Why the Iranian menace must be stopped

By Lawrence Weinstein

The sands of the hourglass have almost completely emptied from the top into the bottom globe in what has become a futile attempt to quash the Iranian mullahs' dream of becoming the first nuclear theocracy. Make no mistake; Iran's drive for weapons of mass destruction is the real deal. Iran is not Iraq.

It was the summer of 2001 and Farid Solemani, a senior member of the National Council of Resistance in Iran (NCRI), had just received a secret tip that would send shivers down the spines of the leaders of the free world. Solemani was informed from a "very valuable source" within the Iranian regime, that Iran was hellbent on developing nuclear weapons. His secret source had exposed what had been disguised, as anti-erosion facilities in Arak and Nantanz, were the heart of Iran's covert nuclear weapons program. [1]

Solemani's secret information did not surprise David Albright, at the time a nuclear inspector for the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), an organization that is under the umbrella of the United Nations' (U.N.). Albright stated that "We knew back in 2000, 2001 that Iran had secret nuclear sites. And we were trying to find out where they were." Not only did Albright and the IAEA not know where the sites were but had no idea of the number and extent of complexity at these sites that Iran had hid from the world for almost twenty years. Upon discovery, IAEA Director General Mohammad El Baradei (who has since gone on to win the 2005 Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts at slowing the spread of nuclear weapons technology) told FOX News that he was surprised that Iran had been able to keep their nuclear aspirations secret from the IAEA for nearly two decades. [2]

What El Baradei and Albright found when they went to work trying to unravel this Iranian clandestine project was that satellite images confirmed Solemani's tip. "We could look at this right away and know this is a heavy water production plant just from the satellite imagery, "Albright said. At Arak, Albright was horrified to learn that Iran was building both a plant and a heavy water reactor. Albright quickly recognized that the heavy water plant was too small to produce much electricity and too large to be a research facility. What it was the right size for was to produce plutonium, a major component in nuclear bombs. [3]

Albright then began researching the Nantanz site. What Albright found at Nantanz was even more frightening than what he had learned about Arak. Albright learned that at Nantanz the Iranians had developed a massive gas centrifuge site, large enough to hold over 50, 000 gas centrifuges. Gas centrifuges are used to enrich natural uranium. Enriched natural uranium is used to fuel a nuclear reactor. Albright felt that the facility was so efficient that "Within a few days, they could make enough for a bomb." So how many nuclear bombs could 50,000 centrifuges make? Try 25-50. [4]

Solemani's group's research has resulted in the allegation that the Iranian military base at Parchin is yet another location where Iran is enriching uranium. The IAEA states that other Iranian nuclear sites include Isfahan, Sanghand and Ardeken. [5]

The IAEA revealed at the center of this nuclear nightmare project is the plant at Bushier. Bushier consists of a light water reactor in the process of being completed. The construction of Bushier was originally begun by a German corporation, but more recently taken over by the Russians. [6]

Multiple IAEA reports show that the since discovery of Iran's nuclear program it has behaved in a quite disingenuous manner. In June 2003 Iran claimed it had never experimented with converting uranium. Shortly thereafter Iran admitted it had lied. Also in June 2003 Iran claimed that its nuclear technology was indigenous. Again within a short time they admitted that the technology was from abroad. [7] In November 2003 Iran promised to suspend enrichment of uranium. In December 2003 Iran signed the Additional Protocol on Nuclear Safeguards. This allowed for more intrusive IAEA inspections. [8] However, Iran has since refused to allow many attempts at IAEA inspections. A 2003 comprehensive IAEA report says that Iran's nuclear program has been active for 18 years and involves both complex technologies to separate uranium and centrifuges for enriching plutonium. [9]

