The Gauntlet Has Been Thrown Down: Iran Will Ramp Up It's Enrichment Program
This whole situation makes me as nervous as a long-tailed cat in a room full of rocking chairs. Iran has joined the so-called "nuclear club" with it's enrichment of uranium gas. And today, as if to hit the United States and her allies with more pressure, Iran made a new announcement today: They want as many as 54,000 centrifuges up and running as quickly as possible.
Iran intends to enrich uranium on a scale hundreds of times larger than its current level, the country's deputy nuclear chief said Wednesday, signaling its resolve to expand a program the international community insists it halt.
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Tuesday that Iran for the first time had succeeded on a small scale in enriching uranium, a key step in generating fuel for a reactor or fissile material for a bomb. The U.N. Security Council has demanded that Iran stop all enrichment activity because of suspicions the program's aim is to make weapons.
Iran's small-scale enrichment used 164 centrifuges, which spin uranium gas to increase its proportion of the isotope needed for the nuclear fission at the heart of a nuclear reactor or a bomb.
Saeedi said Iran has informed the International Atomic Energy Agency that it plans to install 3,000 centrifuges at its facility in the central town of Natanz by late 2006, then expand to 54,000 centrifuges, though he did not say when.
"We will expand uranium enrichment to industrial scale at Natanz," Deputy Nuclear Chief Mohammad Saeedi told state-run television.
It isn't often when such a situation is dropped in our laps. But it has been, and the question remains "what will we do?" I can tell our readers that we will respond with solid resolve against Iran, but the loony moonbats would rather we don't. Lord knows why as it is assured and promised by Iran that they will create nucelar weapons, and Israel will be one of their first targets. See, that's why I don't believe this "peaceful puposes" Bravo-Sierra rhetoric coming from Iran. They have threatened one of our allies, and it's almost assured that other allies will be on that strike list once Iran obtains the missile technology to strike targets further away than Israel.
But the arguments are already being made to do nothing except twiddle our diplomatic thumbs. Hugh Hewitt posted up today the arguments against using force on Iran. And here they are, one at a time, and answered by me:
1. The United States military cannot accomplish the mission.
This is a foolish observation made by detractors. To think the United States military can't handle Iran is just plain nutter-talk. The same sort of observations were made by the press in regard to our invasion of Afghanistan. The vaunted mujahadeen fought the Soviets to a stand-still, and eventually drove them out. Yes, they did, with our help, which is a note in history the press failed to recognize. The same argument was made, again, for our invasion of Iraq. The dreaded fedayeen was supposed to be, above and beyond, much better that the US forces. Three weeks later, we rooled into Baghdad after vanquishing the fedayeen and Saddam's Republican Guard.
Would Iran be more difficult? It would be different, but I question the idea of difficulty. Of course, in war, anything can happen. From victories to setbacks, and none of them can be planned. However, we have the best trained soldiers in the world (no, I'm not ignoring the spec-ops community throughout the world), and could handle the job. The difference between Iran and Iraq is minimal, and it only starts with the fact that Iran has a standing terrorist army in Hezbollah at their disposal. Hezbollah will give us fits, to be sure, and could prove to be more abstruse than dealing with the native insurgency in Iraq, and their terrorist enablers. But I doubt that the troops would see little difference in the enemy in Iran as they did in Iraq, as they did in Afghanistan. These people are cowards, and act as such. But, the crucible we faced in Iraq may have been what was needed to prepare our forces for the inevitable showdown with Iran.
2: Striking Iran will cause Iran to strike against our troops in Iraq.
This argument is completely absurd. Iran is already striking at our troops in Iraq. Muqtada al-Sadr is Iranian, and the battle for Najaf proved that we had other enemies that we had not dealt with. Up until that point, speculation that Iran was assisting the terrorists in Iraq was merely speculation. Once al-Sadr was located and identified, we knew Iran was involved in that fight. In addition to that, we know they have been supplying the terrorists in Iraq with IEDs, arms, and other explosive devices. So, this idea that an attack on Iran will prompt them to start attacking our troops. They already are, and that is, in and of itself, enough to warrant action against Iran. We even speculated that Iran may join in the fight after we discovered Syrian terrorists in Iraq. Our military commanders knew that neither nation was going to stay out of Iraq; the opportunity to turn the tide against us and our allies was simply too good for them to pass up.
