Iran Needs to Stop Nuclear Enrichment Process

[Guest LAW]

Luke you are slacking on an important issue here. There is some heavy talking in Bush's administration.

 

****************************************************************************

 

Q Scott, the administration has been talking to Iran and laying out in very clear language that they need to suspend all enrichment activities. And yet, out of Tehran today is the announcement that they want to build 54,000 centrifuges, certainly enough to build a nuclear weapon. A, what is your concern that what the administration and the international community is saying is not being heard? How is the message going to be sharpened and toughened? And where to now?

 

MR. McCLELLAN: A, let me correct you, first of all. It's not the United States that is saying that the regime needs to fully suspend its enrichment and reprocessing activities, it is the international community that is saying to the regime, you must suspend your enrichment and reprocessing activities. This is a regime that has a long history of hiding its activities from the international community when it comes to its nuclear program. And --

 

Q Well, when the Secretary of State spoke today, she was speaking as much to the U.N. as she was to Iran. So, clearly, there can't be a great deal of comfort with how the international community is being heard.

 

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, the international community is united in our goal of preventing the regime from having a nuclear weapons capability, or the knowledge of how to make nuclear weapons, or nuclear weapons. The President spoke to that earlier this week. The announcement by the regime only underscores its defiance of the international community and the united message of the international community. The international community, through the United Nations Security Council and through the IAEA -- the International Atomic Energy Agency Board passed resolutions in a statement saying, you need to fully suspend your enrichment and reprocessing activities. That's in order to start building some confidence with the international community.

 

Now, this announcement by the regime is only further isolating the regime from the world. And that's why Secretary Rice made clear earlier today that it is time for action at the United Nations Security Council, time for action on the diplomatic front. And we have continued to consult with the Security Council members and with our friends and allies, including Germany, about how to address the threat posed by the regime. And those conversations will continue at the Security Council. The Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency is looking at where the regime stands in terms of its nuclear programs and will be reporting back to the Security Council at the end of this month. But it is time for action. And what the Secretary was expressing earlier today. The President wanted to make sure she made that very clear to all who were listening.

 

Q Does the administration doubt at all anything that -- any of Iran's claims, as far as what it's managed to produce and put together by way of centrifuge --

 

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm not in a position to make a technical assessment of the announcement that they made yesterday --

 

Q But is the feeling among the administration that --

 

MR. McCLELLAN: -- but it does show the continued defiance of this regime of the demands of the international community.

 

Q Scott, one the President's senior foreign policy advisors is quoted today as saying that, with regard to Iran, the problem is that our policy has been all carrots and no sticks, and the Iranians know that. Is that the administration's assessment? And if that's so, why are you content to stay with that?

 

MR. McCLELLAN: First of all, this is an effort by the world to stop the regime from developing nuclear weapons or having the capability to develop nuclear weapons. So this is a world that is united in our message to the regime. And this regime was given an opportunity by the Security Council, in a very strong presidential statement, to come clean and make a commitment to complying with its obligations. And it was very clear in that statement, as well as the resolution of the International Atomic Energy Agency -- this is a 35-member board saying, you must fully suspend your enrichment and reprocessing activities, you need to return to the Paris Agreement. The announcement by the regime is in clear violation of the Paris Agreement, which they made with the Europeans.

 

And so what the world is saying to the regime is, we are not going to tolerate it if you continue to defy us. And that's why it is -- that's why the Secretary was making very clear that it is time for action on the diplomatic front.

 

Q But is there no stick, it's all carrots?

 

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, we're consulting with the international community about how we move forward and the appropriate steps to take to address the threat posed by the regime. The Secretary made it clear today, earlier, that the Security Council needs to act.

 

Q What does she want them to do? Sanctions?

 

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I'm not going to get into speculating about what steps we'll be taken, but you can be assured that it needs to be more than just a presidential statement at this point.

 

Q Well, what's in your arsenal? I think we ought to know. Why should it be a secret?

 

MR. McCLELLAN: Because we're consulting with our friends and allies in the Security Council about the next steps to take on the diplomatic front.

 

Q What do you have -- what do you have in mind?

 

MR. McCLELLAN: There are a lot of options available. If I start speculating about options, then you all are going to go run out there and start saying, well, the White House said this option or that option. So I'm not going to -- I'm just not going to do that.

