Let The Ball Roll

Just because the U.S. pushed to have Iran's nuclear program brought before the Security Council, we get this statement from the Iranians:

"The United States has the power to cause harm and pain. But the United States is also susceptible to harm and pain. So if that is the path that the U.S. wishes to choose, let the ball roll." (source)

The media has pronounced that this is an oil threat. Maybe it is; maybe it isn't. More on that in a minute.

If they want to punish the West by cutting oil supplies, that's fine, since it would reduce the amount of terror-funding cash available to the Mullahs. The Tehradicals would be powerless religious scholars were it not for the petrodollars at their disposal, so go ahead and shut of the spiggot.

I'm not sure why the Iranian's comments were directed at us and not Switzerland, where the IAEA is headquarters. After all, we didn't make all this stuff up about Iran's nuke programs; it's in the IAEA statement to the Security Council, which says in part:

“Although the Agency has not seen any diversion of nuclear material to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, the Agency is not at this point in time in a position to conclude that there are no undeclared nuclear materials or activities in Iran,” it states. (source)

And why are the unprepared to make such a conclusion? Their report lays out a number of reasons:

• Iran hid its program for 18 years (until 2003), in breach of its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
• Iran has provided inadequate information on its centrifuge enrichment program
• A document was found relating to the fabrication of nuclear weapon components,
• The Iranian military's role in Iran’s nuclear program has not been made clear
• The IAEA recently received information concerning alleged weapon studies that could involve nuclear material.
• There are uncertainties related to the scope and nature of Iran’s nuclear program that remain unclarified after three years of IAEA verification efforts
  
• Iran continues to be uncooperative, limiting or denying access to individuals, documents, and military owned workshops and R&D locations IAEA wants to investigate.
  

Meanwhile, over at the White House, Scott McClelland had some choice things to say, including:

The international community is deeply concerned about the regime developing nuclear weapons under the cover of a civilian program. And this is about the regime and its behavior. The regime still has an opportunity or has time to change their behavior. You can understand why we remain skeptical given their history, and given their continued defiance of the international community. They have continued to move in the wrong direction. ...

And the international community has made it very clear to the regime that we are not going to allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons or a nuclear weapon capability. And that's where the focus is.

Q -- when they make this threat somewhat directly?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think that provocative statements and actions only further isolate Iran from the rest of the world. And the international community has spelled out what the regime needs to do. We've made it very clear that Iran must not be allowed to engage in any enrichment and reprocessing activity within its own territory. There have been proposals put on the table for Iran to realize peaceful civilian nuclear energy. And thus far, the regime continues to move in the wrong direction and defy the international community. (source)

Yesterday, Defense Sec. Rumsfield said what we've all known all along: Iran is sending fighters to Iraq to kill Americans.

Today, they issue not-so-veiled threats. The media assumes they're talking about oil, but are they? The timing of today's threat so quickly after Rumsfield's long overdue declaration of their war effort is perhaps more than a curious coincidence.

If the Iranians are stupid enough to step up shipments of fighters to Iraq, it will quickly force our hand, and hopefully we will see a few Army bases and a few nuclear "research" facilities fall under our awesome airpower.

Headline Readers Think Iran Doesn't Seek Bomb

The McClatchy headline and the lead are bold indeed:

Experts: No Evidence of Iranian Nuclear Weapons Program

WASHINGTON — Despite President Bush's claims that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons that could trigger "World War III," experts in and out of government say there's no conclusive evidence that Tehran has an active nuclear-weapons program.

Even his own administration appears divided about the immediacy of the threat. While Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney speak of an Iranian weapons program as a fact, Bush's point man on Iran, Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns, has attempted to ratchet down the rhetoric.

Leftyblogs were quick to jump on this bandwagon because, after all, there is no evil in the world other than Bush:

If you listen to White House officials, Iran’s nuclear-weapons program is already a reality. There’s no hesitation on the rhetoric — the program, top administration officials say, is an unfortunate reality that demands our immediate attention. As Dick Cheney recently put it, “Our country, and the entire international community, cannot stand by as a terror-supporting state fulfills its grandest ambitions. We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon.”

With this in mind, it’s probably worth taking a moment, now and again, to point out that there’s no conclusive evidence that such a program actually exists. (The crooks and liars at Crooks and Liars)

Then there's The Newshoggers with this pig-eyed view:

One of the contributing worries of people who believe that there is a significant possibility of overt US military actions against Iran before Jan. 20, 2009 is the roll-out of the propaganda and FUD factors. We have Kyl-Lieberman taking the place of the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act, we have the unfounded accusations, we have the massive hyping of potential threats built upon gossamar threads of plausibility, we have freakish exile groups stovepiping their 'intel' and we have a coterie of officials who have a long-standing hard-on for 'regime change' with power in the White House.

One of the positive repeats of that entire cycle was the McClatchy/Knight Ridder team. They were the ones who were digging around and pointing out the bullshit on weapons claims, threat assessments and intel 'sources' while the big boys in the national media reprinted official claims without any skepticism on the front page, or in the lede. McClatchy is doing it again today with an analysis of the Iranian nuclear capacity in a great article.

Beware, my friends, it appears the Leftyblogs are content to make news from headlines and leads, and not really probe into the articles they are basing their posts on. The highly suspect and blatantly anti-Bush motivations of McClatchy's headline and lead-writers notwithstanding, let's fisk a bit, shall we?

The gist of the article is that Iran is no doubt pursuing a nuclear program, but there's no evidence they're actually making bombs. Well, duh. There's not much point in making bombs until you have something to put in them, eh? And there's plenty of evidence related in the article about their efforts to do that, including:

• Seized drawings "that indicated that Iranian experts studied mounting a nuclear warhead on a ballistic missile."
• Seized plans for a deep-bored shaft "apparently designed to contain an nuclear explosion."
• A document viewed by the IAEA that showed how to produce uranium hemispheres which have no application in nuclear power plants "but form the explosive cores of nuclear weapons."
• Iran's assertions that it only has P1 centrifuges, not P2's, which are much faster, fly in the face of IAEA evidence that they do, indeed, have plans for P2s.
• Iran's assertions that they're not doing anything with their P2 plans flies in the face of proof "that Iran sought to buy thousands of specialized magnets for P2s from European suppliers."

And on and on. The McClatchy article, in totality, is a condemnation of Iran's claims that it seeks nukes only for peaceful purposes, but the Left is content to skim the headline and lead and make their own safe, anti-American conclusions.

hat-tip: memeorandum

Iran's Nuke Program On Hold, But Caution Shouldn't Be

Forty-four blogs are already linked at memeorandum to today's NYT story on the National Intelligence Estimate assessment that Iran stopped actively working on a bomb back in 2003, and I'm sure the number will grow.

