Iran has announced they are progressing to industrial scale uranium enrichment, which I’m not sure exactly what that means. It means more enrichment, but there needn’t be any announcement for that since everyone knew they were headed there anyways. Yes, it’s in direct defiance of the IAEA and the UN Security Council, but Iran’s entire nuclear program already was.
Asked if Iran has begun injecting uranium gas into 3,000 centrifuges for enrichment, top nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani replied, “Yes.” He did not elaborate, but it was the first confirmation that Iran had installed the larger set of centrifuges after months of saying it intends to do so. Until now, Iran was only known to have 328 centrifuges operating.
It would be an unusual event if Iran did not somehow tie nuclear energy into piety.
“We have gathered here today to celebrate the entry of the uranium enrichment project into an industrial level, thanks to God’s eternal blessing,” head of its atomic energy organisation Gholam Reza Aghazadeh told a ceremony at Iran’s most sensitive nuclear plant.
Perhaps the most brazen remarks come from none other than Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad:
“The great Iranian nation, which for past centuries has been a pioneer of science, will not allow some bullying powers to put obstacles in its path of progress by influencing the international community,” he said in a speech.
“We will go on to reach the summits,” he added in a keynote address at Iran’s ultra-sensitive uranium enrichment plant in Natanz.
“Today… this country has joined the countries that produce nuclear fuel on an industrial scale,” said Ahmadinejad, confirming an earlier announcement by Iran’s atomic energy chief.
I’m tired of pointing out how ridiculous this is. Iran feels it has achieved a scientific breakthrough with the help of Allah, yet many other countries already have this breakthrough and the science that started Iran’s nuclear program was in fact Pakistani science purchased on the black market. If the issue is that the so-called international community has tried to prevent this then it is Allah’s will, last I checked North Korea nor India are Islamic nations. It’s the ultimate paradox.
Ahmadinejad added that Iran “will defend its rights to the end,” which is a rather strange phrase used if its program was for peaceful purposes. Then again, so too is having Iranians burn a mock Britain/American flag at the announcement in a nation where protests are not allowed unless directed by the regime. The IAEA believes in peaceful nuclear energy, yet the UN group still contends Iran stands in defiance.
All this while England is still recovering from the hostage crisis, and appears to be willing to do nothing to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear bomb. But perhaps I’ve read this wrong all along when I contended the entire hostage crisis was an Iranian victory with the way England appeared weak and England’s friends even weaker.
JOHN WILLIAMS, the former communications director at the Foreign Office, believes ministers are unlikely to be troubled by those who say Britain was humiliated, especially after the details of the servicemen’s treatment emerged.
“We got the result we wanted,” he said. “Ahmadinejad may have thought he got himself a PR triumph, but it was pretty hollow, wasn’t it? He’s been shown to the world to be a complete liar.”
Ahmadinejad a liar? No way. He’s simply misunderstood. He’s a charming fellow when he appears on Western broadcasts, yet he’s his original self when he thinks the world isn’t watching. And it appears they haven’t been either.
If the ‘victory’ over Iran is that the world now sees Ahmadinejad as a liar, what will defeat look like when Iran takes the next 15 now that they know nothing happens to them? And why would anyone in their right mind view Ahmadinejad as anything but, shall we say, challenged? Where it would have hurt the Iranian regime most was having this rather shallow PR ‘victory’ driven home to the streets of Tehran where Ahmadinejad is losing support, but instead he looked like a gracious hero staring down England and her allies who were no where to be found.





Remember this same time last year, the less-than-manly dancing around while holding vials of uranium (or something). I think this was an anniversary announcement. No one really know how close they are to nukes, a year? two? five? But Ahmadinejad said they are ‘ready to negotiate’… Negotiate WHAT? Very strange.
Comment by Debbie — Monday, April 9, 2007 @ 3:02 pm UTC
You mean with the doves to symbollize the true peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear program? Yes, I do remember seeing video and images of it very distinctly. It was a charade, much as today’s announcement is too, made for the benefit of the media and Ahmadinejad’s inner circle rather than for any other reason.
No serious Iranian leader has ever questioned why the IAEA states Iran has not complied, rather they repeatedly tell the press the IAEA says they are complying. So why would it take the taking of 15 British soldiers hostage, parading them on televisions like the aforementioned doves as props to their regime of misinformation, giving them goodie bags to take home to England only to find out they were treated indeed like hostages for people to conclude Iran and Ahmadinejad are liars? It’s maddening.
And this is a nation that holds rallies where the citizens flock to yell out “Death to America! Death to England! Death to Irael!” Yet the collective world not named the United States, England or Israel react with feigned interest, not having any idea that they might be next. But worse still is the target of those calls and the Iranian regime’s propoganda efforts sitting back and looking at the freeing of hostages due to a hostile act and act of war as proof Iran lies.
How do we free said hostages? We go to the very institution whose idea of stopping Iran’s nuclear program or at the very least insuring it is worthy to be announced with doves rather than vultures and ask them to moderate, to which they reply that they don’t want to take sides. Take sides between whom, exactly? A member of the Security Council versus a nation who openly defies it?
If the Iranian act of war was indeed intentional, and every indication shows that to be the case, we have all learned an invaluable lesson. The collective West reacts to war with diplomacy, not bombs. Neville Chamberlain would be proud of having averted an Iran-England war, for now, but just as before the refusal to look at things long term will end up being more messy than an initial confrontation.
Six years ago the West reacted to an act of war with war, but within those six short years, pacifism has crept onto our minds and attached itself like the leech it is; sucking our will to fight against an enemy who has pledged our defeat using irrational reasons rather than the previous conquering ideals of plunder. And for that, it is of great wonder if the war in Iraq was the deathblow to the collective West’s will to fight.
It’s the League of Nations all over again, and it is 1939, except this time there is no Germanic giant ready to conquer an entire continent, rather a small group of nations who openly flaunt being ‘non-aligned’ ready to unleash the wolves chanting “Death to the Infidel!’ Fascism has a new name, and contrary to the so-called enlightened Liberal mind, it’s called Islamism, not Republicanism.
Comment by Chad — Monday, April 9, 2007 @ 4:45 pm UTC