http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/IRAN_NUCLEAR?SITE=INSBT&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Ruh roh...

Sounds errily familiar...

That doesn't sound good.

I think Iran has a lot more worries on its hands than trying to smuggle yellowcake. In case people are not aware, the Iranian Revolution has already started. I'm not being facetious here-I'm being VERY serious. The Iranians are protesting in the streets. The police, who are supposed to crack down on the protesters are now surrendering to them. I believe that "Imadinnerjacket"'s time in power is VERY limited.


GLOBALIST
Change Iran at the Top

New York Times
By ROGER COHEN
Published: December 30, 2009

It has come to this: The Islamic Republic of Iran killing the sons and daughters of the revolution during Ashura, adding martyrdom to martyrdom at one of the holiest moments in the Shiite calendar.

Nothing could better symbolize Iran’s 30-year-old regime at the limit of its contradictions. A supreme leader imagined as the Prophet’s representative on earth — Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini’s central revolutionary idea — now heads a militarized coterie bent, in the name of money and power, on the bludgeoning of the Iranian people. A false theocracy confronts a society that has seen through it.

The emperor has no clothes.

Still, let us give this theocracy credit. It has brought high levels of education to a broad swathe of Iranians, including the women it has repressed. In a Middle East of static authoritarianism, it has dabbled at times in liberalization and representative governance. It has never quite been able to extinguish from its conscience Khomeini’s rallying of the masses against the shah with calls for freedom.

The result, three decades on from the revolution, is precisely this untenable mix of a leadership invoking transplantation from heaven as it faces, with force of arms and the fanaticism of militias, a youthful society far more sophisticated than the death-to-the-West slogans still unfurled.

Nowhere else today in the Middle East does anything resembling the people power of Iran’s Green movement exist. This is at once a tribute to the revolution and the death knell of an ossified post-revolutionary order.

Something has to give, someone has to yield. If the Islamic Republic is incapable of honoring both words in its self-description — that of a religious and representative society — it must give way to an Iranian Republic.

The former course, of reform rather than overthrow, would be less tumultuous and so, I suspect, more attractive to a people weary of tumult and flanked by mayhem in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Yes, something has to give. Grand Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri, whose death this month carried heavy symbolism in a land where symbols are potent, intuited the revolution’s unsustainable tensions two decades ago. It was then that the cleric once designated as Khomeini’s successor lambasted an earlier round of bloody repression and then that he began to criticize the office of the supreme leader.

Montazeri had been instrumental in 1979 in the creation of the system of Guardianship of the Jurist, or velayat-e-faqih, placing a leader interpreting God’s word atop circumscribed republican institutions. But he later apologized for his role in the establishment of the position and argued that he had conceived of it as exercising moral rather than executive authority.

His anger came to a head after the June 12 election, hijacked by the supreme leader, Ali Khamenei. Montazeri then declared: “Such elections results were declared that no wise person in their right mind could believe, results that based on credible evidence and witnesses had been altered extensively.” He lambasted what he called “astonishing violence against defenseless men and women.”

I witnessed that violence — a putsch in the spurious name of God’s will grotesquely portrayed by Khamenei as a glorious democratic moment — and it was clear at once that Iran’s leadership had taken a fatal turn. It had shunned the pluralistic evolution of the Islamic order in favor of a lockdown by the moneyed cadres of the New Right, personified by the Revolutionary Guards with their cozy contracts and pathological fears of looming counter-revolutions of the velvet variety.

You can do many things to the Iranian people but you insult their intelligence at your peril. The astonishing, taboo-breaking cry of “Death to Khamenei” echoing from the rooftops of theran signaled a watershed.

It is time to rethink the supreme leader’s office in the name of the compromise between religious faith and representative governance that the Iranian people have sought for more than a century. It is time for Iran to look West to the holy Shiite cities in Iraq, Najaf and Karbala, places from which Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani exercises precisely the kind of moral authority and suasion — without direct executive authority — that Montazeri favored for Iran.

If the Guardianship of the Jurist can be rethought through compromise the Islamic Republic can move forward. If not, I cannot see the current unrest abating.

The Green movement is a loose coalition of divergent aims — much like the revolutionary alliance of 1979 — but is united in its demand for an end to the status quo.
A commander-in-chief transplanted from heaven is not what the Iranian people want, not after June 12; a moral guide, rooted in the ethics and religion of Persia, a guarantor of the country’s independence, may well be. It is time for a Persian Sistani.

