Bad day at Black Rock comin'. . .

Right, but these each only produce a tiny, tiny amount of uranium hexafluoride. 5000's a big number but it's necessary to have a bunch of them to do any good. If we take out half of them, we've slowed down their ETA-bomb by half.

According to the CRS, Iran has other enrichment programs in the works, too, like a laser-enrichment method, and I think they were using magnetic enrichment as well.

In any case I think Iran's bomb is a bigger story than what Ted Kennedy says about Alito. We ought to be scared. Even Chirac is upset and he's the one who gave Saddam his Osirak program.

That said I'm not too ready to go in based on the testimony of an opposition-gov't-in-exile about Iran's WMD technology. We got burned there before. As the article says, we need to confirm this.

C'mon, See-Dubya. . . Chirac's upset just because Iran didn't buy the stuff from France.

Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

Folks, invading Iran is not an option. Even were we not engaged in Iraq it probably would not be an option.

Evidence: Iran is three times the size of Iraq.
Evidence: Iran has large mountainous regions.
Evidence: Iran's military forces have not suffered from a decade of bombing and sanctions preventing maintenance.

It would be very difficult to wage a modern war in Iran. We would have to get their government, their military command, then pacify a very large country, and then occupy it until they behave.

We're not going to do that. Fortunately, it's probably not necessary. Iran, until its most recent crazy leader, has shown no interest in invading its neighbors or going to war with Israel. Most of their policy throughout the late 80s and 90s has been to maintain itself (the theocracy, I mean) and maintain its sovereignty (territorially).

Given this, the problem isn't that they will have nuclear weapons (because their long-term strategy indicates that they'd just use them to prevent a conventional attack like the one we're discussing) but that their CRAZY-ASSED leader would use them on Israel.

From this, I conclude that the problem is the leader, not the nukes.

All the worry about terrorists receiving nukes makes no sence to me. A muslim nuclear nation already exists -- Pakistan. And the obvious last thing Pakistan wants is for a terrorist to get ahold of one of their nukes -- they know that if such a thing happened, the US would have no choice but to end the Pakistani regime and take their nukes from them.

Iranians (though, not their CRAZY-ASSED leader) is fully capable of the same analysis. They won't be giving any weapons away because the result would be the end of their regime.

Debkafile?

Sheesh, Ace. Why don't you share what Weekly World News has to say?

"AUSTRALIAN BIGFOOT DIGS NEIL DIAMOND!"

Hey, good taste, my Aussie friend.

Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

These centrifuges are not distributed at 5000 different places. They must be cascaded together to enrich the uranium, which means they are in 1 or at most a few locations. Furthermore, the centrifuges are only part of the enrichment cycle which in turn is only part of the weapons production program. If several parts of the system are hit, including the reactor at Nantanz, Iran will be out of the nuclear game for a decade at least. In the meantime, regime change is part of the strategy.

In the meantime, regime change is part of the strategy.

I damn well hope so. That used to be true that our policy was regime change in Iran. I don't think that's still the case.

GM--"Iran" is a unitary actor but "Iranians" are a complex bbunch capable of doing things that aren't in "Iran's" best interests--like looking the other way while your brother in law walks off with a wad of plutonium from the reactor you're supposed to be watching.

I've got to go along with Dave on this one. The fact that DEBKAfile is saying matters have passed the point of no return is actually the first piece of good news I've read about this fustercluck in months.

Good points, Gabriel, and I hope you're right. However, it should be noted that Pakistan was proliferating nuclear technology like crazy until recently. And don't forget Iran's close involvement with Hizballah. Like you, I think they'd keep the nukes to themselves, but I'm not sure enough for comfort. And I wouldn't blame the Israelis a bit if they decided to strike first.

Oh, don't get me wrong.

I'm all for Israeli/US first strikes on the reactor and any other parts of the assembly process we can get.

I'm also all for the removal of their CRAZY-ASSED leader.

