| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Another Iranian "answer" to the UN Security Council's proposed incentives package ahead of tomorrow's deadline. From the Washington Post:
Iranian nuclear specialists have begun enriching a new batch of uranium in an apparent act of defiance just days ahead of a U.N. Security Council deadline for Tehran to stop such work or face the prospect of economic sanctions, officials in Washington and European capitals who have been monitoring Iran's efforts said yesterday.
Inspectors with the International Atomic Energy Agency plan to formally disclose the new enrichment work, as well as additional Iranian nuclear advances, in a report due out tomorrow, according to the officials, some of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity.
The officials stressed that the Iranians are working at a slow pace with small quantities of uranium, and that they are enriching the material to an extremely low level that could not be used for nuclear weapons. Still, it is unlikely that the Iranians will stop the work in time to meet the Security Council's deadline.
For three years, Iran and the United States have publicly sparred over a nuclear program that Tehran says it built to produce energy but which the Bush administration believes is a cover for nuclear weapons work. IAEA inspectors have been trying, without success, to determine the true nature of the program, which Iran kept secret for 18 years.
[...]
Despite comments over the weekend from senior Russian officials that it is too early for sanctions, Burns said the administration would press for the commitments that it believes Moscow and others made when they passed the deadline resolution in July.
[...]
Privately, two senior administration officials said that if Russia or China balked at sanctions now, the United States would push a backup plan to restrict Iran's nuclear industry, freeze the assets of key members of the Tehran government, and prevent them from traveling abroad. The measures would be imposed collectively by the European Union and possibly Japan. Some hoped that the IAEA report would encourage nations to work harder on the Iran issue.
"A tough report puts the focus back on Iran, which has broken rules and has failed to cooperate, and takes it away from this perception that the U.S. is just bullying Iran," said George Perkovich, vice president at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. "An IAEA report that calls it like it is makes it hard for countries to walk away from the issue because it will be clear that it isn't getting better."
Several times since international pressure began to build against Iran's nuclear program in 2003, Tehran has rushed to complete small projects immediately ahead of deadlines, calculating that technical achievements would give it a tactical advantage during negotiations.
Officials familiar with the inspectors' summer findings said they will report that Iran has produced several kilograms of low-enriched uranium and as much as 145 tons of converted uranium in the past year. Iran's two main nuclear facilities, the IAEA's most heavily monitored in the world, are outfitted with dozens of cameras pointed at every piece of equipment and barrel that contains uranium.
Inspectors continue to visit certain sites as well, but Iran ended voluntary cooperation with the agency several months ago and has threatened to end it entirely if the Security Council imposes sanctions.
Much of what is known by U.S. intelligence about Iran's nuclear program comes from the inspectors. Current intelligence assessments predict that Iran could have a nuclear weapon within a decade if it vastly improves its capabilities.
Posted by Marisol at August 30, 2006 9:12 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
Police: Put the Bomb components down and come out with your hands on your head.
Almondnuts: I am not building a bomb, its a generator!
Police: We know it looks like a generator but also it can be used as a bomb.. (repeats demand).
Almondnuts: I'm sending my brother out to negotiate with you.
Brother: He's just building a Generator thats all.
Almondnuts: (shouts out of window) Death to the family across the street!!
Brother: Its just a generator for peaceful purposes!
Police: You have 5 minutes to follow our demand
Almondnuts: I will respond in four. (hands working furiously on Generator/Bomb)
Disturbance across street caused by cousin of Almondnuts throwing grenades at house Almondnuts threatened.
Four Minutes later:
Almondnuts: It's my right to build generator.
Neighbours from down the street who buys oil for thier lamps from Almondnuts start to argue with the police.
Conference is convened in the middle of the street with these neighbours and social services and lefties.
5 Minutes pass and a whoosh BANG bombs from Almondnuts kill neighbours across the street and one gets thrown at the Police - All die. THE END.
Posted by: Churchill1938![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at August 30, 2006 9:30 AM
"Current intelligence assessments predict that Iran could have a nuclear weapon within a decade if it vastly improves its capabilities."
Only if the world continues to put its head in the sand.
Personally I think everyone is waking up,(yes even the dhimmis's really now what is going on) albeit very slowly and soon they will do something which will create catastrophic consequences for themselves. They will be of their own undoing and good riddance as far as I'm concerned!
The middle easts sycophantic days are numbered especially that of Iran.
Posted by: M at August 30, 2006 9:33 AM
brilliant Churchill1938
The brits and americans could do worse than read your explanation of nuclear bargaining "for dummies"
Posted by: johnmac at August 30, 2006 9:33 AM
Yes it is very good churchill, but this is what it might take for them to create their own undoing. Surely even the liberals couldn't forgive your scenario?
