Pentagon sees Iran with bomb in 5 years

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. military is operating on the assumption that Tehran is five to eight years away from being able to build a nuclear bomb, The Washington Times reported in its Thursday edition.

news.yahoo.com...

Why is the U.N., along with many other nations, so concerned about it now? Its 5 years. They act like Iran is getting nukes' tommorow. Why such the aggressiveness now?

Whats even funnier is that its WAY exaggerated... I remmember not too long ago it was 10 years till they got the bomb and now all the sudden its five years... plus article says 5-8.... and even if they got the bomb they are not ignorant enough to use it.... its purely defensive anymore.... and while I say that I want you to know that I am anti-nuclear.... However, most everyone knows now that using the bomb is a sure way to turn EVERYONE against you. Look at N. Korea, they have it and havent and wont use it.... unless someone uses one against them.... I think this is all just more fear mongering

Well, it's down from 10 years by the last reports. Now 5 to 8, just a subtle shift of perception to make sure the masses are kept primed with fear and doubt. Soon there'll be another 'revelation' that could mean they're only 2 - 5 years from the bomb and then you can pretty much expect a US pre-emptive strike anytime.

tomorrow they'll be saying it's five weeks.
i'm no expert and don't claim to be but so far everything i've read has suggested a time frame of at least 10 years, and thats only if Iran doesn't screw up. or maybe they're just looking for a quickie excuse for another armed conflict, like what happening in some other middle eastern country right now, but i forget the name....Awreck is it?
yea. thanks to so called "Operation Freedom" *wink wink* that's exactly the state of the country now, so that must be the name...

[edit on 31-8-2006 by karby]

yeeh the situation is being portrayed as way out of control and will be used to justify going to war with Iran.

The rush is because Bush leaves office in 2008.
The Republicans are in danger of losing Congress in 2006.

Thus, a deadline: if they can't get their war on soon, they might lose their shot to finish "redrawing the map of the Middle East".

Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe
Well, it's down from 10 years by the last reports. Now 5 to 8, just a subtle shift of perception to make sure the masses are kept primed with fear and doubt. Soon there'll be another 'revelation' that could mean they're only 2 - 5 years from the bomb and then you can pretty much expect a US pre-emptive strike anytime.

think about it in a couple of months we will get a news report that Iran can produce and develpe and arm a ICBM that can hit anywhere in europe and the US withing 45 days

also we will get the news report from mi6 and the CIA that alians have massed for a invasion

Originally posted by xmotex
The rush is because Bush leaves office in 2008.
The Republicans are in danger of losing Congress in 2006.

Thus, a deadline: if they can't get their war on soon, they might lose their shot to finish "redrawing the map of the Middle East".

Republicans may lose the Executive Branch- and what may I ask will change? White House's stance on abortion, or gun control, or stem cell research, or some other domestic policy issue? When it comes to foreign policy in the US, seems to me that nothing has changed since the end of WWII. US foreign policy is too important to solelly be in control of whoever is in the White House. US foreign policy is an entity by itself, not changing from president to president, but slowly evolving. Would Kennedy have stopped the was in Vietnam? Why did Regan pull out of the Middle East (Lebannon)- he is a Republican after all. Why did Clinton find it so vital for US to interfere in Serbia? The President seems to have little actual control over foreign policy- although it may seem like he does.

Do you think US would not have found 9/11 reason enough to interfere in Middle East for reasons other than fighting terrorists, if a Gore was President? Any President will do what is in his power, to further the cause of his nation. Any opportunity to intervene when possible gains for the nation or its interests exist (and so do the pretenses), will be pursued.

Iran will be in the cross hairs no matter what. A Democratic President might be less inclined to pursue military action when gains/success of such action are not guaranteed to be positive. But if any President has complete certainty that such action will yield success he will most certainly pursue it. This is true not only for the US. Right now, an attack on Iran probably has more negative than positive side effects- thus it is being held off untill there are better odds.

And Iran will get a nuke one way or another, just like North Korea got theirs. There is no way of stopping this. You can bomb their facilities. They will build new ones. You can't invade them- the country is three times the size of iraq in both area and population. UN has about as much authority as a highschool teacher- not much in the area where it counts. Its better to just agree on Iran's terms, and at least get to monitor their nuclear program, than be shut out of it all together. Look how U.S. **** up with North Korea. The reason- it alienated NK, only pushing it more to create a weapon capable of giving it some authority and presence on the world stage. Iran, just like China is out of even U.S.'s scope. There are some areas where you just have to negotiate without holding all of the cards.

Originally posted by bodrul
think about it in a couple of months we will get a news report that Iran can produce and develpe and arm a ICBM that can hit anywhere in europe and the US withing 45 days

45 days to arm a missile? Pah! Saddam could arm and fire his missiles in 45 minutes! (allegedly)

Headline from last year:

Iran to have nuclear bombs in six months

Published: 21 September 2005



[edit on 2-9-2006 by Sep]

Iran having nuclear capability in 9-10 years. (Story came out in 2005 I believe). This source was referenced in Alex Jones' film TerrorStorm. Apparently, Iran cooperated fully with UN weapons inspectors over the years and everything was alright until the UN told them to stop their program for a little while and then they would be allowed to start up again later on... Basically if we attacked Iran, it would be our Iraq part deux in the endless quest for oil and other resources.

I never used to, but now I see the corrupt elements of the US government as the agressors in almost all areas here.