Will Iran Have Bomb in Months?

My, how things change in a week! One week ago, I wrote about reports that U.S. intelligence analysts had revised their estimates for the earliest date by which Iran could develop a nuclear bomb from the year 2015 to 2009. Now, a scant 7 days later, World Net Daily is reporting that after yesterday’s “nuclear day” announcement by Iranian President Ahmadinejad, intelligence analysts have again revised their estimates of Iran’s capabilities and warn that Iran could potentially produce sufficient weapons-grade Uranium in a matter of months. This would change the estimated target date from sometime in 2009 to late 2007-mid 2008. Maybe moving up the dates of all those big state primaries was a good idea after all, as the candidates may be forced to directly state what they would do about Iran even as Iran’s WMD program reaches critical mass.

According to WND, analysts were taken by surprise by yesterday’s announcement that Iran had successfully constructed and placed in operation 3,000 centrifuges, ten times the number of centrifuges previously known, at the underground Natanz facility. The Chief of the Iranian Atomic Energy Organization stated after yesterday’s announcement that within the next 20 days, Iran will announce the number of centrifuges injected with uranium at Natanz.

Because Iran has prevented IAEA inspectors access to the Natanz facility and other less publicized sites, it is currently unknown how many centrifuges are operational throughout Iran or what improvements have been made on the original centrifuge technology Iran acquired from Pakistani scientist Abdul Kahn.

In one week, intelligence analysts shaved 7-8 years off of their estimates of Iran’s nuclear weapons program capabilities. The only surprise involved in Iran’s announcement yesterday is that analysts were taken by surprise. On January 24, I wrote the following paragraphs in a post here at Spy The News!, which in light of yesterday’s announcement and analysts’ reactions, seems prescient:

One wonders, given this incredible underestimation of China, a nation we know much more about and can monitor more closely than Iran, how accurate are analysts’ assessments that Iran will not have nuclear weapon capabilities until 2015? That estimate was made after a “major US intelligence review” in 2005, and analysts concluded that Iran was 10 years away from possessing the capability to produce a nuclear bomb.

These analysts were wrong about North Korea, wrong about China’s space weaponry, and it is prudent for current and future administrations to assume that the 10 year prediction for Iran is another dangerous underestimation. Ahmadinejad refuses to allow IAEA inspections of Iranian nuclear facilities, and he openly challenges America, the only obstacle to the goal of Iranian nuclear weaponry, to try to stop him. With the technological assistance of North Korea and the UN Security Council vetoes of China and Russia confidently in pocket, Iran will surely produce a deployable nuclear weapon much sooner than analysts predict.

Revising a WMD estimate from years to months is a significant act in the intelligence community. At least we know one thing for certain: Ahmadinejad does not yet have a nuclear bomb. We know this because no mushroom clouds have appeared over Israel yet. Hopefully our intelligence on Iran will improve so that that will not be our first official notification of Iran’s capabilities. While it is true that leaders such as Ahamdinejad often employ bluster as a propaganda tool, it has become clear that there is significant technology and determination operating behind the bombast. Iran is perilously close to bringing online sufficient enrichment capabilities to produce weapons grade uranium and is daring the UN and particularly the U.S. to intervene.

Electoral College in Crosshairs of 39 States

Is your state legislature quietly working to discard an important Constitutional provision established by the Founding Fathers? It may be, but it is hoping you will not notice until it’s too late. Several state legislatures have already done so and 38 states at last count were considering passage of legislation to destroy the work of the Founding Fathers with no fanfare and minimal public outcry or even awareness. What is this pressing issue that states are moving rapidly to address, and in many cases embrace? Eliminating the Electoral College and our republican form of government currently in place in favor of a winner by popular vote democracy.

The provision gradually being voted out of existence is important, as it balances power between large and small states in national elections and limits the influence that one highly populated region can wield in determining who will be President of the United States. The Constitutional provision is commonly misunderstood, as most voters never take the time to read Article V of the Constitution, and is thus easily misrepresented in the media by groups who favor eliminating the Electoral College. These groups cite arguments for the change that are disingenuous statistically and historically, yet they rely on voter ignorance to achieve their goal.

Americans should always be wary of any movement that claims the Founding Fathers could not have envisioned a particular circumstance and thus the Constitution must be altered to reflect “reality” or “modern developments.” In the case of the movement to abolish the Electoral College, the motive of the movement’s ardent supporters should be closely evaluated. In sound bites and news articles, the leaders of this movement claim to be fighting for minorities, for “making votes count,” and for the winner of the popular vote to automatically be elected. What is the reason for this renewed any rapidly advancing campaign to eliminate the Electoral College and republican system? Why, George W. Bush, of course.

Four times in American electoral history, the winner of the popular vote did not win the Electoral College and was denied the presidency, in 1824, 1876, 1888, and 2000. While some dissatisfaction with the Electoral College system arose from the first three of these occurrences, the 2000 election which denied Al Gore of victory generated multiple recounts, court decisions, and accusations of dishonesty unparalleled in U.S. history. No president since Abraham Lincoln took office with more animosity and bitter division confronting him than George W. Bush. Opponents immediately declared his presidency to be illegitimate because “the people” had chosen Al Gore. The rancor this electoral environment produced has hampered the Bush administration and has given added impetus to the current drive to abolish the Electoral College. Although that movement disguises itself as an innocent lamb Constitutional improvement, it is in reality a dangerous wolf counting on Anti-Bush sentiment to assure the desired change.

