IAEA, Dems Prefer Iran Nukes to "Warmongers"

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), a highly specialized international nuclear watchdog has apparently branched out into other fields and now feels qualified to offer unsolicited military tactical advice and political policy recommendations to world governments, particularly the United States. With no access to classified intelligence obtained by the U.S. and its allies regarding Iran’s nuclear weapons program development or the feasibility of dismantling it with military action, the IAEA nevertheless now presumes to tell world powers what they should and should not do in their own defense rather than sticking with the allegedly neutral task it was created to perform, namely nuclear facility inspections.

Late last week IAEA chief Mohamed El-Baradei warned world powers that an attack on Iran over its continued pursuit of nuclear weapons despite UN Security Council resolutions would be "an act of madness." According to the Jerusalem Post report, the indirect warnings appeared to be directed towards the United States and Israel.

El-Baradei, after offering what was clearly his personal political opinion of military action in Iran also reportedly stated that Iran would likely be operating nearly 3,000 uranium enrichment centrifuges by the end of July. The 3,000 centrifuge total is critical because IAEA officials have made clear in past statements that once Iran has that many centrifuges in operation, Iran will have reached a point of no return after which it could enrich uranium in quantities and enrichment levels sufficient for large-scale production of weapons-grade material.

The IAEA performed its primary function well in identifying a potential point of no return and estimating, based on inspections, when that point could be reached. Reporting the results of its inspections to the UN, however, should have been the limit of IAEA involvement in the discussions of Iran’s nuclear program. Instead, El-Baradei felt it necessary to editorialize on military and political strategies neither he nor the IAEA are privy to, or qualified to discuss. El-Baradei apparently feels that preventing Iran from completing its development of nuclear weapons would be “an act of madness,” but allowing Iran, the world’s largest sponsor of terrorism, to possess nuclear weapons would be acceptable to him.

It is beyond disconcerting that a man with such an obvious lack of common sense is responsible for inspecting the world’s nuclear facilities. Then again, many Democrats express views similar to El-Baradei’s and label conservatives who speak openly about confronting Iran before it reaches the IAEA point of no return as “warmongers.” Last week on Fox News’ Hannity and Colmes, White House Adviser John Bolton (former ambassador to the UN), was a guest, and after he made a sensible and firm statement about not permitting Iran to acquire nuclear weapons, Alan Colmes attacked Bolton for being a “warmonger” because of his position on Iran. It was clear after the “debate” (and I use that term loosely) that Bolton made a much stronger case for action than Colmes did for inaction, which was based largely on personal attacks and “you got it wrong on Iraq now you want to attack Iran,” but it would be useful for Colmes and other Democrats to examine their use of the term “warmonger” in the context of Iran.

Was Winston Churchill a warmonger because while Hitler was building massive armies and weaponry Churchill was urging his disbelieving colleagues in parliament to begin arming Britain to matching levels? Churchill foresaw the danger of allowing Germany to rearm in violation of Treaty of Versailles terms, but PM Neville Chamberlain and many others in parliament dismissed Churchill’s agitations in much the same manner that Colmes berated Bolton as a warmonger. This is how Churchill was relegated to the humiliating status of "backbencher" in parliament.

Had anyone listened to the "warmonger" Churchill before Hitler began invading territories and neighboring nations in Europe, untold millions might have been spared the ravages of WWII. Iranian president Ahmadinejad shares many personality traits and racial views with Hitler, and it is not warmongering to believe the world should take him at his word when he states that no one can stop Iran from building nuclear bombs and that Israel must be annihilated in a glowing fireball. In today's world of rampant political correctness, where are the ACLU, the Democrats, and the gay and minority rights groups and their condemnations of "hate speech?" These groups seek severe penalties for "hate speech" and "hate crimes" directed toward specific races or lifestyles, but when the world's most radical anti-American and anti-Semitic regime vows to destroy a nation of Jews, the political correctness crowd stands in a puddle of its own cold sweat of cowardice and chastises conservatives who want to confront the threat before "hate speech" becomes a "hate crime" in the form of a mushroom cloud.

Is someone a warmonger whose stated goal is to prevent the ultimate weapon, a weapon with potential to kill millions with each detonation and befoul the entire world with radiation (the ultimate man-made global warming) from being produced, stored, and utilized by a radical terror-sponsoring regime? Is it warmongering to advocate tactical strikes on nuclear sites even with some civilian loss if doing so would spare millions of lives from nuclear annihilation in the name of jihad? If so, I choose the warmonger over the pacifist appeaser with no regrets.

Fortunately, our current president, regardless of what one thinks of his handling of Iraq or immigration, is no Colmes or El-Baradei. The only act of madness here would be to allow Iran to reach its point of no return and being high-level enrichment of uranium for nuclear weapons. Israel has already recognized this and as reported previously on Capital Cloak, considers December 31, 2007 as the date after which sanctions and political solutions will no longer be considered sufficient action.

In the meantime, El-Baradei and the IAEA should continue inspecting facilities and reporting on the construction and operation of centrifuges in Natanz and other sites in Iran, and not move beyond that function by offering unsolicited opinions of the sanity of attacking Iran before it is too late. Each nation should consider the available intelligence, determine what it will and will not tolerate when it comes to a potentially nuclear Iran, and then take appropriate action to preserve its national interests and security. There is no nation on earth that would be immune from the fallout, literal and figurative, from a nuclear armed Iran. To allow it to happen through “peace mongering” would be a fatal act of madness.

