One Month to Act

Last week, Behzad Soltani — deputy head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization — announced that Iran will join the world nuclear club within a month. He further claimed that:

No country would even think about attacking Iran after Iran’s membership in the club.

Iran’s leaders continue to defy the international community’s demands to stop uranium enrichment activity, and are in fact enriching more aggressively than ever before. While heads of state around the globe debate even more sanctions against Iran — none of which have worked in the past — Iran’s clerics speed toward becoming one of the most dangerous regimes on the planet.

They continue to enrich uranium at the Natanz facility (which currently has enough enriched uranium stockpiled for one nuclear bomb), while producing new centrifuges that can enrich uranium six times faster. They are increasing yellowcake production at the Gchine uranium mine. The mine currently has a design capacity of 21 tons of yellowcake per year, about half as much as is needed to produce the 55 pounds of 93% enriched uranium for a nuclear bomb.

They have a nuclear fuel facility in Isfahan capable of producing 10 tons of nuclear fuel annually, and sufficient plutonium for two nuclear weapons a year.

The Arak heavy water plant — built in violation of the nonproliferation treaty — is near its completion, though the West assumed this would not happen until 2015. This facility will be capable of producing significant amounts of bomb-grade plutonium.

As will the Bushehr nuclear power plant, which is set to go live with the help of Russia this coming summer.

At the same time, the Revolutionary Guards are making significant progress with the country’s missile delivery system, concealing their efforts within the space project they have embarked upon with North Korea. The Shahab-3 missile is capable of carrying a nuclear warhead, and can currently target Tel Aviv, Riyadh, U.S. bases in Iraq, and the Fifth Fleet headquarters in Bahrain.

The Guards’ goal is to be able to deliver a nuclear-tipped missile anywhere in Europe.

Who is to blame for Iran’s growth into a nuclear power? Sadly, it is the West — whose politicians worked tirelessly for three decades to appease the mullahs. This had the effect of buying Iran the time it needed.

Our time is now running out, and it is essential that we acknowledge our failures and take immediate action to stop Iran from becoming a nuclear state.

We must understand that a nuclear-armed Iran will not only harm the Iranian people, but will create instability throughout the world. If the leaders of Iran can currently threaten to disrupt the flow of oil, launch missiles at all U.S. bases in the region, or wipe Israel off the map, they could take the whole world hostage with nuclear weapons.

An Iran with nuclear bombs will make the leaders of Iran untouchable and empower its allies and proxies such as Syria, Hezbollah (already rearmed with thousands of Iranian rockets for a possible war with Israel), Islamic Jihad, and Hamas. Instability will rule the Middle East and have a huge impact on the world economy.

Just recently, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates warned the White House about the lack of a plan to curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions. If this is truly the case, our situation is dire indeed. One can only hope that President Obama is working to lead the world in confronting this grave and growing danger. What we do today could save millions of lives and affect how our children live for decades.

If we fail to act, future generations will never forgive us.

UN learns of Iran's plans to build Nuclear Warhead

The AP is reporting today that the UN believes Iran is developing a nuclear warhead. Thank goodness, they've picked up on the news that has been common knowledge since two years before Bush left office. Here is the story:

The U.N. nuclear agency on Thursday said it was worriedIran may currently be working on making a nuclear warhead, suggesting for the first time that Tehran had either resumed such work or never stopped at the time U.S. intelligence thought it did.

The report by the International Atomic Energy Agency appeared to put the U.N. nuclear monitor on the side of Germany, France, Britain andIsrael. These nations and other U.S. allies have disputed the conclusions of a U.S. intelligence assessment published three years ago that said Tehran appeared to have suspended such work in 2003.

The U.S. assessment itself may be revised and is being looked at again by American intelligence agencies. While U.S. officials continue to say the 2007 conclusion was valid at the time, they have not ruled out the possibility that Tehran resumed such work some time after that.

Of course, now we have Obama in office, so nothing bad will happen to us. He's made us safer now than at any time in human history.

New Nuclear Facility Revealed In Iran

Here is the good news: Obama is going to DEMAND the UN inspect the newly revealed Iranian nuclear facilities.

The bad news? He will make this incredibly strongly worded demand within a matter of weeks.

