I've been quiet about Iran for the last month, for the most part, because it's futile to discuss. Simply put we're (the West) going to come to an impasse shortly, if we aren't already there. And by impasse I'm being euphamistic describing military action.

Israel, for it's own protection, will not sit idly by and watch Tehran produce fissile material. That's plain and simple. Regardless of what the rest of the world sees as a right for a nation to build technologies at their own whim, Iran is an antogonist and repeatedly threatens Israel.

Don't be fooled, there will be no peace here. Iran doesn't want peace. Iran wants to antagonize the West and Israel into attacking it. It should be that clear to everyone. The debate doesn't span the rights of nations, or sovereignty or peaceful uses for horrific weapons, it is about war. Iran doesn't mind being the antagonist, just as long as Israel strikes first.

I don't think I'm going to discuss Iran much anymore because I see the outcome. The rest of the drama is simply playing itself out.

U.S. Calls for Action After Iran Defies Security Council

"We are ready to take action in the Security Council," U.S. Ambasador to the U.N. John Bolton told reporters. "We're concerned about Iran's efforts to obtain nuclear weapons."

The report, which was prepared by IAEA Chief Mohamed Elbaradei, said Iran has successfully enriched uranium and continues related activities in defiance of the U.N. Security Council. Iran continued to rebuff agency efforts to get answers in regard to suspicions Iran was attempting to make nuclear arms, the report said.

"After more than three years of agency

Nuclear Agency Says Iran Defying U.N.

Iran's U.N. ambassador, Javad Zarif, said Thursday that Tehran will refuse to comply even if the council request is turned into a demand through a resolution because its activities are legal and peaceful. Enrichment can be used to generate fuel or make the fissile core of nuclear weapons.

"If the Security Council decides to take decisions that are not within its competence, then Iran does not feel obliged to obey," he said in New York.

An exemplary Marine!

Marine bomb expert shaken but not deterred by IED
Photo taken after blast has become symbol of resolve

By Monte Morin, Stars and Stripes
Mideast edition, Sunday, January 15, 2006


RAMADI, Iraq — For Marine Gunnery Sgt. Michael Burghardt, the business of hunting down and defusing roadside bombs is something of a deadly chess game.

Burghardt, 36, of Fountain Valley, Calif., is probably one of the best-known and most well-respected improvised bomb experts in Iraq, where his skills are in constant demand.

Last September, an embedded journalist snapped a photo of Burghardt moments after a roadside bomb exploded on him in a notoriously troubled corner of western Ramadi — a city that Burghardt describes as “the scariest place on Earth.” The image shows Burghardt with bloodied legs and shredded uniform, flipping the bird to an unseen insurgent who triggered the bomb.

The photo has circulated widely among military personnel in Iraq, who view it as a powerful symbol of resolve and fighting spirit.

“It’s one hell of a picture,” said Col. John L. Gronski, commander of U.S. troops in and around Ramadi.

The 2-28 Brigade Combat Team commander keeps an enlarged, autographed copy on his office wall.

Whether Burghardt is using a Mars rover-type robot or a knife blade to probe for bombs, or searching for them in a heavily armored Buffalo mine-clearing vehicle, his goal is to outmaneuver the fertile yet deadly imagination of the unseen bomb-maker and, he hopes, save the lives of fellow soldiers and Marines.

Now, with roughly two months remaining in his third Iraq tour, Burghardt shakes his head in wonder at the variety and evolution of the roadside bombs he has encountered and the relentlessness with which they’re planted.

Washing machine timers, cordless telephone docking stations, battery acid, shaped charges and artillery rounds seemingly scrounged from all corners of the globe are the insurgents’ currently preferred tools. Yet Burghardt said it’s only a matter of time before they move on to newer and deadlier devices.

“It’s a big game of chess,” Burghardt said. “They’re thinking their steps through on how to beat us, and we’re doing the same thing.”

In the hierarchy of roadside bombers, Burghardt said insurgents are divided into three groups: those who plant bombs; those who design them; and those who finance the process.

The lowest rungs, those who plant the improvised explosive devices, or IEDs, are most likely doing it for financial reasons as opposed to any ideology, he said.

“It’s almost like a drug habit,” Burghardt said. “There are the guys on the top who have the money and do the planning, and then there are the crack addicts down below. They make their living planting IED after IED until somebody puts a bullet in them.”

While roadside bombs remain the No. 1 killer of U.S. troops in Iraq, aggressive efforts at finding improvised explosive devices in and around Ramadi have reduced the number of attacks here from a September high of 45 a week to fewer than 15 currently, the U.S. military reports.

Burghardt earned the Bronze Star for disabling 64 roadside bombs and destroying more than 1,500 pieces of ordnance during his second Iraq tour.

But he and his fellow explosive ordnance disposal technicians do not always beat the bomb-makers and planters.

Already, five EOD technicians Burghardt has worked with have been killed, the most recent death occurring three weeks ago when the technician sunk his knife into a dirt berm and activated the pressure switch on a buried bomb.

“Pink mist,” Burghardt said gravely, using the term familiar to Marines to describe the aftermath of a person being blown up.

The day Burghardt found himself checkmated by a roadside bomber was Sept. 19. He was in Ramadi’s wild Tammim neighborhood as part of a team of bomb technicians responding to the scene of a chaotic ambush in which four U.S. personnel were killed.

Burghardt, who was looking to clear an evacuation route for the vehicles, hopped into what he thought was a recent bomb crater. He said he saw an interesting piece of shrapnel in the 4½-foot- deep hole and wanted to investigate. As he took a closer look, the shattered gravel beneath his foot suddenly shifted, revealing a package wrapped in orange plastic and a cordless telephone base station.

Realizing that he had just stumbled onto a primed explosive, Burghardt stuck his knife in the dirt and dredged up a red detonating cord that led to a pair of 122 mm artillery shells. He cut the cord with scissors and told the rest of his team to stay back.

“I thought I had done good,” Burghardt said.

But what he didn’t realize was that a second detonating cord ran from the base station to a third artillery shell buried behind him. The triggerman, figuring perhaps that he wouldn’t lure anyone else into the trap that day, placed a telephone call to the base station.

