Iran - How Long To Go Nuclear?

The Times has a fascinating article on Iran's probable nuclear strategy and the problems it may face in attempting to implement it.

Estimates of Iranian capability and strategy vary, but - per the British International Institute of Strategic Studies, Iran is probably not interested in sprinting to the nuclear finish line and building a one or two weapons, although if they went down that path they might be able to produce a bomb by 2010.  Instead, Iran is developing a large, complicated industrial infrastructure that, upon completion, should enable them to build roughly a dozen bombs a year.  The critical facility is a large underground uranium enrichment site that is designed to employ as many as 50,000 centrifuges.  On this timetable, and if technical problems can be overcome, Iran should be capable of making weapons after a decade.

Exhaustive detail is also available in this Oct 2005 study (322 page .pdf), "Getting Ready for a Nuclear-Ready Iran", by the Strategic Studies Institute (described here).  They mention a 12 to 48 month horizon before Iran can acquire a nuclear bomb.

Well.  We may have some time, and we hope that President Hillary (or President Obama) deals with this wisely.

But let's also hark back to this earlier Times assessment of our gloomy military options against Iran.  A key point was that whatever we do, whether it is sanctions or military strikes or something else, we do not want to provoke a patriotic backlash and drive the Iranian people and their current government closer together.

Ten years is not a lot of time, but it may be enough time for the reigning mullahs to be tossed out.  That said, it would be nice to have a credible Plan B.

Comments

[clarice]

This kind of intelligence is notoriously unreliable. (Think Pakistan and Libya).

[AllenS]

Hillary can't even keep Bill in line, how would she handle a crisis of nuclear Iran? What if Iran made that same statement to the world, and laughed at her for being such a pushover? What if Iran was media savvy enough to call her a member of the vast left wing conspiracy, and nobody should take her seriously?

[R C Dean]

Not sure why Iran can't get the all-inportant first bomb out the door in that 1 - 2 year time frame, while still building the capacity to crank out dozens down the road. It is implied in the post that these are mutually exclusive, but I don't see why.

Indeed, preserving the ability to do the latter probably depends on the former. Nuclear weapons have quite the declining marginal return. The first one is all-important, the tenth one not even a footnote.

[Cecil Turner]

This kind of intelligence is notoriously unreliable. (Think Pakistan and Libya).

Yes, especially if you aren't seeing an active program and assume it isn't there. Ten years also appears to be a very pessimistic estimate. There's a fairly recent NDU paper (Reassessing the Implications of a Nuclear-Armed Iran 786KB .pdf) with a section on the timetable. They concluded best case was 2007, with 2010 or so being more realistic.

[kim]

I'm just paranoid enough to believe that this is Times editorial process warming up the rubes for 'Republicans taking us into an unnecessary war'. They are only turning on the centrifuges now, because they are close. With the fissile material they could build one now. And Ahmadinejad is capital C Crazy.
=========================================

[Dwilkers]

These estimates come from the same national intelligence system that gave us Joe Wilson, among other things, so I won't bet the ranch on it.

[maryrose]

I'm hopeful that somehow insurgency will come from within and overthrow Ahmandinejad
and that Russia will stop giving those in Iran mixed signals.

[TM]

I'm not sure I see why either, but my guess is, after Iran builds a bomb they expect some sort of reaction, so they might prefer to have the capability to build twenty relatively quickly.

[Cecil Turner]

. . . they might prefer to have the capability to build twenty relatively quickly.

A cheerful thought: the first ten or so are unlikely to find their way into the hands of Hezbollah, as the mullahs would presumably be reluctant to part with the capability once acquired. That consideration is considerably diminished by number 20 or so.

[richard mcenroe]

Maryrose — And I'm hopeful that nice young hobbit fellow will throw the ring into the volcano. But that's nothing to bet a foreign policy on, and it's a bad idea to let things get to that point.

[maryrose]

My understanding is that we are giving some inner insurgents money to somehow begin an overthrow. Am I wrong about this?

[Sue]

I'm with Dwilkers on this one. Why should we now think the intelligence that gave us a slam dunk with WMDs is now right?

[clarice]

OT but a worthwhile development--America's top law schools get smacked down unanimously by the SCOTUS:

quote]WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday that colleges that accept federal money must allow military recruiters on campus, despite university objections to the Pentagon's "don't ask, don't tell" policy on gays.

Justices rejected a free-speech challenge from law school professors who claimed they should not be forced to associate with military recruiters or promote their campus appearances.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the decision, which was unanimous.

Law schools had become the latest battleground over the "don't ask, don't tell" policy allowing gay men and women to serve in the military only if they keep their sexual orientation to themselves.

Many universities forbid the participation of recruiters from public agencies and private companies that have discriminatory policies.[/quote] http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,186936,00.html

[noah]

My favorite plan for taking out the Iran enrichment facility: a fake ten ton meteor that just happens to hit it! Tough luck guys!

