Posts Tagged ‘Iran’

h1

From Bad To Worse

June 18, 2009

From Bad To Worse

By INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY | 18 June 2009

Iran: The suspicious re-election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad means more inflexibility from Tehran on its nuclear program. Even feckless UN nuclear chief Mohamed ElBaradei sees it.


Read More: Iran


Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, this week admitted to the BBC: “It is my gut feeling that Iran would like to have the technology to enable it to have nuclear weapons. They want to send a message to their neighbors, to the rest of the world: ‘Don’t mess with us.’ “

In spite of this too little, too late epiphany, the IAEA head still blames us, calling nuclear technology “an insurance policy against what (Iran) heard in the past about regime change, axis of evil.”

So the U.S. made them do it, with all that post-9/11 saber rattling.

With Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad getting a phony re-election mandate, the reality has finally hit ElBaradei square in the face that Iran is impervious to diplomatic goodies and half-hearted economic sanctions. The terrible truth is the mullahs and their minions really are the Jew-hating, apocalyptic, genocidal fanatics their own words and actions have revealed them to be.

A freshly emboldened Mahmoud will now have no reason to back down on nuclear matters, and ElBaradei can now see whatever legacy he fantasized for himself crumbling.

The IAEA chief won the 2005 Nobel Peace Prize for opposing America’s efforts to prevent nuclear terror. Emblematic of his thinking were these 2007 remarks regarding attacking Iran: “I would hope that everybody would have gotten the lesson after the Iraq situation, where 700,000 innocent civilians have lost their lives on the suspicion that the country has nuclear weapons.”

That outlandish figure is over six times the estimates of the Iraqi government and others on civilian war casualties, but ElBaradei used such histrionics to convince the world Iran wasn’t “a clear and present danger that requires we go beyond diplomacy.”

Earlier this month, ElBaradei admitted his UN “watchdog” agency can do precious little watching of either Iran’s Natanz uranium enrichment plant, or its newly roofed heavy water facility in Arak.

ElBaradei ends his tenure as IAEA head this November, and the agency has been agonizing over replacing him.

Not surprisingly, Iran enthusiastically supported his re-election in 2005. But ElBaradei’s successor will likely come from Japan, Spain or South America, not the Islamic world — a new excuse for further nuclear intransigence from the “re-elected” Ahmadinejad.

Too bad this Nobel laureate’s “gut feeling” about Iran’s true intentions didn’t come years ago, before today’s ever-growing clear and present danger.

h1

Cartoon: Praise Allah. I think I may have found a way out.

June 18, 2009

h1

Iran: Election

June 16, 2009

“Mousavi, TAKE BACK OUR VOTES,” chanted marchers as they streamed down Tehran’s Azadi Street toward a rally for reformist candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi.  The line was more than five miles long as hundreds of thousands joined Monday’s protest against President Mahmoud Ahamdinejad’s re-election.

h1

IRAN: Helping Mahmoud

June 16, 2009

Helping Mahmoud

INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY | 16 June 2009

Iran: The “quiet” U.S. reaction to Tehran’s dubious presidential election speaks volumes. Iranian freedom fighters could use some moral support, but we’re trapped in our own “tough diplomacy.”


Read More: Iran


In his inaugural address, President Obama had a message for the oppressed and oppressor alike. He said, “To all other peoples and governments who are watching today . . . know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and we are ready to lead once more.”

He added: “To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history, but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.”

The clenched fist of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, in his suspect return to power, has not only delivered a blow to freedom-seeking Iranians; it is also knocking the Obama administration for a loop — primarily because the president has chosen not to stand with Iranians who seek “a future of peace and dignity.”

The administration was obviously rooting for Ahmadinejad to be beaten by his chief rival, former Iranian prime minister Mir Hossein Mousavi. The president on Friday, the day of the election, spoke of “a robust debate taking place in Iran” bringing with it “new possibilities” and “the possibility of change.”

How naive those words sound in retrospect. Presidential wishful thinking has crashed head-on into Islamofascist reality.

The administration’s preferred story line apparently went something like this: Moderate replaces hard-liner, Obama and Mousavi hold summit, grand pact results, quelling the Iran nuclear threat and setting the stage for peace to break out through the Mideast.

Mousavi, of course, whose candidacy (unlike so many others) got the stamp of approval of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei, is no moderate at all.he vowed during the campaign to continue Iran’s nuclear program.

Moreover, as Thomas C. Reed and Danny B. Stillman note in their newly published history of nuclear proliferation, “The Nuclear Express,” “Pakistan’s A.Q. Khan first began to transfer uranium enrichment technology to Iran in 1987″ — in the midst of Mousavi’s 1981-89 tenure in power.

Any Obama-Mousavi version of the Camp David Accords would have preserved Iran’s widely dispersed, tough-to-monitor nuclear program in some form, through which it can produce fuel for a bomb.

With Ahmadinejad winning, sparking demonstrations involving tens of thousands of Iranians and the slaughter of at least one protester by state militia, the U.S. has officially gone strangely quiet.or as Vice President Biden put it on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” “we’re going to withhold comment” for a few days.

Those risking life and limb by taking to the streets against the terrorist enablers who hijacked their country 30 years ago deserve more than withheld comments.

If the president feels as guilty as he seemed to in his Cairo speech early this month about the CIA’s 1953 coup preventing Soviet dominance of Iran, wouldn’t this be the time to support the many millions of Iranian men, women and children seeking a future of peace and dignity?

