El Baradei: Iran only months away from a bomb

[Gary H]

IAEA chairman Muhammad ElBaradei on Monday confirmed Israel's assessment that Iran is only a few months away from creating an atomic bomb.

"If Teheran indeed resumes its uranium enrichment in other plants, as threatened, it will take it only several months to produce a bomb," ElBaradei told The Independent, according to Army Radio.

"On the other hand," he warned, "any attempt to resolve the crisis by non-diplomatic means will open a Pandora's box."

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1132475683499&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull
c/o Drudge

another report: http://debka.com/headline.php?hid=1373
via DEBKA

Wow, that is sure a different assessment than what we have previously been told.

The U.S. claimed that they were years from a bomb and could not produce a missile ready weapon. In other words, they would first produce a large undeliverable weapon...of course it could be delivered to the U.S. via Mexico.

Do you contain Iran? If so, how do you restrain Israel? I don't believe that Israel has any options left but to attack Iran. I don't see how they can do so conventionally in that many facilities are hardened to conventional attack. It is hard to believe that George Bush has enough political capital to survive the fallout of a U.S. attack.

 

[tyme]

I don't like the idea of Iran having nukes, but China and North Korea and Pakistan all have nukes...

Sooner or later we're going to have to accept that with continuing distribution of technology and scientific information to 3rd world countries, they are more readily able to make NBC weapons. We are not the world's policeman, and neither is the UN, as much as it might like to be. As it is, we're near the limits of our capability to coerce other countries into abandoning their nuclear ambitions. It will soon be necessary to guard their borders and take over customs functions, neither of which is feasible or politically viable.

All we can do is develop a better missile shield and hope nobody loads a nuke onto a zodiac from a ship in international waters and sends the zodiac to blow up one of our ports. Even if we extended our territorial waters, I doubt it's feasible to board every inbound ship and conduct a thorough search of all cargo. Well-financed terrorists could simply write off the ship... wouldn't be very hard on their pocketbooks if the ship were old enough.

Israel is on its own. That's not comforting, but it's the truth. If we keep exerting our influence to protect it, we might as well make it a U.S. territory.

 

[Gary H]

I don't like the idea of Iran having nukes, but China and North Korea and Pakistan all have nukes...

Yes they do. All are done deals. Dealing with this problem after the fact isn't possible without a great deal of "fallout". Iran has yet to have a weapon. At least that is what is stated. The political head of Iran has sworn to destroy Israel and has made less direct remarks regarding the United States. Iran is the number one supporter of terrorism. A broad statement regarding what will happen sooner, or later is probably true, but I prefer later.

 

[Rebar]

Iran getting the bomb, will simply provoke Israel to first-strike them. It's a suicide gamble by the crazed islamic theocracy, one that's going to lead to catasrophy.

 

[Weeg]

They are not stupid...

They know if they fire one at us, Iran will become a glass-floored desert.

 

[MasterPieceArms.com]

on Monday confirmed Israel's assessment that Iran is only a few months away from creating an atomic bomb.

Well hell, we'd better invade then (mental preparation of the public for war being the obvious intent of this "story").

Israel probably will attack first which could cause the arab countries to unleash their long planned missile attack meant to overwhelm Israel's patriot missile batteries. We, of course at that point, being right there already, will be forced to join in. In that case, I'm all for a "Toby Keith only" draft

 

[butch50]

It is a dismal fact of life that the nuclear cat is out of the bag, and will not ever be put back in. And the cat is breeding. A better defense, as in a missile defense, would be most helpful but is not a panacea. The world is doomed to mostly just wait until the unthinkable happens, and then becomes thinkable, and God help us, maybe even almost commonplace.

An odd thought: You can, if you are so inclined, make an argument that sovereign nations having nuclear weapons is comparable, albeit on a different scale, to RKBA. You can also make an argument that until a sovereign nation misuses a nuke, that there is no valid reason to take them away. The scale is certainly different; but is the right to self defense different for nations than for individuals? Wouldn't a nuke be an equalizer for a small nation in much the same way that a handgun is for a weaker person?