“That’s when I heard the distinct crack of that artillery shell,” Burghardt said.

The explosion sent Burghardt 10 feet into the air and dropped him in a heap on the road as his team watched in horror.

“All I remember is opening my eyes and hearing a ringing in my ears,” he said. “They all thought I was dead, but when I started to move I could hear them yell, ‘He’s alive!’”

Burghardt could not feel his legs. Trying not to look below his waist — afraid of what he might see — he was struck by an image of his father. The retired Marine spent three tours in Vietnam, earning three Bronze Stars and three Purple Hearts by the time he was shot by a sniper and paralyzed from the waist down.

“I didn’t want my dad to see me in a wheelchair next to him,” Burghardt said.

But relief came quickly. Burghardt was able to wiggle his toes.

Medics cut away his bloody pants to reveal that the backs of his legs had been studded with shrapnel and bruised from the top of his boots to his waist. As they prepared to place him in a stretcher, Burghardt shouted, “No.” He didn’t want his teammates or the insurgents to see him carried from the scene. He was going to walk.

As he was helped to his feet, Burghardt said, he felt a wave of anger and adrenaline flow through his system. He had just extended his Iraq tour that morning and he was livid that he had been bested by the bomber.

“I was really pissed off that they got me, that after all this time, they got me,” Burghardt said. “I figured the triggerman was still watching, so I flipped him off. I yelled, ‘[Expletive] you! I’ll be out here next week!’”

It was at this moment that photographer Jeff Bundy of the Omaha (Neb.) World-Herald snapped the photo that would be seen on office walls, refrigerators, screensavers, Web sites and newspapers throughout Iraq and the U.S.

Since then, Burghardt has had plenty of other experiences with exploding roadside bombs, but they’ve been from the relative safety of a heavily armored mine- clearing vehicle called a Buffalo.

The vehicle, which deactivates explosives using a long, hydraulic arm, is also outfitted with large ballistic glass windows that give occupants an up-close view of the explosives. Burghardt rides along with other technicians to give advice to the arm operator on how to deal with the explosives.

He describes the experience of riding in a Buffalo and getting close to bombs as something akin to visiting an “IED petting zoo.” The excitement of watching an explosive being dismantled — or of watching it explode in a fiery blast — from the protection of a Buffalo is beyond compare, Burghardt said.

“There will be no amusement park ride back in the States that can compare with the Buffalo,” he said. “You will never get a chance to get that close to an IED and feel all of those emotions, happiness, suspense, adrenaline.”

So far, Burghardt has seen at least 20 roadside bombs explode while riding in the Buffalo. Each time the vehicle rolls up to a suspected IED, Burghardt said, the emotions are the same. It’s back to the chess game.

“You’re in suspense — what’s gonna happen?” Burghardt said. “You have control, but you don’t know what the bomb builder has in store for you. You don’t know what else he’s put out there.

“That’s where it’s a chess game. You’re out there and you’re waiting for that queen to come sliding across the board.”

Is Senator Clinton serious? I hardly think so. Apparently she forgets her husband could have had Bin Laden on several occasions, but failed to do so. Now she is preparing to ramp up for a campaign for the Presidency and wants Americans to think that Bush is a failure for not capturing or killing Bin Laden.

This is really an indictment on our troops. Certainly Bush is the Commander-in-Chief, but he isn't personally marching through the rough terrain of Afghanistan looking for terrorists. That job belongs to the hard working men of the Special Forces, US Navy SEALS, Force Recon Marines, Army Rangers, and a myriad of other task forces and conventional units. To say that Bush failed is to say that the job is complete and our servicemen did not succeed.

The very fact that Al Qaeda has been disrupted highlights the success of the War on Terror.

It also must be tiring not to have a solution or an actual stance on issues. Rather Clinton offers rhetoric and whining. She represents the Democratic Party's querulous approach to everything.

Here's the article and an excerpt from the article:

Clinton blasts Bush on war
"Two weeks ago, [White House political director] Karl Rove ... was telling the National Republican Committee 'Here's your game plan, folks, here's how you're gonna win -- we're gonna win by getting everybody scared again,'" Clinton said. "This crowd 'All we've got is fear and we are going to keep playing the fear card.'"

Saying she takes "a backseat to nobody when it comes to fighting terrorism," Clinton accused the White House of portraying critics of Iraq and Afghanistan policy as comforting the enemy.

"Since when has it been part of American patriotism to keep our mouths shut?" she said.

Clinton drew thunderous applause when she mocked the administration's failure to track down the 6-foot-5 bin Laden. "You cannot explain to me why we have not captured or killed the tallest man in Afghanistan," she said.

In August 1998, Bill Clinton ordered an unsuccessful missile attack on bin Laden's base camp in Afghanistan, a fact Republicans eagerly pointed out Wednesday.

It's good to know that major attacks against the U.S. have been thwarted:

Bush Offers Detail of 2002 Attack Plot
President Bush said the U.S.-led global war on terror has "weakened and fractured" al-Qaida and allied groups, outlining as proof new details about the multinational cooperation that foiled purported terrorist plans to fly a commercial airplane into the tallest skyscraper on the West Coast.

"The terrorists are living under constrant pressure and this adds to our security," Bush said. "When terrorists spend their days working to avoid death or capture, it's harder for them to plan and execute new attacks on our country. By striking the terrorists where they live, we're protecting the American homeland."

But the president said the anti-terror battle is far from over.

"The terrorists are weakenend and fractured, yet they're still lethal," the president said in a speech at the National Guard Memorial Building. "We cannot let the fact that America hasn't been attacked in 41/2 years since September the 11th lull us into the illusion that the threats to our nation have disappeared. They have not."

Bush has referred to the 2002 plot before. In an address last October, he said the United States and its allies had foiled at least 10 serious plots by the al-Qaida terror network in the last four years, including plans for Sept. 11-like attacks on both U.S. coasts. The White House initially would not give details of the plots but later released a fact sheet with a brief, and vague, description of each.

The president filled in details on Thursday.