The president, with all his rhetorical gifts, has chosen a strange time to clam up — obviously hoping that a newly strengthened Ahmadinejad might come to Camp David. Now who’s “on the wrong side of history”?

h1

Nukes Are OK For Iran, But Not For Us?

June 4, 2009

Nukes Are OK For Iran, But Not For Us?

By INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY | 4 June 2009

Nuclear Power: If Iran has “legitimate energy concerns” that make its nuclear plants OK, doesn’t the energy-starved U.S.? Why doesn’t Iran, with the second-largest proven oil reserves, just build some refineries?


Read More: Iran


Normally, a nation with significant oil resources that decides to develop nuclear power would and should be praised for its prudence. Nuclear power is an emission-free domestic form of energy that is good for the environment and the economy.

Except when it’s a country that builds missiles instead of refineries and pledges to wipe a neighbor off the face of the earth.

Iran says it’s developing nuclear power to generate electricity while it waits for the 12th Imam and the apocalypse to arrive. To hasten the process, however, it is using its nuclear knowledge to amass fissile material necessary to build a bomb. It’s developing missiles to deliver that bomb, presumably somewhere in the heart of downtown Tel Aviv.

Our new administration is trying to talk them out of it, and the Iranians are quite willing to drag out the conversation as long as it takes to develop their nuclear weapon and the means to deliver it.

“Although I don’t want to put artificial timetables on that process,” President Obama (?) has said, “we do want to make sure that, by the end of this year, we’ve actually seen a serious process move forward. And I think that we can measure whether or not the Iranians are serious.”

Unfortunately, Iran by the end of the year should have enough weapons-grade material to make a bomb, if it doesn’t have enough already. One thing we can measure is the increasing number of centrifuges they have spinning. They are not designed to keep the lights on in Tehran.

It would seem to us that encouraging Iranian use of nuclear energy in any context is the last thing we should be doing. In a BBC interview broadcast on Tuesday, President Obama said:

“Without going into specifics, what I do believe is that Iran has legitimate energy concerns, legitimate aspirations. On the other hand, the international community has a very real interest in preventing a nuclear arms race in the region.”

This echoes remarks made in Prague last month, when the president said his administration would “support Iran’s right to peaceful nuclear energy with rigorous inspections” if Iran gives up its pursuit of nuclear weapons.

But it hasn’t, and the race is already on. Iran state television interpreted these remarks as recognizing “the rights of the Iranian nation,” by which it means its right to develop nuclear power unencumbered.

That Iran is not serious about peaceful nuclear energy is shown by its refusal to build the refinery capacity needed to eliminate its dependence on imported gasoline. That money instead has gone to buying more centrifuges and expanding nuclear facilities. If Iran’s energy aspirations were legitimate, it would be building refineries and not bombs.

The irony here is that at the same time we are encouraging Iran to exploit the peaceful uses of nuclear power, we are discouraging its use here at home. We have legitimate energy aspirations as well, and one of them is reducing our dependence on imported oil from countries that do not have our interests at heart.

We let billions flow overseas and domestic oil resources from the Chukchi Sea to ANWR to Western oil shale to the Gulf of Mexico go unexploited. We have one thing in common with Iran: We’re not pushing refinery construction here either.

We prattle on about nuclear power being costly and nuclear waste being a danger without a safe place to store it even as we shut down Yucca Mountain, a perfectly safe place to store it. We place all sorts of regulatory and environmental impediments in its way.

Why is nuclear power a viable energy source for Iran but not for America?

h1

Iran’s New Target: Egypt

April 29, 2009

They’re all in bed together.  They wear different jackets for different work shifts.  Don

Iran’s New Target: Egypt

Cairo’s desire for Mideast peace threatens Tehran’s ambitions.

WSJ: 28 April 09

On April 8, Egypt announced it had uncovered a Hezbollah cell operating inside its borders. This startling pronouncement offers a rare insight into the way Iran and its proxies are manipulating Middle East politics.

According to Egyptian authorities, the cell was tasked with planning attacks against tourist sites in Sinai, conducting surveillance on strategic targets including the Suez Canal, and funneling arms and money to Hamas. Hezbollah’s leader, Hassan Nasrallah, has admitted that the ringleader of the cell was indeed a member of his organization to provide “logistical support to help the Palestinian brothers in transporting ammunition and individuals.”

These latest actions by an emboldened Hezbollah have been spurred on by Iran, which is seeking to further its quest for power in the Arab Middle East. In the past six months, there have been irrefutable signs of Iran’s determined effort to sabotage Egypt’s attempts at regional stability. At Tehran’s instigation, Hamas rejected the renewal of the six-month, Egypt-brokered cease-fire last summer between it and Israel. This rejection led to the Gaza war in December. At the height of that war, Mr. Nasrallah called on the people of Egypt and its army to march on the city of Rafah to open the border to Gaza by force, a highly inflammatory appeal aimed at causing insurrection.

After the war ended, Egypt resumed its efforts to reach a long-term cease-fire. Iran pressured the Hamas leadership to resist. Cairo’s ongoing effort to build a Palestinian unity government, by bringing together Fatah and Hamas, has also been undermined by intense Iranian pressure on Hamas.

Tehran sees Egypt as its greatest rival in the region, and the most formidable Arab bulwark opposing its influence. It is in this context that Hezbollah actions in Egypt should be assessed. Acting as a front for Iranian objectives, Hezbollah is tasked with distracting Egypt from the diplomatic process that will hopefully lead one day to a two-state solution in the Palestine-Israel conflict.

