Citing unnamed "experts" on Iran nuke threat, Kondracke, Liasson agreed "time is running out"
SUMMARY: On Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume, Mort Kondracke claimed that "experts that I talked to think" that Iran will produce enough highly enriched uranium for a nuclear bomb by summer 2007. Kondracke did not inform viewers which "experts" he was referring to.
During the "All-Star Panel" segment on the March 30 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume, Roll Call executive editor Morton M. Kondracke claimed that "experts that I talked to think" that Iran will produce enough highly enriched uranium for a nuclear bomb by summer 2007. Kondracke did not inform viewers which "experts" he was referring to. In recent weeks, however, U.S. government officials and other experts have repeatedly estimated that it would take longer than Kondracke claimed for Iran to develop a nuclear weapon.
During the panel discussion, Weekly Standard executive editor Fred Barnes referred to a March 30 statement by Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA): "We are not facing an imminent threat. We need to lower the pitch."
In response, Kondracke claimed that "the experts that I talked to think that on the basis of what the Iranians have announced that they are going to do, as to enrichment ... they will be able to have enough fissile material of their own making for a bomb sometime next summer, summer 2007." Guest-host Chris Wallace then asked, "So, a little over a year?" Kondracke responded, "Yeah." NPR national political correspondent Mara Liasson later added: "[A]s Mort said, time is running out. Pretty soon, Iran is going to have the bomb."
On March 5, The New York Times reported that "American intelligence agencies say it will take 5 to 10 years for Iran to manufacture the fuel for its first atomic bomb." In a March 1 op-ed in The Hill, Senate Intelligence Committee chairman Pat Roberts (R-KS) wrote that "Iran, if it continues on its current path, will likely have the capability to produce nuclear weapons within the next decade."
In recent days, U.S. government officials have been quoted anonymously asserting that Iran will develop a nuclear weapon sooner than previously thought. But even according to these claims, Iran is further away from a nuclear weapon than the "summer 2007" estimate Kondracke cited.
In a March 23 article, Knight Ridder reported that based on a recent IAEA briefing on Iran's nuclear progress, "U.S. officials and a foreign diplomat" expressed concern that Iranian progress on a network of 164 centrifuges indicated that Iran would be "two to three years away" from a nuclear weapon if Iran overcame numerous "technical hurdles":
Should Iran quickly overcome the numerous technical obstacles to operating the test network, known as a cascade, it could accelerate the installation of an industrial-scale plant and begin producing highly enriched uranium much sooner than currently forecast, the U.S. officials and the diplomat said. They spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to discuss the issue.
Based on the IAEA data, U.S. experts have concluded that "Iran could be as little as two to three years away from having nuclear weapons, with all the necessary caveats and assumptions and extrapolations about them overcoming technical hurdles," said one U.S. official. "Admittedly, those are significant assumptions."
Knight Ridder noted that in contrast to these anonymous claims, "[p]ublicly, the Bush administration estimates that 2011 is the soonest that Iran could produce a nuclear weapon."
Moreover, IAEA officials have reportedly disputed the anonymous U.S. officials' claims about the agency's briefing. Knight Ridder noted that a "diplomat close to the IAEA ... said the development [of the 164 centrifuges] conformed to the agency's timeline and that IAEA experts didn't view it with alarm."
On March 25, the Associated Press reported that a senior IAEA official called the U.S. claims about the briefing "pure speculation and misinformation" and that a "diplomat in Vienna" -- where the IAEA is headquartered -- "said some U.S. administration officials were misrepresenting" the briefing:
But reflecting exasperation, a senior agency official dropped such reservations Saturday as he called the U.S. claims that an agency briefing on the advances made by Iran on enrichment was a bombshell "pure speculation and misinformation."
"It comes from people who are seeking a crisis, not a solution" to the confrontation over Iran, the official said.
The senior IAEA official did not offer details on the spat.
But a diplomat in Vienna, who demanded anonymity in exchange for discussing confidential information, said some U.S. administration officials were misrepresenting a recent briefing by the agency to Vienna-based representatives of America, Russia, China, France, and Britain -- the five permanent Security Council members.
The information on where Iran was on enrichment and where it was headed was not new, but the U.S. officials claimed "the ... IAEA was blown away by (Iran's) progress and had the U.S. redefining its timeline" for Iran's capacity to make its first nuclear weapon down to three years, the diplomat told The Associated Press.
Just last year, U.S. officials cited intelligence estimating Iran would need 10 years for its first bomb.
The March 23 Knight Ridder article also noted that David Albright, a former IAEA inspector who is now president of the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS), "said he was skeptical" that Iran could produce enough highly enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon by 2008 and that his "worst-case scenario" was 2009.
In a January 12 ISIS report, Albright and Corey Hinderstein noted that this "worst case assessment" is "highly uncertain" and that U.S. 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":
This result reflects a worst case assessment, and thus is highly uncertain. Though some analysts at the IAEA 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.
Similarly, a March 31 Los Angeles Times article reported that -- contrary to Kondracke's "summer 2007" claim -- some Bush "administration and European officials have suggested that Iran could make enough enriched uranium for a bomb in three years." The Los Angeles Times added: "Many other experts say the technical difficulties would make such a short time frame almost impossible."