He said that Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks who was captured in 2003, had already begun planning the West Coast operation in October, just after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. One of Mohammed's key planners was Hambali, the alleged operations chief of the al-Qaida related terrorist group Jemaah Islamiyah. Instead of recruiting Arab hijackers, Hambali found Southeast Asian men who would be less likely to arouse suspicion and who were sent to meet with Osama bin Laden, Bush said.

Under the plot, the hijackers were to use shoe bombs to blow open the cockpit door of a commercial jetliner, take control of the plane and crash it into the Library Tower in Los Angeles, since renamed the US Bank Tower, Bush said.

The president said the plot was derailed when a Southeast Asian nation arrested a key al-Qaida operative. Bush did not name the country or the operative.

Bush has been on a campaign to defend his controversial domestic monitoring program. But the White House would not say whether the 2002 plot was thwarted as a result of the National Security Agency program to eavesdrop on the international emails and phone calls of people inside the United States with suspected ties to terrorists.

Bush said only that "subsequent debriefings and other intelligence operations" after the arrest of the unnamed operative led to information about the plot, and to the capture of other ringleaders and operatives involved in it. Hambali, for instance, was captured in Thailand in 2003 and handed over to the United States.

"It took the combined efforts of several countries to break up this plot," the president said. "By working together, we took dangerous terrorists off the streets. By working together, we stopped a catastrophic attack on our homeland."

Bush's speech in October cited two other attacks inside the United States that were foiled, including one to use hijacked planes to attack the East Coast in mid-2003.

The third was the case of Jose Padilla, a former Chicago gang member who converted to Islam and allegedly plotted with top al-Qaida commanders to detonate a radioactive "dirty bomb" in a U.S. city. Padilla, whose plot never materialized, now is being held without bail in civilian custody on charges that he was part of a secret network that supported Muslim terrorists.

A U.S. citizen, Padilla was arrested May 8, 2002, at O'Hare International Airport on a material witness warrant and was designated an enemy combatant. he was held without criminal charge at a Navy brig in South Carolina.

Padilla was charged in November on terrorism charges and transfered to civilian custody last month before the Supreme Court had an opportunity to take up his case contesting his detention. He is in federal custody in Miami awaiting trial.

I saw the following on The Drudge Report:

Castro invites Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Cuba

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has accepted an invitation to visit Cuba from President Fidel Castro, in gratitude for Cuba's support of Iran's nuclear program, the official Granma newspaper said on Tuesday.

Ahmadinejad accepted the invitation in Tehran from Cuban Ambassador Felipe Perez Roque. During his visit, the Iranian leader will attend the September 11-16 Non-Aligned Summit in Havana, the daily said.

On Saturday in Vienna, Cuba, Venezuela and Syria voted against a resolution of the International Atomic Energy Agency to refer Iran to the UN Security Council over a nuclear program the West suspects is weapons-oriented.

The Iranian President recently publicly thanked Cuba for its "dignified and principled" position during the IAEA's special meeting, which ended in a 27-3 vote in favour of reporting Iran to the UN council.

Separately, Granma announced that Iranian Parliament President Ghulam Ali Haddad Adel has accepted an invitation to visit Cuba from Cuba's National Assembly.

and

'Iran is world's most serious threat since WWII'

Israel's Ambassador to the United States Danny Ayalon said on Tuesday morning that Iran is the biggest problem facing the world since World War II.

He said the UN Security Council must force Iran to accept real supervision that would prevent the further development of its nuclear program.

If they continue with their plans, Ayalon warned, Iran may have the know-how needed for the production of nuclear weapons by the end of the year.

Ayalon, in an interview to Reuters, stated that he believed Iran's nuclear program would be blocked by diplomatic, not military means.

Last year a Danish newspaper published a series of caricatures of the Prophet Mohammad. To do so is blasphemy in Islam. The newspaper has since apologized, but other European newspapers have republished the cartoons as a showing of 'solidarity' and to demonstrate freedom of speech. This move has sparked a major fury in the Islamic world.

We have the right to freedom of expression. As monitors of that right, we (the people) should exercise our own judgment on what is and is not appropriate. Knowingly publishing something offensive without any good reason is simply poor judgment. That may be why these cartoons have not been published in the States or UK. That said, newspapers do have the right to do so. I think it would be sad if they did, though.

On the other side, rioting and destruction throughout the world needs to dissipate. Demonstrations and boycotts are peaceful means of protest, but destruction and threats are unacceptable.

Russia, who's on Iran's side in the nuclear crisis, may find itself in a precarious situation. A museum plans to exhibit the cartoons that have sparked the fury. If you recall, the governments whose embassies and people have been targeted had NOTHING to do with the publishing of the cartoons. Free newspapers, independent of government control in democratic societies decided to publish the cartoons. This is a foreign concept in the parts of the world where the fury rages. That being said, will the Iranians and other Muslims rise up now against Russia because an independent museum is going to display the caricatures? Or will the Russian government crack down and ban it? Will the outrage across the world then focus on Russia as well, or will there be hypocrisy?

It would appear that this issue is more tied to Iran's nuclear ambitions that it is given credit for. Take this news, for instance:

Tehran, 7 Feb. (AKI) - Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khomeini has given his blessing to violent demonstrations targeting Denmark's embassy in Tehran, defining them on Tuesday as "justified and even holy." Hundreds of people protesting against cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed hurled stones and petrol bombs at the embassy building. The protest followed as similar assault on Monday. In a televised address, Khomeini, who is considered the Islamic Republic's spiritual leader said the protests were "not directed against the world's Christians, but against the diabolical hands involved in this diabolical issue."

Khomeini blamed a "Zionist conspiracy" for the crisis claiming the aim was to "provoke tensions between Muslims and Christians."

If the Ayatollah of Iran thinks this way about a cartoon, imagine what he thinks of Israel (which he blames for the cartoon) standing in the way of Iran's nuclear program? Can the Iranian regime even be negotiated with? I think it's clear that it can't.

Iran has been Referred
Yesterday I had a post discussing Iran's referral to the UN Security Council. I also tied in the cartoon controversy after reading an interesting article on National Review's website. I had the article in full in the post, or you can read it here: Daned If You Do...