Egypt’s persistent attempts to bring about peace in this arena and its encouragement of other Arab countries to follow its path with Israel threaten to deprive Iran of the single most potent regional issue that it can exploit to further its radical agenda. Thus Tehran seeks to undermine the prospects for this peace — and it, along with its clients, believe the way to do this is by undermining Egypt. Similarly, Egypt’s security interests in the Gulf, and its traditional role as a force for regional stability, present a clear obstacle to Iran’s wider regional ambitions.

For President Barack Obama and members of his administration watching from the sidelines, the implications should be clear. A final settlement of the Palestine-Israel conflict is indispensable if the U.S. wishes to check Iran’s expanding influence in the Middle East.

Meanwhile, the U.S. administration will have to contend with a right-wing Israeli government that has yet to subscribe to the principle of a two-state solution in defiance of international consensus. It will also have to press Israel to halt its illegal settlement activity, which now more than ever endangers the fundamental basis for a solution.

The administration’s focus on the immediate issue of Iran’s nuclear program should not distract it from addressing Tehran’s overall posture towards the peace process or its support for terrorism. Iran’s challenge to the regional status quo is multifaceted, which is why Washington must adopt a comprehensive approach as it formulates its nascent engagement with Iran.

It is said that Mr. Obama is still weighing when and where to deliver a major speech to the Arab world. If he were to make such a speech in Cairo, it would give heart to millions in the region who want to see the peace process succeed. It would also send a firm message to Tehran that America stands with Egypt on the side of peace and stability.

Mr. Aly is director of the Al Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies in Cairo.

h1

Another Iran Hostage

April 22, 2009

Another Iran Hostage

By INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY | 22 April 09

War On Terror: Can it be a coincidence that just as we soften relations with Iran, the terror state imprisons a U.S. journalist for “espionage”? Tehran knows: A hostage is a bargaining chip.


Read More: Global War On Terror | Iran


The two most infamous times the Islamofascist regime in Iran humiliated the U.S. involved hostage-taking by forces under Tehran’s influence.

From 1979 to 1981, 52 U.S. Embassy personnel were held captive by Iranian students for 444 days. They were released only minutes after the inauguration of President Reagan, who had made it clear he would take swift action against the “barbarians” in Iran.

Saberi: No Reagan this time.

Saberi: No Reagan this time.

Then in 1986, the Reagan administration’s Iran-Contra affair erupted, involving attempts to free six U.S. hostages held by the Iranian-backed Lebanese terror group Hezbollah. Tehran ended up getting weapons from the U.S. in a botched arms-for-hostages deal, some of the financial proceeds of which went to help Nicaragua’s Contra freedom fighters.

The Ayatollah Ali Khamenei — supreme ruler of Iran for two decades, an architect of the country’s 1979 Islamist revolution and close adviser to the Ayatollah Khomeini — knows the value of an American hostage.

Roxana Saberi is a 31-year-old former Miss North Dakota of Iranian descent who for the last six years has worked in Iran as a freelance journalist for the BBC, Fox News, National Public Radio and others. On Saturday, she was sentenced to eight years in prison for espionage after being first arrested in February for the heinous crime of buying a bottle of wine.

An Iranian judiciary spokesman on Tuesday suggested Saberi’s sentence might be reconsidered on appeal. Khamenei calls the shots in the courts, as he does for the rest of Iran’s government.

In 2007, for instance, when Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had the regime’s former top nuclear negotiator, Hossein Mousavian, arrested for spying, Khamenei wasted little time ordering Iran’s judiciary to dismiss the charges.

Perhaps Khamenei will soon commute Saberi’s sentence, currying international favor as Iran marches steadily toward nuclear capability. Or maybe he’ll reduce her jail time, then seek concessions from the U.S. in nuclear talks. Or maybe he’ll let her go to buy more time to build a weapon or produce bomb-grade fuel.

Still, one can’t help wondering: Would this talented young American woman be sitting in a squalid Iranian jail cell right now as a potential human bargaining chip if the U.S. hadn’t extended an olive branch to this murderous regime?

h1

Cartoon: Talks with Iran

April 17, 2009

h1

An Olive Branch For A Terrorist State

March 23, 2009

An Olive Branch For A Terrorist State

By INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY | 23 March 2009

War On Terror: Is there some grand strategy behind President Obama’s “Happy Persian New Year” video message to Iran? Or is America embracing the naive notion that we can get the Islamofascists to like us?


Read More: Global War On Terror | Iran


As Mark Finkelstein’s “FinkelBlog” noted, there were no American flags visible in the background to ruffle the mullahs’ turbans in Obama’s Friday midnight video message. A wide shot featured on the White House Web site has the president sitting before Old Glory, but it turns out there is more than one edition of the video.

The version with Farsi subtitles — presumably the one pegged for Iranian consumption — was closely cropped, with no sign of the U.S. flag (although you can see the tiniest edge of the red and white stripes for a time during the second half of the message). Even the president’s lapel pin of the flag is cropped out during much of the address.

While bereft of anything to offend Iranians who make a practice of burning the stars and stripes, the video’s “tough diplomacy” consisted mainly of palavering the Islamic nation.

Extending his “very best wishes to all who are celebrating Nowruz around the world,” the president called the occasion “both an ancient ritual and a moment of renewal” and “just one part of your great and celebrated culture.

The president told Iran how “over many centuries your art, your music, literature and innovation have made the world a better and more beautiful place,” adding that “here in the United States, our own communities have been enhanced by the contributions of Iranian Americans.”

“We know,” he said, “that you are a great civilization, and your accomplishments have earned the respect of the United States and the world.”

He also made a point of referring to the country by what became its official name after the Ayatollah Khomeini’s Carter-era revolution turned it into an anti-American theocratic state — “the Islamic Republic of Iran.”