Glad to see he's got the really important issues tackled in a timely manner.

On a positive note, the Washington Post is busy examining the feelings of Ahmadinijad, the man behind Iran's nuclear program. It's such a shame that he felt so "shocked" at seeing our anger at discovering that Iran was actually twice as far in the nuclear weapons ambitions as we had previously thought.

Israel: No Option Is Off the Table

Israel hardened its insistence Monday that it would do anything it felt necessary to stop Iran from getting a nuclear bomb, just the ultimatum the United States hoped not to hear as it tried to nudge Iran to the bargaining table.

U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates reassured Israel that the new Obama administration was not naive about Iran's intentions, and that Washington would press for new, tougher U.N. sanctions against the Iranians if they balk. (I'm sure this has Iran shaking in their turbans.)

Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak used a brief news conference with Gates to insist three times that Israel would not rule out any response — an implied warning that it would consider a pre-emptive strike to thwart Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.

"We clearly believe that no option should be removed from the table," Barak said. "This is our policy. We mean it. We recommend to others to take the same position, but we cannot dictate it to anyone."

The question of how to deal with Iran's rapid nuclear advancement has become a notable public difference between the new administrations in Jerusalem and Washington, despite overall close relations. Israel considers itself the prime target of any eventual Iranian bomb.

Iran says it is merely trying to develop nuclear reactors for domestic power generation. Israeli leaders fear the U.S. prizes its outreach to Iran over its historic ties to Israel and appears resigned to the idea that Iran will soon be able to build a nuclear weapon.

Obama says he has accepted no such thing.

Guess Who Might Be Left Out on the Fourth Of July

When the Iranian people started protesting in the streets against a stolen election, the Republican reaction was quite naturally to speak out in favor of the people who wanted freedom.

Obama on the other hand, said nothing; then gave a timid statement; then finally, at long last, after pretty much everyone else in the country had come forward, timidly said a few words on behalf of the protesters who were being murdered in the streets. When Obama was asked why he was changing his tune, he lied through his teeth and claimed there had been no change at all. What a hero. What a man's man.

Well, now it seems that Dear Leader is pulling out the big guns on the America Hating Regime that is slaughtering its own people in the streets (while he buys ice cream for his dog and yucks it up with Tony Hawk in the White House.)

"The Obama administration is seriously considering not extending invitations to Iranian diplomats for July 4 celebrations overseas, senior administration officials tell CNN. The officials said intense discussions on the issue were taking place, but the final decision has not been made."

What? You mean if they don't knock it off, Obama might not invite the Mullahs over for hot dogs? I never thought he'd go so far! Next thing you know, Obama may cancel their invitations to the White House Christmas party! Well, I guess all of us who thought that Obama is a wimp who cozies up to tyrants have egg all over our faces now, don't we?

"Brave Sir Obama ran away.

Bravely ran away, away!

When danger reared its ugly head,

He bravely turned his tail and fled.

Yes, brave Sir Obama turned about

And gallantly he chickened out.

Bravely taking to his feet

He beat a very brave retreat,

Bravest of the brave, Sir Obama!"

Why Jimmy Carter Loves Obama

The Obama/MainstreamMedia love affair isn't the only one going on in the White House today. There is a mutual love affair between Jimmy Carter and Obama.

This isn't hard to figure out. Both ran their campaigns on "Change". Both came from nowhere. Carter was a peanut farmer with limited experience as the governor of Georgia. Obama, a community organizer with a very limited experience in Congress. Neither had/has the experience or background to run the country. Jimmy Carter sat back as a young Ahmadinejad held Americans hostage in Iran. Obama is sitting back as the same man holds a whole nation hostage.

Carter inherited a bad economy. Nixon and Ford were neither one conservative and expanded government after Lyndon Johnson passed the most expansive government programs since FDR. Carter led the way into a period of deeper recessions, stagnation, inflation, high interest rates, home mortgage defaults, interest rate hikes increased oil prices. On the foreign front, he scaled back the military and looked weak at a time that the US needed to look strong.

Does any of that sound familiar?

At a time in our history when he was handed the keys to the country to turn things around, Jimmy Carter drove us into a ditch. It took Ronald Reagan most of his first term to get us out.

