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)

Syria, the IAEA, an Inspection, and a Missing Reactor

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is going to send a inspection team to Syria. They're going to look at a site that Israel bombed recently.

Syria says there's no reactor there, and they're right.

On September 6, 2007, Israeli warplanes dropped bombs on what Syria has said was

• Empty sand
• An agricultural facility
• An unused military facility of some sort

Before the Israeli jets blew the place up, it looked a lot like a reactor that's in North Korea. And, by curious coincidence, there were quite a few North Koreans around there.

But, Syria says that there's no reactor there. And, they're right. There won't be any evidence of one lying around either, unless they were very, very clumsy.

As the International Herald Tribune recalled today, Syria "wiped the Euphrates site clean of rubble late last year and erected a new building where the destroyed one had been — a step nuclear experts said would complicate the job of hunting for atomic clues. Some analysts said the rapid cleanup and new construction had been tacit admissions of guilt."
("UN nuclear inspectors to visit Syria" International Herald Tribune (June 3, 2008))

There certainly isn't a nuclear reactor there now, and unless the Syrian clean-up crew was clumsy, I doubt that the handful of inspectors the IAEA sends is going to find any evidence to speak of.

As for other places that the IAEA ought to be interested in, forget it. "Diplomats: 3 suspect Syrian nuke sites off limits" (Associated Press (June 3, 2008)).

The International Herald Tribune article offers quotes from some of the people involved.

• "Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the atomic agency, announced the impending visit at a meeting of the agency's board in Vienna. 'I look forward to Syria's full cooperation,' he said."
• "The press secretary at the Syrian Embassy in Washington declined to comment specifically on the inspection visit, and other Syrian officials also did not comment. But Ahmed Salkini, the press secretary, said in a statement that Syria had always had a good working relationship with the atomic agency 'and we intend to keep it that way.'"
  "He added: 'This fabricated story by the U.S. administration will deconstruct from within and without. We are working on different fronts, and with different parties, to ensure that this fabrication is exposed to the world, and this administration embarrassed, once again.' " [emphasis mine]
• David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security in Washington: " 'If the Syrians think that a quick visit and some interviews' will clear up the nuclear suspicions, he said, 'they're sadly mistaken.' "

I sincerely hope that the inspection will be more than "a quick visit and some interviews." I could be mistaken, but I've gotten the impression that Syria and a few other countries have a very "good working relationship with the atomic agency" - and that may explain why America didn't share intelligence about the Syrian reactor (or agricultural facility, or empty desert) with the IAEA.

More at

• "Nuclear team to visit site of Israeli bombing
  Sydney Morning Herald (June 4, 2008)
• " Syria agrees to nuclear probe"
  CNN (June 2, 2008)
• " Bush pushes 3 nations on nuclear issue"
  CNN (April 29, 2008)

Posts from "Another War-on-Terror Blog," on the Israeli raid and its aftermath:

• "Syria's Reactor and North Korea - Again
  (May 5, 2008)
• "Unilateral Attack Sparks International Condemnation! Syria Had No Reactor! Pay No Attention to the North Koreans!"
  (April 26, 2008)
• "Syrian Ambassador: Reactor? That's No Reactor"
  (April 24, 2008)
• "Return of the Radioactive Kimchi!! North Korean Nuclear Reactor in Syria Back in the News"
  ( April 23, 2008)
• "Back to Syria's Mystery Building"
  (October 29, 2007)
• "Satellite Images of Syrian Reactor / Warehouse"
  (October 25, 2007)
• "Putin, Ahmadinejad, Iran, Syria, Israel: Here We Go Again?"
  (October 18, 2007)
  (in passing>
• " 'The Jews Blew Up Our Reactor (Which Does Not Exist)' "
  (October 17, 2007)
• "In the News: Anxious Republicans, Castro and Chavez are Friends, and, oh, yes: Israel Destroyed Syrian Nuclear Reactor"
  (October 14, 2007)
• "No Radioactive Kimchi: Israel Blew Up a Syrian Reactor"
  (October 13, 2007)
• "Radioactive Kimchi, or Nuclear Bomb Material?"
  (September 23, 2007)
• "Nuclear Materials from North Korea,
  Sand, or Radioactive Kimchi?"
  ( September 18, 2007)
• "Nuclear Stockpile Bombed?"
  (September 16, 2007)

Unilateral Attack Sparks International Condemnation! Syria Had No Reactor! Pay No Attention to the North Koreans!

International diplomacy, particularly what's going on with Syria, Israel, and the non-reactor that the Jews didn't blow up, would be hilarious, if people's lives didn't depend on what happens.

Oh, yes: "unilateral" popped up again. I'll get back to that.

Syrian seems to have chosen the story that Israelis bombed an "unused military facility."

