Iran Is Building A Nuclear Weapon

A Nuclear Composition based on one of my favorite El Greco's "An Allegory with a 'Believer' Lighting a Candle in the Company of an Ape and a Fool (Fábula)" ca. 1589-92; National Gallery of Scotland, Edinburgh

 

For some months now, despite having written about the issue ad nauseam (see list below), advocating the fact that Iran has indeed been secretly building an atomic weapon, mostly the Democrats' side of the Blogosphere and my readers who lean in that direction, have bees repeatedly saying: "Show me".

Last week I broke the news in the Blogosphere about a secret meeting behind closed doors, which left us in no doubt that Iran has been deceiving us all along.  Meanwhile, the media was very busy wandering what Iran's intentions are quoting the embargoed report by IAEA Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei, "Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement in the Islamic Republic of Iran". Baradeitatus is like a metastasizing cancerous cell that simply spreads appeasement as it reaks havoc in the bodies of those affected. I have never liked or trusted that man, but that's just me. 

The only MSM publication that picked up on this groundbreaking story was The UK Telegraph, and that, with a delay of almost one week. The rest of the MSM has been dead silent, even though the damning recounting of the secret meeting was relayed by one of Iran's top officials and power-brokers: Hojjatoleslam Hasan Rowhani, former Secretary of Iran's Supreme Council of National Security (SCNS), the country’s highest decision-making body on security-related issues, and chief nuclear negotiator:

The Democratic Blogosphere's truth in turn, seems to begin and end at the doorstep of their pipe-dream of a Watergate-type meltdown of the Bush administration, regarding the NSA wiretapping. Period. The rest, regarding Iran, the war on terror, and the never ending diatribe about whether Saddam Hussein, who will soon be promoted to saintly status, had WMD weapons or not, has the endless argument that culminates in "Show me".

Today we have the conclusive answer, published in Ha'aretz:

Intelligence services in the West are convinced that Iran is taking covert means to develop nuclear weapons, in addition to the nuclear program under the partial supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Russian intelligence apparently agrees with this assessment.

According to the IAEA interim report from late February, a document was found that alludes to Iranian attempts to create the components of an atomic bomb.

The IAEA's Board of Governors decided Wednesday to hand the Iranian nuclear issue to the United Nations Security Council, which is expected to start deliberations next week.

The intelligence assessments reflect the conclusions that have been drawn in the past few years in the United States, Europe and Israel. Until now, most of the publications about Iran's nuclear program mentioned sites in Isfahan, Natanz, Arak and Tehran. The intelligence sources say these belong to the acknowledged part of the program and claim there is a secondary, smaller covert channel that is making steady progress toward creating a nuclear weapon for Iran.

A few intelligence services reportedly have information about these secret plants. Experts say that some of the facilities are about the same size as the secret structures built by the Pakistanis as part of their nuclear weapons program. [...]

Inspectors who examined the plutonium concluded, judging from the amounts found, that the Iranians must have started creating the plutonium in the mid-1990s and not three years ago. [...]

Some of the evidence of Iran's secret activities was mentioned in the IAEA's interim reports in recent months. The most suspicious item is a document found in Iranian possession that includes technical details about casting enriched and depleted uranium into hemispheres. This casting process is associated specifically with nuclear weapons production, as stated in the IAEA interim report of February 27. The report added that that existence of the document is disturbing.

According to experts, the document is unequivocal proof that Iran's nuclear project is involved in weapons production.

When asked by IAEA inspectors about the document, the Iranians declared that it had come from Pakistan but that they had never used it. The source of the document, as well as the centrifuges that Iran uses to enrich uranium, is apparently the network established by Pakistani nuclear arms pioneer Abdul Khader Khan, who admitted to assisting a number of Islamic countries with their nuclear programs.

Iran repeatedly refused to give the document, or a copy of it, to the IAEA.

It does not make us look particularly good when in August last year a major U.S. intelligence review  projected that Iran is about a decade away from manufacturing the key ingredient for a nuclear weapon, roughly doubling the previous estimate of five years, according to government sources with firsthand knowledge of the new analysis.