Funny; I was telling our office's Token Dem just yesterday that I didn't think Bush had to force the issue during his final year because the current raft of front-runners all appear to be sentient enough to realize that Iran can't be allowed to become a nuclear jihadist state.

The necessary cautionary statement is that the NIE assessment is a time-buyer only and cannot be viewed, as some leftyblogs will surely view it, as proof that Bush is an extremist. After all, can you read this language and be calm about the Mullahs' possible intentions?

The assessment, a National Intelligence Estimate that represents the consensus view of all 16 American spy agencies, states that Tehran is likely keeping its options open with respect to building a weapon, but that intelligence agencies “do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons.”

Iran is continuing to produce enriched uranium, a program that the Tehran government has said is designed for civilian purposes. The new estimate says that enrichment program could still provide Iran with enough raw material to produce a nuclear weapon sometime by the middle of next decade, a timetable essentially unchanged from previous estimates.

That's clear enough to keep me on edge, especially given Iran's history of deception and secrecy, and our knowledge of the amount of information made available to them by Pakistan's Dr. Doom. Still, the NYT scoffs, dumping all the concerns in favor of some Bush-bashing:

Rather than painting Iran as a rogue, irrational nation determined to join the club of nations with the bomb, the estimate states Iran’s “decisions are guided by a cost-benefit approach rather than a rush to a weapon irrespective of the political, economic and military costs.” The administration called new attention to the threat posed by Iran earlier this year when President Bush had suggested in October that a nuclear-armed Iran could lead to “World War III” and Vice President Dick Cheney promised “serious consequences” if the government in Tehran did not abandon its nuclear program.

Harry Reid chimed in as well:

Senator Harry Reid, the majority leader, portrayed the assessment as “directly challenging some of this administration’s alarming rhetoric about the threat posed by Iran.” He said he hoped the administration “appropriately adjusts its rhetoric and policy,” and called for a “a diplomatic surge necessary to effectively address the challenges posed by Iran.

Shallow, shallow, shallow. Why do you suppose 2003 was the cut-off year for Iran's program? Do you suppose it had anything to do with our swift removal of Saddam Hussein's government in that very same year just might have given the Mullah's some second thoughts about the wisdom of pursuing nuclear weapons?

Victor Davis Hanson reaches the same conclusion, noting the NIE really should be seen as heartburn for the left.

The other caution, of course, is that the NIE is not always right, as the NYT gleefully points out ...

The new report comes out just over five years after a deeply flawed N.I.E. concluded that Iraq possessed chemical and biological weapons programs and was determined to restart its nuclear program ...

... and if this report is a mistake, the implications to our safety are much greater because of the documentation we have of Iran's nuclear program.

The takeaway, really, is the NIE is just another report that attempts to read the tea leaves at a point in time. Nothing came out today that says we should trust Iran or let down our guard.

Iran's Nukes: Gadzooks! and Pukes!

The media at its best and worst is on display as reporters and analysts pick over the bones of the NIE report on Iran's nuclear capabilities. Some, the "gadzooks!," give new insights directed at those who need them; others, the "pukes!" play insignificant old journalistic games with significant news.

The latter first:

CNN (surprized?) puked with this story:

President Bush was told in August that Iran's nuclear weapons program "may be suspended," the White House said Wednesday, which seemingly contradicts the account of the meeting given by Bush Tuesday. ...

President Bush was told in August that Iran's nuclear weapons program "may be suspended," the White House said Wednesday, which seemingly contradicts the account of the meeting given by Bush Tuesday.

Let's see if I have this right. We have a story that deals with the capabilities of our intelligence community, the threat of nuclear jihad, foreign relations with Russia, Germany, France, England and of course Tehran ... and CNN thinks the story is a "what did he know and when did he know it" tripe-a-thon design to keep their Bush-bashing record pure?

Did Bush bomb Tehran sometime between August and now and we missed it? Have the rules changed so that names will break Ahmahdinejad's bones but sticks and stones will never hurt him? Is there any harm in keeping up pressure on a country that is waging a proxy war against us in Iraq while trying to deceive the world about the nature of its nuclear program?

Then there's the "Gadzooks!" story, penned today by John Bolton in WaPo.

First, having a view that's contrary to the editorial line of a paper is a celebration of American journalism. It's good that Inside-the-Beltway liberal readers get regular doses of Bolton; and this one is a maga-dose, making many big points, some of which we're already familiar with: that the "headline finding" of the report -- that Iran has supposedly stopped its nuke weapons program -- "is written in a way that guarantees the totality of the conclusions will be misread."

In fact, there is little substantive difference between the conclusions of the 2005 NIE on Iran's nuclear capabilities and the 2007 NIE.

Take it from the PR guy, how you word something can make a huge difference. In this case, the words are about the Mullah's psychology and motivation, not nuclear hardware and technology ... hence, "moderate" assurance in the findings and, as Bolton points out, considerable disention among intelligence analysts regarding Iran's alleged suspension of activities.

Funny. That dissension didn't make the headlines.

Bolton points out that the writers of the NIE are keen to stray into policy issues and far afield from mere intelligence:

It implies that Iran is susceptible to diplomatic persuasion and pressure, yet the only event in 2003 that might have affected Iran was our invasion of Iraq and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, not exactly a diplomatic pas de deux. As undersecretary of state for arms control in 2003, I know we were nowhere near exerting any significant diplomatic pressure on Iran. Nowhere does the NIE explain its logic on this critical point.

Bolton also details the difficulty in getting good intelligence from Iran, especially since many older, trusted sources have disappeared, replaced with newer, less trustworthy sources.

But ultimately, he paints a picture of bureaucrats -- many from State, not the intelligence community, over-analyzing a couple new pieces of intelligence to the point that their opinions came to mean more than the implications or validity of the intelligence itself.

The take-away from the CNN piece is simple: The media will fight over the bones of a story long after the meat is gone, and we gain nothing from it but a better understanding of the media.

From WaPo's op/ed, the take-away is much more complex: We see a government process that is troubling from a policy perspective, flawed from an intelligence perspective and misinterpreted from a media perspective, leaving us with questions at a time when facts would be much more comforting.

hat-tip: memeorandum

Iran Nuclear Scenarios Call For Tough Talks

Caroline Glick, the brilliant and aggressive columnist for the Jerusalem Post, lays out three scenarios for what would happen if Iran becomes a nuclear power. Here is the most optimistic of the three:

In the most optimistic scenario, Iran would not attack Israel or any other country with its atomic arsenal, but would rather use it as an instrument of international and regional influence. In this scenario, Iran would reap economic advantage from its nuclear status by threatening oil shipping in the Persian Gulf and so jack up worldwide oil and gas prices. A massive economic dislocation in the oil consuming countries would no doubt ensue. In this state of affairs, all international economic sanctions against Iran would disappear and states would begin fighting with one another for the right to develop Iran's oil and gas fields and refining capabilities.

