Six months to an Iranian bomb?

Posted By Eric Hundman Wednesday, June 25, 2008 - 4:20 PM Share

SAMUEL KUBANI/AFP/Getty Images

Last Saturday, International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei sat for an Arabic-language interview on the al-Arabiya network. During a discussion about Iran, ElBaradei was asked how much time the country would need to "produce" a nuclear weapon. "It would need at least six months to one year," he replied.

Even though this estimate has been tossed around for years (particularly by Israel), given some caveats it is still within a generally accepted range of possible timelines for an Iranian bomb. ElBaradei's statement is surprising, though, because previously he has "consistently said that it would take Iran from three to eight years to make a weapon."

This sharp rhetorical shift could be the result of new findings about Iran that have not yet been released. Perhaps ElBaradei knows something we don't and he just slipped. It is possible, for example, that large numbers of Iran's third-generation centrifuges (the IR-3) are installed in secret locations. The IR-3 can probably enrich uranium significantly faster than Iran's current models and could reduce the time needed to produce enough material for a bomb. Tehran has only installed a handful of these centrifuges as far as we know, though, and is apparently still having trouble with them.

It seems far more likely that this was a signal to Iran that patience is running out. ElBaradei trained as a diplomat, and gaffe-prone individuals almost never rise to his level. He was also careful to emphasize that the threat is not imminent, noting specifically that making a weapon so quickly would require Iran to expel inspectors and withdraw from the Nonproliferation Treaty. In a further sign that the IAEA is willing to increase pressure, its most recent report (pdf) on Tehran's nuclear program expressed -- in unusually blunt fashion -- growing frustration within the agency at Iran’s "persistent stonewalling" and accused Tehran of withholding important information on alleged nuclear weapons programs.

So far, Iran has judged that fostering uncertainty about its nuclear weapons program would divide the international community and defuse pressure for stronger punitive actions. Hopefully, the IAEA's shift signals that Tehran has failed to divide and conquer.

EXPLORE:NUKE NOTES, MIDDLE EAST, INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS, IRAN, NUKES
 
Facebook|Twitter|Reddit

HASS

4:18 PM ET

June 25, 2008

That's not what he said

Of course, that's not what ElBaradei said at all, is it? First, he said that Iran's nuclear program was not a threat did not warrant being bombed. Then he said that if Iran is bombed anyway, the Iranians could decide to withdraw from the NPT - at which point they could make enough enriched uranium for a single bomb (not the nuke itself - just the uranium) in a minimum of 6 months to a year. There is no reason to promote speculation about secret enrichment sites etc, instead of accurately portraying what ElBaradei actually said.
 

HASS

4:21 PM ET

June 25, 2008

WHat "persistent stonewalling"??

And the latest IAEA report makes no mention of any "persistent stonewalling" -- in fact it explicitly said that Iran's enrichment facilities are all operating under IAEA safeguards as required, and were even the subject of 14 surprise inspections. Iran did refuse additional inspections beyong its legal obligations -- but has not "stonewalled" anything. If you're referring to the "alleged studies" that the US says was carried out by Iran, note that the same IAEA report said that it had no evidence itself to back up the allegations either, but that Iran was cooperating with answering those questions too.
 

HASS

4:24 PM ET

June 25, 2008

IAEA report being misrepresented here

I suggest reading up on how the media mischaracterized the IAEA report, and so your link accusing Iran of "persistent stonewalling" is inaccurate (shame on you for not checking): http://blog.psaonline.org/2008/05/29/mea-culpa-time-all-over-again/ http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=22&media_view_id=10228
 

ERIC HUNDMAN

11:31 AM ET

June 26, 2008

Re: IAEA report being misrepresented

Hi Hass,

Thanks for reading and taking the time to comment. I'd like to clarify my post in response to a couple points you made:

1) "Of course, that's not what ElBaradei said at all, is it?"

I based my representation of El Baradei's views on a Middle East Media Research Institute translation (linked to in my post) of El Baradei's comments in the interview; if you know of another that differs significantly in wording I would be interested to see it.

