SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Pentagon's Nuclear Weapons Theory Bombs
Mar 08, 2009
As the U.S. economy sank ever lower, a huge brouhaha erupted this week over claims that Iran might have nuclear weapons.
The new CIA director, Leon Panetta, said "there is no question,
they (Iran) are seeking that capability." The Pentagon chief, Admiral
Mike Mullen, claimed Iran had "enough fissile material to build a
bomb."
Prime Minister Stephen Harper had claimed Iran posed an
"absolutely unacceptable threat." However, to Harper's credit, he just
admitted that Afghanistan is a no-win war.
While Rome burns, here we go again with renewed hysteria over
MWMD's -- Muslim weapons of mass destruction. War drums are again
beating over Iran.
The czar of all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies, Admiral Dennis
Blair, stated Iran could have enough enriched uranium for one atomic
weapon by 2010-15. But he reaffirmed the 2007 U.S. National
Intelligence Estimate that Iran does not have nuclear weapons and is
not pursuing them. Defence Secretary William Gates backed up Blair.
Public confusion over Iran comes from misunderstanding nuclear enrichment and lurid scare stories.
Iran is producing low-grade uranium-235 (LEU U-235), enriched
to only 2.5%, to generate electricity. Tehran has this absolute right
under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Its centrifuge enrichment
process at Nantaz is under 24-hour international inspection. Iran's
soon-to-open nuclear plant at Bushehr cannot produce nuclear weapons
fuel.
Today, some 15 nations produce LEU U-235, including Brazil,
Argentina, Germany, France, and Japan. Israel, India and Pakistan, all
nuclear weapons powers, refused to sign the non-proliferation treaty.
North Korea abrogated it.
UN inspectors report Iran has produced 1,010 kg of 2% to 3%
enriched uranium for energy generation. Theoretically that is enough
for one atomic bomb.
Costly process
But to make a nuclear weapon, U-235 must be enriched to over
90% in an elaborate, costly process. Iran is not doing so, say UN
inspectors.
Highly enriched U-235 or plutonium must then be milled and
shaped into a perfect ball or cylinder. Any surface imperfections will
prevent achieving critical mass. Next, high explosive lenses must
surround the core and detonate at precisely the same millisecond. In
some cases, a stream of neutrons must be pumped into the device as it
explodes.
This process is highly complex. Nuclear weapons cannot be
deemed reliable unless they are tested. North Korea recently detonated
a device that fizzled. Iran has never built or tested a nuclear weapon.
Experts believe Israel and South Africa jointly tested a nuclear weapon
in 1979.
Even if Iran had the capability to fashion a complex nuclear
weapon, it would be useless without delivery. Iran's sole medium-range
delivery system is its unreliable, inaccurate, 1,500-km ranged
Shahab-3. Miniaturizing and hardening nuclear warheads capable of
flying atop a Shahab missile is another complex technological
challenge.
It is inconceivable that Iran or anyone else would launch a
single nuclear weapon. What if it didn't go off? Imagine the
embarrassment and the retaliation. Iran would need at least 10 warheads
and a reliable delivery system to be a credible nuclear power.
Israel, the primary target for any Iranian nuclear strike, has
an indestructible triad of air, missile and sea-launched nuclear
weapons. An Israeli submarine with nuclear cruise missiles is on
station off Iran's coast.
Off the map
Iran would be wiped off the map by even a few of Israel's 200
nuclear weapons. Iran is no likelier to use a nuke against its Gulf
neighbours. The explosion would blanket Iran with radioactive dust and
sand.
Much of the uproar over Iran's so far nonexistent nuclear
weapons must be seen as part of efforts by Israel's American partisans
to thwart President Barack Obama's proposed opening to Tehran, and to
keep pushing the U.S. to attack Iran's nuclear infrastructure. They and
many Israeli experts insist Iran has secret weapons programs that
threaten Israel's existence.