The sons and daughters of disappointed revolutionaries do not seek renewed bloodshed. They seek peaceful change that will give meaning to the word “republic.” Khamenei, bowing to superior learning, in the best tradition of Shiism, should listen to the wisdom of Iran’s late turbulent priest.

Iran would thereby preserve its independence, the proudest achievement of the revolution, while better reflecting the will of its people, who overwhelmingly favor normalized relations with the United States.

It is time to retire the stale slogans of a bygone era. It is time for Iran to follow China’s example of 1972 in adapting to survive. Perhaps Khomeini, like Mao in Deng Xiaoping’s famous formula, was 70 percent right — and some brave Iranian leader could say that. He would thereby open the way for one of the Middle East’s most hopeful societies to move forward.

Speaking of tired slogans, it is also time for the United States — and especially Congress — to set aside formulaic thinking on Iran. Shiite Iran is not America’s enemy; Sunni Al Qaeda is, whether in Yemen, Nigeria or Pakistan. New sanctions against theran would only throw a lifeline to Khamenei and further enrich the Revolutionary Guards. President Obama’s outreach is still the smartest approach to Iran, a nation whose political clock has now trumped its erratic, wavering nuclear clock.

Back in February, I wrote: “The Islamic Republic has not birthed a totalitarian state; all sorts of opinions are heard. But it has created a society whose ultimate bond is fear. Disappearance into some unmarked room is always possible.” That was too much for the Iran-as-Nazi-incarnation-of-evil school, who cast me as an appeaser.

I also wrote that, “The irony of the Islamic Revolution is that it has created a very secular society within the framework of clerical rule. The shah enacted progressive laws for women unready for them. Now the opposite is true: Progressive women face confining jurisprudence. At some point something must give.”

With the birth of the Green movement, and in the spirit of Montazeri, something has given. The further, critical “giving” has to come in the supreme leader’s office, where the 30 percent error of 1979 has entrenched itself and so denied Iran the governance and society its vibrant population deserves.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O97ivcThPbk&feature=player_embedded


http://www.mediabistro.com/baynewser/youtube/want_to_see_whats_going_on_in_iran_tune_in_to_youtube_147416.asp




Cat

The Iranian government is on the verge of calaspes.  They haven't seen anything like this since the overthrowing of the Shah.  As for the yellowcakes,  you can't talk nukes if the guy who pushes the red button is about to be kicked out.

The Iranian government is on the verge of calaspes.  They haven't seen anything like this since the overthrowing of the Shah.  As for the yellowcakes,  you can't talk nukes if the guy who pushes the red button is about to be kicked out.


Let's start diplomatic relations with Iran so they can open up an embassy in DC.

We can then have the locals invade it and take the occupants hostage.

Let's start diplomatic relations with Iran so they can open up an embassy in DC.

We can then have the locals invade it and take the occupants hostage.




You missed my point.  With or without the current leader the nuclear program is in shambles so there is no point in talking.  It will take years before they can organize themselves to even consider nuclear weapons.

Let's start diplomatic relations with Iran so they can open up an embassy in DC.

We can then have the locals invade it and take the occupants hostage.





That isn't even funny. You want to stoop to the level of those people? IMO, I think Iran could be the U.S.'s greatest ally in the Middle East. Most Iranians are Pro-U.S. It is the government & "Imadinnerjacket" who are dangerous. If the Iranians can get a new government, it will probably be Pro-U.S. which will be a GOOD thing. Jokes like you just told really defeat the purpose.



Cat

Most Iranians are Pro-U.S.



I'm not so sure that's the case.

I mean, if I were your average Iranian, I would not be a huge fan of the USA, given how much we screwed them over in the 60's and 70's by supporting the corrupt regime of the Shah.

You missed my point.  With or without the current leader the nuclear program is in shambles so there is no point in talking.  It will take years before they can organize themselves to even consider nuclear weapons.


Respectfully disagree.  I'd wager they'll have have something deliverable by land or commercial aircraft within a year or two, and by short/intermediate-range missile within 5 years.  (The former kinda worries me.  The latter, not so much, because at least MAD applies.)

