IAEA Chief: Iran Could Make Nuke In 6 Months

IAEA Chief: Iran Could Make Nuke In 6 Months

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (CBS) ― The head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency said Iran could create a nuclear weapon in six months.

IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei spoke on Al-Arabiya television on June 20, discussing Iran's nuclear program, and the potential for the Middle Eastern country to produce a nuclear weapon.

"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.

His interviewer then asked "If Iran decides today to expel the IAEA from the country, it will need six months to produce [nuclear] weapons?"

The IAEA chief answered, "It would need this period to produce a weapon, and to obtain highly-enriched uranium in sufficient quantities for a single nuclear weapon."

The ElBaradei interview was conducted one day after reports emerged of a large-scale military exercise by Israel.

U.S. officials said they thought the Israeli exercises were meant to warn Iran of Israel's abilities to hit its nuclear sites.

ElBaradei also warned that he will resign as chief of the UN nuclear agency if Iran is attacked by any country.

"I always think of resigning in the event of a military strike...If military force is used, I would conclude that there is no mechanism left for me to defend," he said.

"The reports this week of Israeli military maneuvers, which took place in early June, provoked the IAEA warning," said CBS News Foreign Affairs Pamela Falk, who is based at the U.N., "because atomic energy chief ElBaradei has been pleading with Iran to accept a new package of incentives before another round of sanctions would be imposed."

"The problem in the region is that, as time passes and the clock is ticking on Iran's uranium enrichment program, there is a fear that Israel will act, as it did in Syria last year, to attack at least one of Iran's nuclear facilities," said Falk, who was in Saudi Arabia earlier this week.

"Israel is evidently the most threatened by the last IAEA report, which concluded that there are unanswered questions about Iran's ability to eventually develop nuclear weapons," said Falk, "so it is elBaradei himself who produced the report that is making Israel nervous."

Meanwhile, Iran is reiterating its decision to continue enriching uranium, calling Western pressure to suspend the work "illogical."

The statement by a government spokesman came as Europe waits for Iran's formal answer to an international package of incentives designed to rein in its nuclear program.

Iran's official IRNA news agency quoted Iranian spokesman Gholam Hossein Elham on Saturday as saying that his country will respond to the package at a convenient time.

The package would give Tehran economic incentives, and the chance to develop alternate light-water reactors, in return for dropping the uranium enrichment. source

 

If that is the case, then bush has failed again.
it means that they have the technology already. They are also making everything themselve . this would mean to me that if iran is attacked or feel under pressure then they can pull out of NPT and accelerate their development. I can't wait for a new president.

 

Personally to me it appears people are reading into this a bit too much. It does not state they would have one within 6 months, it states it would take AT LEAST that long. That 6 months could be 2 years or more.

Any country 'could' have a nuke if given enough time. Plus it mentions

They would still need to obtain the material needed for a single nuclear weapon.

 

Yes, the IAEA was making this statement to let people know how far off a weapon is, not how close. Of course, everything can be read and interpreted as desired. My doctor told me that one bagel is equivalent to 6 slices of bacon. (I think he was trying to get me to not eat bagels) What I heard was that 6 slices of bacon are as healthy as one bagel. Mmm, bacon.

Anyway, IAEA, NIE, ABC, whatever, I think that the combination of Iran's rhetoric and their efforts to secretly advance their nuclear program gives rise to legitimate concern by countries who are threatened directly or indirectly by Iran.

 

hopefully president obama will talk to them and find a way to stop them from starting a weapon program.

 

I may win the lotto in six months. There is a big difference between may and will.

 

we can live with them even if they make a weapon.the more we make this a big deal the more we will pay in negotiations. what happened with NK? Pakistan? india?
nothing. What about soviet union or china. no big deal. especially that they have stopped their weapon program. But I think president obama can deal with them. I remember some neocons talking about NK the same way. good thing cooler heads prevailed.

 

Whats the big deal. Let them make it. No country is stupid enough to use nuclear weapon.

Oh! wait, one did use it and on civilians. And its the most loudest mouth against the Iranian Nuclear program. Hypocrites.

 

hahhaha +rep

 

One of the things I like about Obama is that he's not against talking to people like the people in Iran. I don't know if talking to them will do any good but it's worth a try.

 

Do you think Iran would launch a nuclear bomb or place it in hands of terrorist if they were to produce nuclear warheads?

 

Who knows? One thing is for sure, the more people who has them the more dangerous the world is. Put it this way, if it were Sweden I would be less worried about them falling into the wrong hands.

 

If terrorists want nuclear weapons they should contact US armed forces. They have a history of mishandling nukes. Most recent case of was last years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_United_States_Air_Force_nuclear_weapons_incident

World should be more worried about US nukes getting into wrong hands than Iranian nukes for which we are not even sure if they exsist or not.

 

Do you think US would launch a nuclear bomb or place it in hands of terrorist ?

 

i sure as hell don't want us to get into another war unless we have tried talking.with them first. It is time for grownup politics.
i think iran can be persuaded to not develop weapons as long as we give them a choice. by pushing and pushing we create a self fulfilling prophecy.

even if they had a nuclear weapon i do not think they would use it, or give it to the terrorists.

 

Isn't it possible that U.S. is making all those false noices about Iran in order to draw attention of it's citizens away from worsening domestic economic situation and credebility of it's goverments ability to control it ?

 

I very much agree with what you said there.

People who bring statements like these up are just obviously pro-Israel or just an american politician.

Its just propaganda...

 

They are arming every terrorist group in the Middle East, what is stopping them from giving them access to nuclear material, especially if it will be targeted at US or Israel.

 

Germany, France and The United Kingdom have spent the last 5 years talking to them and offering them deals, each one has been rejected. There is a point when talking fails and action is needed.

 

Contrary to what John McCain says, they are not arming Al Queda, because Al Queda, and the Taliban, and the Saudis, are Sunni.

And the Iranians don't help the Sunnis. They help the Shia.

In Operation Bomb Bin Laden (BBL or Be Back Later), the Iranians actually supplied us with intelligence and support in Afghanistan against the Taliban.