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|<.

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|<.