In February 2004 the IAEA announced it had discovered undeclared plans for an advanced Pak-2 uranium-enrichment facility. [10] This occurred after Iran had promised complete openness. In June 2004 the IAEA board voted to reprimand Iran for not providing the agency with more timely and comprehensive support. Of noted concern was said to be Iran's continued postponement of IAEA visits to locations related to Iran's P-2 centrifuge enrichment program. [11] In March 2005 Iran refused IAEA inspectors a visit to its nuclear facility at Parchin, stating that such a visit was not justified. This prevented the IAEA from further studies of Iran's centrifuge equipment and the source of nuclear contamination found during earlier visits. [12] In August 2005 Iran ended a short-term voluntary cessation of nuclear activities. At this point it resumed uranium conversion at a facility in Isfahan. The IAEA quickly passed a resolution asking Iran to halt their nuclear program but Iran refused. In September 2005, the IAEA found Iran in violation of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT), to which it is a signatory. [13]

Iran will have nuclear capability within a few years according to the IAEA. Other reports suggest that the Iranians are just months away. Michael Eisenstadt, a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and director of its Military and Security Studies Program recently wrote that if Iranian scientists are able to obtain fissile material from a country such as North Korea or Pakistan, weaponization could in fact occur within a few months. Without such material, he estimates that Iran will be a member of the nuclear club within a few years at most. According to a December 12, 2005 article entitled "Israel may attack Iran sooner rather than later" by Jim Kouri, a frequent on-air commentator, Israeli military officials are saying that Iran is believed to already have a nuclear weapons delivery system that is capable of targeting Israel.

So why should the prospects of a nuclear Iran scare the life out of the civilized world? After all the Iranians, claim that they are only developing their nuclear capacity to produce energy. Sirous Nasseri, a member of Iran's nuclear negotiation team told FOX News "It [nuclear program] is something that we have acquired through blood, sweat and tears." When asked if Iran was set on creating nuclear bombs, Nasseri replied, "...It is clear that we won't. You know that the agency (IAEA) has been scrutinizing everywhere, everything in Iran for the last two years. They have not found a single shred of evidence that there is any diversion (from) military purposes." Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad also has claimed that the nuclear capability Iran is pursuing is required for "peaceful nuclear technology for energy, medical and agricultural purposes and our scientific progress." This comment is farcical, as Iran is the world's fourth largest oil producer. [14] Iran also has the largest reserves of natural gas in the world. [15] In no way does Iran need to invest billions of dollars to develop nuclear energy to heat its residents.

As had been discussed earlier, Albright and his fellow IAEA inspectors have come to a conclusion in opposition to Ahmadinejad's allegations of a peaceful nuclear motive. In addition, Iran's actions contradict its allegations of a peaceful energy program. If Iran were only interested in developing energy for electrifying Iran, why would it have hid its program for so long? And why has Iran repeatedly lied about various components of its nuclear program since they were caught? Specifically, when the IAEA discovered that a heavy water reactor was being built, Iran accused the IAEA of fabricating the story. Only later when satellite photos backed up the IAEA claim, did Iran admit that it was building a reactor capable of producing plutonium. When IAEA inspectors discovered the gas centrifuges were Pakastani designs that had been given to Iran by Pakastani black market arms dealer, A.Q. Khan, Iran said that the IAEA was wrong and denied dealing with Khan. Only later did they backtrack and admit such a relationship existed and that the IAEA was correct. When the IAEA voiced suspicion that the Iranian city of Lavizan housed a nuclear facility, Iran bulldozed the place. At Parchin, the Iranians have consistently refused to allow unfettered access to IAEA inspectors. [16]

The on again off again negotiations between the European Union, the United States, China, Russia and IIran have gone nowhere. Recently Iran had promised to cease all nuclear fuel activities, but has not lived up to their promise. In addition, the IAEA's 35-nation board of governors in September found Iran in non-compliance with the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, a finding that could result in Iran being referred to the U.N. Security Council. Currently, Russia and China oppose such a move. Russia's refusal to consider bringing Iran in front of the Security Council is in despite of its recent verbal spat with Iran. This past month Russia made Iran a proposal to move its uranium enrichment facilities to Russia so as to be sure that Iran is not weaponizing its nuclear energy, but at the same time would allow for Iran to make nuclear energy. Iran initially turned around and denied ever receiving the offer from Russia. However, after Russian protests, Iran admitted that it did receive the offer but that it would not give up on its enrichment program on its own soil. [17]

