« Words matter |
Blog Home Page
| Obama's Memorial Day gaffe parade »
May 27, 2008
IAEA Takes Iran to the Woodshed over Nuke Program
Rick Moran
Why would the military have "played a role" in "parts of their nuclear program?"
They're kidding, right?
Sadly, no. This clueless group of bureaucrats is so concerned about telling the United Nations that Iran may be trying to build nukes that they usually praise the Iranians for their "cooperation" rather than confront them over technologies and hardware that have "dual use" capabilities.
The head of the IAEA Moahammed Elbaradei has even said he doesn't want to be responsible for starting a war between Iran and the US so he usually tempers his reports with so many caveats they are useless.
Not so, this time. ElBaradei and his chums may be running out of patience with the Iranians who do not recognize the IAEA's mandate when it comes to their nuclear program nor the Security Council's authority in this regard.
As a document upon which the UN will take action, the report is a non-starter. There may be another round of watered down sanctions but that's it as far as the UN is concerned. Unless China and Russia suddenly change their minds, meaningful sanctions are out of the question.
Somewhere in Israel and probably in Washington, a clock is ticking and a countdown has begun. The world is running out of time to stop Iran from developing the capability to build nuclear weapons. Within a matter of months, they will have industrialized their enrichment capabilities. From there, it is another matter of months before they could enrich uranium to high enough levels to build a bomb.
Israel and America have said they will not allow that to happen. What the world will do to help still isn't clear.
|
|
|
Comments
Iran may be attacked when:
1) It develops missiles that could penetrate the Jewish ABM defense; or
2) It produces enough missiles to overwhelm it; or
3) It develops enough centrifuges, reactors and other machines to produce plutonium or HEU; or
4) It produces yellow cake;
5) It produces a nuclear warhead.
Each of these events may be regarded as a 'red line' by the Jewish state and/or the US.
The US could theoretically attack Iran before the next president is inaugurated, but the best period for that would be the transition (4 Nov - 20 Jan).
If attacks do not occur by 20 Jan, the 44th President of the US will have several months to decide which policy to adopt. If a series of Jewish or American attacks does not occur by 31 December 2010, the US will be presented with an accomplished fact. Then, it will be too late for choices.
No wonder, therefore, that columnists like Kyle-Anne Shiver, James Lewis and Richard Baehr have said they will vote for McCain. Let's not fool ourselves, Obama will never defend the Jews. I do not support McCain, but I believe that the foregoing people have good reasons to vote for him. McCain is a RINO, but he's the only one able to prevent evil that will NOT be undone by the 45th POTUS if the US fails to prevent that evil.
We have been dismissing the nuclear threat, because the USA's arsenal is 4 times smaller than in 1991, and because no nuke has been used against any humans since 1945. But the proliferation of nuclear weapons is the most important threat.
Posted by: Zbigniew Mazurak | May 27, 2008 12:24 PM
It is time to stop talking. We should hit their nuclear facilities and take out their capabilities. What? Are we worried they will get mad at us. Iran is already waging a proxy war against us. Why not give them a chance to try a real one. Don't worry, they don't have the military might nor the will. Sure, we will hear all the same complaints from the same US haters and from the various middle east leaders but, behind closed doors, most will be thankful we have averted a real threat to the world.
Posted by: Bill Moulton | May 27, 2008 03:09 PM
Let Israel take the Iranian nuclear program down hard. They need one more to complete their Iraq-Syria-Iran hat trick anyway. Let's allow them to complete the set!
Posted by: Mojo Wilkins | May 27, 2008 04:08 PM
The IAEA won't do anything. The Security Council won't do anything. Why do they waste our time with these reports? If they're looking to justify their own existence this isn't the way to do it. All it does is show us just how pointless these international bodies have become. It only strengthens the case more and more Americans are making - that the UN should be out of the US and the US should be out of the UN. It's time we stopped throwing good money after bad.
Posted by: pmk | May 27, 2008 05:20 PM
Will the IAEA report even matter to liberals and democrats. They don't listen so will anything happen. Probably not.
Posted by: Richard Daugherty | May 27, 2008 05:58 PM
Ooow, a sternly written report! Bet they're shaking in their boots!
DKK
Posted by: LifeTrek | May 27, 2008 07:05 PM
Bush will hit them after 11/4.
Posted by: Frank | May 27, 2008 07:52 PM
We must follow through on this threat. Failure to back up our tough talk will, properly, be seen as weakness by the Islamo-Nazis, causing the unleashing of even more Hell upon civilization.
Our respnse needs to be real shock and awe this time. Muslims will acknowledge overwhelming power and slink back to their lairs for a generation or two.
But I'm afraid that we will try the surgical strike technique, which will just energize opposition not crush it. The reason war should be nasty is to keep it being the absolute last resort. Making it a sport makes it more likely to be played.
Posted by: Guy Macher | June 8, 2008 09:38 PM