I doubt if you can make either argument persuasive to Israel though.

 

[CobrayCommando]

IAEA chairman Muhammad ElBaradei on Monday confirmed Israel's assessment that Iran is only a few months away from creating an atomic bomb.

And so it begins... The question that I have to ask however, is will China and India allow us to control that much oil, China is getting about 20 percent of its oil from Iran...

 

[Gary H]

You can, if you are so inclined, make an argument that sovereign nations having nuclear weapons is comparable, albeit on a different scale, to RKBA.

Would you approve of a concealed carry license for someone that provides financial support for suicide bombers, material, money and technical know-how for IADs, missiles that are used to kill civilians and someone that stated in public that they would burn your family in fire?

Would You?

All of this moral equivalence will kill many.

 

[model 25]

Got to laugh here now we just went through a demo- repub somebody lied about WMDs. Are we right back on the same wagon? Is somebody lieing or is it true this time?

They are a threat but they are not a threat but they could be or maybe. Geez I don't believe anything anymore untill the mushroom cloud appears over Isreal. Then it's too late we are all toast.

25

 

[Pointer]

What can we do about it...

I know what you're thinking... but the Liberal press would have a field day.

I say the Israelis will sort that one out for us...

I hope...

They've done it before...

 

[Wildcard]

I say the Israelis will sort that one out for us

+10000

Can you say "preemptive can O Whoopass"

 

[Gary H]

Geez I don't believe anything anymore untill the mushroom cloud appears over Isreal. Then it's too late we are all toast.

That sounds about right. It is hard to know who to believe. I would like to point out that Muhammad ElBaradei hasn't exactly been a puppet of the U.S. In fact, the U.S. and MEB have butted heads on a number of occasions.

I say the Israelis will sort that one out for us

Short of an attack with nuclear weapons designed to destroy deep hardened bunkers and planes that have the range and payload to deliver, that's a tall order. Even the U.S. cancelled such a weapon. We did sell the Israelis a 5K pound conventional bunker buster, but that won't do the job.

Either we do the job, or it doesn't get done in a way that can't be readily undone. I just can't see Bush launching a major attack on anyone but the modern Minute Men and Women.

 

[MicroBalrog]

You can, if you are so inclined, make an argument that sovereign nations having nuclear weapons is comparable, albeit on a different scale, to RKBA. You can also make an argument that until a sovereign nation misuses a nuke, that there is no valid reason to take them away. The scale is certainly different; but is the right to self defense different for nations than for individuals? Wouldn't a nuke be an equalizer for a small nation in much the same way that a handgun is for a weaker person?

Two thoughts:


1. I wouldn't want a confirmed madman to have a handgun. Certainly not someone like Jeffrey Dahlmer. Iran IS Jeffrey Dahlmer on a bigger scale.

2. A handgun can only harm a person if you fire it at them. A nuclear weapon will ALWAYS harm innocent people even if you detonate it in a desert. Thus, it violates the principle of 'my freedom to swing my fist extends to where your nose starts'. Of course, if people developed zero-fallout nukes, this would be moot.

 

[MasterPieceArms.com]

An odd thought: You can, if you are so inclined, make an argument that sovereign nations having nuclear weapons is comparable, albeit on a different scale, to RKBA. You can also make an argument that until a sovereign nation misuses a nuke, that there is no valid reason to take them away. The scale is certainly different; but is the right to self defense different for nations than for individuals? Wouldn't a nuke be an equalizer for a small nation in much the same way that a handgun is for a weaker person?

That's not an odd thought at all, it's actually a principled statement. The fact that it is "odd" just shows how little principle matters in this society.

