GINA COBB

One Year Ago Today on GINA COBB: HOW TO STOP IRAN

Originally published on May 17, 2007:  HOW TO STOP IRAN by DemocracyRules

Note:  The following is a guest post authored by DemocracyRules.  This is the first in a two-part series. 

Part 1: Do They Have the Motivation, the Means, the Opportunity?

John Bolton is Increasingly Worried about Iran

Iran has "clearly mastered the enrichment technology now...they're not stopping, they're making progress and our time is limited", Bolton said.

Just last Sunday, the IAEA found that, “Iran has already managed to enrich uranium to the 4% purity needed for power stations. Weapons-grade uranium must reach a threshold of 84% purity.”  Mohammed El Baradei is concerned that Iran’s pace of progress has increased significantly, and the time before they have nuclear weapons is shorter than previously anticipated.

“It's been conclusively proven Iran is not going to be talked out of its nuclear program.  So to stop them from doing it, we have to massively increase the pressure” Bolton said.

Is he right?  Well, some people in liberal democracies have already succumbed to Stockholm Syndrome.  They are identifying with the enemy, and are blaming the West or the US for all the ‘trouble’.  Some are already wearing middle eastern clothing.

How about if we think like crime detectives?  Does Iran have the motivation, the means, and the opportunity to attack it’s enemies?  The motivation part is easy to prove.  Since 1979, when the Islamist oligarchy took power, they have relentlessly incited their people to hate Israel and the USA.  “Death to America, Israel should be wiped of the face of the Earth, blah, blah, blah”.

Iran is trying to develop the means.  Usually, the enemy tells you what they’re going to do, before they do it.  Iran has said a lot about developing nuclear weapons.

Ahmadinejad TV speech Aug 1, 2006: "Today, the Iranian people is the owner of nuclear technology. Those who want to talk with our people should know what people they are talking to. If some believe they can keep talking to the Iranian people in the language of threats and aggressiveness, they should know that they are making a bitter mistake. If they have not realized this by now, they soon will, but then it will be too late."  No ambiguity here for me, he wants nukes for war.

Ahmadinejad speech in Shahriyar, Oct 11, ‘06,:"...The enemies are completely paralyzed, and cannot in any way confront the Iranian people. If our people maintain unity and solidarity, they [i.e. the enemies] must expect a great [Iranian] victory, because we have [only] one step remaining before we attain the summit of nuclear technology."

Ahmadinejad at a recent press conference in Tehran, about the Hollywood film, “300", which recounts the Spartan-Persian battle at Thermopylae: "So you think you are a match for the entire Persian army?!?!!. Well, let's see if you're a match for Iran's nuclear program!"

MEMRI cites much more evidence about Iran's efforts to obtain the means for a nuclear attack.

HOW IS IRAN MAKING THOSE BOMBS?

For some reason, the MSM never tells people even the basics about nuclear weapons.  “Iran has a lot of centrifuges”, they say cryptically, but what does that mean?  Here’s what it means, and this is all public knowledge.  To be a fully successful nuclear country, one must have several weapons and a reliable delivery capability.  Iran is not there yet. 

Only two paths are available for these weapons: (1) highly enriched uranium (HEU, 84% pure uranium 235 or better), and a bomb mechanism, probably the ‘gun-type’.  Mount some uranium in the mechanism, and fire a uranium ‘bullet’ at it.  The HEU is highly volatile, and the sudden compression will start a chain reaction explosion.  In WWII, this was ‘little boy’.  There is some speculation that one could drop a big rock on some HEU from a tall building and cause a nuclear explosion.  I don’t now if anyone has actually tried that.

(2) Plutonium 239 (Pu-239, 80% pure or better). This is easier to make than HEU, because with careful planning, one can extract Pu-239 from the fuel rods of a nuclear reactor. You have to stop the reactor at intervals and extract the Pu-239. You could wait until the rods are used up, and extract the Plutonium, but it would not be 80% pure Pu-239.

The bomb mechanism is harder to make for Pu-239. You have to make a spherical detonation mechanism out of conventional explosives. When it’s triggered, it explodes inward toward a softball-sized piece of Pu-239. The sudden compression of the Pu-239 makes it blow up. If the explosion of the sphere is unequal, or imbalanced, the Pu-239 might not blow up, or only a little, which is called a ‘fizzle yield’.

It now seems clear what North Korea’s ‘Mr. Il’ did.  His engineers only had spent fuel rods to work with, and the plutonium wasn’t 80% pure Pu-239.  They used it anyway, and hoped for the best. It produced a ‘fizzle yield.’  They must have known it would probably not work, but under threat of death they tried it anyway.

Iran has fiddled with both HEU and Pu-239, but they have now fast-tracked the HEU development.  They have acquired a bunch of centrifuges.  Now they will ‘gassify’ the uranium, and put it into centrifuges. When it spins, the heaviest gas goes to the bottom, the lightest at the top. The lighter stuff is the uranium 235, the kind you want. You remove and separate the gas, put the lightest portion back in, and spin it again. 

Each spin cycle gives you a higher and higher concentration of the lightest uranium gas.  Eventually it is 84% pure of the lightest uranium, U-235.  Then you convert this gas back into the solid metal that’s called HEU, and make your weapon. 

Iran seems to have the plans needed to machine the HEU metal into weapons-usable hemispheres, and they may have a ‘gun-type’ weapon mechanism already made. Ahmadinejad said on Oct 11, ‘06,:"...we have [only] one step remaining before we attain the summit of nuclear technology."

NOW IT GETS TRICKY

We all know about ‘Projects’, we’ve all worked on ‘Projects’.  They’re not done until they’re completely done.  When I was younger, I would declare my projects ‘almost done’ when they were only half done.  Maybe you did too.  My guess is that Iran will not be very good at completing their nuclear weapon ‘Project’.  Ahmadinejad is probably declaring his project almost done when in fact, it’s far from done.  Literally, Iran could not build a LADA without help.

WILL IRAN HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY?

Dictators want nuclear weapons the way teenage boys want Ferrari’s.  It turns out they’re very hard to get, and after you have one, what are you going to do with it?  Obvious idea #1: blow up Israel.  Obvious problem #1: Israel will blow you up in retaliation.  More probably, they will blow you up preemptively.  In a few years, Iran may have a few nukes, mostly untested.  Israel already has lots, and they work really well. 

This looks like a crazy chess game where after 2 moves, you’re checkmated.  Iran seems to be fine with this, they’re not thinking ahead very well.  Obliterating Israel seems very attractive, but many logical steps have been left out.  This is unusual in an enemy.  Saddam planned a bit, but not very well.  Bin Laden plans his head off.  The Soviets and the Nazis planned a huge amount, and very rational planning it was, too.

Now you see why it’s tempting for politicians and policy makers to dismiss the Iranian threat? They assume that Ahmadinejad will be rational, and avoid getting himself and his country blown to smithereens. Politicians are making a terrible miscalculation with this.  In fact, it is irrational to expect Iran to be rational. Since when have Iran’s leaders been rational?  Rationality is out of character for them.  It’s better to stick to a statistician’s aphorism: ‘The best predictor of the immediate future is the immediate past.’

