Iran is boasting that their nuke program is nearly finished on the same day that IAEA investigators have reported finding traces of enriched uranium and plutonium in one of their nuclear waste facilities.
From The Washington Post:
The report prepared for next week's meeting of the 35-nation IAEA also faulted Tehran for not cooperating with the agency's attempts to investigate suspicious aspects of Iran's nuclear program that have lead to fears it might be interested in developing nuclear arms. As well, the four-page paper made available to The Associated Press confirmed that Iran continues uranium enrichment experiments in defiance of the U.N. Security Council.
Earlier Tuesday, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Tuesday that Iran would soon celebrate completion of its nuclear fuel program and claimed the international community was ready to accept it as a nuclear state.
As I wrote in this post, Ahmadinejad is continuing to ramp up the rhetoric against Israel and other western nations, while Israeli PM Olmert insists that there will never be a nuclear Iran.
So how does that fit in with British PM Tont Blair's new position?
From Times Online:
The first cracks in the united front over Iraq between Tony Blair and President Bush appeared last night as the Prime Minister offered Iran and Syria the prospect of dialogue over the future of Iraq and the Middle East.
Mr Blair said there could be a new “partnership” with Iran if it stopped supporting terrorism in Iraq and gave up its nuclear ambitions. Syria and Iran could choose partnership or isolation, he said.
The Prime Minister tried to exploit moves in Washington to rethink strategy on Iraq by holding out the prospect of engagement with two countries once dubbed by President Bush as part of the “axis of evil”. For the first time he also explicitly ruled out military action against Iran.
And, in words clearly directed at Mr Bush as he prepares for his final two years in power, Mr Blair called for the United States to lead a new drive towards peace in the Middle East, including peace in Palestine and the Lebanon, arguing that ultimately it was the only way to defeat al-Qaeda.
WTF???
Now, I agree with Blair when he says that you have to be willing to talk to your enemies. But talking to them isn't the problem; believing and trusting them is. How can you negotiate with someone who will not honor any agreement you make with them? Doesn't that defeat the purpose? Does Bill Clinton/North Korea ring any bells?
It's not like they are trying to hide the fact that they are pursuing nukes, despite their claims for civilian uses, only. And if you add all the recent anti-West/Israel rhetoric, it seems to me that this problem is about to get very ugly.
How about this warning from Benjamin Netanyahu:
Drawing a direct analogy between Iran and Nazi Germany, Likud leader Benjamin Netanyahu asserted Monday that the Iranian nuclear program posed a threat not only to Israel, but to the entire western world. There was "still time," however, to prevent Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons, he said.
"It's 1938 and Iran is Germany. And Iran is racing to arm itself with atomic bombs," Netanyahu told delegates to the annual United Jewish Communities General Assembly, repeating the line several times, like a chorus, during his address. "Believe him and stop him," the opposition leader said of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. "This is what we must do. Everything else pales before this."
While the Iranian president "denies the Holocaust," Netanyahu said, "he is preparing another Holocaust for the Jewish state."
Hmmm, he doesn't seem to see the Iran-as-Middle-East-peace-brokers angle. Here's more:
"This capability is eroded over time, and if we wait years then obviously this capability would not exist anymore ... but right now I disagree with the claim that nothing can be done against Iran," he added.
When asked if Bush could afford embarking on another "military adventure" after Iraq, Netanyahu said acting on the Iranian nuclear program would not be adventurous but necessary.
"... Israel would certainly be the first stop on Iran's tour of destruction, but at the planned production rate of 25 nuclear bombs a year ... [the arsenal] will be directed against 'the big Satan,' the U.S., and the 'moderate Satan,' Europe," Netanyahu said.
"Iran is developing ballistic missiles that would reach America, and now they prepare missiles with an adequate range to cover the whole of Europe," he added.[...]
Netanyahu said he believed that Iran could still be stopped from acquiring nuclear weapons. "There is still time. All ways must be considered. We can't let this thing happen," he said, but did not outline specific measures he thought should be taken.
Referring to Israel's preemptive strike in the 1967 War, he did say that stopping Iran required "preemptive leadership. Preemption requires will and vision."
"Noone will defend the Jews if the Jews don't defend themselves," he said to loud applause. "Iran's nuclear ambitions have to be stopped."
Old Benji never was the "kid-gloves" kinda guy.
There's also this, from Security Watchtower, via Stanley Kurtz:
Increasingly, it looks as though the United States may attempt to negotiate a “grand bargain” with Iran. To settle our fundamental differences, Iran would surrender its nuclear-weapons program, stop supporting terrorism, and stop undermining America’s position in Iraq. In return, the United States would offer Iran security guarantees, and would pour in aid and investments. This seems to be the solution favored by the “realists” now running the Baker commission, and soon to be running the Defense Department. I don’t put much faith in this approach. The mullahs are less interested in a settlement than in consolidating their leadership of the Muslim world. They want to spread Islamic radicalism and Iranian power under the umbrella of a nuclear bomb. The mullahs are likely to cheat on any agreement, as they have already cheated on past nuclear obligations, and in any case there would be no assured way to verify compliance. Nonetheless, the politics of the moment favors the drive for a grand bargain. So it behooves us to give some thought to the prospects for a deal.
[...]
I entirely agree that it would be utter, disgusting folly to try to sell the American public on the theory that we could negotiate anything decent with the mullahs. But the whole theory comes from an alternate universe, since we have been trying to do just that for 27 years, more or less non-stop. I have been writing about it for years now. It was the great dream of Richard Haas and Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell in the first Bush Administration, and it failed. The Iranians want us dead or dominated, they don't want to reach some kind of agreement, honorable or dishonorable.
Read Pollack's long discussion in his book The Persian Puzzle. He was involved in efforts to make a deal for years and years, and it was just impossible. He finally concluded that the Iranians don't want a deal. For the deal makers from Texas and Indiana to suggest that there is any reason to scrape their knees in Tehran and Damascus in order to get their lips onto the mullahs' slippers is ridiculous as well as feckless. Finally, no less a "realist" than General Scowcroft himself tried to exchange thoughts with Iranian President Ahmadi-Nezhad a few weeks back, and came out saying there was no hope.
The longer we wait, the worse it gets. Talking is fine, but the Iranians will talk only as long as it takes to get their nukes ready. Then it will be too late for anything but talking.
There's more at:
Recent Comments