5 More Qom-style nuclear plants in Iran?

WND News is reporting that the UK's MI6 has discovered 5 more nuclear facilities in Iran, hidden in the mountains.

Deep-cover MI6 agents who have described the workings of the once-secret underground uranium enrichment plant near the Iranian city of Qom now have discovered a staggering five more similar operations, according to a report from Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin.

We don't normally feature breaking stories on this blog, my focus being more on the analysis of the issues behind the stories. However this one seemed important enough to mention. (and drudge hasn't said anything about it as of this writing) The article is short, I have copied the relevant content here:

They, like the Qom facility, are buried deep inside the mountains of north Iran and are guarded by divisions of Revolutionary Guards.

The details were sent this weekend to some G20 leaders who met in Pittsburgh when the Qom facility was revealed to the world.

The MI6 agents have established that, like Qom, the new plants are staffed by nuclear scientists from Iran's main weaponization program. It is known by the acronym Metfaz, and is headquartered at 180 Western Avenue in the Pars district of eastern Tehran.

Details of the MI6 discovery were hand-delivered to Meir Dagan, the head of Mossad, over the weekend by Sir John Scarlett. They contained a detailed picture of what was being built at the five new plants.

A senior intelligence source said the data came from "an Iranian nuclear scientist's smuggled laptop, defectors and satellite imagery."

The highly unusual indication of the source material is seen as a deliberate attempt by Western intelligence to rattle the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, that a further vital part of his nuclear plan has been discovered.

The situation in Iran is swiftly reaching a breaking point; we will see what happens. It comes down to whether the world powers decide whether Iran will be allowed to achieve the status of a nuclear power. If not, I am curious how a body defined by inaction will then act.

-()4|<.

The Underside of the Economy

The jobless rate for people aged 16-24 (and who are not students) is over 50%. With minimum wage increases the past three years, it may come as a surprise that this group of people has been hardest hit by the economic downturn we've experienced. The minimum wage (set currently at $7.25) deters the hiring of young inexperienced workers. Over the past 3 years the minimum wage has increased 23% while there has only been an 8% increase due to inflation. The government has required businesses to increase pay at about three times the market rate. While this is beneficial for people who are employed, it makes it more difficult (fiscally) for companies to hire people without there being an increase in the amount of money made by a company. Raising the minimum wage during an economic slump, while a nice idea, really only makes the problem worse for those who are seeking jobs and do not have much experience.

To remedy this businesses must be encouraged to hire people. The theory was that tax incentives would get businesses hiring. Tax incentives that are effective get companies hiring. The current incentives are not worth the cost of hiring. Companies are trying to make money. Small tax credits in an economy where everyone is spending less have little effect. A significant change in the way government handles business needs to take place. Unfortunately, I do not see either side rushing significant aid to anything but banks and car manufacturers. Cars, lending, and taxes do not an economy make.

Iran's Nuclear Plant Circus

Why so naive, world?
The Iranian government is having a field day with this.

If you read news online, you already know that Iran has a second nuclear power plant. But there is much more news here than you might think.

First, the LA Times article has this quote from President Obama.

Speaking before the Group of 20 summit in Pittsburgh, President Obama said the plant is a "direct challenge" to global nonproliferation. He added, "Iran must comply with U.N. Security Council resolutions and make clear it is prepared to meet its responsibilities as a member of the community of nations."

Oh, and UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown chimed in, doubtless trying desperately to tie himself to President Obama in any sense, having already been snubbed repeatedly at the G20 and having chased Obama through breakfast just to get a chance to speak with him. But that's another story.

Added Brown: "The level of deception by the Iranian government, and the scale of what we believe is the breach of international commitments, will shock and anger the entire international community. The international community has no choice today but to draw a line in the sand."

Oh dear. How many times has Iran heard that line? Something tells me they aren't impressed.

But there is more heavy-handed political-speak to come. This from the Washington Post article. Be afraid Iran:

"Iran is breaking rules that all nations must follow," Obama said, detailing how the facility near Qom had been under construction for years without being disclosed, as required, to the International Atomic Energy Agency. "International law is not an empty promise."

"Ah, now I see", President Ahmedinejad was quoted as saying. "The first 14 times you said that and did nothing I did not believe you, but now on this 15th time I see that you are serious."