3. An attack on Iran will unleash Iranian-sponsored terrorism around the world.
This argument lacks logic. As they have never held Hezbollah back to begin with, an attack on them would simply ramp it up. In that case, why should we delay? Better yet, how long would the detractors choose to wait before moving on Iran? Would they like to wait until Iran is fully nuclear, complete with nuclear weapons? At that point, all bets are off, and invasion becomes secondary after a pre-emptive strike on nuclear targets in Iran. Make no mistake about this. If Iran goes nuclear, if they create a nuclear weapon, we will strike, and it won't be pretty. To date, only one nation on the face of the planet has ever used a nuclear weapon. Us. And I doubt very much that we would show a lot of apprehension in using them again if it prevented the destruction of an ally in that region. Could a strike provoke a response from, say, Russia or China in the realm of a counter-strike with nukes? I doubt it. I doubt either nation would like to get in a nuke fight with the United States. Besides, if we nuke Tehran, those nations' secrets are safe. No one will know the extent which they have gone to in assiting Iran. And, aside from Israel, no other nation in the Middle-East possesses nuclear weapons. And no, Pakistan or Turkey aren't jumping in on that fight. Not only does the military option stay on the table, but so does the nuclear option.
4. America's position in the world will crumble if we attack Iran.
This I highly doubt. I doubt that had Britain and France stood up to Hitler in 1936 (as Hugh and I pointed out yesterday) that the world would have shunned either one. They would have been vindicated. And so will we if we have to take action. People still point to the arguments made by the moonbats regarding Iraq (no WMDs, Saddam was contained, we're in a quagmire now, etc.) and yet they refuse to look at the documents released from the regime that not only justifies our invasion, but has now exonerated the president and his decision for invasion. The same will pan out for Iran. As a matter of fact, after the first election in Iraq, France and Germany both issued statements that we were right for our invasion. So, I fail to see where America's position in the world could be harmed by striking Iran. The Middle Eastern nations over there, according to the Saddam documents, no longer fear, respect, or look to Iran. Their ally is the United States. In a conversation that Tariq Azziz participated in, that was what the Iranian representative had stated, which is why Iran was looking to mend the fence with Iraq. Iran is struggling right now to regain the respect they once had; one that was rooted in fear. The other nations in the region no longer fear them because they have greater allies elsewhere.
5. There are other ways of deterring Iran's nuclear program.
Such as diplomacy? Would we like to go the John Kerry route, give them fuel for their reactors and trust them to hold true to their word? That's the same mistake we made with North Korea. Notice how we haven't heard much from Kim Jong-Il recently? Know why? Because technically, he is contained. Iran, on the other hand, isn't. We have tied up North Korea in the six-nation talks. Iran doesn't want to play that game. They're playing the UN/Saddam game, and it isn't going to work this time around. Diplomacy is nice. It's the way I prefer the world work. However, it hardly ever works, and in this instance it won't. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is, simply put, a religious fanatic that believes he has a role to play in the "end times." He believes that it is the holy war he will unleash that will usher in the 12th Imam--the Islamic messiah (which the Shi-ites aren't happy about). This is key to the whole problem. He is a religious fundamentalist that is so dead-set on this particular path, and it could very well be to the detriment of his nation. In my opinion, if the diplomatic route fails (which it appears to be doing right now), the military option will be the only one left to ensure they don't get a nuclear weapon.
In short, the military option for Iran can never be taken off the table. The Islamic Republic of Iran is a brutal regime that is dead set (despite the lies about their nuclear program) in obtaining nuclear weapons. In their hands, the threat of a mushroom cloud looms over the region's head everyday; it most assuredly involves the destruction of Israel. The question is not if we act, but when will we act. We can't dither this away, or hope someone else will deal with it. The only way this can be dealt with at the moment is to strike their facilities. That is a threat that Israel maintains, and will likely pull off on their own if the world waits too long. And the world will publicly excoriate them, but in private they will thank them for doing what the rest of the world was reluctant to do. The same will apply to us if we engage Iran militarily when we win. But, if that is the price we pay for being right, it is a price I think we can afford.
Publius II
ADDENDUM:
Welcome Hugh Hewitt Readers! TY for stopping by, and comment if you wish ....
Publius II
This whole situation makes me as nervous as a long-tailed cat in a room full of rocking chairs. Iran has joined the so-called "nuclear club" with it's enrichment of uranium gas. And today, as if to hit the United States and her allies with more pressure, Iran made a new announcement today: They want as many as 54,000 centrifuges up and running as quickly as possible.
Iran intends to enrich uranium on a scale hundreds of times larger than its current level, the country's deputy nuclear chief said Wednesday, signaling its resolve to expand a program the international community insists it halt.
