Iran - Nuclear Pariah: Part III

Iran - Nuclear Pariah – Part III

Précis

The first two article in this series described some of our concerns about Iran, its nuclear ambitions, and its various other acts of aggression, either contemplated or, carried out by this delinquent country. This article will complete my Iran commentary for the moment. Much else has happened in the world, and this topic has now blossomed into full discussion not only at various Gather points, but also in the mainstream press, as well as the alternative media of radio and the Blogosphere. Unless the West acquiesces totally to Iran and its Russian ally, it seems that diplomatic channels have opened that are addressing this issue. Will it be addressed in an efficient manner with the speed and alacrity that anyone on this Gather so inclined might bring to the issue? I believe not since the last two years have not accomplished anything but excessive hand wringing.. There will be much dithering, pontificating, appeasing, worry and predictions of mass slaughter if we do something dramatic, forgetting the actuality that terror from Iran in the form of nuclear weapons would be worse than anything the West might do to Iran in a pre-emptive manner. Not the least of these possibilities is the fact that Iran is a sponsor of state supported terrorism, funds various terror groups, and in my opinion would have no qualms about providing small nuclear devices to terrorist groups for use against the United States and its allies.

Commentary

Russia offered to enrich its uranium in Russia then shipped to Iran for use as nuclear fuel.

"The capacity of Russia's proposal does not meet all the nuclear energy needs of Iran," Iran's top nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani Friday, according to state television. Larijani was speaking to reporters on his return to Tehran from a trip to China, where he tried to mobilize support against Western moves to refer Iran's nuclear file to the U.N. Security Council, which could impose sanctions.

"It is not possible to say the Russian proposal is negative, and that is why we consider it as a basis for negotiations," the official Islamic Republic News Agency quoted Larijani as saying.

This ballet between Russia and Iran, with China in full complicity, is an effort to deflect the reality of the fact that Iran wants nuclear weapons, and has allies that will help in that endeavor. Why would they help? Both Russia and China see the United States as their only real global competitor and gain enormously when we are distracted from our major domestic goals and objectives. If we drain resources neutralizing Iran, we lose opportunities to prosper economically and politically. Additionally, a triumvirate of Russia, China and Iran represents a real threat to peace the Mid-East as well as to world peace. (Does anyone believe for a minute that no weapons grade materials will find its way to Iran from Russia?) A threatened showdown between Iran and the West would draw Europe, the United States, as well as a number of countries into a conflict that could ignite a war that no one will win in the classical sense. Winning is a shadow term. Would we win if we and our allies neutralize Iran? Would Iran win if it eliminated Israel from the map. Would The European Union win if we were engaged in a war that may well involve the use of nuclear weapons? Would China see this as an opportunity to become involved in an exercise that might provide sole access to oil and gas, either from Russia or Iran, or both Would, in fact, anyone win? The answer is fairly obvious --- no one would win. The demise of the United States, China or Russia would result in a global economic disaster. World trade would come to a halt, the stock, bond and real estate markets would cease to exist as we know them, the only country that seems expendable in these scenarios is Iran. Eliminate their nuclear weapons and their leadership that covets the Mid-East as their territory, salvage the oil and gas fields, change the paradigm, and that part of the world would be changed, perhaps forever. With Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan and Egypt as well as Israel pursuing freedom and peace, the Mid East could become an absolute beacon for the rest of the region. China would still have a source of oil, as would other countries. Russia would have no threatening neighbor to the south, and Israel would breath a lot easier.

To some this may sound like the ravings of a political hawk on steroids. I am not alone.

On January 23, 2006, Newt Gingrich in an interview with Human Events said the U.S.'s top priority should be overthrowing the government of Iran - using peaceful means if possible but through military force if necessary. "I will just say flatly, our objective should be the systematic replacement of this [Iran's] regime,"….

