BRIAN ROSS REPORTS
- Like Jay-Z + the Beatles, But Worse
- Update: Help for Homeless Children
- Bush Era, Revised -- and with More Barbeque
- The Tax Woman Cometh
- Paging Mr. Stanford: Antigua Called
- Who Are You Calling Partisan?
- Update: IRS Won't Use Private Debt Collectors
- But Is It Art?
- PMA Scandal a Sore Point for Dems in 2010?
- Down in Flames
- A New Mystery for RNC Chief
- PMA Clients Were Big Givers
- Raided Lobby Firm Still a Force on Capitol Hill
- Stanford Update: Another $143 Mil Found
- Cheney, Hooked on Controversy
TOP BLOTTER CATEGORIES
- Abramoff Lobbying Scandal
- American Al Qaeda
- Avian Flu
- Beirut Hospital Out of Gas
- Cheney
- CIA
- CIA Secret Prisons
- D.C. Madam Affair
- FBI
- Federal Air Marshal Service
- Homeland Security
- Hurricane Katrina
- IRS
- Mark Foley Internet Scandal
- Millionaire Sex Scandal
- Nigerian E-mail Scams
- Norman Hsu, Clinton Fundraiser
- NSA: Wiretapping
- Osama bin Laden
- Payola
- Pharmacy Investigation
- PMA
- Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert
- Stanford
- Steele
- Terror
- Troopergate
- U.K. Airline Terror Plot
- U.K. Bombing Attempts
- Wen Ho Lee
- William Jefferson
- Zarqawi
« Previous | Main | Next »
Exclusive: Iran Nuclear Bomb Could Be Possible by 2009
April 02, 2007 6:15 PM
Iran has more than tripled its ability to produce enriched uranium in the last three months, adding some 1,000 centrifuges which are used to separate radioactive particles from the raw material.
The development means Iran could have enough material for a nuclear bomb by 2009, sources familiar with the dramatic upgrade tell ABC News.
The sources say the unexpected expansion is taking place at Iran's nuclear enrichment plant outside the city of Natanz, in a hardened facility 70 feet underground.
THE BLOTTER RECOMMENDS
A spokesperson for the United Nation's International Atomic Energy Agency, the IAEA, declined to comment citing the "extreme sensitivity" of the situation with Iran.
Iran has already declared its above-ground operations at Natanz have some 320 centrifuges.
Click Here for Full Blotter Coverage.
The addition of 1,000 new centrifuges, which are not yet operational, means Iran is expanding its enrichment program at a pace much faster than U.S. intelligence experts had predicted.
"If they continue at this pace, and they get the centrifuges to work and actually enrich uranium on a distinct basis," said David Albright of the Institute for Science and International Security, "then you're looking at them having, potentially having enough highly enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon in 2009."
Previous predictions by U.S. intelligence had cited 2015 as the earliest date Iran could develop a weapon.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has publicly predicted his country would have 3,000 centrifuges installed by this May, but few in the West gave his claim much credence, until now.
"I think we have all been caught off guard. Ahmadinejad said they would have these 3,000 installed by the end of May, and it appears they may actually do it," Albright said.
The new centrifuges are in open defiance of the U.N. Security Council which last week imposed a new set of sanctions on Iran for refusing to halt enrichment.
Iran maintains its enrichment facilities are only meant to produce fuel for nuclear power reactors.
But the uranium they are enriching could not be used in the Russian nuclear power reactor they are currently building.
State Department spokesman Sean McCormack declined to comment on the details of Iran's new centrifuges but told ABC News, "This kind of expansion of Iran's centrifuge capability is why we went to the U.N. Security Council and pushed for a stronger resolution and stronger sanctions."
April 2, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (270)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
typical liberals, Iran has lied about their nuclear facilities many times in the past, they admit they are developing nuclear material, but liberals want proof of this. Why can't they add up one plus one and come up with two. How hard do you have to slap these people in the face with the obvious before they get it. Maybe the day Iran test a nuclear weapon then they might believe it, oops it will be too late then to do anything about it. And no don't name the sources I would rather have those spies keep their identity secret, Hell lets just disband our network of informants and spies that is basically what you are asking. The intelligence isn't perfect but no administration looks at one piece of intelligence they build a case with all the intelligence they have
Posted by: Brian | Apr 2, 2007 10:03:07 PM
These are the facts:
Iran has 70 Million population and growing fast. Iran has plenty of Uranium ore. It has the technical know-how to build nuclear power plant and extract nuclear fuel from raw uranium. Fossil fuel reserve is ought to be depleted in the future, it is highly pollutant and an expansive investment. The nuclear industry can not be set-up overnight and needs at least 10-20 years preparation. An average Uranium enrichment faciltiy which extract fuel from UF6 needs 30 000 centrifuges to work in cascade to produce nuclear fuel needed for 10 megawatts of electricity per year. Setting up a cascade of 1000 centrifuges is not a lot for the purpose of starting a nuclear fuel industry in the next 5 years.
the motives of US/UK/Israel are much more suspicious than Iran's.
Posted by: Hayden | Apr 2, 2007 10:10:30 PM
Let me remind all of you Bush haters that the intel you're complaining about didn't come from the Bush administration. There are dozens of great quotes from Clinton administration folks about the imminent threat posed by Saddam and his WMD's. Take a reality pill and realize that Bush wasn't the one who made it up and there are evil people in the world that are actually trying to attain weapons to harm the West... and trying to be nice to them and appease them isn't going to solve anything.
Posted by: Eric - Boise, ID | Apr 2, 2007 10:11:44 PM
It is really sad that because of the Iraq fiasco that most of the world is going to turn a blind eye to the biggest threat that the world has seen since WWII. People need to put aside their hatred for Bush and look at what we are facing here. This is a regime that hates all that we stand for and will do whatever it can to destroy us!