From the March 30 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume:
BARNES: And also Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said, "Oh, the Iranians are a long ways from getting any nuclear weapons," or something, and so, he thought it would be a bad idea, as well, to go to sanctions.
[...]
KONDRACKE: First, the experts that I talked to think that on the basis of what the Iranians have announced that they are going to do, as to enrichment, that they can -- they will have -- they will be able to have enough fissile material of their own making for a bomb sometime next summer, summer 2007, which means that time --
WALLACE: So, a little over a year?
KONDRACKE: Yeah, which means the time is short.
[...]
LIASSON: And, as Mort said, time is running out. Pretty soon, Iran is going to have the bomb. And I agree: Now, it's going to be up to Congress. It's going to be up to the -- I think, in a month, it will be up to Congress. It will be up to the coalition of the willing to see what it can do.

















Shame on you. Um...Fool me...fool...uh...you can't get fooled again.
Apparently none of these troglodytes ever read the story of the little boy who cried wolf.
It's a fair bet that Puddinhead George never read it.
But the boy cried WOLF a couple of times before people didn't react any more. Thus: it will probably work again this time.
Iran isn't stupid. They are students of US history. They know the United States have never engaged in an act of overt aggression against a nuclear power. Nuclear capability is a necessary bargaining chip to force a diplomatic solution. To those fear-mongering fools quick to pander to the public's propensity to pounce the panic button: there is no reason to believe Iran will hand this technology over to terrorists. They have nothing to gain, everything to lose. All uranium and plutonium bombs leave a unique fingerprint when detonated. Gifting a terrorist organization with a nuclear bomb would only net Iran a nuclear holocaust, which they ought to fear, since the USA hold the distinction of being the lone nation to drop a nuclear device on human beings, civilians no less.
If you were an Iranian and the U.S. had invaded two countries on your border, one for a legitimate reason and one for a unlegitimate reason, would you be worried?
The answer is quite obvious to anyone with even a little honesty in them.
While it should make us all a bit UNCOMFORTABLE that "unstable" leaders that rule countries like North Korea or Iran could have the capacity to blow us all to smithereens...who are we to DECIDE who may or may not have nuclear bombs ? I wasn't too comfortable during the "Cold War" knowing the Soviet Union and China had access to the "bomb", though I didn't lose any sleep wondering IF one of them would actually launch one. Knowing India&Pakistan possess the "bomb" isn't a pleasant thought either, BUT we aren't trying to disarm them. France& the U.K. have the "bomb"with our ok I guess...Rumors are out there that Israel has the "bomb" YET we look the other way.
I'm sure the rest of the world ain't all that thrilled that WE have the "bomb"....and thus far have been the ONLY country to ACTUALLY use it.
IF Bush&Co. use THIS as an excuse to "invade" yet another country the RESULTS could produce the ULTIMATE calamity. IMO.
I think the purpose of this rhetoric is to maintain the irrational xenophobic fear that re-elected Puddinhead George and allows the government to lavish mountains of money on defense contractors. The collapse of the Soviet Union threatened to derail the gravy train, so 9/11 was then exploited, if not orchestrated, to justify a perpetual "war on terror". Iran is just the next chapter.
Conspiracy theory? Maybe. But, given the events of the last 4 years, it seems less and less outrageous.
It is not merely a rumor that Israel has "a bomb." They are thought to have between 300 and 500 thermo-nuclear devices. This is essentially a fact.
FOX has simplified the "unnamed EXPERTS on demand" problem for all their commentators.
They issue these "experts" in suppository form, ready for extraction at any moment's need. Some commentators load up more than others, but not much.
THOSE NEO CONS JUST CAN'T WAITE TO GET INTO IRAN NEXT!!!! AND IRAN IS HELPING THERE CAUSE EVERYDAY.
Anybody whom wonders why I start the message with the title "Save Democracy, Vote for a Democrat!" needs only to listen to the above clip.
No Oversight, No Democracy. No Democracy, perpetual war for power under a Republican Rule.
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
Perpetual war is a 'free pass' for the neocons... You heard Trent Lott during the Feingold hearings reiterate that same nonsenical, circular diatribe... "During a time of war no one should question the president!" I'm paraphrasing.... but, essentially, these neocon creeps SEEK perpetual war b/c it gives them an excuse to break the law, ignore the constitution, and steal, steal, steal... (uh, $9,000,000,000 anyone???... and, that's just the OBVIOUS theft... no bid contracts lining the pockets of uber-shearholders like Cheney, Bush, Rummy, et al)...
How can this stop?? Vote for a Democrat in NOVEMBER!
"No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare." -- James Madison
"Kondracke did not inform viewers which "experts" he was referring to."
In Kondracke's defence those experts probably don't exist.
I have come to the conclusion that these people become motor mouths and have no substance.
My bet is that Congress won't. To avoid a declaration of war, either those in power won't call it a war or will say that Bush is vested with the power to attack any country in the world as long as he calls it an action in the war on terror. Democrats need to be standing up right now and demanding that Bush not be able to attack Iran (effectively starting a war) unless Congress explicitly provides the authority. My bet is that the weak spined Democrats will do nothing and let Bush do what he wants.
Liasson sits on the board of Freedom House, which is receiving US gov't money for "candestine activities inside Iran"]