At a time when certain folks beat the war drums, we need sane journalism.
IMHO your "The UK's anguised claim" and the Guardian's "Britain claimed" suggest that the Queen, Blair or Straw made an official statement.
All the Guardian produces is "A senior Foreign Office official said that while it could take Iran several years to build a serviceable nuclear weapon, it might gain the technical knowhow within months."
a) that source is anonymous and therefore does not speak for Britain. b) It does not sound anguished at all to me, but some haphazard speculation, which was probalby motivated by the journalist's eager questions. He wanted to something shocking in his report.
The media played the war mongering scare game in 2003. They should not do so again.
Has Straw, Blair, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice ever explicitely stated that the National Intelligence Estimated from August 2005 isn't correct and that either the US or the UK believes that Iran will aquire nuclear bombs within less than 10 years? Atlantic Review - A press digest on transatlantic affairs edited by three German Fulbright Alumni
Timetable uncertain Nobody really knows how soon Iran might be able to acquire the technology needed for building nuclear weapons. The Israelis have been talking of about a year before Iran reaches the "point of no return", which they define as an Iranian enrichment capability. A senior British official also said recently that a year might give Iran time to become skilled in enrichment, but that an actual bomb could be five years away. However, the official offered no technical justification for these statements. The International Institute for Strategic Studies in London issued a report in September 2005 which also said that Iran could, if it went all out, build a bomb by about 2010. But the IISS was at the forefront of those saying that Iraq might have weapons of mass destruction, so it has a credibility problem. And that assumes that Iran would go for a bomb, which it says it will not.
Nobody really knows how soon Iran might be able to acquire the technology needed for building nuclear weapons.
The Israelis have been talking of about a year before Iran reaches the "point of no return", which they define as an Iranian enrichment capability.
A senior British official also said recently that a year might give Iran time to become skilled in enrichment, but that an actual bomb could be five years away. However, the official offered no technical justification for these statements.
The International Institute for Strategic Studies in London issued a report in September 2005 which also said that Iran could, if it went all out, build a bomb by about 2010.
But the IISS was at the forefront of those saying that Iraq might have weapons of mass destruction, so it has a credibility problem.
And that assumes that Iran would go for a bomb, which it says it will not.
The U.S. and its British, French and German allies believe Iran intends to build nuclear weapons, and must be stopped before learning how to enrich uranium. They view the ability to operate a series of centrifuges as a technological tipping point. "If you can do one centrifuge, you can do 164," said Emyr Jones Parry, British envoy to the U.N. "If you can do 164, you probably can do many more. That means you have the potential to do full-scale enrichment. If you can do enrichment up to 7%, you can do 80%. If you can do 80%, you can produce a bomb." Policymakers watching Iran's program are making two separate assessments: a technical one based on Iran's ability to enrich uranium and a political judgment on whether Iran is attempting to make a bomb or merely trying to enrich uranium to a low level for civilian purposes, as Iranian officials insist. The three-year time frame for Iran to produce a bomb cited by diplomats is the same as an estimate by former nuclear weapons inspector David Albright. In a paper that will be released Monday by the Institute for Science and International Security, which Albright founded, he and a colleague give a detailed description of how, under a best-case scenario, Iran would be able to manufacture enough highly enriched uranium for a crude nuclear device in three years. Albright cautioned, however, that Iran faces many technical hurdles it might find difficult to overcome. Gary S. Samore, a former nonproliferation expert at the National Security Council, now at the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, also said it was far more likely that the Iranians would encounter problems and that it could take them four to five years.
"If you can do one centrifuge, you can do 164," said Emyr Jones Parry, British envoy to the U.N. "If you can do 164, you probably can do many more. That means you have the potential to do full-scale enrichment. If you can do enrichment up to 7%, you can do 80%. If you can do 80%, you can produce a bomb."
Policymakers watching Iran's program are making two separate assessments: a technical one based on Iran's ability to enrich uranium and a political judgment on whether Iran is attempting to make a bomb or merely trying to enrich uranium to a low level for civilian purposes, as Iranian officials insist.
The three-year time frame for Iran to produce a bomb cited by diplomats is the same as an estimate by former nuclear weapons inspector David Albright.
In a paper that will be released Monday by the Institute for Science and International Security, which Albright founded, he and a colleague give a detailed description of how, under a best-case scenario, Iran would be able to manufacture enough highly enriched uranium for a crude nuclear device in three years. Albright cautioned, however, that Iran faces many technical hurdles it might find difficult to overcome.
Gary S. Samore, a former nonproliferation expert at the National Security Council, now at the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, also said it was far more likely that the Iranians would encounter problems and that it could take them four to five years.
Andy Oppenheimer, a weapons expert at Jane's Information Group, said the missile test could be an indication that Iran has MIRV capability. MIRV refers to multiple independently targetable re-entry vehicles, which are intercontinental ballistic missiles with several warheads, each of which could be directed to a different target. "From the description, it could be a MIRV. If you are saying that from a single missile, separate warheads can be independently targeted then yes, this is significant," he said. "But we don't know how accurate the Iranians are able to make their missiles yet, and this is a crucial point," Oppenheimer said. "If the missile is adaptable for nuclear warheads, then they are well on the way. But they have not made a nuclear warhead yet. The current estimates are it could take five years."
"From the description, it could be a MIRV. If you are saying that from a single missile, separate warheads can be independently targeted then yes, this is significant," he said.
"But we don't know how accurate the Iranians are able to make their missiles yet, and this is a crucial point," Oppenheimer said. "If the missile is adaptable for nuclear warheads, then they are well on the way. But they have not made a nuclear warhead yet. The current estimates are it could take five years."
Is it fair to say that media has been more scaremongering than the governments when it comes to timetables? Atlantic Review - A press digest on transatlantic affairs edited by three German Fulbright Alumni
Also, there is no shortage of government officials (including an "envoy to the UN"), former officials and "experts" willing to go on the record on this. Some of their statements are actually rididulously worded, which only makes matters worse. guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