Now we are told, that the Iranians have started creating the plutonium in the 1990's, some sixteen years ago, rather than three years ago, as we originally thought.

It is absolutely ludicrous that this confirmation comes today, when already in February 2003 we knew with more than 1,000 pages of Iranian drawings and technical documents, including a nuclear warhead design and modifications to enable Iranian ballistic missiles to deliver an atomic strike, that the intelligence presented to the U.N. Security Council at that time contained that information.

Then we delegated the monitoring and investigation to the comatosed ElBaradei ignoring what must have been known at the time, namely the discovered admission of one of Iran's top officials, that Iran was playing games with the IAEA so as to gain more time to complete their true nuclear ambitions, the acquisition of a nuclear bomb.

It is more likely that we now already have nuclear Iran, and that the Thug-In-Chief Ahmadinejad has  a more sinister strategy provoking us into restricting him. What better reason to retaliate, if one is left with what seems to be to some an unfair discrimination.   

The dispute between Iran and the West on the nuclear issue can be summed up by the answer to one main question: When Iran says that it's interested in developing nuclear capacity, what does it mean?

Ali Larijani, the new secretary of the "Supreme Council for National Security" in Iran, went to a lot of trouble this week to convince the western press that Iran's intension is to gain nuclear capacity for peaceful use only. At the same time, his own brother, Mohammed Javad Larijani, who is also the head of the Physics Research Center in Iran, told an Iranian audience a completely different story.

During a speech he made at a conference on "Nuclear Technology and the Iranian people's will" on August 1st, Mohammed Javad Larijani told his audience that "It is our right to have nuclear defense and we will not be ready to give up this right..." and that "Iran's dispute with the West should have been over nuclear weapon production rather than over the nuclear fuel cycle...."

But doesn't it contradict Khamenei's famous Fatwa, which supposedly religiously forbid the non-peaceful use of nuclear technology? Well, trust Mohammed Javad Larijani to sort things out. According to his speech "When we say that the legislator tied our hands regarding the use of nuclear weapons, he means only that we are not to make the first nuclear strike..."

Iran, therefore, admits bluntly their intention to develop nuclear weapons. Therefore, the next time representatives of the Iranian leadership tell the western press that their intention is to gain nuclear capacity for peaceful use only, we should ask ourselves: What does Iran really mean by "nuclear capacity"?

Ed Morrissey picks up on my post here, and has some thoughtful insights into the dangers that lie ahead, concerning Iran's newly discovered covert nuclear channel, and Scott Johnson @ Powerline features my post here, concerned with the forces destabilizing the Middle East. Kim Priestap @ Wizbang features it here, and expresses concern that Iran is a frightening prospect, especially since Ahmadinejad believes he can bring about the end of the world, seeing it as his divine mission. Steve Schippert @ Threats Watch features my post, and graces us with yet another must read: "To assess the nature of the Iranian Nuclear Threat, one should not focus on the weapons and their frightening consequences. Instead, the threat is defined by the nature of the regime which will control them."

With tensions in Iran rising, the fascinating liberal blogger Michael van der Galien is wondering in his must read post, whether with all said and done, we are coming back a full circle to the oil? Never far from anyone's mind. The talented Gina Cobb, has been on Iran's case for a long time, and her well researched and (indexed here) posts are another must read.

With hindsight now giving us 20/20 vision, it is interesting to read the below related posts on ATB:

MSM Ignores Iran's Admission Of Guilt
Crimson Tide
Face Off
An Islamic Caliphate? No It's About The Oil Stupid
Europe's Appeasement Policy - Islam's Prodigal Son
The Effect Of Our Holy Trinity Of Multiculturalism, Moral Equivalence And Relativism On The War Of Destiny
The Firm Stand Against Iran:'No More Trips To The Paris Collections'
It's All About The Oil Stupid
The Rules Of Engagement
The Unexploded Bomb Of Global Politics
Stop Or I'll Say Stop Again
Iran Prepares For Nuclear Jihad
Has Israel Persuaded Washington?
If Israel Is The Tumor Then Iran Is The Metastasizing Cancer Part II
If Israel Is The Tumor Then Iran Is The Metastasizing Cancer Part I

Just in case Iran was feeling lonely in the asylum, North Korea launched a couple of short range missiles yesterday, in the general direction of Japan.

