{"id":247882,"date":"2022-01-04T08:40:29","date_gmt":"2022-01-04T08:40:29","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/?p=247882"},"modified":"2022-01-05T08:40:54","modified_gmt":"2022-01-05T08:40:54","slug":"theyre-very-close-u-s-general-says-iran-is-nearly-able-to-build-a-nuclear-weapon-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/?p=247882","title":{"rendered":"‘They’re Very Close.’ U.S. General Says Iran Is Nearly Able to Build a Nuclear Weapon"},"content":{"rendered":"

Introduction \u2013 Jan 3, 2021<\/strong><\/h1>\n

U.S. and Israeli politicians only have themselves to blame if the latest warning from General Kenneth McKenzie, head of U.S. Central Command, about the Iranian threat fails to cause alarm.<\/p>\n

Literally for decades now U.S. and Israeli politicians and pundits have been warning that Iran was close to developing nuclear weapons. In fact in 1992, while he was still an MP, Benjamin Netanyahu warned that Iran could soon develop nuclear weapons<\/a>.<\/p>\n

That was thirty years ago and we have yet to see hard evidence that Iran is close to developing nuclear weapons. That\u2019s not to say that it may indeed be working to acquire nuclear weapons but we should avoid alarmism.<\/p>\n

After all, we heard similar reports about Saddam’s Weapons of Mass Destruction and we know where that ultimately led.<\/p>\n

What\u2019s interesting however, are the comments from General McKenzie, the head of the U.S. Central Command, on Iran’s growing missile power. They suggest that the U.S. is now a little wary of Iran. So that, even if the U.S. were to launch strikes on Iran\u2019s nuclear program they would be limited to removing Iran\u2019s ability to produce nuclear weapons.<\/p>\n

In other words, in the wake of Iraq and Afghanistan the U.S. wants to avoid a full-scale regional conflict with Iran.<\/p>\n

‘They’re Very Close.’ U.S. General Says Iran Is Nearly Able to Build a Nuclear Weapon<\/strong><\/h1>\n

W.J. Hennigan \u2013 TIME Magazine Nov 24, 2021<\/strong><\/h2>\n

Less than a week before world powers resume negotiations over Iran\u2019s nuclear program, the top U.S. commander in the Middle East says his forces stand ready with a potential military option should talks fail.<\/p>\n

\u201cOur president said they\u2019re not going to have a nuclear weapon,\u201d General Kenneth McKenzie, commander of U.S. Central Command, tells TIME. \u201cThe diplomats are in the lead on this, but Central Command always has a variety of plans that we could execute, if directed.\u201d<\/p>\n

Iranian negotiators are set to meet with European, Russian and Chinese counterparts in Vienna on Nov. 29 to discuss the possibility of reining in the program in exchange for easing international sanctions. The U.S. will not take part in the talks at Iran\u2019s request, and American officials have repeatedly warned that time is running out to restore the 2015 multilateral nuclear deal, known formally as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).<\/p>\n

President Joe Biden has made clear that the U.S. has no desire to engage in yet another destabilizing war in the Middle East, but officials at the White House, Pentagon and State Department have worked to develop so-called \u201cPlan B\u201d options should diplomacy fail and Iran opt to build the bomb, ranging from additional sanctions to military action.<\/p>\n

Iran is now further along in its nuclear weapons program than ever, producing stocks of uranium enriched to 60% purity, edging closer toward 90% weapons-grade material, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the U.N. watchdog. McKenzie believes Tehran has not made the decision to press ahead with manufacturing an actual warhead, but he shares concerns with America\u2019s Middle East allies about the progress Iran has made.<\/p>\n

\u201cThey\u2019re very close this time,\u201d McKenzie says. \u201cI think they like the idea of being able to breakout.\u201d<\/p>\n

The Institute for Science and International Security, a non-profit think tank that specializes in nuclear weapons analysis, issued a report in September<\/a> that found Iran could produce enough fissile material to build a nuclear weapon in a month under a \u201cworst-case breakout estimate.\u201d After breakout begins, Iran could produce a second weapon in less than three months, then a third in less than five months.<\/p>\n

Iran has stone-walled IAEA inspectors\u2019 access to its facilities for months. Rafael Mariano Grossi, the agency\u2019s director general, said Tuesday his team has been unable to access surveillance footage inside nuclear facilities and subjected to \u201cexcessively invasive physical searches<\/a>.\u201d<\/p>\n

Even if Tehran decides to amass enough fuel for a bomb, McKenzie says, the nation hasn\u2019t yet standardized a design for a warhead that\u2019s small enough to be affixed atop any of its arsenal of 3,000 ballistic missiles. Nor has Iran shown that it can build a reentry vehicle capable of surviving the searing heat, pressure and vibration of falling from space back to Earth. \u201cWe haven\u2019t seen any of that,\u201d McKenzie says. \u201cThat\u2019s what\u2019s going to take a little time for them to build.\u201d He estimates it would take Iran more than a year to develop this capability with a robust testing program.<\/p>\n

Iran has, however, shown its missiles have a proven ability to strike targets with precision, McKenzie says. In January 2020<\/a>, Iran launched more than a dozen Qiam-1 and Fateh-313 ballistic missiles from launch sites at three bases in western Iran that hit two Iraqi bases, Al Asad and Erbil, where hundreds of Americans were stationed. The missiles turned buildings, aircraft and living quarters into smoldering rubble. No one died, as most had managed to shelter in underground bunkers and trenches, but concussions from the blasts injured 109 American troops.<\/p>\n

