Yesterday Iran announced they have begun industrial uranium enrichment, something which was in defiance of the United Nations but also something I didn’t realize exactly what it meant.  Sure, it means more enrichment and that the planned 3,000 centrifuges at the Natanz complex were complete or were on the verge of completion thus pushing ahead Iran’s attempt or ability to produce enough enriched uranium to build a nuclear warhead, but what does that mean?

Does that mean we’re looking at a nuclear armed Iran in five years?  Ten years?  Fifteen years?  How about two years?  The correct answer appears to be two years, but once again this is assuming the IAEA knows all of what Iran is doing, which is false according to their own reports.

Iran is believed to be using 3,000 centrifuges to enrich uranium. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) estimates that with this number of centrifuges it is about two years away from having enough weapons-grade uranium for one bomb . . .

Analysts say Iran has used such announcements of atomic progress in the past to strengthen its bargaining position with the West, but that such statements have often glossed over technical hitches they say have plagued its nuclear work.

But Iran still maintains its nuclear program is for peaceful means, yet yesterday at the announcement ’students’ protested outside the IAEA office in Tehran shouting out the rather familiar phrases of, “Death to America!  Death to England!”  What?  Israel gets no love?  If Iran’s nuclear program were for peaceful reasons, why would the announcement be joined by yells of death to anyone?

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.

We all knew the images and video that came out of Tehran regarding the 15 British soldiers were merely propoganda, but I still am a bit surprised their rebuttals to previous statements came out as fast as they have.

The 15 British Royal Navy troops held by Iran told a press conference Friday they were patrolling Iraqi waters when apprehended by Iran’s Revolutionary Guards but were presented with the option of either confessing they had illegally entered Iranian waters or face seven years in jail. LT. Felix Carman, who read out a joint statement, said the troops were 1.7 nautical miles from Iranian waters when they were surrounded by the Pasdaran - despite ‘confessions’ broadcast by Iranian television in which they admitted they had trespassed. The personnel said they were blindfolded, bound and held in isolation during their captivity . . .

“If we had, some of us would not be here today, of that I am completely sure,” he said. “We realised that had we resisted there would have been a major fight, one we could not have won and with consequences major strategic impacts. We made a conscious decision not to engage the Iranians and do as they asked.”

The crew said they spent nights in small cells, sleeping on blankets and were kept in isolation until their last few nights. They were also lined up against a wall while weapons were cocked.

“We were interrogated most nights and given two options. If we admitted that we had strayed, we would be back on a plane to the UK pretty soon. If we didn’t, we faced up to seven years in prison,” they also said in the joint statement.

Mock executions are the exact type of scare tactic used by the hostage takers in 1979.  It’s amazing how little things ever change, but at least back then former U.S. President Jimmy Carter tried to rescue the hostages.  England this time around, not so much.

It is therefore perfectly reasonable to conclude Iran released the hostages when they did because they had already learned what they set out to learn.  England will not strike Iran even when Iran declares war upon them.  On the Iranian side, don’t forget that despite the calls of “Death to England” the Iranian regime really has nothing against the island nation.

Tell me, how does Iran virtually declare war on England, the EU and NATO by taking British hostages and come out of the mix smelling like roses?  Or am I simply wrong by the impression I have that Iran has once again come out on top while taking aggressive action by releasing the British soldiers?

It is certainly true Iran used the hostages as a propoganda tool, and the world likely looks at the way the soldiers were paraded on Iranian television almost daily negatively, however I’m talking more about within Iran.  Ahmadinejad, by shaking the hands of all hostages making this his second foray into frolicking with hostages, has now shored up support for his reign from the very group who started to question his rule.  Iranian hardliners now saw their leader not step down, but instead England and thus the perception of the collective West has once again appeared weak in the face of adversity.

Could it be true that because of this entire incident England and the EU might take a more firm stance against Iran in the future?