Operating under Iran's nuclear umbrella, terror groups like Hizbullah and Al-Qaida would feel free to attack at will throughout the world. The rates of terrorism - of both the organized and lone wolf variety - would increase exponentially.

Regionally, Iran would work to export its Khomeinist Shi'ite revolution. It would increase its interference in both Iraq and Afghanistan and so neutralize and defeat coalition and NATO efforts to stabilize those countries.

As to Saudi Arabia, there can be little doubt that Iran would seek to foment an uprising of Saudi Shi'ites who happen to live as a repressed minority on top of the Saudi oil fields.

Hizbullah's aim to overthrow the Saniora government in Lebanon would receive unprecedented Iranian assistance that would likely lead to the Shi'ite takeover of the country. So too, under the Iranian nuclear umbrella, Palestinian terrorism against Israel, and Syrian adventurism against Israel would rise steeply. The regimes in Egypt and Jordan as well as Saudi Arabia would be sunk into chaos, insurgency and war as they themselves entered a nuclear arms race the likes of which the world has never seen.

And it goes downhill from there, ending basically with the global spread of radical Shi'ite jihad and sharia, and the destruction of America.

From this, Glick concludes that the Bush Administration was wrong to "reconsider its decision to abandon the Bush Doctrine, [which] eschewed appeasement of terror-supporting, weapons of mass destruction-proliferating enemies of the free world." She worries that the initiation of low-level, informal talks with Tehran will necessarily lead to appeasement, and that there is no room for a appeasement with Tehran.

I agree about appeasement, but not about talks being a mistake. There is also this diplomatic scenario: We communicate with Iran that the only gift we will give them if they stop their nuclear program is their continued existence. It's "speak tough and carry a big stick" diplomacy, and we need to start it now.

In North Korea, the Bush Doctrine is intact (for now, at least) because the grounds of the agreement give L'il Kim Jong Il nothing until he concedes. Concede/get, concede/get. L'il Kim is isolated, remote and broke, so this can work, with proper toughness and oversight.

Iran is a different story. It's central on the world stage, it's resource-rich and it's actively involved in actions against the U.S. I think this has made the Bush administration understand that the Doctrine doesn't say "don't talk," it says "don't negotiate," and that now is the time to talk, and talk tough, to Tehran.

Read Glick's three options and see if you don't agree. If we are going down a road that could lead to a massive strike on Iran, we need to be talking to them now to let them see the clarity of our resolve and the options available to them other than being on the losing end of a conflict with America.

Hat-tip: Real Clear Politics. Art: BerryBurger

LA Times Takes Iran's Side In Nuke Debate

The lead story in Sunday's LATimes is nothing more than an apologist statement for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his policies, built (natch!) on criticism of the US administration:

VIENNA — Although international concern is growing about Iran's nuclear program and its regional ambitions, diplomats here say most U.S. intelligence shared with the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency has proved inaccurate and none has led to significant discoveries inside Iran.

The officials said the CIA and other Western spy services had provided sensitive information to the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency at least since 2002, when Iran's long-secret nuclear program was exposed. But none of the tips about supposed secret weapons sites provided clear evidence that the Islamic Republic was developing illicit weapons.

"Since 2002, pretty much all the intelligence that's come to us has proved to be wrong," a senior diplomat at the IAEA said. Another official here described the agency's intelligence stream as "very cold now" because "so little panned out."

The reliability of U.S. information and assessments on Iran is increasingly at issue as the Bush administration confronts the emerging regional power on several fronts: its expanding nuclear effort, its alleged support for insurgents in Iraq and its backing of Middle East militant groups.

Taking the suppoposed dearth of "real evidence" of a nuke program, the LAT extrapolates to posit that there is no clear evidence for Iranian support of Shi'ite groups in Iran or for Hezbollah in Lebanon. Forget that Iranian trainers are captured in these places, forget that Iranian-manufactured munitions are found there -- and used to kill innocents and warriors against Islamist totalitarianism -- the lack of "real evidence" makes it all doubtful.

What would be "real evidence" to the LAT? A nuclear device with "Made in Iran" stamped on it? We haven't found that yet. How about all that "wipe Israel off the map" hysteria? Does the LAT and the IAEA think they intend to do that with a few tanks and conventional missiles?

Well, lacking that "real evidence," how about a notebook -- like the Giuliani campaign strategy notebook -- with all the details of Iran's nuke ambitions? Well, it turns out the IAEA pretty much found at least part of such a notebook already, and the LAT acknowledges as much:

In November 2005, U.N. inspectors leafing through papers in Tehran discovered a 15-page document that showed how to form highly enriched uranium into the configuration needed for the core of a nuclear bomb. Iran said the paper came from Pakistan, but has rebuffed IAEA requests to let inspectors take or copy it for further analysis.

Seems a tad suspicious, as does this:

Diplomats here were less convinced by documents recovered by U.S. intelligence from a laptop computer apparently stolen from Iran. American analysts first briefed senior IAEA officials on the contents of the hard drive at the U.S. mission here in mid-2005.

The documents included detailed designs to upgrade ballistic missiles to carry nuclear warheads, drawings for subterranean testing of high explosives, and two pages describing research on uranium tetrafluoride, known as "green salt," which is used during uranium enrichment. IAEA officials remain suspicious of the information in part because most of the papers are in English rather than Persian, the Iranian language.

"We don't know. Are they genuine, are they real?" asked a senior U.N. official here. Another official who was briefed on the documents said he was "very unconvinced."

Iran's representative to the IAEA, Ali Asghar Soltanieh, dismissed the laptop documents as "fabricated information." Iran, he said, has produced 170 tons of "green salt" at a uranium conversion facility in Esfahan that is monitored by the IAEA.

"We are not hiding it," he said in an interview. "We make tons of it. These documents are all nonsense."

Vienna is dismissing the hard-drive because the documents are in English? If they'd been in Klingon, I would have been suspicious, but since English is the language of science, this isn't a deal-killer to me. Besides, did no one in Vienna or the LAT think to follow up on the matters Soltanieh avoided in his "Green Salt" answer -- ballistic missile upgrades to make them nuke-capapble, and drawings of subterranean testing facilities?

The LAT goes on to dismiss Iranian supply of explosively formed projectiles because of US backtracking on one statement about the decision to provide EFP's was traceable to the "highest levels" of Iranian leadership. So? Supply is supply; Iran is Iran. We're sure they're not coming from repressed pro-democracy groups in Iran.

Also dismissed is Iranian supply of Hezbollah, despite overwhelming evidence. Just how it's dismissed isn't explained by the LAT. They just bring up the allegation and let it stand unchallenged, surrounded by challenged allegations. They appear afraid to draw conclusions from something anti-Iranian they can't refute.

The big question: Why?