With the sound presumption in place that Iran is using its nuclear energy program to develop nuclear weapons, is there a likelihood that Iran will bully the world and perhaps even launch a nuclear attack with those weapons? Absolutely! There is too great a possibility that Iran would in fact use its nuclear weapons arsenal to allow Iranian progress to come to fruition. In addition to its strident effort to keep its program clandestine, there are a myriad of other factors that support the chance that Iran would use its nuclear arsenal.

In recent years, Europe has done whatever it could to engage Iran. Between 2000-2005, Iranian-European Union trade nearly tripled. On June 17, 2002, European Union External Affairs Commissioner Chris Patten while attempting to pressure the European Union to complete a trade pact with Iran argued, "There is more to be said for trying to engage and to draw these societies into the international community than to cut them off." Less than a week later, Denmark's Police Surveillance Agency thwarted an Iranian attempt to assassinate several Iranian dissidents and journalists. [18] Of course, the stated goal of such diplomatic initiatives by the European Union was to foment democracy in Iran. They said that this would be accomplished through trade and high level contacts. Sadly, Iranian democracy is no more than a pipedream now than it was in the early days of the Islamic Revolution.

The lack of Iranian democracy means that if Iran decides to drop nuclear bomb on downtown Tel Aviv no one will vote out the Iranians who made that decision. All Iranian candidates for municipal to statewide office are chosen by the ruling Guardian Council. [19] The Guardian Council is a group of mulluhs. Thus, the fact that Iran's Guardian Council runs the country with no final input from its citizenry, a nuclear Iran is a distinct threat. According to Matthew Chance of CNN, when an official with Iran's Interior Ministry accused the Guardian Council of election fraud during Ahmadinejad's recent victory he was imprisoned. In the weeks following Ahmadinejad's election, the repressive nature of Iran has not changed. According to a July 25, 2005 Associated Press (AP) wire report, Iran's judiciary acknowledged widespread human rights violations in its prisons, including the use of torture. The AP report also said that police often made arrests without provocation. The U.S. State Department confirms the Associated Press report and also goes even further. According to the State Department Iran's legal system is filled with systematic abuses including summary executions, torture including rape, stoning, flogging, and arbitrary arrest. This type of behavior has been going on since the inception of the Iranian Revolution and more than likely during the time of the Shah. However, Iran has never had such a combination of fanatical Guardian Council and fanatical President. The other new component to the lack of foundation of law is the nuclear issue.

There is suspicion that Ahmadinejad's religious beliefs may make him more likely to do whatever he deems necessary to prepare for the coming of the Mahdi. The Mahdi was the last Imam descended from Ali, the founder of Shi'ism. Ahmadinejad has stated that to prepare for the Mahdi, who died in 941, Iranians "must be pure and devout." Upon taking the reigns of the Iranian presidency this past June, Ahmadinejad spent the equivalent of $21 Million U.S. dollars on expanding the Mahdi shrine and mosque. Also, according to the Philadelphia Inqurier, he has fired veteran diplomats, bank directors, and government ministers that he believed were too liberal, campaigned for an even more restrictive dress code for women and promised to Islamize Iranian universities. Ahmadinejad's latest move in his reinvigoration of the 1979 revolution and prepare for the return of the Mahdi was to ban all Western Music from Iranian state radio and TV stations. [20]

Ahmadinejad seems to have the conviction that preparation for the Mahdi is necessary. He seems to believe that abiding by the spirit of the Islamic Revolution is a way to hasten the Mahdi's return. If in the twisted mind of Ahmadinejad, the thought becomes that attacking the West or Israel with nuclear weapons killing non-believers would allow Iran to become more pure and thus hasten the return of the Mahdi, is there any doubt that Ahmadinejad would follow through? Shaul Bakhash, an Iranian scholar at the George Mason University, states that Ahmadinejad speaks, "from personal conviction." A frightening thought indeed.