The statistician would predict that Iran will continue being irrational, and they will keep on with their nuclear weapon ‘project’ until they are stopped.  The oligarchy does not seem to mind that they may die in the process.  Ahmadinejad is obviously not very bright, and he’s very emotional.  It is completely possible that if he got nuclear weapons, he would not know what to do with them, except get himself killed. 

NEXT TIME:

Part 2: How Do We Stop Them and What If We Don’t?

By DemocracyRules

Part 1: Do They Have the Motivation, the Means, the Opportunity?

John Bolton is Increasingly Worried about Iran

Iran has "clearly mastered the enrichment technology now...they're not stopping, they're making progress and our time is limited", Bolton said.

Just last Sunday, the IAEA found that, “Iran has already managed to enrich uranium to the 4% purity needed for power stations. Weapons-grade uranium must reach a threshold of 84% purity.”  Mohammed El Baradei is concerned that Iran’s pace of progress has increased significantly, and the time before they have nuclear weapons is shorter than previously anticipated.

“It's been conclusively proven Iran is not going to be talked out of its nuclear program.  So to stop them from doing it, we have to massively increase the pressure” Bolton said.

Is he right?  Well, some people in liberal democracies have already succumbed to Stockholm Syndrome.  They are identifying with the enemy, and are blaming the West or the US for all the ‘trouble’.  Some are already wearing middle eastern clothing.

How about if we think like crime detectives?  Does Iran have the motivation, the means, and the opportunity to attack it’s enemies?  The motivation part is easy to prove.  Since 1979, when the Islamist oligarchy took power, they have relentlessly incited their people to hate Israel and the USA.  “Death to America, Israel should be wiped of the face of the Earth, blah, blah, blah”.

Iran is trying to develop the means.  Usually, the enemy tells you what they’re going to do, before they do it.  Iran has said a lot about developing nuclear weapons.

Ahmadinejad TV speech Aug 1, 2006: "Today, the Iranian people is the owner of nuclear technology. Those who want to talk with our people should know what people they are talking to. If some believe they can keep talking to the Iranian people in the language of threats and aggressiveness, they should know that they are making a bitter mistake. If they have not realized this by now, they soon will, but then it will be too late."  No ambiguity here for me, he wants nukes for war.

Ahmadinejad speech in Shahriyar, Oct 11, ‘06,:"...The enemies are completely paralyzed, and cannot in any way confront the Iranian people. If our people maintain unity and solidarity, they [i.e. the enemies] must expect a great [Iranian] victory, because we have [only] one step remaining before we attain the summit of nuclear technology."

Ahmadinejad at a recent press conference in Tehran, about the Hollywood film, “300", which recounts the Spartan-Persian battle at Thermopylae: "So you think you are a match for the entire Persian army?!?!!. Well, let's see if you're a match for Iran's nuclear program!"

MEMRI cites much more evidence about Iran's efforts to obtain the means for a nuclear attack.

HOW IS IRAN MAKING THOSE BOMBS?

For some reason, the MSM never tells people even the basics about nuclear weapons.  “Iran has a lot of centrifuges”, they say cryptically, but what does that mean?  Here’s what it means, and this is all public knowledge.  To be a fully successful nuclear country, one must have several weapons and a reliable delivery capability.  Iran is not there yet. 

Only two paths are available for these weapons: (1) highly enriched uranium (HEU, 84% pure uranium 235 or better), and a bomb mechanism, probably the ‘gun-type’.  Mount some uranium in the mechanism, and fire a uranium ‘bullet’ at it.  The HEU is highly volatile, and the sudden compression will start a chain reaction explosion.  In WWII, this was ‘little boy’.  There is some speculation that one could drop a big rock on some HEU from a tall building and cause a nuclear explosion.  I don’t now if anyone has actually tried that.

(2) Plutonium 239 (Pu-239, 80% pure or better). This is easier to make than HEU, because with careful planning, one can extract Pu-239 from the fuel rods of a nuclear reactor. You have to stop the reactor at intervals and extract the Pu-239. You could wait until the rods are used up, and extract the Plutonium, but it would not be 80% pure Pu-239.

The bomb mechanism is harder to make for Pu-239. You have to make a spherical detonation mechanism out of conventional explosives. When it’s triggered, it explodes inward toward a softball-sized piece of Pu-239. The sudden compression of the Pu-239 makes it blow up. If the explosion of the sphere is unequal, or imbalanced, the Pu-239 might not blow up, or only a little, which is called a ‘fizzle yield’.

It now seems clear what North Korea’s ‘Mr. Il’ did.  His engineers only had spent fuel rods to work with, and the plutonium wasn’t 80% pure Pu-239.  They used it anyway, and hoped for the best. It produced a ‘fizzle yield.’  They must have known it would probably not work, but under threat of death they tried it anyway.

Iran has fiddled with both HEU and Pu-239, but they have now fast-tracked the HEU development.  They have acquired a bunch of centrifuges.  Now they will ‘gassify’ the uranium, and put it into centrifuges. When it spins, the heaviest gas goes to the bottom, the lightest at the top. The lighter stuff is the uranium 235, the kind you want. You remove and separate the gas, put the lightest portion back in, and spin it again. 

Each spin cycle gives you a higher and higher concentration of the lightest uranium gas.  Eventually it is 84% pure of the lightest uranium, U-235.  Then you convert this gas back into the solid metal that’s called HEU, and make your weapon. 

Iran seems to have the plans needed to machine the HEU metal into weapons-usable hemispheres, and they may have a ‘gun-type’ weapon mechanism already made. Ahmadinejad said on Oct 11, ‘06,:"...we have [only] one step remaining before we attain the summit of nuclear technology."

NOW IT GETS TRICKY

We all know about ‘Projects’, we’ve all worked on ‘Projects’.  They’re not done until they’re completely done.  When I was younger, I would declare my projects ‘almost done’ when they were only half done.  Maybe you did too.  My guess is that Iran will not be very good at completing their nuclear weapon ‘Project’.  Ahmadinejad is probably declaring his project almost done when in fact, it’s far from done.  Literally, Iran could not build a LADA without help.

WILL IRAN HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY?

Dictators want nuclear weapons the way teenage boys want Ferrari’s.  It turns out they’re very hard to get, and after you have one, what are you going to do with it?  Obvious idea #1: blow up Israel.  Obvious problem #1: Israel will blow you up in retaliation.  More probably, they will blow you up preemptively.  In a few years, Iran may have a few nukes, mostly untested.  Israel already has lots, and they work really well. 

This looks like a crazy chess game where after 2 moves, you’re checkmated.  Iran seems to be fine with this, they’re not thinking ahead very well.  Obliterating Israel seems very attractive, but many logical steps have been left out.  This is unusual in an enemy.  Saddam planned a bit, but not very well.  Bin Laden plans his head off.  The Soviets and the Nazis planned a huge amount, and very rational planning it was, too.