Even though the article concludes with a fine quote --

"The Americans are worried about enriched uranium, and the Arabs are worried about enriched Shiism," said Mamoun Fandy, senior fellow for Persian Gulf security at the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies. Iran's growing power, he said, "threatens every existing political order in the region."

-- it's evident that the editors and publisher of the LAT are convinced by their Bush hatred that a US attack on Iran is imminent. The article is thrown out as a journalistic EFP, trying to kill a policy boogeyman that doesn't exist, but scares them.

Bush and his leadership can say "No, no, no, no, no" to questions about plans to attack Iran, but because they think Bush is a liar (he's not, of course), they don't believe him, so they find themselves defending Tehran and slamming America -- and the LAT journalistic elite seem to be quite happy being there.

Iranian Spies At IAEA

"No nuclear weapons for Mullahs" says
this sign at an anti-Iran rally. (CBC)

Here's an interesting question: If Iran's nuclear intentions are purely peaceful, why have they set up a special nuke-tech team to infiltrate the compliance division of IAEA?

And here's another: How can we trust IAEA to do its job if it staffs itself with representatives of the most highly suspect nations under its watch?

Both questions grow out of a report in the London Telegraph which says:

Iran has formed a top secret team of nuclear specialists to infiltrate the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna, the UN-sponsored body that monitors its nuclear programme, The Daily Telegraph has been told.

Iran has formed a top secret team of nuclear specialists to infiltrate the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna, the UN-sponsored body that monitors its nuclear programme, The Daily Telegraph has been told.

Its target is the IAEA's safeguards division and its aim is to obtain information on the work of IAEA inspectors so that Iran can conceal the more sensitive areas of its nuclear research, according to information recently received by western intelligence.

The operation to target the IAEA is being run by Hosein Afarideh, the former head of the Iranian parliament's energy committee.

Mr Afarideh, reported to have close links with Iran's ministry of intelligence, is in regular contact with a team of Iranian nuclear engineers seconded to work at the IAEA's Vienna headquarters.

The answers to the lead-in questions, by the way, are (1) Of course their intentions aren't peaceful, and (2) We can't trust IAEA.

What Iran is doing is technically legal because any signatory of the nuclear nonproliferation treaty is entitled to have staff on board at IAEA -- but there's a catch. They have to be in compliance.

Despite overwhelming evidence of Iran's 20-year history of non-compliance, the IAEA isn't quite ready yet to jump to that conclusion. So the Iranians are still on staff, and still fly regularly to Tehran to meet with Afarideh ... presumably laughing all the way at the ridiculous ineptitude of IAEA and the UN.

The cause of the ineptitude? The non-judgmental inclusiveness and moral relativity that permiates the UN -- not the character traits normally associated with tough and effective cops.

h/t memorandum

Proof NIE Was A Political Lie

You and I don't have spooks and sensitive listening antennae, but we've got common sense, so most of us thought the last National Intelligence Estimate's conclusion that Iran was no longer pursuing nuclear weapons was based on politics, not evidence.

Now there's apparent proof the authors of the NIE were duping us, risking our national security because they wanted to limit President Bush's options in dealing with terror theocrats of Tehran:

VIENNA, Austria (AP) - The U.S. has recently shared sensitive information with the International Atomic Energy Agency on key aspects of Iran's nuclear program that Washington says shows Tehran was directly engaged in trying to make an atomic weapon, diplomats told The Associated Press on Thursday.

The diplomats said Washington also gave the IAEA permission to confront Iran with at least some of the evidence in an attempt to pry details out of the Islamic republic on the activities, as part of the U.N. nuclear watchdog's attempts to investigate Iran's suspicious nuclear past.

The decision by the U.S. administration to declassify its intelligence and indirectly share it with Iran through the IAEA was a clear reflection of Washington's' drive to pressure Iran into admitting that it had focused part of its nuclear efforts toward developing a weapons program.

This appears to be a strategic maneuver to end-run the NIE. If our own intelligence political hacks analysts won't give our info on Iran its due, the Administration figures, why not give it to someone who might? The stakes are high, as evidence by the fact that Washington is putting its hopes in the IAEA. Yikes.

This comes as Iran has just notified the IAEA that its new generation centrifuges are up and running, producing the gas that is required to produce fissile material.

According to AP, the material released to IAEA is primarily recently declassified old stuff -- the contents of a laptop smuggled out of Iran in 2005, materials gained from Israel's recent attack on an alleged nuke facility in Syria, and:

U.S. intelligence also was forwarded on two other issues — the "Green Salt Project" — a plan the U.S. alleges links diverse components of a nuclear weapons program, including uranium enrichment, high explosives testing and a missile re-entry vehicle, and material in Iran's possession showing how to mold uranium metal into warhead form.

Nothing may come of this. The IAEA could decide it is better to hamstring Bush than to deal with Iran -- but they could use the information to pressure Iran further, and if they do, it will be vindication for all of us who smelled a rat in December's NIE.

Not that we need proof ... but it's always good to be able to dramatically slam the book on your case.

IAEA, NIE And The MMFNI

I'm not sure if I've got that third acronym right -- Mad Mullahs For Nuking Israel, right? -- but the first one sure undercut the second one yesterday, much to the detriment of the third one.

The NIE, National Intelligence Estimate, gave the MMFNI a bunch of breathing room when it came out last December, claiming that to the best of the combined knowledge of the U.S. intelligence community, Iran was not currently pursuing a nuclear weapon. Or at least we were "moderately confident" that was the case.

Israel, for whom mere "moderate confidence" could spell death, was not so sure.

Now it turns out that the IAEA, the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency, isn't so sure either. Its report, released yesterday goes way beyond "moderate confidence" to say Iran's nuclear weapons program is "a matter of serious concern" because of:

• Willful lack of cooperation
• 18 documents that indicate the Iranians are working on explosives, uranium processing and warhead design — activities the NYT bravely reports "could be associated with constructing nuclear weapons." Duh.
• Failure to report R&D activities on faster, more productive centrifuges
• Iranian denial of access to sites where centrifuge components were being manufactured and where research of uranium enrichment was being conducted

In short:

“The Iranians are certainly being confronted with some pretty strong evidence of a nuclear weapons program, and they are being petulant and defensive,” said David Albright, a former weapons inspector who now runs the Institute for Science and International Security. “The report lays out what the agency knows, and it is very damning. I’ve never seen it laid out quite like this.”

To which Baghdad Bob Ali Asghar Soltanieh, Iran’s ambassador to the atomic energy agency, responded

... that the report vindicated Iran’s nuclear activities. It “is another document that shows Iran’s entire nuclear activities are peaceful,” the semi-official Fars News Agency quoted him as saying.

Anyone who still believes the NIE presented an honest assessment of Iran's nuke-quest has two choices when confronting the IAEA's actions: They can admit they were wrong, and that at a minimum we can be "moderately confident" that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons, or they can align themselves with the MMFNI.

