Obama's Nuclear Permissiveness with Iran Will Lead to a Mid East Nuclear Arms Race -- Where Is the CND When We Need Them? - Carla Bruni's Honor? Nyet

UPDATING 9-5&7&17-2010 below

Time to get back to the Iran Bomb issue while the ayatollahs' regime is racing towards developing their bomb. The respected Italian paper, Il Foglio warns that economic sanctions against Iran are a rather hollow weapon, a weak reed to rely on when trying to stop the ayatollahs from getting The Bomb. We explain why below.

Lee Smith has an important article on how Obama's indulgent policy toward the Iranian bomb will produce a nuclear arms race in the Mid East, since the Arabs are more afraid of Iran using the bomb or threatening with the bomb than they are of Israel. Likewise, Arab states fear each other. As one state --for instance, Saudi Arabia-- gets the Bomb, other Arab states will want to catch up, both out of fear of Iran and of each other. What happened to the old Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament [CND]? [see a second Il Foglio piece on matters related to the Iranian Bomb here]

So the major Western powers led by the United States of Obama are indulging the ayatollahs, allowing them to obtain the Bomb, although pretending otherwise. The US and UK speak of international law while allowing the ayatollahs to violate the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty which Iran signed.

In the latest opportunity to stand up to the awful ayatollahs, the US and the rest of the West have failed in a humiliating and cynical way, humiliating for Western women, cynical and dangerous as their Iran policy usually is. Several Iranian official and semi-official outlets, have smeared French First Lady, Carla Bruni, as a whore. As Fiamma Nirenstein points out, at one time insults like that to the wife of a head of state would have been seen as a declaration of war. Iran's mouthpieces claimed that because Bruni was a whore, it was only natural for her and for French actress Isabelle Adjani --also called a whore-- to sign a petition asking Iran not to execute by stoning a woman called Sakineh. She was first accused of adultery, then, after much international criticism [including from Iran's would be ally, Brazil], another charge was added, that of collaborating in her husband's murder. Against Carla Bruni, the Iranians also falsely charged that she had broken up Sarkozy's previous marriage. Thereby, they imply that Bruni too is an adulterer. Therefore, she too deserves stoning. Fiamma Nirenstein calls this "a sexual fatwa." Bruni too deserves stoning which means a death sentence. Yet the Western reaction to this verbal attack has been very quiet. Bear in mind that Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa on the life of Salman Rushdie. Rushdie is still alive but lives under constant guard. However, several translators of his book, The Satanic Verses, into several languages have in fact been murdered. Such as the translator into Japanese, Hitoshi Igarashi, although we would ordinarily think of Japan as being far away from Middle Eastern and European fanatics. And Western press commentators do not comment on the implications of smearing Carla Bruni. The US chief delegate to the UN, Susan Rice, did not try to stop Iran from being elected to the UN Commission on the Status of Women. She's protected. Unlike Sakineh.

Of course, the Iranian Bomb program is more dangerous, while the Iran-Bruni-Sakineh affair is insidious. The Il Foglio article points out the fallacy of thinking that the sanctions regime will force Iran to halt its nuclear program. I am not going to translate all of it but it has a lot of detail and might be worthwhile to do so for someone, maybe on google. China, India, Turkey and even South Korea are already trying to make up for Iran the goods that it can't get from Euro states. Turkey is already on board with its neo-Ottoman policy in which turning toward Muslim militancy is a central part. Turkey is offering its ports of Mersin and Trabzon [once Trebizond] as hubs for Iranian trade. Turkey has also voted with Iran at the UN security council and appointed a supporter of Iran against Israel as head of its secret services.

Obviously, some Euro or Western products may be unavailable elsewhere. But much of Iran's imports from Western powers, not all of them enthusiastic about the sanctions anyhow, can be made up by other suppliers. Hence, without universal application, the sanctions are a weak tool. American efforts at persuasion are apparently not being taken too seriously. Other means than sanctions have to be taken to stop the Iranian bomb project. While the Western govts, led by the USA and UK, take a soft stance on the Iranian Bomb, the Western "Left", whatever that means anymore, often takes the stance that Iran deserves the Bomb or that it doesn't matter or that it is paranoid to warn of the Iranian Bomb program. Fifty years ago however, the "Left" worldwide was much exercised by the threat of nuclear bombs. This was especially so in Japan, victim of the actual use of the Bomb, and Britain where the CND, the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, was riding high. Yet, giving another proof that the "Left" is not a body with consistent principles, it no longer worries about the Bomb. Such worries, as said above, are now considered paranoid or "racist" against Islam by the "Left."

Bear in mind that Iran represents a threat not only to Israel but to other Middle Eastern states and to Europe. Even if the Bomb is not used, the threat will be everpresent. Meanwhile, the insidious danger to freedom in the West and elsewhere goes on and will be facilitated by Iran's possession of The Bomb. Rushdie was only the first victim of the attack on freedom outside Iran in supposedly free Europe. But not the last. And the soft policy toward the Iranian Bomb is frightening Arab states into going for their own bombs. Zbig and jimmy carter created a worldwide threat when they helped Khomeini take over Iran in early 1979.

