Latest Entry: American Pravda and New York's Sixth Crime Family     Latest Comments: Talk Back Here

« Boston Herald: Ignore Iran's Tricks | Main | Clues Found To Grapefruit Drug Reaction »

May 14, 2006

Suspicions Grow On Iran's Uranium And It's Intentions

Topics: Iran

Remember...that during the Iran/Iraq War, many in the Iranian leadership (that are still there) encouraged & ordered their own young children to cross border minefields and get themselves blownup, in order to make safe paths for their soldiers to cross over. There is no moral conscience nor regard for life here; no matter what the excuse. They still sponser insurgent terrorism, and have little or no regard for their women. What would you think their thoughts would be with regard to using nukes or any WMD in order to reak havoc & mayem in their region, or the World? - Defense Tech

Lane-Iran_Nuclear_Po.jpg

Suspicion continues to grow that Iran may already have bomb-grade uranium, and now, according to the Sunday Times (UK), inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) are asking Iranian officials for samples of machinery taken from a nuclear site bulldozed in 2004 to confirm whether it bears traces of what Iran claims it doesn't have. And then there's that little matter of Iran telling Pakistan that it "didn't want the technology - they "want a bomb":

Diplomats close to the IAEA in Vienna said yesterday that they want to establish whether the Physics Research Centre at Lavizan, northeast of Tehran, could have been involved in an illicit weapons programme.

The IAEA request follows a preliminary finding that one piece of equipment from the site does have traces of highly enriched uranium.

As negotiators from Britain, France, Germany, the United States, Russia and China prepare for talks at the Foreign Office in London tomorrow about offering new incentives to persuade Iran to abandon its enrichment programme, a retired Pakistani army general revealed evidence of the mullahs' long-held desire to procure a nuclear bomb.

General Mirza Aslam Beg described an Iranian visit to Islamabad in 1990, when he was chief of staff. "They didn't want the technology," he said. "They asked: 'Can we have a bomb?' My answer was by all means you can have it but you must make it yourself. Nobody gave it to us."

If the "We want a bomb" comment is factual, as it likely is, then so much for Iran's claim they seek nuclear development only for "peaceful" applications. One would think that any minor reality check, even for the Democratic Left, would fail to categorize an atomic bomb as a tool for peaceful applications.

And so far as the "years away" we keep hearing about regarding Iran's time away from having a bomb, there are some experts that believe it is month's away - from June 2005 (others range from 3 years to a decade). Take for example Henry Sokolski, executive director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center in Washington, D.C., and editor, along with Patrick Clawson, of "Getting Ready for a Nuclear-Ready Iran" (U. S. Army War College Press).

When it comes to Iran's nuclear program, most U.S. and allied officials are in one or another state of denial. All insist it is critical to prevent Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Yet, few understand just how late it is to attempt this. Iran is now no more than 12 to 48 months from acquiring a nuclear bomb, lacks for nothing technologically or materially to produce it, and seems dead set on securing an option to do so.

This article, relying on research and meetings with the nation's leading experts on Iran, the Middle East, and nuclear proliferation -- and based upon a working group report on these issues -- is intended to make recommendations designed to reduce the harm Iran might do or encourage if it gained nuclear weapons. There are three threats that are likely to increase following Iran's acquisition of a nuclear option.

Even more nuclear proliferation. Iran's continued insistence that it acquired its nuclear capabilities legally under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (npt) would, if unchallenged, encourage its neighbors (including Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria, Turkey, Algeria) to develop nuclear options of their own and overtly declare possession or import weapons from elsewhere.

Dramatically higher oil prices. A nuclear-ready Iran could be emboldened to manipulate oil prices upward, either by threatening the freedom of the seas (by mining oil transit points as it did in the 1980s or by seeking to close the Straits of Hormuz) or by using terrorist proxies to threaten the destruction of Saudi and other Gulf state oil facilities and pipelines.

Increased terrorism geared to diminish U.S. influence.
With a nuclear weapons option acting as a deterrent to U.S. and allied action against it, Iran would likely lend greater support to terrorists operating against Israel, Iraq, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Europe, and the U.S. The objective would be to reduce American support for U.S. involvement in the Middle East, for Israel, and for actions against Iran generally, and to elevate Iran as an equal to the U.S. and its allies on all matters connected to the Persian Gulf and related regions.

All of these threats are serious. If realized, they would undermine U.S. and allied efforts to foster moderate rule in the Middle East, and set into play a series of international competitions that could ultimately result in major wars. (More)

This guy Henry Sokolski, and the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center in Washington, D.C. could be all wet and off the reservation of reality, but taken with what Pakistani officials are saying, there's certainly reason to believe that we should be more than a bit nervous about the West sitting on their hands (or is it arms?).

Related: Todays AP "7:29 AM" breaking report that "Iran Rejects Incentives to Halt Enrichment". (Please tell me, just what part of Iran's "NO, we will not cooperate - we are only going to stall until we have the bomb" - does the West find so hard to understand?).

it's unfortunate that the West is letting our failure to find Saddam's WMP that we were so sure was there but is now somewhere else - but to let that issue cloud the separate and potentially more deadly (to the world, given Iran's global support of terrorism and it's radical Islamic regime) issue of an Iran "going atomic", is a terrible mistake and a trap that we in the West appear to be unable to avoid falling into.

Like Julia Roberts said in "Pretty Woman" - Big Mistake".

Posted by Richard at May 14, 2006 6:56 AM



Articles Related to Iran: