British diplo: Actually, Iran might not have ceased its nuclear weapons work in 2003
posted at 7:42 pm on February 25, 2008 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
The NIE said they did, the Brits say they didn’t. Guess what: They’re going to get the bomb anyway because no one on our side has the nerve to stop them. Whether you think they tailed off five years ago or three years ago or not at all, you’re just playing with numbers.
Britain’s ambassador to the IAEA, Simon Smith, said the material presented to the board of governors on Monday contained information about possible weapons work beyond that date.
“Certainly some of the dates that we were talking about, or that the secretariat was presenting in there, went beyond 2003,” Smith said…
Diplomats attending the briefing said the material presented to the board of governors had infuriated Iranian ambassador Ali Asghar Soltanieh…
The board was presented with material “from multiple sources” suggesting “detailed work put into the designing of the warhead, studying how that warhead would perform, how it would be detonated and how it would be fitted to a Shahab-3 missile,” Smith said.
The material was “serious and substantial,” the ambassador continued.
And it underlined the IAEA secretariat’s concern that the deficit of confidence in Iran, rather than being reduced, “if anything, is getting deeper,” he said.
Coming soon: A third round of fang-less sanctions, followed by Iranian stooge Mohammed ElBaradei asking them pretty please to play nice and show their cards. Exit question: Assume for a moment that the left is right and Iran is a perfectly rational, Soviet-esque actor. If you’re Khamenei, what would you do — give up your nukes or broker a deal and try to build the bomb secretly?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Broker and keep it all a secret, like N. Korea.
In other words, lie to the stupid Westerners.
omnipotent on February 25, 2008 at 7:45 PM
its a good thing we will have president obama to appease them and throw money that we dont have at the problem. gee i feel safer already
SoCalInfidel on February 25, 2008 at 7:45 PM
Only capitalist pigs enrich uranium!
Aristotle on February 25, 2008 at 7:47 PM
Classic.
Vizzini on February 25, 2008 at 7:47 PM
RESPECT THE MESSIAH!!!1!
ScottMcC on February 25, 2008 at 7:47 PM
Silly rabbit Trix are for kids. Of course they’re going to do what they always do, broker a deal and then do it in serect. Remember lying to win is OK with Iran.
limowilliam on February 25, 2008 at 7:48 PM
RESPECT THE MESSIAH!!!1!
I will respect him as soon as he respects a budget and the security of our nation…until then im gonna run for office :)
SoCalInfidel on February 25, 2008 at 7:49 PM
oh shoot, McCain already has the RINO nominee all locked up, lol
SoCalInfidel on February 25, 2008 at 7:52 PM
Here’s the thing with Iran: If they even get close to (or do) produce one bomb, Israel will intervene (as in, bomb them back to Ancient Persia), if not most of the West (as in, the US bombing, and the EU and UN getting in the way). Super dangerous situation, but the West (again, probably us) would make an example out of Iran before they’d let them distribute 1.) the material or 2.) the knowledge associated with making a bomb.
Vizzini on February 25, 2008 at 7:52 PM
Stop worrying — Obama will fly into Tehran, genuflect in front of the mullahs and start the dialogue… what a fun 4 years it will be.
Republican on February 25, 2008 at 7:52 PM
SoCalInfidel on February 25, 2008 at 7:54 PM
The British are resembling the French more and more. Did anyone notice it started as soon as they connected the chunnel? Actually, with Sarkozy the French maybe the new British. I’m confused.
THE CHOSEN ONE on February 25, 2008 at 7:59 PM
Well, DUH! It has been completely obvious to anyone paying attention that they have NEVER stopped strying to build ‘the bomb’.
They just went a little deeper underground (literally and figuratively) for a few months when we (the US) seemed to be serious about making all the terrorist supporting nations ‘behave’.
LegendHasIt on February 25, 2008 at 8:03 PM
You’ve said this before. Is it nerve? Would Bush stop them if he had a supportive gov’t, media, allies, citizenry? It’s not one person only who needs the nerve. The society has to be interested enough in protecting itself. We’re sick and our politicians are who we put there. A horrible truth is that we don’t deserve to win if we won’t put up a fight. Let the better man win.
JiangxiDad on February 25, 2008 at 8:04 PM
So, I guess the left will argue that Bush must now be impeached for lying about Iran not building a nuclear weapon.
Then again, maybe not.
SteveMG on February 25, 2008 at 8:05 PM
I heard Hillary in a debate complain that Bush is doing nothing about Iran.