Ok no, I made that quote up. What he actually said was this:

"If I were [President] Obama's adviser, I would definitely advise him to refrain making this statement because it is definitely a mistake," Ahmedinejad told Time magazine Friday in an interview in New York that took place even as Obama was publicly revealing the plant's existence. "It would definitively be a mistake."

Now the plot gets thicker.

But White House officials said Western intelligence agencies have known about the facility for several years and believe that Iran acknowledged its existence Monday in an attempt to head off intense criticism that they knew was coming.

"We believe that the Iranians learned that the secrecy of the facility had been compromised," a senior White House official said Friday morning. "We've been aware of this facility for several years, building up a case so that we had very strong evidence."

I'm willing to hazard a guess that in this case "Western intelligence agencies" means MOSSAD, aka Israel. Unless Iran was too obvious, and some kid found it on google earth...

The basic alleged situation is that everyone knew Iran had the extra power plant, they just rushed to condemn it once Iran realized that they knew, or something.

What it boils down to is that there has been no strong, unified international effort to force Iran to stop, even though (remarkably) nearly all nations agree that Iran with military nukes would be a terrible idea. Ahmedinejad is somewhat insane, but definitely not an idiot. He knows what he can get away with, and he's been doing splendidly so far.

Sooner or later this is all going to come to a head when the Israelis decide it has to end, and send an air strike. That may not succeed as well as the Osirak operation in Iraq did; Russia is supplying Iran with advanced air defense weaponry at the same time as it suggests it might be open to the idea of sanctions. (Putin likes to have his cake and eat it too, it would seem.)

Now the real question in all of this to me is not necessarily what happens to Iran, but to what extent their national sovereignty matters these days. That is to say, we are all pointing fingers at international bodies and saying "Why aren't you doing anything?". Do we really want the UN to be able to do something? Do we want them in the position to be able to go into a sovereign nation and by force, violate their sovereignty and impose international will on them?

Sure, this time, it's Iran. What if international consensus decides that America should give half of Texas back to Mexico?

The argument still smolders in this country over state's rights and how the Federal government is encroaching on their last remainders. Perhaps the real movers of the times are ignoring the tea parties and such things because they know that protests against national government excesses are irrelevant in the face of coming international law with teeth. It would matter little how many Americans or American congressmen agree or disagree with environmental issues if the UN could simply declare it to be international law and demand all nations conform to it. (and be able to enforce that demand)

So in all of the controversy over Iran and their nuclear program, before you think "they should do something about that", stop and ask yourself. Who are "they", and how much do we really want them to be able to do? And if we don't like what they can do, is there anything we can do about it? Not really. We live in different times now.

America's say in world affairs is only determined firstly by her economic might, and secondarily by her military supremacy. The economic might is vanishing before our eyes, and a good portion of America's clout with it. Watching the irresponsible way our government is handling the crisis doesn't help the world view us in a more favorable light, either.
The traditional American response has been "Well, the world can take a hike."
But that statement has only been possible because we had the power to back it up.

Losing that power, we will merely have the attitude of a superpower without the force to sustain it. Don't think some nations will lose any time putting us in our place.

Wake up America. As goes our economy, goes our standing in the world. As goes our standing in the world, goes our national sovereignty. If those in Washington want to chip away at the strengths in our economy according to their ideologies, rather than solve the problems there according to practical reality, they are betraying our nation in a more fundamental sense than any Revolutionary War Benedict Arnold or Cold War Rosenbergs possibly could have.

-()4|<.

Nuclear Disarmament MADness

The UK's Guardian is reporting that President Obama is planning to drastically reduce and eventually eliminate our nuclear arsenal.

"Barack Obama has demanded the Pentagon conduct a radical review of US nuclear weapons doctrine to prepare the way for deep cuts in the country's arsenal, the Guardian can reveal."

The policy of MAD - Mutually assured destruction - was initiated during the Cold War and continues to this day. Essentially, MAD dictates that you keep enough nuclear weapons that a devastating attack on your country can be returned in like kind, ensuring that if one nation begins a nuclear exchange, both parties (and to some extent their allies) will be more or less annihilated, thus preventing such an exchange from ever occurring. Critics may argue that this policy is indeed "mad", but as it is obvious that such a nuclear exchange never occurred, it's hard to argue that it failed.
One very important point is this: MAD is not concerned with the quantities of warheads, but with the RELATIVE quantities. So the issue is not to have a certain level of nuclear strength, but to retain nuclear parity.

