Iranian President Mahmood Amadinejad has reason to be smug these days - In his eyes, he's just been vindicated.
The new The National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) report released on December 4th states that in 2003 the Iranian regime halted its nuclear weapons program. The New York Times and liberals in general have been having a field day with this, shouting from the proverbial rooftops about how Iran isn't a threat, seemingly to stave off any talk of a US-led invasion.
But what did the report really say?
For starters, the keyword to focus in on here is "halted", not "dismantled". In fact, the senior intelligence officals who gave the reporters their findings feel it is even possible that Iran's cessation of nuclear activity was part of a deceptive strategy, basing their beliefs on a continued policy of denial in other areas. They went on to say that there was a somewhat high likelihood that they were keeping open the option to resume operations at a later date.
As was the case with Saddam, there's no evidence that they destroyed one shred of nuclear weapons equipment. Unsurprisingly, the mullahs aren't exactly being forthcoming with the IAEA in regards to the inspection of their nuclear facilties.
One of the least-cited findings by the team was the increased agreement that Iran had in fact been running a covert nuclear weapons program, moreso than they felt in 2005 on the date of their last report. Just to remind our good readers, these reports are based on extensive evaluation of intelligence data. There's a much heftier stack of data on Iran now as opposed to two years ago because the US has taken a much closer look at Iran than they did in 2005.
Why? Well, let's look back at 2005 for a moment. Two things happened that year; one, Mahmood Amadinejad rose to power that year; and two, the US first became convinced that many of the terrorists in Iraq were coming from Iran.
But back to the present, let's not forget that Iran is still enriching uranium in their centrifuges to a high degree of purity. They state that their nuclear ambitions are for peaceful purposes only, yet some experts have raised alarm at the quality of the centrifuges they bought - units that could enrich weapons-grade uranium, not just the cheaper stuff needed to run a reactor.
Also not to forget are the remarks (and I use that term loosely) that Iranian President Mymood Ahmgonnajihad has made regarding Israel - among his reported assertions are:
- that Israel should be wiped off the map,
- that the Holocaust was a myth,
- that attempts to normalise relations with Israel were against their best interests,
- that Israel's withdrawal from the Gaza Strip was a trick,
- and that Israel should be relocated to Canada or Alaska so that they could have their own land.
That last one threw me, but it's clear this is a guy who just doesn't like Israel, or jews in general. That may sound like an understatment but it was intended for those of you still not paying attention, so let me summarize:
- The guy hates Israel. (no, really?)
- He has equipment good enough to build the bomb when it only has to be good enough to make a reactor.
- He won't let UN inspectors in to see what he's doing.
- The experts largely believe he still intends to build the bomb at a later date.
- Overwhelming evidence exists that he is responsible for sending terrorists into Iraq to incite unrest and cause the US to be delayed there longer.
Still think Iran isn't a threat?
4 comments:
And what do you think of Obadiah Shoher's arguments against the peace process ( samsonblinded.org/blog/we-need-a-respite-from-peace.htm )?
Well, his, "Peace process doesn’t lead to peace" comment seemed off the mark to me. He justified this by saying that concessions with Arabs don't lead to peace... I'd have to agree with that part, but any peace process that is based solely on concessions is doomed to fail anyway. If that's the sole peace process, then the 'peace process' needs to be adjusted when parts of it prove not to work. I'd say that part is proven pretty well.
He further states that, "The original arrangement for the Jewish state included Transjordan" but there's a big problem with Transjordan - it's full of Arabs. Any peace process that includes militant Palestinians living within Israel's borders is also doomed to fail.
He makes other statements in the vein of 'peace process isn't designed to bring security to Israel', and if that's the case then it furthers my assertion that Israel needs a new peace process.
One could easily argue that war is a kind of peace process. When one side wins and the other no longer has the ability to wage war, the resultant condition is peace.
Let's remember though, that my blog entry was about Iran (and the US, Britain, and Israel), not about Israel alone.
No disrespect, Alex, but what does the other blog have to do with Blither's post? I can almost see the correlation, but Blither was speaking in reference to the Iran issue and the misconception of what the report really says. I feel like I am parroting Blither, but simply put, the report has been portrayed in the media as an exoneration of Iran. Truth be told, the report stated that Iran halted nuclear weapons programs in 2003. This is the same as saying I stopped at a stop sign. Am I going to continue to drive? Most likely, and I can continue to drive. Much the same, Iran has only stopped, and still has the ability to "drive," if you catch my metaphor.
So what does this mean? In my opinion, the danger still exists. As far as we know, Iran can start their programs up today, if they feel like being belligerent. As Blither stated, "the keyword to focus in on here is "halted", not "dismantled"."
Liberals will be liberals, and they are only interested in their own agenda. Therefore, liberals will continue to be self-serving while they misinform the public. They would rather you think we are not in danger so they can sway your vote. The false sense of security they exude is infectious, and that is what they are counting on. I don’t want to go down the liberal/conservative line, but I do not have a choice. Liberals are driving the media, and they want to indoctrinate you with their version of the world. Better to wear a blindfold than see the train coming at you.
Blither, if I have misconstrued your point, I am sorry. My comments are also self serving. Your examination of the facts in this case are impeccable. I highly respect your opinion, and appreciate the effort you put into dissecting this issue. Your information is solid, and insightful. I can see that I will also be learning from you and the posts you bring to The Temperature Gauge.
Thank you
"Blither, if I have misconstrued your point, I am sorry."
------------------------------
No, I'd say you nailed it correctly. I have no doubts we're on the same page. :)
Post a Comment