A major U.S. intelligence review has projected that Iran is about a decade away from manufacturing the key ingredient for a nuclear weapon, roughly doubling the previous estimate of five years, according to government sources with firsthand knowledge of the new analysis.
First of all, since Iran denies it is pursuing nuclear weapons, it is nice to know that the Post assumes Tehran is lying. Indeed, though the estimate doesn't say this, the article notes:
Still, a senior intelligence official familiar with the findings said that "it is the judgment of the intelligence community that, left to its own devices, Iran is determined to build nuclear weapons."
Second, I didn't know the Post was all that confident in our intelligence agencies. I thought the intelligence on Iraq's nuclear program was horrible in 2002 and that the administration hasn't properly reformed the nation's intelligence services. No more missing India's nuclear tests; no more missing Libya's nuclear program; or North Korea's until they admitted it; or underestimating Iraq's nuclear progress in 1990. Much has changed in less than three years, apparently.
Third, since the Iranians are admittedly lying about their goal might they not try to hide evidence of progress toward that goal?
Fourth, is a mullah-led Iran with a nuke in ten years qualitatively better than a mullah-led Iran with a nuke in five years? Or two? Or next year? sure, later is better than sooner. But only if the goal is never. Otherwise, we're just dancing on the deck of the Titanic.
Fifth, it isn't at all clear that the Post interpretation of a decade-long zone of safety is accurate given the carefully worded report. Roger Simon isn't convinced by the Post.
Sixth, while the Post is comforted, why are the French insisting the Iran situation is approaching a major international crisis justifying referral to the Security Council?
Seventh, since Iran has cash, what could Iran do next year if it purchased the nuclear materials it cannot produce for another ten years?
And finally, there is this from the article:
Sources said the new timeline also reflects a fading of suspicions that Iran's military has been running its own separate and covert enrichment effort. But there is evidence of clandestine military work on missiles and centrifuge research and development that could be linked to a nuclear program, four sources said.
Doesn't this actually take away a prime reason for not striking Iran's nuclear facilities? I mean, my main concern has been that we don't know where everything is if we bomb. Also, I'm worried that a government determined to go nuclear will get there even if we bomb successfully so that regime change is the only sure cure in the long run.
My bottom line is that I don't think we need to wait for a smoking gun prosecutor's case. Talk like a hate-filled nutball regime and we should take you at your word and take you down. With nukes in the picture, I'm not willing to count on their good will to maintain our safety.
Ok, that was more than one question. I guess the article wasn't as informative as I thought.
UPDATE: More on the report here.