News reports of the cartoon controversy:
NSO - Iran has been Referred
Daned If You Do...
CARTOON CRISIS: IRAN'S SPIRITUAL HEAD DEFENDS VIOLENCE AT DANISH EMBASSY
Moscow museum to exhibit Mohammed cartoons
Danish PM Calls for Global Calm
Denmark issues warning on travel to 14 nations
'4 killed' in cartoon bloodshed
Google News Search

There have been some serious developments over the weekend. First off, the IAEA has referred Iran to the U.N. Security council. Iran has promised to retaliate with full scale uranium enrichment. Apparently Iran does not fear Israel's wrath.

Russia has warned the world not to threaten Iran over its nuclear program. That's seems a bit hypocritical, especially to Israel.

Fox News - Russia's foreign minister warned against threatening Iran over its nuclear program Monday after Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld reportedly agreed with a German interviewer that all options, including military response, remained on the table.

President Bush has issued a statement on the referral, available here: President's Statement on IAEA Board Vote to Report Iran to U.N. Security Council

Today's vote by the IAEA Board is not the end of diplomacy or the IAEA's role. Instead, it is the beginning of an intensified diplomatic effort to prevent the Iranian regime from developing nuclear weapons. We will continue working with our international partners to achieve that common objective. The path chosen by Iran's new leaders -- threats, concealment, and breaking international agreements and IAEA seals -- will not succeed and will not be tolerated by the international community. The regime's continued defiance only further isolates Iran from the rest of the world and undermines the Iranian people's aspirations for a better life.

Cartoons

The Danish Cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad has really sparked fury in the Islamic world. The Danish and Norwegian Embassies in Syria have been burned, the Danish Embassy in Lebanon has been burned, European flags are being burned and protests have swept across many Middle Eastern countries. There has even been widespread demonstrations in Indonesia.

Below is an excellent piece from the National Review Online. I've posted the article here in its entirety.

The most fascinating bit is that the Danes are to hold the presidency for the UN Security Council in June. A list of monthly presidents is available from the UN Security Council Members page.

Daned If You Do...
The real questions to consider in the face of “spontaneous” outrage.

By Emanuele Ottolenghi

Not everything that is right or legal is necessarily wise.

Perhaps it was not so wise to reproduce, all over the European press, twelve Danish cartoons depicting Islam's prophet Mohammad in ways that many Muslims say is offensive. But it was certainly within the boundaries of freedom of speech.

European responses to the events surrounding the cartoons' publication have mainly focused on the above. Was it right? Should there be limits? Should there be editorial self-restraint? Should there be an apology? Who should apologize?

Interestingly, continental Europe has published, Great Britain has not (nor has America). Who understands the Middle East better? The EU or the Anglo-Saxon world? Who does the Arab world hate these days? The evil empire and its lesser imperialist arm? Or the Arab-friendly Europeans with their "more even-handed approach" to the region?

For lo and behold, it is "Death to France" they are chanting now, it is Norwegian flags they are burning (there's always a flags' vendor at hand in the Middle East, whenever "spontaneous" rage erupts).

A sudden reversal of fortunes, to say the least.

But in these days of rage, there is little room for Schadenfreude. Besides, I am not so sure that "I told you so" will open European eyes. Again, interestingly, it is the right-of-center press in Europe that is publishing the cartoons, it is the left-of-center press that is decrying their publication. The right says "freedom of speech" and "Western values," the Left says "multiculturalism." The politically correct may pause and think twice though, given that their once cherished slogans are increasingly the monopoly of the right and their obsession with multiculturalism is putting them on a dangerous slippery slope where their traveling companions are not merely the pious and the aggrieved, but also the less than lucid Holocaust-denying, Homosexual-hating, Jew-bashing, woman-oppressing Islamists who did not call for merely "respect" this weekend, but also for "beheading all those who insult Islam." Beware who your friends are, no less than who are your enemies.

It seems to me that the real debate should not have focused so much on the boundaries of free speech as on the wisdom of reproducing those cartoons in other Western publications (though important they are). After all, Western media routinely publish things that are not so wise or sensitive to expose. From intelligence leaks to mockery of foreign nations, passing through derision of religion and religious beliefs (and those who entertain them), there is plenty to choose from. Was anti-Americanism — so rampant in many European media especially in the last four years — always wise? Is the anti-Semitism that occasionally surfaces in commentary on the Middle East something wise?

But should the answer be censorship? Obviously not. Should the aggrieved parties torch embassies and media centers, or threaten to behead any repeat offender? Again, no. In a truly free society, grievances find legitimate ways of expression and sometimes, if their case is sound, of redress.

In the West we do not believe only in freedom of speech, no matter how silly the speech is. We also believe in the power of ideas to expose the silliness of some speech through robust, but civilized debate. Just like Danish cartoonists had the right to draw twelve cartoons depicting and deriding Mohammed, so are those who feel insulted by their content entitled to march on the streets, assemble in front of embassies, write to newspapers, petition, and go on the air voicing their grievance. As long as it is peaceful and within the legal boundaries that separate speech from incitement, decrying the content of any news item is a legitimate exercise of democratic rights. All that is part of the democratic ethos, and as long as the debate remains within these boundaries, we should let it happen, in the perhaps naively optimistic belief that wisdom will eventually emerge from this exchange.

No wisdom will prevail, though, if debate is conducted by violent means. A violent response that aims to intimidate and muzzle the West on anything concerning the sensitivities of one specific community is unacceptable and makes the dispute over the cartoons a sideshow. The only right course of action now, even if one finds those cartoons silly or in bad taste, is to stand by the publisher, the Danish government, the right of other papers to publish, and the general principle of freedom that makes Europe still a free continent and the Arab Middle East still a sea of dictatorships. Recalling ambassadors was disgraceful. Burning embassies was medieval. Boycotting businesses was mafia-like. And not formulating a joint European response (not yet, one hopes) — let alone expressing solidarity to the Danes — was pusillanimous. It is not Denmark, at this point, that owes an apology to Islam. An apology is owed to Denmark, to Europe, and to the freedom that these assaults aim to deny.

Two considerations arise from this state of affairs: One, if we determine that the yardstick for allowable and unallowable speech is someone else's sensitivity, pretty soon there will be nothing left to talk about. Sensitivity is a subjective trait and the law, with all its shades and penumbras and variations in interpretation, needs a pretty objective, abstract, and general standard. The minute we allow feelings to determine the boundaries of freedom, we will all be slaves.