When I make a mistake, my ball lands in the neighbors' property, when a country makes a test-fire or a mistake with their launchers the consequences can be quite devastating.

My only hope is that Ahmadinejad is not short sited.

Comments

[GrenfellHunt]

Alexandra: you've been doing great work on Iran. Many thanks!

DavidByron:
You can call Pat Robertson anything you want--except a fundamentalist. Need I explain why?

In general:
1. There is no moral doubt that Iran is pursuing nukes. The only question is how long will it take them to get them.
2. Nor is there any doubt that negotiation will fail. Iran wants nukes for both religious and strategic reasons, and they will not stop the quest merely because the EU asks them politely to stop.
3. This leaves some kind of military option as the only alternative to an Iranian nuclear nightmare.
4. But what options are there? The standard options of invasion or air strikes are a reasonable response to the threat; but both have drawbacks that make them a last resort.
5. That leaves domestic revolution as the strategy of choice, at least for now. And it's one that those of us in the blogosphere can actively support. With posts, publicity, and focus we can help undermine the regime. Active attention on a regular basis to Iran and the anti-regime groups within the nation has a chance at least of bearing fruit. If the MSM won't apply that kind of pressure, the blogosphere can.

[RL]

slowtrain,

And this is because their "culture" is largely driven by their islamic-jihadized("shiite"), revolutionary, and sharia worldview. Ideas(worldviews) have consequences.

Just examine the way of life in hezbollahland(southern-Lebanon)
and the gaza-strip; a culture of suicide and death.

"But he who sins against Me wrongs his own soul; all those who hate Me love death."
Proverbs 8:36

pierrerehov.com

[slowtrain]

"The big problem is that their islamic jihadized, revolutionary, and sharia worldview doesn't make any sense; at least to rational, reasonable, and logical men and women."

If the "rational, reasonable, and logical men and women" you spoke of are anywhere in Iran, why aren’t they doing something? The trouble is that the ordinary people are convinced that ownership of a nuclear or weapons will bring “honor” to Iran, just as the Pakistanis who filled their streets in jubilation and revelry when Pakistan showcased its newly acquired nuclear bomb. Honor, albeit a strange kind of it, is something that is highly valued in that culture, so much that people wrap themselves in explosive vest and explode themselves to get it. Some even kill their sisters who have been rapped to get it? The culture itself tends to be anti reason and anti logic.

[RL]

"Let us Pray that the Iranians have some sense !"
Gil Huhlein Jr.

Amen. (a noble prayer)

Reality Check,

tellthechildrenthetruth.com

(there are a couple of serious reasons why the islamonazi republic of Iran isn't yet listed on this list. Something to do with potential: fatwas and govt. sponsored assassinations in the name of their bad and manmade "god", "allah")

The big problem is that their islamic jihadized, revolutionary, and sharia worldview doesn't make any sense; at least to rational, reasonable, and logical men and women.

[Gil Huhlein Jr]

Nuclear Proliferation is the challenge of our day.
It is our duty to reduce that which is and prevent others from joining the nuclear club. The Bush administration needs to focus on this pressing concern. They seemed to have dropped the ball with North Korea! Let us Pray that the Iranian's have some sense!

[Andrew of Arabia]

"According to experts, the document is unequivocal proof that Iran's nuclear project is involved in weapons production."

Well that is just fantastic! I have to ask though, who are your "experts"? And just what do you mean by "unequivocal"? By Iran, you mean ... ? This whole posting seems to be very equivocal - show me the money, I mean the proof.