The hawkish Hillary Clinton's naming of veteran Israel
supporter Dennis Ross as her new legate to Iran adds to the confusion
over administration policy towards Iran. Who is in charge of foreign
policy? What's the plan?
Why Your Ongoing Support Is Essential
Donald Trump’s attacks on democracy, justice, and a free press are escalating — putting everything we stand for at risk. We believe a better world is possible, but we can’t get there without your support. Common Dreams stands apart. We answer only to you — our readers, activists, and changemakers — not to billionaires or corporations. Our independence allows us to cover the vital stories that others won’t, spotlighting movements for peace, equality, and human rights. Right now, our work faces unprecedented challenges. Misinformation is spreading, journalists are under attack, and financial pressures are mounting. As a reader-supported, nonprofit newsroom, your support is crucial to keep this journalism alive. Whatever you can give — $10, $25, or $100 — helps us stay strong and responsive when the world needs us most. Together, we’ll continue to build the independent, courageous journalism our movement relies on. Thank you for being part of this community. |
© 2023 Eric Margolis
Eric Margolis
Eric Margolis is a columnist, author and a veteran of many conflicts in the Middle East. Margolis was featured in a special appearance on Britain's Sky News TV as "the man who got it right" in his predictions about the dangerous risks and entanglements the US would face in Iraq. His latest book is "American Raj: Liberation or Domination?: Resolving the Conflict Between the West and the Muslim World."
As the U.S. economy sank ever lower, a huge brouhaha erupted this week over claims that Iran might have nuclear weapons.
The new CIA director, Leon Panetta, said "there is no question,
they (Iran) are seeking that capability." The Pentagon chief, Admiral
Mike Mullen, claimed Iran had "enough fissile material to build a
bomb."
Prime Minister Stephen Harper had claimed Iran posed an
"absolutely unacceptable threat." However, to Harper's credit, he just
admitted that Afghanistan is a no-win war.
While Rome burns, here we go again with renewed hysteria over
MWMD's -- Muslim weapons of mass destruction. War drums are again
beating over Iran.
The czar of all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies, Admiral Dennis
Blair, stated Iran could have enough enriched uranium for one atomic
weapon by 2010-15. But he reaffirmed the 2007 U.S. National
Intelligence Estimate that Iran does not have nuclear weapons and is
not pursuing them. Defence Secretary William Gates backed up Blair.
Public confusion over Iran comes from misunderstanding nuclear enrichment and lurid scare stories.
Iran is producing low-grade uranium-235 (LEU U-235), enriched
to only 2.5%, to generate electricity. Tehran has this absolute right
under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Its centrifuge enrichment
process at Nantaz is under 24-hour international inspection. Iran's
soon-to-open nuclear plant at Bushehr cannot produce nuclear weapons
fuel.
Today, some 15 nations produce LEU U-235, including Brazil,
Argentina, Germany, France, and Japan. Israel, India and Pakistan, all
nuclear weapons powers, refused to sign the non-proliferation treaty.
North Korea abrogated it.
UN inspectors report Iran has produced 1,010 kg of 2% to 3%
enriched uranium for energy generation. Theoretically that is enough
for one atomic bomb.
Costly process
But to make a nuclear weapon, U-235 must be enriched to over
90% in an elaborate, costly process. Iran is not doing so, say UN
inspectors.
Highly enriched U-235 or plutonium must then be milled and
shaped into a perfect ball or cylinder. Any surface imperfections will
prevent achieving critical mass. Next, high explosive lenses must
surround the core and detonate at precisely the same millisecond. In
some cases, a stream of neutrons must be pumped into the device as it
explodes.
This process is highly complex. Nuclear weapons cannot be
deemed reliable unless they are tested. North Korea recently detonated
a device that fizzled. Iran has never built or tested a nuclear weapon.
Experts believe Israel and South Africa jointly tested a nuclear weapon
in 1979.