Now you see why it’s tempting for politicians and policy makers to dismiss the Iranian threat? They assume that Ahmadinejad will be rational, and avoid getting himself and his country blown to smithereens. Politicians are making a terrible miscalculation with this.  In fact, it is irrational to expect Iran to be rational. Since when have Iran’s leaders been rational?  Rationality is out of character for them.  It’s better to stick to a statistician’s aphorism: ‘The best predictor of the immediate future is the immediate past.’

The statistician would predict that Iran will continue being irrational, and they will keep on with their nuclear weapon ‘project’ until they are stopped.  The oligarchy does not seem to mind that they may die in the process.  Ahmadinejad is obviously not very bright, and he’s very emotional.  It is completely possible that if he got nuclear weapons, he would not know what to do with them, except get himself killed. 

NEXT TIME:

Part 2: How Do We Stop Them and What If We Don’t?

By DemocracyRules

Defense Secretary Urges Americans to Volunteer for Hostage Duty in Iran

Is U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates completely out of his mind?

US Defense Secretary Robert Gates said he thought more visits to Iran by private American citizens might help bridge differences between the two countries.

But Gates, who in 2004 advocated greater diplomatic engagement with Iran, said Wednesday he believed it would not be useful now to negotiate with the government headed by President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad.

"We need to figure out a way to develop some leverage with the Iranians and then sit down and talk with them," he said in a talk at the American Academy of Diplomacy, referring to general US relations with Tehran.

"If there is going to be a discussion then they need something, too," he said. "We can't go to a discussion and be completely the 'demandeur' with them not feeling they do not need anything from us."

But he said the United States should look for ways outside of government "to open up the channels and get more of a flow of people back and forth."

"There are actually a fair number of Iranians that come to the United States to visit," he said.

"We ought to increase the flow going the other way, not of Iranians but of Americans, and that may be one way of creating some space perhaps over some period of time."

US tensions with Iran have risen sharply in recent weeks amid accusations by Washington that Tehran is funding, training and arming Shiite groups to attack US and coalition forces in Iraq.

I know it's been 27 years or so since Iran last took Americans hostage, but the same hostile, anti-American, radical Islamic regime is still in charge, and that regime's animosity toward the United States has not lessened over time.  On the right is a picture of Iran's parliament chanting "Death to America" on the day Iran voted to resume uranium enrichment.  Iran's president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has openly wished for a world without America or Israel.  Iran is currently engaged in a proxy war with the United States in Iraq.  And the British sailor hostage crisis was just last year.  Has Gates forgotten already?

Is Gates unaware of what the news media and U.S. State Department have reported about Iran's recent interference with return to the U.S. by Iranian Americans who have visited Iran?

Recently, Iranian authorities have prevented a number of Iranian-American citizen academics, journalists, and others who traveled to Iran for personal reasons from leaving, and in some cases have detained and imprisoned them on various charges, including espionage and being a threat to the regime. Americans of Iranian origin should consider the risk of being targeted by authorities before planning travel to Iran. Iranian authorities may deny dual nationals’ access to the United States Interests Section in Tehran, because they are considered to be solely Iranian citizens.

The State Department website adds:

SAFETY AND SECURITY: U.S. citizens who travel to Iran despite the Travel Warning should exercise caution throughout the country, but especially in the southeastern region where Westerners have been victims of criminal gangs often involved in the smuggling of drugs and other contraband. For example, two Germans and one Irish were kidnapped and released in Sistan va Baluchestan in December 2003. American citizens should avoid travel to areas within 100 kilometers of the border with Afghanistan, within 10 kilometers of the border with Iraq, and generally anywhere east of the line from Bam and Bandar Abbas toward the Pakistan border.

. . . . U.S. citizens are advised to avoid demonstrations and large public gatherings. Increased tension between Iran and the West over the past several years is a cause of concern for American travelers.

Iranian security personnel may at times place foreign visitors under surveillance. Hotel rooms, telephones and fax machines may be monitored, and personal possessions in hotel rooms may be searched. Photography near military and other government installations is strictly prohibited. You may be detained and face serious criminal charges, including espionage, which carries the death penalty.

Gates believes that having Americans visiting Iran will help "develop some leverage with the Iranians."  Sure.  The only "leverage" will be Iran's -- if we send enough Americans to Iran, we can leverage ourselves right into a hostage situation in which we can bargain with Iran about how much we'll have to give up to get our own citizens back.  It took 444 days and a change in presidents to get 53 diplomats back last time.  Is that the sort of leverage Gates is looking for?

Gates assumes that, because Iranians can safely visit the United States, Americans can safely visit Iran too.  Sorry, but the two are completely different.  While Iranian tourists are welcome in the  United States, Americans are a target of contempt and scorn in Iran among those sypmathetic to the Islamic regime.  Chanting "Death to America" is routine at public rallies in Iran.  In addition, numerous activities that are completely permissible in America are criminal offenses in Iran -- from using high-speed internet or satellite dishes, to walking a dog, to having contact with an unrelated member of the opposite sex -- the list goes on and on.

Let's face it.  If you're looking for a relaxing, stress-free vacation, Iran is not your destination of choice.  I understand the overarching goal of trying to build bridges with Iran, but urging individual Americans to visit Iran as tourists in the currrent climate does not exactly demonstrate much concern for their personal safety and well being.  Besides, sending a few tourists -- or even a mass of them -- is not going to stop Iran from finishing its acquisition of full nuclear weapons capability that is already in progress.  You think Iran will trade away the power to wipe out its adversaries in exchange for a few tourist dollars?  Please!  As far as Iran is concerned, nuclear weapons are all the "leverage" it needs to achieve its ends.

I'm not sure quite where Gates got his kumbayah ideas about how swell it would be for Americans to visit Iran, but let's hope the idea dies a quick death.  I never, never, want to see this again:

Two Years Ago Today on GINA COBB: "Evil" Israel "Cannot Continue and One Day Will Vanish" Says Iran's President

Originally published on May 11, 2006: "Evil" Israel "Cannot Continue and One Day Will Vanish" Says Iran's President

Just in case anyone does not yet clearly understand how badly distorted is the lens through which Iran's current leadership views the world, Iran's president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has once again spelled it out:  Iran eagerly looks forward to the day when "evil" Israel will vanish from the face of the earth.

JAKARTA, Indonesia - Iran's president on Thursday called Israel's government a "regime based on evil," but also said he was ready to negotiate with the United States and other countries over his country's nuclear program.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has previously said Israel should be wiped off the map, also told a cheering crowd of students in Indonesia's capital that the Jewish state "cannot continue and one day will vanish."

Funny, but Ahmadinejad can't seem to work up even a fraction as much loathing for the Palestinian terrorists who, as their primary strategy, deliberately plan and carry out mass murder attacks against groups of innocent, noncombatant civilian men, women and children.

So I guess we have to conclude that Ahmadinejad has no problem with the deliberate slaughter of innocent non-combatant civilians -- as long as the victims are Jews.  Of course, Iran also has no problem with threatening "Death to America" -- it's a popular chant in Iran.