Technorati:
El-Baradei IAEA Alan Colmes John Bolton Warmonger Peace Monger Ahmadinejad Iranian Nuclear Program Centrifuges Inspections

Deadline for War with Iran: Dec 31

I have warned repeatedly here on Capital Cloak that the roller coaster-like predictions found in American intelligence estimates on how soon Iran could produce sufficient weapons grade uranium to build nuclear bombs were dangerously underestimating Iran. As reported previously, the IAEA warned that Iran had overcome the technical glitches that experts were certain would delay Iran’s centrifuges from reaching peak production levels for several years. For readers trying to make sense of the various and often conflicting intelligence estimates, perhaps the best indicator of Iran’s progress is to observe Israel’s preparation and examine carefully the statements of Israeli officials. Using that barometer, Israel appears to be feeling intense pressure building toward military action against Iran.

In today’s New York Sun, reporter Eli Lake, whose work is consistently excellent, wrote an ominous article revealing that Israeli officials meeting with their diplomatic and defense counterparts in Washington are urging the U.S. to establish a deadline for the end of diplomacy with and sanctions against Iran if it fails to dismantle its nuclear program. Israel made it clear that it considers the end of 2007 to be the date of no return, after which actions beyond sanctions and diplomacy must be taken, which clearly is a not-so-subtle reference to military force. Israel’s patience with international efforts to convince Iran to abandon its nuclear ambitions has been a source of speculation, but the selection of a specific deadline demonstrates that Israel’s own intelligence estimates from Mossad are predicting that Iran is likely to produce sufficient weapons grade uranium for a bomb in 2008. While cherry blossoms bloom in Washington next Spring, Israel is convinced that nuclear bombs will be budding in the Natanz facility, and that bud must be nipped if December 31, 2007 passes without Iran caving to international pressures.

From Lake’s Sun article:

A senior Israeli delegation, here for strategic talks with top American government officials, is calling for an expiration date on the diplomatic approach to Iran of the end of the year.

Speaking to the Israeli press on Wednesday evening after meeting Secretary of State Rice, Israel's deputy prime minister, Shaul Mofaz, said, "Sanctions must be strong enough to bring about change in the Iranians by the end of 2007." According to a source familiar with discussions yesterday with the undersecretary of state, Nicholas Burns, Mr. Mofaz said, "Technical developments for the Iranian nuclear program will not follow a linear progression," a clear warning that America's official estimate that Iran will not attain an atomic bomb for at least five years could be dangerously optimistic.

....Channel 2 News in Israel reported that Mr. Mofaz said Israel would take military action if Iran did not cease its uranium enrichment by year's end. However, a source familiar with yesterday's discussions disputed the Channel 2 report. Mr. Mofaz only alluded to such action in the meeting, the source said, saying, "All options are on the table" if the diplomacy with Iran does not work.

….Publicly at least, Prime Minister Olmert has not said he would unilaterally bomb Iran. Last year he appointed one of Israel's most hawkish politicians, Avigdor Lieberman, as a deputy prime minister and announced that Mr. Lieberman would oversee Iran policy. Other Israeli politicians such as a former premier, Benjamin Netanyahu, have openly called for Israel to take out the known Iranian nuclear facilities. Within the American intelligence community, there is some debate about Israel's capabilities in this regard.

Some argue that the Israelis still lack the midair refueling capacity they would need to conduct a bombing mission over Iran as a unilateral move.

Other analysts, however, point out that Israel's fleet of American made F-15s has such refueling capacity, not to mention the capability of Israeli nuclear submarines. On background, Israeli former military officials have told The New York Sun that the option of a unilateral strike is there for Israel should Israel choose to take it.

America’s intelligence agencies are gambling that Iran will need up to four years to produce a nuclear bomb. The IAEA does not share that view and predicts that Iran will succeed much sooner. Israeli Mossad’s estimates have generated sufficient concern within the Israeli government to set a deadline for the end of sanctions and diplomacy, a deadline that will arrive in 6 months. If Israel’s intelligence proves accurate, and it usually is far more reliable in that region than our own, war with Iran could begin as early as January 2008. America’s early presidential election primaries next year may center on electing a new president during wartime. The entire complexion of the campaign will change as the deadline for war approaches, arrives, and opens the door to conflict with Iran. The smart and well-advised candidates will take the lead on this issue, particularly the GOP candidates who wish to establish their national security policy credentials. It would not surprise me in the least if Hillary Clinton stakes out a hawkish position on Iran and declares her unwavering support for Israel’s security.

Israel has demonstrated throughout its history that it will do what is necessary for its national survival regardless of international opinion. Will America do likewise? A nuclear Iran would be a threat to all free nations, and Israel’s patience will reach its limit by the end of the year. The message from Israel’s delegation in Washington is clear: UN sanctions are not working, and do not appear likely to bring any change to Iran’s behavior; Iran is closer to weapons-grade uranium production than even the gloomiest estimates had previously predicted; and war, though not sought or desired, is now six months distant on the horizon unless Iran chooses responsibility rather than repercussions.

Technorati: Israel Iran Iranian Nuclear Program Uranium Enrichment Natanz UN Sanctions Diplomacy IAEA Deadline Nuclear Non-Proliferation Israeli Air Strike