Video: ElBaradei says Iran could make a bomb in six months to a year

posted at 1:29 pm on June 22, 2008 by Allahpundit

Here you go, in case you were wondering why Ehud Olmert’s taking meetings these days with the guy who planned the Osirak raid. Note the assumption here. So long as IAEA inspectors are on the case, he says, we’re guaranteed at least 6-12 months of lead time on an Iranian bomb — which is true if you believe the IAEA knows the whereabouts of all of Iran’s nuclear facilities and what’s going on inside each of them. I’ve seen lefties make the point, not unreasonably, that a bombing run not only would lead to war but would very likely fail to achieve its goal since we’re simply not sure how extensive Iran’s program is. You can destroy Natanz, sure, but what if there’s a secret military version of Natanz we don’t know about? Answer: If there’s a secret military version of Natanz, then the situation is much more dire than this messianic stooge, who long ago publicly subordinated his mission of reporting honestly the facts about Iran’s program to his own pacifist agenda, would have us believe.

Two other points worth noting. “It will be a different story,” he admits, if, in a year or two, Iran’s program is still intact; flag that now, because I guarantee you he’ll still be downplaying the threat when, not if, the program is still intact a year or two from now. And second, it’s always been my understanding that the 6-12 month timeframe applies only if one assumes that Iran has figured out how to make its centrifuges work perfectly, i.e. in a coordinated cascade running 24/7. That’s the major technological hurdle that they supposedly haven’t mastered yet. Are we to understand from ElBaradei here that they have mastered it, and that the only thing keeping them from going full blast on production is their own momentary lack of will? Click the image to watch.

iran-elbaradei.jpg

Breaking on Hot Air

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

I have this dream that, at some point in the future, the Caliphate will erect a statue to ElBaradei near the radioactive remains of Chicago.

Mew

acat on June 22, 2008 at 1:34 PM

So, what happens if one day we wake up and Iran has a bomb? I think I need to know the realistic repercussions of that before I can determine how far we need to go to prevent it.

It didnt seem to matter with NKorea or Pakistan for that matter (or India). I wonder what Israel would do.

Dash on June 22, 2008 at 1:36 PM

Dash on June 22, 2008 at 1:36 PM

——–

Dash,

North Koreas’ god is Lil’ Kim, and he’s smart enough to know if he really attacks, he’s meat.

Pakistan and India both seem to want to dominate the other, and are trying to interact on the world stage, so can be pressured.

Irans’ current president wants to usher in the Twelfth Imam. From what I’ve read, this is like the Islamic Ragnarok. That is, Iran doesn’t necessarily *want* peace.

Mew

acat on June 22, 2008 at 1:39 PM

Something tells me, though, that the Israelis probably have leads on the “secret” facilities. Remember what happened when Israel bombed the installation in Syria? Syria quietly shut the f*ck up.

War exercises with over 100 fighter planes? That’s indicative of more than 1 target.

Remember what John Bolton said.

Dr.Cwac.Cwac on June 22, 2008 at 1:43 PM

Not too mention the covert Iranian PLUTONIUM track which my country maintains is full bore and ongoing, the program which was left out of the NIE heard around the world..

Israel has already struck a portion of the Iranian nuclear program, in Syria. I hit on this months ago and savvy allahpundit linked through, via the germans we are now starting to see confirmation more openly.

Report: North Korea developed nukes for Iran at bombed Syrian facility – Haaretz

saus on June 22, 2008 at 1:48 PM

Are we to understand from ElBaradei here that they have mastered it, and that the only thing keeping them from going full blast on production is their own momentary lack of will?

That’s the only conclusion it seems to me that one can make if the transcript is correct.

He explicitly said that if Iran kicks out the IAEA inspectors, that within 6-12 months they would have a weapon. Nothing about perfecting the cascading of the centrifuges, et cetera.

Again:

Interviewer: Excuse me, I would like to clarify this for our viewers. If Iran decides today to expel the IAEA from the country, it will need six months…

Muhammad Al-Baradei: Or one year, at least…

Interviewer:… to produce [nuclear] weapons?

