Timeline on Iran bomb narrows, but barely

Related Topics

U.S. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta walks across the tarmac towards his C-17 plane during his departure from Baghdad December 15, 2011. REUTERS/Pablo Martinez Monsivais/Pool

U.S. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta walks across the tarmac towards his C-17 plane during his departure from Baghdad December 15, 2011.

Credit: Reuters/Pablo Martinez Monsivais/Pool

WASHINGTON | Tue Dec 20, 2011 5:38pm EST

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - How long would Iran need to develop a nuclear weapon if its leaders decided to build one?

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta thinks it could take just under a year, an ever so slightly more narrow timeline than the one-year minimum his predecessor, Robert Gates, put forward.

But nuclear experts are skeptical Tehran could move that quickly and a Pentagon spokesman acknowledged on Tuesday he was not aware of any new intelligence driving Panetta's latest remarks, which aired on U.S. television on Monday evening.

Asked whether Iran could have a nuclear weapon in 2012, Panetta told CBS News: "It would probably be about a year before they can do it. Perhaps a little less."

Again, that is if Iran decides to build a bomb - a decision U.S. officials do not believe its leadership has taken. Iran says its nuclear program is entirely for peaceful purposes.

Panetta warned that if Iran had secret enrichment sites U.S. intelligence was unaware of, the timeline could shrink.

Hans Kristensen, director of the nuclear information project at the Federation of American Scientists, described Panetta's projection as unlikely.

"It's too short a timeline," Kristensen said, adding Iran would need more time to enrich its uranium to weapons grade and then build a working nuclear device.

"I think we're talking about a few years away if they decided" to build a weapon, he added, cautioning that he did not have access to any classified intelligence.

Panetta's remarks come at a moment of intense speculation about whether Israel, which sees a nuclear-armed Iran as an existential threat, may be moving closer to military action to halt a program it says is aimed at building an atomic bomb.

Captain John Kirby, a Pentagon spokesman, noted Panetta told CBS the nuclear weaponization process "often takes longer than people usually anticipate."

Pentagon officials, including Panetta's predecessor, have usually described the window as between one and three years.

"This idea that they could be, once they make a decision, a year or more away is not a new idea," Kirby said, even as he acknowledged Panetta's remarks indicated Tehran could move forward in potentially less than a year.

The United States is advocating sanctions and diplomatic pressure to isolate Iran over its nuclear program.

Panetta has repeatedly warned about unintended consequences of a military strike on Iran, including fallout to the global economy and likely retaliation against U.S. forces in the region.

He has also warned it would only delay, not derail, the nuclear program and could trigger a backlash in Iran that could bolster its leaders.

Kirby stressed that Panetta's views on the dangers of a strike were unchanged.

Still, in the interview, Panetta renewed the U.S. position that a nuclear-armed Iran was unacceptable. He used strong language, saying it was a "red line for us and that's a red line, obviously, for the Israelis."

"If we have to do it, we will deal with it," he said. Asked whether he meant military steps, Panetta replied: "There are no options off the table."

(Reporting By Phil Stewart; Editing by John O'Callaghan)

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (3)
UnPartisan wrote:
Mutually Assured Destruction worked to prevent war between the USSR and USA. I would hope that if Iran got nukes that it would be for a deterrant because they know any nuclear strike on Israel would result in their own demise. Pakistan houses the Taliban and Al Queda who attack our forces daily and we are not screaming about their Nukes. Their people are as firmly against Israel as the leaders of Iran, and they have been at constant odds with our ally India for decades. Why are we not beating the war drum against Pakistan daily? Why were there no sanctions? Maybe if we stopped beating the war drums against Iran we could work out our concerns with them.

Dec 20, 2011 7:29pm EST  --  Report as abuse
M.C.McBride wrote:
Every person that fears Iran is a coward. People that fear countries hostile towards US interests that have nuclear weapons or nuclear ambitions are also cowards. End all the taxpayer money being wasted on world domination and focus it on improving the living conditions of 310,000,000+ Americans.

Dec 20, 2011 8:15pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Dhirajkunar wrote:
UnPartisan – I agree with your post, except one view of yours. You say India is an ally of America. I am an Indian and residing in India and would like to say what makes you think India is an ally ? How many men on the ground did India supply during the war on Iraq ? None. Did India accede to giving a portion of its territory to the US during the Iraq war, even after multiple requests from the US ? No. Is India buying fighter aircrafts from the US ? No. In fact India buys from Russia, except some military transport aircraft from the US. The Sukhois are now produced in India. Does India buy missile systems from US ? No. India co-produces Brahmos with Russia. Does India get nuclear power plants for civilian use from US ? No, all such power plants are being set up by Russia. Finally do you think if there is a world conflict, whose side will India take ? I think it will be Russia. Think about it.

Dec 21, 2011 12:23am EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.