Apparently Russia, pleased with our removal of the planned missile shield sites in Eastern Europe, has indicated it might be willing to reduce their stockpiles as well.

"Russia has approximately 2,780 deployed strategic warheads, compared with around 2,100 in the US. The abandonment of the US missile defence already appears to have spurred arms control talks currently underway between Washington and Moscow: the Russian president, Dmitry Medvedev, said today that chances were "quite high" that a deal to reduce arsenals to 1,500 warheads each would be signed by the end of the year."

So, this retains nuclear parity, assuming that both sides have the means to verify that the deal was being followed. The Doomsday Clock will be turned back a few minutes, and all will be well. Except...

"Obama has rejected the Pentagon's first draft of the "nuclear posture review" as being too timid, and has called for a range of more far-reaching options consistent with his goal of eventually abolishing nuclear weapons altogether, according to European officials."

Most people agree that it would be wonderful to live in a world in which nuclear weapons did not exist. However, we do not. And we cannot pretend that we do. And now more and more nations are developing such capabilities. Pandora's box has been opened, and one cannot gather the destructive powers released and enclose it again.

The Soviet Union's leadership clearly did not wish for their own destruction. They viewed a massive nuclear bombardment on their nation as resulting in their destruction, and thus took steps to avoid it. Thus, MAD succeeded, at least on the most important level of preventing global nuclear pandemonium.

Now think of a nation like Iran. I should say that I have no issue with the Iranian people. The Iranians that I have met have tended to be intelligent and likable. But their highest leadership in recent years have shown (through things such as demanding the utter destruction of Israel and denying the holocaust, for example) that they are both genocidal and out of touch with reality.

Imagine if Iran does develop nuclear weapons, a feat they are currently on the brink of accomplishing. Now imagine if an even more unstable set of radical Islamic leaders came to power. They could proclaim that a unilateral strike is mandated to please Allah by destroying Israel, and as such that Allah will protect them from any retaliatory strikes. They might also determine that truly destroying Israel must be accompanied by destroying their ally, the 'great satan' America. Their missiles cannot reach us here in the CONUS (Continental United States), but what about our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan? The concept of MAD is thus totally destabilized, and the risk of nuclear war grows perilously near.

This is purely hypothetical, of course. But it is hypothesis grounded in reality, and a realistic observation of the tendencies of nations.

What is unrealistic is trying to pretend that nuclear weapons never existed, or that, having existed, they can be eliminated forever.

We live in such a world where policies as outrageous as MAD are required to keep the peace. In such a world, where every nation desperate for power and respect on the world stage is racing to acquire nuclear weapons of their own, a push to eliminate all of ours is not altruistic or visionary, it's madness.

-()4|<.

Disagreeism?

We often hear about "-isms" these days.
Feminism. Chauvinism. Marxism. Capitalism. Atheism. Fundamentalism. Racism... the list goes on. Anyone you can label as a "something-ist" is identifiable as belonging to the corresponding "-ism"

With a few rare exceptions (feminism being a notable one), to be labeled an -ism by those who label such things is to automatically be made equivalent to a warped philosophy, a wrong, possibly dangerous way of thinking. (Capitalism also used to be an exception, but look how the word is being used now...)

I would submit now that it's possible another -ism is being added to the list: "disagreeism".

Adherents of this way of thinking are marked by their stubborn and misguided refusal to agree with popular opinion, perceived popular opinion, or with those who feel that their positions should also be held by all correctly-thinking people.

For example: "It is a responsibility of government to make sure everyone's standard of living meets a certain level"

Disagree? You are clearly not compassionate, are probably a greedy, racist, capitalist pig, and might possibly be a disagreeist. (notice how the -isms run together. More on that later)

Nancy Pelosi recently made an impassioned plea to the disagreeists, that they might cease their divisive ways (which apparently also inherently lead to violence) and stop making statements that people might possibly misinterpret. I believe "incitement" is the term used.
Notice the implication: Those of you who voice your disagreement need to take responsibility, because it may cause other people to act violently.
The condemnation is not on those who take words and run with them, and make personal decisions to act violently, it's on the disagreeists who won't just relent and agree with us already.

(That comment about a "balance between freedom and safety" also happens to make me nervous. Those definitely shouldn't be a zero sum gain. Otherwise, they keep talking about how we're safe... how not free does that then make us?)

