Group: Iran can make material for nuke in 2-4 mos.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad visits the Natanz uranium enrichment facilities in this April 8, 2008 file photo. / Islamic Republic of Iran via Getty Images

Last Updated 12:17 p.m. ET

VIENNA Iran now could produce enough weapons-grade uranium to arm a nuclear bomb within two to four months but would still face serious "engineering challenges" — and much longer delays — before it would be able to use the material in an atomic warhead, a respected U.S. think tank said Monday.

While Iran denies any interest in possessing nuclear arms, the international community fears it may turn its peaceful uranium enrichment program toward weapons making — a concern that is growing as Tehran expands the number of machines it uses to enrich as well as its stockpile of enriched uranium. And as apprehension increases, so does anxiety that Israel will make good on threats to attack Iran's nuclear facilities before that nation reaches the bomb-making threshold.

Play Video

Israel's P.M. warns of Iran's nuclear plans

In a strident call for an internationally drawn "red line" on what he said was Iran's move toward nuclear arms, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Sept. 28 the world has until next summer at the latest to stop Tehran before it can build an atomic bomb. Flashing a diagram of a cartoon-like bomb before the U.N. General Assembly, he said Iran was ready to move to the "final stage" of making such a weapon by then.

For now, U.S. military and intelligence officials say they don't believe Iran's leadership has made the decision to build a bomb, while also warning that the country is moving closer to the ability to do so.

The Institute for Science and International Security did not make a judgment on whether Iran plans to turn its enrichment capabilities toward weapons making. But in its report made available to The Associated Press ahead of publication Monday, it drew a clear distinction between Tehran's ability to make the fissile core of warhead by producing 25 kilograms (about 55 pounds) of weapons-grade uranium from its lower enriched stockpiles and the warhead itself.

"Despite work it may have done in the past," Iran would need "many additional months to manufacture a nuclear device suitable for underground testing and even longer to make a reliable warhead for a ballistic missile," the report said.

Additionally, ISIS — which often advises Congress and other branches of U.S. government on Iran's nuclear program — said any attempt to "break out" into weapons-grade uranium enrichment would be quickly detected by the United States and the International Atomic Energy, which monitors Tehran's known enrichment sites. With Washington likely to "respond forcefully to any "break-out" attempt, Iran is unlikely to take such a risk "during the next year or so," said the report.

Still, the report suggested a narrowing window as Iran positions itself to increase enrichment.

• Netanyahu's bomb drawing "childish": Ahmadinejad
• Israeli PM: My warning on Iran "reverberates"
• Netanyahu draws red line on Iran, asks world to do same
• Iran test-fires missiles, sinks warship-sized target

Retired U.S. Ambassador Thomas Pickering, who recently co-authored a paper warning against a U.S. attack on Iran's nuclear facilities without first conducting a thorough cost/benefit analysis, told CBS News State Department correspondent Margaret Brennan that he agrees with U.S. and Israeli intelligence that there has been no decision yet on the part of Iran to construct a nuclear weapon.

Play Video

Pickering: Iran sanctions alone won't stop nuclear program

"But I also believe," Pickering said, "that Iran has put itself in a position that, should a decision be made to make a nuclear weapon, they would have the technology, the equipment, the knowledge to be able to do that."

Pickering said that while a missile strike against Iranian facilities might delay that country's ability to produce a nuclear weapon, it would not prevent them from ultimately achieving such a goal. "That would take a great deal more, perhaps including a land invasion, which would pale into insignificance what we had to do in Iraq and Afghanistan," he said.

"I think the good news is that both our report and Secretary Panetta believe that there is time, and time is very important for diplomacy to work - not time to be wasted, but time obviously to engage."

Pickering suggested that negotiations to ease sanctions could involve actions that would mitigate Iran's need to build nuclear reactors in the first place. [Iran has claimed its reactors are meant for medical research.]

"Why not, for example, see if we can make Tehran's nuclear reactor more efficient at making cancer isotopes?" Pickering said. "That means Iran's plans to build four more reactors like that wouldn't have to be carried out."

• Nuclear Iran: Sites and potential targets

Iran now has more than 10,000 centrifuges enriching uranium at its main plant at Natanz, about 140 miles southeast of Tehran, making low-level material. Additionally it has about 800 machines turning out 20-percent enriched uranium at Fordo, a bunkered structure fortified against air attack near the holy city of Qom, as well as about 2,000 more installed but not yet running.

Uranium enriched to 20 percent can be turned into weapons-grade material much more quickly than low-enriched uranium. If the centrifuges at Fordo that now are idle also start operating and are used to make 20 percent material, Iran — using its total enrichment output of low and higher grade uranium — could produce enough weapons grade uranium for a warhead within three or four weeks, said the summary.