 

Q Karl Rove, in a speech in Houston today, said that the President of Iran is not a rational human being. Is that a view that's shared by the President?

 

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think we've spoken out about the President of Iran and some of the outrageous and offensive statements that he has made. We have a number of concerns about the regime's behavior. It's not just on the nuclear issue. But because of their behavior on other issues, it only increases the concern of the international community when it comes to their nuclear program.

 

Certainly, the statements that the President has made have only increased the concerns of the international community, particularly when it comes to the idea of that regime possessing a nuclear weapon, know-how, or capability. This is a regime that -- leader that has spoken about destroying an ally of ours. And the President has made very clear what our views are when it comes to that.

 

Q So you're -- you don't think he's rational either, then?

 

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I haven't seen what Karl said earlier today, but you've got his comments.

 

Q Scott, were you surprised by the announcement yesterday and the clearly political nature of it?

 

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, the regime has certainly been signaling that they're continuing to move in the direction of defiance instead of cooperation and negotiation. So I don't know if I'd describe it that way.

 

Q How would you describe it? And when did you first learn about the announcement? When they made the --

 

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, they were making -- they were certainly signaling some of their intentions.

 

Q You've gone to great length to say this is an international pressure being put on Iran. Do you think that if it is viewed, especially by those in Iran, as the U.S. putting pressure on that government to stop what it's doing, that that would be, in effect, harmful to the process because of how the U.S. is perceived there?

 

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, first of all, it's not about whether or not they have the right to civilian nuclear power. We've made that very clear. In fact, the international community has provided them a way to move forward with civilian nuclear power, provided they put in place some objective guarantees that they're not developing nuclear weapons under the cover of that civilian program. And the President has talked about the Russia offer. But again, this is a problem the regime has with the world. It's not about the regime and the United States. It's about the concerns of the international community when it comes to this regime's continued defiance.

[Guest LAW]

Hold the press... More White House Gaggle

 

Russia say Iran can make a BOMB in 16 Days

 

*************************************************************

 

Q The Assistant Secretary of State in Moscow today said that Iran, in developing its centrifuges at the current pace or at the industrial scale that they say they're going to, they could have a nuclear bomb within 16 days. Is that right?

 

MR. McCLELLAN: I haven't seen what the Assistant Secretary of State has said in Russia today. I'll have to take a look at it. I'd refer you back to what our intelligence community has said about that assessment. That is the standing assessment of the United States government. And I'm not going to speculate -- I've told you, I don't have a technical assessment of the latest announcement by the regime, so I'm not going to engage in that kind of speculation.

 

Q Okay, more broadly, how will you --

 

MR. McCLELLAN: More broadly speculate.

 

Q More broadly, how immediate is this threat of a nuclear weapon?

 

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think the intelligence community has spoken to it, and so I would leave you, in terms of -- but this is a threat that the international community must address and must act on through the diplomatic front. That's what the Secretary of State spoke about earlier today.

 

Rick, go ahead.

 

Q Scott, going back to -- on the Iran question, given China's --

 

MR. McCLELLAN: We're still on it. We didn't go off it.

 

Q Well, there you are. Given China and Russia's reluctance for imposition of sanctions and tougher diplomatic methods in dealing with Iran, to what extent does the administration believe this has been playing an encouragement factor in Iranian behavior --

 

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, first of all, those countries you bring up have been part of a united message and have expressed concerns about the regime having a nuclear weapon. And so I think we're united in our message and our objective of preventing the regime from having the know-how or the capability to develop nuclear weapons. And we are continuing to discuss how we move forward. There is -- there have been consultations that have been ongoing since the last Security Council meeting on this subject. Secretary Rice just returned from Europe recently. She had a number of high-level discussions there. I know that our Under Secretary of State has continued those discussions at that level with his counterparts. So those continue, and they continue with the countries that you bring up.

 

Go ahead, did you have a follow-up?

 

Q But it's pretty well seen across-the-board that both countries are reluctant to impose sanctions or stricter diplomatic language when dealing with them, at least in the past. And I'm wondering how much does that actually encourage the Iranians? They know they have the Chinese --

 

MR. McCLELLAN: I think the concern of the international community only grows at the regime continues to defy what we have all called for it to do. So that's why we're going to continue to consult with them about it.

