About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Asman: Getting 30,000 centrifuges needed to process highly enriched uranium "is going to be a cakewalk" for Iran; nuclear experts disagree

April 25, 2006 1:09 pm ET

Trouble viewing clip? Download: QT | WMV

SUMMARY: Fox News host David Asman claimed without basis that "getting to the 30,000 centrifuges" Iran needs to produce a significant amount of weapons-grade nuclear material "is going to be a cakewalk," adding: "Are we going to have to wait until there's a mushroom cloud over Jerusalem before we take a hit in Iran?" But The New York Times noted that Western nuclear analysts have determined that Iran "still lack[s] the parts and materials to make droves of the highly complex [centrifuges] which can spin uranium into fuel rich enough for use in nuclear reactors or atom bombs."

13 Comments

On the April 21 edition of Fox News' The Big Story with John Gibson, Forbes on Fox host David Asman claimed without basis that "getting to the 30,000 centrifuges" Iran needs to produce a significant amount of weapons-grade nuclear material "is going to be a cakewalk." Asman sought to bolster the case made by an April 21 Wall Street Journal editorial suggesting that President Bush must confront Iran's nuclear program sooner rather than later, and wondered: "Are we going to have to wait until there's a mushroom cloud over Jerusalem before we take a hit in Iran?" But as an April 13 New York Times article noted, Western nuclear analysts have determined that Iran "still lack[s] the parts and materials to make droves of the highly complex [centrifuges] which can spin uranium into fuel rich enough for use in nuclear reactors or atom bombs."

Discussing the Journal editorial with Gibson, Asman referred to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's April 11 announcement that Iran had successfully enriched uranium, stating that Iran has "the complete cycle now, from mining the uranium ore to the hexafluoride to getting the centrifuges working." He added that "[t]hey still have to line up several thousand centrifuges. But apparently, the most difficult task was the last one that was taken, and they have done that, and getting to the 30,000 centrifuges is going to be a cakewalk after that."

But far from being a "cakewalk," the April 12 Times article reported, nuclear experts described the difficult process Iran would have to next undertake as follows:

It took Tehran 21 years of planning and 7 years of sporadic experiments, mostly in secret, to reach its current ability to link 164 spinning centrifuges in what nuclear experts call a cascade. Now, the analysts said, Tehran has to achieve not only consistent results around the clock for many months and years but even higher degrees of precision and mass production. It is as if Iran, having mastered a difficult musical instrument, now faces the challenge of making thousands of them and creating a very large orchestra that always plays in tune and in unison.

An April 12 Washington Post article similarly noted that "[p]roducing amounts [of nuclear fuel] large enough to power an electrical plant or -- if enriched long enough -- to make a bomb would require several thousand centrifuges, orchestrated in cascades whose constant operation poses significant technical challenges" for the Iranians.

The Times also quoted Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) president David Albright's assessment that Ahmadinejad was "hyping" Iran's uranium enrichment, as well as the determination by Anthony H. Cordesman and Khalid R. al-Rodhan of the Center for Strategic and International Studies that the announcement by Iran was "little more than vacuous political posturing." Also, on the April 11 edition of PBS' The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, Albright noted that Iran is "a long way from mastering gas centrifuges," adding that "[t]hey really are just starting the process of learning to operate this cascade."

Furthermore, an ISIS paper entitled "The Clock is Ticking, But How Fast?" by Albright and Corey Hinderstein noted that "in total, Iran is estimated to have in-hand enough good components for at least an additional 1,000 to 2,000 centrifuges" beyond their current capability. The paper also noted that "Iran can be expected to face serious technical hurdles before it can produce significant quantities of enriched uranium."