Even if Iran had the capability to fashion a complex nuclear
weapon, it would be useless without delivery. Iran's sole medium-range
delivery system is its unreliable, inaccurate, 1,500-km ranged
Shahab-3. Miniaturizing and hardening nuclear warheads capable of
flying atop a Shahab missile is another complex technological
challenge.
It is inconceivable that Iran or anyone else would launch a
single nuclear weapon. What if it didn't go off? Imagine the
embarrassment and the retaliation. Iran would need at least 10 warheads
and a reliable delivery system to be a credible nuclear power.
Israel, the primary target for any Iranian nuclear strike, has
an indestructible triad of air, missile and sea-launched nuclear
weapons. An Israeli submarine with nuclear cruise missiles is on
station off Iran's coast.
Off the map
Iran would be wiped off the map by even a few of Israel's 200
nuclear weapons. Iran is no likelier to use a nuke against its Gulf
neighbours. The explosion would blanket Iran with radioactive dust and
sand.
Much of the uproar over Iran's so far nonexistent nuclear
weapons must be seen as part of efforts by Israel's American partisans
to thwart President Barack Obama's proposed opening to Tehran, and to
keep pushing the U.S. to attack Iran's nuclear infrastructure. They and
many Israeli experts insist Iran has secret weapons programs that
threaten Israel's existence.
The hawkish Hillary Clinton's naming of veteran Israel
supporter Dennis Ross as her new legate to Iran adds to the confusion
over administration policy towards Iran. Who is in charge of foreign
policy? What's the plan?
Eric Margolis
Eric Margolis is a columnist, author and a veteran of many conflicts in the Middle East. Margolis was featured in a special appearance on Britain's Sky News TV as "the man who got it right" in his predictions about the dangerous risks and entanglements the US would face in Iraq. His latest book is "American Raj: Liberation or Domination?: Resolving the Conflict Between the West and the Muslim World."
As the U.S. economy sank ever lower, a huge brouhaha erupted this week over claims that Iran might have nuclear weapons.
The new CIA director, Leon Panetta, said "there is no question,
they (Iran) are seeking that capability." The Pentagon chief, Admiral
Mike Mullen, claimed Iran had "enough fissile material to build a
bomb."
Prime Minister Stephen Harper had claimed Iran posed an
"absolutely unacceptable threat." However, to Harper's credit, he just
admitted that Afghanistan is a no-win war.
While Rome burns, here we go again with renewed hysteria over
MWMD's -- Muslim weapons of mass destruction. War drums are again
beating over Iran.
The czar of all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies, Admiral Dennis
Blair, stated Iran could have enough enriched uranium for one atomic
weapon by 2010-15. But he reaffirmed the 2007 U.S. National
Intelligence Estimate that Iran does not have nuclear weapons and is
not pursuing them. Defence Secretary William Gates backed up Blair.
Public confusion over Iran comes from misunderstanding nuclear enrichment and lurid scare stories.
Iran is producing low-grade uranium-235 (LEU U-235), enriched
to only 2.5%, to generate electricity. Tehran has this absolute right
under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Its centrifuge enrichment
process at Nantaz is under 24-hour international inspection. Iran's
soon-to-open nuclear plant at Bushehr cannot produce nuclear weapons
fuel.
Today, some 15 nations produce LEU U-235, including Brazil,
Argentina, Germany, France, and Japan. Israel, India and Pakistan, all
nuclear weapons powers, refused to sign the non-proliferation treaty.
North Korea abrogated it.
UN inspectors report Iran has produced 1,010 kg of 2% to 3%
enriched uranium for energy generation. Theoretically that is enough
for one atomic bomb.
Costly process
But to make a nuclear weapon, U-235 must be enriched to over
90% in an elaborate, costly process. Iran is not doing so, say UN
inspectors.
Highly enriched U-235 or plutonium must then be milled and
shaped into a perfect ball or cylinder. Any surface imperfections will
prevent achieving critical mass. Next, high explosive lenses must
surround the core and detonate at precisely the same millisecond. In
some cases, a stream of neutrons must be pumped into the device as it
explodes.