JiangxiDad on February 25, 2008 at 8:09 PM
They’ll continue this shameless diplomatic game right until the morning we all wake up to find that Iran has successfully tested a bomb. Then the same spineless group of bureaucrats will start a different game: how to ‘disarm’ Iran. See North Korean for details on how that’s working out.
The nuclear horse is leaving the barn and our brainiac State Dept mooks are still trying to reach consensus on important issues like how much hay we need and who folds the blankets. Sad. Our grandchildren will wonder how we let this happen.
Vote Sauron 08 on February 25, 2008 at 8:15 PM
Hey AP,
At this point, nuking Israel is a perfectly rational, Soviet-esque strategic move. Nobody will do anything about it, and Iran will continue along its merry way like nothing ever happened.
Riposte on February 25, 2008 at 8:19 PM
I can see his dilemma: Who’s worst the Infidels or the Shia?
mred on February 25, 2008 at 8:22 PM
Hmmm. 136,000 on their left. 32,000 on their right. I heard that the batallions supposedly coming home soon, have been extended. Hmmmmm Bush planning something big for this summer?
THE CHOSEN ONE on February 25, 2008 at 8:29 PM
I’D LIKE TO SEE A NONE-MUSLIM IN CHARGE OF THE DAMN IAEA.
reliapundit on February 25, 2008 at 8:31 PM
No way. He’s dumping it into the lap of the next President.
OTOH, if Israel takes action, we’ll want to block any Iranian counter strikes.
SteveMG on February 25, 2008 at 8:32 PM
If this is Cold War 2.0 and the Iranians want to dance, we should follow the playbook and encourage Israel to do some wet work. Maybe Clancy can start writing again and give the next two administrations some ideas. Some things never truly go out of style.
Cold Steel on February 25, 2008 at 8:40 PM
Well,Obama could meet in Iran to talk to Dinnerjacket,
and then strutt around like a Prime Minister Neville
Chamberlain did,paper in hand”Peace on our time”.
BUT,I perfer instead of the white piece of paper of peace,
that the answer is a little more robust,like the time the
Germans asked for the American officer to surrender in the
town in which they were surrounded.The American officer sent
his reply “NUTS”!
And somehow,that should be the message for Iran!
Will the World keep sitting on its hands,While Iran keeps
up with its “Death to Satan”–America, or “little Satan”
Israel and keeps on with their weapon program,from a
Country that embrasses,and celebrates SUICIDE,—NUTS!
canopfor on February 25, 2008 at 8:40 PM
SteveMG on February 25, 2008 at 8:32 PM
Mav can handle it.
THE CHOSEN ONE on February 25, 2008 at 8:45 PM
First of all Iran isn’t Iraq. Think of Colorado. You know the Rockies. Now put 4 times the population of Iraq in it.
We would need 5 times the number of troops you quoted and even that wouldn’t be enough to take the country.
As for Mav handling it….how? How do you stop Israel from going poof. Or doesn’t it matter if they hit Zion as long as we are not touched?
Limerick on February 25, 2008 at 8:55 PM
The Iranians are placing their faith in Barack Hussein Osamabama as the 12th Iman. They believe he will hop on a carpet and fly after he takes the oath.
Alden Pyle on February 25, 2008 at 8:59 PM
Well, I don’t know of anyone who says we should invade. Any serious person.
The idea, it seems to me, is to take out their nuclear weapons program. And we’ll need troops in the area to limit any countermoves. Not to go into the country.
Second, if the reports are correct, the vast majority of people don’t like their government and are pro-US.
Caveat being that was what he heard, to a lesser extent, about Iraq.
And complicating things even further is that despite the populace’s dislike for their government, a strike would probably fuel nationalistic sentiments against us.
Boy, you have to be nuts to want to be president. Impossible job.
SteveMG on February 25, 2008 at 9:07 PM
Limerick on February 25, 2008 at 8:55 PM
Take it easy Limrik. All that I’m saying is that IF Bush decides to take action, it would probably be advantageous to have them flanked. They may not want to go all the way to Tehran. They may just want to incapacitate their ability to strike targets within an x amount of range. That’s all. Deep breath.
THE CHOSEN ONE on February 25, 2008 at 9:10 PM
SteveMG on February 25, 2008 at 9:07 PM
Thank you common sense. Share some with Limey.
THE CHOSEN ONE on February 25, 2008 at 9:11 PM
Choice B.