As Obama frequently point out, he inherited some problems. Like Carter, he seems intent on making them worse. Obama hammers George W. Bush on deficits and then proceeds to quadruple them. Obama hammers Bush on his Mid East policy at the very time in history that things appear to be affirming Bush's stance. Obama hammers Bush on the economy while the American people are rapidly losing confidence in his own ability to have a positive impact. 

Jimmy Carter's love for Obama is more than just the similarities they share. It's more than the fact that the share a party. It's more than the fact they both get good lovin' from Hugo Chavez. There's something else going on. 

The real reason Carter loves Obama is legacy. Barack Obama is promising to replace Jimmy Carter as The Worst President in the history of the United States. 

For that, Jimmy Carter will be eternally grateful to Mr. Obama.

I May Have Gotten This One Wrong

 A few days ago, I bogged agreement with Obama in his "hands off" approach to the Iran situation. As time goes on, it is beginning to look like both the Dear Leader and I were wrong on this approach.

The ruling regime has taken control of most (or all?) internet IP addresses and very little information is coming out of Iran compared to what we were getting last week. However, the bits of info that have leaked out indicate that Wednesday (yesterday) was the bloodiest day in Iran since the sham election results came out nearly two weeks ago. In fact, yesterday may well have been the bloodiest day in Iran's bloody history.

More and more it's beginning to appear that the average Joe in Iran (or should I say, the "average Mohammed"?) is wanting a regime change. Furthermore, it appears they are looking to us to help. In a nation whose primary language is Arabic, signs and interviews are appearing primarily in English. The obvious intended audience is not Middle Easterners, but rather Washington.

Bush was right.

Over the last few days, a lot of lefties have tried to connect the Obama Cairo speech to the goings on in Iran. That doesn't hold water. It is far more likely that Iranians are looking to their right and left and seeing a free Iraq and a free Afghanistan and wanting the same kind of freedom in their country. Yes, President Bush; Yes VP Cheney; you were both right. You can export Western style democracy and make vast improvements in the Middle East.

Now it's Iran's turn, but nobody is coming to their aid.

I'd Like to do More, but....

"Change is realizing that meeting today's threats requires not just our firepower, but the power of our diplomacy - tough, direct diplomacy where the president of the United States isn't afraid to let any petty dictator know where America stands and what we stand for. We must once again have the courage and conviction to lead the free world. That is the legacy of Roosevelt, and Truman, and Kennedy. That's what the American people want. That's what change is."

-- Barack Obama, on the night he secured the nomination for the Presidency, 2008.

Sometimes He Gets It Right...

I have made a point of complimenting Obama whenever he does something that I think is a good decision.

In this case, I think his "holding back" policy on Iran may be the right thing to do. He is taking heat for it. The Republicans want more rhetoric, and in some cases more action. 

However, Ahmadinejihad is already pointing fingers at U.S. for interference causing unrest in the country. The rest of the world sees that he is just blowing. However, if we would actually try to cause unrest in Iran, it would not sit well with the rest of the Middle East, and very likely could backfire.

Of course, there is a risk that the populace could overthrow the government and then look at Obama as the guy who sat on the sidelines and didn't lift a finger to help.  I guess that's a risk we'll have to take at this point.

Quote of the Day

"We are seeing in Washington that the multiculturalism impulse - one does not use Western paradigms to judge others - is far stronger than the supposedly classical liberal idea that human freedom is a universal concept that trumps culture. In other words, multicultural foreign policy is a sophisticated and politically correct version of the old, far more intellectually honest realist notion that we let the bastards do what they want to their own people, and then deal with the thug that emerges in the real world of mutual self-interest."

-- Pajamasmedia.com today's article "Voting Present On Iran"

Violence In Iran: Can You Export Democracy?

The Huffington Post, among other Leftwing-Loon websites is pointing to Iran today, and saying that this is evidence that Western-style democracy cannot be exported to other regions. Their logic? Iran has a constitution and has elections every four years. An election was held, and now chaos is the result. Their solution, obviously, is that they'd like to see a totalitarian (socialist) state in every country. 

I'm looking at the situation in Iran (which seems to be deteriorating), and I see just the opposite. 