Posted by: M at August 30, 2006 9:36 AM
"The simplistic treatment of Iran's actions should be transparent to any intellectual and deplorable. Ahmadinejad's intertextual context has been misappropriated by those who have an agenda. They fail to see that, by 'enrichment', he means the cultural enrichment of the region with the diversity of the Iranian heritage within a predominantly Arab context."
/JCole or any devoted student of his
Posted by: ZionistYoungster at August 30, 2006 9:39 AM
Were nuclear power plants as Set up by the US and Germany built for power. Were considerations made regarding possible use for weapons production? Or was oil used as a bribe to secure nuclear plants? Seems some one was duped.
U.S.-Iran nuclear co-operation in the 1970s
In March 1974, the Shah envisioned a time when the world's oil supply would run out, and declared, "Petroleum is a noble material, much too valuable to burn... We envision producing, as soon as possible, 23 000 megawatts of electricity using nuclear plants."[3] Bushehr would be the first plant, and would supply energy to the inland city of Shiraz. In 1975, the Bonn firm Kraftwerk Union AG, a joint venture of Siemens AG and AEG Telefunken, signed a contract worth $4 to $6 billion to build the pressurized water reactor nuclear power plant. Construction of the two 1,196 MWe nuclear generating units was subcontracted to ThyssenKrupp, and was to have been completed in 1981.
By 1975 U.S. Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger, had signed National Security Decision Memorandum 292, titled "U.S.-Iran Nuclear Co-operation," which laid out the details of the sale of nuclear energy equipment to Iran projected to bring U.S. corporations more than $6 billion in revenue. At the time, Iran was pumping as much as 6 million barrels (950,000 m³) of oil a day, compared with about 4 million barrels (640,000 m³) daily today.
Posted by: exsgtbrown at August 30, 2006 9:45 AM
The face of terror is not the true faith of Islam. That's not what Islam is all about. Islam is peace.
President George W. Bush
THERE IS NO HOPE !
Blair -
The Qur’an "is practical and way ahead of its time"
The Prime Minister during his speech "Not a clash between civilisations, but a clash about civilisation" spoke forcefully about the problems of terrorism.
The talk given to the Foreign Policy Centre and Reuters also included his praise of the Holy Qur’an.
"The most remarkable thing about reading the Koran – in so far as it can be truly translated from the original Arabic - is to understand how progressive it is.
"I speak with great diffidence and humility as a member of another faith. I am not qualified to make any judgements. But as an outsider, the Koran strikes me as a reforming book, trying to return Judaism and Christianity to their origins, rather as reformers attempted with the Christian Church centuries later. It is inclusive. It extols science and knowledge and abhors superstition. It is practical and way ahead of its time in attitudes to marriage, women and governance," he said.
He added that under the guidance of the Qur’an, the spread of Islam and its dominance over previously Christian or pagan lands was "breathtaking".
"Over centuries it founded an Empire, leading the world in discovery, art and culture. We look back to the early Middle Ages, the standard bearers of tolerance at that time were far more likely to be found in Muslim lands than in Christian," he declared.
at August 30, 2006 10:37 AM
Geez, you think the mohammedans gave Tony a Snausage™ and a scratch behind the ear after saying that crap?
Posted by: Eisenhund at August 30, 2006 11:13 AM
If the iranians really think owning and using a nuke brings you into the big boy club they are even stupider than I thought. Hurricane Katrinia destroyed hundreds of square miles and decimated entire cities. Guess what? We survived; we have and will continue to rebuild. We did it without any significant international help. America remains strong because we are independent. Let’s go back to the you are with us or against us mindset. Let the world pick a side, just don’t let them switch when islam bites them in the rear.
The question the world should ask itself is what happens if the muslims do win? Will muslim charities cover every natural disaster even those not in islamic states? All they need do is research try and find one positive thing islam has ever done for anyone, just one.