Last week's report about... (geez, 5 minutes ago I'm worried about getting on watchlists by talking about how TSA is a bunch of idiots and here I am talking about the ewe-dee-three as...) inish-ee-8-erz may or may not be disinformation.  Yeah, I saw the picture of the dude in front of the blackboard.  My hunch is it's dinsifno, but it's been too long since college for me to really want to figure out for myself the extent to which it's BS or not.  Frack it, we find out in a few years either way.

If you're Iran and you're looking to show the world what you've got, you waste some material and you go with the quick-and-dirty, gun-type thingy that doesn't even need an ini (you-know-what) ator, and is so easy to build that we didn't even need to test it 65 years ago.  I've softened my position that I think Iran, should it test, will do so in the middile of Iranian nowhere, rather than over Tel Aviv, but it's pretty much a done deal at this point.  From Iran's point of view, if you've got multiple enrichment sites, some of which are hardened and/or underground, you can basically dare the US/Israel to play nuclear whack-a-mole - the West has to be sure that it's taken out all of them, which means that both the bombardiers and the spies have to be right.

Respectfully disagree.  I'd wager they'll have have something deliverable by land or commercial aircraft within a year or two, and by short/intermediate-range missile within 5 years.  (The former kinda worries me.  The latter, not so much, because at least MAD applies.)

Last week's report about... (geez, 5 minutes ago I'm worried about getting on watchlists by talking about how TSA is a bunch of idiots and here I am talking about the ewe-dee-three as...) inish-ee-8-erz may or may not be disinformation.  Yeah, I saw the picture of the dude in front of the blackboard.  My hunch is it's dinsifno, but it's been too long since college for me to really want to figure out for myself the extent to which it's BS or not.  Frack it, we find out in a few years either way.

If you're Iran and you're looking to show the world what you've got, you waste some material and you go with the quick-and-dirty, gun-type thingy that doesn't even need an ini (you-know-what) ator, and is so easy to build that we didn't even need to test it 65 years ago.  I've softened my position that I think Iran, should it test, will do so in the middile of Iranian nowhere, rather than over Tel Aviv, but it's pretty much a done deal at this point.  From Iran's point of view, if you've got multiple enrichment sites, some of which are hardened and/or underground, you can basically dare the US/Israel to play nuclear whack-a-mole - the West has to be sure that it's taken out all of them, which means that both the bombardiers and the spies have to be right.


I agree wit you, FooBar.

Iran does not need to have sophisticated ICBM's or highly yield-efficient nukes, or for that matter, very many of them to flex its muscles as a nuclear power.

All it needs to do is to set off a cheapy gun-style boomer as you have suggested and... wa-la... they're in the club.

And at that point nobody would know for sure if they had a dozen more bombs, or if they had shot their wadd on the demonstration.

Maybe Ahmadinejad's wanting to build a yellowcake road so he can visit Oz and get a heart?

Follow the yellowcake road
Follow the yellowcake road
Follow follow follow follow
Follow the yellowcake road
Follow uran-yum two-thirty-five
Follow till you're radioact-ive
Follow follow follow follow
Follow the yellowcake road

We-e-e-e-e're off to make a biggie
A wonderful ay-tomic bomb
We'll cheer when it goes bangity-bang
On Israel or on Washington

...and so on :-)

Last week's report about... (geez, 5 minutes ago I'm worried about getting on watchlists by talking about how TSA is a bunch of idiots and here I am talking about the ewe-dee-three as...) inish-ee-8-erz may or may not be disinformation.


Turns out I was more right than I'd thought.

You can talk about UD3 initiators until the cows come home.  The real crime is pointing out that Emperor Napolitano has no clothes.  (Hey, for a mental image like that, maybe they should get a little smackdown...)

But within 48 hours of exposing the TSA's makeshift measures - which expire tonight - the two bloggers who broke the story about "no taking a leak during the last 60 minutes of the flight" got visits from HomeSec goons.

http://reneau.smugmug.com/photos/744086935_o9uSF-M.jpg

Go ahead, Iran, build your bomb.  HomeSec's more interested in tracking down the real threats - the threats to its funding.  (If HomeSec ever finds the guys behind the Crotchbomber, they'll probably give 'em medals, because they gave some bureaucrat an unlimited budget for life.)

I agree wit you, FooBar.

