Intel Chiefs: Iran Can't Build Nukes Yet

(CBS/AP)  Iran does not yet have any highly enriched uranium, the fuel needed to make a nuclear warhead, two top U.S. intelligence officials told Congress Tuesday, disputing a claim by an Israeli official.

Meanwhile, a key Security Council committee reported that Iran had violated U.N. sanctions by trying to send weapons-related material to Syria on a cargo ship now docked in Cyprus.

U.S. National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair and Defense Intelligence Agency Director Lt. Gen. Michael Maples said Tuesday that Iran has only low-enriched uranium - which would need to be refined into highly enriched uranium before it can fuel a warhead. Neither official said there were indications that refining has occurred.

Their comments disputed a claim made last weekend by Israel's top intelligence military official, who said Iran has crossed a technical threshold and is now capable of producing atomic weapons.

The claim made by Israeli Maj. Gen. Amos Yadlin (see report in Israel's Haaretz newspaper) runs counter to estimates by U.S. intelligence that the earliest Iran could produce a weapon is 2010, with some analysts saying it is more likely that it is 2015.

Maples said the United States and Israel are interpreting the same facts, but arriving at different conclusions.

"The Israelis are far more concerned about it," Maples told the Senate Armed Services Committee.

The status of Iran's nuclear program has been the subject of conflicting public statements by top military and intelligence officials recently in the wake of U.N. revelations that Iran has more low-enriched uranium than previously thought.

Earlier this month, Defense Sec. Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen differed over Iran's capability. While Mullen said Iran has sufficient fission material for a bomb, Gates insisted "they're not close to a weapon at this point."

Iran rejected Mullen's claim as "propaganda," as reported by CBS News' Leily Lankarani in CBSNews.com's World Watch blog.

Western fears over Iran's nuclear intentions motivated the United Nations Security Council to approve the sanctions currently in place against the Islamic Republic.

Those sanctions prohibit Iran exporting any weaponry - a rule the U.N. official in charge of monitoring the sanctions now says Tehran has violated.

(AP Photo/Andreas Lazarou)

Japan's U.N. Ambassador Yukio Takasu, chairman of the Iran monitoring committee, provided few details, but his report on Tuesday marked the first official confirmation that the Cypriot-flagged M/V Monchegorsk (at left, docked in Cyprus) was trying to circumvent the U.N. arms embargo on Iran. The ship docked on Jan. 29 and is still there, diplomats said.

France's U.N. Ambassador Jean-Maurice Ripert described its shipment as "explosives and ... arms."

Takasu said a U.N. member state - identified by the United States, Britain and France as Cyprus - sent a letter to the committee in early February "seeking guidance with respect to its inspections of cargo on a vessel carrying its flag that was found to be carrying arms related material."

The committee responded with a letter saying the transfer of the material was a violation of a 2007 Security Council resolution that prohibits Iran from transferring any arms or related material and requires all countries to prohibit the procurement of such items from Iran, Takasu said.

He told the council that the committee sent letters "to concerned member states" on March 9 asking for "any relevant information regarding this transaction" within 10 days.

Copies of the letters to Iran and Syria, obtained by The Associated Press, said the ship's manifest indicated that the Monchegorsk was chartered by the Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Line, and that the cargo was loaded in Iran and was to be unloaded in Lataki, Syria.

The letters said the committee had received the results of inspections conducted on Jan. 29 and Feb. 2 on a portion of the cargo which found arms-related material, including items described as "bullet shells," high explosive shells, 125 mm armor-piercing shells, and high explosive anti-tank propellant.

All 15 Security Council nations are members of the sanctions committee, which means the letters and Takasu's report had the backing of the entire council.

Britain's U.N. Ambassador John Sawers praised "the vigilance and cooperation" of Cyprus and said his country "looks forward to the committee receiving explanations from Iran and Syria as to why the shipment was permitted by Iran as the reported state of origin, and as to the involvement of Syria as the reported state of destination."

Council diplomats say the ultimate destination of the weapons-related material remains unknown - possibly Hamas fighters in Gaza, Hezbollah militants in Lebanon, or Iraqis with close ties to Syria.

U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice condemned the sanctions violation. She made no mention of reports from European diplomats that the U.S. Navy intercepted the Monchegorsk, confirmed the presence of arms-related material and alerted Cypriot officials.

