Outgoing CIA Director William Burns reiterated in an interview with NPR published on Friday that the US has not seen any sign that Iran has decided to build a nuclear weapon.
Burns was asked if the losses Iran and its allies have faced in recent months would make it more likely that Tehran would make a nuclear bomb. He said there was no indication that Tehran would reverse a public fatwa made by Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in 2003 that prohibited the development of weapons of mass destruction.
“We do not see any sign today that any such decision has been made, but we obviously watch it intently. You know that that sense of weakness could also theoretically create a possibility for serious negotiations, too,” Burns said.
Burns made similar comments in October and said at the time that if Iran did decide to make a bomb, US intelligence would likely be able to “see it relatively early on.”
The CIA chief’s latest comments come after media reports have said both the Biden administration and the incoming Trump administration are considering military actions against Iran’s nuclear program over claims that Tehran may be making advancements toward producing a weapon.
According to a report from Axios, Israeli Minister of Strategic Affairs Ron Dermer left a meeting with Trump in November believing it was highly likely he would either support Israeli strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities or order a direct US strike on Iran.
The hype about Iran’s nuclear program is focused on the enrichment of some uranium at 60% purity, which is still below the 90% needed for weapons-grade. Iran took the step to enrich at 60% in response to an Israeli covert attack on its Natanz nuclear facility in 2021.
Iran is also a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, unlike Israel, which never signed the NPT and has a covert nuclear stockpile that’s not officially acknowledged by the US.
Attacking Iran nuclear facilities by US or Israel would trigger Iran making the bombs…!
Apparently Shiia Islam is very emphatic that civilians should be left alone as much as possible during military actions, something which is not even a concept in the other Abrahamic religions and barely given a nod in some of the other Muslim sects. The fatwa is opposed to ALL WMD, since by design they are indiscriminate as to whether those affected are non-combatants or not. Westerners seem to have trouble believing this, since in our method of warfare civilians and their infrastructure are generally the primary targets.
The Eastern European concept of warfare is somewhat similar, there are multiple stories and videos of Ukrainian or Russian soldiers who are evacuating civilians running into 'the enemy' and being allowed to go on their way unmolested. This is why after almost three years of intense warfare the civilian death toll is still lower than just the number of civilians killed in Fallujah.
… But at some point you would say enough is enough…! Fatwa can be overturned…! However, having the bomb(s) and using it are two different things…!
**WE** would say “enough is enough”, but we don’t live in a theocracy led by people who are unable to admit error because they claim to be speaking for their deity. It took the Pope over half a century just to slightly moderate the Church’s position on an issue so blatantly obvious as birth control, and the Vatican is far more liberal than the Iranian leadership.
What might be remotely conceivable is that they decide to enrich to weapons-grade and give it to someone like the Islamic Brotherhood, but even that’s quite a stretch.
What you're saying may apply to Iran domestic issues similar to what you mention on Vatican birth control issue…. However, foreign policies and survival as a sovereign country are different ball games…!
Survival at all costs is not the objective of all people …
That’s Muslim brotherhood and those guys are a Turkish faction. When Iran finally does announces their nuclear weapons grade capacity, they wont hide it.
Where did I get ‘Islamic Brotherhood’ from? Brain burp. Anyway, I meant that they’re Sunni rather than Shiia. IIRC their roots are in Egypt rather than Turkey.
Iran fired Scud missiles at Baghdad during the Iran and Iraq war. All totaled over 100,000 civilians died in attacks by both sides during that war. So much for your Shiia Islam theory.
Of the 100,000 deaths between 5-10% were Kurds, killed by Iraq (on both sides of the border), and around 10% of the rest were Iraqi. All the rest were Iranian.
Which is exactly what they want, so when and if it happens, they can say "See? We told you so!" They did that to Russia, Syria, and now China as well. An obvious pattern.
Iran war was never about nukes, the old WMD to con us suckers. It's US of I hegemony, … and the ancillary keeping China/Russia out. All which is increasingly imperative for NeoConNazi ideologues.
Well… Iran is not Iraq or Afghanistan and cannot be invaded by either US or Israel because they can defend themselves… Their only solutions are sanctions and bombardment, and those have not and will not achieve their goals…! So it's shit show…!
Stiil contend: nukes are obsolete…. MDS…,…,…,…,…………………
To the US power to be the truth and facts don't matter.
Bibi says they are working on a bomb, so that settles it.
Iran could have made bombs years ago. They have the technology.
If they do, then so what.
So what? Probably war will break out in Middle East if Iran starts to make them. Unlike trump, Israel is not afraid of Iran and Israel will not all it can to prevent Iran from getting the bomb.
War wouldn't break out if Iran had nukes. So, your comment doesn't address what he said but it instead describes what Israel is doing right now and has been doing for decades. Trying their damndest to get the US to go to war for them. And you're out of your mind if you think Trump won't attack Iran.
I am a firm believer that Iran needs nukes to put a stop to the escalation ladder. Letting one belligerent have nukes
and not the other encourages that one side to engage in violence; this was one of JFKs ver well thought out concerns about letting Israel get nukes.
Of course neither side having nukes would be better, but Iran getting nukes is a natural and expected outcome of Israel having them and continually threatening Iran and the whole ME with them.
It has been reported that Iran and Russia will soon solidify a mutual defense pact—whether nukes will be included or not is unclear, but most likely integration of air defenses will be major part of it; that will stop Israel and the US.
Actually producing nukes is a decision that Iran will have to make—as for complaining about Iran having the capability to make a nuke, that is within the means of any modern nation state…. You however can be sure that IF Israel preemptively bombs Iran's nuclear facilities, 100% Iran will soon after demonstrate a bomb.
Israel is deathly afraid of Iran. You can’t rule over the Empire over seas, if your people have been wiped out.
And why did Iran enrich U-235 to 60%? At 60% one can make a bomb about the size of Hiroshima bomb. It would not be efficient but it would work. They would not do that because in a couple months they can take the 60% U-235 to higher and thus efficient level.
“And why did Iran enrich U-235 to 60%?”
To establish that if the US regime didn’t consider itself bound by the nuclear agreement, it wasn’t going to be bound by it either.
Do you have this on auto-comment or some such thing? How often do you have to hear what Knapp said?
Facts only matter to us who live in the 'reality based community'.
"The aide said that guys like me were 'in what we call the reality-based community,' which he defined as people who 'believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.' […] 'That's not the way the world really works anymore,' he continued. 'We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do'."
– Journalist Ron Suskind