In closing, Obama recited a verse from the medieval Dervish poet Saadi, which is prominently featured within the United Nations building in New York City:

“The children of Adam are limbs to each other, having been created of one essence.”

Lovely sentiments all around. But who really thinks Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the other leaders of revolutionary Islamist Iran see all the children of Adam — particularly those living in Tel Aviv and the world’s free industrialized nations — as equal in the eyes of God? Whoever does is too naive to be involved in U.S. foreign policy.

Ahmadinejad spokesman Ali Akbar Javanfekr immediately responded to Obama’s message by calling on the U.S. to end its support for Israel and apologize for: siding with Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s; accidentally shooting down an Iranian airliner in 1988 (for which the U.S. has already paid Iran $132 million); and the CIA’s role in the shah’s 1953 coup.

The Tehran regime has been in a de facto state of war with the U.S. for 30 years. It has provided bombs that have killed our soldiers in neighboring Iraq and Afghanistan. It spends millions supplying and training Lebanon’s Hezbollah terrorists, and funds Hamas’ rocket and suicide attacks against Israel.

Under the autocratic rule of this Islamic “republic,” Iran has hosted pseudo-scholars to compare notes on denying the Nazi genocide of the Jews. Its leaders have referred to the state of Israel as a disease, calling for the Jewish state’s destruction by force. They believe the 12th imam will return to lead an apocalyptic jihad against Jews and other purported enemies of Islam.

And, most importantly, these dangerous fanatics are spending a billion dollars a year — 2% of its annual oil revenues — in pursuit of nuclear weapons. Clearly, the regime has already produced enough fuel for one atomic bomb, and last month Iran’s nuclear chief said its 6,000 operating uranium enrichment centrifuges at Natanz would be expanded to 50,000 over the next five years.

Franklin Roosevelt’s strategy against Hitler was not to send a Christmas card noting the artistic achievements of Goethe and Wagner. Does this Democratic president, like his great 20th century predecessors, recognize evil when he sees it?

h1

A General Warning

March 16, 2009

A General Warning

By INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY | 16 March 2009

Iran: A Russian general has issued a public warning about the dangers posed by the Islamist regime in Tehran. Is further confirmation needed to convince the West that the dithering United Nations isn’t the answer?

Maj. Gen. Vladimir Dvorkin, speaking at a Russian press agency news conference Thursday, corroborated intelligence that Iran is developing a next-generation, long-range missile and has dangerous nuclear weapons ambitions.

Dvorkin, who heads Moscow’s Center for Strategic Nuclear Forces, said, “Iran has long abandoned outdated missile technologies and is capable of producing sophisticated missile systems.”

Dvorkin doesn’t believe Iran is capable — yet — of building an intercontinental ballistic missile that can carry a nuclear warhead, “but they will most likely be able to threaten the whole of Europe.”

Iran has made a mockery of the U.N.’s demands that it halt its nuclear program, which could produce an atomic weapon next year — if not sooner. Its belligerence will only grow more outrageous after it has built a nuclear weapon that it can use “to expand its support of terrorist organizations, including Hamas and Hezbollah,” Dvorkin said. Nuclear capability will give it the leverage it needs to try to dominate the entire Middle East.

Dvorkin doesn’t strike us as a crank out to trouble the waters. He spent much of his career deeply involved in strategic arms talks, helping the Soviet Union draw up its positions on a number of weapons pacts. His warning is not only for the West, but directed toward Russia as well. He is getting a message that many in the U.S. and Europe are too timid to listen to.

Iran is not some “tiny” country that doesn’t “pose a serious threat to us,” as one of the presidential candidates said last May. While it’s not the new USSR, it is, as that same candidate said two months later, “a grave threat,” which the world must keep from getting a nuclear weapon.

Barack Obama vowed in July that he would “take no options off the table” in dealing with Iran. He also said he’d be willing to talk to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Now that Obama’s president, we’d rather he take the latter idea off the table, as meeting with Ahmadinejad would only encourage more hostility. Ahmadinejad himself said Obama’s offer to talk showed weakness and marked a “failure” of America’s “system of domination.”

What’s needed in dealing with Iran is strength and a thick skin while facing the Western nations that will wag their fingers at any show of U.S. strength or resolve. Given Dvorkin’s comments, it’s possible that Washington might even find an ally in Moscow.

h1

Blinded Iranian seeks eye-for-eye justice

March 6, 2009

Blinded Iranian seeks eye-for-eye justice

By CIARAN GILES, Associated Press Writer Ciaran Giles, Associated Press Writer Wed Mar 4, 11:04 am ET

MADRID – An Iranian woman living in Spain said Wednesday she welcomed a Tehran court ruling that awards her eye-for-an-eye justice against a suitor who blinded her with acid.

Ameneh Bahrami, 30, told Cadena SER radio, “I am not doing this out of revenge, but rather so that the suffering I went through is not repeated.”

Late last year an Iranian court ruled that the man — identified only as Majid — who blinded Bahrami in 2004 after she spurned him, should also be blinded with acid based on the Islamic law system of “qisas,” or eye for an eye retribution, according to Iranian newspaper reports from November.

But Bahrami, who moved to Spain after the attack to get medical treatment, said Wednesday that under Iranian law, she is entitled to blind him in only one eye, unless she pays euro20,000 ($25,110), because in Iran women are not considered equal to men.

“They have told us that my two eyes are equal to one of his because in my country each man is worth two women. They are not the same,” she told Cadena SER.

