Time: Iran's Nuclear Threat

[theapportioner]

So, why are we about to hit Iraq when the other two members of the "Axis of Evil" are much further along on their nuclear programs? Rhetorical question.

----

Iran's Nuclear Threat
In another worrying development for the Bush administration, Iran moves closer to operation of a facility to enrich uranium
By MASSIMO CALABRESI



With war in Iraq looming and North Korea defiantly pursuing its own nuclear program, the last thing President Bush needs is another nuclear crisis. But that is what he may soon face in Iran. On a visit last month to Tehran, International Atomic Energy Agency director Mohamed ElBaradei announced he had discovered that Iran was constructing a facility to enrich uranium — a key component of advanced nuclear weapons — near Natanz. But diplomatic sources tell TIME the plant is much further along than previously revealed. The sources say work on the plant is "extremely advanced" and involves "hundreds" of gas centrifuges ready to produce enriched uranium and "the parts for a thousand others ready to be assembled."

Iran announced last week that it intends to activate a uranium conversion facility near Isfahan (under IAEA safeguards), a step that produces the uranium hexafluoride gas used in the enrichment process. Sources tell Time the IAEA has concluded that Iran actually introduced uranium hexafluoride gas into some centrifuges at an undisclosed location to test their ability to work. That would be a blatant violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, to which Iran is a signatory.

The IAEA declined to comment. A senior State department official said he believed El Baradei was trying to resolve the issue behind the scenes before going public. But experts say the new discoveries are very serious and should be handled in public. "If Iran were found to have an operating centrifuge, it would be a direct violation [of the non-proliferation treaty] and is something that would need immediately to be referred to the United Nations Security Council for action," says Jon Wolfstahl of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Iran insists that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes and told elBaradei that Tehran intends to bring all of its programs under IAEA safeguards. U.S. officials have said repeatedly they believe Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons.

The new discoveries could destabilize a region already dangerously on edge in anticipation of war in Iraq. Israel — which destroyed an Iraqi nuclear plant in Osirak in a 1981 raid — is deeply alarmed by the developments. "It's a huge concern," says one Israeli official. "Iran is a regime that denies Israel's right to exist in any borders and is a principal sponsor of Hezbollah. If that regime were able to achieve a nuclear potential it would be extremely dangerous." Israel will not take the "Osirak option" off the table, the official says, but "would prefer that this issue be solved in other ways."

The revelations come at a particularly bad time for Washington, which is locked in a battle to gain U.N. approval for an attack on Iraq and to build consensus among its allies for a multilateral approach to the crisis in North Korea. Critics of the Administration say Bush's hard public line against the so-called "Axis of Evil," combined with the threatened war with Iraq, have acted as a spur to both Iran and North Korea to accelerate their nuclear programs. "If those countries didn't have much incentive or motivation before, they certainly did after the Axis of Evil statement," says one western diplomat familiar with the Iranian and North Korean programs. The Administration counters that both programs have been underway for many years.

[FS]

"They will be dealt with in due time."

[Ronnie Raygun]

Keep saying that.

The left has been digging themselves a big hole that I sure they'll attempt to climb out of when it comes time to confront Iran and North Korea.

I love the fact that we'll have all the libs on record saying that war with North Korea should be on the agenda.

[theapportioner]

Would you say that Pakistan, with its known supply of nuclear weapons, or North Korea, which has restarted its reactor and is believed to possess a nuke, or Iran, with a reactor near completion, is a -greater- threat than Iraq? I'll repeat M. de Villepin's question, "Why Iraq, why now?"

Get a clue. Stop being the Republican lap dog and start thinking for yourself. This war isn't about the potential threat that these countries pose. Otherwise Iran, N. Korea, and even Pakistan would have to be taken out before Iraq. This point seems obvious to me.

[Ronnie Raygun]

It's a shame your timeline is flip floped.

Maybe you don't remember but what really happened is that this situation with Iraq was already well underway before North Korea even had nukes. We didn't even finf out about North Korea until shortly after Congress gave Bush a second authorization to attack Iraq. ...... .all that aside, diplomacy has not been given a chance like it was with Iraq. In time North Korea will face the same fate if they fail to comply.

Who else?

Iran......same as Iraq. We are going to have 10's of thousands of troups right at their boarder for the next few years. They will also comply.

Pakistan......an ally. ... .and pretty stupid of you to even mention it.

[FS]

How about dropping or even just postponing this war on Iraq while dealing the actual immediate threats? Sure, North Korea didn't start going coocoo till Iraq became the next target in the War on Terrorism, but where does it say the less important war must be finished before the more important one is fought?

Jesus, it's obvious the business in Iraq is what's CAUSING North Korea to go nuts - starting a war there now will only serve to increase North Korea's aggressive attitude. In fact, it might just cause the North Korean leader to snap and start a war with America.