The sad reality is that individual human beings are no longer sovereign in this world. Proof? Nations are no longer created or controlled by citizens, and haven't been for probably over a century (before the international bankers established central banks in every nation.) More proof? The most powerful sovereign humans on earth (the British royal family) lost all of their power many many decades ago, and it is never taught, and few are aware of why or how this happened. The most powerful humans on earth were quietly and efficiently turned into meaningless powerless figureheads and the planet doesn't ask and doesn't know how it happened. This speaks of the sheer power of the global system of power the international bankers have created.

SO, what it comes down to, is that BASED ON PRINCIPLE, if humans still owned, or could create a nation on this planet (which the international bankers' system will never allow), that nation would be an extension of the sovereign citizens who created it. That is all our founding fathers did. They simply used their sovereignty to create a sovereign nation OF THE PEOPLE. Since part of true sovereignty is self defense, OF COURSE the nation sovereign humans created would have every right to seek, create, and maintain every weapon system imaginable, only being answerable to the sovereign humans that created it.

Since no humans are truly sovereign anymore, and since Iran gave up sovereignty by joining the U.N. AND by signing the non proliferation treaty, it has no leverage with the system that runs the earth to behave as a truly sovereign entity. There is no option for pulling OUT of the global system of control. Once full sovereignty and independence is lost, by joining the U.N. and signing complicated international agreements, that predatory system will not allow you to leave and will eventually destroy and replace ALL governments that are not loyal to it.

Iran appears to be trying to behave as if it had real sovereignty. It is probably doing this out of panic because it knows it has been targeted, that it's days are numbered, and it has nothing left to lose. The nations and peoples of the world were induced into giving up their sovereignty decades ago with promises of world peace. At the time, the world system of power and control appeared benevolent and utopian. The world was naive and now it's too late to get out or tear that global system down. Nations always assumed they could pull out at any time. Some, like Iran, are trying to, but are finding out, or will eventually find out, probably when it's too late, that there is no getting out, and there is no real sovereignty of nations anymore. No real sovereignty means no ultimate right of self defense with the best weapon available. This has been the case with formerly sovereign humans in america since the National Firearms Act of 1934. We're denied the best weapons available because our sovereignty is long gone.

 

[butch50]

1. I wouldn't want a confirmed madman to have a handgun. Certainly not someone like Jeffrey Dahlmer. Iran IS Jeffrey Dahlmer on a bigger scale.

2. A handgun can only harm a person if you fire it at them. A nuclear weapon will ALWAYS harm innocent people even if you detonate it in a desert. Thus, it violates the principle of 'my freedom to swing my fist extends to where your nose starts'. Of course, if people developed zero-fallout nukes, this would be moot.

1. Everyone citizen should be allowed to own a gun, until they show they are not responsible with that gun. Confirmed madmen may be an exception, but then if they are confirmed madmen they are locked up anyway and not an issue. Individually speaking that is - as for nations, well the analogy does break down due to the scale of potential destruction.

2. I agree, there is a rapid breakdown of the analogy when it is one person with a weapon designed to kill one person at a time, as opposed to a device that can kill millions at a time. I do believe though that if I were a citizen of a small nation, that I would want my nation to have nukes to deter larger nations from attempting to conquer. Imagine Hitler looking at conquering Poland or France knowing they had nukes and the ability to deliver the payload to Berlin. That would have been a whole nuther ball game.

 

[Gary H]

Everyone citizen should be allowed to own a gun, until they show they are not responsible with that gun.

Here are some of this guys milder comments:

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Thursday expressed doubt that the Holocaust occurred and suggested Israel be moved to Europe.

His comments, reported by Iran's official IRNA news agency from a news conference he gave in the Saudi Arabian city of Mecca, follow his call in October for Israel to be "wiped off the map", which sparked widespread international condemnation.

"Some European countries insist on saying that Hitler killed millions of innocent Jews in furnaces and they insist on it to the extent that if anyone proves something contrary to that they condemn that person and throw them in jail," IRNA quoted Ahmadinejad as saying.

"Although we don't accept this claim, if we suppose it is true, our question for the Europeans is: is the killing of innocent Jewish people by Hitler the reason for their support to the occupiers of Jerusalem?" he said.