Nuke-Hungry Ayatollahs

With recent developments in Iran, I thought it might be enlightening to dig out Kenneth Timmerman's Countdown to Crisis, The Coming Nuclear Showdown with Iran (2005). Timmerman provides many quotes that should run a chill down the spine of those foolish enough to still think Iran's not going after a bomb.

Here's a sampling:

It is your duty to build the atomic bomb for the Islamic Republican Party. ... Our civilization is in danger and we have to have it. -- Ayatollah Mohammed Beheshti, 1979 (right)

We should fully equip ourselves both in the offensive and defensive use of chemical, bacteriological, and radiological weapons. From now on, you should make use of the opportunity to perform this task. -- Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani, 1988

Because the enemy has nuclear facilities, the Muslim states, too, should be equipped with the same capacity. -- Ata'ollah Mohajerani, 1991

My government is keeping its nuclear option open. -- Hassan Mashadi (Iranian arms control official), 1995

If America continues its plots against the Islamic Republic, we will strike at the United States in the region with all conventional and unconventional means. We will not observe any type of law or moderation in our operations against the Americans in the region. -- Major General Mohsen Rezai, 1996

If we abide by the Koran, we must mobilize to kill. -- President Mohammad Khatami, 2000

The use of an atomic bomb agains tIsrael would destroy Israel completely, while [the same] against the world of Islam only would cause damages. Such a scenario is not inconceivable. -- Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani, 2001 (right)

We won't accept any new obligations. Iran has a high technical capability and has to be recognized by the international community as a member of the nuclear club. This is an irreversible path. -- Foreign minister Kamai Kharrazi, 2004

Definitiely we can't stop our nuclear program and won't stop it. You can't take technology away from a country already possessing it. -- Hojjat-ol eslam Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani, 2005

Is there really any question about their intentions? Against these quotes, what do you make of those who still think Iran's nuclear ambitions are peaceful? What do you make of Senator Lugar, who thinks direct talks with Iran about "energy" would be helpful?

Diplomacy is good; let's do it. Intermediaries are good; let's use them. But no Clintonesque deals. We don't deal with terrorists. Oh, wait ... maybe one deal:

Send us all your oppressed workers of "high technical capability." We'll give them jobs at Wal Mart. They'll be happier, freer and wealthier than they are working for the Mullahs.

Tags: Iran, Nuclear, Atomic bomb, Ayatollah, Nuke, Lugar

Israel Doesn't Agree With NIE

Mike Huckabee may not have heard a peep about the National Intelligence Estimate conclusion that Iran has suspended work on its nuclear bomb, but the Israelis -- who have a bit of a leg up over the preacher from Hope on foreign policy -- certainly had. And they didn't think too kindly of it:

"We have no doubt," said one Israeli official, who requested to remain anonymous. "If one looks at the investment, if one looks at the nature of the project, if you look at the cost to the Iranian economy, there is no logical explanation other than that the Iranian program is not benign."

Joshua Mitnik reports in the WashTimes that Israel remains convinced that only about two years remain before Iran gets the bomb -- read that as we have two years to stop them -- while the NIE says it will take up to 15 years before Tehran can blow Israel off the map.

The article quotes Likud legislator Yuval Steinitz, a member of the Israeli parliament's Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee:

"I don't know of any piece of intelligence that supports this conclusion. It seems to me that this report repeats the mistake of Iraq, but taking it to the opposite conclusion.

"We have a lot of very clear and solid intelligence, that to my best understanding, clearly shows that the Iranians are developing nuclear weapons today, as they did two years ago. This is not a matter of speculation, but this is about solid intelligence."

Some in Israel support the Amemrican intelligence finding, however:

A leading Israeli analyst, Ehud Ya'ari, said on Channel 2 television that the American finding showed that the Iranian program "is further behind than we assumed."

Washington, he said, had rejected Israel's belief that the Iranians are pursuing one or two secret nuclear programs that are not monitored by the West.

"The Americans apparently came to their conclusions on the basis of human intelligence," he said, mentioning Gen. Ali Reza Asghari, a former Iranian deputy defense minister who defected to the West in February.

Oded Granot, a commentator on Channel 1, who, like Mr. Ya'ari, has good connections with Israel's security establishment, said American intelligence had intercepted a transmission from a senior Iranian military official several months ago, in which he expressed disappointment that Iran's nuclear weapons program had been halted.

Does anyone else recall the indisputable fact that our assessment that Saddam Hussein had aggressive biological, chemical and nuclear weapons programs was based primarily on one Iraqi defector's statements to German intelligence? Does anyone else see a similarity here?

This seems like a "those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it" moment.

Mah- I'm- in- the- moud for cock-crowing Ahmadinejad (rhymes with "You've been had!") was certainly ready to reduce any opportunity for us to learn from history:

"This is a declaration of victory for the Iranian nation against the world powers over the nuclear issue," Ahmadinejad told thousands of people during a visit to Ilam province in western Iran.

"This was a final shot to those who, in the past several years, spread a sense of threat and concern in the world through lies of nuclear weapons," Ahmadinejad said, drawing celebratory whistles from the crowd. (AP)

Would you whistle in a celebratory manner if your enemy got your nuclear capabilities assessed right, or would you whistle if your country had succeeded in duping your enemy? Yeah, that's what I thought, too.

Meanwhile, in Putinland, never a country to forsake an opportunity to remember its tarnished, lost past, was quick to seize on the NIE as well:

Russia's foreign minister, meanwhile, indicated that the U.S. report's findings undermined Washington's push for a new set of U.N. sanctions against Iran. (AP)

That shoe fell about as quickly as Nikita Khrushchev's beat up old Oxford fell on the U.N. dais.

If I were a member of a Congressional intelligence committee, I'd be calling secret hearings right now, today, to get to the bottom of this. I agree with the Israelis that there is a mountain of evidence, including particularly Iran's recent admission that it had lied to the IAEA about its possession of P2 centrifuges, that points to an ongoing Mad Mullah nuke program, and I'd want to see every bit of justification the NIE has for altering its assessment.

Shoot me. I just trust the Israelis a lot more than the Tehraniacs.

US About To Strike Iran?

German media are running reports that Washington is well on its way to planning military strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities. Der Spiegel reports:

According to [reporter Udo] Ulfkotte's report, "western security sources" claim that during CIA Director Porter Goss' Dec. 12 visit to Ankara, he asked Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan to provide support for a possibile 2006 air strike against Iranian nuclear and military facilities. More specifically, Goss is said to have asked Turkey to provide unfettered exchange of intelligence that could help with a mission.

Iran's nuclear ambitions are undeniable and cannot be allowed to proceed. The country is just too crazy and irresponsible to have a bomb, but a strike on Iran will be dicey, given Iran's unstable Sunni population. Bush's focus is always on our safety, and it's very likely he's come to see Iran as a more immediate threat than Iraqi instability.

