nuclear iran

Iran’s top diplomat said Saturday the country won’t accept any new internationally imposed obligations regarding its nuclear program and that the world must recognize Iran as a nuclear-capable nation.

Just accept it. Nuclear Iran.

"Iran has a high technical capability and has to be recognized by the international community as a member of the nuclear club," Kharrazi said at a press conference. "This is an irreversible path."

The IAEA has wrestled for more than a year with what to do regarding what the United States and its allies say is a secret Iranian nuclear weapons program. Iran has rejected such allegations, saying its nuclear program is geared toward generating electricity, not making an atom bomb.

We can be sure that before too long, perhaps even now, that Iran will have nuclear tipped missiles capable of reaching any country (perhaps Israel) in the Middle East. A few steps after that, who knows... ICBM's?

September 23, 2003

Iran yesterday defiantly showed off six of its new ballistic missiles daubed with anti-US and anti-Israel slogans in a move sure to reinforce international concern over the nature of its nuclear programme.

At the climax of a military parade marking [commemorating] the outbreak of the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war, the enormous Shehab-3 missiles were rolled out painted with the messages, "We will crush America under our feet' and "Israel must be wiped off the map."

The UN is hard at work trying to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power. Any guesses as to how effective they will be?

The IAEA has imposed a strict deadline, saying Iran must prove it has no nuclear weapons programme by October 31. Its governing board has also demanded that Iran suspend uranium enrichment activity and open its doors to unfettered inspections. If Tehran fails to comply, the UN security council could decide to impose sanctions.

The Shehab-3, which means "meteor" in Farsi, underwent final tests this year and has a range of about 810 miles, putting Israel and US bases in the Gulf within striking distance. It is based on the North Korean No-Dong and Pakistani Ghauri-11 medium-range missiles.

There is no doubt of Iran's worthiness to be included in the axis of evil. Iran is a terrorist state. They support terrorists with funding and arms. They may well be the number one financial supporter of radical Islamic terrorist groups in the world. They may also be harboring Al Qaeda.

Hezbollah was conceived in 1982 by a group of clerics after the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. It was formed primarily to offer resistance to the Israeli occupation.

Inspired by the success of the Iranian Revolution, the party also dreamt of transforming Lebanon's multi-confessional state into an Iranian-style Islamic state. Although this idea was abandoned and the party today is a well-structured political organization with members of parliament.

...The party was long supported by Iran, which provided it with arms and money.

In its early days, Hezbollah was close to a contingent of some 2000 Iranian Revolutionary guards, based in Lebanon's Bekaa Valley, which had been sent to Lebanon in 1982 to aid the resistance against Israel.

As Hezbollah escalated its guerrilla attacks on Israeli targets in southern Lebanon, its military aid from Iran increased.

So what should be done? If Kerry is President how can we expect him to deal with this? Diplomacy? Nuance? Detente? Get the UN involved? As if they weren't already and to no avail. We do know one thing, unless Iran is an immediate and imminent threat we cannot use military force. The war on terror is not about rogue states anyway, nor is it primarily a military matter but a law enforcement one.

Kerry may try to convince allies, like Russia (who are helping Iran build their nuclear facilities), and the UN to do something more than what they already do. Warn. "Don't do that." The UN and our allies are generally opposed to any actions that might be too bellicose. They also don't like upsetting their financial dealings with terrorist countries.

Which is why Kerry may have trouble (the same kind of trouble Bush had getting support for disarming Iraq) in getting Russian support for stopping Iran from going nuclear. Just as the French and Russians were intricately tied to Iraq, Russia is enabling Iran to acquire nuclear weapons.

Last week, Moscow approved plans to construct up to six civil nuclear reactors in Iran.

The two countries will also expand conventional power stations, develop oil and gas deposits, jointly produce aircraft and co-operate in communications and the metals industry.

This would be in addition to Russia's 1990s agreement with Iran to build a $800 million nuclear plant at Bushehr on the Gulf coast, a project that has long angered Washington.

So what should be done?

We should do what must be done. If we don't you can be assured that Israel will act.

Israel has made plans to bomb an Iranian nuclear power plant if it begins producing weapons grade material, it was reported today.

Military commanders have mapped out a route Israeli fighter jets would take to destroy the Bushehr reactor on the Persian Gulf, officials told the Washington Times.

Russia has been helping Iran to build its first nuclear plant for eight years in a deal worth about 500 million to Moscow.

...In 1981, Israel bombed the Iraqi Osiraq nuclear-power plant, near Baghdad, in an operation that drew widespread international criticism.

Posted by Eric Simonson at June 12, 2004 11:01 PM