The Iranian Bomb - A Matter of Time?

A much faster rate of enrichment? What a surprise! I thought the West, and all of Iran's neighbors, had a lot of time. I guess that those peaceful Iranians were lying? What else have they been deceitful about? Could it be about how peaceful they are? Something to consider.

While pondering Iranian lies, something else to consider is the lack of ability to end this problem through the UN. Besides publishing worthless papers that accuse the West of destroying everything and absolving the primitive countries of all blame for anything, what DO they do? I guess they also allow diplomats to live in NY for free and charge the US and NY for the privileged of hosting these bums. Oh joy.

Collactive: GIYUS.org - The Iranian Bomb - A Matter of Time?: "The International Atomic Energy Commission has determined that Iran, having solved its technical problems, is enriching uranium at a much faster rate than ever before.

Next stop: weapons-grade material - and a crisis that threatens not only the region, but the global economy as well.

Iran's ability to produce its own nuclear fuel is what Israel has repeatedly called 'the point of no return' - a view all but confirmed by IAEA Director Mohammed ElBaradei.

Now, he said, 'it is simply a question of perfecting that knowledge. People will not like to hear it, but that's a fact.'

The West has demanded that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad halt enrichment - but it shies away from meaningful sanctions.

But forcing Tehran's hand is something the West must do - sooner, rather than later. Because the global implications of a nuclear Iran are truly staggering.

A nuclear Iran by definition is a threat to the world's petroleum supply - a development of critical concern not only to the United States and Europe, but to China and Japan, as well.

Israel would be at grave risk, of course.

But so, too, would be America's strategic relationships with Saudi Arabia and the oil-rich Gulf emirates.

It is probably no coincidence that the White House has now agreed to direct talks with Iran on the Iraq war - despite earlier refusing to sit down without a full suspension of Iran's nuclear program.

Talks are fine - up to a point.

But Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had it right last year, when she noted that, faced with an Iranian nuclear threat, "The United States will be steadfast in defense of our forces, and steadfast in defense of our friends and allies who wish to work together for common security."

Has that changed, too?"