Fumbling The Ball On The Five-Yard Line: The IAEA Shills For Iran
I'm so ticked right now I could spit ten-penny nails. Today started out the way I expected, with taking two major newspapers to task over their inept editorials regarding the USA Today story, which blew the cover on another facet of the NSA surveillance on terrorists. But then, Charles at LGF had to go an ruin my mood with not one, but two stories about Iran's nuclear program.
Here is the first from Breitbart:
The U.N. atomic agency has found traces of highly enriched uranium at an Iranian site linked to the country’s defense ministry, diplomats said Friday. The finding added to concerns that Tehran was hiding activities that could be used to make nuclear arms.
The diplomats, who demanded anonymity in exchange for revealing the confidential information, said the findings were preliminary and still had to be confirmed through other lab tests. But they said the density of enrichment appeared close to or beyond weapons grade — the level used to make nuclear warheads.
Now, doesn't that just warm your heart. But, before we start celebrating that the IAEA finally found something, and proceed under the misnomer that this is what we need to get the sanctions on the UNSC, the IAEA fumbles the ball according to "Al-Reuters":
Iran has legitimate security concerns that the United States must address if the crisis over Tehran’s nuclear programme is to be resolved, the head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog said on Friday.
“This is primarily a regional security issue,” Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) he told a debate in The Hague.
“Iran is surrounded by countries that have nuclear weapons, Russia has nuclear weapons, Pakistan has nuclear weapons, Israel has nuclear weapons, Iraq has used chemical weapons against them. There is a sense of insecurity,” he said.
“When you talk about the Iranian issue, the only solution is a package that should inter alia include security issues.”
It's so nice to see that the UN's nuclear watchdog group is willing to excuse the development of nuclear weapons for a nation that is, according to intelligence information, the number one supporter of state-sponsored terrorism. And what better way to, again, show the world that the UN isn't very tough on issues like this. Folks, before this is all said and done, we're going to have another war on our hands because the Iranians can't be trusted. Allow me, if I may, to quote an exchange between Hugh Hewitt and Mark Steyn conducted yesterday:
HH: Well, I agree with that, but let's step back. I asked the Secretary of Defense about this on Tuesday, and he paused and he said well, he certainly is a communicator, isn't he? I mean, he's a nut, Mark Steyn. He's mad as a hatter.
MS: Yes, he is, but you know the interesting thing about it is you get away with what you can get away with. And it's...in a sense, the Iranians are indulging in what I called a bad cop/worse cop routine, in that the fact that they put this crazy guy up as their front man, in a sense, excuses an awful lot, because he's so obviously off the charts. What's worrying about Iran is that so many of the people that we think of as moderates, like Rafsanjani, for example, actually believe the same equally crazy things as the president does. This president, Ahmadinejead, is actually, he has this crazier side to him, the bit about the 12th imam and all that. But the core attitude to Israel and to America is shared by all the so-called Iranian moderates as well.
HH: Now in today's AP bulletin from Indonesia, Ahmadinejead is again calling Israel, "a tyrannical regime that will one day be destroyed," and going on about it. But meanwhile, over at Politecompany, Council On Foreign Affairs company, Greg Djerejian, who writes at the Belgravia Dispatch, I quote, "at some point, I'm hard pressed to see how we avoid talking with the Iranians, period. Bottom line, the Iranians have become players. And chiming on about just bombing them into submission isn't going to get us anywhere, save maybe on the Hugh Hewitt Show." I think he's talking specifically about you, Mark Steyn, earlier in that paragraph. What do you think about Polite Company refusing...the Council On Foreign Affairs refusing to deal with this problem?
MS: Well, I do think you risk the danger simply by agreeing to enter into discussions with someone like that. You do risk treading down the Neville Chamberlain path, that I have here a piece of paper signed by the president of Iran. He's a man we can do business with, and all the rest of it. And I don't think that's true. I think the lesson we learn from these things is that Iran treats with contempt all the forms of international decorum, and always has done. And that includes whether it's respecting people's embassies, which obviously it didn't do the United States, to respecting territorial jurisdiction, which it's never done. And so I think the thing about Iran is that there is really no point to talking to them. No one has talked to them more than the Europeans over the last three years. They've been shuffling to Tehran back and forth doing the...every time they mention the Prophet Mohammed, doing the peace be upon him thing, as Jack Straw, the former British Foreign Secretary does like a sort of nervous tick five times a sentence when he's there. Even the Americans, the Americans in the period after September 11th, talked to the Iranians more than they had since the fall of the Shah. And the administration in Washington thought it had reached a kind of modus vivendi with Tehran. It turns out not to be the case. We've been talking to them for years. The idea that we need to start talking to them is ludicrous. And he should know better. He's a smart guy, the Belgravia Dispatch.
HH: Yes, he is.
MS: But he's falling into the sort of standard stripe pants...as long as you are indulging in the form and the process of diplomacy, that that's some kind of strategy. It's not. In most cases, it's just the absence of strategy.
