No nukes is 'unacceptable'

So International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed El Baradei confirmed what has been known for quite some time, and that is Iran is not in violation of the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty, finding "Iran to be generally truthful about key aspects of its nuclear history". Naturally, all of that is nonsense to the Israelis, continuing with their invectives towards El Baradei, and to a lesser extent, the watchdog IAEA. But then again, Israel has never been fond of anything affiliated with the UN, ESPECIALLY the NPT. Israel's Minister of Strategic Affairs and noted advocate of ethnic cleansing, Avigdor Lieberman, expressed great displeasure with the report as well as with El Baradei, saying that "This [report] is further proof of El Baradei's one-sided and pro-Iranian position."

The latest report just iterated what is plain to see; after all, does it really matter if Iran were enriching to gain nuclear weapons? Perhaps if they did, it would have a deterrent that North Korea had to prevent a strike against them. But Iran is not foolish enough to provoke a (pre-emptive) retaliation that could enflict the destruction of their own regime, even though that's the intention of all this tough-talk. The intrasigent nuke-enriching is just providing the perfect pretext, along with the "supporting our enemies in Iraq" and "funding" Hamas and Hizbollah. Remind me again where Hamas is meant to get aid when there is a worldwide embargo against them?

Typically, Britian and the US also took a hit against the report, insisting that Iran "are in continuing violation of their international obligations under two unanimous UN Security Council resolutions," all the while missing the point that what Iran is doing is perfectly legal under the NPT. Unfortunately, Iran did not have the veto backing of the country who leads in vetos of UN Security Council resolutions.

So this will lead in more threats of "sanctions" and more rhetoric. Iran continues to enrich at the behest of the world, thumbing its nose at the UN because it is operating with "impugnity", or better yet, a rogue state. If only Iran could do it as good as Israel, with its good arsenal of nukes and ignorance of numerous resolutions.

What good would sanctions do anyway against Iran? Is the West going to stop trading with them for their oil and gas reserves? That seems rather far-fetched considering they are having a hard enough time keeping oil afloat in Iraq.

Striking Iran is peaceful

Israel's Deputy PM Shaul Mofaz has reached the Orwellian peak by calling for the head of International Atomic Energy Agency leader Mohamed El Baradei, stating that

"the Egyptian...had endangered world peace by neglecting Iran's nuclear programme."

Of course, it is more of a ploy, falling in line with Likudnik thinking, that dissenters either have a choice to join their ranks or be broken. With Iran being played up as the next Boogeyman out there ready to wreak havoc on "world peace", our friends are willing to strike at them for the sake of peace (without seeing the irony of making war to have peace). Naturally, El Baradei has been a thorn in every hawk's side by his findings that Iran still has no weapon, and the fact that if they do choose to proliferate, it takes them almost a decade to do so. But with Pakistan in an imbroglio, concerns about their weapons are still considerably less so than Iran's non-existent ones (or Israel's couple of hundred in their arsenal).

And who else is going to piggyback (or initiate) this attack? Why none other than our neighbour to the south, who has mobilised Iran attack plans.

"US defense officials have signaled that up-to-date attack plans are available if needed in the escalating crisis over Iran's nuclear aims, although no strike appears imminent.

The Army and Marine Corps are under enormous strain from years of heavy ground fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. Still, the United States has ample air and naval power to strike Iran if President Bush decided to target nuclear sites or to retaliate for alleged Iranian meddling in neighboring Iraq.

Among the possible targets, in addition to nuclear installations like the centrifuge plant at Natanz: Iran's ballistic missile sites, Republican Guard bases, and naval warfare assets that Tehran could use in a retaliatory closure of the Straits of Hormuz, a vital artery for the flow of Gulf oil."

Tactical air strikes: haven't we been here before (as well as forged intelligence to suit our means)? Iraq has been blundered but that does not mean they cannot redeem themselves in Iran. After all, things have not changed one bit, have they. Here's Vice President Dick Cheney trying to withhold a report that is not to Washington's liking.

"A National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran has been held up for more than a year in an effort to force the intelligence community to remove dissenting judgments on the Iranian nuclear program, and thus make the document more supportive of US Vice President Dick Cheney's militarily aggressive policy toward Iran, according to accounts of the process provided by participants to two former Central Intelligence Agency officers.

But this pressure on intelligence analysts, obviously instigated by Cheney himself, has not produced a draft estimate without those dissenting views, these sources say. The White House has now apparently decided to release the unsatisfactory draft NIE, but without making its key findings public."

So we're back into an old loop. Bombing nations for peace. Weapons when there are none. Leaving out key findings to support the militant cause. Deriding old realists when they do not follow the script. And a sign of things to come.

"If the NIE includes both dissenting views on key issues, a campaign of selective leaking to news media of language from the NIE that supports Cheney's line on Iran will soon follow, as well as leaks of the dissenting views by his opponents."

Hubris at its best.