Muhammad Al-Baradei: It would need this period to produce a weapon, and to obtain highly-enriched uranium in sufficient quantities for a single nuclear weapon.

[...]

Transcript

SteveMG on June 22, 2008 at 2:00 PM

Wait…I’m confused.

Is ElBaradei’s job to help countries get the bomb or is it to stop them from getting the bomb?

He has been providing cover and apologizing for Iran for years now.
He clearly wants them to have the bomb.
Who had the bright idea of letting an Egyptian oversee nuclear proliferation?
He certainly has done a bang up job with Pakistan and India and North Korea.
Why do we tolerate the United Nations?
The only thing they seem to be up to lately is to help terrorists come to power.

NeoKong on June 22, 2008 at 2:12 PM

His talking points are the Bizarro version of why we don’t open more drilling operations in the U.S.

1. Bombing might SLOW the development of the Iranian bomb but not stop it. (And that’s a bad thing?)

2. Drilling will take a few years to do any good. (And that’s a bad thing?)

‘Over the cliff, you lemmings. You know it is your only hope’

Limerick on June 22, 2008 at 2:15 PM

I’ve got an idea for the United Nations. Fill up the IAEA with Japanese nuclear scientists. You might get a fresh perspective on the consequences of inaction.

Limerick on June 22, 2008 at 2:18 PM

Although I’m sure this ass clown would have no problem with Iran launching any military strikes.

tomk59 on June 22, 2008 at 2:26 PM

If Iran gets the bomb, so will the Saudis, and other middle east states, in order to counter Iran.

Riposte on June 22, 2008 at 2:28 PM

Look at it this way, if the Israeli’s bomb the Iranian factories (and the eggheads in there) – “doing the job American’s won’t do”, poor ol’ ElBaradei will be out of a job.

GarandFan on June 22, 2008 at 2:34 PM

“In my view, a military strike would be the worst thing possible.”

Yeah, from YOUR point of view, it would be.

… his mission of reporting honestly the facts about Iran’s program to his own pacifist agenda …

His ‘pacifist’ agenda? That’s what he *wants* you to think. For all we know, he’s a closet jihadi, workin’ this diplomatic end of the jihad for the caliphate.

Tony737 on June 22, 2008 at 2:39 PM

Don’t worry, all these questions about their centrifuge capabilities and secret bases will be answered in about 18 months when the Iranians conduct a successful underground test in the Iranian wasteland. You’ll just wake up one morning to the news, the seismograph measurements, the estimated kiloton yield, and the official denials right before the weather and sports.

Then the Lightworker will fly into action. (Yeah, right.)

Vote Sauron 08 on June 22, 2008 at 2:42 PM

There was an article on FR a couple of days ago, wherein El Baradei threatened to quit his job if Iran were threatened with military action.

The general consensus was, that makes it a ‘twofer’, and getting rid of Mohamed ElBaradei would be a good incentive for

LegendHasIt on June 22, 2008 at 2:53 PM

Crud, what happened. I didn’t click submit…
anyway the rest of that sentence was supposed to be:
…..those ‘sitting on the fence’ to decide that acting against Iran’s nuclear weapons program would be a good thing.

LegendHasIt on June 22, 2008 at 2:55 PM

Then the Lightworker will fly into action. (Yeah, right.)

Vote Sauron 08 on June 22, 2008 at 2:42 PM

What’s wrong with talking to our enemeies?

JustTruth101 on June 22, 2008 at 2:56 PM

Hmmmmmmmmmm…

Sarkozy in Isreal. To speak to the Knesset tomorrow.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7468352.stm

Limerick on June 22, 2008 at 3:13 PM

Frankly i don’t care what Israel does, just don’t get us involved with a war with Iran.

muyoso on June 22, 2008 at 3:18 PM

Why is ElBaradei even making comments about the ramifications of a strike against Iran ? I thought he was a techie type guy doing a techie type job, researching and monitoring Iranian nuke activity. I am not sure I understand why he is speaking about anything but the state of Iranian nukes.

