Republican lawmakers and Iran experts have slammed the Biden administration for alleged appeasement toward the mullah regime with respect to unfreezing tens of billions of dollars in sanctions relief.
The State Department spokesperson said, “Since 2021, we have sanctioned dozens of individuals and entities across multiple jurisdictions, including the PRC, UAE, and Southeast Asia for roles in the production, sale, and shipment of hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of Iranian petrochemicals and petroleum products. And we have identified as blocked property numerous vessels involved in this trade.”
David Albright, physicist and founder and president of the Institute for Science and International Security in Washington, D.C., told Fox News Digital, “Sen. Graham’s statement of being unnerved is good to hear. The IC assessment has been flawed ever since its 2007 National Intelligence Estimate.”
Albright is widely considered one of the world’s leading experts on Iran’s nuclear program. He said, “Sen. Graham mentioned that some advances had occurred in Iran’s ability to make nuclear weapons, i.e. weaponize the weapon-grade uranium into a nuclear weapon, but his comment was sparse and devoid of substance. It is in this area, however, where new intelligence community assessments may or may not lurk. But I cannot weigh in on this based on what the senator said.”
Albright said, “It is clear that the DNI report included a short timeframe for Iran to produce a significant quantity of weapon-grade uranium, but this is old news and well-established by the IAEA in its quarterly reports and some standard calculations. The new twist is Iran’s recent expansion at the deeply buried Fordow site, which gives Iran a new ability to produce significant quantities of weapon-grade uranium in days at this site. But again, we have reported on this.”
U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken said in July about Iran’s quest to obtain a nuclear weapon, “Instead of being at least a year away from having the breakout capacity of producing fissile material for a nuclear weapon, (Iran) is now probably one or two weeks away from doing that.”
When asked about the breakout concept, Albright said, “Breakout is usually defined as the time for Iran to produce enough weapon-grade for a single nuclear weapon. It has been measured in days rather than months for many months, based on IAEA reporting in its quarterly reports and standard calculational methods, which we have regularly published and the studies are on our website.”
He continued, “A common assessment, which we share, is that Iran has not made a formal decision to build nuclear weapons, so it has also not made a decision to breakout and produce weapon-grade uranium.”
“Breakout is not typically used to discuss the entire time Iran would need to produce its first nuclear weapon,” Albright noted. “This timeframe depends on the breakout above but also on what type of weapon would Iran build. Our assessment is that Iran could build a crude nuclear explosive, deliverable by truck, or able to be exploded underground in six months. It would need longer, perhaps six more months in a crash program to be able to mount a reliable nuclear warhead on a ballistic missile.”
Gabriel Noronha, a former U.S. Department State adviser on Iran, told Fox News Digital, “Iran has been decreasing its nuclear enrichment breakout time over the past five years, but that’s different than them actually making the decision to go and rush toward a bomb. However, they love the flexibility and leverage that being this close brings them – especially now that they are under two weeks away from having enough enriched uranium, and haven’t suffered any significant consequences as a result.”
He added, “However, it is much less clear how close Iran’s weaponization program has come to both building a weapon and being able to pair it on a missile that could reach Israel or other American allies. What’s clear from Sen. Graham’s press conference is that Iran keeps on getting closer and closer on this part of its nuclear program.”
Noronha, who is also a fellow at the Jewish Institute for National Security of America (JINSA), urged “Biden to have a clear and credible red line that further progress toward a nuclear weapon would be met with a military response. But he should only make a threat like that if he is willing to back it up with action. If President Biden really wants to avoid military action, then he needs to roll out every possible diplomatic and economic consequence in the interim to punish and deter Iran from proceeding any further.”