US: Iran could have nuclear bomb in one year

they are getting ready to hit:

www.telegraph.co.uk...

"In a stark warning, he said that time was running out for diplomacy to stem Tehran's nuclear ambitions.

The assessment matched that of some independent analysts but appeared to go further than recent official statements from the US government.

"Most of us believe that it's one to three years, depending on assumptions about where they are right now. But they are moving closer, clearly, and they continue to do that," Adm Mullen told ABC's This Week programme.

Since coming to power in January, President Barack Obama has made diplomatic overtures to Iran that have so far been rebuffed. He said last week that he would not pursue this policy indefinitely and would like to see some progress on the nuclear issue by the end of this year.

Iran maintains that its nuclear program is peaceful and intended to produce electricity for civilian use.

The country last week successfully tested a missile that analysts said could hit Israel and US bases in the Gulf, a major source of crude oil for the United States.

Adm Mullen said that a military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities could have grave consequences - but so would a nuclear-armed Iran.

"The unintended consequences of a strike against Iran right now would be incredibly serious," he said.

In congressional testimony last week, he used the word "calamitous" to describe the same scenario.

Israel has said it could not accept a nuclear-armed Iran while the US has also refused to rule out military action. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran has repeatedly stated the Jewish state should not exist.

Despite Iran's repeated boasts about the progress of its nuclear programme, it remains unproven that it is actually close to being capable of successfully enriching sufficient quantities of uranium to prove a genuine threat."

yeah right. just like Iraq had.

Originally posted by czacza1

yeah right. just like Iraq had.

Exactly.. its almost the exact same story.. slightly different angle.

Hopefully they wont invade but with Pakistan playing ball on the far side of the middle east, the US may need someone to invade if they are to keep this war going for as long as possible.. Iran is the obvious option.

reply to post by Dermo


it looks like they are putting all options on the table now and trying to find most profitable one- Korea, Pakistan, Syria, Iran, Georgia, still ongoing war in Afghanistan and Iraq. I belive that they want to close the crises by begining the war. would not be a first such a strategy in the world history. in fact it would be opposite.

reply to post by czacza1

Israel has said it could not accept a nuclear-armed Iran while the US has also refused to rule out military action. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran has repeatedly stated the Jewish state should not exist.

Seriously, why do people think Ahmadinejad is a nutcase? I completely agree with the man on this point. Israel should not be a state, it is breaking the law by holding an illegal military occupation. The UN knows this, practically everyone in the world is aware of this but the American media refuses to acknowledge this fact.

Originally posted by czacza1
US: Iran could have nuclear bomb in one year

www.telegraph.co.uk...

Wha? I bet they already have a nuclear bomb.... They said this about North Korea years ago, but it turned out they already had nukes....and still do



[edit on 25-5-2009 by imitator]

Wasn't it not that long ago that they were saying Iran could have nukes at the beginning of THIS YEAR?

Whatever.

It will be fun to bump this thread when Iran finally gets the bomb. See you then losers.

Originally posted by czacza1
produce electricity for civilian use.

Adm Mullen said that a military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities could have grave consequences - but so would a nuclear-armed Iran.

this kind of stuff really makes one question whether or not the government does have some sort of looking glass technology.

Maybe they are being more honest then we think they are.

Much like Iraq they looked into the future and were given two scenarios, one was them pre emptively attacking Iraq and losing political support the other was Iraq sponsoring a terrorist attack greater than 9/11.

Perhaps they saw that if they attack Iran their will be grave consequences but if they don't Iran will eventually nuke all of its enemies.

I mean, they sure seem to repeat this non-sense as if they truly believe it. As if these truly are the only two scenarios worth considering.

That, or they just always need a bad guy.

This propaganda is probably a hint to when the full war on middle east
will start....within a year...!

Originally posted by RKWWWW
It will be fun to bump this thread when Iran finally gets the bomb. See you then losers.

Well, well, well. Looks like we are right on track for a Iranian nuke.

Originally posted by RKWWWW

Originally posted by RKWWWW
It will be fun to bump this thread when Iran finally gets the bomb. See you then losers.

Well, well, well. Looks like we are right on track for a Iranian nuke.