Mr. Ahmadinejad, or Mr. Magoo, as we like to call him seems to be crazy like a fox. It is apparent that Khamenei chose Magoo for his position as Prez with a distinct purpose in mind: nuclear-ize Iran as quick as possible and at any cost. Also, turn Iraq into Iran II; barring that, grab as much of it as you can. These goals are perfectly suited to Magoo's confrontational attitude. Everything appears to be playing out according to script. The question is, what's next?

[Paul of York]

Baradeitatus is like a metastasizing cancerous cell that simply spreads appeasement as it reaks havoc in the bodies of those affected. I have never liked or trusted that man, but that's just me.

And me. Even if he is considered Nobel by some.

[MarcH]

David Byron (above): "For obvious reasons US and Israeli sources simply have no credibility."

If David had written a letter to the editor in spring 1942 it would have gone something like this: "... for obvious reasons, British and Jewish sources (regarding alleged mistreatment of Jews behind German lines) simply have no credibility." David circa 1942 might also have added that such stories were an obvious plant by the duplicitous warmongers Rosenvelt (as the isolationists used to call him) and Churchill to draw the U.S. deeper into the failed war against Germany.

David might have changed his opinion after U.S. tanks rolled into Dachau in 1945.

Better late than never, right David?

[slowtrain]

Michael writes:

"About what all those Iranian officials said: We should also not forget that they are using rhetoric on their own people as well. When they say they want to persue nuclear weapons to the Iranian people, they could very well be bluffing."

I would like to think the Iranian leadership is bluffing, but history, particularly recent history leads me in a different direction of thought. The game of bluff is very dangerous and has grown even more so, in these days of increased distrust and anxiety among peoples and nations. We now know that Saddam Hussein was playing the game of bluff, but look where it led—thousands of people dead, a very unstable country, and more. I believe the Iranians are exploiting the situation in Iraq.

Riding on the heels of the outcome of a decade of sanctions on Iraq and the subsequent invasion of Iraq, led by the United States, the Iranian leadership perceive that America has lost moral credibility with the world and can no longer justify or convince the world to consider or support a military action against another nation, just because the United States says it possesses or is in the process of possessing WMD. This is largely because the sanctions on Iraq hurt the wrong people and made America look bad. Moreover, because no WMD was found in Iraq, yet, and because Iraq remains a very unstable place, perhaps, in some people’s view, in a worse state than before the invasion.

The Iranian leadership, also perceive that the United States is in a weakened position because of its engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan, the growing resentment of Arabs and Muslims towards the United States, plus the growing weariness of the American public concerning the war in Iraq and a growing national debt.

It is highly unlikely that they are playing the game of bluff—a game, which in a world that has grown ever distrustful and jittery, comes with a huge risk. No, the Iranian leadership is more calculating, more idealistic and more realistic than Saddam Hussein and his team. To them, the game of bluff involves a huge risk and offers little or no benefits. They have practically nothing to gain thereof. Not even full recognition from the United States would suffice, not when they believe they can acquire WMD and not only gain recognition from the United States, but indeed command her respect. They are serious and they reckon this is their best chance and they are going to take it, unless they are absolutely convinced that it would do them no good, which at this point has not happened. This in itself holds a certain danger, nonetheless.

[RL]

David Byron,

prophetofdoom.net

i'm assuming that you are a grown-up, so you decide.
the towel-headed and non towel-headed terrorists in the Middle East, and elsewhere, have long, deep, and historic ties to Naziism. there are even infamous photos of the evil nazi fuhrer accompanied by the "grand mufti" of Jerusalem (haj amin al-husseini. i'm sure that you can find these nazi photos online).

tellthechildrenthetruth.com !

[Michael Galien]

To start of:

I heard the same thing here. They do not say what European countries 'think' Iran is developing WMD's already. That is, of course, a problem. In order to verify information like this a country, best several countries, need to step up to the plate and publicly announce their intelligence about this matter.

I actually suspect something like that to happen next week. If I pick up the 'rumors' right, the European countries are probably Germany and the UK. We will have to wait for this of course: The difficulty being that so many of us believed the US when they clearly stated Iraq had them. That was (probably) not true.

