Iran Has Heavy Metal for Bomb, No Bomb: Yet

First, the good news: Iran (probably) doesn't have a nuclear bomb.

Now, the bad news: The Islamic Republic probably has enough fissile material to build a nuclear weapon.

Happily for everybody the Ayatollahs may not approve of, there's more to making a nuclear bomb than packing plutonium or uranium into a drum and sticking a fuse in it. But, there are quite a few smart, educated, and trained people in Iran: I'd say the odds are that, in the not-too-distant future, the Ayatollahs will have a nuclear bomb or two, with missiles to deliver them.

Or, plans to ship them overseas, in mislabeled cargo containers.

Bomb Iran Now? Probably Not the Best Idea: But Hold That Thought

Some anonymous chap in the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) says that a Washington think tank, the Institute for Science and International Security, has it all wrong. Anonymous says that the IAEA's data don't show that, as CNN put it, "Iran has reached 'nuclear weapons breakout capability.' " The Washington think tank says that's just what the IAEA does show.

I'm glad I don't have President Obama's job.

Negotiations: It's Worth a Try

Obama is one of the few people in the world who is in a position to have a shot at stopping Iran's 'peaceful' nuclear program. The Obama administration - like the previous one - is trying to work with the EU, to convince Iran that dropping the 'peaceful' nuclear program is a good idea.

I hope they succeed. If they don't, there will be a rather short - or maybe non-existent - time, during which an attack on Iran's nuclear sites might stop the program. After that time passes, we may see cities vaporized on the evening news.

That's assuming, not unreasonably, that Iran's leaders really do mean that "Death to Israel! Death to the great Satan America!" stuff.

As I said, I'm glad I don't have President Obama's job.

Does Iran Definitely Want Nuclear Weapons?

Just to make things more interesting, I think it's (remotely) possible that Iran's nuclear program really is peaceful - and that Iran's leaders think they need nuclear reactors, but not nuclear weapons.

And, I think it's possible that American leaders don't know where all of Iran's nuclear facilities are.

That brings up a disturbing idea: Let's say that America bombs Iran's known nuclear facilities ("unilaterally," like America unilaterally attacked Iraq). But, that the attack is as successful as the Japanese Empire's attack on Pearl Harbor.

Back in 1941, America lost many sailors and ships. But, the Pacific Fleet still had some ships: including aircraft carriers and submarines. And, a whole lot of fuel oil.

I'd just as soon that America be a bit more careful than that. A sudden, devastating, attack can be effective: provided that it devastates all of an enemy's capacity to strike back.

I'm really glad I don't have President Obama's job.

Related posts:

• "North Korea Set to Launch - Communications Satellite?"
  (February 27, 2009)
• "Iran Launched Satellite, Probably: and North Korea's Preparing for Launch"
  (February 3, 2009)
• "Ahmadinejad Wants America to Apologize: This is News?"
  (January 28, 2009)
• "Iran's Nuclear Program, Israel, Iraq, America, Bush and Obama: Simple? Not!"
  (January 11, 2009)

In the news:

• "Top Defense Officials: Iran Has Fissile Material for Nuke, but No Bomb Yet"
  FOXNews (March 1, 2009)
• "U.S.: Iran has material for nuclear bomb but still 'not close'"
  CNN (March 1, 2009)