Well, well, well. Looks like we are all in for a long wait. Can you please provide the evidence that led to your assertion that "we are right on track for an Iranian nuke"?

[edit on 11-2-2010 by CanadianDream420]

I would hardly call Obama a fear monger


Washington (CNN) -- Iran's announcement that it has begun enriching uranium to the threshold at which it could set off a nuclear reaction drew a sharp rebuke from President Obama on Tuesday.

"Despite their posturing that their nuclear power is only for civilian use, they in fact continue to pursue a course that would lead to weaponization and that is not acceptable," Obama said in a surprise appearance at the White House daily press briefing.

"We have bent over backwards to say we are willing to have a constructive conversation" with Iran about its nuclear program, he said.

He was speaking hours after Iran's announcement, which followed through on a warning it had issued a day before.

The enrichment was taking place at its Natanz facility under the surveillance of U.N. nuclear watchdog inspectors, Iran state media said.

An official with the International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed that a team of its inspectors was on site.

The United States and its allies think Iran intends to build a nuclear bomb. Tehran says its nuclear program is for civilian energy and medical use.

This latest step, Iran said, is being done to meet the demands of the country's cancer patients.

Obama said the international community had made an offer to supply Tehran with its medical needs and "they rejected it."

www.cnn.com...



Give or take a few months, Iran is right on track to create a nuke weapon as was the estimate 8 months ago.

If America tries to take the bomb away from Iran, then America should try and take the bomb away from Israel. It is only fair.

You gotta be kidding me! Obama not a fear monger? Surely you jest?

The story you post starts off with a bang, all "OOOOH... Iranian nukes...we're all doomed" etc... then fizzles further down when it concedes that this enrichment is under IAEA surveillance.

The standard of reporting (if you can call it a standard) is hilarious!

Obama couldn't find his own butt without a diagram and written directions flashing up on his teleprompter and, like Bush before him, is nothing but a talking head for the real policy boys behind the scenes.

Originally posted by Britguy
You gotta be kidding me! Obama not a fear monger? Surely you jest?

The story you post starts off with a bang, all "OOOOH... Iranian nukes...we're all doomed" etc... then fizzles further down when it concedes that this enrichment is under IAEA surveillance.

The standard of reporting (if you can call it a standard) is hilarious!

Obama couldn't find his own butt without a diagram and written directions flashing up on his teleprompter and, like Bush before him, is nothing but a talking head for the real policy boys behind the scenes.

Oh noes! Look! The Russians are in on the fake Iranian nuke bomb thingie!


Russia, a key player in the negotiations over Iran's nuclear program, also expressed some frustration Tuesday.

A top Russian security official said that although his country still favors a "political-diplomatic" settlement, "everything has its limits, and any patience may come to an end."

"Iran asserts that it doesn't seek nuclear weapons and is developing a peaceful atomic energy program. But the actions it undertakes, including its decision to enrich its low-enriched uranium to 20 percent -- those actions are causing other countries to have doubts [about the nature of that program], and those doubts are quite justified," Russian Security Council chief Nikolai Patrushev said in a news conference in Moscow, Russia.

www.cnn.com...

[edit on 11-2-2010 by RKWWWW]

how about we bomb Iran and Israel, destroy Iraq completely, take control of South Korea and force them to attack North Korea, then have France bomb Afghanistan, all the while i will sit in my hotub and drink bacardi and party

www.independent.co.uk...

www.guardian.co.uk...

Nothing but fear/war mongering to try and justify the actions that may well be taken in the coming months.

[edit on 11-2-2010 by Solomons]

And yet, despite the CNN reports and Obama speeches, everyone else, including the IAEA, know that the 20% enrichment is for the manufacture of medical isotopes at their research reactor site.
They are also not enriching all their fuel to this level, only a very small amount.
As I said, this seems to be common knowledge in many places, so why do the US and Israel keep parroting the nuclear weapons line?

Simple answer, Israel wants Iran removed as a block to it's regional control, and the good ol' dumb goys in the USofA are gonna do it for them.

I would be willing to bet that the US or Israel will bomb/invade Iran, under the guise of Iran possessing Nukes..

and just like Iraq, no WMD's will be found.

HIstory repeats itself.

WMD's seems to be the guise now used to take over countries to get their Natural resources.