Be afraid

From today's New York Times:

Gholamreza Aghazadeh, the director of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization, announced Tuesday that Iran had succeeded in enriching uranium to a level of 4.8 percent, a higher level than it had previously acknowledged. He said that Iran would not enrich it further because, he said, this level suffices for making nuclear fuel. In its report last Friday, the International Atomic Energy Agency said that samples taken inside Iran "tend to confirm" the enrichment level of 3.6 percent declared by Iran, the level needed to make electricity.

Although Mr. Aghazadeh's claim can be seen as provocative, it is well within the bounds of what is used in the most common reactors, enrichment levels of generally less than 5 percent. Uranium must be enriched to about 90 percent for use in bombs.

Now, I'm no nuclear physicist. But unless I'm missing something here, this is the clearest indication I've seen so far that Iran is nowhere even close to having "The Bomb," and is in fact doing precisely what it's been claiming to do from the start - developing a peaceful nuclear fuel cycle for the generation of electricity.

Like it or not, this is Iran's right as a sovereign nation. This is its right as a signator of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. And while Tehran does deserve some diplomatic chastisement for its lack of full cooperation with the IAEA and some irresponsible political rhetoric designed chiefly to galvanize a conservative political base, is it any real surprise that its leaders would respond this way to daily threats of attack - including tactical nuclear strikes - from nations with confirmed doomsday arsenals?

Would the U.S. do any differently, if roles were reversed?

What if the international community were evaluating the $27 billion we spend annually "to prepare to fight a nuclear war," coupled with overt promises by Israel and America to launch unprovoked attacks on Iran over unconfirmed hunches, sprinkled with the Bush Administration's demonstrable record of dismissing and defying the U.N., the World Court, and the Geneva Conventions to name but a few, and decided that the United States is deserving of immediate economic sanctions, unfettered foreign inspection and supervision, regime change, and military invasion? I guarantee that the outraged cries of "retribution" against our foes would literally rock the heavens.

Of course, the cruel irony is that those allegations against the Red White & Blue are far more factual - and documented - than America's overly-paranoid hypotheses about Tehran's secret ambition to nuke the free world.

Then how is it, I wonder, with the same alarm I've felt from the first, that the focus of the Times article is not on this apparent confirmation of Tehran's peaceful claims, but is instead a non-critical description of the continued, relentless, stubborn campaign by the U.S. to sanction, punish, and possibly invade Iran, simply because the belligerent minions of the Bush Administration say they know better? Would that be the same way they "knew" that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD, and that America was in "imminent danger" of nuclear attack in the winter of 2002?

And despite the President's public pledge to continue a diplomatic approach, his subordinates have seemingly decided that the time for talk is over. Not that I recall it ever having begun, mind you. The Times notes:

The Americans and the Europeans, who want to move swiftly against Iran, will introduce the resolution in New York on Wednesday or Thursday, according to R. Nicholas Burns, the under secretary of state who has led American diplomatic efforts on Iran.

"The Security Council has no option but to proceed under Chapter 7," Mr. Burns told reporters in Paris, referring to the article in the United Nations Charter that makes resolutions mandatory under international law and opens the way to sanctions or even military action.

Excuse me, under secretary Burns, but "no option"?! The question all Americans should be asking right now is "Why?" Other major global players in this deadly dance see a number of alternatives available. As I noted a few days ago, even Pat Buchanan has a viable approach that doesn't involve this clear step toward another unnecessary and unjustified military confrontation.

Or is it just that war with Iran has been Washington's narrow-minded goal from the word "go"? That's certainly the impression I've had for months now, and one which seems to be borne out by Burns' disturbing statement:

"Diplomacy is not always about words," he said, adding: "Right now, isolation is what will work best."

As I've also said repeatedly, we should all be grateful for the measured, rational views of Russia and China on this issue - and furious with our own leaders for following the same disingenuous and intentionally misleading plan of action they sold to the American people in their push for the invasion of Iraq. Are we so foolish as to place our trust in the same circle of fearmongers that willfully lied us into that quagmire? Can we believe anything this group claims to be true about yet another Islamic "threat" to our safety?

From where I sit, the answer to both of those questions must be a resounding "No".

- - - - -

(For more opinions and background on our dangerous attitudes toward Iran, read here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. -BP)