Iran has secretly stocked enriched uranium for four nuclear bombs
The Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control, American's scientific watchdog on world nuclear weapons production, estimates that by Dec. 2008, Iran had accumulated enough U-235 to fuel one nuclear bomb; by 2009, enough for a second, by August 2010 material for a third bomb and by April 2011, enough enriched uranium for a fourth bomb.
These estimates presuppose an Iranian decision to further process low-enriched material to weapons grade - a process taking no more than a couple of months.
Iran, says the Wisconsin Project, is consolidating its status as a "virtual" nuclear weapon state – meaning it can set about building a bomb whenever its rulers so decide.
Our sources stress that these revelations are highly pertinent to the controversy taking place in Israel over the surprising comments by ex-Mossad Director Meir Dagan.
Dubbed "Mister Stop the Bomb" for reputedly directing covert operations that held off Iran's nuclear threat for five or six years – though this may an exaggeration - Dagan suddenly began speaking out strongly against any Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear program. Wednesday, June 1, he implicitly warned that such an attack would precipitate a regional war in which Israel would fare badly.
Now comes even more ominous news:
The controversy around his comments reflects a similar argument afoot in US political and defense circles over whether the time has come to smash Iran's nuclear capability or stand by and let the Islamic Republic becomes a "virtual nuclear weapon state."
In the last three years, the two schools of thought for and against military action against Iran have been joined by a third, which affirms that the US and Israel can live with an Iran armed with one or two nuclear bombs because this number would be dwarfed even by Israel's reputed stock let alone the American arsenal.
Therefore, until Iran stockpiles a serous arsenal of weapons, it does not constitute an existential threat to Israel.
This might be the most ridiculous premise that I have seen to date.
The reason is strikingly obvious: It would only take a single nuclear bomb to completely destroy Israel.
To argue that "until Iran stockpiles a serious arsenal of weapons, it does not constitute an existential threat to Israel" might be the single most absurd statement that I have read in decades. This statement would apply to the U.S. - certainly not Israel.
That is like saying that an armed intruder is about to break into your home - where a husband and wife live - but the intruder is no threat because he only has two bullets in his gun, and he hasn't acquired an armored tank yet, so he is no threat. Please.
However, the article concludes with this:
That is the reason why the military option is back on the table in Jerusalem.
We know from biblical prophecy that Israel will not be destroyed by a nuclear bomb. Therefore, something will act to thwart Iran's nuclear development.
Perhaps the battle of Gog-MaGog takes place before Iran can put the final touches on their nuclear development plans.
If so, it needs to occur sooner rather than later.