Where Is The Gipper When We Need Him?
"My fellow Americans, I am pleased to tell you I just signed legislation which outlaws Russia forever. The bombing begins in five minutes." --Ronald Reagan, during a radio microphone test. (1984)
That's about how I feel right now after I read this story. See, Reagan, despite what his detractors still say about the man, was a no nonsense sort of guy. While the above comment was made in pure jest, it does emphasize my feelings about our dealings with Iran right now. Especially on the heels of the boasts of a few that they have pulled a fast one on the EU-3.
The man who for two years led Iran's nuclear negotiations has laid out in unprecedented detail how the regime took advantage of talks with Britain, France and Germany to forge ahead with its secret atomic programme.
In a speech to a closed meeting of leading Islamic clerics and academics, Hassan Rowhani, who headed talks with the so-called EU3 until last year, revealed how Teheran played for time and tried to dupe the West after its secret nuclear programme was uncovered by the Iranian opposition in 2002.
He boasted that while talks were taking place in Teheran, Iran was able to complete the installation of equipment for conversion of yellowcake - a key stage in the nuclear fuel process - at its Isfahan plant but at the same time convince European diplomats that nothing was afoot.
"From the outset, the Americans kept telling the Europeans, 'The Iranians are lying and deceiving you and they have not told you everything.' The Europeans used to respond, 'We trust them'," he said.
Why am I not surprised that the Euro-appeasers, who are far more concerned about peace and unity, would believe that the Iranians were trustworthy? This is why regimes like Iran should never be negotiated with. They either comply, or face consequences. Regimes as ruthless as Iran's have no place in this world. Their mindset never revolves around maintaining peaceful relations with other nations. No, they want other nations subjugated. As a rising power in the Middle East, if they obtain nuclear weapons--of which based on what I have read in recent weeks there is a distinct possibility that they are extremely close to having one--they will force other nations in the region to bow to them.
Revelation of Mr Rowhani's remarks comes at an awkward moment for the Iranian government, ahead of a meeting tomorrow of the United Nations' atomic watchdog, which must make a fresh assessment of Iran's banned nuclear operations.
The judgment of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is the final step before Iran's case is passed to the UN Security Council, where sanctions may be considered.
Pay careful attention to what I am saying. There will be no sanctions. Russia and China sit on the Security Council and they have veto powers. They have made deals with Iran in the past, and they still have deals pending with them now. They will veto any sort of sanctions that will hurt those deals. Sending this to the Security Council is a joke. We can illafford to give Iran the same leeway that Iraq was given for twelve years. Especially after what we discovered about Iraq in terms of it's WMD programs and how far they were. The world doesn't have twelve years of dawdling to waste on Iran.
In his address to the Supreme Council of Cultural Revolution, Mr Rowhani appears to have been seeking to rebut criticism from hardliners that he gave too much ground in talks with the European troika. The contents of the speech were published in a regime journal that circulates among the ruling elite.
He told his audience: "When we were negotiating with the Europeans in Teheran we were still installing some of the equipment at the Isfahan site. There was plenty of work to be done to complete the site and finish the work there. In reality, by creating a tame situation, we could finish Isfahan."
In other words, they played the EU-3 like a harp from Hell. Even in the latter stages of the talks, France accused Iran of continuing work on their nuclear weapons programs. Funny that, don't you think? A nation like France, who covertly continued to work with Saddam Hussein, is one of the first nations to step up and level the accusation that Ahmadinejad is still pushing forward in his desire for nukes. Yeah, I'm laughing at it, but I'm taking it deadly serious.
America and its European allies believe that Iran is clandestinely developing an atomic bomb but Teheran insists it is merely seeking nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. Iran's negotiating team engaged in a last-ditch attempt last week to head off Security Council involvement. In January the regime removed IAEA seals on sensitive nuclear equipment and last month it resumed banned uranium enrichment.
Anyone care to tell me what "peaceful, civilian" purpose the enrichment of uranium has? To my knowledge, there is none. The enrichment of uranium is only for the creation of nuclear weapons. I almost feel like Gene Hackman's character in "Crimson Tide" yelling at Denzel Washington: "They're fueling their missiles!" Yes, Iran is fueling it's misslie program. Not only are they still working, feverishly so, on building their nuclear weapons, they've obtained the S-300 "Grumble" from Russia. And they already deployed the Shahab-3 and Shahab-4 missiles throughout their nation. In addition, NIC presented a report to Congress back in 2000 on the threat that Iran poses to the world with it's nuclear program, and it's missile technology.
Iran is trying to win support from Russia, which opposes any UN sanctions, having unsuccessfully tried to persuade European leaders to give them more time. Against this backdrop, Mr Rowhani's surprisingly candid comments on Iran's record of obfuscation and delay are illuminating.