JonRoss on June 22, 2008 at 3:20 PM

muyoso on June 22, 2008 at 3:18 PM

I don’t recall Israel getting us in a war with Iran back in 1979. And yes, we have been at war with Iran since 1979.

Limerick on June 22, 2008 at 3:23 PM

Frankly i don’t care what Israel does, just don’t get us involved with a war with Iran.

muyoso on June 22, 2008 at 3:18 PM

It is the U.N. that is forcing Israel to confront Iran. It is the U.N. that would be responsible for getting the U.S. involved in a war with Iran. Israel has been far more patient than can be reasonably expected.

JonRoss on June 22, 2008 at 3:26 PM

I don’t recall Israel getting us in a war with Iran back in 1979. And yes, we have been at war with Iran since 1979.

Limerick on June 22, 2008 at 3:23 PM

Yeap.

There would be some yelping around the world if Israel took out the Iranian nukes but that would be the extent of it. No fire storm like Mohamed ElB is hoping for. Name one country in the Middle East that would not be glad to see the dinner jacket taken down a notch.

JonRoss on June 22, 2008 at 3:31 PM

“In my view, a military strike would be the worst thing possible.”

Wrong. It may or may not be the best thing possible, but it is not the worst thing possible. Half-measures would be the worst thing possible.

Men ought either to be indulged or utterly destroyed, for if you merely offend them they take vengeance, but if you injure them greatly they are unable to retaliate, so that any injury done to a man ought to be such that vengeance cannot be feared.
- Niccolo Machiavelli

MB4 on June 22, 2008 at 3:38 PM

just don’t get us involved with a war with Iran.

Somebody needs to tell Iran that we’re not involved in a war with them (even if it’s mostly cold).

SteveMG on June 22, 2008 at 3:41 PM

Exclusive: Israel’s air maneuver did not simulate possible Iran strike strategy

June 21, 2008, 3:20 PM (GMT+02:00)

DEBKAfile’s Western military sources do not believe that if Israel does attack Iran’s nuclear facilities, it will resort to the old-fashioned aerial blitz tactic employed in 1981 for bombing Iraq’s Osirak reactor. They therefore challenge the US officials’ conclusion that Israel’s aerial exercise in conjunction with the Greek Air Force over Crete in early June was in fact a rehearsal for Iran.

What was demonstrated was the Israeli Air Force’s capability for deploying a large aerial force of more than 100 warplanes and helicopters for long-distance operations. The distance from Israel to Crete was indeed roughly equal to the distance to Iran’s uranium enrichment plant at Natanz.

Israel has already displayed its ability to strike a nuclear site by the attack on the Syrian-North Korean plutonium reactor in northern Syria on September 6, 2007.

But these military sources argue it would be sheer recklessness for Israel to send so large a part of its air fleet for a repeat of the Israeli attack on Iraq without first demolishing Iran’s air defenses.

In the attack on Syria, Israel was able to disarm by electronic means the Russian-made air defense batteries guarding its reactor. The same systems protect Iran’s nuclear sites. It must be assumed, however, that Iran and the Russian manufacturers learned a lesson or two from the way Israel silenced the batteries in Syria, although Israel too will have added new gadgetry.

Those Western military sources also deduced from the Israeli aerial exercise eastern Mediterranean that its war planners must have taken stock of the punishing fallout a war operation against Iran would trigger.

Therefore, rather than consigning a large air fleet to Iranians skies, Israel’s war planners are likely to first use large numbers of missiles to demolish Iran’s nuclear facilities and air defense batteries. Some may be delivered by air from a distance outside the range of Iranian fighter craft (most of which are outdated and in bad shape), others from Dolphin submarines.

The Air Force would go into action at a later stage.