Now, let us be clear. Any group of people with a common, deeply held conviction can begin pegging others as disagreeists, if those who disagree are perceived to be a minority in that context.

To use the obvious example, both sides of the political spectrum more or less accuse the other of this on a regular basis. Both feel that normal, "everyday", "grassroots" Americans support them, and those who disagree are the "ultra-liberal left", conspiring Marxists who want us to become a Socialist state ruled by Big Brother, or "right-wing fundamentalists", gun-toting, Bible-waving fringe groups that are irrelevant and can be ignored as such. (even if hundreds of thousands of them show up on your front lawn in DC. Thanks to everyone who went!)

Clearly, we here at MC side more often with the gun-toting, Bible-waving fundamentalists, if you prefer to label them as such. However, we have never questioned your right to disagree. In fact, we encourage it. The dialogue tends to be fruitful.

And notice, Pelosi isn't questioning that right either. She's merely indicating ominously that your disagreements might lead to violence which you will then be held responsible for, that's all.

To cite another example of this, and also how -isms run together, let us look at Jimmy Carter's recent assertion that criticism of President Obama must be racially motivated. (This, of course, motivated by Joe Wilson's now-famous outburst)

"I think it's based on racism," Carter said in response to an audience question at a town hall held at his presidential center in Atlanta. "There is an inherent feeling among many in this country that an African-American should not be president."

No doubt, many do feel this way. But I note that Condaleeza Rice was highly respected by many of the people who now greatly dislike President Obama. Could it possibly be that they actually reject Obama's ideology and policies, totally apart from the race with which he identifies? And what of the growing numbers of African Americans who also find themselves losing the faith they once had in President Obama?
But Carter is not finished.

"Those kind of things are not just casual outcomes of a sincere debate on whether we should have a national program on health care," he said. "It's deeper than that."

Aha! There you have it. It would seem that what Carter is actually condeming is disagreeism. A sincere debate would never result in someone accusing President Obama of lying, because clearly Obama would never lie. The only outcome of a sincere debate would be you agreeing with Obama. Unless... you are a racist. This is currently one of the most commonly attributed motives for disagreeism. You disagree because... you are a racist. Or a capitalist. (ie, greedy person who wants to take poor people's money to line your already bulging wallet) Or whatever -ist you care to supply.

Having discovered the principle of disagreeism, we can trace its effects through Obama's presidency. Americans who didn't vote for President Obama? Fundies clinging to their guns and Bibles. Americans who disagree with Obama at town hall meetings? Fringe groups. (some clearly were, but all of them?) Americans who disagree with Obama by massively protesting in Washington? Irrelevant. Americans who disagree with Obama by accusing him of lying during a speech? Racists.

And now, a la Pelosi: Americans who -still- disagree with President Obama? Potential inciters of violence. And remember the "freedom vs. safety" line. If disagreeists incite violence, you must be kept safe. Unfortunately, that apparently can only come at an equivalent cost in freedom.

So: Disagreeists incite violence
Violence reduces safety
Safety comes at the expense of freedom

The message is clear: Disagree with us, risk losing some freedom.

We will see, Madame Speaker. But if the recent Washington rally is any indication, more Americans disagree with you every day.

-()4|<.

We're going to need more tea...

On September 12th, a massive crowd descended upon Washington DC.
They were there to protest big government, runaway spending, and the growing realization that our government increasingly no longer represents or acts in the best interests of its citizens.

Good descriptive article from WND with some pictures here.

UPDATE:
Excellent set of mostly high quality photos of the crowd, along with time-lapse video showing the surge of people attending, can be found here. Note that the signs are almost all home made. This is not some manufactured crowd, these are concerned individuals.

The New York Times dot com article was titled "thousands stage protest of big government".
The White House said the day before that it was "unaware" of any rally.
The main stream media generally did not cover it.

Well, it was more than thousands, and it was more than tens of thousands.
This article on the Obama inauguration crowd demonstrates that there could easily have been over one million protesters. (see the diagram at the top) It appears that the numbers at least rivalled those of the inauguration of Lyndon B. Johnson, at 1.2 million.