He described the regime's quandary in September 2003 when the IAEA had demanded a "complete picture" of its nuclear activities. "The dilemma was if we offered a complete picture, the picture itself could lead us to the UN Security Council," he said. "And not providing a complete picture would also be a violation of the resolution and we could have been referred to the Security Council for not implementing the resolution."
Mr Rowhani disclosed that on at least two occasions the IAEA obtained information on secret nuclear-related experiments from academic papers published by scientists involved in the work.
The Iranians' biggest setback came when Libya secretly negotiated with America and Britain to close down its nuclear operations. Mr Rowhani said that Iran had bought much of its nuclear-related equipment from "the same dealer" - a reference to the network of A Q Khan, the rogue Pakistani atomic scientist. From information supplied by Libya, it became clear that Iran had bought P2 advanced centrifuges.
And the naysayers claimed there were no dots to connect in this mess. Au contraire, the puzzle pieces are fitting together quite nicely, and their revealing a picture that is scary as hell. that picture is of Iran working to construct their first nuclear weapons, and in possession of missiles that have the ability to hit Israel, and possibly Western Europe. Should they obtain ICBM technology, they will be able to hit any point on the globe. And the recently issued fatwa concerning the possession of, and use of, nuclear weapons shows that the stakes have been raised in this game. The clerics no longer look at the use of nuclear weapons as a violation of sharia law. They have embraced the concept that if their enemies possess them, then they should, as well.
In a separate development, the opposition National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) has obtained a copy of a confidential parliamentary report making clear that Iranian MPs were also kept in the dark on the nuclear programme, which was funded secretly, outside the normal budgetary process.
Mohammad Mohaddessin, the NCRI's foreign affairs chief, told the Sunday Telegraph: "Rowhani's remarks show that the mullahs wanted to deceive the international community from the onset of negotiations with EU3 - and that the mullahs were fully aware that if they were transparent, the regime's nuclear file would be referred to the UN immediately."
Anyone, and I mean anyone, who thinks that Iran has negotiated in good faith is a fool. Anyone who believes that the Security Council is going to get Iran's attention with sanctions is smoking something, and not sharing. I reiterate: There will be no sanctions. Sanctioning Iran means that Russia and china have to do all their deals under the table, and risk being caught breaking the sanctions. Why bother with such nonsense when a simple veto can kill the sanction idea, which also forces the world to begin working from scratch again. To be referred back to the council after a veto means the IAEA needs to gather up more information, waste more time, and go through all the bureaucratic motions again.
This is a waste of time. And the bureaucratic mess that the UN is in right now is exactly what John Bolton should be working on undoing. The idea that nations like France, Germany, Russia, and China have vetoes on the Seucrity Council is a joke. these nations reaped the benefits of dealing with regimes like Iran and Iraq, and they used their vetoes to prevent their business partners from facing serious recriminations. Granted, with Iraq, it didn't work. We went in anyway because we recognized the threat. But Iran is a different question altogether.
To move hastily would invite serious problems for us. The Iranians have been braced for an invasion by the West for some time now. They have prepared themselves against air strikes on their nuclear facilities, and they have a ready and willing Hezbollah to engage any forces coming into their nation in addition to their Revolutionary Guard. Add to the mix, the treaty with Syria, and we are looking at an Iraq invasion that isn't just doubled. It's multiplied by 100. And as long as we are still in Iraq and Afghanistan, an invasion of Iran is less and less of an option. I don't berate the administration for going into either country. I supported it because I saw the intelligence they did, and I also determined that both nations needed to be dealt with. The smarter move right now for us and other Western nations is to do our best to support the democratization movement in Iran in an effort to bring down Ahmadinejad and his enabling mullahs.
I doubt that I need to remind people that on this particular issue we need to tread lightly, and not act like a bull in a china shop. Yes, I'm aware of the nutter voices out in the wilderness that we should simply nuke Iran, and be done with the threat. However, a level of sensibility is needed now. We can't "punish" the civilians in that nation for the machinations of it's leaders, and nuking that nation would do exactly that. In addition, it would inflame the Muslim street far more than what it is already, possibly driving more into the camp of the radicals. No, we need methodical moderation in this case. The US, Great Britain, and the IAEA need to make a solid indictment of Iran and it's program, including a possible timetable (if possible) as to how long Iran has left before they actually have a working nuclear weapon.
It is imperative that the world be shown how much of a threat Iran truly is. The rhetoric arising from this nation is dangerous, and that does not just include it's designs when it comes to Israel. Ahmadinejad is a nut who believes he will usher in the arrival of the 12th Imam, or mahdi. World Net Daily picked up on it, as did a few other sources. But this went widely unreported. The fact is he does believe that this is his mission. And he has plans for those nukes he's developing. If this is not headed off soon, we could be sitting in a brand new cold war, or worse, an extremely hot one where the prospect of a nuclear exchange is a frightening reality.
