Iran Getting Closer to a Nuclear Weapon
November 16th, 2007 at 01:02am Mark Noonan
And thus closer to armed conflict with the United States:
Iran has installed 3,000 centrifuges for enriching uranium - enough to begin industrial-scale production of nuclear fuel and build a warhead within a year, the UN’s nuclear watchdog reported last night.
The report by Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), will intensify US and European pressure for tighter sanctions and increase speculation of a potential military conflict.
The installation of 3,000 fully-functioning centrifuges at Iran’s enrichment plant at Natanz is a “red line” drawn by the US across which Washington had said it would not let Iran pass. When spinning at full speed they are capable of producing sufficient weapons-grade uranium (enriched to over 90% purity) for a nuclear weapon within a year.
It is still a way off, that Iranian nuke, but it is ever more clear that the time for us to strike is now, or very soon. I suspect we will strike - just as soon as we’ve positioned our forces in the area. The success of the surge has not just helped the Iraqis, but also freed up American military assets which can now be directed elsewhere.
Entry Filed under: War on Terror
13 Comments
1. Gozer the Carpathian | November 16th, 2007 at 2:11 am
The crisis point is fast approaching. I only hope we can stop them before a city or two is attacked.
2. Mark Noonan | November 16th, 2007 at 2:20 am
Gozer,
Me, too…and, welcome back!
3. hermie | November 16th, 2007 at 7:55 am
If the toothless and clueless Nobel Prize-winning IAEA says they have a year, it’s most likely the Iranians have stockpiled material and are just waiting for the right moment to fire a nuke missile.
It only seemed like a few months ago where the Left was claiming the Iranians were decades from achieving a nuke, and that Bush was being a warmonger again.
4. Joe | November 16th, 2007 at 12:28 pm
Gozer — “I only hope we can stop them before a city or two is attacked.”
Are you people absolutely crazy? You are saying we need to attack a soverign nation now! We need to attack because one day they MAY have a nuclear weapon!
Imagine if the Presidents from the 50’s thru Reagan said that.
You guys should really think of diplomacy once in a while! It worked with the Soviets, it worked with Libya, it worked with North Korea, why are you people so gung-ho on bombing Iran??
5. anarchist | November 16th, 2007 at 12:57 pm
(Ed. Note: un-sourced quote allegedly from Dwight Eisenhower deleted - an internet search has indicated no evidence that Eisenhower ever made the claimed remark).
Iran has said it only wants peaceful nuclear power, and has fully submitted themselves to IAEA inspections… Condi Rice even recently said they do have a right to civilian nuclear power.
I understand people think Ahmajinidad is a little nutty, but I don’t think he can aim and fire nukes at the US by himself, not to mention there’s term limits in Iran. I have alot of doubt as to wether it would even be possible to get every person required to nuke the US to do so when they know they would be consigning most of their country to death, invasion and occupation.
Iran also isn’t exactly a democracy, but the person in power that people site as a threat, Ahmajinidad, was democratically elected. Do you suggest we replace the current government with a puppet military dictator like we’ve done in Pakistan?
It seems to me we’re running into the same problem in the Middle East that we have in Latin America. In Latin America we want democracy and markets, but usually the democracies turn socialist. In the Middle East we want democracy and we don’t want political extremism, so we have a conundrum in Palestine, Pakistan, ect.
6. hermie | November 16th, 2007 at 1:00 pm
I almost took those comments seriously Joe.
The Soviets, the Libyans and the North Koreans played the ‘diplomacy’ game, until the Soviets went broke propping up their totalitarian system and military while the US rearmed and surpassed them.
The Libyans didn’t do anything about their weapons programs until they were given the ‘hint’ that Khadaffi would be the first to bite the dust if he tried to pull the nuke gambit.
The North Koreans violated the Carter/Albright deal quicker than the ink had time to dry, and it wasn’t until their funny money business got slammed did they start behaving.
The ‘diplomacy’ by the EU hasn’t stopped Iran from its weapons program.
7. Joe | November 16th, 2007 at 5:08 pm
Hermie,
Are you suggesting we were just lucky and those 3 fell on their face and what we should have done is “preemptively” attacked them?
8. Mark Noonan | November 16th, 2007 at 5:59 pm
Anarchist,
No, wisdom dictates that we must prevent Iran’s current government (not Iran, the State; nor Iran, the people - but the current government of Iran) from obtaining nuclear weapons.
Any indicator that the current Iranian government is on the verge of obtaining nuclear weapons will carry a moral requirement that America act, if the world won’t.
9. bongoman | November 16th, 2007 at 6:00 pm
So we’ll invade another country and launch another ‘preemptive’ war?
You are insane.
10. Mark Noonan | November 16th, 2007 at 6:02 pm
bongo,
No, insanity would be to completely ignore all we learned in the late, unlamented 20th century and allow a mad man in charge of criminal regime to obtain nuclear weapons.
11. Joe | November 16th, 2007 at 10:30 pm
Mark,
how about insanity as ignoring all we learned in the early 2000’s about invading and occupying a soverign nation?
How about ignoring what we learned from the cold war about dealing with a mad man (mad men) that had nuclear weapons (USSR)?
So if China or some other country said “We can’t allow Bush to be able to use nukes, he is crazy” and they decided to invade us to knock out our leader, what would be your response???
12. Mark Noonan | November 17th, 2007 at 3:07 am
Joe,
That would be to make the completely stupid assumption that President Bush is crazy - you on the left might think he is, but that is only because your hatred of the man has largely disconnected you from reality.
The leaders of the USSR weren’t insane - they were cruel, they were corrupt, they were always trying to advance their wicked cause…but they had no illusions about the result of a conflict between the USA and the USSR. Iran’s leaders - at least some of them - are convinced that God will protect them from an American response to their evil acts.
As for invading - per US law passed in 1998 and 2002 and in accordance with UN resolutions going back to 1991, we invaded Iraq and removed from power the man who had usurped the soveriegn rights of the Iraqi people. As soon as was practical, we turned over authority in Iraq to a legitimately elected Iraqi government, which has invited us to stay and assist them in the transition from tyranny to liberty.
13. Joe | November 17th, 2007 at 9:42 am
ok… last post on this topic since there are more current topics…
My example above is a hypothetical. However, you have no idea how other countries view President Bush. Some countries see that we invaded Iraq and feel that he is out of control and a madman. Or in your example with the Soviets, they may feel he is a “cruel” ruler.
So in my example, what IF another country views the President as a crazy ruler of a country with Nukes and they felt they should intervene? What is your feeling there?
It could be that they view us the way that YOU view the Iranians.