WarSclerotic

Time is short to stop nukes in Iran – Chicago Sun-Times.

A major question looms over the report of U.N. weapons inspectors exposing the work Iran has done to develop a nuclear weapon: How long until Tehran has an atomic bomb?

The International Atomic Energy Commission didn’t offer an estimate. But its wealth of data on Iran’s uranium enrichment, missile warhead research and “nuclear explosive design information” indicates the day is drawing ominously close. Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), one of Capitol Hill’s foreign policy experts, thinks Iran could test a weapon as soon as “next year or at the latest by 2013.”

Just as chilling as a test explosion soon is Kirk’s observation that the Iranians “have transferred every weapon in their arsenal to Hezbollah, including cruise missiles.” That’s the terrorist organization that dominates Lebanon, has thousands of missiles aimed at Israel and has killed many Americans. Kirk thinks that once Iran achieves a stockpile of half a dozen weapons in 2014 or 2015, Tehran will “begin to debate about giving one to Hezbollah.”

A successful Iranian nuclear test would prompt Saudi Arabia to launch its own nuclear program. Kirk says the Saudis could have nuclear weapons quickly because Pakistan’s nuclear program is essentially “available for rent.”

A radical state armed with nuclear weapons, the possibility of transferring a bomb to terrorists, a nuclear arms race in the Middle East — the stakes are enormous.

And time is running out. Iran is moving its nuclear development project to deep, underground facilities difficult to attack with most conventional military weapons. It’s awaiting a shipment of anti-aircraft missiles from Russia.

Can Iran be stopped by tougher U.N. sanctions? Maybe. But Russia has ruled out new U.N. sanctions.

Kirk says Washington can institute strong diplomatic, economic action on its own. He notes 92 senators co-signed a letter urging the Obama administration “to collapse” the Central Bank of Iran, the funder of Iran’s nuclear program and the paymaster for global terrorism. Legislation in the Senate and House would write the letter’s intent into law.

The idea is to ban the bank and blacklist any financial or business entity doing business with it, in effect shutting down access for them to America and the world’s largest economy. That would be devastating to Iran’s economy.

It’s reported that some in the administration oppose the idea, fearing it could force up oil prices and do economic damage. Kirk argues the Saudis could step up production and, in six months, replace the Iranian oil that now goes to U.S. allies such as South Korea, Japan and Turkey. Kirk thinks the administration is still open to the idea and asserts that those who oppose “decisive diplomatic economic action make war the most possible.”

A covert war, including computer sabotage, continues against the Iranian program. But that and Kirk’s proposal may not be enough. A military strike may be necessary. That’s not just the view of neo-conservatives and national security hawks. Former Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh is the epitome of a moderate Democrat. Consider his remarks on Fox News last weekend: “We have to ask ourselves, is a nuclear Iran acceptable? If the answer is no, there’s really only one way to keep that from coming about and that’s the use of force.”

And consider this: Iran a few months ago hatched a brazen plot to assassinate a Saudi diplomat in Washington. Imagine how the fanatics of Tehran would be emboldened behind a nuclear shield.

This entry was posted on November 12, 2011 at 2:14 PM and is filed under Uncategorized. You can subscribe via RSS 2.0 feed to this post's comments. You can comment below, or link to this permanent URL from your own site.