We as Americans have made mistakes but the world benefits because we are not afraid to try. We give freely, generously and constantly. We should continue that legacy but with restrictions. We need leadership that holds other nations accountable. You don’t follow at least some basic human rights, you are a state supporter or turn a blind eye to terror, and we should turn our backs on you when you most need help. I was trained to believe and practice “win their hearts and minds” now; I think it a sick joke. You don’t feed, water and pat a rabid dog, you put it down.
at August 30, 2006 11:32 AM
Churhill,
Has Mr. Blair gone plain nuts ? Or is he telling the Christians to behave like the mohammadans ? *head in hands*
at August 30, 2006 11:58 AM
Russia's behavior is at once pedantic and dangerous. These people lost to the mujaheddin in Afghanistan, they've been assualted by jihadists flowing out of Chechnya for years, and their borders are surrounded by unfriendly 'stans. And who can overlook the historical and cultural animus between Orthodox Christianity and Islam dating back to the Byzantine Empire? Russia is playing games with Iran to weaken the US and elevate its own strategic importance. Yet it fails to see that it is sealing its own doom by protecting Iran's atomic program. It would only be a matter of time, aided by a relatively easily smuggling effort, that would be bring nuclear jihad to Russia. Atomic Beslan Part Deux.
Putin - stop practicing your judo and put your wily KGB skills to use. You wouldn't look good in a turban.
Posted by: MadrassasippiBurnin at August 30, 2006 12:35 PM
Anyone get the idea that Israel is going to act alone if they get the hint this latest UN (in)action isn't adequate?
Posted by: bjjfiter at August 30, 2006 12:55 PM
BJ, I hope they do - the US will probably have to lend them stealth bomber support though. That is, unless Israel just says, fk it, let's use our "undisclosed" H-bombs.
Posted by: MadrassasippiBurnin at August 30, 2006 1:32 PM
Yes, I'm thinking since we control Iraq's airspace, we aid Israel with our AWACS and sensor UAVs. We also provide midair refueling, and protection for Israel's subs to launch missiles from the Persian Gulf. Iran's air force obviously won't chase Israeli planes outside of Iran, because that could be a pretext for American jets to shoot them down...from Iraq or Turkey.
This way, Bush escapes the "Attack Iran" political battle, and perhaps we get lucky if Iran attacks American interests or military assets, as they've already said they would.
Posted by: bjjfiter at August 30, 2006 1:46 PM
BJ - Or Mossad could get really clever and simply introduce ebola or hemorrhagic fever into the Iranian population centers, particularly near Natanz and Bushehr, wiping out the scientists, their families, and social support networks. Imagine Mahmoud running around trying to figure that one out. Then the Is-rah-ay-lees could launch a disinfo campaign based on Iranian uranium hunters who contracted the disease(s) on recent trips to Africa. Africa always gets the bad cop side of the story. We could all sit back and watch the fun unfold as Tehran pleads for intl help. "Sure Mahmoud, we've got plenty of fuel-air explosive for you. Wear some sunblock, guy."
Posted by: MadrassasippiBurnin at August 30, 2006 1:53 PM
Just when we thought it couldn't get any worse for Iranian She-bollahs:
Iran cracks down on women's dress
TEHRAN, Aug. 29 (UPI) -- Police in Tehran have been ordering Iranian women to cover up, stopping those they perceive as "badly veiled."
The crackdown followed the 2005 election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
"We are certainly seeing a return to behavior we haven't seen for 10 years," Hadi Ghaemi of Human Rights Watch told The Telegraph. "Generally, the imposition of strict Islamic codes has been increasing under Ahmadinejad."
Ghaemi said that the penalty for violating a code that requires the complete covering of women's heads and bodies in public depends on the officers involved and the women's political connections.
"The person could end up in jail depending on their relationship with the authorities," he said. "Generally, the imposition of strict Islamic codes has been increasing under Ahmadinejad."
Just as women in recent years had pushed the boundaries by wearing head scarves that revealed more than they hid, many Iranians had flouted the law banning them from owning satellite dishes, the report said. The government has been cracking down on them as well.
at August 30, 2006 2:31 PM
AIG, I'm convinced that the underpinning, usually unspoken theme of this 'religion' is sex. They're obsessed with the gulf between the genders. It's a cavernous chauvinistic divide which will never be bridged until Islam is either reformed or eliminated. I cannot imagine the former ever occurring. But I can imagine a day when women are allowed to become suicide bombers. Wait - they beat us to that too!
Posted by: MadrassasippiBurnin at August 30, 2006 2:49 PM
Tony Blair, from Churhill1938 posting above:
"I am not qualified to make any judgements."
That state of affairs is amply demonstrated by what followed in his statement.
It is high time for our leaders to become qualified and then make some sane judgments in our national defense. That is their job.
at August 30, 2006 3:08 PM
Good. Should be quite a show when it blows up.
Posted by: Bohemond_1069 at August 30, 2006 5:06 PM
Where's was the media when close to 1 Ton of uranium was removed from Iraq ?