Bahrami explained that she was now waiting for a letter from the court to go back to Iran for the punishment to be carried out.

Cadenda SER said that after undergoing treatment in Barcelona, Bahrami recovered 40 percent vision in one eye but since then doctors have not been able to prevent her from going totally blind. She also suffered horrific burns to her face, scalp and body.

She says she now survives on euro400 ($500) a month in aid from the Spanish government.

The woman said Majid would be blinded by having several drops of acid put into one eye, whereas she had acid splashed all over her face and other parts of her body.

It was not immediately possible to make contact with Bahrami on Wednesday. No one at the Iranian Embassy was available for comment either.

h1

Iran Into Trouble

March 3, 2009

Iran Into Trouble

By INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY | 3 March 2009

Nuclear Weapons: Our Joint Chiefs chairman says Iran has enough material to make a nuclear bomb.  Didn’t our spy agencies less than a year and a half ago tell us all not to worry?

Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told CNN on Sunday that Iran has enough enriched uranium to make a nuclear weapon.

“We think they do, quite frankly,” Mullen said.

Tehran retorted that the U.N.’s International Atomic Energy Agency monitors Iran’s nuclear facility at Natanz. But the IAEA was shocked last month to find 209 kilograms more low-enriched uranium at Natanz than expected, enough for up to 25 kilograms of highly-enriched uranium — or one Hiroshima-sized device.

Speaking of incompetence, the U.S. intelligence community in October 2007 asserted “with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program.”

That National Intelligence Estimate said: “Tehran’s decision to halt its nuclear weapons program suggests it is less determined to develop nuclear weapons than we have been judging since 2005.”

That hasn’t seemed to have quelled Admiral Mullen’s worries.

Consider, after all, the long list of examples proving the cloudiness of our spy agencies’ crystal ball. Two days before Saddam Hussein’s march into Kuwait in 1990, for instance, the CIA was telling President George H.W. Bush that an invasion was unlikely.

Less than a week before Moscow’s Christmas 1979 invasion of Afghanistan, the agency’s top Soviet analysts claimed, “The pace of Soviet deployments does not suggest . . . urgent contingency.”

And back in 1950, two days before 300,000 Red Chinese troops assaulted American forces in Korea, the CIA repeated to President Eisenhower that the Chinese would not invade.

How many times must Inspector Clouseau bumble before we stop taking him seriously?

Thomas C. Reed and Danny B. Stillman’s new history of nuclear proliferation, “The Nuclear Express,” recounts Israel’s successful — and fairly speedy — quest for the bomb. By the spring of 1963, President John F. Kennedy knew Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion was lying about Israel’s Dimona “civilian” reactor.

JFK “sent harsh messages to Ben-Gurion, but to no avail; delay and obfuscation were Ben-Gurion’s stock and trade.”

By the end of 1963 the Dimona plant was producing plutonium. By 1966, Israel apparently conducted “a hydronuclear or near-zero yield test” of a prototype bomb beneath the Negev desert.

Four decades later, delay and obfuscation are now Tehran’s stock and trade. But unlike Tel Aviv, their nuclear intentions are not defensive but jihadist. And they are a clear and present danger to us.

h1

Diplomacy By Itself Won’t Work With Iran

February 16, 2009

Diplomacy By Itself Won’t Work With Iran

By MICHAEL RUBIN | 15 Feb.09

Throughout his presidency, George W. Bush said the U.S. “would not tolerate” a nuclear-weapons-capable Iran. That he kept his promise was more a matter of timing than of policy. President Barack Obama will not be so lucky.


Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced last summer that Iran possessed 6,000 centrifuges. But the problem is no longer just enrichment. Last week the Islamic Republic launched a satellite into orbit, demonstrating an intercontinental ballistic missile capacity.

Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s confidants have repeatedly urged nuclear weapon development. Ayatollah Mohammad Baqer Kharrazi, secretary-general of Iranian Hezbollah, for example, declared in 2005: “We are able to produce atomic bombs, and we will do that. . . . The United States is not more than a barking dog.”

During his campaign, Obama promised to meet unconditionally with Iran’s leader and conduct “tough diplomacy.” These are mutually exclusive.

Be Suspicious

If he sits down with Ahmadinejad without precondition, he will not only have sent Tehran the message that it can win by defiance rather than diplomacy. He has also unilaterally set aside three U.N. Security Council Resolutions demanding Iran cease its enrichment.

Too often, new U.S. administrations assume that the fault for failed diplomacy lies more with their predecessors than with their adversary. To believe any Iranian leader is sincere is dangerous.

In a June 14, 2008, debate, Abdollah Ramezanzadeh, government spokesman under Mohammad Khatami, criticized not Ahmadinejad’s policy but his style, suggesting Khatami’s strategy to lull the West better achieved Iran’s nuclear aims.

“We had an overt policy, which was one of negotiation and confidence building, and a covert policy, which was continuation of the activities,” Ramezanzadeh explained.

Indeed, it was during Khatami’s “dialogue of civilizations” that Tehran built its covert enrichment facility and, according to International Atomic Energy Agency reports, experimented with plutonium and uranium metal. Neither has a role in energy production, but have military applications.

And, according to the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate, it was under the reformists that Iran actively worked on nuclear warhead design.

Obama may seek out Iranian moderates, but he should understand that, on the nuclear issue, differences between Iranian factions are illusionary. The supreme leader tolerates no officeholder who does not support his line on national security.

On Feb. 3, the Kayhan newspaper — Khamenei’s mouthpiece — drove home the point by calling Obama’s attempts to reach out to moderates “futile.”