 

Q I just want to clear up one thing. Iran has signed the Nonproliferation Treaty. Does it have the right to do what it's doing, to enrich fuel? I'm a little unclear about -- legally, are they on solid ground --

 

MR. McCLELLAN: Going back to your question, Iran may be a member to the -- or be a party to the NPT, but let's look at their history. For some 18 years, the regime hid their nuclear activities from the international community. They failed to comply with their obligations. And so it became an issue of trust with the rest of the world. The regime showed that they cannot be trusted. And that's why the world is concerned that they are developing nuclear weapons under the cover of a civilian program.

 

So we supported the efforts of the European 3, to enter into negotiations with the regime to resolve this matter. And what they said was that there needs to be an objective guarantee in place to show that you are not developing nuclear weapons under the cover of a civilian program. And remember, the 35-nation IAEA Board of Governors passed resolutions calling on Iran to reestablish suspension of its uranium enrichment efforts, and formally found the regime in noncompliance with its international obligations. So this is a matter of the regime restoring confidence with the rest of the international community.

 

And then, of course, the Security Council, on March 29th, adopted a presidential statement unanimously calling on Iran to reestablish full and sustained suspension of all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities, and to resume cooperation with the IAEA under the additional protocol. And so that's where things stand at this point.

 

Q But, Scott, hasn't that battle been lost? If Iran is now enriching uranium, all of these resolutions become academic. The battles -- they have marched forward, and yet the administration is still talking about diplomatic resolutions to a major step that, as of a few days ago, wasn't accepted --

 

MR. McCLELLAN: There are options at the disposal of the international community. And that's why it's time for the international community to act. That's why Secretary Rice said it's time for the Security Council to act on the diplomatic front. And we're talking about the appropriate steps to take in response to their continued defiance.

[Guest LAW]

http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display..../wf-latest.html

 

Rice Calls for Strong U.N. Response to Iran's Uranium Enrichment

 

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice warned April 12 that Iran’s claim of having successfully enriched a small quantity of uranium will lead only to its further isolation in the international community, and she called on the U.N. Security Council to take “strong steps” in response.

 

“I do think that the Security Council will need to take into consideration this move by Iran and that it will be time when it reconvenes on this case for strong steps to make certain that we maintain the credibility of the international community on this issue,” she told reporters at the State Department.

 

Iran’s announcement of its nuclear achievement came less than two weeks after the Security Council issued a unanimous presidential statement calling on Iran to suspend uranium enrichment and to cooperate with the efforts of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to verify the peaceful nature of the Iranian nuclear program.

 

“It demonstrates that Iran is not adhering to the international community's requirements,” Rice said.

 

At the United Nations, where representatives of the five permanent members of the Security Council were gathering for a previously scheduled meeting, U.S. Ambassador John Bolton told reporters, "f Iran does not comply with the demand in the presidential statement we adopted on March 28 to come into compliance with the existing IAEA resolutions, we would consider at that point a resolution under chapter VII which would make the IAEA resolutions binding on Iran."

 

A Chapter VII resolution, which deals with threats to peace, could include enforcement provisions allowing for sanctions or the use of military force in the event Iran fails to comply.

 

All five permanent members of the council -- China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States -- have made it clear that they do not want to see Iran with nuclear weapons, according to Bolton. He said that given Iran's record and provocative statements by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad, "leaving a potential nuclear weapons capability in the hands of the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism is not a happy prospect." (See related article.)

 

Iran agreed to suspend research into uranium enrichment in November 2004 while it discussed the nature of its nuclear program with France, Germany and the United Kingdom, collectively known as the EU-3. Those discussions collapsed in January 2006 when Iran resumed its research activities against the protests of the IAEA and the international community. (See related article.)

 

Uranium enrichment is the key to both the nuclear fuel cycle and the production of nuclear weapons. The concentration of radioactive isotopes in a uranium compound can produce material suitable to fire nuclear power plants or, at higher concentrations, to produce nuclear bombs.

 

Rice said that it is this latter possibility that worries the international community.

 

“This is not a question of Iran's right to civil nuclear power. This is a question of that the world does not believe that Iran should have the capability and the technology that could lead to a nuclear weapon,” she said.

 

Rice said the United States would continue working to bring the international community into agreement on a diplomatic solution to the threat posed by Iran’s nuclear program.

 

“We are going to be steady in our diplomatic track here because we believe that a concerted and coherent diplomatic policy that the world is behind will convince the Iranians that they have to come back into compliance with what the international community is demanding of them,” she said.