Do we all agree that now is the time to require Iran to halt its nuclear enrichment, or are we going to just keep saying "pretty please" to Iran's "no" until Iran's first nuclear detonation occurs, at which point we will shrug our shoulders and hope that Iran's nuclear strikes will not be in our direction?

Try diplomacy first, a few of you say.

Hel-LO!  What do you think the U.N. and the European Union have tried for over three fruitless years (not counting the 18 years when Iran successfully hid its secret nuclear program), while Iran's nuclear program has nonetheless rapidly advanced?  What do you think the U.S. and its State Department have tried all these same fruitless years, while Iran's nuclear program has rapidly advanced?

All the combined diplomatic powers of the United Nations and have produced absolutely zip in terms of stopping Iran's rapidly-advancing nuclear program.

For those of you who still urge that we keep trying diplomacy with Iran, I have a question:

How will you know that diplomacy has failed?

Would it be a clue that diplomacy has failed when nothing any nation on earth has done in an effort to halt Iran's nuclear program for three years has worked? 

Would it be a clue that diplomacy has failed when the nation you're plying your diplomatic skills on is thumbing its nose at the United Nations? 

Would it be a clue that diplomacy has failed when every week there's news of another advance in Iran's nuclear program? 

Would it be a clue that diplomacy has failed when almost every day there's further chatter from Iran's president about the annihilation of Israel, the evils of the United States, or the evils of Western democracy? 

Would any of that be a clue that diplomacy has failed, or does somebody have to hit you over the head with at two-by-four?

I hope the two-by-four isn't necessary, because the next sign you'll get that all the world's diplomacy has failed will be the mushroom cloud.

Oh, but some other American president could handle Iran better, a few will say.

Sadly, you are dreaming.

It's a nice dream, isn't it?  I'm almost reluctant to wake you up.  But I must.

WAKE UP.

Who are the most suave, most diplomatically skilled presidents America has had in recent memory?

Bill Clinton?  The "master persuader"?

Right.  And on his watch, with all the combined diplomatic skills of himself and his administration at work, Iran secretly worked on its nuclear program, and Osama Bin Laden and other Islamic terrorists raged and planned and carried out the first World Trade Center bombing, several embassy bombings, and the attack on the U.S.S. Cole.  Not only that, but they began planning and preparing their master stroke that they hoped would deal a lethal blow to America -- the September 11th attack.

And that was with the great "persauder" in command.

Let's think of other greats in the field of diplomacy.  Ah -- who better than that great man of peace -- and Nobel Peace Prize winner in fact -- Jimmy Carter?

Who stood by helplessly while Iran kidnapped and held Americans hostage for 444 days.

Gee, you'd think he could have accomplished something diplomatically before he was finally voted out of of office by the American people.

Could it be that diplomacy will only take a nation so far in this big, sometimes incredibly cruel, world?

Could it be that any nation, even a good, great decent nation like America, or another good, decent nation like Israel -- can have enemies in this world not because it is evil, but for no real reason at all other than envy?  Or beause it potentially stands in the way of even greater evil that those other nations intend to do?

If you believe that there is such at thing as an unjust war, then you must also believe that nations sometimes unreasonably hate and aggress against other nations. 

And if you believe that, then why is it so difficult to realize that the current leadership in Iran is consumed with irrational hatred, and is rapidly arming itself to bring its hatred to fruition?

Remember, America is not chanting "Death to Iran."  The "death" chants are coming from only one direction.  America is not openly urging the annihilation of any other nation -- but Iran is.

Diplomacy is a nice word, but not a magical one.

You can talk yourself to death.  Literally.

_________________

Update 5/11/06:  The Yahoo! News report linked above has since been changed slightly to quote Iran's president as stating that Israel is "a tyrannical regime that will one day will be destroyed."

Just in case anyone does not yet clearly understand how badly distorted is the lens through which Iran's current leadership views the world, Iran's president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has once again spelled it out:  Iran eagerly looks forward to the day when "evil" Israel will vanish from the face of the earth.

JAKARTA, Indonesia - Iran's president on Thursday called Israel's government a "regime based on evil," but also said he was ready to negotiate with the United States and other countries over his country's nuclear program.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has previously said Israel should be wiped off the map, also told a cheering crowd of students in Indonesia's capital that the Jewish state "cannot continue and one day will vanish."

Funny, but Ahmadinejad can't seem to work up even a fraction as much loathing for the Palestinian terrorists who, as their primary strategy, deliberately plan and carry out mass murder attacks against groups of innocent, noncombatant civilian men, women and children.

So I guess we have to conclude that Ahmadinejad has no problem with the deliberate slaughter of innocent non-combatant civilians -- as long as the victims are Jews.  Of course, Iran also has no problem with threatening "Death to America" -- it's a popular chant in Iran.

Do we all agree that now is the time to require Iran to halt its nuclear enrichment, or are we going to just keep saying "pretty please" to Iran's "no" until Iran's first nuclear detonation occurs, at which point we will shrug our shoulders and hope that Iran's nuclear strikes will not be in our direction?

Try diplomacy first, a few of you say.

Hel-LO!  What do you think the U.N. and the European Union have tried for over three fruitless years (not counting the 18 years when Iran successfully hid its secret nuclear program), while Iran's nuclear program has nonetheless rapidly advanced?  What do you think the U.S. and its State Department have tried all these same fruitless years, while Iran's nuclear program has rapidly advanced?

All the combined diplomatic powers of the United Nations and have produced absolutely zip in terms of stopping Iran's rapidly-advancing nuclear program.

For those of you who still urge that we keep trying diplomacy with Iran, I have a question:

How will you know that diplomacy has failed?

Would it be a clue that diplomacy has failed when nothing any nation on earth has done in an effort to halt Iran's nuclear program for three years has worked? 

Would it be a clue that diplomacy has failed when the nation you're plying your diplomatic skills on is thumbing its nose at the United Nations? 

Would it be a clue that diplomacy has failed when every week there's news of another advance in Iran's nuclear program? 

Would it be a clue that diplomacy has failed when almost every day there's further chatter from Iran's president about the annihilation of Israel, the evils of the United States, or the evils of Western democracy? 

Would any of that be a clue that diplomacy has failed, or does somebody have to hit you over the head with at two-by-four?

I hope the two-by-four isn't necessary, because the next sign you'll get that all the world's diplomacy has failed will be the mushroom cloud.

Oh, but some other American president could handle Iran better, a few will say.

Sadly, you are dreaming.

It's a nice dream, isn't it?  I'm almost reluctant to wake you up.  But I must.

WAKE UP.

Who are the most suave, most diplomatically skilled presidents America has had in recent memory?

Bill Clinton?  The "master persuader"?

Right.  And on his watch, with all the combined diplomatic skills of himself and his administration at work, Iran secretly worked on its nuclear program, and Osama Bin Laden and other Islamic terrorists raged and planned and carried out the first World Trade Center bombing, several embassy bombings, and the attack on the U.S.S. Cole.  Not only that, but they began planning and preparing their master stroke that they hoped would deal a lethal blow to America -- the September 11th attack.