ABC’s The Blotter reports Iran may be two years away from producing enough enriched uranium to build a nuclear warhead.  Previous indications held 2015 as the first available date, a date that I still find hard to believe knowing how many centrifuges Iran at least claims they are building (and that is what the nation that defies the IAEA claims), but an underground plant near Natanz is being revamped to amplify Iran’s nuclear program.

“If they continue at this pace, and they get the centrifuges to work and actually enrich uranium on a distinct basis,” said David Albright of the Institute for Science and International Security, “then you’re looking at them having, potentially having enough highly enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon in 2009.”

“I think we have all been caught off guard. Ahmadinejad said they would have these 3,000 installed by the end of May, and it appears they may actually do it,” Albright said.

As I’ve written for some time now, there are steps to take with regard to Iran’s nuclear program.  First we must conclude Iran has a growing program, and there’s no question they do.  Second, we must conclude they are not fully cooperating with the IAEA, which is accurate according to the IAEA’s own measures.  Thirdly, we must figure out whether or not Iran’s nuclear program is for peaceful means as the Iranian regime claims or if it is for military means.

It is that last proposition that is the most important, but it is also one that seems to me to be just as simple as the other two.  When compared with other nations who have gone peaceful nuclear over the last decade alone, Iran sure has hidden things and been unusually threatening.  When compared with other nations who have gone military nuclear, the similarities are striking.  Taking into consideration Iran’s work with North Korea in missile and nuclear capability, the nation’s poor track record with the IAEA, the open threats to destroy other nations and not just Israel, the belief of a magnificent apocalypse and a thinly blurred line between Iran’s nuclear program and its ballistic missile program, the conclusion is that Iran does indeed want a military nuclear program.

Now this may be completely wrong, but if you’re the sitting head of a nation who is a declared enemy of Iran whether you declared it or if, as is the case in every situation here, they declared it, would you take that chance?

What exactly does it take for some people to be weary of Iran’s nuclear program?  Thus far we’ve got the symbollic leader of Iran threatening to anihilate another nation, Iran destroying entire forests near nuclear power plants ahead of IAEA inspections, Iranian cooperation with North Korea to develop ballistic missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads, a bait and switch game with the IAEA, Iran has even had the ability to pick and choose the IAEA inspection team and Iran has even pressured the IAEA to replace inspectors the nation deemed weren’t friendly enough (read: came to the conclusion Iran’s nuclear program was for military means).

All of this, and more, would seem to be compelling evidence to place sanctions upon Iran’s nuclear program.  And there will be sanctions placed upon after the United Nations Security Council voted in favor of such sanctions.  Those sanctions are toothless, but it’s a start and an eventual first step to either Iranian cooperation or further sanctions.

One of the UNSC nations voting for sanctions last week was Indonesia, the world’s largest Muslim populated nation.  The vote didn’t surprise me, because this isn’t a religious issue.  Then again, AKI reports an Indonesian Muslim lawyer group is now suing the government of Indonesia for the vote.

“The decision by president Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono to vote for the resolution against Iran is against the sprit of the constitution,” said [Tim Pembela Muslim] president Mahendra Patta Michdan in an interview with Adnkronos International (AKI).

Mahendra said the reason that they would like to take legal action against the government is to ensure that Indonesia does not vote the same way in the future.

“The constitution says that Indonesia must follow a foreign policy that is independent and based on the principle of non-alignment, but the UN resolution 1774 is a clear sign of a pro-American alliance against Iran,” Mahendra told AKI.

“We are fully aware that Indonesia could not withdraw its support for this resolution but we want to move forward in such a way, that in the future, something similar cannot happen,” he said.

One hundred thirty members of the Indonesian parliament have voiced criticism of the president for the vote as well, with one member, Hasyim Muzadi, even stating if there’s ever war with Iran “Indonesia would also be responsible for the spilt blood.”  What a crock.

If this were merely a religious issue, why then are other Muslim nations in the Middle East concerned with Iran’s nuclear program?