Gingrich support immediate United States support of various Iranian dissident groups, starting with trade unions and student organizations, saying, "We should in every way we can get them resources." Rather than operating surreptitiously, the U.S. should be open about its intentions",

Gingrich invoked the example of Franklin Delano Roosevelt to justify a preemptive strike against Iran, recalling: "In September 1941, when we sank a German submarine while we were technically at peace, [FDR] did a nationwide radio address and said, 'If you are standing next to a rattle snake, you do not have an obligation to wait until it bites you before you decide it's dangerous.'"

Iran's financial and materials support to terrorist groups is as troublesome as its nuclear program, because the two coupled together represent a direct avenue to attack the United States. As recently as January 20, 2006 Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad met Friday with the leaders of the Palestinian groups Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Syria, expressing his support a day after 20 people were wounded in Tel Aviv in a suicide attack claimed by Jihad. Can there be doubt that this same Iranian government would be willing to provide nuclear as well as non–nuclear materials to terrorists groups, especially if targets were in the West?

It all comes down to eliminating Iran's nuclear weapons capability. For those who doubt that capability, the Natanz Nuclear Facility in Iran is a sobering site. The attached photos is Natanz

The West has very little time to deal with this issue. We either act now, or act not at all. Once Iran has nuclear capability and has produced large numbers of nuclear weapons, it will be too late. Only last week did Iran warn the Western nations in Europe not to interfere with their program as their weapons were capable of reaching a number of countries with conventional and nuclear warheads.

Finally, I refer the reader to an excellent article in, of all places, the Washington Post. This article summarizes the ideas I have tried to address, and does so in a way that few other than Charles Krauthammer do routinely.

End

January 29, 2006

Iran - Nuclear Pariah - Part II

Iran – Nuclear Pariah – Part II

Précis:

Why is Iran searching for nuclear weapons technology, as well as weapons, capable of reaching Europe? Why have they built huge nuclear facilities at Natanz? What are the intended uses of the thousands of hidden centrifuges under the earth? Does this mean that Iran wants to use these weapons to dominate the Middle East to control oil and gas, as well as to eliminate Israel from the area?

The European Union (EU) countries and the United States have stipulated that Iran must cease nuclear fuel enrichment and the pursuit of technology to produce same. Simultaneously it must stop hiding its efforts from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IEAE). The call has been made to refer Iran to the UN Security Council to possible face sanctions. The President of Iran Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has threatened the West if they take this action, they will be sorry. What exactly does he mean? Has Iran already acquired weapons of mass destruction?

Comments:

As far as we can tell, the over riding goal of Iran is to dominate the Middle East, to eliminate Israel from the face of the earth, and to control oil and gas in the region. Nuclear weapons are the ticket to attainment of these goals. We believe that unlike more civilized countries, Iran will in fact use their weapons once they have them, and if they do not use them as a first option, they will use them to threaten the world. A recent article in the Los Angeles Times, quoting from the English newspaper, The Guardian included, in part, the following:

“One day after Iran publicly confirmed it would resume nuclear research, a newspaper reported Wednesday [January 4, 2006] that Tehran had been seeking components and know-how in Europe for nuclear weapons and missiles.
Iran responded quickly to this front-page report in the Guardian newspaper based on a leaked European intelligence document. A Foreign Ministry spokesman said the article was intended to harm Iran's ‘transparent’ efforts to obtain civilian nuclear power. “

According to the article, its reporters were allowed to see a 55-page intelligence document drawing on findings of British, French, German and Belgian security agencies and assessing the Iranian nuclear activities. Dated recently, the document concluded that Iran had been combing Europe for parts for weapons and a ballistic missile capable of reaching Europe, and that "import requests and acquisitions [are] registered almost daily. The Guardian stated that the document might have been leaked in response to mounting frustration at Iran's refusal to heed Western calls to give up its program to produce fuel for its Bushehr nuclear power plant.

Candidly, nothing the Iranians say about their intentions vis-à-vis their nuclear program is convincing given their history and their recent outrageous comments, especially about the State of Israel and the Holocaust. Let’s look at a couple of Iranian official’s comments.

Iran’s Comment

Iran claims that their massive and expensive nuclear fuel cycle facilities to ostensibly meet future electricity needs, while preserving oil and gas for export.