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Tuesday that Iran for the first time had succeeded on a small scale in enriching uranium, a key step in generating fuel for a reactor or fissile material for a bomb. The U.N. Security Council has demanded that Iran stop all enrichment activity because of suspicions the program's aim is to make weapons.
Iran's small-scale enrichment used 164 centrifuges, which spin uranium gas to increase its proportion of the isotope needed for the nuclear fission at the heart of a nuclear reactor or a bomb.
Saeedi said Iran has informed the International Atomic Energy Agency that it plans to install 3,000 centrifuges at its facility in the central town of Natanz by late 2006, then expand to 54,000 centrifuges, though he did not say when.
"We will expand uranium enrichment to industrial scale at Natanz," Deputy Nuclear Chief Mohammad Saeedi told state-run television.
It isn't often when such a situation is dropped in our laps. But it has been, and the question remains "what will we do?" I can tell our readers that we will respond with solid resolve against Iran, but the loony moonbats would rather we don't. Lord knows why as it is assured and promised by Iran that they will create nucelar weapons, and Israel will be one of their first targets. See, that's why I don't believe this "peaceful puposes" Bravo-Sierra rhetoric coming from Iran. They have threatened one of our allies, and it's almost assured that other allies will be on that strike list once Iran obtains the missile technology to strike targets further away than Israel.
But the arguments are already being made to do nothing except twiddle our diplomatic thumbs. Hugh Hewitt posted up today the arguments against using force on Iran. And here they are, one at a time, and answered by me:
1. The United States military cannot accomplish the mission.
This is a foolish observation made by detractors. To think the United States military can't handle Iran is just plain nutter-talk. The same sort of observations were made by the press in regard to our invasion of Afghanistan. The vaunted mujahadeen fought the Soviets to a stand-still, and eventually drove them out. Yes, they did, with our help, which is a note in history the press failed to recognize. The same argument was made, again, for our invasion of Iraq. The dreaded fedayeen was supposed to be, above and beyond, much better that the US forces. Three weeks later, we rooled into Baghdad after vanquishing the fedayeen and Saddam's Republican Guard.
Would Iran be more difficult? It would be different, but I question the idea of difficulty. Of course, in war, anything can happen. From victories to setbacks, and none of them can be planned. However, we have the best trained soldiers in the world (no, I'm not ignoring the spec-ops community throughout the world), and could handle the job. The difference between Iran and Iraq is minimal, and it only starts with the fact that Iran has a standing terrorist army in Hezbollah at their disposal. Hezbollah will give us fits, to be sure, and could prove to be more abstruse than dealing with the native insurgency in Iraq, and their terrorist enablers. But I doubt that the troops would see little difference in the enemy in Iran as they did in Iraq, as they did in Afghanistan. These people are cowards, and act as such. But, the crucible we faced in Iraq may have been what was needed to prepare our forces for the inevitable showdown with Iran.
2: Striking Iran will cause Iran to strike against our troops in Iraq.
This argument is completely absurd. Iran is already striking at our troops in Iraq. Muqtada al-Sadr is Iranian, and the battle for Najaf proved that we had other enemies that we had not dealt with. Up until that point, speculation that Iran was assisting the terrorists in Iraq was merely speculation. Once al-Sadr was located and identified, we knew Iran was involved in that fight. In addition to that, we know they have been supplying the terrorists in Iraq with IEDs, arms, and other explosive devices. So, this idea that an attack on Iran will prompt them to start attacking our troops. They already are, and that is, in and of itself, enough to warrant action against Iran. We even speculated that Iran may join in the fight after we discovered Syrian terrorists in Iraq. Our military commanders knew that neither nation was going to stay out of Iraq; the opportunity to turn the tide against us and our allies was simply too good for them to pass up.
3. An attack on Iran will unleash Iranian-sponsored terrorism around the world.
This argument lacks logic. As they have never held Hezbollah back to begin with, an attack on them would simply ramp it up. In that case, why should we delay? Better yet, how long would the detractors choose to wait before moving on Iran? Would they like to wait until Iran is fully nuclear, complete with nuclear weapons? At that point, all bets are off, and invasion becomes secondary after a pre-emptive strike on nuclear targets in Iran. Make no mistake about this. If Iran goes nuclear, if they create a nuclear weapon, we will strike, and it won't be pretty. To date, only one nation on the face of the planet has ever used a nuclear weapon. Us. And I doubt very much that we would show a lot of apprehension in using them again if it prevented the destruction of an ally in that region. Could a strike provoke a response from, say, Russia or China in the realm of a counter-strike with nukes? I doubt it. I doubt either nation would like to get in a nuke fight with the United States. Besides, if we nuke Tehran, those nations' secrets are safe. No one will know the extent which they have gone to in assiting Iran. And, aside from Israel, no other nation in the Middle-East possesses nuclear weapons. And no, Pakistan or Turkey aren't jumping in on that fight. Not only does the military option stay on the table, but so does the nuclear option.