I'm just saying that the talk of invasion should provoke eye-rolling from anyone who knows the size of the country, the state of their military and ours, and the benefits and burdens that an invasion would entail.

Debka? Almost as guaranteed to be wrong as the New York Times.

Iran is a special case as opposed to Pakistan or North Korea. First of all, Iran straddles about 70% of the world's known oil reserves. That alone makes their possession of a nuke very scary -- they can strike with impunity at Saudi Arabia, Iraq, or Israel. And it is the ability to do so, rather than any statistical likelihood, that will change the balance of power. Second, Pakistan's power is offset by India; North Korea's by China. Iran has no such countervailing border power offsetting their own nuclear power. That's why I say: Pakistan is India's problem, and the DPRK is China's problem; Iran is America's problem.

We needn't invade Iran to cripple their nuclear capability -- I think that a very intense aerial campaign, followed by a complete blockade would eventually do the trick (combined with covert ops and fomenting a rebellion). However, the unknown quantities there are Russia and to a lesser extent China: they are patrons of Iran, and might try to break a blockade for strategic reasons.

But doing nothing is not an option, and I hope that President Bush won't piss away critical weeks in trying to get a Security Council resolution that Russia or China will just veto anyway. If I were W., I'd have multiple missile subs (converted Ohio-class SSBN's) on the way to the Persian Gulf right now.

I'm expecting the fireworks to commence in the next four to six weeks.

I have a question for allahpundit. You offer so many links for your friend Ace, Why don't you start to blog again ? I miss you. Ace, not to worry, I will continue to read you no matter what.

Thanks, Bill. I've run the linkblog idea by a few friends and they think it sucks, frankly. Bad focus group results = no blog, alas.

I see Iran as being the lead contender in the 'who want's some next?' competition that the US is currently running. I realize it looks, thanks in large part to our left leaning brethren, that we may be putting warlike ways behind us, but I think this worldview is dangerously shortsighted and may not accurately reflect the American willingness to kick the crap out of the Iranians (or anyone really), if needs be.

The mullahs, for their part, would be well advised to cut the crap if they wish to retain their dictatorial powers, at least for the short term. Of course, that would require the current leadership to understand that this time (BUSH/post 9-11 retribution) is not the same as that one (CARTER/national malaise), and that the shelf life is ME tyrant is growing shorter lately.

I suspect that Iran will make a play for the big event and it will be war.

My opinion only of course.

Bill, haven't you figured it out by now? Allah doesn't have to start blogging again. He is blogging again. As Ace of Spades. Come on -- Ace/Allah -- it's so clear to me now! Like Michael Moore's neck and chest, they are one and the same.

Or else Ace gave up blogging and gave Allah the password. Or else they are switch-hitting for each other. Or else Allah tortured Ace to get his password and now has Ace tied up in the basement.

"This is why I am not sanguine about our capacity to take out Iran's nuke capacity, short of full-scale invasion or nuclear first strike."

I'm aching for proof that the United States still has the balls to nuke anyone. And I want to see a visible demonstration made to everyone, that our restraint regarding "collateral damage" is wholly optional.

You are all missing the yellow elephant in the middle of the nuke proliferation.... Iran, Pakistan, India, North Korea, Indonesia, Afghanistan etc.. surround what totalitarian country that has a rapidly growing force of ICBMs, and that also proclaims a racist, hegemonic, expansionist policy at every opportunity? Those who wrote Mainland China take a bow! All these SW Asian nuclear and Islamist issues are sideshows, with countries that are either supported by China (Pakistan) or are in direct cold war with them (India, see Nepal and Tibet, and thank the blue god for the Himalayas!). China still has a communist cold war going with the US, it just decided to do so using capitalism as a strategic weapon. So as we knock down one after another of the surrounding "issues" look for the China-US "strategic competition" to become more noticable, and for Taiwan to start getting very nervous.