This process is highly complex. Nuclear weapons cannot be
deemed reliable unless they are tested. North Korea recently detonated
a device that fizzled. Iran has never built or tested a nuclear weapon.
Experts believe Israel and South Africa jointly tested a nuclear weapon
in 1979.
Even if Iran had the capability to fashion a complex nuclear
weapon, it would be useless without delivery. Iran's sole medium-range
delivery system is its unreliable, inaccurate, 1,500-km ranged
Shahab-3. Miniaturizing and hardening nuclear warheads capable of
flying atop a Shahab missile is another complex technological
challenge.
It is inconceivable that Iran or anyone else would launch a
single nuclear weapon. What if it didn't go off? Imagine the
embarrassment and the retaliation. Iran would need at least 10 warheads
and a reliable delivery system to be a credible nuclear power.
Israel, the primary target for any Iranian nuclear strike, has
an indestructible triad of air, missile and sea-launched nuclear
weapons. An Israeli submarine with nuclear cruise missiles is on
station off Iran's coast.
Off the map
Iran would be wiped off the map by even a few of Israel's 200
nuclear weapons. Iran is no likelier to use a nuke against its Gulf
neighbours. The explosion would blanket Iran with radioactive dust and
sand.
Much of the uproar over Iran's so far nonexistent nuclear
weapons must be seen as part of efforts by Israel's American partisans
to thwart President Barack Obama's proposed opening to Tehran, and to
keep pushing the U.S. to attack Iran's nuclear infrastructure. They and
many Israeli experts insist Iran has secret weapons programs that
threaten Israel's existence.
The hawkish Hillary Clinton's naming of veteran Israel
supporter Dennis Ross as her new legate to Iran adds to the confusion
over administration policy towards Iran. Who is in charge of foreign
policy? What's the plan?
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.
LATEST NEWS
US Appeals Court Blocks Maine's Voter-Approved Ban on Overseas Corporate Money in Elections
"Our elections should belong to us, not to corporations owned or influenced by foreign governments whose interests may not align with our own," said the head of the committee behind the measure.
Aug 11, 2025
The Associated Press reported Monday that a federal appeals court recently blocked Maine from enforcing a ban on foreign interference in elections that the state's voters passed in 2023.
After Hydro-Quebec spent millions of dollars on a referendum, 86% of Mainers voted for Question 2, which would block foreign governments and companies with 5% or more foreign government ownership from donating to state referendums.
Then, the Maine Association of Broadcasters, Maine Press Association, Central Maine Power, and Versant Power sued to block the ballot initiative. According to the AP, last month, the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston affirmed a lower-court ruling that the measure likely violates the First Amendment to the federal Constitution.
Judge Lara Montecalvo wrote that "the prohibition is overly broad, silencing U.S. corporations based on the mere possibility that foreign shareholders might try to influence its decisions on political speech, even where those foreign shareholders may be passive owners that exercise no influence or control over the corporation's political spending."
As the AP detailed:
The matter was sent back to the lower court, where it will proceed, and there has been no substantive movement on it in recent weeks, said Danna Hayes, a spokesperson for the Maine attorney general's office, on Monday. The law is on the state's books, but the state cannot enforce it while legal challenges are still pending, Hayes said.
Just months before voters approved Question 2, Democratic Gov. Janet Mills vetoed the ban, citing fears that it could silence "legitimate voices, including Maine-based businesses." She previously vetoed a similar measure in 2021.
Still, supporters of the ballot initiative continue to fight for it. Rick Bennett, chair of Protect Maine Elections, the committee formed to support Question 2, said in a statement that "Mainers spoke with one voice: Our elections should belong to us, not to corporations owned or influenced by foreign governments whose interests may not align with our own."
A year after Maine voters approved that foreign election interference law, they also overwhelmingly backed a ballot measure to restrict super political action committees (PACs). U.S. Magistrate Judge Karen Frink Wolf blocked that measure, Question 1, last month.