I still have a problem with Iran's new Subway system that has one of the tunnel links design for a Locomotive and double-decker passenger rail cars , Iran has shown an interest in Syria's plan to build transit tunnels as well.
Maybe I'm a bit paranoid but building 2 underground railway lines in the guise of "Public Transit" would be the perfect way to transport
weapons and troops since the current Map of the Subway shows a future exspansion to a major Airport that could also handle Military planes.
I just don't trust these Middle East tyrant.
at August 30, 2006 5:31 PM
AIG, I do - especially if it involves bottles of Gatorade and hair gel. Going to paradise well hydrated and in style!
I wonder why Michael Moore doesn't make a movie about this phenomenon? It must directly affect his ability to bring gallons of YooHoo and McFrostys on the airplane. Bottoms up!
Posted by: MadrassasippiBurnin at August 30, 2006 5:51 PM
stopthem you have too much logic for the Western leaders. can you imagine the kerrys, clinton, ucla,
kofi, EU, UN all crying the blues if iranina leaders are wiped out, they would demand Bush's head. hope Guiliani gets voted in next election, saudi money cant buy him.
at August 30, 2006 6:48 PM
"Much of what is known by U.S. intelligence about Iran's nuclear program comes from the inspectors."
The Washington Post is wrong, as usual. America learns more from Putin in Russia than it does from the grossly incompetent, corrupt, easily hoodwinked, and adversarial IAEA. The IAEA couldn't monitor a boiling teapot. Only the Democrats in Congress are dumb enough to put "much" stock in what the Iranian Atomic Enabling Agency has to say after the fiascoes in Iraq and South Korea.
Much of what is known by U.S. intelligence about Iran's nuclear program comes from the Mossad, Britain, satellite images, and spying on Iranophile France and Germany.
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at August 30, 2006 7:40 PM
memo to an american in germany: Islam is also an ancient human sacrifice sect from Mesopotamia which has been carefully dressed up to resemble an "Abrahamic" faith which it most definitely ISN'T!!! Islam wears its ideology contained in its false "Bible" (the 'Glorious Kuran') like a halloween costume. The killers (of which Hizbollah is an excellent example)aren't going EVER to stop their killing and we may as well get used to it now.
memo to stopthem: If Iran is nuked (understandably so, I would agree) it may not be possible for westerners to go in there and rebuild the place: radiocativity may render most of the place uninhabitable and off-limits (as was the case with areas in Russia after Chernobyl). The Shiite power elites may also have alternate headquarters already picked out encase America strikes, so even a thorough nuking may not take care of the Iranian threat. As I have said earlier on this blog American ground forces won't necessarily contain Iran's threat either, as the place is just too damn BIG to get control over within the timeframe we have to work within--the mullahs could possibly launch ICBMs with nukes from remote parts of Iran before we could stop them.
MY SUGGESTION FOR USA POLICY WITH IRAN: DETONATE ELECTRO MAGNETIC PULSE WEAPONS OVER IRANIAN AIRSPACE! What THAT would achieve would be the destruction of this country's ENTIRE electronic infrastructure in one fell swoop, rendering Iran unable to deploy missiles, nukes, or other weapons of mass destruction...for a very long time. We could repeat as necessary and use the same tactic on North Korea and Venezuela nad other self-professed enemies of the western democracies. I see absolutely no other way out and have no idea why America hasn't done this already.
Posted by: pythagoras at August 30, 2006 7:55 PM
It should be noted here that the IAEA is not an United Nations organisation but a fully independent international organisation of eighty voluntary member states of which Iran does not happen to be one. Iran has, in the past, voluntarily agreed to co-operate with the IAEA, but it is not a member. That it is now reneging on its agreement is obvious to all.
The IAEA's relationship with the UN is regulated by a special agreement (signed in 1958) the text of which is freely available on the web. The IAE's take on Iran can be found at
http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Focus/IaeaIran/index.shtml
and the IAEA's home page is at
http://www.iaea.org/About/index.html
The IAEA was, of course, not directly involved in Iraq - it merely made staff available to the UN for the UN's own investigation. The IAEA is not currently involved in South Korea, which is an ally of the USA and the UK, so we must presume that Bargholz (above) is referring to North Korea - which is not a signatory to the IAEA Convention and cannot, therefore, be legally monitored by the IAEA, and, what is more, is not being so monitored. Information about the North Korean atomic programme is currently being provided by USA Intelligence Departments, UK overseas Intelligence and Australian Intelligence Departments together with international Diplomats based in North Korea, not by the IAEA at an official level. The IAEA has been asked by the governments of the USA, Australia and the UK, and the UN, only to assess such reports.