The story of IAEA inspector Chris Charlier is always important to bring up.  Charlier was the head of the IAEA’s inspection team in Iran before Iran simply requested he be replaced because Charlier was convinced Iran’s nuclear program was for military reasons.

The IAEA did comply with the Iranian request, and to be fair, maybe Charlier’s opinion was off kilter.  Perhaps his conclusion might be correct but it was drawn from incorrect data.  But the problem is that the IAEA has allowed Iran to pick its own inspection team and the nation continues to do so.  Iran seeks out inspectors who agree with Iranian contentions or simply don’t rankle the regime.

According to the Telegraph, Iran is refusing to work with IAEA nuclear inspectors the nation deems as “too effective.”

“The Iranians are basically trying to appoint their own nuclear inspectors, and ElBaradei seems prepared to go along with their demands,” said a Western diplomat who works with the IAEA.

“ElBaradei appears as though he is desperate to avoid any sort of confrontation with the Iranians.” The Iranians are pressing Mr ElBaradei to appoint an inspector with relatively little experience of Iran, forcing him to spend time learning about the subject, which would allow Iranians scientists to continue their activities unhindered.

The Telegraph also notes there are also signs of an increased relationship between Iran and North Korea to develop missile technology and Iran’s nuclear program.  This isn’t entirely news as it has long been known Iran has a vested interest in North Korea’s missile program.  Still, it throws another question into Iran’s contention it is Iranian technology and advancement under the watchful eye of Allah that has grown Iran’s nuclear program.

Iran and North Korea are “trying to negotiate a binding agreement with Pyongyang to continue their co-operation on the development of advanced ballistic missiles and nuclear technology.”  But, as we’re always told, Iran’s nuclear program is purely for peaceful reasons.

It’s about time U.S. President George W. Bush commented on the 15 British sailors and marines that were taken hostage by Iran. In a word, he said it was “inexcusable” and that Tehran must release them immediately.

“The British hostage issue is serious because the Iranians took these people out of Iraqi water. It’s inexcusable behavior. I strongly support the Blair government’s attempts to resolve this peacefully,” he said, referring to British Prime Minister Tony Blair.”I support the prime minister when he made it clear there were no quid pro quos. The Iranians must give back the hostages. They’re innocent,” Bush said.

Tony Blair has been a true friend to President Bush and to the United States in this war against Islamic terrorists and Bush, even though slow in his statements, is standing by Blair.

According to this report, Bush did not answer a question about whether the United States would have reacted militarily if those captured had been Americans, and would not comment about Britain’s options if Iran does not release the hostages, but he seemed to reject any swapping of the British captives for Iranians detained in Iraq.

Originally posted at Right Truth 

England chose to appeal to the United Nations Security Council to get a unanimous censure over the taking of 15 British soldiers hostage by Iran. Seemingly it would have been a pretty easy thing to do because it’s just words.

But then comes in Russia and Indonesia who opposed the measure because they “did not want to give the impression that the council was taking sides.” Yeah, but that’s what the UNSC does. It takes sides in international disputes.

After four hours of negotiations yesterday, the Security Council could only agree a watered-down version of the statement, voicing “grave concern”, which fell far short of Britain’s demands.

It read: “Members of the Security Council expressed grave concern at the capture by the Revolutionary Guard and the continuing detention by the government of Iran of 15 United Kingdom naval personnel and appealed to the government of Iran to allow consular access in terms of the relevant international laws.

“Members of the Security Council support calls, including by the secretary general in his March 29 meeting with the Iranian foreign minister, for an early resolution of this problem including the release of the 15 UK personnel.” (source)

Long live the ghost of Kofi Anan, who apparently still resides at the UN even though his tenure is officially over. It wouldn’t have mattered to Iran if the UNSC had delivered the exact speech England wanted because Iran is already in defiance of the UNSC, the IAEA and the entire UN.  Iran claims it is upset about sanctions and the like, but it’s not as if Iran has done anything to alter certain behavior.  In fact they’ve ramped it up.