And that was with the great "persauder" in command.

Let's think of other greats in the field of diplomacy.  Ah -- who better than that great man of peace -- and Nobel Peace Prize winner in fact -- Jimmy Carter?

Who stood by helplessly while Iran kidnapped and held Americans hostage for 444 days.

Gee, you'd think he could have accomplished something diplomatically before he was finally voted out of of office by the American people.

Could it be that diplomacy will only take a nation so far in this big, sometimes incredibly cruel, world?

Could it be that any nation, even a good, great decent nation like America, or another good, decent nation like Israel -- can have enemies in this world not because it is evil, but for no real reason at all other than envy?  Or beause it potentially stands in the way of even greater evil that those other nations intend to do?

If you believe that there is such at thing as an unjust war, then you must also believe that nations sometimes unreasonably hate and aggress against other nations. 

And if you believe that, then why is it so difficult to realize that the current leadership in Iran is consumed with irrational hatred, and is rapidly arming itself to bring its hatred to fruition?

Remember, America is not chanting "Death to Iran."  The "death" chants are coming from only one direction.  America is not openly urging the annihilation of any other nation -- but Iran is.

Diplomacy is a nice word, but not a magical one.

You can talk yourself to death.  Literally.

_________________

Update 5/11/06:  The Yahoo! News report linked above has since been changed slightly to quote Iran's president as stating that Israel is "a tyrannical regime that will one day will be destroyed."

Israel Has New Evidence RE Iranian Nukes

By DemocracyRules

h/t Debkafile, London Times

I recently quoted Israeli Minister Shaul Mofaz saying that Iran may attain full command of the uranium enrichment process before the end of 2008. 

Now British Intelligence wants to find out what the Israelis know.  Sir John Scarlett (MI6) will soon visit Israel for briefings by Mossad chief Meir Dagan on Iran's nuclear program.  Israel described the coming meeting as "strategic dialog."  Israel apparently has also briefed U.S. officials.  The London Times claims Israel has a breakthrough "on intelligence gathering within Iran."  That may or may not be true.

Mofaz may have been simply stating the obvious.

Every person and their dog knows that Iran is making progress and sooner or later they will succeed. The NIE was crap from the get-go, and the only people who actually believed it were the Communist MSM.  Bush and Olmert said in a press conference that the NIE was crap about a week after it was released, but the MSM barely touched it.  (We covered it on Gina Cobb).  The chief author of the NIE also said the report was vastly misinterpreted and he had no real certainty about Iran’s current nuclear development.   (NIE was wrong, says main author.) The MSM mostly ignored him.

The NIE debacle is a classic MSM game, where they vastly distort and misreport what the government says.  Then new information debunks the MSM’s distorted reports.  Then the MSM wastes vast numbers of dead trees complaining that the government lied.  For example, the Times implies that Iran is close to nukes and Bush somehow concealed this.

The Times claims Israeli foreign minister Tzipi Livni recently briefed Prime Minister Gordon Brown and Foreign Secretary David Miliband about what Israel knew.  If she did, Brown and Miliband are more useless than I thought. 

Miliband is now spearheading a ‘carrot’ letter to Iran, detailing all the amazing rewards they will get if they discontinue their nuke program.  Why waste time on such things when Iran has already rejected the same offers many times before?  Especially if Brown and Miliband know Iran is close to weapons.   The picture shows Achmadenijad at Nantaz.

I would hate to watch Brown or Miliband in a bull fight.  They would try to fight it off with press briefings.  Brown is the most laconic politician I have ever seen, he seldom says anything.  I thought he was just a dour Scotsman, but maybe there is no activity in his brain.

Jaw, jaw is generally better than war, war, but if the opponent only talks about how they are going to blow you up and constantly shouts “Death to America”, the dialog has limited value.  Ehud Barak, Israel’s defence minister, said last week. “We say we shouldn’t rule out any option. Not ruling out options means action, but the worst thing to do at the moment is to talk [about it].”

The KEY unknown about Iran is their level of uranium enrichment.  Only 4% is needed for nuclear rectors, but about 85% is needed for nuclear weapons.  If Israel knows Iran has exceeded 4%, that would be important.

Pro Patria

Man, I Hate It When Iranians Look Like This

By DemocracyRules

It makes it very difficult to concentrate on the maniacal mullahs.

This is Samantha Tajik, 'Miss Universe Canada' 2008. She was born in Iran... people posting at Iranian.com are bickering whether she is truly 'Iranian'.  Well, at least she is safe in Canada.

Pro Patria

A Look Inside Iranian Poverty

By DemocracyRules

Photo Essay

Pro Patria

Mofaz: Israel Will Not Accept a Nuclear-Armed Iran, All Means of Prevention Legitimate

By DemocracyRules
h/t DebkaFile, World Nuclear News

"The Israeli transport minister Shaul Mofaz, speaking at Yale University Tuesday night, April 30, on the eve of Holocaust Remembrance Day, warned Iran may attain command of enrichment technology before the end of this year.  He said: "Israel will not tolerate a nuclear-armed Iran. This time, the Jewish people won't let it happen. I would like to believe the world will not let it happen. To prevent this, all means are legitimate."

The photo shows Ahmadinejad on a recent visit to Nantaz.  The long tubes are cascades of new uranium enrichment centrifuges.

Two Years Ago Today on GINA COBB: Iran Says Will Attack Israel

Originally published on May 2, 2006:  Iran Says Will Attack Israel

From Reuters:

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran threatened on Tuesday to attack Israel in response to any "evil" act by the United States and said it had enriched uranium to a level close to the maximum compatible with civilian use in power stations.

Of course, since Iran claims everything the United States does is "evil," the proper way to report this story is that Iran has now announced its intention to attack Israel.

And what, pray tell, will Iran attack Israel with?  Its "peaceful" nuclear power stations?

Right.

The wolf is still trotting around under a sheepskin, buying time as it plots its move, but it can't resist baring its teeth now and then.

___________________________________

Want to read more?  Click a link:

• Iran
• Terrorism Update
• Humor
• Main Page

From Reuters:

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran threatened on Tuesday to attack Israel in response to any "evil" act by the United States and said it had enriched uranium to a level close to the maximum compatible with civilian use in power stations.

Of course, since Iran claims everything the United States does is "evil," the proper way to report this story is that Iran has now announced its intention to attack Israel.

And what, pray tell, will Iran attack Israel with?  Its "peaceful" nuclear power stations?

Right.

The wolf is still trotting around under a sheepskin, buying time as it plots its move, but it can't resist baring its teeth now and then.

___________________________________

Want to read more?  Click a link:

• Iran
• Terrorism Update
• Humor
• Main Page

What Do Iranians Want?