Everything to gain, nothing to lose, nobody to stop you.
What do I win?
Good Lt on February 25, 2008 at 10:04 PM
The word DUHHHH comes to mind.
AlexB on February 25, 2008 at 10:13 PM
But he said they have no weapons.
I believe him - or something.
perroviejo on February 25, 2008 at 10:28 PM
And soon after that WWIV. IMO we are watching the beginnings.
Obama will be our Chamberlain.
rockdalian on February 25, 2008 at 10:32 PM
Pretty much. Hopefully in 5 years we’ll be better prepared to deal with them than we are right now. It probobly won’t matter than either, though.
BadgerHawk on February 25, 2008 at 11:13 PM
I would think that the extension of higher troop levels could mean that. Or maybe Al Sadr’s extension of his truce for only another 6 months will allow him to gather his strength until late summer when he plans to ratchet up violence in time for the US elections. Or maybe …
It’s just too easy to read into things when looking at events from a distance as we do. I do, however, take everything I read about our actions in the middle east with a grain of salt. I like to think the NIE report was an intentional ploy to allow the US to downplay a leading role in pushing a hard line against Iran–let Britian/France be the bad guys this time around. Then again, maybe our intelligence agencies are just dumb.
BryanS on February 25, 2008 at 11:17 PM
This is true. Iran was my main focus in school, and their civilian population is one of the most pro-western of any in the region. Pro-western obviously is a relative term. I haven’t kept up on Iranian news in the past year and a half, so things could be different now.
IMAO I think military action above and beyond specific strikes on military facilities and blocking fuel shipments into the country would have a negative impact. I wouldn’t mind some spook stuff that I’ll never hear about, though.
BadgerHawk on February 25, 2008 at 11:22 PM
The NIE report should be revised from: “Iran - Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities” to “Iran - How I learned To Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb”
Those of you who remember the movie Dr. Strangelove may appreciate the revised title of the NIE Report.
c3ichief on February 25, 2008 at 11:45 PM
I sometimes think this last IAEA was a big joke run by Bush. Make them come out saying theres no weapons, Dems salute them and say its the true, blah blah blah.
Wait a few months, issue another report saying theres something the Dems hate, watch them call it garbage, say IAEA is a tool of Bush, all lies.
Watch the Flip Flop dance happen.
Rbastid on February 26, 2008 at 12:56 AM
I’ve already bought my candle for the candlelight vigils we’ll have for whomever gets blown to bits. I didn’t buy matches, but it’s going to be okay, because I know that someone will share a tiny spark of fire with me. And that’s all it takes, just a little, tiny spark of love. Bombs can’t hurt us, not as long as we have our pious platitudes, man. Peace out.
Kralizec on February 26, 2008 at 2:08 AM
Kralizec on February 26, 2008 at 2:08 AM
uhh??? Are you on your way to a drum circle?
THE CHOSEN ONE on February 26, 2008 at 2:30 AM
And once they get the bomb, it’ll be GW’s fault because….. ” insert liberal rhetoric here “
tx2654 on February 26, 2008 at 4:43 AM
Normalize relations. Get bodies (spies) on the ground in Iran.
vegastracon on February 26, 2008 at 4:50 AM
F-16i…
…nothing else need be said.
scottm on February 26, 2008 at 6:43 AM
Naw! ya think??!! As Charlie Krauthammer says, they ceased the weaponization process but the more important enrichment process goes on at a furious pace: 3000 centrifuges a day. The weaponization program can be started and finished in a few months.
jimbo2008 on February 26, 2008 at 7:49 AM
I’m no expert on where Iran is as far as how “peaceful” their nuclear program is. I’ve noticed on the lefty blogs how they are calling the President a fear monger for saying it’s a dangerous situation. The only thing I have a problem with is if it’s really a peaceful program, why is it all set up 100 feet underground, possibly far enough down to foil “bunker buster” bombs? Am I mistaken in that the program is located that far underground, and as usual, can’t the lefties try to use some kind of logic and figure out what is hidden may not be a good thing? Just asking…
adamsmith on February 26, 2008 at 9:37 AM
we will see how “peaceful” Iran’s nuke program is when Tel Aviv goes up in a mushroom cloud.
jimbo2008 on February 26, 2008 at 11:55 AM
I’m trying to think who else looks like that mean little Iranian Muslim.. Any thoughts? Let’s see, Waxman, Schumer…. Naw… who else…?
Travis1 on February 26, 2008 at 2:42 PM