Obama to Israeli TV: Iran’s a “year or so” away from having a bomb

posted at 7:28 pm on March 14, 2013 by Allahpundit

The AP headlines this story, “Obama says Iran a year away from nuclear weapon.” Read the excerpt below. Is that what he’s saying, or is he saying that it would take them a year to build one if/when they get eventually cracking full-bore on weaponization? Prediction: When 2013 comes and goes without any resolution, diplomatic or military, to Iran’s bomb program, Obama will adopt the latter interpretation of what he said here as proof that he never meant to set a deadline.

Besides, this is a red herring. Netanyahu’s position has always been that, for obvious reasons, the red line can’t be the day that Iran finally has a working bomb. The true red line is when Iran attains “breakout capacity,” i.e. a stockpile of highly-enriched uranium around which a bomb could be built quickly if need be.

“Right now, we think it would take over a year or so for Iran to actually develop a nuclear weapon, but obviously we don’t want to cut it too close,” he said. “So when I’m consulting with Bibi (Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu) as I have over the last several years on this issue, my message to him will be the same as before: ‘If we can resolve it diplomatically that is a more lasting solution. But if not I continue to keep all options on the table.’”…

“What I have also said is that there is a window, not an infinite period of time, but a window of time where we can resolve this diplomatically and it is in all of our interests” to do this, he said. “They (Iran) are not yet at the point, I think, where they have made a fundamental decision to get right with the international community … I do think they are recognizing that there is a severe cost to continue on the path they are on and that there is another door open.”

Just for fun, I went digging through our archives for various expert assessments in the past about how soon it might be before Iran has a bomb. The earliest I found is this Telegraph piece from 2006 citing a think tank who thought an Iranian bomb was “inevitable” (which is likely true) without setting a timeline. A year later, the UN’s nuclear agency concluded that Iran could have a bomb in a year given their installation of 3,000 uranium centrifuges. Another UN report issued a year after that claimed that Iran already had enough uranium to make a bomb but that it hadn’t been enriched to weapons-grade yet. Then, in late 2009, Ehud Barak reportedly told Israeli media that Iran would have the technical capacity to build a bomb within weeks and would likely have a device by 2011.

Skip ahead to August 2012 and Haaretz reported, again via Barak, that the new U.S. National Intelligence Estimate on Iran’s bomb progress showed that Tehran was closer than thought. A few weeks later, a think tank alleged that Iran was two to four months away from having the fissile core needed for a warhead (although it would be many months after that before they could build the warhead itself). But then something changed: Barak said Iran had pulled back from the brink of weaponization by using some of its uranium for civilian purposes. A new Israeli intelligence estimate said they wouldn’t have a bomb until 2015 at the earliest. Iran itself announced just last month that it was converting some uranium to reactor fuel, which shrank their potential bomb supply. None of which is to suggest that any of these assessments were necessarily wrong when given. There’s a lot in play here — sabotage efforts by the U.S. and Israel to slow the program down (e.g. Stuxnet), the debilitating effect of sanctions on Iran’s access to nuke materials, Tehran’s fitful, sporadic interest in negotiations, and of course changing strategic calculations in the post-Arab Spring Middle East. The point is, either we’ve been BS-ed on the timeline all along, which I doubt, or it’s hard to predict from one year to the next just how much progress Iran will have made 12 months later. Which O is counting on, of course. He’d never let himself get pinned down on a deadline to scramble the jets the way it sounds in the excerpt.

Speaking of changing strategies, read this juicy WaPo piece from a few days ago about the jihadist bromance between Iran and Al Qaeda falling apart as they end up on opposite sides of the sectarian black hole in Syria. Iran’s evidently going all in on behalf of Assad: They’re stepping up their arms supply to Damascus and, per Israel’s chief of military intelligence, they now have 50,000 men — no typo — in Syria, with eventual expansion to 100,000 possible. One would think that would make them more eager to build a bomb ASAP. The bomb is their insurance policy that, even if things go badly in Syria, none of their enemies will dare try to destabilize the regime at home. But maybe it’s not as simple as that. Maybe, between the economic squeeze from sanctions and their massive military investment in the Alawites in Syria, they just don’t have the money at the moment to keep the nuclear program rolling at full speed. Priorities.

Update: I’ve been meaning to post this for a few days but it slipped my mind. Have a look at what Damascus looks like after two years of war. The capital was insulated from the fighting for a good long time after the rebellion broke out. Not anymore.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Nothing to see here, just more war. Exactly what you GOP’ers want.

The GOP will betray you

True_King on March 14, 2013 at 7:33 PM

Wow, Syria is fuqqed.

rbj on March 14, 2013 at 7:39 PM

This is wonderful.
Can’t wait until the announces we’re down to 300 nukes. Or zero.

This guy is going to destroy us all.

JellyToast on March 14, 2013 at 7:40 PM

This is wonderful.
Can’t wait until the announces we’re down to 300 nukes. Or zero.

This guy is going to destroy us all.

JellyToast on March 14, 2013 at 7:40 PM

Yessiree. Prezinit Peace Prize.

tru2tx on March 14, 2013 at 7:46 PM

That will be New York before the Dems are done with this country!!