Second, the reaction that swept across the Muslim world and among Muslims in Europe is symptomatic of a culture that denies democracy and fails to comprehend the mechanisms of a free society. The attacks on the Danish government and state have no precedent and find no justification, given that the target of Muslim wrath is a newspaper, not government policy. To ask for the Danish government to take steps in order to avoid further violence and rescind the sudden boycott on its products means that those who are asking think the free press of Denmark does and will do what the Danish government will tell them to do. That is how the press works in the Arab world. Not in Europe. Not since 1945 at least, and hopefully not anymore. Anyone who thinks government interference with the workings of our societies' press is bad should be outraged. Instead, most of those who routinely exalt the values of freedom of speech in Europe these days are busy siding with the enemies of freedom in the name of community relations.

Still, there remains an open question. Why all this fury now? When the cartoons appeared, there was hardly any commotion outside Denmark and only a few local disturbances. Yes, we know that the outrage was largely cooked up by a party of traveling clerics who put together a brochure designed to enrage, especially given the addition of three particularly vicious fake pictures, and showed it around the Middle East. Still, the timing is, to say the least, suspect. Could it be that, as David Conway of Civitas suggests, this has little to do with Muhammad the Prophet and much to do with Iran the nuclear power? Iran, after all, has just been refereed to the U.N. Security Council on account of its nuclear program. And guess what: When Iran finds itself in the eye of the storm, which, of all countries, will be chairing the U.N. body? Denmark.

What a strange coincidence, given that not much of this fury looks spontaneous.

— Emanuele Ottolenghi teaches Israel studies at Oxford University.

Mohamed ElBaradei believes that the 'row' over Iran's nuclear technology program has yet to reach a 'crisis point'. I will concede this since the US intelligence community does not believe that Iran has developed enough fissile material to develop a nuclear weapon. It will only be a matter of time, however, before Iran does have all the resources to create a weapon.

Speaking of weapons, the IAEA is set to refer Iran to the Security Council, albeit under protest from Iran. Even though the bilateral talks between Iran and Russia are continuing, Secretary of State Condi Rice doesn't think Iran is serious. Rather, she (and the US Administration) believe it is a stall tactic to delay the UN Security Council referral. I stated this as my opinion last week.

The biggest development is that Russia and China have sided with the US on the referral. Or at least will not oppose referral to the UN Security Council. This marks a major shift of support away from Iran.

I maintain that nations are free to decide their own futures. And other nations have a right to question whether or not that spells disaster for themselves. Israel certainly doesn't trust the current Iranian government. Nor do I! Imagine if Iran could make good on it's blatant wont for the destruction of Israel?

Even though the US is taking the issue through the designated diplomatic channels in the international community, I don't think the result will deter Iran. After all, the country has been under various levels of embargo for years. Yet, the government still maintains a ready military and has almost completed its quest for a nuclear arms program. So much for sanctions!!!

Ultimately if Iran doesn't halt its program, Israel is going to unleash its own fury. Unilaterally, if the international community reverts to its equivocal posturing.

Below are various news pieces and quotes on the current affairs surrounding Iran.

Fox News - Iran: Referral to U.N. Will Kill Russia's Uranium Proposal

Iran warned Friday it no longer would consider a Kremlin proposal to move its uranium enrichment program to Russia if it is referred to the U.N. Security Council over suspicions it might be seeking nuclear weapons.

Fox News - Iranian President Pledges to Resist Opposition to Nuclear Efforts

Ahmadinejad's speech, broadcast live on state-run television, came hours after President Bush increased the pressure on Iran, saying in his State of the Union address Tuesday night that Iran "is defying the world with its nuclear ambitions, and the nations of the world must not permit the Iranian regime to gain nuclear weapons."

BBC News - Iran nuclear row 'not a crisis'

The head of the UN's nuclear watchdog says the row over Iran's nuclear research is reaching a critical phase.

But Mohamed ElBaradei said the issue was not yet at crisis point, and Tehran had a "window of opportunity".

BBC News - US increases pressure on Tehran

She said a compromise Russian plan to resolve the stand-off was merely a delaying tactic by Iran ahead of a UN's nuclear watchdog meeting next month.

Previous Posts on NSO
Iran
Watch Out, Iran Steps Up it's Anti-Israel Comments
Iran Pops Seals on Nuke Plants
Showdown With Iran
France Denies Iran's Request for Nuke Talks
France 'would use nuclear arms'
The BBC Opines on Iran
Iran's Ahmadinejad Meets With Terrorists
Iran and Israel
Iran's Government is Mad
The Indecision Begins

The IAEA hasn't yet met to decide whether to refer Iran to the UN Security Council, but the feet dragging has already begun.

The Beeb reports: Annan doubts prompt Iran decision

The UN secretary general has said he doubts the UN's nuclear watchdog will be able to decide next month whether to refer Iran to the UN Security Council.

Iran is also stalling with threats of wide scale uranium enrichment if referred to the Security Council. Also, they are trying to buy time by appearing serious about Russia's offer:

"It is also encouraging to hear the Iranians say they are considering the Russian offer very seriously. It is a solution that the international community is ready to accept."

If you are unfamiliar with the "offer", it involves Russia and/or China enriching the uranium and then delivering the uranium to Iran.

Resources
BBC - Annan doubts prompt Iran decision

Iran's government has accused the U.S. and British of a terrorist bombing in Ahvaz, Iran.

Tony Blair's spokesman puts it best:

"The Iranian government's suggestion that we somehow had a hand in the bomb explosions in southern Iran yesterday is obviously ludicrous and deserves to be treated with scorn by the whole international community," the spokesman said.

"Their putting the blame on us, rather than the terrorist responsible, underlines why there is much widespread international concern about this Iranian government."

Do you get the feeling that our issues with Iran are NOT going to dissipate quietly?

Resources
Fox News - Iran Blames Britain, U.S. for Deadly Bombings in Ahvaz

A news piece from Fox News today described Israel's growing impatience with Iran's nuclear program.