Iran does not need to have sophisticated ICBM's or highly yield-efficient nukes, or for that matter, very many of them to flex its muscles as a nuclear power.

All it needs to do is to set off a cheapy gun-style boomer as you have suggested and... wa-la... they're in the club.

And at that point nobody would know for sure if they had a dozen more bombs, or if they had shot their wadd on the demonstration.


Yes, yes, it's been said before they would be willing to use "dirty bombs".

I'm not so sure that's the case.

I mean, if I were your average Iranian, I would not be a huge fan of the USA, given how much we screwed them over in the 60's and 70's by supporting the corrupt regime of the Shah.


So with that in mind are you saying the revolution was a justified political necessity?  Remember the current leader was one of the main people in the revolution.

So with that in mind are you saying the revolution was a justified political necessity?  Remember the current leader was one of the main people in the revolution.


Actually, it was the current leader's father, but I nit pick.  Cat's view is that Iranians are sick and tied of the current gov't and looking for change.  If they get it, who knows where it will take them.

Yes, yes, it's been said before they would be willing to use "dirty bombs".


Ah, reminds me of one of the biggest misdirections (and as an engineering-type, one of my pet peeves) of the post-9/11 hysteria.

When I suggested a Iran might try a Little Boy type device to show off to the world, I meant "they'd build an inefficient nuke, just to prove they could do it".  Such a bomb might be pretty dirty, but that's not what people mean when they talk about "dirty bombs" anymore.

Back in the Cold War, the words "clean" and "dirty", when applied to nukes, always meant honest-to-Dobbs nukes (as in, things with yields measured in kilotons to megatons, used to flatten town-sized things to city-sized things).  Clean ones had relatively little fallout (relative to their yield), and dirty ones had more fallout (relative to their yield), but by Glub, they were all nukes.  A fizzled nuke (like the one North Korea probably had) would produce the same fallout, but very little yield, and would, by definition, be very "dirty", albeit by accident.

Fast-forward to 9/11.  Some wag points out that anyone with the right materials could build a dirty bomb.  What was originally meant was "some guy with the resources of a government behind him, might build a nuke, but he'd get a few things wrong, and it would fail to wipe out the city, but it'd leave an unholy mess for a while", sorta like North Korea's fizzle a few years ago. 

Some other wiseacre realizes that it's far easier for a bad guy to just take some medical or geological engineering supplies and scatter them about a wide area.  And he calls that a "dirty bomb", when what he really meant was "radiological disperson device", but because that's a bit of a mouthful to say on the air, and because "RDD" isn't a cute acronym, and the media didn't know the difference, the name "dirty bomb" stuck.

(It's a pet peeve of mine because I've forgotten which wiseacre it was, but I remember seeing the phrase, over and over again, during the days after 9/11, and actually muttering to myself "that's not what a dirty bomb is, you dipshiats, that's just a way to scatter a handful of crap around." every time I encountered it...)

The unfortunate side effect of this is that most people don't realize the distinction between an inefficient or fizzled nuke (which will still ruin your day) and an RDD (which will merely give you the real estate buying opportunity of a lifetime, even if you're on the same city block).  Both sides - the government and the terrorists - benefit from a public that's incoherently terrified of any threat with the word "nuclear" in it, so nobody's going to go out of their way to educate anyone about the difference.

There was one notable and welcome exception to the hysteria: PBS's NOVA, which did an excellent 2003 special on Dirty Bomb (transcript), and even had a nice little Q&A on the subject.

A dirty bomb - using post-9/11 language - no longer refers to an attempt to build a city-leveling device.  No matter whether he uses old fuel rods or medical/engineering supplies, the worst a terrorist can do with an RDD is shut down a city block for a couple of weeks while a bunch of guys in bunny suits hose it down.  The only real effect of a bad guy using a dirty bomb in a major city would be that you'd be able to buy a penthouse apartment for pennies on the dollar from people too scared to properly assess the hazard.

I finally got over my muttering phase, but my inner curmudgeon refuses to use the term in its current meaning without at least some clarification.  I believe Iran might support terrorists who are willing to use RDDs.  I believe Iran is attempting to build a nuclear weapon, and I hope they intend only to use it as a deterrent, rather than selling it to the highest bidder.  They're not the same things, even if their nuke will probably be inefficient, but thanks for the excuse to rant :)