Deano1952 on March 14, 2013 at 7:48 PM

The true red line is when Iran attains “breakout capacity,” i.e. a stockpile of highly-enriched uranium around which a bomb could be built quickly if need be.

Iran has already passed the red line. They should have been taken out years and years ago. Tehran should have been bombed into the stone age in the wake of taking the embassy and the hostages. That city should be bright, shining glass, at this point.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on March 14, 2013 at 7:51 PM

Too ironic

Schadenfreude on March 14, 2013 at 7:53 PM

Here’s what they’ve done to Detroit!

Deano1952 on March 14, 2013 at 7:54 PM

Another result of oba-mao’s incompetent foreign policy, his incompetent liberal Sec State and Sec Def….. and he continues…. The Uniter! The One! The Savior of the World! The world laughs at our impotence.

ultracon on March 14, 2013 at 7:59 PM

Iran’s a “year or so” away from having a bomb

Ya know…. The ‘experts’ have been saying that for at least 7 years now.

Personally, I think they already have some, but want to have many before they start using them. Maybe make them smaller and more reliable first. But Persians have more patience than their Arab brethren, so did not act as soon as they got one.

IMHO only

LegendHasIt on March 14, 2013 at 7:59 PM

Doesn’t matter – can’t afford the fuel to send a carrier out there.

OldEnglish on March 14, 2013 at 7:59 PM

50,000? Seriously? Sooo, add another 50,000 and you could take over Lebanon… or more…

WitchDoctor on March 14, 2013 at 8:05 PM

Doesn’t matter – can’t afford the fuel to send a carrier out there.

OldEnglish on March 14, 2013 at 7:59 PM

We do have a year…

Think Green..

Use wind power.. :)

Electrongod on March 14, 2013 at 8:10 PM

“Right now, we think it would take over a year or so for Iran to actually develop a nuclear weapon, but obviously we don’t want to cut it too close,” he said.

Since George W. Bush’s intelligence was wrong on Iraq, how is Israel supposed to trust what “we think” it would take for Iran to be fully operational? How would the U.S. react if Canada was a rouge nation building a nuclear arsenal and spoke consistently about wiping this nation off the face of the earth. How close then would Obama want to “cut it”?

Rovin on March 14, 2013 at 8:23 PM

We do have a year…

Think Green..

Use wind power.. :)

Electrongod on March 14, 2013 at 8:10 PM

The midget Stalin in New York has a lot of fatties living in his city that he will be happy to sentence to a year in the galleys rowing an aircraft carrier to the Med. It’s for their own good.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on March 14, 2013 at 8:25 PM

…What does it matter?

KOOLAID2 on March 14, 2013 at 8:25 PM

Electrongod on March 14, 2013 at 8:10 PM

Can you imagine the deck lined with a series of rotating sails? :)

OldEnglish on March 14, 2013 at 8:43 PM

“Obama says Iran a year away from nuclear weapon.”

Really? I thought the libs believed that the Iranian program was just for peaceful use of nuclear power. Or was that only true when Bush was president?

GarandFan on March 14, 2013 at 9:12 PM

A whole year? Really?

And that guess is based on what?

farsighted on March 14, 2013 at 9:12 PM

But maybe it’s not as simple as that. Maybe, between the economic squeeze from sanctions and their massive military investment in the Alawites in Syria, they just don’t have the money at the moment to keep the nuclear program rolling at full speed. Priorities.

Optimism.

Because it is usually best to be optimistic about the very real possibility that your enemies can’t do what you have evidence they will soon be able to do, or may already be able to do. Best to assume it will be later rather than sooner, because maybe its true.

The fall back position after that fails is to convince yourself they won’t do something even though they can and have given every indication they will, because maybe its true.

farsighted on March 14, 2013 at 9:23 PM

Really? Someone better tell Bibi Netanyahu. He thinks they are much closer than that. I guess he is just supposed to believe Obama the Magnificent instead of his lying eyes.

totherightofthem on March 14, 2013 at 10:08 PM

Iran has already declared their intention, many times in fact, to destroy Israel. What sense does it make to wait until they might be able to do it before they are dealt with?

redshirt on March 14, 2013 at 10:09 PM

Relax. They are only 10-14 months away from try to destroy Tel Aviv.

AshleyTKing on March 15, 2013 at 12:22 AM

What’s the possibility that Iran already has created a bomb and that the one recently exploded by the NorKs was it?

jnelchef on March 15, 2013 at 3:27 PM

Iran has already declared their intention, many times in fact, to destroy Israel. What sense does it make to wait until they might be able to do it before they are dealt with?

redshirt on March 14, 2013 at 10:09 PM

Even if your comment is correct-it isn’t ,you would support military action because of words?

mags on March 15, 2013 at 4:13 PM

Even if your comment is correct-it isn’t ,you would support military action because of words?
mags on March 15, 2013 at 4:13 PM

If one of your mentally disturbed neighbors, who has hated you for your entire life, threatened to kill your whole family and burn down your house. and has stockpiled guns, knives axes and poisons, and gasoline and matches, would you just ignore it or just try to talk him out of it?

LegendHasIt on March 15, 2013 at 6:59 PM