Christmas Bombs for Iran? [Reader Post]

Loading

The U.N.’s chief nuclear watchdog, Mohamed El Baradei (not exactly a guy in the tank for Bush), in an interview with Al-Arabiya TV, said, quite explicitly, that Iran will be able to produce a nuclear weapon in six months to a year. Via lgf.

Muhammad Al-Baradei: If Iran wants to turn to the production of nuclear weapons, it must leave the NPT, expel the IAEA inspectors, and then it would need at least… Considering the number of centrifuges and the quantity of uranium Iran has…

Interviewer: How much time would it need?

Muhammad Al-Baradei: It would need at least six months to one year. Therefore, Iran will not be able to reach the point where we would wake up one morning to an Iran with a nuclear weapon.

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.

With such a near-term threat looming, Bill Kristol suggests that Bush, thinking a President Obama may not have the stones to take on Iran, may decide to take out Iran’s nuclear facilities before he leaves office. Via Ace.

Then John Bolton, another guy with some connections in the White House, echoes Kristol and says Israel will do the deed after the election.

Israel, however, still had a determination to prevent a nuclear Iran, he argued. The “optimal window” for strikes would be between the November 4 election and the inauguration on January 20, 2009.

“The Israelis have one eye on the calendar because of the pace at which the Iranians are proceeding both to develop their nuclear weapons capability and to do things like increase their defences by buying new Russian anti-aircraft systems and further harden the nuclear installations .

“They’re also obviously looking at the American election calendar. My judgement is they would not want to do anything before our election because there’s no telling what impact it could have on the election.”

But waiting for either Barack Obama, the Democratic candidate, or his Republican opponent John McCain to be installed in the White House could preclude military action happening for the next four years or at least delay it.

Note that the Bolton piece also references Bill Kristol’s comments and the fact that Israel is polishing the guns.

Israel carried out a major military exercise earlier this month that American officials say appeared to be a rehearsal for a potential bombing attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Several American officials said the Israeli exercise appeared to be an effort to develop the military’s capacity to carry out long-range strikes and to demonstrate the seriousness with which Israel views Iran’s nuclear program.

More than 100 Israeli F-16 and F-15 fighters participated in the maneuvers, which were carried out over the eastern Mediterranean and over Greece during the first week of June, American officials said.

Sure seems to be some orchestrated leaking going on. My guess is that Bush would have Israel go in before the election, so that when Iran flips its lid and all hell (actual and potential) breaks loose, voters will choose the tested McCain and Obama will be sunk.

Also find Bill Dupray at The Patriot Room

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
7 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

I can understand Bush using the Israelis to do this deed. It absolves him with the dems. If his administration did it the dems would scream and yell “impeachment”. I swear I think the dems are in the pockets of Iran and probably Saudi Arabia also. We know they are in the pockets of Chavez and Castro. But both the US and Israel should realize that we have over 100,000 troops next door to Iran and they would be sitting ducks for Iran’s nukes. Does anyone think Ahadinnerjacket would care if millions of Iraqis were killed with an atomic bomb? Not as long as our troops were killed also. This is all dangerous and another example of the treason of the dem obstruction party. I doubt that they would care if our soldiers or the Iraqis died in a blast from Iran. So much collateral in their march to political power. Iran must be stopped at all costs. Never mind the polls. Never mind the will of the people. Most of them don’t realize the danger we are all in. They are too wrapped up in American Idol and Paris Hilton to care.

Actual Hell? Well that might literally scare voters to death.

Course, that was not what ElBaradei said at all, was it?
He said that IF the US attacked Iran, IF Iran then decided to withdraw from the NPT, IF iran magaged to get Natanz operational, THEN iran would need a “minimum” of 6-12 months to make one bomb — but he also said that Iran’s current nuclear program is not threatening and does not justify any such attack.

See, you’ve been lied to, and you’re repeating it like a good little parrot.

Now go and fetch me some WMDs from Iraq, you sheeple.

He said that IF the US attacked Iran, IF Iran then decided to withdraw from the NPT, IF iran magaged to get Natanz operational, THEN iran would need a “minimum” of 6-12 months to make one bomb

That was not what Al Baradei said either.

You could not possibly have watched the video or read the excerpts and then come up with those conclusions.

You accuse others of lying to us and then you try and get away with blatant dishonesty yourself.

Timmy, either you are clueless or you think we are.

Just another UN flunky spouting UN opinions. I hope he does resign. He has been an utter failure. Maybe next time we can get someone who is not muslim and probably sympathetic to the radical cause. But what I really wish is that we would abandon the UN entirely. How long does anyone think they could survive without us paying most of the bills.