Speriamo

This is not credible. Iran’s uranium reserves are miniscule, accounting for less than one percent of its vast oil reserves and even larger gas reserves. Iran’s gas reserves are the second largest in the world, and the industry estimates that Iran flares enough gas annually to generate electricity equivalent to the output of four Bushehr reactors.

Iran’s Comment

"What we resume is merely in the field of research, not more than that," the deputy head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, Mohammad Saeedi, told a news conference. "Production of nuclear fuel" — which would involve enrichment — "remains suspended."

Speriamo

The costly infrastructure to perform all of these activities goes well beyond any conceivable peaceful nuclear program. No comparable oil-rich nation has ever engaged, or would be engaged, in this set of activities -- or would pursue them for nearly two decades behind a continuing cloud of secrecy and lies to IAEA inspectors and the international community -- unless it was dead set on building nuclear weapons.

Iran's 18-year history of trying to hide weapons efforts has proven that the international community's worries about Tehran’s nuclear efforts were not unwarranted. This is especially true given Iran's history of concealing and hiding their nuclear activities from the international community and its continued non-compliance of its safeguard obligations. For instance, what is going on at Iran’s nuclear enrichment facility at Natanz? Why underground facilities with secret entrances, and what is the new construction underway?

As we have followed the saga of Iran's nuclear program, and the concerns articulated by the West one of our biggest concerns was that Europe would fall into the "Appeasement Trap", as it has countless times before. Historically Europe, and to a certain extent the United States has more often than not preferred to talk to bullies rather than confront them. When confrontation does occur, it is usually criticized by those who would rather talk than act. In our opinion this stems from the fact that most people would often deny that real evil exists in their world, rather than admit it, and deal with it with alacrity As an aside, this brings to mind a comment of Churchill’s relative to the faintheartedness of his fellow politicians when faced with threats from Nazi Germany. He characterized his colleague as “…hoping that if he feed the crocodile enough, the crocodile will eat him last”. (Churchill: “The Unruly Giant”, Norman Rose, The Free Press, NY, 1994)

Iran's president denounced Western nations threatening to refer his country to the U.N. Security Council for possible sanctions over its nuclear program, saying the international community has no legal basis for restricting Tehran's right to research. He also said his country has not violated the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which allows signatories to enrich uranium and produce nuclear fuel. "There is no evidence to prove Iran's diversion (toward nuclear weapons)," Ahmadinejad said at a news conference. His comments came a day after Iran threatened to end surprise inspection, as well as other cooperation with the International Atomic energy Agency (IAEA) if it is referred to the Security Council. Furthermore, as he states "The world public opinion knows that Iran has not violated the Nonproliferation Treaty."

Of course he has also recently been quoted as telling the world that Israel must be eliminated. Which of these statements does he believe, or does he believe them all? To what world public opinion is he alluding to in these statements? If the EU as well as the United States are ready to refer Iran to the U.N. Security Council, what countries constitute this “world public opinion”? Given his comments, perhaps he visits other worlds from time to time…..

Given the above, Iran cannot be allowed to pursue a path to nuclear weapons. The world cannot continue to plead with Iran to stop its nuclear weapons development program. It was not able to reason with Hitler or any other dictatorial sociopath, and the world cannot now reason with the current leaders of Iran. Iran’s leaders are doing the same, i.e. denying any wrongdoing while at the same time they are increasing these same activities. Opening the seals on their uranium enrichment facilities, burying thousands of centrifuges, and threatening the West are not the actions of a country that wants to be part of the international community. To wit: President Hashemi Rafsanjani of Iran stated, “Even if (the Westerners) destroy our scientists, their successors would continue the job. "It would not be easy for them to solve the (nuclear) case by imposing sanctions or anything like that." He also warned the West that it would regret any action to curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions. What does he mean by that? Would Iran attack Israel? Would Iran he threatening to use them in a not terribly veiled way?

To Be Continued…..