Certainly, Ahmadinejad's recent actions that invoke the spirit of Iran's Islamic revolution should not come as a shock as it seems that he may have played large role in one of the revolution's early defining moments. There are ongoing investigations as to whether Ahmadinejad was among those Iranians who seized the American Embassy in Tehran in 1979. Although CNN, in an August 12, 2005 story, indicated that a recent CIA report determined that there is no evidence to support the allegation that Ahmadinejad was involved in the hostage taking, that same CNN report also indicates that CIA analysis continues. It does seem that the CIA may be playing a words game, as they are defining a "hostage-taker" as someone who was "involved in the planning, execution and conduct" of taking the people captive, not just a participant. At the same time, six former hostages told the Associated Press that they were certain that Ahmadinejad not only was one of the hostage takers but that he played a supervisory role. Even Ahmadinejad's official biography provides a link to the 1979-1981 hostage crisis. Specifically, it reveals that he was a member of the Office for Strengthening Unity, the organization that took over the American embassy in Tehran. Finally, in July 2005, Scott McClellan, White House Press Secretary admitted "We [The U.S.] know he [Ahmadinejad] was a leader of the student movement that organized the attack on the embassy and the taking of American hostages."

As if another reason was needed, there is still an additional powerful reason to feel threatened by the prospects of a nuclear Iran, its involvement in terrorism. Of noted importance is Iran's likely involvement in the 1996 bombing of the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, which killed American soldiers. The bipartisan 9/11 Commission Report makes it clear the Iranian Intelligence agency was responsible for planning the attack. The 9/11 Commission report also found the Iran lent support to many of the 9/11 attackers by sheltering them during the year leading up to the horrific attacks on this country. Evidence shows that 8 to 10 of the Saudi operatives traveled to or from Iran between October 2000 and February 2001. During this period of time, Iran would not stamp passports of Saudi travelers, thus making them less likely to arouse suspicion in their travels to America. The 9/11 report cites Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, the 9/11 mastermind and Ramzi Binalshibh, another key planner in the 9/11 attacks, as the sources for the Iranian transit information. In addition this report noted that there have been multiple meetings between al-Qaeda operatives and Iranian officials for the purpose of tactical training for operations to be carried out primarily against the United States and Israel. The 9/11 Commission report goes on to state that al-Qaeda terrorists have also participated in explosives training in Iran. The Agence France Presse in a July 15, 2004 article also linked Iran to al-Qaeda, alleging Iran may be hosting nearly 400 al-Qaeda members, many of them senior officials in Revolutionary Guard bases near the Caspian town of Chalus. Lastly, in the State Department's Patterns of Global Terrorism 2003 report, Iran is listed as "the most active state sponsor of terrorism in 2003." This report was made prior to the 9/11 Commission had even released its findings.

