The NYT’s just published report on Iran indicates the mullah’s are further along in their nuclear ambitions than many of his thought, not that we questioned the ambitions themselves. They appear to be on th edge of “breakout capability.”
The inspectors have tested the output and concluded that Iran is producing reactor-grade uranium, enriched to a little less than 5 percent purity. But that still worries American officials and experts here at the I.A.E.A. If Iran stores the uranium and later runs it through its centrifuges for another four or five months, it can raise the enrichment level to 90 percent – the level needed for a nuclear weapon.
In the arcane terminology of nuclear proliferation, that is known as a “breakout capability,” the ability to throw inspectors out of the country and then produce weapons-grade fuel, as North Korea did in 2003.
Okay, now what? Is it bombombbombbombiran, in the melodic cadence of John McCain and Brian Wilson? Or do we negotiate with those “honest brokers,” the mullahs? If you prefer the latter, I would suggest educating yourself on your adversaries. A good place to start is the Wikipedia citation for chief Iranian nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani. Then ask yourself what such a person’s goals might be in any discussion and to what degree he would be willing to lie to achieve them? Indeed, you might consider this.
Apropos, one of points the NYT makes to reassure us – although they do not do that as much as usual in this article; how could they? -is that, close though they may be to nuclear weapons, the Iranians may not yet have the technology to reduce them to the size necessary to fit in a missile warhead. Of course the folks at the newspaper don’t have to tell us that there are other means. And it should be obvious this is only a short run problem in the first place.
PJM Home
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
12 Comments
1. rosignol:…the Iranians may not yet have the technology to reduce them to the size necessary to fit in a missile warhead.
Hardly a significant issue, considering their proxies’ preference for IEDs and Vehicle-based IEDs…
What percentage of the shipping containers coming into this country even get opened by US Customs?
May 15, 2007 - 6:01 am 2. doc99:The missile warhead problem would doubtless be addressed by collaborating with their partner in crime, Lil Kim.
May 15, 2007 - 6:21 am 3. Lem:I can’t believe we can’t find someone to sabotage that thing and at least buy some time until the next president arrives.
It’s obvious the Iranians are in a mad dash to get this done before our elections. Remember how they felt they had to free the hostages within hours of Reagan’s inauguration. I don’t think they want to backtrack like that again. They know we don’t have the momentum to generate the critical mass necessary for an attack on their facilities, the momentum a new president would presumably have.
Unless the new French…. hey, you never know… that’s why people play the lottery.
May 15, 2007 - 6:23 am 4. Roy Lofquist:Dear Mr. Simon,
If Pakistan falls to Islamists we are in very deep doo-doo. They have over 100 deliverable nuclear devices in their arsenal. Iran is a mere trifle.
Regards,
May 15, 2007 - 6:23 am 5. Buddy Larsen:Roy
Re the mullah bomb, I guess Israel will get the dirty work.
May 15, 2007 - 6:33 am 6. ricpic:Israeli to do list:
1) Sack Olmert
2) Hire Netanyahu
3) Launch!
May 15, 2007 - 8:17 am 7. Hermie:It was the NYT and other MSM outlets that ooo pooed the idea that Iran could have any working nuclear program. Why the UN was watching them, and it would be 10 years before they had the capability of a nuke.
Flash forward a couple of years…The UN can’t confirm anything, but the possibility of a nuclear Iran is again, poo pooed by the MSM and those who ‘know better’. heck, they are probably 5 years away. Besides the UN is working with the Iranians to prevent them from developing a nuclear bomb and to devote their program to ‘peaceful’ purposes.
Move forward again…The Iranians boast of their program and that nobody will stop them. The MSM and those ’smart’ enough to be ‘nuanced’, poo poo the notion that the Iranians are close to a bomb. Besides, the UN is keeping watch on them.
All this time, the MSM put on the blinders because any admission that the Iranians are dangerous and likely are on the brink of possessing a nuke, would mean that the Bush Administration and the reviled ‘neocons’ were right.
In the NYT eyes..better to stick your heads in the sand, rather than admit your political foe has a valid point.
May 15, 2007 - 10:13 am 8. Lem:You know that VP trip the other day, w/ Iraq as cover, the real purpose may have been to personally put our allies on notice that we are going to get medieval on Iran.
Exit Blair.
May 15, 2007 - 10:47 am 9. Buddy Larsen:Not only that, Lem, but Condi is meeting eye-to-eye with the mullahs.
May 15, 2007 - 12:06 pm 10. Buddy Larsen:…and the Russians. Meanwhile, Nigeria catches fire and 170,000 bpd go off-line.
May 15, 2007 - 12:08 pm 11. Barry Meislin:Regarding the truth, it seems evident that in certain cultures, the truth is valued so very highly that it is rarely, if ever used; that such cultures cannot conceive of anyone telling the truth (since expending a commodity as valuable as truth is simply inconceivable); and that telling the truth (i.e., wasting it) causes those who value it so highly to scorn those who use it so freely.
May 17, 2007 - 12:12 am 12. Buddy Larsen:Astute insight, and well-put. Reminds me of that (Natan Sharansky?) notion of “fear society” vs “trust society”.
May 17, 2007 - 9:09 am