went unchecked."
From the March 14 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume:
KONDRACKE: And -- and let the thing go through and then, you'd be on your way to sanctions. And there -- there is a potential that sanctions -- as I've said before -- that if the Europeans really don't invest in the Iranian oil facilities that it could cause them some trouble because they do need that foreign investment. But, you know, the question is how far -- how long does it take for the Iranians to get the material that they need for a nuclear weapon? And it varies depending on who you listen to -- between six months and two years. And that's the short time.
Would one (or more) of the people in your "depending on who you listen to" be named Karl?
How ‘bout Dick, Donald, Condi or George?
When I hear or read things like this I am reminded that Mr. Bolton's tenure at the U.N. will end with the current Congress.
This means that we will probably see the Neocon smelly-stuff to hit the Iranian fan a few months before the November elections.
Speaking as a citizen of the ONLY country in the world to use nuclear weapons on civilians, it's obvious which country the world ought to be afraid of. And it's not Iran or South Korea. It's US. What, Iran's gonna do? Arm cave dwelling terrorists in Pakistan so they can kill a million Americans while they hide in a cave, and in the meantime, the United States analyzes the fissile material's unique signature pattern, links it to an Iranian reactor then launches a 50 megaton hydrogen bomb on Iran which destroys the entire country.
Sounds like a plan Bush might follow, but not Iran.
Well I wouldn't put TOO much faith in what the U.S. Intelligence Community is saying about THIS subject...after all weren't THEY the ones that were so SURE about WMD's??
Bottom line: I don't believe anyone has the exact answer here as to when Iran will be able to produce nuclear weapons. So Mort Kondracke is just throwing estimates out there like everyone else.
At the moment Iran is being resided over by a whack job...a DANGEROUS one...I do think we NEED to keep an eye on the situation....Note to Bush: This does NOT mean another invasion!!
Remember there was lots of conflicting intel on WMD pre-invasion. This administration clearly cherry picked only that which would support their premeditated war. Conflicting intel was swept under the rug and those who advocated it or attempted to expose it were fired or had their cover blown in retaliation.
There are some of us who didn't buy the Bushie bull in the beginning. I believed Blix over this little toad and I was right. Of course I was right, I knew then that Bushco would lie about anything and everything.
Jeter says...
At the moment Iran is being resided over by a whack job...
What's the difference between our whack job and their whack job? Our whack job has actually made good on his threats and invaded another country.
Joking aside, yes, Iranian president is definitely an extremist who is either a lunatic or a crafty politician who understands how to use propaganda to his benefit. That doesn't sound to different from here. I'm not excusing it, but I think it does suggest other ways of dealing with it other than escalating the retoric. E.g., if not for the chants of "Death to America," would Bushco have much domestic support? I also think our deal with India just encourages Iran to further pursue nuclear weapons.
In any event, good catch by MMFA on this. For some further context, I believe the "6 months to 2 years" time-frame was the estimate of when Iran would be able to start producing the first nuclear material, not when they'd have enough for a weapon nor when they'd have the other non-trivial technology required to construct a weapon. Don't let Bush spin us into another war.
CD
ALARM BELLS SHOULD BE SOUNDING!!!!!!!!!
A LONG HOOK SHOULD BE INSTALLED TO JERK THE JERK !!!!!!!!!!!!
This idiot had this same song to sing in the last tragedy called "Iraq."
When have these pundits got anything right??
If the subject is Republican intentions, or inside scoop, he is great. He knows when the Administration's bowels will move, so, with his head already there is it any surprise?
If we need a gossip columnist why should we have to look for them on a political forum?? I can’t tell if this guy should be in a dress, or a rubber suit. The view must be very messy up there, or he must be auditioning for the next “Imfomercial On Our Newest Foreign Adventures” by an Republican Cabal.
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
Looks like the adminstration is gearing up to get us into another invation. Maybe the president needs a good BJ, I know that always calms me down. Oh, I forgot that's an impeachable offence.
So, we should invite James Gannon/Jeff Guckert, or would that make Karl jealouls?
Yes, and depending on who you listen to, most likely Fox viewers, Saddam was behind 9/11.
...when somebody we don't like gets the bomb, except it always turns out not to be.
Remember, the leaders of the Soviet Union were a bunch of dangerous lunatics who had no concern for their personal safety and would set off WWIII. Mao Zedong was a dangerous lunatic who had no concern for his personal safety. Kim Jong Il is a dangerous lunatic who has no concern for his personal safety. The mullahs in Tehran are dangerous lunatics who...
Same hysteria, different decade.