By DemocracyRules

What do women Iranians really want?  I mean, they never really tell us what they want, and if they won’t tell us, how can we give it to them?  They’re an enigma wrapped in something else, I forget what.  But what is this really about?  They’re unhappy, I can see they’re unhappy, but they won’t say what’s bothering them.  Why not?  Why don’t they just tell us, or is it because they really don’t know themselves?  You spend your whole life trying to please them, then finally you have no idea where you stand.  Why?  What is so secret about what they want?  If they told us, I bet we could supply it in 10 minutes.  Instead they say, “well if you loved me, you would know what I want!”  Well, I do love you, but I’m not a mind-reader!  I ask you if you want this, you say no, I ask about that, you say no.  Then I ask well, what then?  You say you’re not sure, you just need to be left alone!  Good grief, women Iranians!

OK, enough with the humor.

___________________

Iranians HAVE actually told us quite a lot about what they want.  I'll start with a good-quality survey carried out in early 2008 by the nonprofit group Terror Free Tomorrow, and an international polling and research group D3 Systems Inc.

Politics
Iranians want democracy.  They want to vote in elections for candidates that are fairly chosen.

About 90% want the head guy, the chief Mullah of the country, to be elected, and to be accountable to voters.

Before the last elections, about 80% said they would vote, but they were not inspired by any of the candidates.  Candidates were pre-selected by the Mullahs, and anyone who wanted real change was thrown off the list.

About two-thirds of Iranians thought all reformist candidates should have been allowed to run.

"This survey confirms what any visitor to Iran notices right away, and that is people's utter lack of inspiration with their political system and political candidates," said Karim Sadjadpour of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Foreign Relations
About three-quarters of Iranians polled favored normal relations and trade with the United States.  Overall, Iranians are quite pro-American and pro-Western.  Weird, eh?  It's because the government does not represent the people.

For those surveyed, the three most important steps the US could take to improve relations with Tehran are, (1) withdraw its forces from Iraq, (2) increasing visas for study and work in the US, and (3) a trade deal between the two countries.  So the average Iranian wants the US out of Iraq, probably because they feel they might be next.  But they don't hate the US, they want visas to go there!  They also want better trade with the US.

About half want nuclear weapons, but one must be careful whenever a survey result teeters around 50%-50%.  If you flip a coin you will get 50%-50%.  It could be that Iranians didn't know what to say, so they just guessed.

Most want to make deals.  About 70% would drop nuclear weapons in exchange for aid and investment.  About half said they would support the recognition of Israel as part of a broader deal with the US.  Notice that Iranians implicitly acknowledge that their government is developing nuclear weapons.

About 60% favor supporting Hezbollah, the Iraqi Shiite militias, and Hamas. This of course is really dumb, but it's 60%.  The government is 100% behind those groups.

SO the compelling picture is that Iranians are much more moderate, more pro-democracy, pro-America, and pro-West than their government.

It's easy to forget that Iranians call themselves Persians, they are not Arabs, and they have a very different culture than Arab Muslims. 

Whereas most basic garden-variety Arabs are fairly recently descended from desert nomads, Persians have had elaborate civilizations for millennia. 

Persians are extremely polite and generous.  Whereas an Arab friend will give you the shirt off his back, an Iranian might give you his house.   You have to be very careful in asking them for favors, and they're very passionate.  One Persian friend I had often told me he loved me.  I had to get him to stop saying that in public.  Neither of us were gay, and Canadians just didn't  understand.

So, should the US, or Israel, or Israel/ US /Britain/ France/ Italy/ Canada go knock out Iran?  Yeah, I think so, yes, especially if we can assemble a group of nations. I don't know if we would be "greeted as liberators", but that doesn't matter much because there would be few ground forces involved.  However, if we just kill the Mullahs and bomb the nuke facilities, the average Iranian will probably be relieved.  Regime change is a must.

As for Hillary's "obliterate" thing, I say absolutely not.  It's not needed to achieve our military and political objectives, and it would kill millions of innocent people.  On the website Iranian.com, they are quite open to new ideas, but getting  obliterated bothers them for some reason. 

Bush Says Disclosing Syrian Reactor Info Now Sends Msg to Iran

By DemocracyRules
h/t Jerusalem Post

US President George W. Bush said Tuesday he wanted to signal a warning to Iran and Syria.  He also wants to mobilize world opinion to confront Iran and Syria.

Bush said, "We were concerned that an early disclosure would increase the risk of a confrontation in the Middle East or retaliation in the Middle East... [The disclosure] shows that these programs can exist and people don't know about them."

Ahmadinejad Suggests Martyrdom To Fix Economy

By DemocracyRules
h/t AFP

Iran has high unemployment, inflation around 25%, ubiquitous poverty, and massive subjugation of its people.  Women are treated with bestial inhumanity. 

Ahmadinejad has had an epiphany -- kill millions of Iranians.  "If we want to build the country, maintain our dignity and solve economic problems, we need the culture of martyrdom... [it's] a quick and shortcut way to reach the summit of salvation." (Mehr news)

Iran has about 70 million people and if millions died, Ahmadinejad seems to think that would be a good thing.  After all, if the unemployed were dead, they wouldn't be unemployed anymore!  Traffic congestion would decline, housing would be easier to obtain, demand for food and consumer goods would decline, it would be great.   Also the dead wouldn't vote against him in the next election.  Ingenious, it kills millions of birds with one stone!

He said this one day after the former economy minister Davoud Danesh Jaafari criticized Ahmadinejad for his irrational economic policies. Last Wednesday Jaafari said, "During my time, there was no positive attitude towards previous experiences or experienced people and there was no plan for the future... Most of the scientific economic concepts like the effect of liquidity on inflation were put in question..."

Last year Ahmadinejad reduced bank interest rates to 12 percent, triggering a sudden demand for loans which has further exacerbated inflation.

Pshaw, says Ahmadinejad.  "When we insisted on cutting bank interest rates some objected and said this is not scientific, but we tell them that if they are not men of justice, they had better clear the way and leave..."

I think Ahmadinejad already has an idea that if he bombs Israel, they will help him with his mass martyrdom project. 

I doubt he will hold a referendum on his plans.

Message to Mr. Mohammad Ali Hosseini of Iran

By DemocracyRules

h/t Fox News

"Iran says a U.S. attack is unlikely since Washington has been overwhelmed by its problems Iraq and Afghanistan. Iran's Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini says it is "unlikely" that U.S. forces embroiled in Iraq and Afghanistan would be able to invade a new country, adding it would have unpleasant consequences for the region and the world."

Hmm, funny how this sounds exactly the way Saddam sounded until the VERY DAY the US and allies invaded.  He was suffering from a type of psychopathology called 'perceived personal immunity'.  However, that no longer bothers Saddam.  He was successfully treated for his condition.

Here is my message to Mr. Hosseini:  Given your certainty about your immunity from attack, please give us your work address, your home address, and any other locations where you can be, uh, reached.  Please be specific, GPS coordinates would be ideal. 

Also, please provide the same information about your aides and political advisers.  In fact, what the heck, how about detailed listings for all Iranian government officials?

No need to be indirect or clandestine about this, Mr. Hosseini, just post your reply on any website linked in the column on the right.  Bloggers will take it from there, and we will make sure the information gets to the right people.

Have a nice day, and remember, justice begins at home.