Publius II
"My fellow Americans, I am pleased to tell you I just signed legislation which outlaws Russia forever. The bombing begins in five minutes." --Ronald Reagan, during a radio microphone test. (1984)
That's about how I feel right now after I read this story. See, Reagan, despite what his detractors still say about the man, was a no nonsense sort of guy. While the above comment was made in pure jest, it does emphasize my feelings about our dealings with Iran right now. Especially on the heels of the boasts of a few that they have pulled a fast one on the EU-3.
The man who for two years led Iran's nuclear negotiations has laid out in unprecedented detail how the regime took advantage of talks with Britain, France and Germany to forge ahead with its secret atomic programme.
In a speech to a closed meeting of leading Islamic clerics and academics, Hassan Rowhani, who headed talks with the so-called EU3 until last year, revealed how Teheran played for time and tried to dupe the West after its secret nuclear programme was uncovered by the Iranian opposition in 2002.
He boasted that while talks were taking place in Teheran, Iran was able to complete the installation of equipment for conversion of yellowcake - a key stage in the nuclear fuel process - at its Isfahan plant but at the same time convince European diplomats that nothing was afoot.
"From the outset, the Americans kept telling the Europeans, 'The Iranians are lying and deceiving you and they have not told you everything.' The Europeans used to respond, 'We trust them'," he said.
Why am I not surprised that the Euro-appeasers, who are far more concerned about peace and unity, would believe that the Iranians were trustworthy? This is why regimes like Iran should never be negotiated with. They either comply, or face consequences. Regimes as ruthless as Iran's have no place in this world. Their mindset never revolves around maintaining peaceful relations with other nations. No, they want other nations subjugated. As a rising power in the Middle East, if they obtain nuclear weapons--of which based on what I have read in recent weeks there is a distinct possibility that they are extremely close to having one--they will force other nations in the region to bow to them.
Revelation of Mr Rowhani's remarks comes at an awkward moment for the Iranian government, ahead of a meeting tomorrow of the United Nations' atomic watchdog, which must make a fresh assessment of Iran's banned nuclear operations.
The judgment of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is the final step before Iran's case is passed to the UN Security Council, where sanctions may be considered.
Pay careful attention to what I am saying. There will be no sanctions. Russia and China sit on the Security Council and they have veto powers. They have made deals with Iran in the past, and they still have deals pending with them now. They will veto any sort of sanctions that will hurt those deals. Sending this to the Security Council is a joke. We can illafford to give Iran the same leeway that Iraq was given for twelve years. Especially after what we discovered about Iraq in terms of it's WMD programs and how far they were. The world doesn't have twelve years of dawdling to waste on Iran.
In his address to the Supreme Council of Cultural Revolution, Mr Rowhani appears to have been seeking to rebut criticism from hardliners that he gave too much ground in talks with the European troika. The contents of the speech were published in a regime journal that circulates among the ruling elite.
He told his audience: "When we were negotiating with the Europeans in Teheran we were still installing some of the equipment at the Isfahan site. There was plenty of work to be done to complete the site and finish the work there. In reality, by creating a tame situation, we could finish Isfahan."
In other words, they played the EU-3 like a harp from Hell. Even in the latter stages of the talks, France accused Iran of continuing work on their nuclear weapons programs. Funny that, don't you think? A nation like France, who covertly continued to work with Saddam Hussein, is one of the first nations to step up and level the accusation that Ahmadinejad is still pushing forward in his desire for nukes. Yeah, I'm laughing at it, but I'm taking it deadly serious.
America and its European allies believe that Iran is clandestinely developing an atomic bomb but Teheran insists it is merely seeking nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. Iran's negotiating team engaged in a last-ditch attempt last week to head off Security Council involvement. In January the regime removed IAEA seals on sensitive nuclear equipment and last month it resumed banned uranium enrichment.
Anyone care to tell me what "peaceful, civilian" purpose the enrichment of uranium has? To my knowledge, there is none. The enrichment of uranium is only for the creation of nuclear weapons. I almost feel like Gene Hackman's character in "Crimson Tide" yelling at Denzel Washington: "They're fueling their missiles!" Yes, Iran is fueling it's misslie program. Not only are they still working, feverishly so, on building their nuclear weapons, they've obtained the S-300 "Grumble" from Russia. And they already deployed the Shahab-3 and Shahab-4 missiles throughout their nation. In addition, NIC presented a report to Congress back in 2000 on the threat that Iran poses to the world with it's nuclear program, and it's missile technology.
Iran is trying to win support from Russia, which opposes any UN sanctions, having unsuccessfully tried to persuade European leaders to give them more time. Against this backdrop, Mr Rowhani's surprisingly candid comments on Iran's record of obfuscation and delay are illuminating.
