WINDOW DRESSING

Sanctions are nice if you like window dressing but they won't get the job done.

Iran is on an undeterred course to build and maintain a nuclear arsenal and short of war, it seems there is little that the world as represented by the UN, the United States or Israel can do about it.

While China and Russia are onboard with this latest round of sanctions they have refused to allow them to rise to the level where they would affect the day to day economy of Iran. Add that to the fact that the Iranians as the New York Times has reported Web of Shell Companies Veils Trade by Iran’s Ships have been actively gaming the system so as to avoid the effects of sanctions already in place and the result is in a few short years Iran will become a nuclear power.

If the United States, Israel or anyone else is serious about preventing Iran from becoming a nuclear power, it is way past time for action. There are few good alternatives. A nuclear Iran will have many consequences for the region and the world but so will war. War will cost lives, be messy and will be unsupported by the majority of the world. There will be many resulting consequences, some intended and many of which will be unknown and unintended. It is not a decision to be taken lightly. War never is.

In this game of high stakes chess, those who would seek to stop Iran are on the clock. Short of war, the best the world can hope for is a draw. The question is can we live with that outcome?

DEJA VU ALL OVER AGAIN?

News Item: The Sunday Telegraph, a British newspaper, reports that Iran has signed a secret deal with Zimbabwe to mine its untapped uranium reserves. The agreement was secured last month, when a close aide to Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe visited Tehran.

According to the deal, Iran will supply Zimbabwe oil in exchange for access to potentially huge deposits of uranium ore - which can be converted into basic fuel for nuclear power, or could also be enriched to make nuclear arms.

Isn't this the reason that we attacked Iraq? It sounds eerily similar to me.

In 2003 Seymour Hersch wrote about the lead up to the war in The New Yorker magazine;

"According to two of those present at the briefing, which was highly classified and took place in the committee’s secure hearing room, Tenet declared, as he had done before, that a shipment of high-strength aluminum tubes that was intercepted on its way to Iraq had been meant for the construction of centrifuges that could be used to produce enriched uranium. The suitability of the tubes for that purpose had been disputed, but this time the argument that Iraq had a nuclear program under way was buttressed by a new and striking fact: the C.I.A. had recently received intelligence showing that, between 1999 and 2001, Iraq had attempted to buy five hundred tons of uranium oxide from Niger, one of the world’s largest producers. The uranium, known as “yellow cake,” can be used to make fuel for nuclear reactors; if processed differently, it can also be enriched to make weapons. Five tons can produce enough weapon-grade uranium for a bomb. (When the C.I.A. spokesman William Harlow was asked for comment, he denied that Tenet had briefed the senators on Niger.)".

This begs the question, what is different this time? Well for one thing, we now know that Iraq was only pretending to have nuclear weapons. In contrast, Iran makes no secret of its desire to become a nuclear state. They say that such technology will only be used for peaceful purposes but their consistent testing of missiles capable of carrying warheads with greater and greater range, their continued belligerence to the west and their stated desire to wipe Israel off the map makes that assertion hard to believe. In fact, it would be downright dangerous.

If this report is true, coupled with recent US and Israeli intelligence reports estimating that Iran will have the capability to build a bomb within 3 to 5 years, if not sooner, it is an ominous sign.

So the question is, when all else fails; sanctions, negotiations, threats etc., as I believe they will, will we be as willing to go to war with Iran over facts that we know to be true as we were to go to war with Iraq over assertions that, it turns out, we knew at the time were unreliable and probably untrue?

The time for talking is rapidly running out. It is only a matter of time.

YOU GO GIRL

I have not generally been a fan of New York's junior senator Kristen Gillibrand but today she said something I could not agree with more;

“Clearly, we need to take a tougher stance against companies tied to Iran’s refined petroleum capacity,” said Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, Democrat of New York, who has been pushing for hearings on companies doing business in Iran. “Companies need to make a choice: do business with the U.S. or with Iran – not both. Companies whose profits fuel Iran’s nuclear ambitions should not be allowed to do business with the U.S. or benefit from the U.S. economy— period.”

"Last month, The New York Times reported that over the past 10 years, the federal government gave more than $107 billion in contract payments, grants and other benefits to foreign and multinational American companies while they were doing business in Iran. That includes nearly $15 billion paid to companies that defied American sanctions law by making large investments that helped Iran develop its vast oil and gas reserves."

Actions speak louder than words.

Go get 'em Kristen!