The German response is interesting. Der Spiegel provides no man-on-the-street or politician quotes, but does say:

The German wire service also quotes a high-ranking German military official saying: "I would be very surprised if the Americans, in the mid-term, didn't take advantage of the opportunity delivered by Tehran. The Americans have to attack Iran before the country can develop nuclear weapons. After that would be too late."

If an action is in the works, the Turkish response will be more important and more complex.

Also interesting, if there's any truth to this story, would be the response of the Dems and the American left. They've said all along Iraq was the wrong target. Will they now say the same thing about an Iran that's about to have nuclear-tipped missiles and ambitions of annihlation?

h/t memeorandum

Ruskies Figure Iran Will Blow Us Up First

Lesson number 1,457 in why Russia is not our friend: The Iran nuclear sanction negotiations.

The Russians must just take it for granted that Iran would use nukes on us before them, or would use them on Israel, which would be just fine for Putin and his Sovietesque buddies.

After forcing the Europeans to water down their sanctions plans over the past weeks and spurning tough measures against Iran, the Russians indicated a compromise might be possible, prompting Tuesday's hastily arranged talks.

Yet the Europeans, the United States, Russia and China remained divided over the proposed bans on exports of sensitive materials, an assets freeze and travel ban on individuals and groups involved in Iran's nuclear program.

The Russians agreed to export bans on more technology and materials that could be used in Iran's nuclear or ballistic missile programs, but little progress was made on financial sanctions against people and organizations linked to sensitive work, or on visa bans, the European diplomat said. (Reuters)

Iran and the world's Islamists must look at this paralysis with glee. The UN is serving their purposes grandly, condemning Israel with every third eye-blink and staggering under the burden of unreachable, unenforceable, overly watered down consensus efforts.

This photo says it all for me. You might think Mah- I'm- in- the- moud for bickering superpowers Ahmadinejad (rhymes with "That Putin's my lad") is signalling "peace."

Actually, he's saying, "As long as there are even two opposing self-interests between the Americans, the Europeans, the Russians or the Chinese, we'll be packin' plutonium in no time."

As much as he loves the UN, let them slap a teensy weensy sanction on the Tehraniacs -- oh, say, looking suspiciously at every 17th freighter arriving from Vladivostoc -- and he will rant and rail against the UN as if they had spat on that Prophet of Peace Mohammed guy.

Hat-tip: Breitbart
Related Tags: Iran, UN, Nuclear, Israel, Ahmadinejad, Russia, Putin

IAEA: Iran Enriched Uranium (Wow!)

I hesitate to call the IAEA watchdogs. More like lapdogs. Here's all you'll get from the IAEA site on the organization's investigation of Iran's nuke program:

IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei today released his report Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement in the Islamic Republic of Iran. The report was prepared at the request of the United Nation´s Security Council. Its circulation is restricted, and unless the IAEA Board of Governors and Security Council decide otherwise, the Agency can not authorise its release to the public.

A really big thank you for that.

Here's the BBC report:

Iran has ignored a UN Security Council call to suspend all nuclear fuel enrichment, a report by the head of the UN's nuclear watchdog has concluded.

Mohamed ElBaradei's report said that Tehran had done little to answer questions over its nuclear intentions.

The UN wants the research halted amid Western fears - denied by Iran - that Tehran might develop nuclear weapons.

Tell us what we don't know. But perhaps I'm too hard. ElBaradei has a solution:

"After more than three years of agency efforts to seek clarity about all aspects of Iran's nuclear programme, the existing gaps in knowledge continue to be a matter of concern," his report said.

"Any progress in that regard requires full transparency and active co-operation by Iran."

Sure, that'll happen. Mah- I'm- in- the- moud- for- noncompliance Ahmadinejad (rhymes with "I'm the Twelfth Imam's lad") will only become transparent when the tissue falls off his bones.

Besides such revelations in the IAEA report as, quoting BBC here, "Iran's claim to have enriched low-grade uranium appears true," it mentions undeclared Iranian plutonium. Yikes.

Next up: The US, Britan, France, Germany, China and Russia will have a little chat about nuke totin' mullahs on May 2, and Condi talks to the other Security Council members on May 9. They are Argentina, Congo, Denmark, Ghana, Greece, Japan, Peru, Qatar, Slovakia and Tanzania.

A mixed bag. As with all matters with the UN, expect little.

Tags: Iran, IAEA, UN, Condi, Security Council

Lefty Plan On Iran

So we now have a nuclear-enriched Iran, dedicated to getting full cascades operational as quickly as possible.

Given this breathtaking development on the world stage, what's the Left's plan for dealing with Iran? A survey of leftyblogs reveals:

Joshua Micah Marshall at Talking Points Memo longs for Clinton, hates Bush, and has no plan:

I'm going to try to write in a more considered and detailed way about this tomorrow. But for the moment I'd refer back to a point I made a couple weeks ago and say that the biggest folly would be to engage the administration on the particulars of their fantasies and delusions about foreign policy in the Middle East.

They appear to have learned almost nothing from the last three years in Iraq. The only sensible expenditure of energy is to find ways to hem these guys in or constrain them before they do even more damage to this country.

Don't bother clicking that link. Here's what that post boils down to:

And that is one thing I fear in the current debate. I think a lot of people of good faith will game out the Iranian nuclear question acting on the hypothetical assumption that we have a president whose goal is to prevent a nuclearized Iran and who is acting in good faith.

That, after all, is what right-thinking, mainstream foreign policy types are supposed to do. They're not supposed entertain the possibility that the president or his advisors are dishonest in their portrayal of the entire situation or pursuing goals different from the ones they profess to be pursuing. And they're certainly not supposed to tailor their policy prescriptions to take into account that possibility. That's political. It's not policy.

But to follow that approach -- sensible under sensible circumstances -- just doesn't take into account what we've all seen in the last five years.

So, Bush-hatred trumps all. The Bush approach is not the approach for him; no other approach is given.

Georgia at Daily Kos is anti-war all the way:

Everyone pretty much agrees that any type of strike would unleash hell and endanger American troops and American civilian lives as well. Given the grave and known consequences of military action, why does the government still have the military option on the table? Is it really an effective bargaining tactic if the Iranian has demonstrated it's more than willing to call our bluff?

Isn't there a politician brave enough and logical enough to stand up and say "endangering American lives is not an option"?

In typical lefty fashion, she can only look down one path: What happens if we respond militarily. She won't (can't) play out the "What if we don't?" scenario. Could it be that an Iranian nuke would actually endanger more American troops and American lives, or is it OK with the Left if Israel is wiped off the face of the earth?