HH: Now in an e-mail exchange with him, he sent me to the Council on Foreign Relations' report of an independent task force, Iran: Time For A New Approach, and it's primary authored by Zbigniew Brzezinski and Robert Gates, with Suzanne Malone, project director. And it makes for interesting reading. It really does. But at the same time, I think we end up back where we always are, which is Iran doesn't want to dance.
MS: No, no. And the thing is, you are as pathetic as the high school boy who won't take get lost for an answer from the girl, from the hot looking girl. I mean, I don't want to put America into the role of the pimply nerd on the planet, and Iran into the position of the hot looking girl, but I mean the message here across 27 years has been pretty consistent. And in fact, Brzezinski, of all people, who this happened on his watch, a lot of the problems we deal with today happened on his watch, including his coming up after the failure to prevent the Islamists coming to power in Iran, he then embarked on this so-called covert strategy for Afghanistan, that ended up vastly amplifying both Saudi prestige, and the prestige of the Pakistani intelligence service, and, in fact, wound up with...the main thing that Osama bin Laden has in his quiver, which is that he and al Qaeda think they brought down the Soviet Union. Well, the person who basically set them up to believe that was Zbigniew Brzezinski. I mean, I think he should be skulking with his head in shame on a deserted island somewhere. I can't believe he's still posing as a foreign policy expert.
Point being: Iran is going to do what it does regardless of what the world thinks or does, short of war. I'm not implying that all bets are off at this point, but steps need to be taken. The US should give up on the UNSC (Russia and China won't budge), and get the other nations under our coalition to slap sanctions on Iran, end trade with them, and do our best to contain and neutralize. If Iran decides they want to play hardball, we have target packages of their nuclear facilities. We may not nail all of them, but we can sure rain on their parade if we nail some sites that are key in producing nuclear materials. Then, we brace for the retaliation.
And it's going to come. It will come in Iran dispatching it's 40,000, or so, suicide troops. It will come with other nations in the region and across the globe complaining about us acting "unilaterally" again. And it will definitely come from the IAEA and the UN. You know what? I don't care, and neither do the majority of Americans that see Iran simply tip-toeing down the path of creating nuclear weapons. We know it. The IAEA in both reports above practically admits it, then tries to defend it.
There is no defense for Iran to have nuclear weapons. I don't care what the IAEA uses for justification. In the last 27 years since the Islamic revolution, Iran hasn't been attacked by any of it's neighbors with nukes. So there's no reaosn for them to have any. And for the IAEA to state that we should take that into consideration is pure insanity.
Publius II
I'm so ticked right now I could spit ten-penny nails. Today started out the way I expected, with taking two major newspapers to task over their inept editorials regarding the USA Today story, which blew the cover on another facet of the NSA surveillance on terrorists. But then, Charles at LGF had to go an ruin my mood with not one, but two stories about Iran's nuclear program.
Here is the first from Breitbart:
The U.N. atomic agency has found traces of highly enriched uranium at an Iranian site linked to the country’s defense ministry, diplomats said Friday. The finding added to concerns that Tehran was hiding activities that could be used to make nuclear arms.
The diplomats, who demanded anonymity in exchange for revealing the confidential information, said the findings were preliminary and still had to be confirmed through other lab tests. But they said the density of enrichment appeared close to or beyond weapons grade — the level used to make nuclear warheads.
Now, doesn't that just warm your heart. But, before we start celebrating that the IAEA finally found something, and proceed under the misnomer that this is what we need to get the sanctions on the UNSC, the IAEA fumbles the ball according to "Al-Reuters":
Iran has legitimate security concerns that the United States must address if the crisis over Tehran’s nuclear programme is to be resolved, the head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog said on Friday.
“This is primarily a regional security issue,” Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) he told a debate in The Hague.
“Iran is surrounded by countries that have nuclear weapons, Russia has nuclear weapons, Pakistan has nuclear weapons, Israel has nuclear weapons, Iraq has used chemical weapons against them. There is a sense of insecurity,” he said.
“When you talk about the Iranian issue, the only solution is a package that should inter alia include security issues.”
It's so nice to see that the UN's nuclear watchdog group is willing to excuse the development of nuclear weapons for a nation that is, according to intelligence information, the number one supporter of state-sponsored terrorism. And what better way to, again, show the world that the UN isn't very tough on issues like this. Folks, before this is all said and done, we're going to have another war on our hands because the Iranians can't be trusted. Allow me, if I may, to quote an exchange between Hugh Hewitt and Mark Steyn conducted yesterday:
HH: Well, I agree with that, but let's step back. I asked the Secretary of Defense about this on Tuesday, and he paused and he said well, he certainly is a communicator, isn't he? I mean, he's a nut, Mark Steyn. He's mad as a hatter.
