Tuesday, May 15, 2007

Not the News 1

Just spent two days at a local resort where my wife and myself enjoyed good food, good drink and good company while I totally stayed away from computers, TVs and all other carriers of news. Tomorrow, it's off to Sydney for 10 days to deal with some family issues, so not much blogging to be done for a while.

Arrived home today to read a "story" about how Iran is not complying with demands made on it to cease enriching uranium in its continuing attempt to build a nuclear weapon. Not sure why this qualifies as "news" inasmuch as there's absolutely nothing new about it; Madman Ahmadingdong has made it quite clear he has no intention of stopping so unless he's overthrown or killed, the world can expect this effort to continue.

What is almost amusing if it weren't so absolutely insane and enraging was a comment from the head of the International Atomic Energy Association head, Mohamed ElBaradei, who has one of those names that leads one to suspect he might not be so opposed to the idea of Iran incinerating Israel.

ElBaradei, who has done for the IAEA what Kofi Annan did for the UN (that is, turn it into a laughingstock) implied in his comments that there seemed to be little use in trying to prevent Iran from enriching uranium if Iran was already enriching uranium.

"What he's saying is that we've now crossed a line," said a diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak with reporters.

What he is not saying, however, is what the world should do instead if Iran has crossed that line.

Even some American experts seem content to continue to allow Iran to pursue its course.

"Iran is steadily moving toward nuclear weapons capability, and the negotiations are not working, and we may have to settle into an extended crisis where we need to sanction Iran and further isolate them," said David Albright, a former inspector who heads the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security,

"But this doesn't mean war. ... You have to resist the urge to strike out militarily, which could even be worse than Iran gaining nuclear weaponry."

Worse for who, Mr. Albright? The Iranians? Surely not worse for the Israelis who, no doubt, are not about to sit around and wait for Iran's best before date before turning parts of the Persian nation into a glowing glass parking lot.

Both ElBaradei and Albright, not to mention the still ineffectual EU and the increasingly ineffectual Americans, are kidding themselves if they think Israel's going to sit back and wait.

Sadly, when the time comes, Israel will take the blame while the rest of the world pretends it could have stopped Iran with more "negotiations" and "sanctions", much as Chamberlain believed he could do in 1938. Seventy years later, and politicians and diplomats have still learned sweet fuck all.


Michael said...

kidding themselves if they think Israel's going to sit back and wait

Sadly, however, Israel has the Olmert gov't, which is thoroughly devoted to the good and wellbeing of the Olmert gov't.

Right now, Olmert et al are busy looking at ways to to continue their oh-so-successful withdrawl policy, and not so busy looking at ways to, say, defend the interests of the State.

Not to mention that fact that no one in Israel has any trust or respect for the Prime Minister, Defense Minister, or President, and the Foreign Minister isn't far behind them...

I don't think that Israel is likey to do much about Iran right now...

southfield_2001 said...

Olmert needs to resign for the good of the nation and a few others should follow him.