Cyprus, with its nearest coastal point only 60 miles west of Syria, has traditionally been close to the Arab world. But the Greek-majority island is geographically part of Europe and joined the European Union in 2004.

There has been no decision on what to do with the cargo, though Britain has signaled that it is ready to help Cyprus dispose of it.

[factsearcher]

P L E A SS EE!
I happen to believe Khomeini's words of wisdom more than the intel. Look it up right here on cbs and you can read his straight out loud words saying that as soon as the nuclear developments are up to par....the west will be sorry.
The fact that Syria is married to this guy and rebuilt their uranium facilty smells bad to me. And we will hear a BOOOOOM!!!! too.

[toooldtovote]

Yet.

[ajjaxtheleast]

Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair:,,,

"Nonetheless, on the not-to-distant horizon I can easily envision

a low-enriched uranium mushroom soup from Iran

infultrating American ports."

We realize that the military cant ever quit with their wolf at the door reports so

that we dont forget them at defence-budget time and to legitimize

their existance,,, but really,,,

,,,with the change of an administration,,,,a tiny little recess maybe??

[batchitcrazy]

It depends on the size of the nuclear weapon they are detonating, if it's small, which it would be, since it's their first, the fallout could be acceptable, since wiping out the Infidels and Israel is their main religious goal.
Posted by Joe-NY-3 at 9:42 AM : Mar 11, 2009-
------------------------------------------------
Sorry if there was some confusion to my comment about fallout. I was not hinting that the fallout would get all the way back to Iran.
Does anybody really think iran is smart enough to just build a tiny little nuke to scare people. Even a small nuke would or could contaminate Jerusalem. This is a very holy city to islam. Are Muslims going to be happy about the Holy Mount being off limits? How about fallout in the immediate region. Some of irans friends are there.
Your comment that something small would be acceptable makes you sound very childish on this subject.

[mav547166]

So we are going to wait for a year for them to set off a bomb, and then invade? We might as well give them one just like Clinton and Carter did for North Korea. Its all fun and games till the Hezbolla set one off in or near Israel.

[sndkzyaa]

What I will say is that Dubya and Cheney blah blah blah...
Posted by formrusmcsgt at 8:07 PM : Mar 11, 2009

You know something, you really need professional help with this hang up of yours.

This news item is not about Bush. We were not discussing Bush. You were the one who brought up Bush.

I'm just suggesting that we shouldn't treat this statement about Iran as 100 percent certain. It could be wrong. That's all I'm saying. We shouldn't treat it as a certainty.

Then you come bellowing in here as if we aren't allowed to question the certainty of Obama's intel because Bush's intel was wrong.

If you're not on some kind of medications, perhaps you should be.

[zwaggsy]

What's with the talk off faulty Intel? The British governments already been forced to admit that reports that cast doubt on the case for invasion of Iraq were either ignored or carefully reworded so as to make invasion seem like the only viable alternative. The Defence Minister at that time Geoff Hoon has since admitted that when Tony Blair stood up in the house of commons & warned about Iraq's ability to use it's WMD's within 45 mins he already knew this info was wrong, but didn't stand up to say so because he didn't think it right to correct his party's leader in front off the whole government!

[salibason]

Intel will always have a gray area. It does not have to do with who is presedent. But how well the CIA plays the game.

[formrusmcsgt]

Are you saying all US intel has always been perfect except under Geroge W. Bush?

Are you suggesting that Bush was the only president who operated according to faulty intel?

Why is it such an obsessive-compulsive reaction from you just because some of us suggest that perhaps we shouldn't place 100 percent confidence in this conclusion about Iran?
Posted by sndkzyaa at 8:03 PM : Mar 11, 2009

No. What I will say is that Dubya and Cheney saw what they wanted to, and ignored that wich did not fit the objective, including cautionary reports from various of our own intel services.

Agression is agression,-you can try to pretty it up with catch-phrases, but it's still agression in the end, plain and simple.

[sndkzyaa]

Why were all three carriers out on a Sunday? Hint: Not because of saboteurs.....
Posted by formrusmcsgt at 7:56 PM : Mar 11, 2009

OK, let's skip over the high school debate team.

Are you saying all US intel has always been perfect except under Geroge W. Bush?

Are you suggesting that Bush was the only president who operated according to faulty intel?

Why is it such an obsessive-compulsive reaction from you just because some of us suggest that perhaps we shouldn't place 100 percent confidence in this conclusion about Iran?