He described the regime's quandary in September 2003 when the IAEA had demanded a "complete picture" of its nuclear activities. "The dilemma was if we offered a complete picture, the picture itself could lead us to the UN Security Council," he said. "And not providing a complete picture would also be a violation of the resolution and we could have been referred to the Security Council for not implementing the resolution."
Mr Rowhani disclosed that on at least two occasions the IAEA obtained information on secret nuclear-related experiments from academic papers published by scientists involved in the work.
The Iranians' biggest setback came when Libya secretly negotiated with America and Britain to close down its nuclear operations. Mr Rowhani said that Iran had bought much of its nuclear-related equipment from "the same dealer" - a reference to the network of A Q Khan, the rogue Pakistani atomic scientist. From information supplied by Libya, it became clear that Iran had bought P2 advanced centrifuges.
And the naysayers claimed there were no dots to connect in this mess. Au contraire, the puzzle pieces are fitting together quite nicely, and their revealing a picture that is scary as hell. that picture is of Iran working to construct their first nuclear weapons, and in possession of missiles that have the ability to hit Israel, and possibly Western Europe. Should they obtain ICBM technology, they will be able to hit any point on the globe. And the recently issued fatwa concerning the possession of, and use of, nuclear weapons shows that the stakes have been raised in this game. The clerics no longer look at the use of nuclear weapons as a violation of sharia law. They have embraced the concept that if their enemies possess them, then they should, as well.
In a separate development, the opposition National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) has obtained a copy of a confidential parliamentary report making clear that Iranian MPs were also kept in the dark on the nuclear programme, which was funded secretly, outside the normal budgetary process.
Mohammad Mohaddessin, the NCRI's foreign affairs chief, told the Sunday Telegraph: "Rowhani's remarks show that the mullahs wanted to deceive the international community from the onset of negotiations with EU3 - and that the mullahs were fully aware that if they were transparent, the regime's nuclear file would be referred to the UN immediately."
Anyone, and I mean anyone, who thinks that Iran has negotiated in good faith is a fool. Anyone who believes that the Security Council is going to get Iran's attention with sanctions is smoking something, and not sharing. I reiterate: There will be no sanctions. Sanctioning Iran means that Russia and china have to do all their deals under the table, and risk being caught breaking the sanctions. Why bother with such nonsense when a simple veto can kill the sanction idea, which also forces the world to begin working from scratch again. To be referred back to the council after a veto means the IAEA needs to gather up more information, waste more time, and go through all the bureaucratic motions again.
This is a waste of time. And the bureaucratic mess that the UN is in right now is exactly what John Bolton should be working on undoing. The idea that nations like France, Germany, Russia, and China have vetoes on the Seucrity Council is a joke. these nations reaped the benefits of dealing with regimes like Iran and Iraq, and they used their vetoes to prevent their business partners from facing serious recriminations. Granted, with Iraq, it didn't work. We went in anyway because we recognized the threat. But Iran is a different question altogether.
To move hastily would invite serious problems for us. The Iranians have been braced for an invasion by the West for some time now. They have prepared themselves against air strikes on their nuclear facilities, and they have a ready and willing Hezbollah to engage any forces coming into their nation in addition to their Revolutionary Guard. Add to the mix, the treaty with Syria, and we are looking at an Iraq invasion that isn't just doubled. It's multiplied by 100. And as long as we are still in Iraq and Afghanistan, an invasion of Iran is less and less of an option. I don't berate the administration for going into either country. I supported it because I saw the intelligence they did, and I also determined that both nations needed to be dealt with. The smarter move right now for us and other Western nations is to do our best to support the democratization movement in Iran in an effort to bring down Ahmadinejad and his enabling mullahs.
I doubt that I need to remind people that on this particular issue we need to tread lightly, and not act like a bull in a china shop. Yes, I'm aware of the nutter voices out in the wilderness that we should simply nuke Iran, and be done with the threat. However, a level of sensibility is needed now. We can't "punish" the civilians in that nation for the machinations of it's leaders, and nuking that nation would do exactly that. In addition, it would inflame the Muslim street far more than what it is already, possibly driving more into the camp of the radicals. No, we need methodical moderation in this case. The US, Great Britain, and the IAEA need to make a solid indictment of Iran and it's program, including a possible timetable (if possible) as to how long Iran has left before they actually have a working nuclear weapon.
It is imperative that the world be shown how much of a threat Iran truly is. The rhetoric arising from this nation is dangerous, and that does not just include it's designs when it comes to Israel. Ahmadinejad is a nut who believes he will usher in the arrival of the 12th Imam, or mahdi. World Net Daily picked up on it, as did a few other sources. But this went widely unreported. The fact is he does believe that this is his mission. And he has plans for those nukes he's developing. If this is not headed off soon, we could be sitting in a brand new cold war, or worse, an extremely hot one where the prospect of a nuclear exchange is a frightening reality.
Publius II
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 1:05 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home