Israel has declared her right to defend herself. As part of this right to defense, Israel could launch a preemptive strike against Iran before a nuclear weapons are fully developed.

"Israel will not be able to accept an Iranian nuclear capability and it must have the capability to defend itself, with all that that implies, and this we are preparing," Shaul Mofaz said.

His comments at an academic conference stopped short of overtly threatening a military strike but were likely to add to growing tensions with Iran.

There is good news, though. Israel states it will not take unilateral action, although that's a bit contradictory to it's claim to the right to defend herself. I can appreciate that Israel doesn't want to look like an aggressor, but I wouldn't rule out a unilateral strike if the international community becomes indecisive.

Israeli leaders have also repeatedly said they hope the crisis can be resolved through diplomacy, and they said any military action would have to be part of an international effort. They have denied having plans for a unilateral preventive strike.

The Russians may give Iran a way to continue peaceful nuclear technology development while alleviating international concern. To do this, Iran's enrichment program would be moved to Russia. This proposal is acceptable to the EU3 and US and would end a lot of the tension, for now at least.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has said Tehran might still agree to Moscow's offer to move its uranium enrichment program to Russia, a step backed by the United States and Europeans as a way to resolve the deadlock.

I predict that the issue of uranium enrichment and Iran's right to a self run nuclear weapons program is not going to deflate. Steps will be taken in the interim period to deescalate tensions, but they will not last. After all, France was the first to declare that she would retaliate to an attack in kind. Israel is now declaring her position on preemptive strikes. The stress is beginning to show.

Resources
Fox News - Countries Warn Military Action as Iran Nuke Standoff Continues
France 'would use nuclear arms'
NSO - War On Terror

If there has been any doubt to the purpose of Iran's nuclear program, let it be made clear here: it's for making bombs.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has previously rejected claims the he, or his government, support terrorism. This statement, too, can be rejected as an outright lie. Face it, Libs, Bush was right to label the Iranian government as an Axis of Evil. Syria will soon be added to the list.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad met Friday with the leaders of the Palestinian groups Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Syria, expressing his support a day after 20 people were wounded in Tel Aviv in a suicide attack claimed by Jihad.

Israeli Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz has said Syria planned the attack and Iran funded it. Iranian and Syrian officials have denied any involvement by their countries.

The nuclear weapons, yes, I do mean weapons, program Iran is pursuing is going to cause a massive international chasm very soon. As with Iraq, the United States will only tolerate noncompliance with international will for so long.

Undoubtedly there are many Iranians who would love nothing more than to coexist with the West in a peaceful manner. This is not possible with Ahmadinejad's government sponsoring terrorism and threatening the rest of us.

Something must be done to stop these terrorists.

Resources
Fox News - Iranian President Meets Palestinian Leaders in Syria

Here's an interesting piece from the BBC's Frances Harrison.

If Iran was not a radical Islamic state would the West worry?

It is easy to see how the sense of discrimination festers here.

I think that's precisely the point. Time and time again Iran's hard-line government has threatened the West. It also appears they are harboring terrorists and fueling the Iraqi conflict.

Justin and I were discussing this contentious subject over lunch today. Before that, we had an e-mail thread with another colleague, Gennie, where we discussed Iran and nukes.

I suppose the debate boils down to whether or not Iran is allowed to have nuclear technology. Sure, who are we to tell others they can't do something? The West has decided to oppose Iran's acquiring of this technology precisely because the hard-line government poses a very real threat to us and our allies. In the short term Israel's very existence could be at stake. Even France made it known to the world today that they will retaliate in kind to any act of aggression. This shouldn't be misconstrued as anything other than Western nations fearing that a fascist Iran would strike first with nukes.

It is extremely naive to think that Iran's government simply wants to use the nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. That is SO easy to say yet the words mean NOTHING! North Korea said the same thing and now they have several nukes. Hooray for the international community.

Sometimes we have to draw a proverbially line in the sand and denounce what we think is wrong. This is where we are at now with Iran.

Say you take Mahmud AHMADI-NEJAD and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Hoseini-KHAMENEI's word that the technology is used for only peaceful purposes. What will you say when they develop the bomb. Iran will see it as their right to defend themselves and simply convert the technology for nefarious purposes. Suppose, again, that Iran promises then only to use the bomb in self defense. Then they contradict themselves and attack Israel. It will be a Pyrrhic Victory to be proven that Iran, after all, was out to destroy Israel with nukes. Think about the chances we take by standing idly by whilst Islamic-fascists develop world ending weapons. Think really hard about that.

Xenophobia

And that has somehow got mixed up with the Iranian sense of nationalism which should be worrying for the outside world.

It means those who do not particularly support the Islamic government still feel aggrieved that Iran, a nation with a powerful sense of its great past, is being held back scientifically by the West.

Nationalism can easily boil over into xenophobia and there was a touch of that in the attacks on CNN this week.

Justin and I had previously discussed the fragile nature of this subject. The US has been careful to handle Iran through the EU3 as not to stir up resentment in Iran. Certainly we wouldn't want to create a nationalistic sense of unity in Iran, particularly when there is a massive pro-Western youth population. The West must be careful to cultivate this segment of the population in our favor. It certainly helps the world solve this problem diplomatically.

From E-mail Thread
Below are some points I made earlier in an e-mail to Justin and Gennie:

Quick Points:
• Iran has access to an unimaginable supply of hydrocarbons.
• Iran says it would like to develop nuclear technologies to provide fuel/electricity to its people.


• Iran says its nuclear program is benign and for peaceful purposes only.


• Iran is run by hard-line Mullahs who are quasi-fanatical/fanatical and rail against the West


• Iran took American hostages from the US Embassy in Tehran after the fall of the Shah


• Iran held our hostages for 444 days until Reagan became president. They released our hostages


• Iranian youth are on the verge of overthrowing their conservative government in lieu of a pro-Western government


• Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism


• Iran would definitely seek to use nuclear weapons against us


• Even France is done negotiating with these fools and Chirac issues a statement today saying France would retaliate with nuclear weapons if attacked

And this is where the IAEA, UN and EU3 come in. The EU3 (UK, France and Germany) had been in multilateral talks with Iran to persuade them not to continue with their nuclear program. These talks broke down with an impasse and Iran ended the moratorium on their program this (or last) week by popping the IAEA seals on their labs at their facilities. Iran has resumed their program and now the EU3, along with the US, are seeking to refer Iran to the UN Security Council. Even Russia and China have been trying to stem Iran from continuing their program.

