I think you are correct. Although I think keeping the Taliban from taking over is a good thing, worth what it will take? not sure. We only need to nation build in Iraq, because the Bush family chose to destroy it. Our best policy is to build, aid, educate...........etc. that entire region. When it comes to nukes, that's another story. What a mess.
IRAN-Deja vu all over again?
The reason that Iran does not have enough refining capacity i am given to understand. is because of the technologies and skills needed
That's what surprises me. They can build a nuke, but not an oil refinery?
There Are Only Two Choices Left on Iran
An Israeli or U.S. military strike now, or a nuclear Tehran soon.
Pressure, be it gentle or severe, will not erase that nuclear program. The choices are now what they ever were: an American or an Israeli strike, which would probably cause a substantial war, or living in a world with Iranian nuclear weapons, which may also result in war, perhaps nuclear, over a longer period of time.
Understandably, the U.S. government has hoped for a middle course of sanctions, negotiations and bargaining that would remove the problem without the ugly consequences. This is self-delusion. Yes, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and French President Nicolas Sarkozy stood side by side with President Barack Obama in Pittsburgh and talked sternly about lines in the sand; and yes, Russian President Dimitry Medvedev hinted that some kind of sanctions might, conceivably, be needed. They said the same things to, and with, President George W. Bush.
Though you would not know it to listen to Sunday talk shows, a large sanctions effort against Iran has been underway for some time. It has not worked to curb Tehran's nuclear appetite, and it will not. Sooner or later the administration, whose main diplomatic initiatives thus far have been a program of apologies and a few sharp kicks to small allies' shins, will have to recognize that fact.
The Iranian regime wants nuclear weapons and has invested vast sums to get both the devices and the means to deliver them. The Russians and Chinese have made soothing murmurs of disapproval but have repeatedly made it clear that they will not go along with measures that would cripple the Iranian economy (and deprive them of markets). German and Swiss businessmen will happily sell Iran whatever goods their not very exacting governments will permit, and our terrified Arab allies have nothing like the military capability to match their own understandable fears. So let's be serious about the choice, because we have less than a year to make it.
An Israeli strike may set back the Iranian program by some short period of time. What the Israelis can do is unclear: They play their tactical cards close to their vest, and they would take different approaches, and accept different risks, than the U.S. Air Force would. No surprise there, given that they believe, with reason, that the looming issues are existential.
But even if they achieved temporary success, it would be just that, because the Iranian program is very different from the Iraqi Osirak reactor that the Israelis nailed so precisely in 1981. It is far more dispersed and protected, and is based on thousands of centrifuges rather than a single nuclear reactor. Moreover, the chances are that it would evoke outrage throughout the Middle East (although Arab governments would privately rejoice at the event), and probably provoke an Iranian reaction that could involve a very large war as the Israelis are attacked by, and retaliate against, Iran's proxies in the Levant and throughout the world.
Only the United States has the capability to obliterate Tehran's underground facilities. Washington may have to act.
IAEA: Iran Broke Law by Not Revealing Nuclear Facility
The head of the United Nations' nuclear watchdog agency said Iran broke the law by not disclosing sooner its recently revealed uranium enrichment site.
"Iran was supposed to inform us on the day it was decided to construct the facility. They have not done that," International Atomic Energy Agency's Mohamed El Baradei told CNN's sister station, CNN-IBN. "They are saying that this was meant to be a back-up facility in case we were attacked and so they could not tell us earlier on.
"Nonetheless, they have been on the wrong side of the law, you know in so far as informing the agency about the construction and as you have seen it, it has created concern in the international community," he said.
Last week, Iran wrote a letter to the IAEA revealing the existence of the facility. The admission prompted President Obama and the leaders of Britain and France to publicly chide the Islamic republic and threaten further sanctions.
Iran claims its nuclear enrichment program is intended for peaceful purposes, but the international community accuses the country of continuing to try to develop nuclear weapons capability.
The facility is located on a military base near the city of Qom, about 100 miles (160 kilometers) southwest of Tehran, and is thought to be capable of housing 3,000 centrifuges, according to the officials and the IAEA.
The equipment is not enough to produce nuclear fuel to power a reactor, but sufficient to manufacture bomb-making material, according to a U.S. diplomatic source who read the letter.
"Whether they have done some weaponization studies as was claimed is still an outstanding issue. But I have not seen any credible evidence to suggest that Iran has an ongoing nuclear program today. I hope they are not having one," El Baradei said.