- - - - - - - - - - - - -
UPDATING 9-5-2010 The Saudi paper al-Madina writes [15 August 2010] that "the military option" might be "the best solution" for the Iranian nuclear bomb crisis. The Saudi paper points out:

"What is of concern is [the fact] that the Bushehr reactor is closer to several Gulf capitals than to the Iranian capital itself, as well as the fact that it is very near the crucial oil routes which pass through the Arabian Gulf – placing the neighboring countries in great danger, both in the event of an attack and in the event of radioactive leakage. Moreover, [the Bushehr reactor] may become the site where Tehran will develop its nuclear weapons, which it may use to impose demands or exert pressure on the region. This is a suspicion that Iran has not managed to refute to date." . . . . . .

"In taking this action, Tehran is ignoring all the advice, warnings, and requests to halt its nuclear program, or at the very least to try to continue it under clear and open international inspection that would guarantee that it does not have a military facet. If [Tehran] insists upon going ahead [with the program] without the agreement of the international community, it will bring embarrassment and suspicion upon every [country] that supported [Iran's] right to peaceful nuclear energy.so

"More importantly, by means of this action, Tehran is moving its conflict with the international community into high gear, and [in this case] some may consider the military option to be the best solution. [Delaying recourse to this option] may lead to a point where it is impossible to implement it – if Tehran manages to produce a nuclear bomb of its own." [see here]

Those who believe that the Iranian Bomb is only an Israeli concern ought to take note. This article in this Saudi newspaper supports part of what Lee Smith says. See above.

- - - - - - - - - -

UPDATING 9-7-2010 South Korea is said to be about to impose some sanctions on Iran. This is an encouraging sign, since we noted above --according to Il Foglio-- that South Korea was among the emerging industrial powers that were trying to make up for Iran the supplies in goods that it would no longer get from Western powers if the sanctions regime were properly applied by the Western states. The brief report below is from Guysen News of 9-7-2010. Unfortunately the report does not detail which sanctions are to be imposed, but for the suspension of commercial activity by an Iranian bank operating in South Korea's capital, Seoul. Without details, we can't know how meaningful the Korean sanctions will be.

La Corée du Sud compte annoncer dès mercredi ses sanctions contre l'Iran à cause de son projet nucléaire, ont rapporté mardi les médias locaux. Ces sanctions comprendront probablement la suspension commerciale pour deux mois de l'agence d'une banque iranienne à Séoul. [Guysen 9-7-2010]

Jonathan Tobin is skeptical about the efficacity of the sanctions as well as about the international commitment to stop the Iranian Bomb project [here] UPDATING 9-17-2010 Jonathan Tobin strikes again at Obama's fatuity. What will Obambi do now that Turkey has openly declared its intention to "triple" trade with Iran in the next five years? What about Erdogan's acceptance of $25 million from Iran for his own Islamist party, the AKP? [here]

Does Anybody Care If Iran Gets the Bomb???

UPDATING 11-3-2009 at bottom

Politicians have been talking about the Iranian bomb for years. As I recall, Yits'haq Rabin was warning about it before he died in 1995. Yet the mad Mullahs of Teheran keep on advancing towards possession of a Bomb. The International Atomic Energy Agency [IAEA] kvetches and frets and wrings its hands and complains either that it can't do anything or that everything is OK and not to worry. The UN Security Council passed a few resolutions. It even set some deadlines. But most of the deadlines were violated by Teheran, while the UN Security Council and other high officials, like the Iran contact group or whatever it's called, then set new deadlines, giving the mullahs another chance. So does anybody important really care about Iran having the Bomb?

La Repubblica wrote up the IAEA meeting from March 2006 when the IAEA finally submitted the Iran case to the Security Council. La Repubblica points out some background: The first clashes between the Agency and Iran took place in 2003 when the IAEA reported an Iranian program for enriching uranium going back 18 years which Teheran had apparently hidden until then. If so, then the warnings by Israeli leaders over an Iranian bomb on the way were not given attention or not taken seriously.

At this point, I should mention that Iran is a signatory to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty [NPT]. Hence, its development of the Bomb is a violation of a treaty, whereas other states that are believed to have a bomb [Israel] or have recently unveiled their bomb [India, Pakistan] were not signatories to the NPT treaty. Again, it is curious that Israel was warning of an Iranian bomb since Rabin's time and was apparently ignored or not taken seriously. Further, while the USA harshly criticized Teheran's nuclear policy, the Europeans wanted to mediate. The Europeans, such as Germany and Britain, have extensive trade with Iran but no one would suspect them of molding their policy to fit their trading interests and profits. After all, Iran also claims to be developing long range rockets that could reach Europe as well as Israel. Would the EU states endanger their populations for the sake of short term profits from trade with Iran in strategic goods, materials and equipment? Of course, we wouldn't expect the EU to care at all about the welfare of the Jews in Israel.

Iran, to be sure, claims that it intends to use nuclear power for "civilian" not military purposes. At the same time, Iran's fuhrer, Ahmadinejad, threatens to destroy Israel. Which promise or threat are we to believe??