Russia, however, throughout the nineties has HELPED Iran develop their nuclear program. Russia, being the ever responsible ex-super power has helped Iran to accelerate the program.

Obviously this bodes ill for Israel, the United States and other Western nations that Iran routinely grandstands against.

The end result here will likely be sanctions by the Security Council against Iran. And I predict at some point Israel will attempt to destroy the nuclear facilities in Iran because the international community will fail, again, to take the appropriate action.

Resources
BBC - Reporting the crisis in Iran

A new audio tape released by Al Jazeera alledgedly has Usama offering a truce to the West. I think he under estimates our perseverence.

We do not mind offering you a long-term truce with fair conditions that we adhere to," he said. "We are a nation that God has forbidden to lie and cheat. So both sides can enjoy security and stability under this truce so we can build Iraq and Afghanistan, which have been destroyed in this war. There is no shame in this solution, which prevents the wasting of billions of dollars that have gone to those with influence and merchants of war in America."

The White House's response:

"Clearly the Al Qaeda leaders and other terrorists are on the run and under a lot of pressure," said White House spokesman Scott McClellan. "We do not negotiate with terrorists, we put them out of business."

Resources
Fox News - Purported Usama Bin Laden Audiotape Aired

In an article from the BBC this morning, it is reported that President Jacques Chirac has stated France would use nuclear weapons to respond to odious attacks' of terrorism by state governments.

Perhaps we've found a new ally in the war on terror? Yesterday I blogged about France's rejection of a new round of talks with Iran on its nuclear weapons program.

I must say I respect the hard-line France is taking against Iran. Perhaps a unified international stance against Iran will show the hard-line government that the world will not stand idly by while they threaten our continuity.

"In numerous countries, radical ideas are spreading, advocating a confrontation of civilizations," he said, adding that "odious attacks" could escalate to "other yet more serious forms involving states".

Resources
BBC - France 'would use nuclear arms'

A Fox News article states that

France rejected Iran's request for more talks on the Islamic republic's nuclear program, saying Wednesday that Tehran first must suspend its atomic activities.

I'm highly impressed with this move. I think it is absolutely what needs to happen.

It would seem up to this point that Iran has been toying with the EU3 with talks. France has apparently had enough. I'ts good to see France take this stand. France's move underscores the severity of Iran's nuclear program.

We'll have to see if the rest of the international community takes this issue as serious.

Resources
Fox News article

You have to check out this author and war correspondent: Michael Yon.

This is some of the best news coming from Iraq. I think I'm going to buy his book.

A link from the Media Blog (National Review Online) is how I found it. This is the dispatch that I found amazing: Jungle Law.

Yarmuk traffic circle is fantastically dangerous. On the first mission I ran in Mosul, we lost two soldiers and an interpreter, all killed by a car bomb. Others were horribly burned, scarred for life. Many of our wounded and killed soldiers got it right here, or in the immediate vicinity. The ISF takes serious losses in this part of town. But it's not entirely one-sided--the Deuce Four has killed well over 150 terrorists in this neighborhood in the past 10 months. But almost none of those made the news, and those that did had a few key details missing.

Like the time when some ISF were driving and got blasted by an IED, causing numerous casualties and preventing them from recovering the vehicle. The terrorists came out and did their rifle-pumping-in-the-air thing, shooting AKs, dancing around like monkeys. Videos went 'round the world, making it appear the terrorists were running Mosul, which was pretty much what was being reported at the time.

But that wasn't the whole story. In the Yarmuk neighborhood, only terrorists openly carry AK-47s. The lawyers call this Hostile Intent. The soldiers call this Dead Man Walking.

Deuce Four is an overwhelmingly aggressive and effective unit, and they believe the best defense is a dead enemy. They are constantly thinking up innovative, unique, and effective ways to kill or capture the enemy; proactive not reactive. They planned an operation with snipers, making it appear that an ISF vehicle had been attacked, complete with explosives and flash-bang grenades to simulate the IED. The simulated casualty evacuation of sand dummies completed the ruse.

The Deuce Four soldiers left quickly with the "casualties," "abandoning" the burning truck in the traffic circle. The enemy took the bait. Terrorists came out and started with the AK-rifle-monkey-pump, shooting into the truck, their own video crews capturing the moment of glory. That's when the American snipers opened fire and killed everybody with a weapon. Until now, only insiders knew about the AK-monkey-pumpers smack-down.

Resources
Michael Yon
Jungle Law
National Review Online
Media Blog Story

The UK, France and Germany say the time has come for the Council to deal with the issue, although they say talk of sanctions against Iran is premature.

It's about time this issue gets dealt with. This seems like Iraq all over again. The UN Security Council is going to drag its feet for as long as possible, make a few unbinding equivocal decisions, and then feign outrage when the United States decides to take 'unilateral' action with a coalition of responsible nations.

The UN's utter disconcern for this issue should raise the interest of the entire world. There is a special team investigating prisoner abuse at Camp X-Ray, but a decision can't be reached on what to do about Iran's nuclear ambitions.

Pure Insanity!!!
And then to say talks of sanctions are premature is pure insanity. What part of the notion of Iran possessing nuclear weapons DOES NOT scare these people? Oh, the fact that they are LESS likely to be attacked? With the global economy further interconnected, a massive attack on the United States would affect the entire world. Particularly when we begin to retaliate.

I think this issue has reached a critical phase. If the UN continues to equivocate on this then you will see the United States and Israel take action.

Sanctions

Western countries are now seeking to persuade other members of the UN nuclear watchdog to agree to refer Iran to the Council, which could impose sanctions.

I think the term 'sanction' should be redefined for use by the UN as 'to express dissatisfaction with a specific ideology or action by engaging in a corrupt and loosely monitored set of economic annoyances that will be disregarded by the majority of the international community and shall be easily bypassed.'