Finally, Asman's false assessment regarding Iran's centrifuge capibility allowed him to wrongly conclude that previous long-term estimates of Iran's nuclear timeline were off, claiming "it may be within a year before they actually get the workings of a [nuclear] bomb put together." Gibson quickly corrected Asman, stating that Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte recently said that "it's years and years and years" before it will have enough fissile material for a bomb. And while the U.S. government has estimated that Iran could make a single nuclear weapon in 5 to 10 years, the ISIS paper found that a "worst-case assessment" would be that Iran could have its first nuclear bomb in 2009.

From the April 21 edition of Fox News' The Big Story with John Gibson:

GIBSON: An editorial in a recent Wall Street Journal suggests President Bush must confront the threat now and not let the standoff roll over to the next administration. It says there is no more clear and present danger than Iran's nuke programs. Nearly half of the U.S. believes we will eventually have to take military action against Iran, according to our new Fox poll. David Asman, host of Forbes on Fox, joins us now. The Wall Street Journal says our lives depend on it.

ASMAN: Yeah, you can't mix The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times in the same breath. They're very different. Now, of course, these are my old employers. I used to work for the editorial page. They're making a case that, you know, the longer we wait, the harder it's going to get. They have got the complete cycle now, from mining the uranium ore to the hexafluoride to getting the centrifuges working. They still have to line up several thousand centrifuges. But apparently, the most difficult task was the last one that was taken, and they've done that, and getting to the 30,000 centrifuges is going to be a cakewalk after that. So they are saying we cannot wait. The longer we wait, the harder it's going to get. They're making the case that was made in 2001, 2002, 2003, up to the Iraq war. The question is, will they be able to make the case to go to war with Iran? It's going to be a tough sell.

GIBSON: The president has to decide whether to do this before he leaves office. Is the Iranian bomb going to be upon us so quickly that some president is going to have to do something very soon?

ASMAN: Well, despite the fact that they were bragging in a really ridiculous way last week with that charade that they had, where they all got up in the party in saying how wonderful it is we all have the nuclear weapon at our hand. They still are a lot closer than we thought. We were saying our best estimates were that 10 years was as long as it was going to take. Now they're saying it may be within a year before they actually get the workings of a bomb put together. So that, certainly, on Bush's watch.

GIBSON: Well, Negroponte yesterday or the day before -- he's the head of our spook service. He said it's years and years and years.

ASMAN: I know. And that leads to another question of not only will they be able to convince the public, but will they be able -- these people who are in favor of taking care of it sooner rather than later, will they be able to get the ducks in order within the Bush administration? There are questions about now if the Bush administration is as divided as ever before? And Negroponte certainly didn't settle that debate with his comments.

GIBSON: Has Iraq made it impossible for the United States to attack Iran?

ASMAN: That's a great question. The bar is so high now, because of the failure to find WMDs in Iraq, that is going to take an awful lot -- I think before we act, we may have to see evidence of a nuclear weapon, in which case it'll be too late. They'll already have it. It is sort of like the North Korean -- the same thing happened with North Korea. Apparently now, we realize they have it. And we had to wait for that to happen.

GIBSON: North Korea wasn't promising to wipe anybody off the map.

ASMAN: Exactly. And that leads to the question of Israel. Are we going to have to wait until there's a mushroom cloud over Jerusalem before we take a hit in Iran? And that's an open question.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by open_mind (April 25, 2006 1:17 pm ET)
         

      That should read:

      Why is it that every national security debate begins and ends with neocon imagery of a mushroom cloud over insert country/city here.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by Intergalatic Purveyor (April 25, 2006 2:05 pm ET)
           

        They want to scare the c$%! out of people. It worked with Iraq and WMD, drone planes will hit us in 45 minutes, blah blah blah.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by snoopy (April 25, 2006 3:10 pm ET)
             

          They want armageddon! Nothing like an attack on Isreal to precipitate the end of the world (and fulfillment of the prophecy!)

          Report Abuse
          • Author by goalball (April 27, 2006 9:43 am ET)
               

            You lefties should pray prophecy isn't fulfilled! Cause if you knew anything about it, you would realize it isn't about "destruction of the world". Although liberals are doing everything in their power to get us closer to that point, I'm sure when it actually happens they will blame everyone else.