Therefore I think we all need more time to digest this information and to receive new information of this kind. Acting too slowly is deadly, but so is acting to hastily.

The article you just used is a warning we need to take extremely serious. That is why, in the short term, I favor forced inspections.

About what all those Irani officials said: We should also not forget that they are using rhetoric on their own people as well. When they say they want to persue nuclear weapons to the Iranian people, they could very well be bluffing.

They are contradicting themselves continiously: the one day government officials say they do not persue WMD's, the other day another official say they dó persue them. That is how a dictatorship acts: What 'true' the one day, is untrue the other day (just look at China for instance).

I really concider it too early to call at this moment in time. I want to see what happens during the security council meeting next week first.

[DavidByron]

Please advise: is it "islamofascist" or "islamonazi"? Because I wouldn't want to call Pat Robertson a "christofascist" and then find I was using the wrong term.

NNW: I guess the NPT is the mechanism that is supposed to prevent smaller countries from going nuclear. The way to get it to work is to get America and to a lesser extent Russia to take it seriously. The other thing to do would be to support the UN charter's ban on war. These two together will make it so countries have no motivation to go nuclear.

Now Bush has done the exact opposite of both and therefore the exact opposite result is likely to happen. Iran would have to be nuts not to be considering their defences in view of all the warmongering going on. And they can see that no nuclear power takes their responsibiities under the NTP seriously.

I suppose Bush's plan was to frighten everyone in to obeying America but Iraq has just proven America is a paper tiger barely capable of occupying the weakest and most divided of failed states like Afghanistan, Haiti or Iraq. (And for that matter, yes, Kosovo).

[slowtrain]

In a world inhabited by people, incapable of peace, love and justice, war is inevitable. It does not matter how often that is, as long as the fundamental human aspiration is not love, peace and justice, there will always be conflicts and wars. Sir Winston Churchill once said of mankind, “If the human race wishes to have a prolonged and indefinite period of material prosperity, they have only got to behave in a peaceful and helpful way toward one another.”

In an atmosphere of perennial conflicts and wars, some nations, on account of their strength, be it numerical army or sophistication of weaponry, would be inclined to less restraint in the application of force and others on account of the belligerent dispositions of their philosophy, would be more inclined to violence and to provoke conflicts and wars. In the reality of the inequalities created by these two scenarios WMD, particularly atomic weaponry, becomes the great equalizer or the overriding advantage.

In the apparent nuclear impasse with Iran and the attendant imminent confrontation, two things need to be considered. One, what can history tell us? Two, “how bad does Iran want or need” the nuclear bomb? A careful consideration of these two questions clearly indicates that Iran is determined on acquiring nuclear weapons and Iran will acquire nuclear weapons. The question is what is the rest of the world going to do about it? In the case of what we can learn from history, Pakistan and India come to mind. In the case of the latter question, the leadership of Iran that sees itself and Iran as the ideological leader of the Islamic world, which it believes has been bullied and humiliated by the West, particularly the United States, is bent on acquiring nuclear weapons; primarily as both a deterrent and instrument of intimidation or blackmail.

On a more sinister level, is Iran’s desire to destroy Israel; a desire that was recently, clearly and unequivocally declared to the world by none other than the Iranian President himself. Of course, there is also the desire to punish the United States, expectedly not to the same magnitude as it hopes to inflict punishment on Israel, but nevertheless, to weaken the United States, by crippling its economy, thus making America less influential, particularly in the Middle East, and less of an obstacle to Iran and its agenda in the world.

How do you fight a mad man? There is an inherent problem of, “damned if you do, damned if you don’t”. The suicide bomber, a product of the same ideology as the Iranian leaders (the mullahs), ought to be a point of reference and a harbinger of what is to come. Win or lose, the madman has less to gain and less to lose, perhaps even nothing in either case. On the other hand, you have more to lose. So what ought to be done and what must we do, in a troubled world and a volatile Middle East, when Iran possesses WMD? That ought to be the question. Not the hand wringing and empty threats, which Iran has considered and accepted as necessary price for acquiring WMD, especially since it has Pakistan and India as models.

