January 22, 2007
Dems and Libs, Iran Offers You New Chance
We've heard so much second guessing from Democrats and liberals about Iraq. Saddam Hussein refused to cooperate with U.N. inspectors for years and was warned of possible action if he didn't comply. He didn't, the U.N. was bribed, and President Bush acted. Well, thanks to Iran, we can give liberals a new playing field and let them tell us how now to handle this new situation from the start--not from hindsight.
Iran has barred entry to 38 inspectors from the watchdog International Atomic Energy Agency after hardliners demanded retaliation for U.N. sanctions imposed on Tehran last month, officials said on Monday.The West accuses Iran of seeking to build atom bombs under the cover of a professed civilian nuclear energy program, while Tehran insists it aims solely to generate electricity.
IAEA inspectors carry out regular checks of Iran's atomic sites to try to verify it is not diverting materials into bomb production in violation of the NPT.
The U.N. sanctions imposed on December 23 ban transfers of sensitive materials and know-how to Iran's nuclear and missile programs over its refusal to stop enriching uranium, a process that can yield fuel for power stations or material for bombs.
Man, that sounds familiar. Okay, liberals and Democrats, how would you handle this familiar problem this time? Maybe twelve years of sanctions? That ought to do it. By that time Iran will have nuclear weapons and will be shaking in their boots. Don't wait to second quess. Share your plans now.
(What do you want to bet that they'll live up to expectations and ignore any meaningful actions against Iran until it's too late?)
Posted by Woody M. at January 22, 2007 04:00 PM | TrackBackWhat makes you think they don't already have nukes? Lest we forget in 1989 four warheads disappeared from the Soviet arsenal. Just because I'm not in the mood to be on some FBI list I'm not going to bother to look up the plans for a nuke. But short of the uranium most of the parts for a nuke can be obtained at your local Radio Shack. I think it is plain gulability to think they are not a nuclear threat already. They won't come out of the closet about that until Junior, in a fit of Oedipal "I'm better than daddy" stupidity, attacks Iran. (Yes I know that was an ad hominem attack but in my opinion it seems he is trying to out do dad.) Frankly these sanctions are too little too late.
Posted by psyberwolfe at January 22, 2007 09:38 PM
Psyberwolfe:
Frankly these sanctions are too little too late."Perhaps because the die hard lefties insist and have all along insisted in "dialogue." You just can't talk with terrorists and the Government of Iran is a terrorist government.
Posted by GM at January 23, 2007 09:55 PM
Psy,
Your last sentence is probably accurate, but that's largely because of Russia and certain European countries (parlez vous francais?) valuing their commercial alliances more highly than trying to stop Iran's nuclear program (coupled with China's reluctance).
However, no reports I've read indicate that Iran already has a working nuclear arsenal. I'm not an expert on nuclear weapons, but from what I've understand about nuclear weapons, even if the missing Russian bombs were in top-notch working order in 1989 (and who knows what shape they were in then), these bombs would not be reliable weapons today because of deterioration, etc., of critical components. True, the uranium could be reused, but you would want to test the technology of the new weapons. Now there has been speculation that Iran may have been in cohoots with NK with their recent nuclear test, but that test was at most a partial success.
So it is certainly possible that Iran may be further along than we're willing to publically admit (especially if they have covert help from NK, Russia, or China), but I don't see evidence that they're ready to challenge the U.S. at the nuclear weapons level. As far as Iranian radiological "dirty" bombs, I haven't seen anything one way or the other about that.
And please try to control yourself and don't discredit reasonably articulated arguments on your part with cheap armchair psychobabble. You really can do better than that.
Posted by civil truth at January 24, 2007 12:59 AM