What good is a sanction going to do? The US already has an embargo on Iran that has been emplace for two decades. Apparently that hasn't stopped the Russians from helping Iran from setting up a nuclear weapons program! So, maybe the UN can explain just what kind of nuisance their 'sanctions', which they're not ready to discuss, will inflict upon Iran?

Again, the UN doesn't have the fortitude to impose military action on Iran. The Iranian theocracy knows this and explains why they are so defiant. What do the Mullahs care if they breach UN rules? There are no consequences. Plus I'm sure the Iranian government would like nothing more than to lob a nuke at Israel.

Iran has threatened to halt snap inspections of its nuclear sites by the United Nations if it is referred to the UN Security Council.

So Iran might end the snap inspections. Again, WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE??? They're continuing on with their program, so what if they let us monitor it.

This is a massive conflict in the making. Remember when Bush declared the axis of evil? Well, look at how effective the UN has been in getting those two rogue nations, North Korea and Iran, to dismantle their nuclear programs. And you'd be naive to think that their purposes for nuclear programs is for anything less than nefarious uses.

Resources
BBC News - Iran threatens to end UN checks

Iran removed seals on its nuclear facilities Tuesday, allowing work to resume despite warnings from the United States and other countries concerned about its nuclear ambitions.

It's no shock that Iran was going to continue with their Nuclear ambitions. It is now time for the international community to stomach a decision on this subject. Do we want Iran to have nuclear weapons?

The United States and Israel certainly don't, but that's because the Iranian leadership would like to see our two nations obliterated.

If the UN has any validity as an international body, then it should take steps to show Iran that it's serious. I doubt that will occur.

IAEA inspectors were present Tuesday as Iranian officials began removing the seals, spokeswoman Melissa Fleming said from Vienna, Austria, where the agency is based. She declined to say whether the Iranians planned to start enriching uranium or would be satisfied with testing the equipment used in the process.

Resources
Fox News - Iran Pops Seals on Nuke Plants

Ever wonder what it is that the United States and her allies are fighting in the Middle East? It's tyranny.

Everday there are reports from Iraq describing suicide bombers killing scores of innocent civilians, soldiers and police. Perhaps you've become accustommed to the reports and now just skip them.

Here's a different perspective on the same irrational murderers who set off those bombs: Taliban Behead Teacher for Educating Girls

The perpetrators of this murder are the same people who are setting of suicide bombs and car bombs and kidnapping other innocent people. It's this ruthless tyrrany that we're fighting.

Resources
Fox News article - Taliban Behead Teacher for Educating Girls

In discussions on Operation Iraqi Freedom one point isn't debated: the points of view are maligned. Every group with a vehicle for distribution have shared their opinions on policy, method, history and future for the polirazed events in the Middle East. As the Economist states in its opinion against the Death Penalty (article on Tookie):

IN SOME contentious debates it is better to proclaim your prejudices at the beginning.

I support the Bush Administation's policies on Iraq.

In my current affairs reading I come across just about every point of view on everything. The current affair with the greatest standard deviance is OIF. The Economist has a very interesting article regarding Economist article on American military tactics.

From the Economist:

For the American army in Iraq, he says, IO was a “low-density skill set

And from Iraqi election there's a quote from an Iraqi voter that's making the rounds:

Anybody who doesn't appreciate what America has done and President Bush, let them go to hell.

The United States and coalition forces must stay to finish the democratization and stability of Iraq. In doing so terroists will target the operation. Iran will try to usurp our influence, but they will fail as long as we stay focussed.

Hippie-liberal Nonsense
The 'anti-war' crowd can be dismissed as a rash bunch of socialists. Their methods are annoying but they are easily ignored. These groups are backed by international communist groups and are students of Marx. The same group of 'peaceniks' also idolize Che Guevara and Fidel Castro. Mixed into this crowd are vegans and PETA supporters who disagree with EVERYTHING a free market economy is about. This group believes individuals are ignorant and an elect few should dictate and allocate to the proletariat all resources, goals, ambitions, jobs, wealth, families, thoughts, feelings, opinions, rights and liberty. In their ranks no one is responsible for their own actions. Their misfortunes are attributed to a vast right-wing conspiracy.

This group dominates the Mainstream Media's attention span. Since this motley group represents the polar opposite of the Bush Administration, the media can't help but to distribute their incoherent musings.

The future though is always brighter than the Left would like. Iraqis are enjoying greater freedoms thanks to the sacrifices of American and coalition forces. Free market forces are working to strengthen the Iraqi infrastructure as the Iraqis act as a leader for democracy in an oppressed region. Bush will forge on, our allies will follow and the we will lead the world towards a more peaceful century.

Resources
Economist
Economist article on American military tactics
Economist article on Tookie

The Iranian braintrust has released its official story on the illegal, unrecognized, Zionist conspiracy and American puppet, Israel:

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad stepped up his anti-Israeli comments on Wednesday, calling the Holocaust a myth used by Europeans to create a Jewish state in the heart of the Islamic world.

Iran is becoming a grave threat to stability in the Middle East and the world.

Resources
NY Times Article

Iran's assertion that they will continue to develop nuclear fuel is becoming contentious with the international community. We know from experience the UN will be nothing more than a whining mouth piece, opting not to use any type of force because it would be wrong to physically stop a rogue nation from developing a nuclear program.

Does anyone believe that this program is for peaceful applications of the fuel?

Apparently Israel is readying their forces for a first strike. Although this will bode ill for the United States' reputation in the Middle East, someone must take a stand. After all it is their own security they are protecting.

Resources
Times Online Article

Pictures of the damage wreaked by the bombers on July 7 in London appear here.

The train photos graphically illustrate the sheer destructively of these bombs.There are also photos of unexploded ordinance left in the bombers' car at Luton station.

Resources

It's sickening to hear about the attacks in London this morning.My heart goes out to the British who're no strangers to the cowardice of terrorism.

"It's important, however, that those engaged in terrorism realize that our determination to defend our values and our way of life is greater than their determination to cause death and destruction to innocent people and a desire to impose extremism on the world," an emotional Blair told the world.

Resources

This is a video clip of a patrol getting hit by a VBIED:

Vehicle Borne Improvised Explosive Device

More Movies.

Resources