Right now Iran is two steps ahead of the United States and the Western world, in this high stakes “game of chess”. The United States and the Western world cannot afford to play catch-up in this dangerous “game”. Right now, the Western nations are torn between taking advantage of the situation to ensure an edge over others, in gaining access to the Iranian oil industry, perhaps even its potential market for nuclear technology. To use a phrase you have all heard before, this is a perilous premise, one that holds a certain danger to the West in particular and the world in general.

[Alexandra]

Steve,

Precisely.

But we have some extremely smart and civil liberals as commenters here, and it would be interesting to know what alternatives the Democrats would have decided on at the time, given the circumstances.

I only ever hear the arguments that revolve around the benefit of hindsight.

[RL]

and then there is another camp, albeit one of a minority scale, within the global intelligence community who believe that the islamonazi republic of Iran has already obtained a couple of atomic warheads through their organized-crime connections in Russia (and elsewhere), through the vast black-market that exists in the former Soviet Union. Everything is for sale in Russia, for the right price (everything).

and David Byron, kentimmerman.com/documents.htm

David, are you familiar with the IRI's E.M.P. threat to America ? (warfooting.com)

don't worry David, Frank Gaffney isn't "one of those evil Jews", or "neocons"; so people such as yourself can
trust him.

[Steve Schippert]

Alexandra,

"It does not make us look particularly good when in August last year a major U.S. intelligence review projected that Iran is about a decade away from manufacturing the key ingredient for a nuclear weapon, roughly doubling the previous estimate of five years, according to government sources with firsthand knowledge of the new analysis."

For what it's worth, it is appropriate to directly challenge the same souls who react to the exposure of the nature of the Iranian nuclear threat with loud cries proclaiming the 'US Intel-Declared 10-Year Window' position.

These are the same people who lambasted the very same Intel community for failing on 9/11 and for failing (so they still believe) on the Iraq WMD assessments. Suddenly, they are to be respected and revered? I ahve challenged that they cannot have it both ways, and get a response of silence.

Also, consider the North Korean path for plutonium. It is a possibility that would circumvent (in the short run) indigenous Iranian production.

Excellent work here. Thanks for that.

[North by Northwest]

I would like to ask our Liberal commenters to give us their opinion as to what ought to be done to prevent Iran going nuclear militarily.

Here we have a real chance to put forward our constructive ideas and can debate their merits in light of our various political beliefs.

Let me start off by saying that I do not favor a military strike per se, but would much rather explore the political possibilities of supporting the secular opositon within Iran. I have come across many testimonies where Iranians both living in Iran and abroad insist that the Mullahs's theocracy has absolutely no public support, that the young (average age in Iran is 26 years!! - so there are plenty of young) are repulsed by traditional Islamic doctrine and that they don't even feel Arabic.

Case in point, as Alexandra well knows: President Clinton, together with Secretary Albright (Albania's biggest supporter and friend in the West--a disaster tale in its own right) and especially the UN, missed many opportunities to support a large, organized and determined opposition in Yugoslavia throughout the 90ies in their effort to get rid of Milosevic. Plus, educated Serbs at the time (the vast majority) loved everything American--we are not talking genocidal thugs here, the likes you'll be able to find in any population at any time). Instead, Milosovic was left unchecked again and again and again, until the bombing in Spring of 1999; far too many years after the horse had bolted.

The net result, genocide took place, opposition endured years of setbacks and persecution, economy tanked, but most importantly a staunch ally of significant geo-strategic importance was turned into an embittered foe, from the highest ranks of enlightened opposition leaders all the way down to the street-level. (Why geo-strategic importance? Prior to Milosevic, Kosovo was an autonomous region within the Republic of Serbia, and as such an important regional bulwark against expansionist Islam from Albania and beyond, which has now been turned into a safe heaven for organized crime, a cest pool of drug and human trafficking and regional 'headquarters' for al Qaeda et al).