Briefly, here's what seems to be going on:

• September 6, 2007: Israeli warplanes bomb a nuclear reactor that was within weeks of becoming operational
• September, 2007: Israel says nothing; Syria says Israeli warplanes bombed
  • Empty sand
  • An agricultural facility
  • An unused military facility of some sort
• April, 2008: American intelligence reports to Congressional committees; some details come out, including a photo of a North Korean nuclear scientist talking to his Syrian counterpart
• April 26, 2008: same old, same old:
  • Syria decides on their "unused military facility" story
  • Israel blamed for taking unilateral action
  • IAEA is upset that they didn't know about the reactor
    • Not at Syria, which should have informed the IAEA
    • At America - and Israel

I will admit that I'm inclined to sympathize more with Israeli and American leadership, than Syria's. It probably has something to do with Syria's policy of giving support, political and material, to Hezbollah and Palestinian terrorist groups. And, that Damascus serves as a leadership center¹ for:

• Hamas
• Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ)
• The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PLFP)
• The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command (PFLP-GC)

I know: "America is just as bad." That claim is generally backed by a reminder that America supported groups and individuals which eventually were involved in the Taliban's rule of Afghanistan, or other instances of imperfect precognition. Never mind that the former Soviet Union was having its own "Vietnam" in Afghanistan, making life a trifle awkward for Afghanis in the process.

As for Israel, I think that critics have a point. This nation, surrounded by people and governments that made the slogan, "death to the Jews! Death to the great Satan America!" famous, might have noted that Syria was building a reactor - almost certainly for military purposes - and then:

1. Asked to have the matter brought up in the next U.N. Security Council meeting (I believe that might be the appropriate body)
2. Prepared speeches
3. Addressed the U.N. Security Council, when an opening in the agenda became available
4. Prepared responses to objections raised, and counter-claims from Syria
5. Go To Step 3

Or, the Israeli government could have decided to save themselves - and a great many other nations - from a nuclear threat: just as they did with Saddam Hussein's nuclear program in 1981. Their action was "unilateral." In a world where international organizations seem more interested in protracted cycles of rhetoric, than in confronting issues with goal-oriented diplomacy or, failing that, military action: I think that Israel was acting with intelligent self-interest.

As for the International Atomic Energy Agency, I think that the IAEA might be well advised to criticize Syria, which was obligated to report nuclear work like the "unused military facility" it was building. I'll admit to a bias.

I've been disturbed by a certain lack of fit between reality and the world that the IAEA lives in. For example, the glowing report the IAEA gave to the Chernobyl situation recently.

And, when it comes to matters involving Islamic enthusiasts and their stated goals of wiping out Israel and western culture, I have a niggling doubt that the IAEA Director-General, Mohamed El-Baradei, will be completely objective.

I know: it's unreasonable. But, I submit, no more unreasonable than a similar doubt as to the commitment of a (hypothetical) director of a Jewish civic rights oversight agency in 1938, whose name was something like Heinrich von Schwinghammer.

My concerns over the IAEA's seeming hesitancy to engage nations which are real threats may be no more than my view, as an outsider, of the delicate negotiations and sensitivity that must exist in such cases.

Syria's non-reactor, and related matters, in the news:

• "UN probes US Syria reactor claim"
  "The UN's nuclear watchdog has said it will investigate US claims that Syria was building a secret nuclear reactor with North Korean help."
  BBC (April 25, 2008)
• "Syrian Diplomat Says U.S. Fabricated Nuke Allegations"
  "Syria's U.N. Ambassador Bashar Ja'afari said Friday that the allegations that his country was building a nuclear reactor were fabricated and were driven by U.S. officials trying to torpedo Washington's nuclear deal with North Korea."
  FOXNews (April 25, 2008)
• "IAEA raps U.S. over Syrian reactor"
  "For not updating it over Pyongyang’s assistance"
  The Hindu (April 26, 2008)
• "IAEA chastises U.S., Israel over Syrian reactor"
  "Lack of information sharing, unilateral attack anger nuclear watchdog"
  msnbc.com (April 25, 2008)

A short history of Syria, which I believe puts some of the Syrian government's policies in a more complete light:

• "Syria history (GlobalSecurity.org)

Posts from "Another War-on-Terror Blog,on the Israeli raid and its aftermath:

• "Syrian Ambassador: Reactor? That's No Reactor"
  (April 24, 2008)
• "Return of the Radioactive Kimchi!! North Korean Nuclear Reactor in Syria Back in the News"
  ( April 23, 2008)
• "Back to Syria's Mystery Building"
  (October 29, 2007)
• "Satellite Images of Syrian Reactor / Warehouse"
  (October 25, 2007)
• "Putin, Ahmadinejad, Iran, Syria, Israel: Here We Go Again?"
  (October 18, 2007)
  (in passing>
• " 'The Jews Blew Up Our Reactor (Which Does Not Exist)' "
  (October 17, 2007)
• "In the News: Anxious Republicans, Castro and Chavez are Friends, and, oh, yes: Israel Destroyed Syrian Nuclear Reactor"
  (October 14, 2007)
• "No Radioactive Kimchi: Israel Blew Up a Syrian Reactor"
  (October 13, 2007)
• "Radioactive Kimchi, or Nuclear Bomb Material?"
  (September 23, 2007)
• "Nuclear Materials from North Korea,
  Sand, or Radioactive Kimchi?"
  ( September 18, 2007)
• "Nuclear Stockpile Bombed?"
  (September 16, 2007)

---

¹("Country Reports on Terrorism 2005" Chapter 6 -- State Sponsors of Terror Overview GlobalSecurity.org).