They calculate that the moment Iran is attacked, not only will it retaliate, but all hell will break loose on Israeli borders. Iran’s terrorist stooges, Hizballah will let loose from Lebanon, Hamas from the Gaza Strip and the Syrian air and missile forces go into action from the north. The Israeli Air Force will be vitally needed to protect the population and sufficient aircraft must therefore be kept back for the home front.

Given Tehran’s multiple reprisal capability and the limits to which the Israeli Air Force can be stretched operationally at one time, the IDF may well decide to deal with the Hizballah and Hamas short-range rocket infrastructure as well as the Syrian Air Force before going into action against Iran.

In this sense, DEBKAfile’s military experts note, the decision to strike Iran’s nuclear sites is tightly bound up with preventive action against the menaces closer to home, Hamas at the very least.

MK Tzahi Hanegbi, chairman of the Knesset foreign affairs and security committee said in an interview Saturday, June 21, on Day Three of the Gaza truce, that a major operation to demolish Hamas’ war machine will be unavoidable at some point. He urged the formation of a national unity government to enlist the country’s best brains and resources He urged the formation of a national unity government to enlist the country’s best brains and resources for the tough decisions ahead.

MB4 on June 22, 2008 at 3:54 PM

Why is ElBaradei even making comments about the ramifications of a strike against Iran ? I thought he was a techie type guy doing a techie type job, researching and monitoring Iranian nuke activity. I am not sure I understand why he is speaking about anything but the state of Iranian nukes.

JonRoss on June 22, 2008 at 3:20 PM

He has always had a pro-Arab, anti-U.S. agenda, plus he fancies himself a diplomat rather than an investigator. IIRC, at some point in the recent past he was unilaterally offering disarmament deals to Iran, which doesn’t fall under his job description. I have always suspected his role model is Neville Chamberlain.

a capella on June 22, 2008 at 4:03 PM

MB4 on June 22, 2008 at 3:54 PM

We have talked before about the limited role the IAF could have (based on a required sustained campaign) over Iran. I have little confidence that the Iranians have the command and control in place that would prevent field commanders from firing at whatever target suits their fancy, meaning Gulf shipping and coalition aircraft.

Too scary in any direction you go on this. A window dressing raid, or a full strike, will have the same effect of pulling in the entire world.

Why do I have the feeling that it is 3am?

Limerick on June 22, 2008 at 4:20 PM

They calculate that the moment Iran is attacked, not only will it retaliate, but all hell will break loose on Israeli borders. Iran’s terrorist stooges, Hizballah will let loose from Lebanon, Hamas from the Gaza Strip and the Syrian air and missile forces go into action from the north. The Israeli Air Force will be vitally needed to protect the population and sufficient aircraft must therefore be kept back for the home front.

Given Tehran’s multiple reprisal capability and the limits to which the Israeli Air Force can be stretched operationally at one time, the IDF may well decide to deal with the Hizballah and Hamas short-range rocket infrastructure as well as the Syrian Air Force before going into action against Iran.

In this sense, DEBKAfile’s military experts note, the decision to strike Iran’s nuclear sites is tightly bound up with preventive action against the menaces closer to home, Hamas at the very least.

MK Tzahi Hanegbi, chairman of the Knesset foreign affairs and security committee said in an interview Saturday, June 21, on Day Three of the Gaza truce, that a major operation to demolish Hamas’ war machine will be unavoidable at some point. He urged the formation of a national unity government to enlist the country’s best brains and resources He urged the formation of a national unity government to enlist the country’s best brains and resources for the tough decisions ahead.

MB4 on June 22, 2008 at 3:54 PM

I know it’s DEBKA, but I think this much is pretty spot on. Hamas, Hezbolla, and Syria have achieved a formidable checkmate on Israel’s civilian population at this point. It will have to be neutralized. Ohlmerts thumb sucking defense posture which allowed this to happen will cost many Israeli civilian lives before it is over. I gives me chills comparing his lack of testicular fortitude on national defense to that of our Democrat nominee.

a capella on June 22, 2008 at 4:20 PM

Frankly i don’t care what Israel does, just don’t get us involved with a war with Iran.

muyoso on June 22, 2008 at 3:18 PM

Where have you been ? We’ve been in a war (Low Intensity Conflict) with Iran for over 30 years.

c3ichief on June 22, 2008 at 4:25 PM

I gives me chills comparing his lack of testicular fortitude on national defense to that of our Democrat nominee.