Is it too late to apply lessons learned in Yugoslavia?

[Alexandra]

David,

Why would they? They don't have to, until the blast do they? They can simply keep on saying as you are "Show me the money", and moving the goalposts as new information comes to light.

In any event The Telegraph picked the story up from me a good week after my post, and because it was not translated by them from Farsi, were fairly cautious. As for relying on the MSM, I would not hold my breath. They printed it , that's already a leap of faith no other MSM publication took. Now that the intelligence report clearly exists they will publish, but of course with their own spin according to the message they wish to send, and the goalpost will simply keep on moving.

Furthermore, no one can be certain of the stage Iran is at, other than that they are definitely building a nuclear weapon. But rest assured whatever that stage may have been, it has progressed much further and faster than we had anticipated, with the discrepancy being 13 years. Now that is a long time, when you have the kind of monetary resources Iran has. Have a look @ Ed Morrissey, and Power Line today.

Apropos your question on the other thread 'D for denial', cutting through the chase, is your point that you say the administration lied about WMDs or that you would prefer to have seen Saddam still in power. Clearly he was going nowhere of his own accord.

[DavidByron]

The UK newspaper article does not say Iran has a weapons program or even suggest at any evidence that it might. For obvious reasons US and Israeli sources simply have no credibility. "Fool me once..." as they say in Texas.

[RL]

"Millionaire Mullahs" (*) by Paul Klebnikov at, forbes.com

a must read at forbes.com

(*) Billionaires in unfortunately far too many cases.

ayatollah rafsanjani is one of the most financially wealthy men on earth. it's almost funny that one of the chief complaints of the islamonazi terrorists that perpetrated the very bloody, murderous, and terrorist islamonazi "revolution" on Iran, and on the Iranian people, against the pro-American, and friendly to Israel King of Iran, was that he lived too much of an opulent (read, rich man's) lifestyle. Now take a look at who has all of the money, and "absolute power" (total corruption) in the islamonazi republic of Iran; the barbaric, evil, and murderous ayatollahs and all of the other mullahs.

Total hypocrisy at it's very worst, in action. And they have the chutzpah to perpetrate their barbaric, cruel, and horrendous crimes/human-rights violations against the Iranian people, and the Iranian nation in the name of "allah" (their "god"), and for the cause of the "Palestinian people" and the "occupied territories". Give me a break !
These towel-headed islamonazi terrorist-monsters AREN'T even Arabs ! Hello !? Anybody or anything home underneath those towel-wrapped & lice-infested heads ? Persia is not Arabia,
and Persians are NOT Arabs.

The ayatollahs and the mullahs in the islamonazi republic of Iran are some of the most brutal, most cruel, and most evil violators of human-rights in the history of the world.

You can learn more facts concerning the "islamic activities" that they fund, inspire, and promote in the "occupied territories" as well as in hezbollahland at, pierrerehov.com ("Suicide Killers").

[epaminondas]

I thought only paranoid crypto zionists worried about these things?

I mean what can happen?

We should worry about the cost of Rx's right?
I mean Bush is breaking the law every day by spying on libraries to see if grandma is looking at playgirl, right? And listening to Howard Dean's secret cell phone calls...oh wait, he has no disconnect between his hindbrain and mouth anyway ..then he must be listening to Reid and Pelosi bragging privately about killing the Patriot Act last year ..oh wait they did that in public proudly, then we should worry about Katrina in the future global warming rising seas, right? Oh wait we came closer to Kyoto than the EU did without signing the agreement.

Why worry the moderates in Iran will restrain the twerp anyway, right? I mean Rafsanjani is a moderate (RAFSANJANI SAYS MUSLIMS SHOULD USE NUCLEAR WEAPON AGAINST ISRAEL

TEHRAN 14 Dec. (IPS) One of Iran's most influential ruling cleric called Friday on the Muslim states to use nuclear weapon against Israel, assuring them that while such an attack would annihilate Israel, it would cost them "damages only".), right?

What can happen?