Iran Arrests Another Feminist

By DemocracyRules

No, the MSM will probably never cover this.  Her name is Khadijeh Moghaddam, and she is very active in the Iranian womens' rights movement.  They are small in number compared to the Iranian population, but they are tougher than nails.  I used to belong to Amnesty International (before they went crazy), and her story is very similar to other dissidents elsewhere in the world that I learned about. 

She has an internal moral compass that tells her what is right and what is wrong, and she won't quit.  She has been very active in the "One Million Signatures Campaign", which is mounting a petition in support of women's rights in Iran.  This is all going on "in country."

Strangely, most brutal dictatorships subject dissidents to some type of due process.  For example, they usually don't just kill dissidents outright, they get an arrest warrant, serve it, and arrest the person.  Then they take them to jail and interrogate them, with or without torture. 

Khadijeh Moghaddam is in solitary confinement, which in itself becomes torture if it continues for too long.  Mainly they want her to give up names of 'co-conspirators', but she rightly claims they have no authority to do this given that the charges against her are groundless.  These are vague 'stirring up trouble' type charges.  In any case they have the names of all her colleagues already.

Sometimes the Iranians beat dissidents  to death, as they did a few years ago to a female Iranian-Canadian journalist who was taking pictures of Iran's largest political prison.  That brutality destroyed the remaining threads of relations between Canada and Iran.

After this period or harassment, threats, and/or torture, dictatorships usually imprison the person and forget about them.  Worldwide, this has been done to many thousands of dissidents, but amazingly, emails, chain emails, letters, and phone calls to embassies, prison authorities  and senior politicians has secured the release of thousands.  Dictatorships seem to hate it when foreigners speak up for imprisoned dissidents, but they usually don't kill the dissident as a result.

They often release them eventually.  Mandela, Solzhenitsyn, Sakharov, and many more have been released this way, and their stories have helped change the world.

If you wish, you can post an email of support for her at Iranian.com.
here...
Pro Patria

Two Years Ago Today on GINA COBB: More Crazy Talk from Iran: U.N. Diplomacy Has Failed Utterly

Originally published on April 14, 2006: More Crazy Talk from Iran: U.N. Diplomacy Has Failed Utterly

This what months and years of soft-spoken, weak-kneed U.N. "diplomacy" will buy you when you are dealing with a power-mad country like Iran:  Crazy talk from Iran. 

The situation has been deteriorating almost on an hourly basis this week -- from Iran's boast that it has begun enriching uranium, to its plan to crank up over 50,000 more centrifuges, to its threat of Israel's imminent annihilation, to its latest threats against America linked above.

You'll recall that I am one of those who predicted this dismal outcome of the U.N.'s efforts to solve the Iranian problem through diplomacy.  I wrote here on December 10, 2005 that diplomacy had failed; no amount of diplomacy would stop Iran from enriching uranium.  (No, I didn't need an advanced degree in geopolitics to call this one.)

Let's review our depiction of the civilized members of the U.N. and the European Union from my prior posts:

And here they are again, as viewed by Iran:

Cox and Forkum complete the analogy in today's cartoon (click on the cartoon to enlarge it):

I understand why the White House felt it had to go through this hollow exercise of dancing with the U.N.  It was an absolute requirement in order to give the left -- both in America and around the world -- time to come to grips with the current reality.

And this week, Iran has served up one hot, piping cup of fresh-brewed reality after another.

It's apparent now to everyone who is not comatose or buried in self-defeating partisan political hatred that Iran is an even greater threat to world peace than Iraq -- and that doesn't mean Iraq was not a threat. 

This what months and years of soft-spoken, weak-kneed U.N. "diplomacy" will buy you when you are dealing with a power-mad country like Iran:  Crazy talk from Iran. 

The situation has been deteriorating almost on an hourly basis this week -- from Iran's boast that it has begun enriching uranium, to its plan to crank up over 50,000 more centrifuges, to its threat of Israel's imminent annihilation, to its latest threats against America linked above.

You'll recall that I am one of those who predicted this dismal outcome of the U.N.'s efforts to solve the Iranian problem through diplomacy.  I wrote here on December 10, 2005 that diplomacy had failed; no amount of diplomacy would stop Iran from enriching uranium.  (No, I didn't need an advanced degree in geopolitics to call this one.)

Let's review our depiction of the civilized members of the U.N. and the European Union from my prior posts:

And here they are again, as viewed by Iran:

Cox and Forkum complete the analogy in today's cartoon (click on the cartoon to enlarge it):

I understand why the White House felt it had to go through this hollow exercise of dancing with the U.N.  It was an absolute requirement in order to give the left -- both in America and around the world -- time to come to grips with the current reality.

And this week, Iran has served up one hot, piping cup of fresh-brewed reality after another.

It's apparent now to everyone who is not comatose or buried in self-defeating partisan political hatred that Iran is an even greater threat to world peace than Iraq -- and that doesn't mean Iraq was not a threat. 

Spy Photos Reveal Secret Launch Site for Iranian Long-Range Missiles

An important U.K. Times Online report:  Spy photos reveal 'secret launch site' for Iran's long-range missiles

A close examination of the photographs has indicated that
the Iranians are following the same path as North Korea

From Times Online:

The secret site where Iran is suspected of developing long-range ballistic missiles capable of reaching targets in Europe has been uncovered by new satellite photographs.

The imagery has pinpointed the facility from where the Iranians launched their Kavoshgar 1 “research rocket” on February 4, claiming that it was in connection with their space programme.

Analysis of the photographs taken by the Digital Globe QuickBird satellite four days after the launch has revealed a number of intriguing features that indicate to experts that it is the same site where Iran is focusing its efforts on developing a ballistic missile with a range of about 6,000km (4,000 miles).

A previously unknown missile location, the site, about 230km southeast of Tehran, and the link with Iran's long-range programme, was revealed by Jane's Intelligence Review after a study of the imagery by a former Iraq weapons inspector. A close examination of the photographs has indicated that the Iranians are following the same path as North Korea, pursuing a space programme that enables Tehran to acquire expertise in long-range missile technology.

Geoffrey Forden, a research associate at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said that there was a recently constructed building on the site, about 40 metres in length, which was similar in form and size to the Taepodong long-range missile assembly facility in North Korea.

Avital Johanan, the editor of Jane's Proliferation, said that the analysis of the Iranian site indicated that Tehran may be about five years away from developing a 6,000km ballistic missile. This would tie in with American intelligence estimates and underlines why President Bush wants the Polish and Czech components of the US missile defence system to be up and running by 2013.  . . . .

The Kavoshgar 1 rocket that was launched in the presence of President Ahmadinejad of Iran was based on the Shahab 3B missile, a version of the North Korean Nodong liquid-propellant missile.  . . . .

At a meeting on February 25 between the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Iranians, UN inspectors confronted them with evidence of design studies for mounting nuclear warheads on long-range missiles. The Iranians denied any such aspirations.

However, according to Jane's Intelligence Review, the satellite photographs prove that the Kavoshgar 1 rocket was not part of a civilian space centre project but was consistent with Iran's clandestine programme to develop longer-range missiles.