In an ironic way, Obama may be the only person who can indeed take out these facilities.

E.g., Nixon going to China, Reagan to Reykjavik, et cetera.

SteveMG on June 22, 2008 at 4:28 PM

If Iran gets the bomb on El Baradei’s watch, he should lose more than his job.

cthulhu on June 22, 2008 at 4:29 PM

This is where McCain should start singing that great Beach Boys’ song again. But make sure El Baradei’s in Tehran talking to Iran’s creepy little president when the bomb finally drops.

Travis1 on June 22, 2008 at 4:34 PM

No confidence motions in the Israeli Knesset Parliament will be tabled this week to determine if we are headed to national elections, 2 years into Olmert’s 4 year term.

If that fails, primaries will be held to replace Olmert within the Kadima party, and a national unity / emergency govt will be formed.

saus on June 22, 2008 at 4:37 PM

saus on June 22, 2008 at 4:37 PM

Whichever way this turns out keep your powder dry. If it gets wet let us know. More then a few of us have plenty to spare for you fellas(and ladies of course).

Limerick on June 22, 2008 at 4:47 PM

I don’t trust ANYONE who looks like Harry “all nostrils” Waxman and speaks in Arabic…….

The Preferred language of our enemy of the Religion of Peace…….

He was an F’n problem in Iraq-I with his Gutter / UN/ Liberal diplomacy……..

And he will be again in Iraq-II if Osaama is elected…………

awesum on June 22, 2008 at 5:06 PM

There was an article on FR a couple of days ago, wherein El Baradei threatened to quit his job if Iran were threatened with military action.

The general consensus was, that makes it a ‘twofer’, and getting rid of Mohamed ElBaradei would be a good incentive for

LegendHasIt on June 22, 2008 at 2:53 PM

Agreed, I don’t see why this guy is so irreplaceable. He does nothing. Iran is not transparent with their activities so he does not know what they have. But for some reason he’d rather have that than a known military strike that keeps them from getting the weapons they have been hiding from him.

Where was he when Syria was working on theirs?

Where is he complaining about the proxy wars Iran fights in Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq? It wouldn’t be us attacking them, it would be us fighting back – for once.

If he wants to quit, that would be fantastic. I don’t see what he’s done that’s so great or important other than blame everyone but Arabs. . . and it’s the Arabs who are stonewalling him. He doesn’t care.

ThackerAgency on June 22, 2008 at 5:18 PM

We should assume that the Israeli’s know more than we think. Accounts that I read of the Syria attack last year included reports of Israeli commandos that were on the ground and extracted successfully before the fireworks began. Apparently the commandos had physical evidence of Syria’s program.

I will guess that Israel has more that google earth pics as evidence of Iran’s nuclear installations.

Go Israel GO!

iam7545 on June 22, 2008 at 5:38 PM

ElBaradei is pro Arab and anti American . . . so why are we listening to his babble when his agenda is crystal clear?

rplat on June 22, 2008 at 5:40 PM

Let’s see now, ElBaradei works for the U.N. which spends a third of it’s time denouncing Israel and the rest of it’s time denouncing the United States. I don’t think this is the guy we should trust to look out for our or Israel’s best interest.

We all know the U.N. couldn’t find it’s butt with both hands and I doubt the E-I-E-I-O or whatever it’s name is, is any better or anymore trustworthy. The day we trust the U.N. to look out for our best interest is the day we will surely die.