All this does not mean diplomacy is useless. But to be successful, it must be carefully crafted. Cost matters. Here, the Iran-Iraq War provides a lesson.

Ayatollah Khomeini swore to pursue war with Iraq until victory, even after expelling Iraqi troops from Iranian territory in 1982. His counterinvasion bogged into stalemate and led to several hundred thousand Iranian deaths. Finally, in 1988, as costs became insurmountable, Khomeini changed course. He agreed to a cease-fire, saying it was like drinking “a chalice of poison.”

Iran is willing to switch course, but only when the costs of its policy become too great to bear. This means fewer incentives.

Bailing out a failing Iranian economy makes no strategic sense unless Obama’s goal is to preserve regime longevity and provide Iran a greater industrial and financial base upon which to develop nuclear weapons and support terrorist groups.

Neither is it wise to slowly ratchet up sanctions. No sanction yet imposed compares to the deprivation Iranians suffered in the 1980s. Instead, to achieve diplomatic leverage, Obama should impose maximal sanctions but offer to relieve them as Tehran complies with U.N. resolutions. Even without Moscow and Beijing’s cooperation, Obama can leverage significant pressure.

Under Section 311 of the U.S. Patriot Act, the president can designate Iranian banks — including Iran’s central bank — as guilty of deceptive financial practices. In effect, such action would remove Iranian banks from the international financial stage, for neither Russian nor Chinese banks could risk the associated liability.

Project Power

A military strategy role also exists. Obama, his adult life spent in sheltered circles, should realize that the military is not just about bombing, and that containment and deterrence are not simply rhetorical concepts but require military planning.

Nor should Obama repeat the mistakes of Jimmy Carter. Military deployments can provide diplomatic leverage.

During the 1970 Black September hostage crisis and after the 1975 Khmer Rouge seizure of the U.S. containership Mayaguez, Nixon and Ford, respectively, quietly deployed forces to augment leverage as the two presidents muted any public bluster.

Two days after Iranian revolutionaries seized the U.S. Embassy in 1979, Carter’s aides leaked that the president would not consider military force — information that the captors said led them to retrench.

A quiet but steady buildup in the Persian Gulf can do more than the most skilled diplomat when facing the Iranian clerics.

George W. Bush had the luxury of time and squandered it. Barack Obama will not be so lucky. For him to succeed, he must abandon his idealistic notion that diplomacy by itself is a panacea.

Rubin is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.

h1

Nuclear Momentum Picks Up In Persia

February 13, 2009

Nuclear Momentum Picks Up In Persia

By INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY |  12 Feb. 09

Iran: With every new analysis, the timetable for Tehran building a nuclear weapon gets shorter. The latest has the mullahs armed within the next two to three months. This is not an inspiring development.


Read More: Iran


The Wisconsin Project, a nuclear watchdog group, reported this month that as of December, Iran had accumulated enough U-235, the fissile uranium needed for nuclear weapons, “to fuel one bomb quickly. ‘Quickly’ in this context means two to three months about the time it would take Iran to raise the level of U-235 in its uranium stockpile from 3.8% to over 90%.”

A second nuclear weapon (the real beginning of danger, since the first one is likely to be used in a test) could be ready by June, and a third by November.

The Wisconsin Project is no crackpot group itching to attack Iran. It’s a nonprofit organization dedicated to halting “the spread of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction.” Its goal is “to cut off the supply of material, equipment and technology needed to make these weapons.”

The Wisconsin Project doesn’t seem to be hopeful, either. Its director, Gary Milhollin, wrote in September in the New York Times that “The best time to stop the Iranian nuclear program was from 2002 to 2006, after its illicit nature was discovered but before it gained its present momentum.”

Milhollin blames the Bush administration’s failure to act against Tehran on U.S. involvement in Iraq, saying that the White House was “paralyzed” and able to mount “only a haphazard and absent-minded policy.”

More likely, though, the administration was hindered by concerns that squeamish Americans, politics-first congressmen and fussy Europeans who screech about U.S. hegemony would howl. Understandably, it did not want to add to its media-driven public relations problems.

So an aggressive Tehran keeps spinning centrifuges and stockpiling uranium, untouched and unhindered. Earlier this month it intensified conditions by launching (it says) a satellite into orbit.

The hours that the civilized world has to decide what, if anything, it’s going to do about Iran’s atomic ambitions are growing short. An Iranian bomb is on the way. Better to act sooner than later, when the threat of deadly retaliation is greater.

h1

NY Post: Obama Pandering to Muslim World

February 9, 2009

THE NEW YORK POST

AMIR TAHERI

January 29, 2009

IN his “first message to the Muslim world” Tuesday, President Obama on Al-Arabiya TV invited the Islamic Republic in Iran to “unclench its fist” and accept his offer of “un conditional talks.”

A few hours later, after Obama had appeared on the Saudi-owned satellite-TV channel, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told a crowd of militants that no talks are possible unless the United States met a set of conditions.

He demanded a formal apology for unspecified US “crimes” against Iran and the Islamic world. The crucial condition, however, was that America should withdraw its troops from other countries, “taking them back to their own territory.”

The contrast couldn’t have been greater. Obama tried to be as conciliatory as possible – asking only for an “unclenching” of the Iranian fist – a change of style. Ahmadinejad asked for concrete US moves, notably a global military retreat that would leave the Middle East at Tehran’s mercy.

In the understatement of the year, Obama said: “Iran has acted in ways not conducive to peace and prosperity in the region.” He also claimed that Iran’s support for terrorists, though “not helpful,” is a thing of the past – yet Tehran was running guns to Hezbollah and Hamas even as he spoke.