The most likely victim of an Iranian nuclear attack would be Israel. The anti-Israeli hostility being shouted by Iran President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has to be seen as a dire threat to Israel. Recently he gave a speech before a Tehran conference, in which he called for Israel to be "wiped off the map." Why some in the western world seemed shocked by such Iranian hostility is a mystery. On October 24, 2000, then Iranian President Mohammad Khatami, who was often referred to as a moderate by the Western media, was quoted in a televised address as declaring, "...If we abide by human laws, we should mobilize the whole Islamic world for a sharp confrontation with the Zionist regime...If we abide by the Koran, all of us should mobilize to kill." [21] In December 2000, Ali Khameni, the supreme Iranian Ayatollah and direct successor to Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, gleefully exclaimed, "Iran's stance has always been clear on this ugly phenomenon [Israel]. We have repeatedly said that this cancerous tumor of a state should be removed from the region." In yet another example of Iran's recent state-sanctioned hatred, on October 26, Ahmadinejad quoted Ayatollah Khomeini, the Islamic Republic's founder, in stating, "The regime occupying Jerusalem must be eliminated from the pages of history." Ahmadinejad's horrid recitation of a previous utterance by Khomenei was given at a conference entitled the "World Without Zionism." Banners at this conference called for Israel to be "wiped off the map." The banners were displayed in English. Indeed the Iranians were trying to send a message to the West that they should be taken seriously. [22] The vitriol that has been spewing from Iran for the past several years takes on a new meaning when coming from a nuclear Iran. These threats are all the more chilling when we look back at a predecessor to Ahmadinejad, Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani's December 2001 proclamation, "If a day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms Israel has in possession, the strategy of colonialism would face a stalemate because application of an atomic bomb would not leave anything in Israel but the same thing would just produce minor damages in the Muslim world." Ahmadinejad's hate-filled speech continues up to the present. In a December 14, 2005 speech, he called the Holocaust "a myth." [23] He did not just stop there, but also stated that "If someone were to deny the myth of the Jews' massacre, all Zionist mouthpieces and the governments subservient to the Zionists tear their larynxes out and scream against that person as much as they can." [24] In a poignant press release flowing Ahmadinejad's statement, the White House said these remarks showed why Iran must not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons. When his recent comments drew the ire of Western leaders, Ahmadinejad organized rallies where Iranians chanted "death to America and Death to Israel." This heated rhetoric from Ahmadinejad may be an indicator that Iran is ready to go forward with its plans to annihilate Israel. This seems to be the believed sentiment of Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman, Mark Regev. In an article published in the December 14, 2005 edition of the Philadelphia Inquirer, Regev is quoted as stating, "The real problem with the repeated statements of the Iranian President is that they correctly represent the mind-set of the Iranian leadership, and they accurately articulate the policies of that extremist regime."

At a time when Iran is under such intense scrutiny from world leaders frightened by the prospects of a nuclear Iran, why does Iran continue to thumb its nose at rest of the world? German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeir emphasized this point saying, "I cannot hide the fact that this [denial of the Holocaust] weighs on bilateral relations and on the chance for the negotiation process." [25] In a recent article by Thomas Omestad in U.S. News and World Report[26], another negative reaction to Ahmadinejad's Holocaust denial is revealed. Here, European Commission head Jose Manuel Barroso is quoted as stating Ahmadinejad's comments draw, "our attention to the real danger of that regime having an atomic bomb." But Ahmadinejad's response on top of the anti-Israeli and anti-Jewish rhetoric is to repeat his promise that Iran will not cease processing the materials that can produce nuclear weapons. Ahmadinejad and Iran likely are continuing down this bellicose road in part because of their religious zealotry and in part because they do not fear an attack from the West nor a successful one from Israel.

Iran has good reason to be so relaxed. Even when world intelligence indicated Iraq had or was developing weapons of mass destructions, most of the countries whose own intelligence concluded that Iraq presented a weapons of mass destruction threat, decided to sit on the sidelines while throwing accusations of warmongering at the USA and Britain. Any U.S. action against Iran would surely result in the same castigation by most of the world. In fact, British Foreign Minister Jack Straw has already assured the Iranian government that under no circumstances will Britain use force to stop Iranian nuclear ambitions. [27] When North Korea was on the verge of going nuclear, the world sat back and let it happen. Now with America's significant contingent of troops fighting insurgents in Iraq and suppressing the Taliban in Afghanistan amid calls by many U.S. residents for our troops to come home, there seems to be little chance of the U.S. invading Iran. Iran seems on a clear path to becoming armed with nuclear weapons.