4. America's position in the world will crumble if we attack Iran.
This I highly doubt. I doubt that had Britain and France stood up to Hitler in 1936 (as Hugh and I pointed out yesterday) that the world would have shunned either one. They would have been vindicated. And so will we if we have to take action. People still point to the arguments made by the moonbats regarding Iraq (no WMDs, Saddam was contained, we're in a quagmire now, etc.) and yet they refuse to look at the documents released from the regime that not only justifies our invasion, but has now exonerated the president and his decision for invasion. The same will pan out for Iran. As a matter of fact, after the first election in Iraq, France and Germany both issued statements that we were right for our invasion. So, I fail to see where America's position in the world could be harmed by striking Iran. The Middle Eastern nations over there, according to the Saddam documents, no longer fear, respect, or look to Iran. Their ally is the United States. In a conversation that Tariq Azziz participated in, that was what the Iranian representative had stated, which is why Iran was looking to mend the fence with Iraq. Iran is struggling right now to regain the respect they once had; one that was rooted in fear. The other nations in the region no longer fear them because they have greater allies elsewhere.
5. There are other ways of deterring Iran's nuclear program.
Such as diplomacy? Would we like to go the John Kerry route, give them fuel for their reactors and trust them to hold true to their word? That's the same mistake we made with North Korea. Notice how we haven't heard much from Kim Jong-Il recently? Know why? Because technically, he is contained. Iran, on the other hand, isn't. We have tied up North Korea in the six-nation talks. Iran doesn't want to play that game. They're playing the UN/Saddam game, and it isn't going to work this time around. Diplomacy is nice. It's the way I prefer the world work. However, it hardly ever works, and in this instance it won't. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is, simply put, a religious fanatic that believes he has a role to play in the "end times." He believes that it is the holy war he will unleash that will usher in the 12th Imam--the Islamic messiah (which the Shi-ites aren't happy about). This is key to the whole problem. He is a religious fundamentalist that is so dead-set on this particular path, and it could very well be to the detriment of his nation. In my opinion, if the diplomatic route fails (which it appears to be doing right now), the military option will be the only one left to ensure they don't get a nuclear weapon.
In short, the military option for Iran can never be taken off the table. The Islamic Republic of Iran is a brutal regime that is dead set (despite the lies about their nuclear program) in obtaining nuclear weapons. In their hands, the threat of a mushroom cloud looms over the region's head everyday; it most assuredly involves the destruction of Israel. The question is not if we act, but when will we act. We can't dither this away, or hope someone else will deal with it. The only way this can be dealt with at the moment is to strike their facilities. That is a threat that Israel maintains, and will likely pull off on their own if the world waits too long. And the world will publicly excoriate them, but in private they will thank them for doing what the rest of the world was reluctant to do. The same will apply to us if we engage Iran militarily when we win. But, if that is the price we pay for being right, it is a price I think we can afford.
Publius II
ADDENDUM:
Welcome Hugh Hewitt Readers! TY for stopping by, and comment if you wish ....
Publius II
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 5:58 PM
2 Comments:
I suggest, unfortuantely, that we will, with a Democrat President in 2008, take the nuclear option off the table. Today America is oming to believe, falsely, that nuclear weapons "are never the answer." This comes from a lack of study and a lack of will. I am the last person on the planet that wants to break the nukes out again...because of all of the ramifications, but this is exactly why we must be ready to pre-empt...which of course, right now, our nation is losing its stomach for...even though our eventual survival will depend on it. Great post. MM
Major Mike:
First let me state: Good post. I read yours, too, through Hugh's site.
As for 2008, I'm not ready to write the GOP off yet; a Democrat President is a ways off. They literally have no one who can stand up to the possible field of GOP candidates right now, unless one of them ultimately pulls a "McCain," and cuts off their nose to spite their face.
And I agree; neither the military option or, most importantly the nuclear option, should be taken off the table. Again, as my fiancee noted later this evening, Iran must know there are consequences for failing to act in accord. BOTH options serve as a solid reminder that if they decide to continue on this path, the lessons of Iraq may visit them, and soon.
Publius II
Post a Comment
<< Home