Iran has said there is no nuclear material at the site. It announced Tuesday it will allow the IAEA to inspect the facility, but did not offer a timetable.
El Baradei's comments came ahead of an expected meeting between Iran's nuclear negotiator, Saeed Jalili, and representatives of the five permanent United Nations Security Council members, plus Germany.
The meeting is scheduled to take place Thursday in Geneva, Switzerland.
Oil, Ideology Keep China From Joining Push Against Iran
In its effort to muster support for sterner action against Iran, the Obama administration will have to overcome China's reluctance to punish a country that is one of its top oil suppliers and a major beneficiary of its energy-related investments.
The administration's frustration with Beijing is growing. U.S. officials have noted that China has appeared even more reluctant than Russia to take action against Iran after disclosures about its nuclear program. U.S. officials said they are particularly concerned that China has blocked their efforts to target freight-forwarding companies based in Hong Kong that reship goods, including prohibited weaponry, to Iran.
The Chinese "have not displayed a sense of urgency" on Iran, said a senior administration official. Instead, the official said, China has attempted to "have it both ways," preserving its relationship with Iran while also working with the United States and other countries involved in the effort to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.
Why is China protecting Iran? Two reasons, analysts say: oil and ideology.
Iran is China's second-biggest supplier of oil, and imports are rising. In a country where more people are expected to buy cars this year than in the United States, China's appetite for oil is unquenchable.
Furthermore, China's rapid economic growth is the ruling Communist Party's single most important claim to legitimacy. Tougher economic sanctions against Iran would probably cause the price of oil to spike in China, threatening its economic juggernaut.
UK Times: Obama Should Ditch His Conciliatory Tone
This emphasis on conciliation is, to put it mildly, odd given that it came at a press conference expressly called to read the riot act to a regime that had been caught for the third time illicitly constructing a nuclear facility that Mr Obama baldly defined as “inconsistent with a peaceful programme”.
It was left to President Sarkozy to tell it like it is: that confidence in Iran’s rulers is zero; that the menace they pose is global; and that “we cannot let the Iranian leaders play for time while the centrifuges are spinning”. But after years of playing Europe like a harp, Iran is not listening to Paris; the regime has ears only for the Great Satan. And the GS, Obama version, is approaching Iran as tentatively as if the Islamic republic held all the thunderbolts.
This would be bad psychology at any juncture and is inexplicable when Iran’s dreadful duo, the Supreme Guide Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his protégé, President Ahmadinejad, are on the back foot and, for all their ferocious retribution against the swelling multitude of their critics, perceptibly wobbling.
The regime’s prestige at home and abroad has been taking a terrible beating. Its agents no longer look like kingmakers in Iraq — although if the Obama Administration fails to nurture the successes made possible by the surge there, that country could yet fall under the sway of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards. The kudos that Tehran gained in much of the Arab world for its “triumphant” backing of Hezbollah’s war against Israel has been dissipated by its strenuous, but at present thwarted, efforts to undermine Lebanese democracy. Iran’s nuclear and missile programmes are considered a serious threat, not just by Israel but, increasingly, by its Arab neighbours.
Capping it all, the Islamic republic founded by Ayatollah Khomeini stands exposed as a fraud, a corrupt and militarised theocratic travesty of its original pretensions to be a model of Islamic governance. Since the wholesale vote-trashing of the June elections, Iran’s ruling clique stands accused by millions of Khomeini’s faithful followers of stealing their votes, betraying their trust and torturing and killing their fellow citizens for voicing their objections.
Mr Ahmadinejad is trapped between the hammer of the hardliners on whom he now absolutely depends, and the anvil of popular contempt and anger. Almost the only public “celebration” that the regime felt it could not cancel, the annual pro-Palestinian “al-Quds Day” rally on September 18, brought massed protests to the streets, and forced an Ahmadinejad TV interview off the air when microphones picked up chants of “Ahmadi, resign”.
Regarding Sanctions, Iran says, "Bring it On".
SPIEGEL: If Tehran doesn't change its position during the talks in Switzerland, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has threatened you with very painful sanctions.
Jalili: What is new about that? And do you really believe there are sanctions that can hit us that hard? We've lived with sanctions for 30 years, and they can't bring a great nation like Iran to its knees. They do not frighten us. Quite the opposite -- we welcome new sanctions.
Well, if they are going to start a war, I hope they understand what that means.
Personally, there are a dozen ways a spec ops team could fix this problem but alas...