Bargholz's simplistic assessment (above) does not paint the true complexity of the picture with regards to the IAEA and is simply designed, as usual, to mislead. If he is an intelligence insider then he must know what he is talking about, but if not then he is merely guessing and speculating when he asserts the statements in his final sentence.
I would advise caution and research before accepting his viewpoint.
Dominic.
Posted by: necessitasnonhabetlegem at August 30, 2006 11:54 PM
Question to Hugh, Robert Spencer or any other Islamic expert:
I don't dress well, but I try. My shirt isn't wrinkled. I shine my loafers once a week. I'm no fashion expert, but what's with the head of Iran's garb? Not to be the fashionistas here but his shoes are always drab, his shirt unpressed, his pants casual; always. Why? Is this just a quirk, or is it an Islamic or 'Shia' thing? Even his hair seems uncombed. Is he a grunge Shia???
I ask this not tongue in cheek. I find it weird that the head of a country dresses like that. The Bin Laden garb, seating posture I think I get; it's some kind of emulation of the Prophet, but the Shia dress is strange. They wear weird shirts sans ties.
How a man dresses is his own business. We all cannot be Cary Grants, but the head of a major country dresses like he slepped in his clothes, no shower and no combing of the hair. He seems to laugh it off as well with Mike Wallace-vis-a-vis his attire.
Posted by: biorabbi at August 31, 2006 12:13 AM
biorabbi/
Worse, it looks like he schlepped in his clothes.
Dominic.
Posted by: necessitasnonhabetlegem at August 31, 2006 12:28 AM
Dominic:
Are you still on the warpath? You sound like a stalker.
I don't know why you brought up the U.N., but you're grossly understating the connection between the U.N. and the IAEA.
Using the IAEA's own website and statements as proof of their competence is like using Amahdinejads's website and statements to establish his competence and reliability. As I wrote before, the IAEA is grossly incompetent, corrupt, easily hoodwinked, and adversarial to America--especially when Republicans are in the President's office. It's a joke. President Bush doesn't give a flying $@^& about anything coming from the Incompetent Atomic Energy Agency, and neither do the majority of America's citizens--which obviously makes us better informed than the agency's Eurotrash supporters. Like the U.N., Bush uses it when necessary, and ignores it whenever possible. He deals with a lot of ridiculous organizations, countries, and individuals in his line of work. It's called diplomacy. Even you know that Bush and Israel are the ones who are going to solve the Iranian problem while the rest of the world dithers and protests. Get used to it.
Good luck convincing anybody otherwise.
If the IAEA sent personnel to Iraq for the same U.N. you want us to believe it's "fully independent" from, it was clearly directly involved in Iraq.
Do you suffer from dyslexia? Your conflicting statements are borderline delusional.
Yes, I was referring to NORTH Korea smart-ass. The IAEA has made many predictions and "professional assessments" about N Korea in the past--all of them wrong. Your diversion into sophistry doesn't change that.
"Much of what is known by U.S. intelligence about Iran's nuclear program comes from the Mossad, Britain, satellite images, and spying on Iranophile France and Germany." You didn't bother to address my conclusion because you know it's true.
I've mislead nobody, nor did I intend too. You're obviously still stinging from the beating I gave you concerning your fanciful opinions about Russia. Your petulant insistence that my comment was simplistic is not backed up by any facts. You have to show that it was simplistic, not simply claim it is and move on.
I am not an intelligence insider. Are you? Unlike you, I can comprehend what I read. The real intelligence insiders are the ones taking a beating over 911, WMD, North Korea, and Iran. So much for your experts.
I would advise people to ignore your ignorant, misleading, and petty comments, but it's obvious that they already do.
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at August 31, 2006 12:52 AM
""Current intelligence assessments predict that Iran could have a nuclear weapon within a decade if it vastly improves its capabilities.""
And yet I've seen other intelligence assessments that predict they could have a full-fledged nuclear weapon in a year, a dirty bomb in a matter of weeks.
This is if,and it's a BIG if, they don't just buy one or more from Kim mentally ill or our great alie, who won't allow our soldiers to search for Bin Ladin in thier hills, Pakistan.
I never thought I'd say this but, not every moslem "leader" is as reasonable as Qadaffi.
Posted by: Anti-Jihad-Crusader at August 31, 2006 1:13 AM
Someone tell me what the hell is wrong with our government? Is there anyone else on this board that wishes they could slap some sense into our politicians!???
The monkey insults us and our government picks their noses! I just don't get it!
Posted by: The Goobs at August 31, 2006 6:25 PM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)