Iran - Nuclear Pariah

Background:

Iran’s nuclear program is not new. Lest some think that this program, and our reaction to it, is another Bush administration exaggeration, think again. The program began in the Shah’s era, and included a plan to build 20 nuclear power reactors. Construction actually began on two reactors at Bushehr situated on the Persian Gulf. They were never finished. In fact they were bombed by the Iraqis during the Iran-Iraq war. Additionally, a research and development program to produce fissable materials was initiated. These efforts were halted during the Iranian revolution and the Iran-Iraq war.

Work on these reactors was resumed after the 1979 revolution in Iran, but was not given the importance that it has today. The current nuclear program is headed by the President, the commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), the head of the Defense Industries Organization, and the head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization (IAEO). These leaders continue the pursuit of WMD's and support Chemical, Biological, and Nuclear programs against all pressures from the United States and its allies. Iran ratified the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) in 1970, and since February 1992 has allowed the IAEA to inspect its nuclear facilities. Prior to 2003 no IAEA inspections had revealed Tehran's violations of the NPT. The meaninglessness of this action is discussed below.

Note: Much more information is available about Iran’s nuclear program at http://www.globalsecurity.org.

What are Iran’s goals in this area? That is not terribly hard to discern. From materials available from IEAE reports, and from groups inside of Iran the following has been pieced together. Much of what is written below is excerpted from remarks made at the Hudson Institute by then Undersecretary of State, John Bolton, and may be accessed at http://www.state.gov/t/us/rm/35281.htm.

Iran is pursuing two separate paths to nuclear weapons: The first is enriched uranium and the second is plutonium. These are described briefly below.

Uranium

Iran has tried to develop two different uranium-enrichment methods in order to produce weapons-grade uranium. It has established a number of facilities for the manufacture and testing of centrifuges. These include a pilot enrichment facility designed for 1,000 centrifuges, and a large buried facility intended to house up to 50,000 centrifuges. Enrichment of at least 1.2% was obtained using centrifuges. In parallel, Iran has pursued another program to enrich uranium with lasers. Up to 15% enrichment was attained using laser methods.

Both of these programs were successfully concealed from IAEA inspectors in Iran for years until an Iranian opposition group disclosed their existence.

Plutonium


The alternate avenue to weapons is Plutonium production, and Iran is pursuing two avenues in this regard. The first is the covert construction of a large, heavy water production plant that would supply heavy water for a research reactor has been disclosed by an Iranian opposition group. As noted by Under Secretary Bolton,

“The technical characteristics of this heavy water moderated research reactor are optimal for the production of weapons-grade plutonium. Iran claims the purpose of the reactor is for isotope production for civil purposes, a claim that belies Iran’s confirmed past interest in building hot cells at the heavy water reactor that appear to be designed for plutonium separation.”

The Bushehr light-water power reactor is the second path and may be another source of weapons grade plutonium. That reactor is under IAEA safeguards. Russia has agreed to provide all fresh fuel for that reactor, and Iran and Russia are discussing an agreement to return all spent fuel to Russia. The Russian proposal, backed by the Europeans and the United States, is aimed at pursuading Iran to move the enrichment of uranium completely out of Iran’s territory to ensure that its nuclear program cannot produce weapons. Enrichment can produce either fuel for a nuclear reactor or the material needed for a warhead.

A top Russian delegation held talks with Iranian officials about the Russian proposal. A Russian television source quoted the spokesman for Iran's Supreme National Security Council, Hossein Entezami, as saying. "The two sides are expected to discuss the Russian proposal about joint uranium enrichment (in Russia) and also uranium enrichment in Iran. “

Tehran says its nuclear program is for electricity generation, despite U.S. and European Union concerns that it is moving to produce nuclear bombs. EU foreign and security affairs chief Javier Solana recently told Iran that it may doom further negotiations with the EU about economic aid and other issues if it resumes uranium enrichment.

Iran informed the IAEA Tuesday that it has decided to resume research into nuclear fuel production, a step that has only increased concerns in the West that Iran is moving toward production of nuclear weapons. This concern increreased when Iran removed the seals from its nuclear facilities on January 9th 2006. If Iran should withdraw from the Nonproliferation Treaty ("NPT") and renounce this agreement with Russia, the Bushehr reactor would produce enough plutonium each year for about 30 nuclear weapons. This is indeed worrisome given the current leaders of Iran.