Olli Heinonen, who stepped down as the IAEA's deputy director general in charge of the Iran file in 2010, said the ISIS report contained "good and technically sound estimates."

He said Fordo will nearly double its production capacity of 20 percent enriched uranium to more than 60 pounds a month, if and when all machines there are operating.

[noOwebama]

Owe may not have started another war, but he can't sit on the fence if Iran attacks Israel, or Israel attacks Iran, and then all the other MidEast countries pile in. Why would they miss this chance to crush Israel, once Iran gets the ball rolling? I'm still wondering why we presume Iran can't get their hands on a nuclear weapon now, or why they might not have many in possession now, given their billions from oil money. Any thoughts? (If I were pres of Iran I'd give the impression a WMD is a long way off. Remember, a nuclear engineer from Iraq who defected admitted that they did have nuclear capability in the works, and he was assigned to work on them until defecting).

[Repubs_R_Fiscal_Liberals]

Why would they miss this chance to crush Israel, once Iran gets the ball rolling?

----------

Who CARES?

[Lerianis4]

MRJUSTICE1 replies: linkiconreporticonemailiconIf any of us think that we have troubles now, just wait and see what we'll have to deal with if the current religiofascist Iranian regime has possession of nukes!

_____________________

What do you think that they will do? Really, what? If they use nuclear weapons against any other nation, it's guaranteeing that they will be destroyed.

No, the truth is that you don't want them to get nuclear weapons because then we would have to treat them as equals to the United States instead of inferiors to the United States. Like we treat Pakistan and India.

[Repubs_R_Fiscal_Liberals]

"No, the truth is that you don't want them to get nuclear weapons because then we would have to treat them as equals to the United States instead of inferiors to the United States. Like we treat Pakistan and India."

We don't treat Pakistan as an equal.

We also don't treat North Korea as an equal.

Your causal connection is faulty.

[wmdmia]

If Israel wants to start a war with Iran, then go ahead, just leave the American taxpayer out of it. Fight your own war.

[Lerianis4]

Agreed. The only time Iran will use a nuke is if Israel attacks them first.

That is the bottom and final line.

[Repubs_R_Fiscal_Liberals]

Jack - if we weren't seen as being Israel's "dad" in the sandbox, it wouldn't be a problem. We've supported and armed Israel for no good reason - at all.

[wmdmia]

Yes and Iraq still has a lot of WMD that we have not found. The USA needs to get out of the business of policing the world. We can no longer afford it. We are broke.

[lami987]

Another Israel's gimmick. Their intelligence is worthless. Remember WMD? We were stupid enough to fight Iraq for them while they contributed nothing towards the war. Israel has slick or approaching cunning leaders they want us to fight their wars but they wont fight themselves. If they want to fight Iran, go ahead but we aren't going to participate.

[Repubs_R_Fiscal_Liberals]

Saddam actually kept Iran in check, both politically and geographically.

Israel would have to fly over Iraqi airspace to attack Iran....

[mrjustice1]

REQUEST TO HELP THE PEOPLE - ALL PEOPLE - OF THE MIDEAST

The best we can give of ourselves, is to help the various countries and peoples of The Middle East to get out of the tragic, stifling and paralysing, destructive and deadly grip, in which religion and religious mindset holds them.


THE CURRENT IRANIAN REGIME IS IMMUTABLY-RELIGIO-FASCISTIC,
HIGHLY DECEPTIVE, DUPLICITOUS, AND CAN NEVER BE TRUSTED

In the case of Iran's Ayatollas and other leaders of the current Iranian regime, it cannot be overstressed, that the world must prevent Iran's achieving even Nuclear Weapons' CAPABILITY, because these religious fanatics actually plan and pray for their being able to fulfill their divine purpose - as their 'Holy Islamic Duty' - to bring on The Apocalypse or Nuclear World War ...
... to usher in the Mahdi's or Muslim Messiah's arrival, so The Mahdi will impose strict Islamic Law or Sharia onto the entire world.

There is nothing more important - for preserving our and our progeny's futures - than preventing the current Iranian regime from either acquiring, possessing, or reaching even the CAPABILITY to produce Nuclear Weapons.

Based on the immutable religio-fascist mindset of the Ayatollas and other of Iran's leaders, MAD or Mutually Assured Destruction as a balance or 'preventive state' to ensure that neither party (i.e. Iran vs Israel) to a conflict uses Nuclear Weapons, will not work.


APOCALYPTIC MINDSET, WHETHER HELD BY ONE OR ALL CONCERNED PARTIES, OVERRIDES AND VOIDS EVERYTHING THAT CAN BE CONSIDERED REASONABLE, FAIR AND LOGICAL.

