February 28, 2013--Bomb, Bomb, Bomb . . . Us
Iran revealed recently that they purchased new-and-improved centrifuges that will allow them to more rapidly produce enriched uranium. They continue to contend for non-military purposes.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu hasn't said anything publicly about this . . . yet. But we know that these new centrifuges make it more likely that Iran will reach his so-called red line--a point in time when the Iranians will have enough potentially fissionable material to quickly produce an atomic weapon.
This is important because there seems to be an understanding between Netanyahu and President Obama that once that red line is broached it is very close to the time that the U.S. and and Israel will move to attack Iran's nuclear production facilities. Say, late this spring.
In the meantime, the U.S. and five other nations are attempting to get Iran one final time to the negotiating table this week in Kazakhstan to see if they can be convinced or threatened to curtail their nuclear program and to quit pretending that it is for peaceful purposes.
It may not be politically correct in liberal circles to say they seek to have atomic bombs, but let me say it here that that is their intention.
With all the oil they have they need nuclear power plants? If that were the case the U.S. and others in the West would help them build and fuel them. Even though Iran might not use nuclear weapons against israel and maybe to have an atomic bomb is just to boost national pride and to be paid more attention to--à la North Korea, which we would ignore if it weren't for the fact of their growing nuclear might--does anyone really want to take the chance that Iran would never deploy atomic weapons against their neighbors?
As a result of the U.S.-led boycott, the Iranian economy is in state of collapse and their currency, the rial, has lost much of its value. Rampant inflation is the result.
Under these circumstances one would think Iran, acting rationally like Libya previously, would renounce its nuclear program, look for face-saving deals, and get the boycott lifted so their economy could recover. One would think.
But thinking again, here's another scenario to consider--
The ayatollahs in charge actually want the US and Israel to attack and bomb their country.
Nothing unites a people more than when they feel external threat. Look at the grit and determination Brits showed during the Nazi bombings; look how we in America united behind a hitherto unpopular president after the 9/11 attack. There are many other examples.
If we bombed them all dissent would in an instant disappear. The country would be united as never before, and the ayatollahs would not have to worry about dissidents or others within their country who would like to return to the days when Iran was secular, at peace, and had good relations with most of the countries of the world, including the United Staes and those in Europe.
If true, this makes a very complicated situation even more troublesome.
My timetable for all of this to unfold--late spring.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu hasn't said anything publicly about this . . . yet. But we know that these new centrifuges make it more likely that Iran will reach his so-called red line--a point in time when the Iranians will have enough potentially fissionable material to quickly produce an atomic weapon.
This is important because there seems to be an understanding between Netanyahu and President Obama that once that red line is broached it is very close to the time that the U.S. and and Israel will move to attack Iran's nuclear production facilities. Say, late this spring.
In the meantime, the U.S. and five other nations are attempting to get Iran one final time to the negotiating table this week in Kazakhstan to see if they can be convinced or threatened to curtail their nuclear program and to quit pretending that it is for peaceful purposes.
It may not be politically correct in liberal circles to say they seek to have atomic bombs, but let me say it here that that is their intention.
With all the oil they have they need nuclear power plants? If that were the case the U.S. and others in the West would help them build and fuel them. Even though Iran might not use nuclear weapons against israel and maybe to have an atomic bomb is just to boost national pride and to be paid more attention to--à la North Korea, which we would ignore if it weren't for the fact of their growing nuclear might--does anyone really want to take the chance that Iran would never deploy atomic weapons against their neighbors?
As a result of the U.S.-led boycott, the Iranian economy is in state of collapse and their currency, the rial, has lost much of its value. Rampant inflation is the result.
Under these circumstances one would think Iran, acting rationally like Libya previously, would renounce its nuclear program, look for face-saving deals, and get the boycott lifted so their economy could recover. One would think.
But thinking again, here's another scenario to consider--
The ayatollahs in charge actually want the US and Israel to attack and bomb their country.
Nothing unites a people more than when they feel external threat. Look at the grit and determination Brits showed during the Nazi bombings; look how we in America united behind a hitherto unpopular president after the 9/11 attack. There are many other examples.
If we bombed them all dissent would in an instant disappear. The country would be united as never before, and the ayatollahs would not have to worry about dissidents or others within their country who would like to return to the days when Iran was secular, at peace, and had good relations with most of the countries of the world, including the United Staes and those in Europe.
If true, this makes a very complicated situation even more troublesome.
My timetable for all of this to unfold--late spring.
posted by Steven Zwerling at
5:21 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home