Iran may be concerned with the prospects of an Israeli attack in response to its growing threat against Israel. Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, while recently being interviewed on the FOX News channel stated that "Israel and not only Israel cannot accept a nuclear Iran, we have the ability to deal with this and we're making all the necessary preparations to be ready for such a situation." Does that mean that Israel is preparing an attack plan? Yes, according to Israeli media reports. Reports state that the Israeli military has been ordered by Sharon to be prepared by March 2006 for possible air strikes on secret uranium enrichment sites in Iran. The Sunday Times of London claims that the order to prepare for a possible attack went through the Israeli defense ministry to the chief of staff. According to Jim Kouri, in his article, " Israel may attack Iran sooner rather than later" Israeli special forces command confirmed that "G" readiness, the highest stage, for an operation was announced last week. Could Israel launch a successful strike? Kouri reports that from a secret Israeli base located in northern Iraq, that the Israeli intelligence has located a number of Iranian enrichment sites, not known to the IAEA. Finally, Kouri writes that Israel would need to use its elite special forces group, Unit 262 (the equivalent of the Delta Forces or SEALS). They would also likely use their F-151 strategic 69 Squadron, which can punish Iran and return to Israel without the need to refuel.

Is this picture of an Israeli attack realistic? Iran's nuclear program is far different than Osirik, Iraq [the Israelis destroyed Iraq's nuclear reactor at Osirik in 1981]. Iran has spread its nuclear facilities throughout the country, with many buried deep in underground bunkers. In April 2005 the United States approved the sale of bunker buster bombs to Israel. However, even if Israel could successfully take out a few of Iran's nuclear facilities, Iran would likely still retain the capability of launching a fierce response to such an extent as to cripple the Jewish state. When building their nuclear facilities Iran made sure specs took into consideration the possibility of an Israeli attack. [28] That may mean that Israel would have to make repeated strikes and likely still not find all of Iran's nuclear sites. In addition, there should be no doubt that after Israel launched one attack wave, the entire world, including the U.N. with the exception of the United States and possibly Australia and Great Britain would condemn Israel. It is possible that even Israel's friends, the U.S., Britain and Australia would protest any further Israeli attack. Just look at history when world pressure stopped Israel's military from advancing in the wars of 1956, 1967, 1973 and 1982. The world also condemned Israel after it attacked the Osirik reactor. Thus, an Israeli attack would most likely only be able to partially hinder the Iranian nuclear program. Any Israeli attack plan are surely on hold now with the tragic news of Sharon's incapacity following a major stroke. (According to Foxnews.com, January 5, 2006, Ahmadinejad's response to the stroke suffered by Sharon has been to wish him death) If Amir Peretz, the current Israeli Labor party leader, is elected to succeed Sharon, it would seem that all plans for attacking Iran would be off the table, as Peretz is extremely liberal. It seems the only realistic way that Israel could eviscerate most or all of Iran's nuclear facilities without U.S. help would be a with a preemptive nuclear attack of their own. Perhaps feeling threatened or perhaps just spouting off as the Iranian government frequently does, Iran's top nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani was recently quoted as warning Israel and the United States of a "crushing" response, if they attacked Iran's nuclear facilities. [29]

Israel is not the only country who should fear an Iranian attack. It seems likely that a nuclear-powered Iran will have no qualms about distributing not only their technology, but also their weaponry. We have already seen the illicit disbursal of nuclear material and technology to Iran from the network of Pakistani scientist A.Q. Khan. In addition North Korea and research institutes and commercial companies in Russia and China have also "donated" their nuclear technology to Iran. [30] Iran is most likely to share its weaponry with its proxy army, Hezbollah. This terrorist group, whose power is based in South Lebanon, while being heavily funded by Iran and Syria, has long threatened to destroy Israel. They are also responsible for blowing up the U.S. Marine barracks in Lebanon, killing 241 U.S. Marines. In December 2003 when a devastating earthquake hit Bam, Iran, the world reacted with flights of humanitarian supplies. Iran used this as an opportunity to supposedly get humanitarian aid from Syria. Return flights to Damascus from Iran were filled with arms and military equipment for Hezbollah. [31] According to Ilan Berman, vice-president for policy of the American Foreign Policy Council in Washington D.C., Iran recently sent 12, 000 artillery pieces and short-range rockets to Hezbollah. A November 15, 2005 article in the Sunday Times of London stated that the Iranian foreign minister recently met with leaders from terrorist groups Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah in Damascus, Syria. Just seven days after that meeting Hezbollah began raining down its most recent barrage of rockets at Israel. It is certainly plausible that Iran could have Hezbollah do its dirty work by attacking Israel, Jordan or Iraq with a nuclear bomb and then deny accountability by noting that the attack did not come from Iranian soil.

