Iran's Growing Nuclear Threat

For years, the Iranian government has been playing games with the world about its nuclear program, claiming that they were only interested in peaceful nuclear development. That lie is about to be disproved in the most terrible way possible -- by the emergence of Iran as a nuclear power.

For reference, ordinary natural uranium has an atomic weight of 238. Only .72 percent of naturally-occuring uranium consists of an unstable isotope with a weight of 235. Various complex methods can be used to separate the lighter uranium from the mix, but the most common is by gas centrifuge, of the sort that was found buried under a rosebush in Iraq. Highly-enriched uranium (HEU) contains more than 20 percent Uranium-235. Weapons-grade HEU consists of more than 90 percent pure U-235. A power-generating reactor can be fueled with lower grades of uranium; there is no need for HEU unless you want a sustained nuclear fission reaction -- in other words, a nuclear bomb.

After months of playing hide-and-seek with the International Atomic Energy Agency, Iran has taken a hard-line stance against any restrictions on its nuclear program. Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi said, "Iran has a high technical capability and has to be recognized by the international community as a member of the nuclear club. This is an irreversible path." The "nuclear club" consists of those countries that admit to having nuclear weapons -- the US, the UK, France, Russia, China, and most recently Pakistan and India. North Korea claims to have working nuclear weapons, but has not yet openly tested one, and Israel is suspected of having them. Libya was close to achieving nuclear capability, but Moammar Ghaddafi wisely gave up his ambitions in that direction after the US-led coalition removed Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq in March 2003. Though Iran claimed to have halted its uranium enrichment program, inspectors from the IAEA have repeatedly found traces of highly-enriched uranium at multiple sites in Iran.

Iran has been caught in lies regarding its nuclear weapons programs before, and has covered up very badly. When IAEA inspectors tried in May 2004 to visit suspicious sites they had seen only months earlier, they found that the sites themselves had vanished. The buildings that the inspectors believed contained working enrichment facilities were gone, and in their place were freshly-planted flowerbeds. The Iranians pretended that no buildings had ever been there, even when shown aerial and satellite photographs of the missing buildings. Now, they refuse to keep up even a weak pretense. What else could it mean but the imminence of their nuclear ambition being fulfilled?

A radical fundamentalist government which sponsors global terrorism gaining nuclear capability is a horror that cannot be allowed to happen. If terrorists are willing to blow themselves up in cars packed with explosives or strap on "bomb belts" in order to kill innocent civilians in restaurants and buses, why would they balk at using nuclear weapons in the same way? If they believe they will be rewarded in the afterlife for killing a few children on a schoolbus, what reward do they think they'll recieve for wiping an entire city off the map? It's no longer a matter of if, but when. If we allow Tehran to create nuclear weapons, how long will it be before we wake up to find that a nuclear bomb has destroyed a major city like Tel Aviv, Baghdad, Paris, New York, London or Washington DC? Every place on Earth that terrorists have struck, they would have attacked with nuclear weapons if it had been possible. Next time, it might be.

What can be done to stop this threat? If we think we have the time -- and that depends entirely on our intelligence services, which have not exactly had a good track record in the Middle East -- we can attempt to impose sanctions. Most of Iran's oil exports are shipped through the Straits of Hormuz, which can be blockaded with just a small percentage of America's naval force. With the bulk of its oil income halted, the Iranian economy would collapse, but not overnight. Will we have the determination to keep up the blockade long enough? Other oil-exporting nations would undoubtedly halt their exports to any participating nations, and gas and oil prices would rise higher than ever before. (One has to wonder whether this is why President Bush refuses to release oil from the nation's emergency reserve.) The only other option is to strike Iran's suspected nuclear facilities before they can enrich enough uranium to build a weapon, although knowing their locations depends on our intelligence services as well.

The only certainty either way is that the "mainstream" media, Democrats and Liberals would vilify President Bush even more than they already do, if that's even possible. One really has to wonder whose side they're on. Of course, they wouldn't be too kind to him if whole cities begin disappearing, either.

Too late. Their announcement means they already have at least one working device. Whether they have the means to deliver it is another question.

The solution is: Nuke 'em, Dano...before they get more, before they get the chance to threaten anyone with them, before they smuggle some to Al Quaeda, before they sneak some into Israel or the U.S...if it has not happened already.

--Boris

The key here is the intelligennce industry of the U.S.
I don't know if anyone else has noticed but the U.S. spends as much on Intelligence as the rest of the world combined and we obviously haven't been getting our moneys worth out
of our investment for a very long time.
I have since 1972 and worked at the pentagon thought the c.i.a. and f.b.i. screwed up as much or more then they have done right.
So just like during the buildup for the war against Iraq,
we are to trust the analysis of these two and other U.S. govt agencies?
The vast majority of folks i speak to all the time ridicule how pathetic any interaction with any govt agency is. I think this one too.
Don't get me wrong, I think Iran is trying to get nukes, I just wouldn't trust the c.i.a. nor f.b.i. if they said the sun raises in the east.

The only certainty either way is that the "mainstream" media, Democrats and Liberals would vilify President Bush even more than they already do, if that's even possible.

Imagine that. The Democrats prevent President Bush from launching a preemptive on Iranian Nuclear facilites just to try to get Kerry elected. What if this delay in taking on Iran is long enough for the Iranians to smuggle a working device to terrorists. Reagan always knew the right thing to do by using his instinct and convictions. The main question is will Bush potentially sacrifice his reelection to take on the Mullahs ? Will the Democrats/Progressives force the world to wait until a modern city is nuked by jihadists terrorist before we are allowed to get tough on the other jihadist supporting governments ?

Too late. Their announcement means they already have at least one working device.

I'm more inclined to think it's a bluff to buy time to bet able to secure that (at least) one working device. Israel probably keeps closer tabs on the nuclear goings-on in Iran than on just about anything else, and they're simply not going to allow the Mullahs to complete their task -- Israel's survival is at stake.

"A radical fundamentalist government which sponsors global terrorism gaining nuclear capability is a horror that cannot be allowed to happen"

He's got THAT right!

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.