[noah]

Clarice, don't you think it was weird that the law schools actually thought that they were going to prevail? Doesn't that say a lot about the general quality of their reasoning?

[Davebo]

These estimates come from the same national intelligence system that gave us Joe Wilson, among other things, so I won't bet the ranch on it.

Wow! British intelligence "gave us" Joe Wilson?

Obviously intelligence is a very relative thing.

[Gary Maxwell]

So what none of these prestigious law schools had any Con Law profs that could explain it to them that the argument was a loser? What was the history of decisions along the way Clarice? You know district court, appellate court and any up and down yo yoing that sometimes goes on until it found its way to the highest court. If Ginsburg could not see her way to accept their argument I would say it must have been berry berry weak. (As in : "beisbol has been berry berry gooood to me.")

[Rick Ballard]

"I'm just paranoid enough to believe that this is Times editorial process warming up the rubes for 'Republicans taking us into an unnecessary war'."

Yep. I blogged on the Telgraph's oppositional take yesterday.

Given the Times deep experience in dealing with lies and liars internally, I wonder what sort of assurances they would be satisfied with coming from Iran?

[clarice]

Volokh conspiracy is probably the best place to go for an explanation of the lower court rulings..As I recall, Yale led the way on this. I think they used the "don't ask don't tell" dodge to keep the military out, but couldn't bear to lose federal funds to make their superior morality point. PHEH on them. Now I hope the same folks who made room for a Taliban spokesman as a student at Yale (via a CBS contract producer it seems) while keeping ROTC off campus, actually give up the federal money. I hope their alumni withhold contributions, too.

I so hate to have people exercise dubious moral judgements on someone else's dime.

[clarice]

Rick--Michael Barone has an excellent article on the how the left and the mandarinate are fighting tooth and nail against any linkage being made between AQ and Saddam--the former because it strengthens the case for the war; the latter (like Pillar ) because it challenges their blinkered world view.Jay Epstein, for example, does the best analysis of the credible Atta in Prague story which BTW the NYT did everything to discredit..Same thing with the Iran nukes, is my guess..

[clarice]

Here's a cite to the Barone piece. http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/michaelbarone/2006/03/06/188672.html

[TM]

Wow! British intelligence "gave us" Joe Wilson?

I know some think it was French Intelligence, but I am pretty sure the CIA sent him to Niger. I even read his wife was involved in his selection.

[Gary Maxwell]

I even read his wife was involved in his selection.

Can you even believe what is found on the interent! Too bad they dont have the layers of review and editing and fact checking found in the broadcast and print media.

[Sue]

I even read his wife was involved in his selection.

Lies. And damn lies. She had nothing...I repeat...nothing to do with sending Wilson to Niger. He went at the behest of the VP. Anything else you have read is lies...damn lies. The CIA looked around and found the best person to answer the serious question asked by the VP. Joe Wilson.

Which makes Dwilkers point even more valid.

[clarice]

Prof Kerr (a t Volokh) on the decision in Rumsfeld v. FAIR http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2006_03_05-2006_03_11.shtml

[Gary Maxwell]

Clarice

did you see this via Powerline? A quote from the law school dean at George Mason. Its delicious!

Dean Polsby had this to say to Power Line about the decision:

This is really a stinging rebuke, not only to FAIR but to an entire industry that has become complacent and self-indulgent. Many law professors really do believe, with the late Justice Brennan, that their own strongly-held policy preferences are all encoded somehow in the Constitution. This is a timely reminder that it just isn’t so.

First of a hoped for string of "stinging rebukes" from the New Chief Justice.

[owl]

Speculate all ya like......if all else fails with Iran.....I vote we let Bolton handle this one. If we could clone Bolton, 90% of the world's problems would disapear (no I did not say 90% of the world).

TM...We may have some time, and we hope that President Hillary (or President Obama) deals with this wisely.

Try it this way...."we hope that President Hillary and VP Obama deal with this wisely." They run his JFK sounding ad, just enough to keep it in play. Even I admit it sounds like JFK. I betcha McCain thought so, also.

[maryrose]

clarice;
Read the Barone piece this morning; he's one of the few voices I trust because he always hits the nail on the head -no spin- just the facts.Excellent article-As soon as all notes aretranslated - treasure trove of reality will hit.

[clarice]

I missed that. Polsby wrote an amicus brief in that case.