Maxx on June 22, 2008 at 5:58 PM

Men ought either to be indulged or utterly destroyed, for if you merely offend them they take vengeance, but if you injure them greatly they are unable to retaliate, so that any injury done to a man ought to be such that vengeance cannot be feared.
- Niccolo Machiavelli

MB4 on June 22, 2008 at 3:38 PM

Indeed. It’s quotes like this that make me wish Machiavellianism were the West’s official policy. Damn, that guy knew how to think about what needs to happen when one group of men opposes another group of men.

venividivici on June 22, 2008 at 5:59 PM

The threat of Iran’s nuclear program and it’s support for terrorism is all manufactured by the BOOOOOSH administration. The conclusive proof of this is contained in the following timeline of the U.S. dealings with Iran under the Clinton administration….

1993 US President Bill Clinton takes office.

1995 President Clinton imposes oil and trade sanctions on Iran for sponsorship of terrorism, seeking to acquire nuclear arms and hostility to the Middle East process. Iran denies the charges.

1996 Mr Clinton stiffens sanctions with penalties against any firm that invests $40m or more a year in oil and gas projects in Iran and Libya.

1997 23 May – Muhammad Khatami elected president of Iran.

1998 President Khatami calls for a “dialogue with the American people” in American TV interview. But in a sermon a few weeks later he is sharply critical of US “oppressive policies”.

1999 Twentieth anniversary of US embassy siege. Hardliners celebrate the occasion, as reformists look to the future rather than the past.

2000 18 February – President Clinton extends ban on US oil contracts with Iran, accusing it of continuing to support international terrorism.

2000 March – US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright calls for a new start in US-Iranian relations and announces lifting of sanctions on Iranian exports ranging from carpets to food products. Iranian foreign ministry initially welcomes the move, but Ayatollah Khamenei later describes it as deceitful and belated.

2000 September – Mrs Albright meets Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi at UN in New York – the first such talks since diplomatic ties were severed in 1979.

The tireless efforts by the Clinton administration resulted in turning the Iranian government into a responsible player among the world’s nations.

Then BOOOOSH ruined everything……..

Limerick on June 22, 2008 at 6:18 PM

There was no mention in the interview of Iranian talk about erasing Israel from the map. Seems to me that would be a significant factor when discussing Iranian nuke capabilities and military strikes.

snaggletoothie on June 22, 2008 at 6:18 PM

Thing is…everyone’s afraid they might already have at least one right now. Be it of their own material, or borrowed, or bought, or stolen…doesn’t matter. All they need is one to deter a raid. Lacking that/don’t believe it, that’s fine because what no one denies or debates is that Iran’s got enough conventional ballistic missiles with massive conventional warheads to do some serious damage to any Israeli city (I’m talkin’ WWII London Blitz damage w conventional missiles).

No one has an iota of real confidence in the UN, or in peaceful outcome, or that it’s a peaceful program (the same people who do claim confidence in any of those almost always immediately argue that the world’s biggest sponsor of Islamic-inspired terrorism has some sort of a right to a bomb).

We all know how this plays out, but only to a certain degree, and that degree is the first shot. Oh, there will be a shot, but when, where, and who fires it continues to roll with the ripples of present history, past events, and the horrorshow of when it comes.

scottm on June 22, 2008 at 7:04 PM

When any nation seeks to develop any weapon, all one needs to do is ascertain the answer to one question – why?

Answer that correctly, and one knows how to deal with it.

OldEnglish on June 22, 2008 at 7:57 PM

which is true if you believe the IAEA knows the whereabouts of all of Iran’s nuclear facilities and what’s going on inside each of them.

And you believe an egyptian muslim is actually trying to halt the development of a nuclear weapon. Oh teah, he works for the un so he only has the best intentions.

How much you want to bet this guy disappears the week before iran tries to nuke israel.

peacenprosperity on June 22, 2008 at 8:39 PM

Wait…I’m confused.

Is ElBaradei’s job to help countries get the bomb or is it to stop them from getting the bomb?