"We think ultimately the court of appeals is going to reverse this decision because it's grounded in a misunderstanding of what the Supreme Court has said," Lawrence Lessig, a Harvard professor and founder of the nonprofit Equal Citizens that helped put Question 1 on the ballot, told News Center Maine in July. "We are exhausted, all of us, especially people in Maine, with the enormous influence money has in our politics, and we want to do something about it."
Over 100 Children Have Died of Severe Hunger Amid Israeli Siege: Gaza Health Ministry
"People are being starved, children are being killed, families have lost everything," said the United Nations agency for Palestinian Refugees.
Aug 11, 2025
The Gaza Health Ministry announced on Monday that more than 100 children in Gaza have died of severe hunger during Israel's siege of the territory.
As Al Jazeera reported, the Hamas-run Health Ministry said that a total of 222 Palestinians have died from hunger during the siege, including 101 children. The vast majority of these deaths have come in just the last three weeks when the hunger crisis in Gaza started to garner international media attention, the ministry said.
The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East on Monday emphasized the direness of the situation in a statement calling for a cease-fire to allow more aid into Gaza.
"People are being starved, children are being killed," the agency said. "Families have lost everything. Political will and leadership can stop an escalation and end the war. Every heartbeat counts."
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has claimed that there is no starvation crisis in Gaza and has said such reports are part of a "fake" propaganda campaign waged by Israel's enemies.
However, it isn't just the Gaza Health Ministry warning of a hunger crisis in the region, as international charity Save the Children last week said that 43% of pregnant and breastfeeding women who showed up to its clinics in Gaza last month were malnourished, which represented a threefold increase since March, when the Israeli military imposed a total siege on the area.
The latest numbers about starvation in Gaza come as the Israeli government is pushing forward with a plan to fully invade and occupy Gaza, which experts have warned will only exacerbate the humanitarian crisis among its people.
"If these plans are implemented, they will likely trigger another calamity in Gaza, reverberating across the region and causing further forced displacement, killings, and destruction," said Miroslav Jenca, the United Nations assistant secretary general, over the weekend.
'Playing With Fire': Gavin Newsom Warns Trump He Will Wipe California GOP Off the Map
"If you will not stand down I will be forced to lead an effort to redraw the maps in California to offset the rigging of maps in red states," said Newsom.
Aug 11, 2025
Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom on Monday put U.S. President Donald Trump on notice that he is not messing around when it comes to plans to ruthlessly redraw his state's congressional districts.
In a letter sent to Trump, Newsom warned that he is ready to take the gloves off should Texas go through with a mid-decade gerrymander that independent analysts have estimated could net Republicans five additional seats in the U.S. House of Representatives.
"You are playing with fire, risking the destabilization of our democracy, while knowing that California can neutralize any gains you can hope to make," he said. "This attempt to rig congressional maps to hold onto power before a single vote is cast in the 2026 election is an affront to American democracy."
Newsom—a likely presidential candidate for 2028—emphasized that he believes congressional maps "should be drawn by independent, citizen-led efforts," but he said that the actions of Texas Republicans were leaving him with little choice.
"If you will not stand down I will be forced to lead an effort to redraw the maps in California to offset the rigging of maps in red states," he said. "But if the other states call off their redistricting efforts, we will happily do the same. And American democracy will be better for it."
Newsom's office followed up this letter by sending a Trump-style all-caps post on X that reiterated the redistricting threat and finished up by writing, "THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION IN THIS MATTER."
Democratic Texas state lawmakers last week fled the state in order to deny the GOP-led Legislature quorum to vote on a new congressional map that would take a hatchet to many districts currently held by Democratic representatives. Newsom has responded by threatening to undo his state's independent redistricting process through a special ballot initiative this fall so that the California Legislature can redraw the state map with a strong partisan gerrymander.
Most Popular
We cover the issues the corporate media never will.
Please support our journalism.