Iran’s “Peaceful” Nuclear Ambitions

I had a conversation with a liberal friend some time ago about nuclear weapons. It was pretty short, because I think she expected that my sexual orientation meant I believed the way she did. She made a comment that we needed to “set the example” by getting rid of all of our nuclear weapons, and when America did it, everyone else was sure to follow. We started it, right?

Wrong. Actually, it was in part German scientists defecting to the United States who helped us achieve a nuclear reaction, and they had been lucky to escape the Nazis who were not far from the same technology. The bad guys went after it, so we had to. How do you fight an enemy who wants to see your society burned to a pile of cinders and has the ability to put you in that state? You get a better weapon and you use it first. I hate to say it, but that’s the reality.

Naturally, when I said that (maybe not in so many words, but I made clear that setting an example would only leave us unprotected) she was stunned into near silence. The only reply she had was, “that’s just fear.”

HELLO! Of course it is! Do liberals really think we would want to use those kinds of weapons again? Do you think we enjoy that it had to be done in the first place? On a smaller scale, I don’t like that I have to keep a gun. It isn’t all that much fun for me. I’m not a gun collector, and I am not looking for someone to start something with me so I can use it. I keep a gun and believe in my right to do so because humanity isn’t as rational as liberals would like to think.

Take the anti-war movement. I’ve said before that liberals sing that overdone (and very irritating) John Lennon song as if conservatives didn’t give peace a chance in the first place. The entire idea here–anti-gun, anti-war, get rid of all of our nuclear weapons–is that if we just sit down and talk to the bad guys, they’ll have a change of heart and stop trying to kill us. I have to ask, do you think that would have worked with John Wayne Gacy? Or Jeffrey Dahmer? Do you think it would work with the robber who walks into a bank, fires a few shots into the air and demands that everyone hit the floor while he strips all the cash from the tellers that they have? Sure, go ahead. Just talk to him. Keep talking while he shoots you for getting in between him and what he wants.

Think about how often you have to argue with someone you don’t agree with. Why do you think that happens? Doesn’t it make sense that there are irrational, unreasonable people in this world in light of how many of those around you who disagree with your perspective? Peace isn’t something that’s just going to happen. Peace only comes about because those of us who ARE rational and reasonable understand that we will at times need to defend ourselves against those who unreasonably expect us to give them what they want.

Iran, over the weekend, announced three things. First of all, it’s dumping the plan to send their uranium stores to Russia to be enriched to 20% to be used for energy and medical treatment (that plan would have left Iran with too little uranium to make a weapon with). Second, they’re using 2000 reactors to enrich their own uranium closer to home. Third, they have made advances in laser technology that allow them to fire nearly invisible missiles.

Somebody please tell me why Mahmoud Ahmadinejad felt it necessary to announce those three things over the weekend when Iran supposedly only intends their nuclear program for peaceful ambitions.

We’re talking about a country that wants to see the Nation of Israel destroyed. Mr. Ahmindamoodforjihad has said on more than one occasion that Israel is not to be recognized. I don’t care how you translate what he said in his speech to the World Without Zionism conference in 2005, whether you say “wiped off the map” (which is the translation made by Iranians, not Americans) or “vanished from the pages of time”, he absolutely meant to infer that Israel needs to be destroyed. By arguing about the verbage you’re just playing semantics.

Iran is hostile to any non-Muslim and more so toward Jews. A nation this violent cannot, under any circumstances, be allowed to develop nuclear weapons. As soon as they’ve got ’em diplomacy is going to go out the window. “We just want energy and medical treatment” will instantly become “kill all infidels,” which will be followed by the Shahada and a very big boom. If you wish to believe otherwise, that is your choice. Just remember this: while Japan was planning to attack us at Pearl Harbor for cutting off their supplies during their invasion of Manchuria, they were pretending to be friendly. They even gave our diplomats friendship medals to signify that there were no hard feelings. Then they struck, and we had a damn hard time recovering enough to put up a defense.

Now we’re playing with much more insidious technology. The genie is already out of the bottle. We can’t put it back in. All we can do is put on our best diplomatic face and try to talk–and when that doesn’t work, we have to be willing and ready to act more decisively. Obama has already tried his “new diplomacy” with Iran. They have made fun of him. Iran has snubbed five UN resolutions and nearly as many different rounds of sanctions. How long are we supposed to keep allowing them to say “nice doggie”?

A Nuclear Conflict Of Interest

elbaradei.jpg 

This one has always been in the back of my mind. Nah.  It’s been at the front of my mind.  I don’t want to sound un-PC.  But I will. When you put someone named Mohammed ElBaradei in charge of the IAEA (International  Atomic Energy Agency) and charge them with investigating Iran’s nuclear activities – what do you expect?

Hurl your accusations of racism or nationalism or whatever at me, but not before you read this article from the Wall Street Journal that simply confirms what I have believed aboutMr. ElBaradei all along.  ElBaradei is a fraud who exhibits anti-Western and anti-Israeli tendencies. 

Mr. ElBaradei’s report culminates a career of freelancing and fecklessness which has crippled the reputation of the organization he directs. He has used his Nobel Prize to cultivate an image of a technocratic lawyer interested in peace and justice and above politics. In reality, he is a deeply political figure, animated by antipathy for the West and for Israel on what has increasingly become a single-minded crusade to rescue favored regimes from charges of proliferation.

