Saturday, December 19, 2009

Nuclear Iran: Caring and Sharing

Back in September, Barack Obama admitted that "President Bush was right that Iran's ballistic missile program poses a significant threat." Obviously, Iran with nuclear weapons -- which violate that nation's safeguard and treaty obligations -- would amplify that threat. And, according to the London Times, there's little doubt Iran's headed there:
Confidential intelligence documents obtained by The Times show that Iran is working on testing a key final component of a nuclear bomb.

The notes, from Iran’s most sensitive military nuclear project, describe a four-year plan to test a neutron initiator, the component of a nuclear bomb that triggers an explosion. Foreign intelligence agencies date them to early 2007, four years after Iran was thought to have suspended its weapons programme.

An Asian intelligence source last week confirmed to The Times that his country also believed that weapons work was being carried out as recently as 2007 -- specifically, work on a neutron initiator.

The technical document describes the use of a neutron source, uranium deuteride, which independent experts confirm has no possible civilian or military use other than in a nuclear weapon. Uranium deuteride is the material used in Pakistan’s bomb, from where Iran obtained its blueprint.

"Although Iran might claim that this work is for civil purposes, there is no civil application," said David Albright, a physicist and president of the Institute for Science and International Security in Washington, which has analysed hundreds of pages of documents related to the Iranian programme. "This is a very strong indicator of weapons work."
Indeed, some believe Iran may be on the way to testing a bomb.

Irresponsible liberals downplay the threat, some by (hilariously) misreading the Non-Proliferation Treaty, others labeling America the aggressor. Such voices can't grasp the danger of a mad-man with the bomb.

But even more thoughtful progressives push "containment." How could one contain a country committed to proliferation? Think I'm exaggerating? Read the December 15th Palestinian Information Center:
The political leadership of Hamas Movement on Monday met with Sa’eed Jalili, the chief negotiator of Iran’s nuclear file, Hashemi Rafsanjani, the head of the expediency discernment council, and Manouchehr Mottaki, the minister of foreign affairs.

Ezzat Al-Resheq, a member of Hamas’s political bureau, said that the Hamas delegates briefed the Iranian officials on the latest developments in the Palestinian arena and discussed with them the failure of the settlement process.

He pointed out that the Iranian officials congratulated the delegation on the 22nd anniversary of its Movement’s inception and hailed its steadfastness and adherence to the rights of the Palestinian people, adding that the officials promised to increase Iran’s support for the Palestinian people.

In the same context, Khaled Mishaal, the head of Hamas’s political bureau, said during his meeting with Jalili that the steadfastness and fortitude of the Palestinian resistance would never hold back until the achievement of victory and expressed his appreciation to Iran for its ongoing support for the Palestinian people against the Israeli occupation.
In addition, Iran's nuke negotiator "met with members of the Islamic Jihad, [as well as the] Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command [and] said his government continued to support the 'resistance,' or the armed battle against Israel, and was determined to push ahead with its nuclear ambitions." Oh, by the way, Iran already has been caught shipping conventional missiles to Hezbollah, and just tested a medium-range missile capable of reaching Eastern Europe.

Real sanctions have been blocked; rogue lefties in our intel community undermined Bush's attempted response. Containment's impossible. The world is running out of options to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons -- except for the Obama Doctrine of "just war."

(via Berman Post, Elder of Ziyon, Wolf Howling)


OBloodyHell said...

> "Although Iran might claim that this work is for civil purposes, there is no civil application,"

No, no, we're -- we're gonna -- we're gonna make a canal, see, and -- and we're gonna connect --- connect the Caspian, y'know, with -- with the Persian Gulf...

Yeah -- Yeah, the Caspian with the Persian Gulf...

Yeahhh! That's the ticket....!!

suek said...

For the life of me, I can't comprehend the minds of those who want to disarm every American who isn't a LEO, but don't have a problem with an Iran working with nuclear material in a way that can even potentially be used as a weapon.

It's been said that the most dangerous dogs - the one that are most likely to bite - are the ones that appear aggressive, but which are actually afraid. Liberals seem to me to fit this description - afraid of everything, and aggressive in their fear. Except - if you really threaten them, like the fearful dog, they roll over and offer their unprotected throat.

A_Nonny_Mouse said...

And nobody can or will do anything to stop Iran from encouraging the "hidden Imam" to come out of the well he's been hiding in for 1400 years (waiting only for worldwide catastrophe or cataclysm to call him to action).


Well, on the bright side:
The "nuclear winter" will shut up all the fools who keep howling that "CO2 emissions are causing Global Warming and we're all gonna fry!"

O Bloody Hell said...

I don't believe Iran has the patience to be a true overall nuclear threat. If they get a single weapon it will not be long before they apply it, either to Tel Aviv or to NYC/Washington (you listening, Carl?).

And the minute they do that, the kid gloves will be off, and there will be a new regime in Iran to match the one in Iraq.

Hundreds of thousands, perhaps even millions, will be dead in the end -- but there aren't going to be enough exchanges to cause a nuclear winter.


suek said...

Israel will be the target, if they have only one shot.

What would be the "fallout" from that, if that's what happens? (you should pardon the pun!)

Israel is geographically so small - would they hit Jerusalem, or Tel Aviv? My guess is Tel Aviv. Still - the affected area would be ... how far out? what percentage of Israel would be contaminated with nuclear fall out? Would the Palestinians be affected? Even if they weren't - would they have the ability to resist entering the nuclear contaminated areas? What would be the response of the arab countries?

If they hit Israel and this administration is still in power - what reaction do you think would occur? You say the kid gloves will be off - I'm not so sure.

If they were to hit Washington, they might do us all a favor.... At least if it was within the next 3 years or so...!

What stupidity not to address the problem while we still can...

OBloodyHell said...

suek, I believe the common presumption as to an Israel target is Tel Aviv.

The thing is, with Obama in charge, they would be better off hitting NYC or DC, esp. if The One was known to be out of town.

The delay time, as he dithered and postulated, afterwards would be significant.

They hit Israel, they're going to have a world of stomp on their heads in short order afterwards.

I'm sure this admin, in the event of a strike on Israel, would be to encourage (LOL) "cooler heads to prevail". Then warn against any sort of "overkill in response".

Your (and my) obvious derisive snorts aside, there would be a quickly chorused refrain asking if Israel "deserved it".

And so on.

> What stupidity not to address the problem while we still can...

Not a recent sort of stupidity. There is ample evidence that a single company of French troops on the bridges into the Alsace-Lorrain would have led to Hitler being deposed by his generals, and no WWII or at least not THAT "WWII").

There are appeasers out there en masse. Unless you come up with an effective way to weed them out of the gene pool which doesn't have more downside than upside, that's not likely to change.

suek said...

>>They hit Israel, they're going to have a world of stomp on their heads in short order afterwards.>>

See...that's what I don't believe.

>>this admin, in the event of a strike on Israel, would be to encourage"cooler heads to prevail". Then warn against any sort of "overkill in response".>>

Yeah. That's what I think would happen.

An effective way to weed out the appeasers? Hmmm. Have to think about that one. If you did that - assuming it could be done, of course - would you end up with a world full of pit bulls?? Is there a difference between "appeasers" and "peacemakers"? I think there is, but can't say I've ever given it a lot of thought.