Christie Carden, the organizer of the very successful Huntsville Alabama tax day tea party we covered here back in the spring, was there as well. Describing the turnout, she said:

"GET IT RIGHT, PEOPLE! Even Fox News is reporting "tens of thousands" marching in D.C. I was there. Crowds went all the way to Washington Monument on ONE SIDE of the Capitol, AND all the way to Pennsylvania Ave and 14th St on the OTHER SIDE. "

Mike Pence also gave a speech, the beginning of which can be seen here:





We'll let you decide if you think it was significant to have this kind of crowd, of conservatives (who typically don't protest in large numbers), many of them senior citizens, on a national holiday weekend, who travelled all the way to our nation's capitol for a one day rally.

This is something new, or something rather old that we've needed for a long time.
Washington would be wise not to ignore it.

Yet their response has mainly been to do just that, or dismiss it as irrelevant.
Some party officials have attempted to picture the organization as fringe radicals opposed to the health care plan. (Of course, the tea party movement started far earlier than the health care issue, but spin is the order of the day)

A few more cynical commentators have said that the moment the economy improves, these kinds of protests will largely evaporate. That may be true. People are less likely to turn out when they don't feel directly threatened.

However, the numbers in Washington surpassed all expectations, even for those who helped organize it. If this many Americans are motivated enough to actually pay to go to DC, how many are sitting at home, equally motivated but without the time or money to attend?

3 million people is 1% of our entire national population. By some accounts, over half that many people showed up. And the exact number is not even important, clearly there is a national shift in mindset occurring. What affect will all this have on the 2010 elections? Time will tell. Meanwhile...

Remember, remember, the 12th of September.

-()4|<.

8 Years Later

The weather here in Dallas is quiet and overcast this morning.
A fitting accompaniment to the day's memory.

It has been 8 years since then. Children now in third grade do not remember the events that occurred this day in 2001, because they were not yet born.

Those of us old enough to feel the impact of that day said "we will never forget".
Have we remembered?

On that day, we all came together. Everyone was an American, and differences were put aside, at least temporarily. President Bush stood on the rubble with a megaphone, and we all agreed "never again".

Well, it hasn't happened again. We demanded more security, and we we got it. Lines at airports, Patriot Acts, increased government control. Are we safer? Hard to say. Probably, we are.

At what cost has our increased security come?
The "War on Terror" continues, with the lives of many soldiers lost. (I say lost, but not wasted)
Yet after many setbacks and many hard-won victories (heard about Iraq much lately in the MSM? There's a reason for that.), are we any closer to defeating global terrorism?
Is that even a meaningful goal?

I have written that we cannot defeat Islamic fundamentalist terror groups if we do not ourselves possess principles as deeply held as theirs. I hold to that statement, and maintain furthermore that the current cadre of unqualified, opportunistic career politicians (on both sides of the aisle) are clearly not up to the task.

Accusations of irresponsibility from other nations hurt because they are true. Our national economy is deeply and integrally tied into the world economy, and those who should have wisely governed our spending have foolishly increased it beyond all reason, passing laws which led to the collapse, then spending unprecedented sums of taxpayer money to feed the bonfire they started. In doing so they destroyed not only vast portions of our own national wealth, but contributed to the destruction of other countries' wealth in the process.

We do not live in a vacuum; our actions affect the rest of the world significantly, and it will react in various ways, whether justly or murderously. This lesson at least one would think we would have learned after September 11th. I do not think any reasonable person can suggest that we are to blame for the events of that day, but one could probably suggest that if we had been paying attention, we would have seen it coming. When will we realize that we, as normal American citizens, need to demand accountability from our elected officials? And to elect competent and qualified people? The alternative is to let those who failed to see 9-11 coming, those who ruined our economy, and those who seek to exploit and direct a culture of entitlement to maintain their control, turning this nation into something utterly different from what the founders conceived. We elected them with the understanding that they would govern well and rightly, but they have done neither.

Even as I write this, thousands of Americans are en route to Washington DC for what could be the biggest 'Tea Party' yet, to protest a such a government. One that seemingly goes its own way now, regardless of the views of its constituents, or the dictates of economic and social reality.

The protesters' choice of day is fitting; what better way to honor those who fell on this day eight years ago than by using the following day to attempt to ensure that the lessons we should have learned from their deaths not be disregarded by an entrenched and power-hungry bureaucracy whose only concept of "change" is further entrenchment and encroachment?

Let us live in freedom, because the gift of a life is too precious to be managed by a government institution. Perhaps that is the best lesson we can take from this day, 8 years later.

-()4|<.