2) "And the latest IAEA report makes no mention of any 'persistent stonewalling'"

You are correct that the IAEA report did not explicitly mention stonewalling. However, the AFP article I linked to cited a "senior official close to" the IAEA who confirmed that frustration with Iran's "persistent stonewalling" (AFP's wording) was growing inside the agency. Nonproliferation experts also found the tone of the actual IAEA report to be unusually critical; it seems reasonable that this was the external manifestation of internal IAEA frustration with Iran.

Please feel free to email if you have any further questions.
 

HASS

12:29 PM ET

June 26, 2008

1- The MEMRI transcript

1- The MEMRI transcript plainly said (before being removed) that 6 month was the time to "obtain highly-enriched uranium in sufficient quantities for a single nuclear weapon" -- not to build a bomb. Incidentally, the Israelis have been forecasting an Iranian bomb every 2 years for the last 25 years, as mentioned in Dr Trita Parsi's book. See for example Anthony Cordesman's article: http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2006/08/24/bad-intelligence-but-in-which-direction/ In fact, Jane's predicted a nuclear weapon "within two years." That was in 1984. 2- So the "persistent stonewalling" you mention is not what the IAEA says, but what some anonymous person supposedly told a reporter -- and that's what you're relying on, rather than actually reading the IAEA report itself? Nice.
 

HASS

12:36 PM ET

June 26, 2008

Also, note that ElBaradei

Also, note that ElBaradei presented the 6 month time frame as a hypothetical, not that Iran is currently working on a bomb as your title suggests:

" If Iran wants to turn to the production of nuclear weapons, it must leave the NPT, expel the IAEA inspectors, and then it would need at least, considering the number of centrifuges and the quantity of uranium Iran has...It would need at least six months to one year," ElBaradei said. "Therefore, Iran will not be able to reach the point where we would wake up one morning to an Iran with a nuclear weapon," he said."

So enough with the scaremongering about how an Iranian nuclear weapon is imminent, OK?

 

ERIC HUNDMAN

10:55 AM ET

June 27, 2008

MEMRI transcript

For the sake of clarity, here is the relevant section of the MEMRI transcript I linked to in my post:

"Muhammad ElBaradei: If Iran wants to turn to the production of nuclear weapons, it must leave the NPT, expel the IAEA inspectors, and then it would need at least... Considering the number of centrifuges and the quantity of uranium Iran has...

Interviewer: How much time would it need?

Muhammad ElBaradei: It would need at least six months to one year. Therefore, Iran will not be able to reach the point where we would wake up one morning to an Iran with a nuclear weapon.

Interviewer: Excuse me, I would like to clarify this for our viewers. If Iran decides today to expel the IAEA from the country, it will need six months...

Muhammad ElBaradei: Or one year, at least...

Interviewer:... to produce [nuclear] weapons?

Muhammad ElBaradei: It would need this period to produce a weapon, and to obtain highly-enriched uranium in sufficient quantities for a single nuclear weapon."
 

HASS

7:49 AM ET

July 8, 2008

Elbaradei corrected MEMRI mistranslation

According to CQ Politics:

Melissa Fleming, a spokeswoman for the International Atomic Energy Agency, says that IAEA chief Mohammed ElBaradei has not changed his estimate on how quickly Iran could develop a nuclear weapon, and he had no intention to revise any previous time lines. -

"And he was referring only to nuclear material," not weapons, she said.

"What he would want emphasized are the caveats," she said, particularly ElBaradei's view that Iran could not secretly weaponize enriched uranium unless it withdrew from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and kicked out the IAEA inspectors.

http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/spytalk/2008/07/elbaradei-i-didnt-mean-to-revi.html
 

HASS

11:47 PM ET

July 15, 2008

El Baradei corrected this

According to IAEA spokesman Melissal Flemming, ElBaradei was misunderstood. He meant that Iran would need a min. of 6 mos. to obtain highly-enriched uranium, not to build a bomb. In fact, according to Flemming, his main point was that Iran cannot be a short-term nuclear threat.
 

Passport, FP’s flagship blog, brings you news and hidden angles on the biggest stories of the day, as well as insights and under-the-radar gems from around the world.

Read More