Now in the United States, the House of Representatives moves to censure the hostage taking and give a voice of support to a friend and ally in England. Again, it seemed like a certainty the measure would pass. But alas, just as the UN has Russia and Indonesia, the House has Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) to block a vote on the measure for, well, some reason I suppose. Maybe there’s some more pork to throw into a national security bill that Pelosi will find laying around, or, better yet, maybe Pelosi can throw in some pork into a censure measure to at least bring it to the floor?  I hear blue jays in Washington are struggling to compete against the Sasquatch.

After what has been described as a “handful of bearded militants” gathered outside the foreign ministry office in Tehran and demanded the 15 British hostages be hung, an action that must have been approved by the Iranian regime due to all other protests in Iran being violently ended, Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator and general spokesman Ali Larijani claimed England has escalated the incident by asking the UN Security Council to step in.

And it’s interesting about who escalated the incident. The Telegraph notes the hostage taking was relegated to the back pages until video of the hostages aired on state-run television. Now the entire incident is being played out like anyone would expect; an act of aggression by England.

Despite the media escalation within Iran, Larijani claims it is England who has amped it up.

“Instead of sending a technical team to examine the problem, they kicked up a media storm, announced a freeze in relations and spoke about the security council. That will not resolve the problem. They have miscalculated,” he said.

But the talk about the UNSC only happend yesterday, long after Iran paraded the 15 hostages on television and before the protesters appeared. England did announce a freeze a few days ago, but what would Iran expect would happen when they take 15 British soldiers hostage? Did Iran think England would send the Queen (remember, she’s ‘the enemy of Islam’) to Tehran to marry Prince Ahmadinejad?

In fact the self-made media blitz in Tehran will make it more difficult for this entire incident to end without the complete subversion of England because Ahmadinejad has already taken many hits locally, he has to wonder if he can take another blow. It seems clear the original taking of the British soldiers was the escalation, followed by televised coverage of the hostages, the puppeteering of Faye Turney and the reneging of a promise to release Miss Turney are all escalations, and they are all on the Iranian side. England, for its part, has been playing catchup and I have often wondered if Jimmy Carter is giving Tony Blair advice on how to proceed.

Oh, but wait. Here’s another escalation, also on the Iranian side. Late last night Iran warned the British soldiers will be put on trial, the second time the identical threat has been made and a clear violation of the Geneva Convention. Of course forcing Turney to wear a headscarf is too, but no one seems to care when Iran does anything wrong.

In an interview with ITV News, Mr Blair was asked about the treatment of 26-year-old Ldg Seaman Turney who was paraded on TV in Iran.

“I just think it’s completely wrong, a disgrace actually, when people are used in that way,” Mr Blair said.

“That’s contrary to all international laws and conventions, and is not going to make any difference to us. We need all 15 released because they were doing their job under a UN mandate. There is no justification whatsoever for taking them in that way.”

But that’s how Iran operates, Mr. Blair. They always have since the Islamic Revolution and likely will always act in similar fashion. We’ve seen almost the exact thing occur several times yet each time the entire world acts shocked, shocked at what I am not entirely sure, but shocked nonetheless.

And of that Iranian ‘evidence:’

The “evidence” produced amounted to a senior officer pointing to crosses on a map in Iranian territory and a vague picture of a GPS device with coordinates.

The Iranian’s claim that the Britons were in its waters have been undermined by the country giving two different sets of co-ordinates, one that placed the troops in Iraq and then a later version that put them well inside Iran.

I presume the same Iranian officer will soon face charges of proselytizing for drawing crosses.

UPDATE: Who is escalating the incident?  Iran claims England is, but Iran has now trotted out another British soldier for a television appearence and released a third letter allegedly from Faye Turney.  They are using the British soldiers as props in their own propaganda war, and thus far England is letting them.

And perfect.  A BBC correspondent writes an opinion and files it under news, but his opinion is that all of this is the fault of, you probably guessed it, the United States.  Damn!  We Americans are in everything, including the conspiracy behing Blu-Ray or HD DVD.