NeoKong on June 22, 2008 at 2:12 PM

He’s a Muslim…it’s Iran…any questions?

jwp1964 on June 22, 2008 at 9:18 PM

Isn’t it absolutely drop dad amazing that the director of the IEAE states CLEARLY that Iran is perhaps a year away from a NUCLEAR WEAPON, and I don’t see that even as a ticket item on CNN, FoxNews, ABC News, CBS News, or MSNBC…

But, hey, we have Charlie Sheen’s nasty VM to Denise Richards, now THAT’S new you can use, right?

JustTruth101 on June 22, 2008 at 9:27 PM

JustTruth101 on June 22, 2008 at 9:27 PM

They are just waiting for the right time. Ratings for ElBaradei compared to ratings for a twenty mile wide swath of smoldering city. It is all about timing.

Limerick on June 22, 2008 at 9:34 PM

In an ironic way, Obama may be the only person who can indeed take out these facilities.

E.g., Nixon going to China, Reagan to Reykjavik, et cetera.

SteveMG on June 22, 2008 at 4:28 PM

uh, right…

Nixon and Reagan both cared about this country and wanted to do the right thing to protect it…Obama…not so much.

AUINSC on June 23, 2008 at 1:19 AM

It’s embarassing that the behemoth U.N. and the superpower U.S.A. are waiting for little Israel to solve the Iranian nuke problem.

landlines on June 23, 2008 at 2:30 AM

Weird.

First he says ‘no imminent threat’, then in the same interview says ‘oh, about six to 12 months’.. and then to top it off, nope, military intervention is just plain bad all round

mind numbing.

Reaps on June 23, 2008 at 4:22 AM

And let’s not forget the sandwich that can kill you.

MEMRI, always on top of the big stories

Reaps on June 23, 2008 at 4:29 AM

El Baradei is a lying sack who perfectly illustrates the buffoonery and farce of the UN. He is not an inspector or a watchdog. He’s a career Arab politician. Like duh, dude.

Bomb Iran, now. Just their nuke facilities and their military bases, especially the Quds training bases.

dogsoldier on June 23, 2008 at 6:51 AM

ElBaradei says Iran could make a bomb in six months to a year

Conventional wisdom says the U.S. could obliderate Iran in less than 30 minutes.

Persian ashtray anyone?

TheSitRep on June 23, 2008 at 8:26 AM

Tactical nukes dropped from B-2 stealth bombers will remedy the situation. Besides, that’s how Joel Rosenberg’s first book ends.

Dr.Cwac.Cwac on June 23, 2008 at 10:51 AM

Here’s a chilling theory…

What if the UN – and ElBaradei – is playing a game of “let’s get Israel so paranoid they pop off the first nuke?”

Think about it: Iran has, as a stated goal, wiping Israel off the map. If Israel fires first at Iran, Iran would be ‘justified’ (in the eyes of the world) in obliterating Israel with it’s own nukes. Not only does Iran – and the rest of the Islamic world – get what they want, they can merely claim self defense. Plus, they turn Israel into the bad guy. And in the process, Iran can usher in the 12th imam…

Thing is, if Iran really is months away from being able to put together a bomb, they would want to wait until Iran is able to ‘defend’ itself. That could explain why ElB is so adamant that “a military strike would be the worst thing possible” – it negates the timetable.

Nah – I don’t believe in conspiracy theories…

psrch on June 23, 2008 at 11:15 AM

I think 6 months would be an impressive accomplishment since they would be working among all of that rubble from the previous reactor.

slug on June 23, 2008 at 11:58 AM

Strategic or tactical strikes against Iran’s nuclear sites are likely to fail. The United states failed to do much damage to Saddam’s weapons programs after the invasion of Kuwait. The subsequent systems of inspections post Kuwait was more successful at identifying and taking care of the chemical and nuclear programs in Iraq. Also, it should be pointed out that Israel failed more recently to disrupt Hezbollah’s C3 infrastructure in Lebanon using air strikes which relied heavily on US doctrine. Success in Syria and Iraq against solitary above ground structures are unlikely to succeed in Iran where the program is designed to survive air strikes.

lexhamfox on June 23, 2008 at 1:48 PM