But Roberts is very funny(besides being very logical and clear-thinking):

The Chief Justice shows some brilliant and biting wit, shredding the argument of the law schools in this excerpt from the opinion:
"Nothing about recruiting suggests that law schools agree with any speech by recruiters, and nothing in the Solomon Amendment restricts what the law schools may say about the military's policies. We have held that high school students can appreciate the difference between speech a school sponsors and speech the school permits because legally required to do so, pursuant to an equal access policy. Surely students have not lost that ability by the time they get to law school."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

www.michellemalkin.com/

[Sue]

Clarice,

LOL. "Surely students have not lost that ability by the time they get to law school." It would seem a Roberts' court is going to be fun.

[maryrose]

Classic comment by Judge Roberts- As a high school counselor I know full well student's ability to discern the difference. Let them think for themselves and respect their reasoning abilities.

[JM Hanes]

Roberts rocks! Roberts rules!

[Gary Maxwell]

And then there is this bit of wit from Professor Bainbridge:

It will be interesting to see what my colleagues here at UCLA decide to do now. Will we see signs outside the military recruiter's interview room saying "Abandon all politically correct ideals ye who enter here"?

Give me that latin or ancient Italian or whatever it was again. Is he paraphasing Dante here? Too too funny. He seems to think the law faculty as a whole will not be pleased at UCLA.

[R C Dean]

my guess is, after Iran builds a bomb they expect some sort of reaction, so they might prefer to have the capability to build twenty relatively quickly.

But once they have one, the "reactions" will be limited to the purely diplomatic, which is to say, ineffectual. No one's going to start a shooting war with the mullahs once they go nuclear.

[clarice]

He's paraphrasing Dante Lasciate ogni esperanza voi che entrante (Abandon hope all ye who enter here.)
Prof Althouse defending the U of Wis's law school role in thie case as a symbolic gesture. I like her but reminded her my cut off of contributions to the general fund raising of the school was, too.

I now only give to specific programs which I believe in and which aren't managed by liars (the admissions office jiggering to meet diversity goals) and terminally clueless professors.

[Rick Ballard]

"I now only give to specific programs which I believe in and which aren't managed by liars (the admissions office jiggering to meet diversity goals) and terminally clueless professors."

No donations this year, huh?

Meebe we need a TAC scholarship fund? I'll manage that one too (gratis, of course, only normal operating expenses, etc.)

KGB

[clarice]

We dug around and found some small programs that are separately managed, but thanks for the offer...

[richard mcenroe]

" Nuclear weapons have quite the declining marginal return. The first one is all-important, the tenth one not even a footnote."

Unless, of course, you live in cities 2 thru 10.

[richard mcenroe]

"We have held that high school students can appreciate the difference between speech a school sponsors and speech the school permits because legally required to do so, pursuant to an equal access policy. Surely students have not lost that ability by the time they get to law school."

Clarice — Isn't the purpose of the law schools in question to destroy that ability?

[clarice]

My grandfather once told me after I said my youngest cousin was smart,"You were all smart when you were little. The longer you went to school, the dumber you all got."

[larwyn]

Dinocrat offers a chilling senario:
Ahmadinejad:world class blowhard or man with a plan?
.........
For example, what would happen if Ahmadinejad were to explode a couple of Iran’s unimportant facilities and, in the manner of the Reichstag fire, blame the attack in Israel and the United States, and then claim that his mining of the Strait of Hormuz was a defensive act in reprisal for Zionist and Crusader aggression? We all saw the violence in Iraq after the bombing of the Al Askari mosque. What would happen if Ahmeadinejad were to couple an attack on some Potemkin Iranian nuclear support facility with the bombing of some Islamic holy site, and blame everything on the US and Israel? Would the ensuing violence and unrest not exceed that of the cartoon riots? Portraying Iran and Islam as victims of Western oppression, and himself as defender of the Ummah could create some chaos in the streets of mayor European cities, and create a public relations nightmare for the United States, particularly with the assistance of the craven MSM.

Jack Risko is one of my ultimate favorites. He's stolen my heart with the charts,maps,real figures and true valuable statistics that
illustrate his insightful posts.

Pray Jack's not the only one thinking about this.

[ajacksonian]

Credible Plan B: Point out the obvious Casus Belli that exists, plus the investigators into the Beirut bombings to add two more to the charge list and declare Iran a hostile nation that has committed acts of war upon us and we may do as we please with them.

Of course that would mean that we actually uphold and respect the laws between nations and expect any, even revolutionary governments to do the same or give fair warning we are not welcome after a change in government. Or that parties directed by a Foreign Government to do harm upon US territory is causing an Act of War upon us to which we may respond as we please.

Of course that would take an Administration with guts and a People ready to defend themselves. Luckily, there is no statute of limitations on that, so we can await that day and hope it is before one of our cities disappears or becomes depopulated by another such act.

[Cecil Turner]

Boy, this is a shocker [not]:

Iran threatened the United States with "harm and pain" Wednesday for its role in hauling Tehran before the U.N. Security Council over its nuclear program and for plans to push fellow council members to impose tough measures against the Islamic republic.