ON Al-Arabiya, Obama did something more interest ing: He cast himself in the role of a bridge [?] between America and the Muslim world, a kind of honest broker between two camps in conflict.

[?] To hammer in the point, he recalled the Muslim part of his own family background and his childhood in Muslim Indonesia – a topic he’d carefully avoided during the campaign. He also asserted that America is a land of “Muslims, Christians, Jews” and others – making sure to mention Muslims first.

At times, Obama sounded like a marriage counselor. He said his job is to communicate to Americans that “the Muslim world is full of extraordinary people who simply want to live their lives and see their children live better lives.” On the other hand, he said, he’d also tell the Muslims that “Americans are not your enemy.”

Obama looked to the past rather than the future to give such platitudes a tinge of political vision. He said he wanted a return “to the same respect and partnership that America had with the Muslim world as recently as 20 or 30 years ago.”

The problem is that few people in the Muslim world will welcome his back-to-the-future approach. Thirty years ago, Obama was a teenager in Indonesia. Vice President Joseph Biden, however, was already a senator and a champion of President Jimmy Carter’s strategic retreat.

What was happening during what Obama seems to regard as the “golden age” of Carter’s leadership? US diplomats were held hostage in Tehran and daily humiliated with mock executions. Soviet troops were annexing Afghanistan to the Evil Empire. Saddam Hussein was preparing to invade Iran, starting an eight-year war that claimed a million lives. Mecca was under siege by the ideological antecedents of Osama bin Laden. Syrian troops were preparing to march into Lebanon.

OTHER features of this “golden age“: the seizure of power by mullahs in Tehran, the assassination of Egyptian President Anwar Sadat, the coming to power of communists in the Horn of Africa, the military coup in Turkey, the first Islamist terror attacks in Algeria, unprecedented waves of repression in Egypt and Saudi Arabia and the imposition of military rule in Pakistan.

During the same period, and its immediate aftermath, dozens of Americans from many walks of life were seized as hostages and sometimes brutally murdered in several Muslim countries. The US ambassador in Sudan was murdered; the CIA station chief in Beirut abducted, taken to Tehran and killed under torture.

A similarly dark picture could be drawn of the situation 20 years ago, when America was arming the mujahedin in Afghanistan while Saddam Hussein was preparing to invade Kuwait.

And the first President George Bush was then trying to court the Iranian mullahs in much the same way as Obama is trying today. But the mullahs were training and arming Hezbollah units in Lebanon and opening channels to Palestinian radicals who would soon re-emerge as Hamas. Saddam was gassing thousands of Kurds to death, while Turkey was dragged into a full-scale war on Kurdish communist secessionists. Meanwhile, the Libyan terror network was killing American GIs in Europe and blowing up US jetliners over Western skies.

No – that was no golden age, either.

THE truth is that the Middle East is not much better off than at any time since its emergence as a geopolitical unit after World War I. Thanks to the transformation of America from a power guaranteeing the deadly status quo into one that supports reform and change, the region has started to experience new currents of democratization.

Afghanistan and Iraq have been liberated, their peoples given a chance to build new systems of their own choice. The Syrians have been kicked out of Lebanon. Libya has been disarmed. Egypt has been forced to allow multiparty presidential elections. More than a dozen Arab states have adopted constitutions and introduced some form of electoral politics. Kuwaiti women have won the right to vote and get elected.

Iran’s democratic forces are encouraged to launch their campaign against the mullahs. The Islamists have been roundly defeated in Algeria, Egypt, Yemen and Saudi Arabia.

For the first time, the question of democracy is top of the political agenda in virtually every Muslim state.

Obama should remember that he is the president of the United States – not an impartial broker. It was unfortunate that he described himself as a bridge. For a bridge has no personality of its own and cares little about who might cross it and in which direction.

IF this was meant as the first direct contact between Obama and the Muslim world, the Al-Arabiya interview must be rated as a missed opportunity.

Obama’s remarks about the Israel-Palestine issue were so trite as to merit no analysis. He said he was sending former Sen. George Mitchell to listen to all sides – as if the world has not been hearing their stories for more than six decades.

The president appeared apologetic, offering no hope for democratization and economic development. He made no mention of the economic meltdown that is creating unprecedented mass unemployment in many countries of the region.

Nor did he offer any support to democratic forces facing crucial elections in Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, the Palestinian territories, Egypt and Algeria this year.

He had nothing to say about the thousands of Iranian workers who have been thrown into prison solely because they created independent trade unions. Nor did he mention Iranian women’s courageous “a million signatures campaign” or the series of student revolts that have been crushed by the mullahs with exceptional violence.

Nor was there any nod toward reformers in Saudi Arabia and Egypt or the heroic Lebanese democratic leaders who are fighting to preserve their nation’s independence from Iran and Syria.

Obama didn’t call for the release of the tens of thousands of political prisoners held in more than two dozen Muslim countries or a moratorium on executions that each year cost the lives of hundreds of dissidents.

CASTING himself in the role of a “bridge” and dreaming of a return to an illusionary past, Obama appeared unsure of his own identity and confused about the role that America should play in global politics. And that is bad news for those who believe that the United States should use its moral, economic and political clout in support of democratic forces throughout the world.

h1

OBAMA – IRAN

February 6, 2009

h1

Israel Gets Rid Of Iran’s Nuclear Threat

January 2, 2009

Investors Business Daily’s List of Nine Possibilities Heading into 2009.