Like Marshall, William Pitt at Democratic Underground cues of Sy Hersh's Festival Of Not Attributing Quotes in the New Yorker, which speculates on an American military, possibly nuclear, response. Hersh's record of inaccuracy notwithstanding, Pitt paints a nasty picture of what the probable response would be:

I had a debate with my boss last night about Sy Hersh's terrifying New Yorker article describing Bush administration plans to attack Iran, potentially with nuclear weapons. After reading the Hersh piece, my boss was understandably worried, describing his reaction to the article in road-to-Damascus-revelation terms. They're going to do this, he said.

I told my boss that I couldn't believe it was possible the Bush administration would do this. I ran through all the reasons why an attack on Iran, especially with any kind of nuclear weaponry, would be the height of folly.

Iran, unlike Iraq, has a formidable military. They own the high ground over the Persian Gulf and have deployed missile batteries all throughout the mountains along the shore. Those missile batteries, I told him, include the Sunburn missile, which can travel in excess of Mach 2 and can spoof Aegis radar systems. Every American warship in the Gulf, including the carrier group currently deployed there, would be ducks on the pond.

The blowback in Iraq would be immediate and catastrophic, I reminded him. The Shi'ite majority that enjoys an alliance with Iran would go indiscriminately crazy and attack anyone and anything flying the stars and bars.

The Left has a nasty way of underestimating our military power and overestimating the power of others. Remember the 20,000 deaths we would suffer toppling Saddam, Pitt? And anyway, it's just criticism again ... no alternative plan is proposed.

Atrios at Eschaton says nothing. Iran's not important when you've got a Bush to bash. Ditto Talk Left, AmericaBlog and firedoglake.

Does anyone need any additional evidence of the irrelevance of the Left? They remain obsessed on Iraqi WMDs and Cheney's shotgun, and can't deal with the fact that the jihad-crazed, America-hating revolutionaries in Iran are hellbent on creating massive destruction. Uh, I think I'll write another piece on that @#$!& Scott McClellan .... yeah, that'll get 'em!

Tags: Iran, Nukes, Nuclear weapons, Talking Points Memo, Daily Kos, Hersh, Atrios, Talk Left, AmericaBlog, firedoglake, Left

Lebanon Biggie Praises Iran's Nukes

Here's an interesting tidbit from Fars, the Iranian news service Ahmadinejad mouthpiece:

Iran's N. Power a Back Up for Arabs against Israel

TEHRAN (Fars News Agency)- Iran's nuclear capability brings balance of power to the region and strengthens Muslim and Arab world against the Zionist regime of Israel, a former Lebanese minister said. ...

Speaking in an exclusive interview with FNA in Beirut, head of Towhid Movement and former Lebanese Minister Weam Vahab viewed Iran's role in Lebanon and the region as significant and outstanding, and said, "The Islamic Republic of Iran plays a remarkable role in supporting the Islamic resistance movements of the region and Lebanon and renders support to the Lebanese nation and resistance without imposing its will and aspirations."

Vahab, who is among the respected heads of Lebanon's important Darouzi tribe, also defended Iran's peaceful nuclear activities, saying that Tehran's nuclear power brings equilibrium to the region and a point of reliance for the world of Islam.

Yeah, yeah, Iran is arming and training Hezbollah and Hamas to kill Jews; knew that, but what am I missing here? How do "peaceful nuclear activities," oh, like generating electricity or using nuclear medicine to diagnose disease, help create a balance of power and a "back up" against Israel?

I can hear it now; "Stop murdering innocent Palestinians, you Jew devils, or we'll ... we'll ... we'll turn on more lights in Tehran!"

The only ones stupid enough to buy Tehran's "peaceful" nuclear program are Western leftists and academics.

White House Takes On The Obama Network

The general rule of thumb of not picking fights with guys who buy their ink (or electrons) by the barrel doesn't really hold if you're counselor to the most powerful man in the world, so Ed Gillespie has taken on NBC.

In his letter attacking NBC's editing of a presidential interview, Gillespie's request is straightforward:

This e-mail is to formally request that NBC Nightly News and The Today Show air for their viewers President Bush's actual answer to correspondent Richard Engel's question about Iran policy and "appeasement," rather than the deceptively edited version of the President's answer that was aired last night on the Nightly News and this morning on The Today Show.

Should NBC fold? Let's look at the evidence, the two questions and answers Gillespie said were unfair. I'll present the edited interview in italics followed by the actual transcript:

RICHARD ENGEL: You said that negotiating with Iran is pointless and then you went further. You're saying, you said that it was appeasement. Were you referring to Senator Barack Obama? He certainly thought you were.

GEORGE W. BUSH: You know, my policies haven't changed, but evidently, the political calendar has. And when a leader of Iran says they want to destroy Israel, you've to take those words seriously.

Full transcript: "You know, my policies haven't changed, but evidently the political calendar has. People need to read the speech. You didn't get it exactly right, either. What I said was is that we need to take the words of people seriously. And when, you know, a leader of Iran says that they want to destroy Israel, you've got to take those words seriously. And if you don't take them seriously, then it harkens back to a day when we didn't take other words seriously. It was fitting that I talked about not taking the words of Adolf Hitler seriously on the floor of the Knesset. But I also talked about the need to defend Israel, the need to not negotiate with the likes of al Qaeda, Hezbollah and Hamas. And the need to make sure Iran doesn't get a nuclear weapon. But I also talked about what's possible in the Middle East."

NBC, in a manner typical of the media, cut out the part of the quote that challenges the media's veracity. The mighty MSM has a glass jaw. The subsequent snipping resulted in considerable detail being left out, including remarks that made it clear Bush set no new policy in his Knesset speech, and gave context to his Hitler comments. But did it mischaracterize Bush? I'll get back to that.

Gillespie then points out that the question immediately following illuminated the subject more, but was not included in the aired version of the interview. Here is that passage:

ENGEL: Repeatedly you've talked about Iran and that you don't want to see Iran develop a nuclear weapon. How far away do you think Iran is from developing a nuclear capability?

BUSH: "You know, Richard, I don't want to speculate – and there's a lot of speculation. But one thing is for certain – we need to prevent them from learning how to enrich uranium. And I have made it clear to the Iranians that there is a seat at the table for them if they would verifiably suspend their enrichment. And if not, we'll continue to rally the world to isolate them."

Says Gillespie:

This response reiterates another long-standing policy, which is that if Iran verifiably suspends its uranium enrichment program the U.S. government would engage in talks with the Iranian government.

NBC's selective editing of the President's response is clearly intended to give viewers the impression that he agreed with Engel's characterization of his remarks when he explicitly challenged it. Furthermore, omitted the references to al Qaeda, Hezbollah and Hamas and ignored the clarifying point in the President's follow-up response that U.S. policy is to require Iran to suspend its nuclear enrichment program before coming to the table, not that "negotiating with Iran is pointless" and amounts to "appeasement."

It's true, this passage does define why Bush is not talking to Iran and what conditions he requires before he would talk to them. As such, it defines why he thinks talking to them without these conditions amounts to appeasement. NBC would have had time to air this bit if it hadn't introduced the piece with the same moral equivalency we saw on AP's story on the same subject.