"If the Europeans are honest they should give some of their provinces in Europe -- like in Germany, Austria or other countries -- to the Zionists and the Zionists can establish their state in Europe. You offer part of Europe and we will support it."

Historians say six million Jews were killed in the Nazi Holocaust. Ahmadinejad's remarks drew swift rebukes from Israel and Washington.

Raanan Gissin, a spokesman for Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, said in Tel Aviv that Ahmadinejad was voicing "the consensus that exists in many circles in the Arab world that the Jewish people ... do not have the right to establish a Jewish, democratic state in their ancestral homeland".

"Just to remind Mr. Ahmadinejad, we've been here long before his ancestors were here," Gissin said. "Therefore, we have a birthright to be here in the land of our forefathers and to live here. Thank God we have the capability to deter and to prevent such a statement from becoming a reality."

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said: "It just further underscores our concerns about the regime in Iran and it's all the more reason why it's so important that the regime not have the ability to develop nuclear weapons."

ONCE ALLIES

Religious hardliners in Iran do not publicly deny the Holocaust occurred but say its scale has been exaggerated to justify the creation of Israel and continued Western support for it.
Close allies when Iran was ruled by the U.S.-backed Shah, Iran and Israel have become implacable foes since Iran's 1979 Islamic revolution.

Israel accuses Iran of giving arms and funding to militant Palestinian groups such as Islamic Jihad and of building nuclear weapons. Iran denies the charges.

Tehran calls Israel a "terrorist state" and has developed missiles which can reach it. It says it would use them if Israel, itself believed to be nuclear-armed, tried to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities.

Earlier in his remarks, the Iranian president, a former Revolutionary Guardsman who won a surprise election victory in June, said:

"The question is, where do those who rule in Palestine as occupiers come from? Where were they born? Where did their fathers live? They have no roots in Palestine but they have taken the fate of Palestine in their hands.

"Isn't the right to national self-determination one of the principles of the United Nations charter? Why do they deprive Palestinians of this right?"

Jews trace their roots in Israel back to Biblical times.

Ahmadinejad concluded his remarks by reiterating Iran's proposal that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict be resolved via a referendum of all the inhabitants of Israel, Gaza and the West Bank as well as Palestinian refugees in neighboring countries.

"Whatever they decide will be accepted by all humanity. This is a clear democratic solution which is based on international principles," he said.

(Additional reporting by Jeffrey Heller in Jerusalem)

HE HAS ALSO THREATENED ISRAEL AND THE U.S. IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS.

How can we suggest that waiting for this guy to nuke someone is a good course of action?

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsa...UKOC_0_US-MIDEAST-IRAN-AHMADINEJAD.xml&rpc=22

 

[tyme]

An odd thought: You can, if you are so inclined, make an argument that sovereign nations having nuclear weapons is comparable, albeit on a different scale, to RKBA.

Here's why I think that breaks down: How do you determine when a nation is allowed to have WMDs again? It's not as simple as instituting a 10- or 50-year embargo and then considering that country's debt paid. Every nuclear state has done things that one could argue should prohibit them from having nukes.

 

[Gary H]

Thyme:

Are you saying that Iran, as presently governed, should be viewed the same as Britain? We should ignore the number one supporter of terrorism in the world and say that it is the same as the U.S., or Britain. Oh, I forgot WWII and Japan. This type of moral equivalence is factually wrong and will result in disaster.

 

[tyme]

Are you saying that Iran, as presently governed, should be viewed the same as Britain?

I'm questioning the generalized state right to keep and bear nukes. When you compare Britain against Iran, they're so far apart that just about any line you draw will allow Britain to have nukes and forbid Iran from having nukes. That doesn't solve the problem of when nations gain and lose this "right":

If Iran became an areligious republic tomorrow, and if the religious fanatics went underground (planning some sort of coup, one would suspect), should the government then be allowed to have nukes?

Should countries be forced to give up nukes if their political environments are not stable? Who does the judging? Who does the forcing? The UN?