[Guest LAW]

http://www.pej.org/html/modules.php?op=mod...order=0&thold=0

 

The demonic, all-powerful enemy has now morphed from the Soviet Union to Islamic extremism, but the paranoid rhetoric and "Pentagon uber alles" philosophy of the Cold War has been seamlessly transferred whole cloth to the supposedly transformed "post-9/11 age."

 

http://www.newstatesman.com/200604170004

 

So the Third World War is imminent and the madman in the White House bunker is about to nuke Iran. That, at least, is the message from the veteran investigative journalist Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker. The American media, however, seem far less concerned than the British: on the morning the story was making headlines in the UK, Iran did not even make the front pages of the Washington Post or New York Times. "Military fantasies on Iran", a New York Times editorial sniffed on 11 April.

 

http://www.emilitary.org/article.php?aid=6211

 

Rumsfeld told reporters today he believes Bush is handling the matter properly, but he shared his concerns about Iran. "It's a country that ... supports terrorists," the secretary said. "It's a country that has indicated an interest in having weapons of mass destruction."

 

http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/-editorial-i.../12/1566631.htm

 

The Washington Post reports that the Bush administration "is studying options for military strikes against Iran as part of a broader strategy of coercive diplomacy to pressure Tehran." That includes the possibility of using tactical nuclear devices against buried targets, the Post reported. In The New Yorker, investigative reporter Seymour Hersh writes that the U.S. "has increased clandestine activities inside Iran and intensified planning for a possible major air attack." In Hersh's telling, "Air Force planning groups are drawing up lists of targets, and teams of American combat troops have been ordered into Iran, under cover, to collect targeting data and to establish contact with anti-government ethnic-minority groups."

 

http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2006/s1615403.htm

 

The former head of research in Israeli military intelligence Yaacov Amidror says Iran's nuclear program must be seen as a global problem and the Iranians must not be let off the hook.

 

http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/-politics-us.../12/1567179.htm

 

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the premier Israel lobby group whose annual convention last year featured a giant, multimedia exhibit on how Iran is "pursuing nuclear weapons and how it can be stopped," has also been pushing hard on Capitol Hill for legislation to promote regime change. Despite White House objections, the group has sought tough sanctions against foreign companies with investments in Iran.

[Guest Human_*]

Law, I want to see if you actually know what you are typing about.

 

Here is my question, and it's real simple;

 

Why did Rice go over to the State Department?

[Guest LAW]

Dr. Condoleeza Rice replaced Colin Powell on January 26, 2005, after his resignation. The answer you do not want to accept is that Rice followed the Administration's delusional line on equating Hussein's regime with Islamist terrorism and WMD. What we both will agree on is that Dr. Rice has a close personal bond with the president, the ability to make him look good and deep ties to the oil industry. Here is a factoid for you. Chevron even named a tanker the USS Condoleeza Rice.

 

Ms. Rice argued that the Senate needed to approve the deal President Bush signed with India to keep that country aligned with the United States in what she called "an all-out rush for energy supplies" by rapidly developing nations. I believe that is the truth about what this is all about.

 

Dr. Rice and the administration are not leveling with the American people about invasion and occupation of Iraq. Now we need to prepare to lose more American lives in Iran to install a puppet regime, which will follow US mandates and restore the good ol' days before the Shah was overthrown.

 

But, please continue following the line....

 

"One of the most difficult problems in the Middle East is that the United States has been associated for a long time, decades, with a policy that looks the other way on the freedom deficit in the Middle East, that looks the other way at the absence of individual liberties in the Middle East. And I think that that has tended to alienate us from the populations of the Middle East." Dr. Condoleeza Rice

 

"We faced the outcome of an ideology of hatred throughout the Middle East that had to be dealt with. Saddam Hussein was a part of that old Middle East. The new Iraq will be a part of the new Middle East, and we will all be safer.” Dr. Condoleeza Rice

 

Its interesting how these Middle Eastern people don't follow the line even when they have the freedom to

choose it.

 

That is my rebuttal Human. Now here is my one simple question. Can you prove that I am wrong?

 

Here is some resource material for you

 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.pdf

[Guest human_*]

Namely under Powell "State" ran a more confrontational diplomatic stance, and under Rice it will be more of a diplomatic wagon.

