No Shit: IAEA Says Iran Plans Secret Nuclear Experiments

From the "When Will We Learn" files, we get this so-called "news" on Thursday, October 30, 2008: "Iran has recently tested ways of recovering highly enriched uranium from waste reactor fuel in a covert bid to expand its nuclear program, according to an intelligence assessment made available to The Associated Press." Uhm, duh. This is "news" only in the strictest sense. It is more akin, however, to a nightmarish, recurrent dream. The only "news" in this story is this: "The intelligence, provided by a member of the 145-nation International Atomic Energy Agency, also says a report will soon be submitted to the Iranian leadership for a decision on whether to go ahead with the project." The dismaying part of the AP story: "The alleged tests loosely replicate Saddam Hussein's attempts to build the bomb nearly two decades ago. But experts question the conclusion by those providing the intelligence that Tehran, too, is trying to reprocess the fuel to make a nuclear weapon. They note that the spent fuel at issue as the source of the enriched uranium is not enough to yield the approximately 30 kilograms (65 pounds) of weapons-grade material needed for a bomb." FULL ARTICLE at AP... (Update, 9/13/2009: This story has mysteriously been removed by AP!!!) Why is that dismaying? Here's why: 1) This all sounds rather familiar, in a deja vu sort of way. The same AP report notes that "If the information is accurate then Iran is 'trying to get their nose in the tent' of reprocessing material potentially suitable for a warhead, said David Albright, whose Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security tracks suspect secret proliferators." Without rehashing history, we heard essentially the same thing from both the Clinton and the Bush administrations about Sadam Hussein and Iraq's desire to resurrect their nuclear materials processing plants. 2) Prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, warnings and coinciding reports from a number of our allies' intelligence agencies said that Iraq tried to get "yellow cake," (unprocessed uranium) from Africa. General Powell, the Bush stooge who just endorsed Obama, was roundly ridiculed by Democrats and the Left for being "duped" into presenting that so-called "lie" to the United Nations. News flash: There really was yellow cake in Hussein's hands, and in fact about 500 tons of it was transported for storage in Canada back in June of this year. CNN reported that on July 7, 2008. The fact of the yellow cake is more like history than news by now. Tragically, though, most Americans are still not aware of the 500 tons of uranium, thanks primarily to the intentional downplaying of the story by the mainstream media, which in some cases outright suppressed it. In fact, the Chicago Tribune actually apologized for downplaying the story ("An unforgivable omission" by Nancy Thorner). (Update, 9/13/2009: This story has mysteriously been removed by The Chicago Tribune!!! SEE THORNER'S FULL TEXT HERE: PROOF: SADDAM HAD URANIUM) Jim Garamone of the American Forces Press Service reported, "The Iraqi government asked the United States to help transfer the yellowcake -- as the ore is known -- from Tuwaitha Nuclear Research Center near Baghdad to its buyer in Canada, Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said today." The AFPS report was also on July 7, 2008. Note that AP reported today that, in the case of Iran, "the spent fuel at issue as the source of the enriched uranium is not enough to yield the approximately 30 kilograms (65 pounds) of weapons-grade material needed for a bomb." So how will the Democrats, who have been speaking against an Iranian nuclear program, avoid being labeled hypocrites in the Iran scenario, when they still mock the Bush Administration for the Iraqi yellow cake, which most Democrats and Liberals still refuse to believe was real? 3) Back in 2002 and 2003, prior to the invasion of Iraq, the US and its allies demanded repeatedly that Saddam Hussein come clean about his intentions to go ahead with nuclear weapons manufacturing (which are, of course, weapons of mass destruction). He ignored us, of course, as well as 17 United Nations resolutions. In 1998, for example, UN Security Council Resolution 1205 demanded that "Iraq must provide 'immediate, complete and unconditional cooperation' with UN and IAEA inspectors." [Source of summary: http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/01fs/14906.htm] Then, in late 2002, UNSCR 1441, the last of the pre-invasion resolutions, called for three things: (A) "The immediate and complete disarmament of Iraq and its prohibited weapons." (B) "Iraq must provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA full access to Iraqi facilities, individuals, means of transportation, and documents." and finally, warned Iraq that (C) "it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations." [Source of summary: http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/01fs/14906.htm] 3) How many UN resolutions will be required this time before Iran to backs down? Will Iran back down? What will the UN do if Iran does not back down? How would Obama respond to it if, God forbid, he is our president when the decision time arrives? If Iran ignores UN resolutions and continues to ignore diplomatic pleading and begging by the US and our allies, and if embargos and sanctions continue to be laughed at by Iran, the only option left is military force. Actually, there is another option, and that is the option of sticking our collective heads in the sand and trying to wish the problem away. The problem won't go away, of course, if left to the pleasure of Tehran. We should have learned that after Iraq ignored UN resolutions for a dozen years. We should have that after Hitler assured Chamberlain that Germany had no ill intentions for England. We should have learned that a thousand times over the course of history. Sadly, however, we seem to have missed all of those memos. RELATED: AFP: Iraqi uranium transferred to Canada France 24 Iraq sells uranium to Canada France 24