            Report Abuse
    • Author by crimson2 (April 25, 2006 1:50 pm ET)
         

      Well, this is yet another example of the admin and their supporters drumming up fear in order to preserve their power. Iran is a threat, but the neocons are blowing everything out of proportion.

      MMFA should also look at a guy named Gregory Copley, a supposed intelligence expert. He was on FOX News Dayside yesterday. He claimed that AL Qaeda had operatives and weapons on location at the Republican National Convention, but for some reason decided not to attack. He also claimed that AQ had smuggled a suitcase nuclear weapon over the Mexican border.

      A quick Google search sees that he's a proponent of the WMD to Syria theory.

      But that theory, the suitcase nuke, and the AL Qaeda decision to "wait" to attack lack a certain logic. Why would Saddam ship WMDs out of the country when he knew he was to be invaded? Why not use them? And if Al Qaeda is waiting to attack with their suitcase bomb, what could they possibly be waiting for? The longer they wait, the more likely they will be caught.

      Of course, Copley provided no facts or sources for his allegations.

      Just more scare tactics to drum up fear and support since they can't get support through actionor policy.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by jmj (April 25, 2006 3:46 pm ET)
         

      All these chickenhawks revving up the same scare machine as in 2003 in order to sewnd somebody else's kids into the next meatgrinder. War is just dandy since it will never personally hit their homes. Dirty bastards.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by rynv1 (April 25, 2006 4:00 pm ET)
         

      Well, it looks like FOX is already drumming up support for a possible war with Iran. When the U.S. invaded Iraq three years ago, FOX constantly resorted to scare tactics in order to build support for the war. Never mind the fact that the United Nations Security Council said that Iraq had no WMDs; FOX constantly resorted to fear and intimidation to make viewers believe that Saddam was a threat. The same appears to be happening with Iran. Despite all the evidence to the contrary, FOX will continue to use G.O.P. talking points, along with Wall Street Journal editorials, to try to scare viewers into thinking that a nuclear attack from Iran is imminent. I anticipate Hannity and O'Reilly making the same assertion about Iran in the following days. Knowing O'Reilly, he will say that he got his information from one of the "trustwothy" FOX military analysts. I guess honest and objective reporting just went to hell...

      Report Abuse
    • Author by mjh (April 25, 2006 6:07 pm ET)
         

      Why must every NeoCon description of the degree of difficulty of something - whether its another nation's bomb-making capability or the US military's success in an invasion - be described as a "cakewalk?"

      Report Abuse
    • Author by maxldmaster (April 25, 2006 7:10 pm ET)
         

      the latest prediction for when Iran gets a nuclear weapon is 10 years. China is going to be a greater threat to United States by then. So why don't we talk about nuking them and stopping them from taking our jobs and oil.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by oscar the grouch (April 25, 2006 8:08 pm ET)
         

      would be a relative "cakewalk" but still a difficult path.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by truthseeker77 (April 26, 2006 12:13 am ET)
         

      I was totally unaware that Negroponte had said a week ago that Iran was "years" from being capable to develope a nuclear bomb. Did this even appear in the major newspapers and TV shows?

      Report Abuse
    • Author by freedom4all (April 26, 2006 3:14 am ET)
         

      I.E.: "We might as well try to sell the next package of death right now, while 33% of the audience is still suckered into believing the story."

      Report Abuse
    • Author by freedom4all (April 26, 2006 3:31 am ET)
         

      This guy is just doing intellectual master-baiting in public:

      "[...] we cannot wait. The longer we wait, the harder it's going to get."

      "they all got up"

      "we all have the nuclear weapon at our hand."

      "The bar is so high now"

      And the winner for gay-porn metaphore of the day: "Are we going to have to wait until there's a mushroom cloud over Jerusalem before we take a hit in Iran?"

      No wonder people call it the F-word channel.

      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.