At the March 2006 meeting of the IAEA board of governors, Gregory Schulte, the US delegate,

listed what he considers the overwhelming proofs about the real intentions of the Islamic Republic. Schulte argued in his speech that, "Iran announced to the Agency that it intends to install this year the first 3,000 P-1 centrifuges at the Natanz generating center. It has accumulated a stock of 85 tons of UF6 (Uranium hexafluoride), that once enriched can produce material for about 10 nuclear bombs. . . Everything," he thundered, "makes us clearly understand that Iran is determined to acquire a large-scale enrichment capacity. In January the Agency came into possession of a 15-page document in which the procedures were indicated for transforming enriched uranium into hemispheres of uranium metal. And the IAEA inspectors had no doubts as to the fact that this information served specifically to produce nuclear bombs. This is not even to mention the project on Green Salt, the test on explosions, the plans to obtain a long-range missile capable of transporting nuclear warheads. The Iranians swear that they want to use nuclear power for peaceful and research purposes only. We want to believe them. But why do they then insist on making efforts to elaborate the system of centrifuges? This is the basis for developing uranium enrichment and arriving at building atomic bombs."
[Daniele Mastrogiacomo, La Repubblica 9 March 2006]

This all sounds very ominous. But did even the US government really care? What has it done to demonstrate its concern?

While the American delegate had emphasized that the Iranian endeavors could easily be directed toward building the Bomb, the Iranian delegate, Ali Asghar Sotaniyyah, claimed that the report of Agency head Barada'i was:

too technical and too political.

Then he went on to say:

The nuclear events should have been treated simply as a technical question.

As if the possibility of bellicose jihad worshippers' getting the Bomb could ever be considered a simple "technical question"!!!

Sotaniyyah went on that

All the annoying political information [supplied by the US delegate] has deceived the international community. [That is, only the Americans were deceiving the world, not the Iranians]

It's not clear to me why Sotaniyyah cared to complain that the Americans had "deceived" the international community. Supposing that the American delegate was believed, how much did the world care about the possibility of an Iranian Bomb?

Meanwhile, US delegate Schulte also implored the board of governers of the IAEA:

The time has come that IAEA reacquire its power and that the Security Council give it proper instruments. [Daniele Mastrogiacomo, La Repubblica, 9 March 2006]

Here Schulte wanted the Security Council to authorize special IAEA inspections in Iran.
The board of governors of the IAEA agreed to finally send the Iran case to the Security Council. This decision led to threats from Teheran made by Javad Vaidi, the chief Iranian negotiator:

The USA has the means to cause damage and pain, but they are also susceptible to feeling suffering and pain. If they choose this route, then they take the responsibility on themselves.

Teheran also threatened revenge by means of oil. However, the Iranians

alternated threats with new calming statements. Iran conjured up fire and flames, but then said that they were ready to restart negotiations with the IAEA inspectors. [Mastrogiacomo, La Repubblica, 9 III 2006]

Note the Iranian tactic. First, they make horrendous threats. Then, they say something conciliatory. Meanwhile, the Europeans asked Iran to suspend all enrichment activity, in accord with Agency directives. Barada'i looked unhappy. Then the Iranians

announced that they were ready to return to the negotiating table. But on one condition that they consider "irreversible": that they continue, even on a reduced scale, the activity of nuclear research and development. [Mastrogiacomo]

Even as they set aside their threats and agree to negotiate, they are chiseling away at previous commitments, both to the NPT and to the IAEA. What has the "international community" done since March 2006 to show that it is truly bothered by an Iranian bomb?

postscript: Dear No`am Chomsky and other supposed "ultraleftists" and assorted friends of humanity have turned up in Iran to express support and/or understanding for Nazi Ahmadinejad.

UPDATING: Iranian fuehrer, President

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, said Tuesday Tuesday [June 5, 2007] that it was "too late" to stop Iran's nuclear program and warned the US and its allies not to push for new UN sanctions on Iran, which he compared to a lion sitting quietly in a corner.
"We advise them not to play with the lion's tail." . . . prompting applause from a room of reporters, Iranian officials and foreign dignitaries at a Teheran news conference.
"It is too late to stop the progress of Iran. . . Iran has passed the point where they wanted Iran to stop.". . .
Addressing the West Ahmadinajad said that a third round of sanctions will only "make things harder for you and distance you from resolving the issue. . . We advise them to give up stubbornness and childish games.". . .
The country's nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, said this week that Iran's disputes over its nuclear program could be settled in the coming weeks if the UN Security Council drops preparations to debate the third round of sanctions.
[Michael Weissenstein, Associated Press, printed in Jerusalem Post, 6 June 2007]

Note the bullying tactics used by the Iranian leaders. At the same time, they hold out the promise of resolution or settlement of the issue if only the Iranian leaders are obeyed.
- - - - - - - - - - -
UPDATING 11-3-2009 Bret Stephens of the Wall Street Journal surveys the history of Western pretending by "diplomacy" to get Iran to stop its nuclear bomb project from 2003 to 11/2009 [here]
- - - - - - -
Coming: More on Jim Baker and US policy towards Israel, more on Jews in Jerusalem and Hebron, peace follies, propaganda, and more.