#9. Israel Gets Rid Of Iran’s Nuclear Threat israel_flag

Will Israel use its altercation with the Iranian-backed Hamas as a stepping stone toward a strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities? The signs are that an Obama Administration, committed to “tough diplomacy,” will be less likely to let Israel take matters into its own hands and strike Tehran as it did Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor in 1981.

Lack of U.S. support would make such airstrikes more difficult, and leave Israel even more vulnerable politically on the world stage. With the Jewish state just this week sending warplanes to annihilate Hamas terrorists, defying heavy international pressure for a cease-fire, it seems clear Israel won’t hesitate to defend itself.

Should Bibi Netanyahu and the Likud Party return to power in coming elections, Hamas — and its patron, Iran — might be in bigger trouble. Israel might be tempted to go for broke, taking out Iran’s burgeoning nuclear threat rather than letting Tel Aviv go up in a mushroom cloud.

=================

Israel must “go for broke, taking out Iran’s – nuclear threat”

h1

The Iranian Missile Crisis

November 7, 2008

The Iranian Missile Crisis

INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY | 4 Nov. 2008

National Security: While the U.S. scores yet another successful missile intercept, the missile defense chief warns that Iran could target all of Europe and the U.S. within five years. It’s 3 a.m., and the phone is ringing.

Our “unproven” missile defense system scored another successful intercept of a ballistic missile on Saturday. A Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) launched from the Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS Paul Hamilton (DDG-60) intercepted a target missile launched from the Pacific Missile Range Facility at Barking Sands, Kauai, Hawaii.

This missile launched Saturday in Kauai became the missile defense program’s latest success.

The test was significant in that it was the first time the Navy, rather than the Pentagon’s Missile Defense Agency, oversaw the firing of an SM-3. The San Diego-based U.S. Third Fleet had command and operational control of the mission.
The day before the test, the head of the Missile Defense Agency, Lt. Gen. Henry Obering III, spoke in Prague in an effort to convince the Czech Parliament to approve the deployment of a missile-tracking radar facility near Prague as part of a missile shield. Along with missile interceptors based in Poland, this facility will provide a defense against Iranian missiles.

The Czech government has agreed to the deal, but it must be ratified by both houses of the Czech government. According to a report in the Jerusalem Post, Gen. Obering told Czech leaders, “There’s an urgency to getting the schedule on.”
That urgency, Israel Radio reported Obering as saying, was that Iran is not far from attaining the means to use missiles against all of Europe and against the U.S. in five to six years.

Earlier this year, Gen. Obering reported that Iran was “developing missiles at an accelerated pace” and was in fact the third most-active country in the world after Russia and China. Of further concern is an Iranian missile test conducted in February at the televised opening of an Iranian space center in the Semnan Desert southeast of Tehran.
The test, witnessed by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, was of a modified three-stage Shahab-3B missile, which was described as a space launch vehicle. Col. Gen. Viktor Yesin, former chief of staff of Russia’s Strategic Missile Force, said the Iranian launch showed that Iran could produce liquid-fuel rocket engines sufficient for missiles with a 2,500-mile range or more. With strap-on boosters, such a missile could reach North American targets.

Dinshaw Mistry, professor and missile proliferation expert at the University of Cincinnati, warns of the development or acquisition of missiles that “would give Iran the capability to strike Western Europe. A 3,000-kilometer-range Iranian missile could reach Rome and Berlin; a 4,000-kilometer-range missile could reach London and Paris.”

Mistry warns that if its own missile development falls short, Iran could acquire North Korea’s Taepo Dong ICBM technology [remember what just happened] to strike at the United States. It wouldn’t have to be accurate. A single warhead detonated high over the U.S. would unleash an electromagnetic pulse that would fry our high-tech economy and send us back a century or more. Millions would die or starve from its aftereffects.
Iran is frighteningly close to becoming the first Muslim country with a global nuclear reach. This is why the recent shoot-down of a decaying spy satellite with a Navy SM-3 missile interceptor looms so important.
The technology is here, and it works. We need to shoot down Iran’s Shahabs, not our own missile defense.
h1

Iran’s Preconditions

October 23, 2008

Iran’s Preconditions

Obama has no preconditions to talk to Iran?

Well – Iran does! – and here they are:

1.    American military forces must leave the Middle East – presumably including such countries as Iraq, Qatar, Turkey and anywhere else American soldiers are deployed in the region.

2.    The U.S. must cease its support of Israel.

Don

Iran’s Preconditions

So much for Obama’s diplomacy.

Barack Obama’s declaration that, if elected, he would be willing to sit down and talk to Iran “without preconditions” has been widely discussed in this country. It’s a key policy difference between him and John McCain, who rejects unconditional talks with Tehran.

So what does the Islamic Republic think? The enterprising reporters at the state news agency recently asked a high-ranking official for his opinion on talks with the U.S. As it turns out, Iran has its own “preconditions” and they don’t suggest a diplomatic breakthrough, or even a summit, anytime soon.

Mehdi Kalhor, Vice President for Media Affairs, said the U.S. must do two things before summit talks can take place. First, American military forces must leave the Middle East — presumably including such countries as Iraq, Qatar, Turkey and anywhere else American soldiers are deployed in the region. Second, the U.S. must cease its support of Israel. Until Washington does both, talks are “off the agenda,” the Islamic Republic News Agency reports. It quotes Mr. Kalhor as saying, “If they [the U.S.] take our advice, grounds for such talks would be well prepared.

Iran is one of the toughest and most urgent foreign policy problems the new U.S. Administration will face. If Mr. Obama ends up in the Oval Office on January 20, he may find that solving it will take more than walking into a room and talking to Iranians “without preconditions.”