Posted by: glenno | Apr 2, 2007 10:12:17 PM
It's amusing how all you "we need sources" posters show up on stories like this but not on any of the many stories that appear to implicate America as being "bad" or somehow to blame for something bad that has happened.
I would be careful with simply assuming that just because you believe the Iraq war was started under false pretenses there can't be any other real threats lurking out there. Especially in cases when the country in question has flat out stated that they primarily exist to destroy Israel and its allies (America).
The hypocrisy is borderline hilarious and unquestionably ludicrous.
How can you not see that?
Posted by: Chris | Apr 2, 2007 10:14:17 PM
Are we all to buy into this again? I would like the sources name and title. This sounds like the begining of what happen six years ago. They still think we don't have brains, ahh... we do and we use them, they don't however.
Posted by: Gregory Tompson | Apr 2, 2007 10:15:12 PM
The hostage situation is NOT a figment of our imagination and it wasn't done by the US or the Brits.
You can pretend that WE did this to try to start something. The UN is politely asking them to return the hostages. If they don't do it the UN may even pass another resolution!
Posted by: Pythagoras | Apr 2, 2007 10:16:01 PM
How is it that any war seems unnecessary to the lefties. They only fight they are prepared to wage is against there own countries. Is it a good thing for Iran to have nuclear weapons in the hands of extreme fanatics. Please no more stupid "George Bush is dumb" jokes. It's tired. He made a promise after 9/11 and I expect him to fulfill it before he leaves office, because I am certain that whomever is the next President will not have the courage to do what needs to be done.
Posted by: Ralph | Apr 2, 2007 10:21:00 PM
Reality Check... Bush and the administration have repeatedly told us that the security of the nation is an energy security issue. The control and access to vast amounts of OIL is essential to the U.S. economy. The current lynch pin to that security is IRAN. They are the only nation that can possibly disrupt the U.S. empire in the near term. The War is for Profit (Oil) and a sustainable economy. The American people would not support a war directly for profit so the Propoganda machine must spin a socially acceptable reason to invade... "WMD" "Nuclear Build-up" "British Hostages"... Just Google "PEAK OIL" and you will see why the U.S. is living in fear!
Posted by: SBrannen | Apr 2, 2007 10:22:30 PM
For all those who continue to perpetuate the myth that Saddam having WMD's was a great big lie - there are tens of thousands of corpses in Irag (Kurds) and Iran (1980-1988 war) that beg to differ. In fact, the U.S. DID find chemical weapon shells in Iraq - buried leftovers manufactured prior to the 1991 war. The CIA was wrong about more recent production, but the track record and inherent capability was unmistakable. So if Iran's intentions are peaceful, why is their president running around threatening to incinerate Israel. I know, must be more Bush administration lies! Maybe they hypnotized him.
Posted by: Bo | Apr 2, 2007 10:28:50 PM
When the Iranian A-bomb goes off in Israel or New York City, will everyone who hates George Bush right now blame George Bush for inaction?
Posted by: Old George | Apr 2, 2007 10:29:53 PM
If the fools who are suggesting that ABC is a stooge for Bush really think that, I guess they think CNN and Howard Dean are too. It's like the whole Democratic party has the mentality of the British PM in 1939.
Posted by: Fowlowl | Apr 2, 2007 10:35:57 PM
Wow you guys are more ignorant then ever. Bush did not lead a war into Iraq over some hearsay of a couple people he and there. he was told by high ranking official as well as leaders of other nations. he never blatenly lied at all to start a war in iraq. if you believe that you are the one who needs to wake up and stop listening to what people are telling you and find out yourself before you make such an idiotic untrue statement.
Posted by: Paul | Apr 2, 2007 10:35:58 PM
I guess we should wait till we're all dead then go after Iran. If todays left was running the show during wwii the UK and all of europe would still be goose-stepping.
Posted by: Bob | Apr 2, 2007 10:36:04 PM
Another wolf? Who is yelling "WOLF"
this time? or was that "WMD" ? Huh?
Posted by: bob | Apr 2, 2007 10:37:55 PM
You don't even use the phrase unnamed
sources. When you use "sources", it probably means lies. We do not trust our own government, or mainstream media. We did once, and that got us into Iraq, is this more lies to get us into Iran?
Posted by: Dennis Castaneda | Apr 2, 2007 10:46:08 PM
Although I disagree with the outcome of the Iraqi war I do not believe in back-dooring our President and our troops on the field. Iran is playing a dangerous game with the world and the US is the only nation with the means to control the situation. With commets like, "wipe the Israeli's off the face of the earth" and threatening to use sleeper cells in the US, I strongly support an invasion of Iran and doing the same thing over there.
Posted by: Jose | Apr 2, 2007 10:52:24 PM
Here we go again. More of the anonymous "sources" propaganda. It's hard to believe Bush and the corporate media think we are so stupid that we will buy this twice, but they do believe it. And from some of the posts here, they are right. To quote a GOOD American president: "You can fool some of the people some of the time, some of the people all of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time."
Posted by: mgm | Apr 2, 2007 10:52:32 PM
We need to stop Iran. I see what is going on over in Iraq everyday. These IED's and weapons that are being used against use arent being made by the Iraqi's.
Chris G
Balad, Iraq
Posted by: chris | Apr 2, 2007 10:53:35 PM
My summation of the Bush haters is that they are still bitter that Bush won by around a 1000 votes. Then Bush won a close election against Kerry. If Bush is that bad as a president, then Kerry must have been an awful candidate to lost to him.
Posted by: Maz | Apr 2, 2007 10:55:58 PM
Post a comment