The Europeans are hoping the compromise would foster a breakthrough in deadlocked negotiations aimed at ensuring Iran cannot produce nuclear weapons. Talks between Iran and Britain, France and Germany, which resumed last month, have made little progress, but are to continue later this month. As of January 13, 2006, Iran refuses to modify its nuclear program and has threatened that it will not allow inspectors into the country. On this date Iran threatened to block inspections of its nuclear sites if confronted by the U.N. Security Council because of its atomic activities. The hard-line president reaffirmed his country's intention to produce nuclear energy.

To be Continued.....

January 13, 2006

Introduction to the Speriamo Blog

Speriamo means "We hope" in Italian. Thus we hope to add some interesting comments to various world views. Given that we are Republican and Conservative, our views will reflect this bent. However, we shall not shy from criticizing the Right when it errs or does something that we feel is more idiotic than usual.

We have no affiliations, nor do we receive support from anyone. We are avid readers and much of that reading is in the political arena. When we post, or add to an existing commentary, it may be a subject of general interest or it may be a subject of interest to only a few. In all cases we will try to support our contentions with facts. When we cannot do that, we will identify same as an opinion.

We have asked ourselves the following question: Given the number of Blogs out there, why do we want to do another? Perhaps it's ego, and perhaps it is ego, coupled to a need to engage others in spirited discussion about the issues of the day. We have often ranted about how stupid, or uninformed, the majority of the American people are, and we have looked at the data that shows the media is in fact liberal and biased. All of that was, and is, very unproductive because it does not address the underlying tunnel vision problems. To some, this statement may seem the height of egoism. Perhaps. We think not. One of the reasons for this is that we are older, have seen a great deal, and have witnessed history in the making on a number of fronts. Does that mean we know more than everyone? No. Does that mean we feel we can bring some sanity to some discussions? Yes. In any event that is what the "Speriamo" blog will try to do. You, the readers, will have to decide for yourselves whether or not we ever accomplish this goal.

In general, our commentary will reflect opinions about articles and books published by Liberal authors, Democratic legislators, and public pundits. Similarly, it will address the inability of the press and others of like mind to deal in other than conclusions. By that I mean that many on the Left who comment about just about anything do so by citing a conclusion. They do not seem capable of citing any facts to support those conclusions. To wit, I refer you to comments by Dr. Dean, the wayward physician, who is head of the Democratic party. (What happened to his "Do no Harm" oath when he received his medical degree?)

Dr. Dean's statement (Partial and excerpted from Power Line-see below)

"We now know that George Bush personally ordered American intelligence services to spy on American citizens without the consent of any court and repeatedly directed officials to take actions that explicitly violated the law."

This is a conclusion with no supporting data. John Hinderaker of Power Line responded as follows:

Really? How do we know that? What actions violated the law? What law? Dean, of course, never makes a legal argument, but assumes that his audience has been properly warmed up by the New York Times, and won't question his assertions. He (Dean) continues:

"Our courts are the last line of defense against abuses of power like this, and every judicial nominee must demonstrate that they will honor their most important responsibility: protecting our rights and freedoms.

Samuel Alito will not.

During the course of his judicial career, Samuel Alito has compiled a record of looking the other way when abuses of power threaten our basic freedoms. He has deferred to unscrupulous prosecutors who constructed all-white juries to try black defendants. He repeatedly failed to protect our right to privacy. He was even the lone judge [It was a 2-1 decision] voting to uphold the illegal strip-search of a 10-year old girl."

The problem here is that Dean is talking about Doe v. Groody, and has not the faintest idea of what Judge Alito said or meant in that opinion. Nor does he present, and seemingly does not understand, the opinions of the other judges in the case. For a more detailed discussion of this matter see Power Line (http://www.powerlineblog.com/) for January 3, 2006.

Do we expect to convert Liberals into Conservatives - No. We do expect however that some Liberals will at least begin to question what is presented as fact, and perhaps see it for what it is - opinion, and a biased one at that.

ggda
1/4/2006