MS: Yes, he is, but you know the interesting thing about it is you get away with what you can get away with. And it's...in a sense, the Iranians are indulging in what I called a bad cop/worse cop routine, in that the fact that they put this crazy guy up as their front man, in a sense, excuses an awful lot, because he's so obviously off the charts. What's worrying about Iran is that so many of the people that we think of as moderates, like Rafsanjani, for example, actually believe the same equally crazy things as the president does. This president, Ahmadinejead, is actually, he has this crazier side to him, the bit about the 12th imam and all that. But the core attitude to Israel and to America is shared by all the so-called Iranian moderates as well.
HH: Now in today's AP bulletin from Indonesia, Ahmadinejead is again calling Israel, "a tyrannical regime that will one day be destroyed," and going on about it. But meanwhile, over at Politecompany, Council On Foreign Affairs company, Greg Djerejian, who writes at the Belgravia Dispatch, I quote, "at some point, I'm hard pressed to see how we avoid talking with the Iranians, period. Bottom line, the Iranians have become players. And chiming on about just bombing them into submission isn't going to get us anywhere, save maybe on the Hugh Hewitt Show." I think he's talking specifically about you, Mark Steyn, earlier in that paragraph. What do you think about Polite Company refusing...the Council On Foreign Affairs refusing to deal with this problem?
MS: Well, I do think you risk the danger simply by agreeing to enter into discussions with someone like that. You do risk treading down the Neville Chamberlain path, that I have here a piece of paper signed by the president of Iran. He's a man we can do business with, and all the rest of it. And I don't think that's true. I think the lesson we learn from these things is that Iran treats with contempt all the forms of international decorum, and always has done. And that includes whether it's respecting people's embassies, which obviously it didn't do the United States, to respecting territorial jurisdiction, which it's never done. And so I think the thing about Iran is that there is really no point to talking to them. No one has talked to them more than the Europeans over the last three years. They've been shuffling to Tehran back and forth doing the...every time they mention the Prophet Mohammed, doing the peace be upon him thing, as Jack Straw, the former British Foreign Secretary does like a sort of nervous tick five times a sentence when he's there. Even the Americans, the Americans in the period after September 11th, talked to the Iranians more than they had since the fall of the Shah. And the administration in Washington thought it had reached a kind of modus vivendi with Tehran. It turns out not to be the case. We've been talking to them for years. The idea that we need to start talking to them is ludicrous. And he should know better. He's a smart guy, the Belgravia Dispatch.
HH: Yes, he is.
MS: But he's falling into the sort of standard stripe pants...as long as you are indulging in the form and the process of diplomacy, that that's some kind of strategy. It's not. In most cases, it's just the absence of strategy.
HH: Now in an e-mail exchange with him, he sent me to the Council on Foreign Relations' report of an independent task force, Iran: Time For A New Approach, and it's primary authored by Zbigniew Brzezinski and Robert Gates, with Suzanne Malone, project director. And it makes for interesting reading. It really does. But at the same time, I think we end up back where we always are, which is Iran doesn't want to dance.
MS: No, no. And the thing is, you are as pathetic as the high school boy who won't take get lost for an answer from the girl, from the hot looking girl. I mean, I don't want to put America into the role of the pimply nerd on the planet, and Iran into the position of the hot looking girl, but I mean the message here across 27 years has been pretty consistent. And in fact, Brzezinski, of all people, who this happened on his watch, a lot of the problems we deal with today happened on his watch, including his coming up after the failure to prevent the Islamists coming to power in Iran, he then embarked on this so-called covert strategy for Afghanistan, that ended up vastly amplifying both Saudi prestige, and the prestige of the Pakistani intelligence service, and, in fact, wound up with...the main thing that Osama bin Laden has in his quiver, which is that he and al Qaeda think they brought down the Soviet Union. Well, the person who basically set them up to believe that was Zbigniew Brzezinski. I mean, I think he should be skulking with his head in shame on a deserted island somewhere. I can't believe he's still posing as a foreign policy expert.
Point being: Iran is going to do what it does regardless of what the world thinks or does, short of war. I'm not implying that all bets are off at this point, but steps need to be taken. The US should give up on the UNSC (Russia and China won't budge), and get the other nations under our coalition to slap sanctions on Iran, end trade with them, and do our best to contain and neutralize. If Iran decides they want to play hardball, we have target packages of their nuclear facilities. We may not nail all of them, but we can sure rain on their parade if we nail some sites that are key in producing nuclear materials. Then, we brace for the retaliation.
And it's going to come. It will come in Iran dispatching it's 40,000, or so, suicide troops. It will come with other nations in the region and across the globe complaining about us acting "unilaterally" again. And it will definitely come from the IAEA and the UN. You know what? I don't care, and neither do the majority of Americans that see Iran simply tip-toeing down the path of creating nuclear weapons. We know it. The IAEA in both reports above practically admits it, then tries to defend it.
There is no defense for Iran to have nuclear weapons. I don't care what the IAEA uses for justification. In the last 27 years since the Islamic revolution, Iran hasn't been attacked by any of it's neighbors with nukes. So there's no reaosn for them to have any. And for the IAEA to state that we should take that into consideration is pure insanity.
Publius II
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 11:38 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home