Even worse, it means we can EXPECT the end-of-world scenario to apply, not only to the subject/victims who are held within the grip of Mideast religious mindset, but for all of us whose life-sustaining food, water, land, air and other resources will be poisoned by Nuclear Fallout for A Thousand Years!

[Repubs_R_Fiscal_Liberals]

You're spot on about the religion thing being the problem - one BOTH sides.

GWB told President Chirac that Iraq should be invaded because the "time of Gog and Magog is here".

That refers to the Book of Revelation, and the Apocalypse, or "End Times". The man is seriously insane.

'The story has now been confirmed by Chirac himself in a new book, published in France in March, by journalist Jean Claude Maurice. Chirac is said to have been stupefied and disturbed by Bush's invocation of Biblical prophesy to justify the war in Iraq and "wondered how someone could be so superficial and fanatical in their beliefs".'

[noOwebama]

RE: this comment:
.............REPUBS_R_FISCAL_LIBERALS replies: linkiconreporticonemailiconIran isn't our problem.

It's Israel's problem. Time for them to put on their big-boy pants and deal with it themselves. After all, Netanyahooo has been saying Iran is on the verge of having a nuke since *1992*!.............

My thought: If there's a war between Iran and Israel it will likely escalate to a regional conflict, which will affect us in a myriad of ways, not the least of which will be oil shortages and a spike in oil prices, barring some quick change in our energy development policy. So, it's in our interest to not allow Iran to become a nuclear powermonger, as well as Israel's. If Israel can handle Iran, then so much the better. Can they? Not likely, as it will be Israel vs. the whole Mideast, not just Iran, should war begin. So, we're damned if they do and damned if they don't. Oil shortages today will be far different than in '73 as now we have China, and other former 4th and 3rd world countries competing with us for oil now, that weren't in decades past, for all practical purposes. So, it's a Hobson's choice, we do nothing, Iran creates a Mideast crisis or Israel does a first strike, our energy prices skyrocket, economy and jobs decrease accordingly. Or, we jump in and help Israel with a first strike, and the same thing happens re: our energy prices/economic downturn. That's why negotiating is really the only way to win. No way to win for us if that fails.

[Repubs_R_Fiscal_Liberals]

Netenyahooo has been blowing this same smoke for 20 years.

And you people still believe him. And are willing to step in and do Israel's dirty work yet again.

Sigh.

[mrjustice1]

If any of us think that we have troubles now, just wait and see what we'll have to deal with if the current religiofascist Iranian regime has possession of nukes!

Such warnings should not be minimised.

World leaders must take the responsibility to make certain that Iran is stopped from reaching Nuclear Weapons' capability!

[noOwebama]

Is it possible that if Iran wanted to nuke Israel it could pay some other country/company cash (from oil money) to provide them with a nuclear warhead? Why do we assume that they have to produce their own nuclear warhead? Is there any intelligence confirming that there's no possible way Russia, China, North Korea, Pakistan, or some other country might not provide uranium and a warhead or the parts to make a nuclear warhead. If I was pres of Iran I would make it look like I'm a long way away from having a warhead, but meanwhile I'd cut some country who wants oil a deal for providing me a warhead or the materials to quickly make one. Negotiating is obviously the best solution, but negotiating isn't always the means chosen to resolve conflicts by nutty dictators. We need been foreign policy, Owebama isn't able to create this apparently, Nobel Prize notwithstanding.

[Repubs_R_Fiscal_Liberals]

Iran isn't our problem.

It's Israel's problem. Time for them to put on their big-boy pants and deal with it themselves. After all, Netanyahooo has been saying Iran is on the verge of having a nuke since *1992*!

[lami987]

The first thing for us to have a sound foreign policy is not to call anybody nutty dictator regardless of what we think. That only shows the world our shallowness. Owebama may not be able to create that sound foreign policy, but he didn't start another war. To most Americans that is the best policy ever. If we start another war we have to restart our draft so every eligible man and woman share the responsibility of defending our decision. There shall be no exception because of one's wealth or power or some other excuses. There shall also be no multiple deploymnets for our brave men and women.

[bilejones]

Iran, of course, has no nuclear weapons program as
the US Secretary of defense acknowledges here:

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/09/11/if-iran-builds-bomb-u-s-has-a-year-to-act-panetta/

"The United States would have about a year to take action if Iran decided to build a nuclear weapon, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said Tuesday"


But the truth never gets in the way of the dying corporate media's lies, now, does it?

[Repubs_R_Fiscal_Liberals]

JACK_25
For some reason you think the USS Liberty is grounds for eternal hatred! It doesn't work that way! If it did, our very good friends in Japan wouldn't be our friends!

----------

Japan wasn't our "ally" when they attacked us.

Israel was pretending to be, as usual.

[Repubs_R_Fiscal_Liberals]

I don't hate Israel.

I hate their criminal government.