 

That's it.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dr. Condoleeza Rice replaced Colin Powell on January 26, 2005, after his resignation. The answer you do not want to accept is that Rice followed the Administration's delusional line on equating Hussein's regime with Islamist terrorism and WMD. What we both will agree on is that Dr. Rice has a close personal bond with the president, the ability to make him look good and deep ties to the oil industry. Here is a factoid for you. Chevron even named a tanker the USS Condoleeza Rice.

 

Ms. Rice argued that the Senate needed to approve the deal President Bush signed with India to keep that country aligned with the United States in what she called "an all-out rush for energy supplies" by rapidly developing nations. I believe that is the truth about what this is all about.

 

Dr. Rice and the administration are not leveling with the American people about invasion and occupation of Iraq. Now we need to prepare to lose more American lives in Iran to install a puppet regime, which will follow US mandates and restore the good ol' days before the Shah was overthrown.

 

But, please continue following the line....

 

"One of the most difficult problems in the Middle East is that the United States has been associated for a long time, decades, with a policy that looks the other way on the freedom deficit in the Middle East, that looks the other way at the absence of individual liberties in the Middle East. And I think that that has tended to alienate us from the populations of the Middle East." Dr. Condoleeza Rice

 

"We faced the outcome of an ideology of hatred throughout the Middle East that had to be dealt with. Saddam Hussein was a part of that old Middle East. The new Iraq will be a part of the new Middle East, and we will all be safer.” Dr. Condoleeza Rice

 

Its interesting how these Middle Eastern people don't follow the line even when they have the freedom to

choose it.

 

That is my rebuttal Human. Now here is my one simple question. Can you prove that I am wrong?

 

Here is some resource material for you

 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.pdf

[Guest LAW]

I would agree with you on that point.

 

But don't you think it is odd that the two people that sold the Iraq war to the world were African Americans? Rice and Powell do not have the depth of a Ralph Johnson Bunche who received the 1950 Nobel Peace Prize for his mediation in Palestine in the late 1940s. I am sorry but Powell and Rice are not of that intellectual caliber. Many people in the African American community are insulted by their stances.

 

History will not question that General Powell was a great soldier, but he will be viewed an average Statesman that just followed orders over integrity.

 

Reports have indicated that Powell himself was skeptical of the evidence presented to him. In September 2005, Powell was asked about the speech during an interview with Barbara Walters and responded that it was a "blot" on his record. He went on to say, "it will always be a part of my record. It was painful. It's painful now."

 

The more interesting question is why would the United States send an African American Woman to the Middle East. We need more than a good oil broker. This region is run by men who still look down on Africans and think women should wear veils over their heads.

[Luke_Wilbur]

I think oil is one facet, but it by no means is the whole story.

 

By itself, Iranian's looking for fuel alternatives may not be alarming, but a new nuclear superpower that works against the interests of freedom, free trade, and glo­bal stability is now becoming a reality. Take the remarks by the newly electioned President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad questioning the Holocaust and calling for Israel to be "wiped off the map." Iran has threatened that if there is any U.S. military strikes on its nuclear sites by deploying its intelligence operatives and Hezbollah teams to carry out terrorist attacks worldwide.

 

Senate foreign relations committee chairman Richard Lugar (R-IN) said Iran, as the world's fourth-largest supplier of oil, was "part of the energy picture" and urged President George W. Bush to play "cool" and seek direct negotiations. The Bush administration has taken a multilateral approach through the UN Security Council which has the power to impose sanctions against Tehran.

 

Mr Lugar said it was too soon to press hard for sanctions aimed at halting Iran's suspected nuclear weapons program even as the Bush administration prepares to do so at a meeting in Moscow today. "I believe, for the moment, that we ought to cool this one. We need to make more headway diplomatically," Mr Lugar said.

 

Oil has been driven to fresh highs while other commodity prices have hit 20-year records as dealers worry about the deteriorating political situation between the US and Iran. In New York, the stock markets were weak in early trading, the Dow dropping to 11089.66, the S&P to 1285.70 and the Nasdaq to 2312.25, as the oil worries overshadowed strong earnings figures from the likes of Citigroup.

 

Leading Republican and Democratic senators have urged the Bush administration to engage Iran in full-scale talks, but in an interview with the Guardian Mr Khalilzad made it clear that the talks would be limited to Iraq. The US wanted Iran to halt aid to Iraq's sectarian militias, and stop smuggling al-Qaida fighters and weapons across the border, he said.