Much is being made of this letter today -- just check out the links to the two stories posted on memeorandum (here, here). My thoughts?

Gillespie picked the wrong target, for three reasons.

First, the editing is not that egregious. I don't think Gillespie is right when he claims that the editing gave the impression Bush agreed with Engel's characterization of his remarks, and I don't think the follow-up question moved the ball very far down the field. If you're going to take on a network, you should have a better case than the one Gillespie chose to argue, and Lord knows, there are plenty of better cases out there.

A White House edit of the interview would have been very different ... but it would have been editing nonetheless. Egregious editing is defined as putting words into someone's mouth that weren't stated, not leaving out further illumination on points you've put into the interview. I would have preferred to not hear the chiding of Bush in the intro -- the Arabs he was speaking to in Egypt deserved a lecture on democracy, and who cares if the minions of despots were cool to it? -- but NBC's editorial position is clearly anti-Bush, and within that context, the editing was more typical than outrageous.

Second, coverage of the Knesset remarks was going extremely well for the White House and the GOP. Obama was coming off as weak and naive; Bush, the GOP and McCain were coming off as more seasoned and more protective of America. There was no reason to give the opposition the opportunity to position Bush as a crybaby. As one leftyblogger responded to the matter:

Now it's clear that the White House is so invested in this phony war, so convinced of its usefulness, that Ed Gillespie is desperately trying to keep it going far past its expiration date with this message to NBC.

When the opposition is rallying, it's wise not to give them rallying points.

Finally, and most obviously, the nasty little NBC piece was weak and not terribly damaging to US policy, the war or the president, and it had already slipped off to the dustbin of history. Gillespie's letter awoke the dog -- not just the sleeping dog, but the very dead dog.

In the furor that is ensuing, those of us who are convinced the MSM has staked out a position damaging to the war effort and America will too easily jump on Gillespie's bandwagon, not seeing that the whole exercise was a mistake. And those on the left will happily attack Gillespie and Bush and praise NBC for standing up to the administration's arrogance and warmongering.

Gillespie did Bush, the GOP and McCain no favors. This was yet another mistake in the gargantuan chronicles of Bush administration media mistakes.

UN Lurches Toward Iran Action

The International Atomic Energy Agency has voted, not passed by concensus as is typically done, a resolution on Iran's nuclear program. BBC:

Submitted by Britain, France and Germany, the resolution calls on the 35-member IAEA board to consider reporting Iran - at an unspecified date - to the UN Security Council.

As grounds for referral, it stated that Tehran's "many failures and breaches" over international nuclear safeguards "constitute non-compliance" with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

It wasn't much of an action. Germany, Britain and France dropped their efforts to refer Iran to the General Assembly, and moved a watered down request that the GA consider taking up Iran. Even this watered down vote drew out the scoundrels: Russia and China abstained from voting, and the emerging international jackal Venezuela actually voted against the proposal.

Moscow Times quotes an EU spokesperson who provides a bit more info:

He said the Russians objected to the fact that even though the new draft does not call for an immediate Security Council referral, a report to the council would be inevitable if the resolution is approved. The Security Council, the United Nations' highest body, can impose economic sanctions.

Of the 35 International Atomic Energy Agency board members, Russia, China and at least a dozen others oppose the EU and U.S. effort to haul Iran before the Security Council for breaching international nuclear obligations.

Over the years, Iran has strayed from its "peaceful use" blather, with bluster and braggadacio about pursuing a bomb, as detailed definitively in Ken Timmerman's Countdown to Crisis: The Coming Nuclear Showdown with Iraq.

Despite Iran's clear intent to build a bomb, there are nations like Venezuela that put their anger above rational thought, and there are those like China and that put their quest for money and power ahead of the future of the world.

And that's forever the weakness of the UN and the IAEA.

India Nuke Deal The Next Big Fight

The wheels of Air Force One were barely on the tarmack berfore the NYTimes blasted Pres. Bush's recent Asia trip as "spectacularly misconceived." Their main gripe: That India got a nuke deal. Their next biggest gripe: That Pakistan didn't.

India first.

The nuclear deal that Mr. Bush concluded with India threatens to blast a bomb-size loophole through the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. It would have been bad enough on its own, and disastrously ill timed, because it undercuts some of the most powerful arguments Washington can make to try to galvanize international opposition to Iran's nuclear adventurism.

Two sentences; two errors. India was never a signator of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (nor is Pakistan). It has already proliferated. It's hard to make this case, but count on Dems to shout it shrilly when the treaty comes before the Senate.

And if the deal was so bad for negotiating with Iran, why then did India grudgingly come to our side and vote to refer Iran to the Security Council? That significant vote was not a given by any means, and we can only conclude that the nuclear deal was influential in New Delhi's decision-making.

Next, Pakistan. NYT gets it part right:

Mr. Bush was right to say no to Pakistan. It would be an unthinkably bad idea to grant a loophole to a country whose top nuclear scientist helped transfer nuclear technology to leading rogue states.

What it gets wrong is the concept that Bush "embarassed" Musharraf, as if no groundwork and negotiations preceded presidential trips. Musharraf knew exactly what was happening, and why.

His country is too unstable to get our support on nukes. Radical Islamism could be just around the corner; mad Dr. Khan is recent history. Bush's message to Musharraf was clear: You're our ally and expect money and aide, but Pakistan will have to be more stable, as India is stable, before you get nuclear help from us.

He drew the carrot and the stick quite clearly, and though it was a tough message, it was a necessary one. NYT seems to like Clintonian glad-handing more than the tough and truthful politics of Pres. Bush.

Also worth reading, in today's LAT: A Nuclear Deal, Warts and All (hat tip: RCP)

Iran Blows Off IAEA

Rather than face the regulators at the International Atomic Energy Agency on Friday to explain their nuclear R&D program, the Iranians opted to simply blow off the meeting and not show up.

The IAEA appears to be the only entity on the planned still considers that Iran's nuclear ambitions are for electrical power instead of political power. It has allowed itself to be bullied, it has missed evidence, ignored other evidence and failed to bring sanctions against the Iranians.

Here's the latest statement on the position of IAEA director general Mohamed ElBaradei:

"However, he continues to call on Iran to take the steps the IAEA requires to resolve outstanding issues regarding the nature of Iran's nuclear program.

"In the meantime, Dr. ElBaradei also calls on Iran to take voluntary measures to build confidence, and enable the resumption of dialogue with all concerned parties."

With Iran's 20 years of aggressive and single-minded focus on the acquisition of a nuclear bomb, ElBaradei is just blowing air. It's time for the UN Security Council to impose harsh sanctions and quick ultimatums.

If the UN can't do that, why should it be allowed to continue to exist.

h/t Talk Show America