From the Daily Telegraph:
Reading the IAEA's reports on Iran in the past year, there are good reasons to fear that the mullahs, behind the guise of a civil nuclear power programme, are secretly trying to build an atomic bomb or at least develop a "just in time" capability to build one at short notice.
A nuclear Iran would precipitate a Middle East arms race that could prompt Turkey, Egypt and Saudi Arabia to secure their own nukes. Israel is unlikely to sit idly by while Iran arms itself with atomic weapons and long-range missiles.
As the IAEA's governors meet in Vienna this week to decide how to deal with Iran's latest evasions, Mr ElBaradei has told the Telegraph that Teheran keeps "changing its story". Despite good progress, the IAEA chief said inspections "cannot go on forever". Sound familiar?
All too familiar. The rest of the piece is even scarier.
What sort of dunce ever believed that oil-rich Iran was building reactors for the generation of electricity?
But, Will!
How can you be so cynical? They're concerned about sustainable development and rising CO2 levels.
Stephen, the article is scary, but maybe not in the way you meant.
I was particularly struck by this:
"It need not come to military action. The Europeans can do more to back up their tough words with credible threats of action. They should draw up a menu of EU sanctions that could be phased in if Iran does not comply with the IAEA by, say, September."
That'll show 'em!
"If Teheran gives up its nuclear weapons aspirations permanently and submits to rigid international controls, it should be assured of technical assistance for developing nuclear power to generate electricity."
It worked so well with North Korea in 1994.
Incidentally, the author actually mentions North Korea in the next paragraph without finding this precedent discouraging.
Will,
Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? Without a true and proper accounting, held under the strictest, most stringent legal basis, can we really justify the enormous decision to use force?
And don't the failings of American intelligence to justify the last war show the dangers of simply presuming guilt?
Believe me, that argument is being sounded even as we speak....
Two words- Israel, Boom.. enough said.
Hide and watch, they have no other choice.
Rafsanjani has said that as soon as they get a nuke the mullahs intend to lob it at Tel Aviv. Even if Israel's Arrow missiles shoot sown a missile carrying it Israel will still be obliged to do some retaliation if only to demonstrate that nuclear genocide has unacceptable costs to the genocidal attacker.
If the Iranians don't want to be caught in a nuke war they had better overthrow the mullahs now. If the world does not want a nuke war in the Middle East they had better overthrow the mullahs now. And remember, the advocates of jihad and of spreading the Islamic Revolution are not likely to stop at Israel.
Michael,
That is not actually what Rafsanjani said. To tell you the truth, I can't remember exactly what he did say. I just remember that, at the time that was fresh news ringing alarms everywhere, I read his actual comments in an Iranian news source and, they were not nearly so aggressive as has been reported.
Sorry I can't do better and, I wouldn't be surprised if you were skeptical but, I encourage you to look up an original source if you can find one to ease your mind a bit.