Maryland’s legislature recently approved a measure that will guarantee its Electoral College votes will automatically be given to the winner of the popular vote. Some Maryland legislators questioned the wisdom of giving away the state’s 10 Electoral College votes to a candidate the majority of its own voters may not have chosen, but the anti-Bush hotheads succeeded in passing the measure. State legislators have cleverly understood that changing the U.S. Constitution to abolish the Electoral College is a very lengthy and difficult process, while changing their own state constitutions can achieve the same end by simpler means. By automatically assigning a state’s Electoral College votes to the popular vote winner, the Electoral College would no longer have the ability to serve the purpose for which it was created: balancing power between large (highly populated) and smaller states. The Electors’ votes would be meaningless.

The recent World Net Daily article about this issue refers to two groups: one, National Popular Vote, is spearheading the drive to abolish the Electoral College. The other, Wallbuilders, is advocating against the change and for preservation of our government as a republic rather than a true democracy. The Wallbuilders Internet site offers historical explanations for the origins of the Electoral College, and detailed counterarguments to the claims that the Electoral College is undemocratic, outdated, unfair, discriminatory, or ineffective in balancing power. It is worth reviewing, as this movement to destroy our republican form of government appears to be gaining momentum.

Of equal importance, Wallbuilders also debunks the dangerously false assertion that the Founding Fathers would embrace the proposed change to a virtual democracy rather than a republic. Those who argue that the Founders never intended for a popular vote winner to lose an election have clearly never read, or are choosing to ignore, both Article V of the Constitution and the Federalist Papers, both of which strenuously work to convince Americans to avoid a popular democracy. The founders, in fact, mandated that all state governments also be republics rather than democracies. The following quotes from Founders illustrate that they knew the difference between a republic and a democracy and wisely chose a republic, courtesy of Wallbuilders:

[D]emocracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. James Madison

Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide. John Adams

A democracy is a volcano which conceals the fiery materials of its own destruction. These will produce an eruption and carry desolation in their way. The known propensity of a democracy is to licentiousness [excessive license] which the ambitious call, and ignorant believe to be, liberty. Fisher Ames, a framer of the bill of rights

We have seen the tumults of democracy terminate . . . as [it has] everywhere terminated, in despotism. . . . Democracy! savage and wild. Thou who wouldst bring down the virtuous and wise to thy level of folly and guilt. Gouverneur Morris, signer and penman of the constitution

[T]he experience of all former ages had shown that of all human governments, democracy was the most unstable, fluctuating, and short-lived. John Quincy Adams

A simple democracy . . . is one of the greatest of evils. Benjamin Rush, signer of the declaration

In democracy . . . there are commonly tumults and disorders. . . . Therefore a pure democracy is generally a very bad government. It is often the most tyrannical government on earth. Noah Webster, responsible for article i, section i, ¶ 8 of the constitution

Pure democracy cannot subsist long nor be carried far into the departments of state — it is very subject to caprice and the madness of popular rage. John Witherspoon, signer of the declaration

The desire for large, densely populated states to wield more influence on elections has not changed since the days of the Founders. One need only look at the recent decisions by California, Florida, and several other large states to move their election year primaries to February to see why small states need protection. Why was this done? Simply, large states felt that smaller, insignificant (in their view) small states like Iowa and New Hampshire were having too much influence on national elections through their early primaries and caucuses. These same large states are also championing the back door approach to abolishing the Electoral College by passing state legislation dictating that Electoral votes are given to the popular winner nationwide.

If you are unsure whether you reside in a state that is acting behind the scenes to eliminate the Electoral College, contact your state legislators and voice your opinion. While it is true Al Gore won the popular vote in 2000, President Bush carried 2436 counties nationwide as opposed to only 676 for Gore. Gore’s support was concentrated in a few densely populated cities on the East and West Coasts. President Bush’s appeal was truly national in scope, indicating that the majority of localities felt he best represented their interests and values. Spy The News! encourages voters to educate themselves about this issue and why the Founders established the Electoral College. Readers should work to prevent state legislatures from destroying a measure the Founders applied as a cement to hold the large and small states together despite population concentrations or popular trends.

British Crew Sells Stories (and credibility?) to Media

As a brief follow-up to my post Friday about the "psychologically pressured" British crew recently held captive in Iran, their actions since being released have only provided further evidence of their softness compared with past generations who suffered in POW camps in other wars.

This morning, SkyNews reported that some crew members have been selling their stories to the eager media, ensuring their instant celebrity status and fattening their wallets. British Ministry of Defense officials are now scrambling, attempting to determine what, if anything, can be done to restrict military personnel from selling their stories to the media and personally benefiting financially while remaining in military service. The decision was made in this case to allow the crew to sell their stories because of the "exceptional circumstances" they endured.

Critics of the Ministry's decision to allow the sale of the crew's stories rightly argue that stories sold for money are likely to be exaggerated in order to make the ordeal sound more "newsworthy."

The precedent set by the released crew is a dangerous one, as it is clear that Iran will be emboldened by Britain's lack of substantive response to the kidnapping and holding of its military personnel, as I described in Friday's post. One wonders how many war veterans who truly suffered as POWs never benefited even one penny from their ordeals, and more importantly, never expected such compensation.

From a propaganda perspective, the international community will find it increasingly difficult to condemn Iran for its actions when the kidnapped crew appears to be in many respects better off for their experience as hostages. Iran appears to have won the military and propaganda campaigns in this confrontation with Britain, and Britain's national security may be the ultimate loser as a result. The hostages, all smiles for the cameras, shook Ahmadinejad's hand and depositing royalty checks into their bank accounts for describing their ordeals encountered while performing military service. No punishment for Ahmadinejad and Iran, and no restraint on the returned hostages.

The contrast between the British crew and Douglas Bader and Admiral Stockdale is stark indeed.