Iran, Nuclear Weapons, and the Sudetenland: Anybody Remember the Munich Pact?

Iran's only reason for maintaining a secret nuclear program for sixteen years is to generate electricity. That's according to Iran's President Ahmadinejad.

He's the same man who told students at Columbia University that there were no homosexuals in Iran. They didn't buy it, and I'm dubious about his claim that Iran's secret nuclear program is just for power generation.

It's not quite so secret now, of course. The outside world caught wind of what was going on about four years ago. The good news is that Iran is letting International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors take a look at the nuclear energy facilities that Iran officially has. The bad news is that IAEA inspectors aren't allowed to snoop around unless they ask the Iranian government first. Then, if they get permission, they have to wait until Iranian authorities say it's okay.

That situation does not fill me with reassurance.

The new French president, Nicolas Sarkozy, said yesterday that the world had a choice, according to ynetnews.com:

• The world's powers get very busy with diplomacy, putting controls on Iran's nuclear program.
• A messy alternative:
  "an Iranian bomb or the bombing of Iran."

I was somewhat surprised to read that a French president considered an Iran with nuclear weapons as something that could really happen.

That's a mildly hopeful sign.

France has made its willingness to help nations set up non-military nuclear facilities. "France is ready to help any country which wants to possess civilian nuclear energy," French president Sarkozy said, according to "Energy Daily."

The way Iranian munitions show up in Iraq, exported with the intent of killing people who are helping Iraq set up a moderately stable government, I doubt that Iran would be satisfied with letting a nuclear stockpile go unused.

I want very much to believe that the situation with the Iranian ayatollahs and enriched uranium can be resolved peacefully.

Resolved without the sort of accommodation that Neville Chamberlain, Edouard Daladier, Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini made in 1938. That 'peaceful resolution' lasted about a year: less, from the point of view of the Sudetenland and Czechoslovakia.

Diplomacy: A Noble Ideal

It would be nice, if a series of letters, and meetings, and conferences, and declarations, and solemn agreements, would convince Al-Qaeda, and all people on jihad against the west, to give up their beliefs. Who knows? Osama bin Laden might even apologize for the 9/11 attack.

There's reason why I seem unconvinced that there is a purely diplomatic solution to the war on terror. I've been watching relations between Israel and every other country in the Arab world, off and on, for almost a half-century.

At first, I had some sympathy for the Palestinians. For some reason, they couldn't move to other nations in the region, and seemed to be forced to live in restricted areas in and around Israel.

Then I noticed a difference between how the two groups acted in warfare.

The Israeli military killed Palestinian civilians: because Palestinian military leaders, sniper positions, and rocket launchers were placed among or behind civilians.

Heroic Palestinians launched attacks on strategic buses and shopping malls, and destroyed tactical restaurants, hotels, a disco and a pizzeria. In one daring attack, two teenage boys were beaten, stoned, dismembered, and tucked away in a cave.

And that's just highlights of victories over the Israeli oppressors, since the Oslo Accords, signed September 13, 1993.

The defenders of Palestine forced the Israeli occupiers (as they've been described) out of the Gaza Strip two years ago. My understanding was that there was an agreement that Palestinians there would stop firing rockets at Israelis.

To their credit, the Palestinians didn't kill Israelis in rocket attacks as often for quite a while. Then, recently, they stepped up the bombardment of Israel. Israel declared the Gaza Strip an "enemy entity."

Predictably, Hamas criticized the Jews. "This Israeli step is a clear indication of military escalation against Gaza," Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri said.

There's a lesson here.

Many people in the Middle East are upstanding citizens, interested in their families and livelihood, and willing to be sensible.

On the other hand, quite a few people and organizations there have worked long and hard to establish a reputation for bloodshed and destruction, and for treating cease-fires, truces, and peace agreements as opportunities to re-group and re-arm.

With a track record like that, it's hard to put a great deal of confidence in

• Iran's assurances over their nuclear program
• Syria's assurance that they don't have a nuclear program
• The International Atomic Energy Agency's ability to inspect and negotiate the truth out of the mess

Or, for that matter, any of the 'death to Israel, death to the great Satan America' outfits' good will.