Iran - Armchair generals disagree - more confusion

Anton Le Guardia in an article in the Daily Telegraph 12th August 2005 "Has Iran reached nuclear point of no return?" quotes Mark Fitzpatrick, a counter-proliferation specialist at the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), saying that even if Iran can operate a basic unit of 164 machines efficiently and for a sustained period of time, it would take 11 years for it to make enough highly enriched uranium for a nuclear bomb.

Which is curious because the BBC report " Iran urged to stop nuclear work" of the same date says " Iran could be in a position to produce enough fissile nuclear material to make a nuclear bomb within 3-5 years, according to the London-based International Institute of Strategic Studies."

It is even more curious because in a BBC report of 12th Jan 2006 by Sarah Buckley and Paul Rincon "Iran 'years' from nuclear bomb'"

The IISS (presumably the same Mark Fitzpatrick who is quoted elsewhere in the article) says "So given these limitations, the IISS believes it would take Iran at least a decade to produce enough HEU for a single nuclear weapon.

Frank Barnaby, consultant for the UK security think tank the Oxford Research Group is also quoted as saying""The CIA says 10 years to a bomb using highly enriched uranium and that is a reasonable and realistic figure in my opinion," he said.

This curious discrepancy was taken up by eagle eyed Gabriele Zamparini at the Cat's Dream with Dear Steve Herrmann, Editor, BBC News Online, the result of which was (indirectly) an e-mail from the crystal ball gazing Mark Fitzpatrick

Dear Ms. (! sic) Zamparini,
Thank you for noting this and alerting me. I have just spoken to a reporter at reporter at BBC who undertook to have the discrepancy corrected.

A detailed IISS report last September concluded that if Iran threw caution to the wind and ignored international reactions, it could produce enough HEU for one weapon by the end of the decade at the earliest. The clock on that five-year timeline began ticking in January when Iran resumed the enrichment, although it actually resumed enrichment-related work in August. In the past couple weeks, more than one reputable organization has concluded that three years is the shortest timeline. Given the speed at which Iran is moving, it is hard to dispute the three year figure. But these timeline estimates are all a bit of a crapshoot. I have been saying that estimates of 3, 5 and even 10 years are all within the margin of error, because it is unknowable, especially if IAEA inspectors cannot have greater access than they have right now.

The 11-year figure I gave the Guardian was if the Iranians stopped at 164 centrifuges. They plan to go far beyond that.

Regards,
Mark Fitzpatrick

Mark Fitzpatrick
Senior Fellow for Non-Proliferation
International Institute for Strategic Studies
Arundel House, 13-15 Arundel Street
Temple Place, London WC2R 3DX

Switchboard: +44(020) 7379 7676
Fax: + 44(0)20 7836 31 08
E-mail: Fitzpatrick@iiss.org
web site: www.iiss.org

There then follows copies of a protracted correspondence which also resulted inthe original BBC story changing the time Iran would need to produce a weapon from 3 years to 3-5 years.

It is also interesting to see the same Mark Fitzpatrick is quoted in How Close Is Iran to the Bomb? Jan 23, 2006 ("Student Movement Coordination Committee for Democracy in Iran" (SMCCDI))"How quickly can Iran complete the complex at Natanz, planned to house 50,000 centrifuges in vast underground halls? Allows Mark Fitzpatrick of IISS, "Estimating timelines can be a trap." Interestingly this article can also be found (with the same quote) on the IISS website here.

Then lo and behold Bloomberg Germany reports late yesterday !!!!!

Iran Could Produce Nuclear Bomb in 16 Days, U.S. Says

April 12 (Bloomberg) -- Iran, defying United Nations Security Council demands to halt its nuclear program, may be capable of making a nuclear bomb within 16 days, a U.S. State Department official said.

Iran will move to ``industrial scale'' uranium enrichment involving 54,000 centrifuges at its Natanz plant, the Associated Press quoted deputy nuclear chief Mohammad Saeedi as telling state-run television today.

``Using those 50,000 centrifuges they could produce enough highly enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon in 16 days,'' Stephen Rademaker, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for International Security and Nonproliferation, told reporters today in Moscow.

So there you have it, 16 days, 3 years, 5 years, 10 years.Someone obviously thinks it's true hereand
here

Now the next question is, "How long will it take the combined forces of Israel and the US to strike at the nuclear resources of Iran and with what weapons ?" 16 days ? 3 years, 5 years , 10 years ?

The Foreign Policy Centre issued a Press release in which Hugh Barnes , Director of Democracy and Conflict at The Foreign Policy Centre and co-author of ‘Understanding Iran’, today said:
“A plan to attack Iran with nuclear weapons smacks not just of a deranged strategic miscalculation but of sheer hypocrisy and idiocy.

The author believe that there remain a large number of diplomatic options that would be acceptable to Iran, the United States and the EU to resolve the current crisis. Military action would be a highly dangerous move that could damage regional security, not prevent nuclear proliferation, encourage acts of terrorism and would of course result in civilian deaths."

"Both sides of this dispute are in danger of talking themselves into a war - they need to take a deep breath and calm down."