The examination of the launch site revealed that it was part of a large and growing complex “with very high levels of security and recent construction activity”. It was clearly “an important strategic facility”, Dr Forden said.

The former Iraq weapons inspector said that Iran was benefiting from the North Korean missile programme and following its designs. The Taepodong 1 consisted of a liquid-propellant Nodong (like the Shahab 3) first stage, a liquid-propellant Scud second stage and a solid-propellant third stage.

“The production and testing facility next to the Kavoshgar 1 launch site would seem well positioned to contribute to this third stage,” Dr Forden said.

As I wrote in October 2006:

The international community has proven unwilling or unable to halt nuclear proliferation in our time.

As a result, the United States and other decent nations must become deadly serious about nuclear missile defense.  Such missile defense programs deserve substantial resources.  There is no trustworthy alternative. 

Great nations will fall if we get this one wrong.

Two Years Ago Today on GINA COBB: Iran Has Enriched Uranium While the Civilized World Continues to Dither

Originally published on April 11, 2006:  Iran Has Enriched Uranium While the Civilized World Continues to Dither

Iran has succeeded in enriching uranium.

TEHRAN, Iran - Iran has successfully enriched uranium for the first time, a major development in its fuel cycle technology, news agencies quoted former President Hashemi Rafsanjani as saying Tuesday.

Current President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad added that Iran "will soon join the club of countries with nuclear technology."

But not to worry.  Until Iran's nuclear weapons are actually used in a major city near you, it's not your concern.  If you were to get involved in the issue right now, you'd just be a jingoistic imperialist.

As the U.N., the European Union, and plenty of Americans on the the left have made abundantly clear, we have plenty of time before Iran's first nuclear strike.  Why, it could be anywhere from a few months to five years to as much as ten years.

It's all speculation anyway, since nobody has access to the inner workings of Iran's secret programs.  The thing to do for your own peace of mind, of course, is to hold onto that ten year outer limit figure for dear life.  Take it as a minimum amount of time we have left, rather than the exaggerated maximum that it is.  Ignore the fact that Iran secretly hid its nuclear program for 18 years.  Some think Iran may already have one or two nuclear weapons.  But ignore that too.

In fact, the head of the U.N.'s so-called "nuclear watchdog" the IAEA, chairman Muhammad ElBaradei, admitted in December that once Iran resumed nuclear enrichment, it would be only months away from producing a nuclear bomb.  Guess what?  Iran has resumed nuclear enrichment.

But forget about all that.  The thing to focus on is that 10-year figure.  The easier course -- for the  next few months, anyway -- is to ignore Iran's steps toward arming itself with nuclear weapons until you either hear that it's already too late or until after, say, the next American presidential election. 

Ignoring the Iranian threat allows you the luxury of continuing to rip into America's current commander-in-chief (you know, the one with the low approval ratings) and allows you to undermine and show contempt for any action involving Iran, firmly convinced in your own mind that you're not undermining your own nation's security by doing so.  And make no mistake -- Tehran is watching, while its nuclear centrifuges spin.

And it's really important that we use whatever time we have left -- be it months or years -- to engage in dialogue.  Lots of dialogue.  Dialogue, dialogue, and more dialogue.  Why dialogue?  Because it doesn't demand anything of us, other than the ability to shrug our shoulders each time it fails to work.  And it makes us sound nice, doesn't it?  That will be what the world remembers when Iran's nuclear bombs finally are put into use to kill innocent men, women and children -- that we had the courage to do nothing while the danger grew.

Let's dialogue about one of Iran's favorite topics -- whether Israel should be wiped off the map.  Let's dialogue some more about whether Iran really, really means it when it says it will not be deterred in enriching uranium.  Let's dialogue about Iran's favorite chant, "Death to America!"

It's very important that we not threaten Iran with any action of any kind, make plans to take out Iran's nuclear capability, or do anything but engage in dialogue.  Because that might provoke them, you know.  And then they might do something crazy.  Like shouting "Death to America!" while announcing plans to pursue uranium enrichment.

Oh yeah -- they already did that.  But you get the point.

TEHRAN, Iran - Iran has successfully enriched uranium for the first time, a major development in its fuel cycle technology, news agencies quoted former President Hashemi Rafsanjani as saying Tuesday.

Current President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad added that Iran "will soon join the club of countries with nuclear technology."

But not to worry.  Until Iran's nuclear weapons are actually used in a major city near you, it's not your concern.  If you were to get involved in the issue right now, you'd just be a jingoistic imperialist.

As the U.N., the European Union, and plenty of Americans on the the left have made abundantly clear, we have plenty of time before Iran's first nuclear strike.  Why, it could be anywhere from a few months to five years to as much as ten years.

It's all speculation anyway, since nobody has access to the inner workings of Iran's secret programs.  The thing to do for your own peace of mind, of course, is to hold onto that ten year outer limit figure for dear life.  Take it as a minimum amount of time we have left, rather than the exaggerated maximum that it is.  Ignore the fact that Iran secretly hid its nuclear program for 18 years.  Some think Iran may already have one or two nuclear weapons.  But ignore that too.

In fact, the head of the U.N.'s so-called "nuclear watchdog" the IAEA, chairman Muhammad ElBaradei, admitted in December that once Iran resumed nuclear enrichment, it would be only months away from producing a nuclear bomb.  Guess what?  Iran has resumed nuclear enrichment.

But forget about all that.  The thing to focus on is that 10-year figure.  The easier course -- for the  next few months, anyway -- is to ignore Iran's steps toward arming itself with nuclear weapons until you either hear that it's already too late or until after, say, the next American presidential election. 

Ignoring the Iranian threat allows you the luxury of continuing to rip into America's current commander-in-chief (you know, the one with the low approval ratings) and allows you to undermine and show contempt for any action involving Iran, firmly convinced in your own mind that you're not undermining your own nation's security by doing so.  And make no mistake -- Tehran is watching, while its nuclear centrifuges spin.

And it's really important that we use whatever time we have left -- be it months or years -- to engage in dialogue.  Lots of dialogue.  Dialogue, dialogue, and more dialogue.  Why dialogue?  Because it doesn't demand anything of us, other than the ability to shrug our shoulders each time it fails to work.  And it makes us sound nice, doesn't it?  That will be what the world remembers when Iran's nuclear bombs finally are put into use to kill innocent men, women and children -- that we had the courage to do nothing while the danger grew.

Let's dialogue about one of Iran's favorite topics -- whether Israel should be wiped off the map.  Let's dialogue some more about whether Iran really, really means it when it says it will not be deterred in enriching uranium.  Let's dialogue about Iran's favorite chant, "Death to America!"

It's very important that we not threaten Iran with any action of any kind, make plans to take out Iran's nuclear capability, or do anything but engage in dialogue.  Because that might provoke them, you know.  And then they might do something crazy.  Like shouting "Death to America!" while announcing plans to pursue uranium enrichment.

Oh yeah -- they already did that.  But you get the point.