 

Here is a recent satellite image of the Natanz site, one of Irans nuclear facilities.

[Guest Benutzer]

It would be sufficient if the governments of all countries involved in the so called new cold war destroy themselves, which means not only Mister A. should resign but Mister Bush und Blair too, as all three have contributed to a level of confrontation of which it seems to be impossible to start negotiations again, let alone to sign a treaty. A solution can only be achieved if Bush and Blair acknowledge Iran’s fear of being besieged by nuclear powers of which only one is rightly permitted to have the bomb while India, Pakistan and Israel own it more or less illegally. The only argument western countries have is that Iran ratified the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, therefore it can not be expected to get the permission of developing nuclear bombs by countries which also signed the contract. The exceptions make it difficult to find reasonable arguments for giving up the program when in Pakistan a government not elected do not have to fear any sanctions at all. Bush has done nothing to give the Iran the impression that his government can be trusted. Iran still belongs to the axis of evil despite the fact that Iran has never supported al-quaida. Iran even welcomed the overthrow of Taliban.

[Guest Arthur J.]

"In open defiance of the United Nations, Iran is steadily expanding its efforts to enrich uranium," the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) found in a report released Thursday. The IAEA revealed that Iran is "now operating or about to switch on roughly 1,000 centrifuges, the high-speed devices that enrich uranium, at its nuclear facility at Natanz." Although the findings are "very serious," the report also "appeared to confirm that the Iranian government was somewhat behind schedule in its nuclear ambitions," leaving the international community with "some time to pursue options before Iran is even capable of building a nuclear bomb." Nevertheless, rhetoric and actions from both the United States and Iran have created an environment in the Persian Gulf comparable to the security situation at "the height of the Cold War." "In a hazy, hair-triggered environment, careless rhetoric and military movements…can be misinterpreted as preparations for military options," Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) warned in a speech last week. "The risk of inadvertent conflict because of miscalculation is great." In response to the IAEA's findings, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has reiterated the administration's opposition to direct talks with Iran unless the country suspends its enrichment and reprocessing activities. But as the Iranians press ahead on their quest for nuclear technology and regional tensions rise, the time for tough diplomacy is now.

[Guest 18]

Netanyahu's Speech to the United Nations General Assembly in New York

 

September 27. 2012

 

In the case of Iran's nuclear plans to build a bomb, this bomb has to be filled with enough enriched uranium. And Iran has to go through three stages.

 

The first stage: they have to enrich enough of low enriched uranium.

 

The second stage: they have to enrich enough medium enriched uranium.

 

And the third stage and final stage: they have to enrich enough high enriched uranium for the first bomb.

 

Where's Iran? Iran's completed the first stage. It took them many years, but they completed it and they're 70% of the way there.

 

Now they are well into the second stage. By next spring, at most by next summer at current enrichment rates, they will have finished the medium enrichment and move on to the final stage. From there, it's only a few months, possibly a few weeks before they get enough enriched uranium for the first bomb.

 

The red line should be drawn right here

 

Before Iran completes the second stage of nuclear enrichment necessary to make a bomb.

Before Iran gets to a point where it's a few months away or a few weeks away from amassing enough enriched uranium to make a nuclear weapon.

 

Each day, that point is getting closer. That's why I speak today with such a sense of urgency. And that's why everyone should have a sense of urgency.

 

Some who claim that even if Iran completes the enrichment process, even if it crosses that red line that I just drew, our intelligence agencies will know when and where Iran will make the fuse, assemble the bomb, and prepare the warhead.

 

Look, no one appreciates our intelligence agencies more than the Prime Minister of Israel. All these leading intelligence agencies are superb, including ours. They've foiled many attacks. They've saved many lives.

 

But they are not foolproof.

 

For over two years, our intelligence agencies didn't know that Iran was building a huge nuclear enrichment plant under a mountain.

 

Do we want to risk the security of the world on the assumption that we would find in time a small workshop in a country half the size of Europe?

 

The relevant question is not when Iran will get the bomb. The relevant question is at what stage can we no longer stop Iran from getting the bomb.

 

The red line must be drawn on Iran's nuclear enrichment program because these enrichment facilities are the only nuclear installations that we can definitely see and credibly target.

I believe that faced with a clear red line, Iran will back down.

 

This will give more time for sanctions and diplomacy to convince Iran to dismantle its nuclear weapons program altogether.