Additionally, with our lax border policies, there would be little to prevent Iran from smuggling in a dirty bomb or nuclear warhead into the United States and then detonating it in the middle of some U.S. city.

Is anyone other than Israel even considering military action against Iran? It certainly will not be the U.N. Iran's bellicosity towards Israel is a direct violation of Articles 2.4 and 6 of the U.N. Charter which state: Article 2.4: "All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state..." Article 6: "A Member of the United Nations which has persistently violated the Principles contained in the present Charter may be expelled from he Organization by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council." No one on the Security Council seems bold enough for this move, so why should we be surprised that Iran continues to flout the U.N.'s and the world's fruitless efforts at stopping Iran's nuclear ambitions. Does anyone truly think that Iran takes seriously El-Baradei's warning that the world "is losing patience" with them? When it is impossible even to get a Security Council resolution through that would threaten force against Iran, Iran has nothing to fear from the U.N.

Iran has held steadfast in its refusal to give up its nuclear program. The U.N. is not acting with any real meaning. Neither are the European Union or N.A.T.O. Israel likely cannot succeed in carrying out an attack on its own. So who is left? As usual, we are. So what should Washington do to thwart Iranian aspirations? Attack Iran, pure and simple. Diplomacy will get us nowhere. There is no question that the United States has the military capability to put an end to Iran's nuclear ambitions. It may take a series of bombings that go on for days or weeks at a time in order to take out as many nuclear sites as possible, but it certainly could be accomplished with American military might. America has the most advanced military in the world. We could use our Air Force along with Israel's to deliver a series of sustained attacks that would likely have the end result of world condemnation but could send Iran's program into a long hiatus.

The time to act is now, as we see with the debacle that was end result of the Clinton and Bush administrations' efforts at negotiating with North Korea, it is much easier to deal with a nuclear aspirant rather than a nuclear power. Every day Iran gets closer to the point of no return. Once Iran has the "bomb" why would we doubt that Israel, Europe or even America would be safe? Silvan Shalom, the Israeli Foreign Minister recently was quoted as stating, "The Iranians are now developing missiles with much longer ranges than Israel." [32] These new missiles would have "a range of 3000 kilometers that will include the capitals of Europe within that range: Paris, Berlin, London, Rome, Madrid... It's a tyranny that should be stopped immediately." There is no way the any European country or Israel should feel safe with the prospects of being within striking distance of a nuclear-tipped Iranian missile. There is no way that America should feel safe with the prospect of a nuclear missile attack on one its ships in the Persian Gulf or with the prospect of a dirty bomb smuggled in over the Rio Grande.

It what has becomes one of George W. Bush's most recognized speeches, his 2002 State of the Union address, the President referred to Iran as one of the members of the "Axis of Evil." The President is now at a crossroads with reference to the Axis. We are dealing militarily with Iraq, a fellow member of the Axis. North Korea, the third member of the Axis triumvirate, still has its nuclear capability and continues to remain a world threat for nuclear proliferation and attack, as our negotiations with them failed. Which way will Iran go? Will it see its nuclear capability destroyed by us or will it go the way of North Korea and become a nuclear state and end up making the United States and the rest of the world rue the day when they allowed Iran to go nuclear?

The answer should be clear. Iran hid its program, for almost twenty years. Since its nuclear workings were discovered it has been disingenuous in its disclosures to the IAEA. Iran's Guardian Council and President consider us to be the devil. Iran's actions are clear proof that diplomacy will not work. Iran has attacked us in Lebanon and in Saudi Arabia. We must not wait until it attacks us in the Persian Gulf or in one of our own cities. We must act now and use our military prowess and end Iranian nuclear aspirations.

NOTES:

































© Lawrence Weinstein