Sunday, October 03, 2004


During this very informative and enlightening election sprint, the pink elephant in the room has something to say: Iranian leader wants nuke in 4 months
Iranian leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has urged his country's weapons developers to step up work on making a nuclear bomb, a U.S. official said, according to Geostrategy-Direct, the global intelligence news service.

According to the official, an authoritative source in the Iranian exile community has stated that Khamenei met recently with senior government and military leaders on the nuclear weapons program. Khamenei told the gathering, "We must have two bombs ready to go in January or you are not Muslims," the official said.

Jafari-Jalali, a member of the National Security and Foreign Policy Committee of the Majles, stated in an Iranian press interview last week that the recent International Atomic Energy Agency resolution calling on Iran to halt uranium enrichment could lead to Tehran withdrawing from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

Iran's military announced earlier this month that it would test-fire a "strategic" missile during the Ashura 5 military exercises of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps.

Meanwhile, British intelligence, working with Iraqi security, has uncovered a cell within the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps that is working to destabilize Iraq.

The Iranians had paid insurgents to conduct attacks in southern Iraq.

"I don't think there's any doubt that the Iranians are involved and are providing support" to the Iraqi insurgents, Secretary of State Colin Powell said last week.
Our democratic process must consummate in a few weeks. Hopefully it will provide the free world with someone who has an answer to the Iranian riddle. And soon, too---just in time for the inauguration.

Iran also voiced its disapprobation to Europe and Kerry's elysian fantasy of providing nuclear fuel to the mullahs for peaceful purposes. Therefore, Kerry and his allies have no strategy whatsoever with respect to Iran's imminent nuclear arsenal.

It would be telling if each presidential candidate spent 90 minutes debating a puissant policy towards Iran since they have drawn extreme distinctions with respect to Iraq. Iran appears to be moving at least a few pawns around in the south of Iraq, stirring trouble for the Great Satan; testing long-range missiles; and burning the midnight oil at its nuclear facilities. Even the Democrats' rising star of progressive realism spoke of dire consequences per Iran's intransigence:
U.S. Senate candidate Barack Obama suggested Friday that the United States one day might have to launch surgical missile strikes into Iran and Pakistan to keep extremists from getting control of nuclear bombs...

"The big question is going to be, if Iran is resistant to these pressures, including economic sanctions, which I hope will be imposed if they do not cooperate, at what point are we going to, if any, are we going to take military action?" Obama asked.

Given the continuing war in Iraq, the United States is not in a position to invade Iran, but missile strikes might be a viable option, he said. Obama conceded that such strikes might further strain relations between the U.S. and the Arab world.

"In light of the fact that we're now in Iraq, with all the problems in terms of perceptions about America that have been created, us launching some missile strikes into Iran is not the optimal position for us to be in," he said.

"On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse. So I guess my instinct would be to err on not having those weapons in the possession of the ruling clerics of Iran... And I hope it doesn't get to that point. But realistically, as I watch how this thing has evolved, I'd be surprised if Iran blinked at this point."
For some on the fence this election, a clarified position from Mr. Kerry on the Iranian matter would be most illuminating. Would someone with Barack's view wind up on President Kerry's staff? Is Iran yet another soft power play? Would Kerry (or Bush, for that matter) be willing to fan the flames of the democratic opposition in Iran? Some reports indicate that the regime is in an internal race for time---thus their nuclear lurch to retain control over the country.

Ditto the President. He's proven that he can unsheathe and thrust the saber, and not just rattle it. Fair enough. Can he swing two sabers at once? Three?

The sand in the Iranian hourglass is running out. What topic could be more pressing than Iran, except perhaps North Korea? It's hard to imagine our cozy little political and social systems humming along in a world where Iranian mullahs roll nuclear Trojan horses into the West using proxies like Hamas or Hezbollah. Let's hope our two presidential debaters 'go there' before we really do go there.