There is a story that during the 1960's the Soviets were trying to quell unrest among workers. They took news footage of violence that was taking place during a strike in which workers were making demands and were met with (in some instances) police brutality. The newsreels were shown to the Soviet workers by government officials with the hopes that these workers would see that under the US capitalist system, the government oppresses its workers. The propaganda backfired. The workers began watching the news footage and they all began to shout "They have shoes! They have shoes!"  It didn't seem to matter that they were being "oppressed" by the government, because they viewed that as "normal." It happened to them, too. What they saw was a difference in lifestyle; specifically decent shoes for their feet.

This is what is causing unrest in places like Iran and other areas in the Middle East. There are estremists idealists like Ahmadinejihad and Osama Bin Laden who are trying to convince the populace of the Middle East that America is the Evil Empire because we are not muslim. While this resonates to a certain degree, what the average Joe (or the "Average Mohammed", as the case may be) sees is a big difference in lifestyle. And these places are becoming increasingly aware of the differences as satellite TV, internet and other media sources become more available.

The people in Iran would never have protested like this 20 years ago, even though they had the same constitution and the same every-four-years election process. They accepted that their government was oppressive, that they couldn't change it, and that they only had one choice of a candidate to vote for (at least when an incumbent regime was controlling things.) 

They aren't accepting those givens any more. Whether or not the Huffington Post and other Leftwing Loons want to admit it, the Iranians are DEMANDING western style democracy.

And if we had a different leader in this country leading the charge, they'd probably get it.

Iranian Elections (update)

Well, if you haven't been following the Iranian elections, you are missing some wonderful entertainment.

It seems that Iranian officials did indeed offer up a sham of an election. If they didn't, arresting the opposition didn't make their side look very bright. Attempting to quell the information about the whole ordeal by cutting electricity to major cities doesn't bode well, either (unless they are making the case for an urgent need to accelerate their nuclear program to provide more power.)

Ahmadinejihad's answers to questions are a major source of entertainment:

Q:  Can you ensure the safety of your challenger?

A: I love all the Iranian people and if they disobey the law when coming out of a sporting event at a stadium, they will be arrested, but I love them all even though I have to arrest them.

Hope and Change in Iran.

Actually, now that I think about it, his logic is very much like our leader's.

I wonder if he, too, uses a teleprompter.

Iranian Elections

It may be several days (or even weeks) before we know the actual results of the elections in Iran, but both Mir-Hossein Mousavi and current President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are claiming victory.

There is a higher than expected turnout for the elections. Analysts are suggesting that most likely this is an indication of a desire for a regime change in Iran. Apparently the people of Iran are unhappy with the current administration's isolationist language and actions. Iran is also suffering from a poor economy.

Mousavi has been critical of Ahmadinejihad (my pet name for the idiot) for making military threats toward Israel, the United States and neighboring nations. 

What's interesting about this election is that no sitting president has ever been removed by a popular vote anywhere in the Middle East (not just Iran). The defeat of Ahmadinejihad would be a political earthquake in the region. 

Rock the Vote

"Elections are the foundation of democracy. If not for our political beliefs, we must vote to show our desire to rule our own land. Our desire to choose our own leaders must be illustrated through our active participation and not through silence. 

Every four years we have the constitutional right to vote. Many believe that such a system is futile. They believe that candidates do not represent their views, or that their vote is not significant enough to count.

Your vote does matter. It can bring about change, and yes, you do have a choice. You have the choice to use your right to vote that has been given to you by the constitution, to push the country towards the right path or to decline this right and have the consequences of your inaction affect your country and your life directly for the next four years. 

There are less than 20 days left to election day. I urge you, as one of your countrymen who seeks a bright and free future to read about the candidates, increase your knowledge of the stands and their economic and political agendas. I beg you with all that I have to go to the polls on Election Day and cast your vote. I beg you this because it is important to me. I believe our actions will write our country's path in history, and our actions will bring a better future for years to come. 

Is one day every four years too much to ask to put aside for your country?"

The above was taken from a website urging Iranians, and particularly Iranians who are living outside of the country, to vote. Some of the specific language was changed in order to make the plea more "generic", i.e. less specific to Iran, but none of the thoughts were altered.