\u201cThose missiles hit within tens of meters of their targets,\u201d McKenzie says. \u201cThe one thing the Iranians have done over the last three-to-five years is they built a very capable ballistic missile platform.\u201d<\/p>\n

There have been no formal<\/strong> international negotiations with Tehran since June, a month before Ebrahim Raisi was elected as Iran\u2019s president. The new hardline leader has sought more favorable terms on the nuclear deal, insisting that the U.S. remove all economy-crippling sanctions in exchange for Iran halting its nuclear activities. He maintains the nation\u2019s nuclear program is peaceful and accuses U.S.-ally Israel of carrying out unprovoked military strikes, including assassinating Iranian scientists and attacking facilities. One such attack knocked out the IAEA camera systems at the location.<\/p>\n

Israel has neither confirmed nor denied these allegations but has long voiced its displeasure with the JCPOA. \u201cEven with the return to an agreement, Israel is of course not part of the agreement. Israel is not bound by it,\u201d Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett said Tuesday. \u201cWe will maintain our freedom to act.\u201d<\/p>\n

When President Donald Trump abrogated the 2015 nuclear agreement<\/a> in May 2018, his administration turned the global financial system into a weapon against Tehran. His \u201cmaximum-pressure campaign\u201d resulted in more than 1,500 sanctions against Iran along with companies and individuals who did business there, including the nation\u2019s central bank, national oil company and other vital sectors of its economy. It triggered an exodus of corporations and financial institutions that would rather abandon their investments in Iran than risk U.S. Treasury Department sanctions<\/a>. Iran\u2019s economy-sustaining oil exports plunged to historic lows.<\/p>\n

The Biden Administration has shown a willingness to roll back some penalties, but the prospect of easing terrorism-related sanctions is politically problematic. If the President removes them, he will almost certainly be criticized for looking soft. \u201cThere is no legal barrier to how far the President can go in undoing Trump\u2019s sanctions, but the political cost in certain areas is prohibitive,\u201d says Ali Vaez, the Iran project director at the International Crisis Group. \u201cA narrow path remains open, but the odds of a diplomatic breakthrough are not looking promising at all.\u201d<\/p>\n

Republicans, Israel and Gulf nations have all pressured the White House to address what they say are Iran\u2019s \u201cmalign activities.\u201d Tehran is involved in every serious conflict in the Middle East, almost always on the side of America\u2019s enemies. On Oct. 20, for instance, U.S. officials say Iranian-linked fighters launched a drone attack against a U.S. military base at al-Tanf in eastern Syria. There were no U.S. casualties, but buildings were destroyed. \u201cWe had a little bit of luck,\u201d McKenzie says. \u201cWe\u2019re in the middle of a battle drill. We had people out manning positions, so no one was killed as a result of that. But that is solely due to our action and not the action of the enemy, who was clearly trying to kill Americans.\u201d<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>

Ain al-Asad airbase following Iranian missile strike. Click to enlarge<\/p><\/div>\n

Nine days after the al-Tanf attacks, the U.S. Treasury Department announced new sanctions against two senior Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps members and two affiliated companies for supplying lethal drones and related material to insurgent groups in Iraq, Lebanon, Yemen and Ethiopia.<\/p>\n

There is no dispute among Biden officials that Iran is a bad actor intent on expanding its influence in the Middle East, either directly as its military forces and Iranian-backed political groups have done in Iraq and Syria, or by funding and equipping proxies such as Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Palestine. The question is how much the Biden Administration is willing to tolerate to restore the nuclear deal.<\/p>\n

Removing economic pressure on Tehran is not currently part of the negotiations set to restart next week. In response to Iran\u2019s insistence that all U.S. sanctions be lifted, Secretary of State Antony Blinken publicly questioned Iran\u2019s willingness to pursue diplomacy and implied an ultimatum if Iran chooses not to \u201cengage in a meaningful way and get back into compliance.\u201d The U.S. and other JCPOA signatories\u2014Russia, China, Germany, Britain, and France\u2014will consider \u201call of the options necessary to deal with this problem,\u201d Blinken told CNN<\/a> on Oct. 31.<\/p>\n

There are no great options, says Henry Rome, an Iran expert at the Eurasia Group consulting firm. \u201cIn theory, there are four options: Iran getting a bomb, Iran getting bombed, Iran restraining its program through diplomacy, or Iran hovering on the edge of those three at the same time,\u201d he says. \u201cAt this point in time, we\u2019re in that uncomfortable position where diplomacy is not working and the bomb\/be bombed options are unacceptable. It\u2019s not a sustainable position, but it\u2019s where we are right now.\u201d<\/p>\n

Even before Trump took office, the U.S. was responding to Iran\u2019s regional expansion with military, intelligence and diplomatic countermeasures. Trump\u2019s decision to unilaterally walk away from the nuclear deal accelerated the confrontation, but the willingness for talks indicates the two nations see some value in de-escalating tensions.<\/p>\n

McKenzie believes it\u2019s best to take a multilateral approach. \u201cWe have made a conscious decision to work this through diplomatic channels, he says. \u201cAnd I would just tell you, it\u2019s better to approach it from a collective perspective, rather than as a single problem, as we did for awhile.\u201d<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Source<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Comments from the top U.S. commander in the Middle East suggest that U.S. is increasingly wary of Iran\u2019s growing missile power<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":39262,"featured_media":247514,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[51],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-247882","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-Iran"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/247882","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/39262"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=247882"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/247882\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":247909,"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/247882\/revisions\/247909"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/247514"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=247882"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=247882"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=247882"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}