You know. A "pre-emptive strike"?

This is fucking stupid. It's like putting your ear to the wall of a room where you hear the sounds of someone assembling a rifle, while someone else is poking you in the back with one.

[Ronnie Raygun]

A preemptive strike would only destroy the North Korean regime and he knows it.

It's all talk....for now. By the years end the will be dealt with.

Give diplomacy a chance.

[FS]

Hahahahahaha!

[Glorfindel]

I am definetly against the Iraq-war, as well as George W. Bush.

And I always get surprised that the americans know so little about it...

[Anonymous]

Tell us what you know of the situation, Glorfindel. We only desire your background knowledge before making the call. What do you know that we don't?

[mburbank]

"I love the fact that we'll have all the libs on record saying that war with North Korea should be on the agenda."

I'm sorry, I won't speak for anyone else, but I don't believe I ever said I favored War with North Korea. I think that's a bad way to work things out. Worse, it's naughty. I think big boys like W and Saddam and Kim should use their words and not their military.

But you know most of the 'libs' here favor active diplomatic engagement in both cases, and you are not misunderstanding, you are lieing, liar.

I just favor spending the massive effort of real diplomatic engagement on threats. Why don't you go on record as a big bully and just admit that the reason we'd rather kill Iraqis is precisely BECAUSE we know they can't retaliate. We intend to make an example of the weakest of the pack, and we think it will frighten the others. It will. Our mistake is inb thinking their fear will take the form of obedience instead of what most cornered animals do, viciously attack.

"It's all talk....for now. By the years end the will be dealt with. "
-Naldo.

Hmmm. For the sake of fun, let me respond with HNIC's words;

"Tell us what you know of the situation,... We only desire your background knowledge before making the call. What do you know that we don't?"
-Pantydude

"Give diplomacy a chance."
-Naldo.

I couldn't agree more... assuming you mean something different by the word than W. When he says diplomacy he's really just giving that chimpanzee grin and saying "Y'all know we gots ourselves a timetable. Y'all wanna jaw while we load up, you go on ahead and jaw. I'll even make my li'l buddy Colin use up summa his frequent flyer miles while we're killin' time, afore I starts a killin' you." You can tell the world it's raining luke warm yellow rain, but I think they know better.

[Glorfindel]

Originally Posted by HNICPantitude

Tell us what you know of the situation, Glorfindel. We only desire your background knowledge before making the call. What do you know that we don't?

Do you ever air documentaries in USA showing reasons why you should _not_ fight Iraq? Because many innocent people will die for example?

I know that there are americans which, just like me, think that George W. Bush is a maniac, but it seems like the most americans are on his side, even though more people wanted to see Al Gore as president...

And please don't missunderstand me, I'm not saying that all americans are idiots... just thoose on "Jay Leno"

[FS]

That's a somewhat outdated perspective, Glorfindel. I think if you look into it properly, you'll find that America is just as divided over a war in Iraq as the rest of the world.

[Ronnie Raygun]

So people in sweden need a documentary to come to the undersatnding that innocent people die in wars.

In America, that's called common sense.

[Anonymous]

Incorrect FS. There is an overwhelming support for the war, although a split on timing issues. There is also, and I dont give a shit what anyone is going to whine about in regards to my next statement (save your time and dont bother) - there is an EXTREME liberal bias in our media outlets - thats why I happily watch FOX News (fair and balanced ). CNN failed to report on ANY of the rallies FOR the troops. Last weekend alone, Glenn Beck, an AM talk radio host, had over 45,000 people attend pro-troop rallies around the country. Where was the coverage? ... and CNN wonders where the ratings went. They covered the 400 - yes, count them - 400 people opposing the war in DC.

I'm not saying there isn't a split, but it doesn't exactly weigh evenly.

[FS]

That's it, Pants. Keep screaming the bogeyman doesn't exist and eventually he'll crawl back into the closet.

[Glorfindel]

I said that innocent people dying only was _one_ example...

So acording to you, Ronnie, George W. Bush doesn't have what you call "common sense". Great, then we agree with each other

I think it's time for the american government to stop acting like Big Brother for the rest of the world.

[Anonymous]

Glorfindel,

When did President Bush claim "no innocent people will die?"

I believe the United States maintains that no innocent people will be targeted. The common sense aspect comes into play at the point where one must admit that there will be civilian casualties that occur, and the best we can do at that point is try to minimize them.

[mburbank]

Pantydude... That was supposed to be humerous irony, right? About Fox News being 'fair and balanced'? Because it would honestly take a baboon in an iron lung to think that.

[Anonymous]

Incorrect Burbank.

Mine was not an attempt at irony. I was merely quoting FOX News' slogan.