Mr. ElBaradei assumed the directorship on Dec. 1, 1997. On his watch, but undetected by his agency, Iran constructed its covert enrichment facilities and, according to the 2007 U.S. National Intelligence Estimate, engaged in covert nuclear-weapons design. India and Pakistan detonated nuclear devices. A.Q. Khan, the Pakistani nuclear godfather, exported nuclear technology around the world.

Why trust this man?  He has shown no propensity to curb third-world nuclear proliferation anywhere on the globe, much less in Iran.  Yet someone hands him a Nobel prize and declares him a demi-god?  More likely that was done because of his opposition to the US and their attempts to keep maniacs like Ahmadinejad from achieving nuclear capabilities.  ElBaradei is a Muslim sympathizer.  His record speaks for itself.

The IAEA director seems intent on undercutting Security Council diplomacy. Just weeks after President George Bush toured the Middle East to build Arab support for pressure on Tehran, Mr. ElBaradei appeared on Egyptian television on Feb. 5 to urge Arabs in the opposite direction, insisting Iran was cooperating and should not be pressured. And as he grows more and more isolated from Western powers intent on disarming Iran, Mr. ElBaradei has found champions in the developing and Arab world. They cheer his self-imposed mission — to hamstring U.S. efforts to constrain Iran’s program, whether or not the regime is violating its non-proliferation obligations or pursuing nuclear weapons.

Yeah.  Sorry.  Muslim sympathizer.  He is an apologist for Islamist regimes like Iran and a protector of any other tin-pot dictatorship that antagonizes the US and the West with threats of nuclear weapons.  I want to know who the hell put this guy in charge of the IAEA in the first place.  He is biased, has a political agenda and does not serve his office or the international community well.  It’s time to “can” ElBaradei before it’s too late.

The Lies That Syrians Tell

Before and after satellite pictures of the suspected Syrian nuclear reactor

In the early hours of a September morning, shortly after midnight, Israeli fighter jets leveled an installation inside Syria that the Israelis claimed was a nascent nuclear reactor modeled after a North Korean facility.  The silence from Syria was deafening.  There was no major protest – at least not while the Syrians were cleaning up the evidence.  New satellite images taken of the site seem to bear out the allegations.

New commercial satellite photos show that a Syrian site believed to have been attacked by Israel last month no longer bears any obvious traces of what some analysts said appeared to have been a partly built nuclear reactor.

Two photos, taken Wednesday from space by rival companies, show the site near the Euphrates River to have been wiped clean since August, when imagery showed a tall square building there measuring about 150 feet on a side.

The Syrians reported an attack by Israel in early September; the Israelis have not confirmed that. Senior Syrian officials continue to deny that a nuclear reactor was under construction, insisting that Israel hit a largely empty military warehouse.

But the images, federal and private analysts say, suggest that the Syrian authorities rushed to dismantle the facility after the strike, calling it a tacit admission of guilt.

Pretty obvious indeed.  The “tacit admission of guilt” also includes slips of the tongue and the stealth surrounding the incident.  If the site was not, in fact, a nuclear reactor – then it was obviously something that the Syrians were keeping secret from the rest of the world.

Any attempt by Syrian authorities to clean up the site would make it difficult, if not impossible, for international weapons inspectors to determine the exact nature of the activity there. Officials from the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna have said they hoped to analyze the satellite images and ultimately inspect the site in person. David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security, a private group in Washington that released a report on the Syrian site earlier this week, said the expurgation of the building was inherently suspicious.

“It looks like Syria is trying to hide something and destroy the evidence of some activity,” Albright said in an interview. “But it won’t work. Syria has got to answer questions about what it was doing.”

Exactly!  Of course I am bewildered by the logic put forth by one “expert.”

“It’s clearly very suspicious,” said Joseph Cirincione, an expert on nuclear proliferation at the Center for American Progress in Washington. “The Syrians were up to something that they clearly didn’t want the world to know about.”

Cirincione said the photographic evidence “tilts toward a nuclear program” but does not prove that Syria was building a reactor. Besides, he said, even if it was developing a nuclear program, Syria would be years away from being operational, and thus not an imminent threat.

I am sick of this “imminent threat” BS.  So what?  Isn’t it better to be proactive about a potential Syrian nuclear threat now than later?  How does it make the Israeli action any less important?  It kind of makes you want to throw up your arms (or your dinner) and crawl into a bunker.  If we had hit Iran at this stage, we wouldn’t have half of the problems we now face.  Of course, Syria is keeping a stiff upper lip.

Imad Moustapha, the Syrian ambassador to the United States, denied in an interview last week with The Dallas Morning News that his country was trying to build a reactor.

“There is no Syrian nuclear program whatsoever,” he said. “It’s an absolutely blatant lie.”

Later in the interview, he said, “We understand that if Syria even contemplated nuclear technology, then the gates of hell would open on us.”

Mr. Ambassador, you don’t understand or fear anything evidently.  You haven’t seen the gates of hell yet.  Don’t play us like fools.  The Israelis, at least, are on to your game.