Posted by
Andrews on Friday, June 12, 2009 4:25:07 PM
In his Cairo appearance on the President's "Let's Appease Islam" tour, he talked about Iran's need and right to pursue "nuclear power" so long as it chose to abide by the Nonproliferation Treaties. This raised a number of questions, most of which I asked before, but which need to be reexamined.
First, why does Iran need nuclear power? They have massive petroleum reserves. I know those on the left say they "lack refineries", but which is easier, building a nuclear power program from scratch or building a few refineries? Would it not be easier to build refineries and petrochemical plants than to develop nuclear refining capacity, buy uranium from those who have it, develop nuclear power plant technologies, and then build plants.
Even if Iran can't build refineries for some reason, as I pointed out in "
Another Thought On Iran" they have the third largest natural gas reserves in the world. Natural gas requires no refining, so they could simply tap these reserves and build some gas fired power plants.
So, why do they need nuclear power? Is it the strong environmental movement in Iran which is preventing them from using oil or gas? I just don't get it.
Second, exactly how are we going to ensure that Iran complies with nonproliferation treaties? We have been unable to keep North Korea from violating them. It is not as if it is hard to get from "civilian" refining of fuel to a nuclear weapon. The refining is 95% of the process, as I pointed out in "
I Don't Get It". So, once they have their "peaceful" nuclear program, to make a weapon is simple, and could be easily done out of sight of the rest of the world.
Nor do we have a strong record on inspections. Iraq, who had signed treaties allowing us to inspect, violated those agreements and yet the left still decries our invasion. So, how would we ensure Iran complied? Could we force them to allow in inspectors? Wouldn't the left be up in arms over that? And if they refused inspectors access, then what? If invading Saddam for refusing inspections after he agreed to them was "wrong", then what threat could we bring to bear against Iran? That we would get 17 UN resolutions against them?
I am sorry, Mr. President, but Iran has no "peaceful" nuclear program. They have window dressing for their efforts to become the single Islamic nuclear power in the middle east. And if you allow yourself to be deceived by their play acting, then you are effectively signing over the entire middle east to Iranian control.
POSTSCRIPT
My writing on Iran's nuclear program are:
I Don't Get It
Heads I Win, Tails You Lose
Another Thought On Iran
I Told You So
To Make It Very Simple
Idiots or Geniuses?
Blood for Oil
Quote of the Day
A Silly Question
Strange Double Standards
If A Republican Said It...
Does No One Learn History?
Cuba Anyone?
Uh... What He Said
Double Standard
Negotiating With A Murderer
The Carter Analogy
Amusingly Left Wing
A Few Thoughts on Greenwalds' Column
Our Friend Iran
The New Party Line
Deceptive Pickens Advertisement
Axis of Evil?
US Endorses Oppression
The End of Islamic Terrorism?
Interesting Comment
Can Everyone See It Now?
Iranian Weapons
Wait a Minute!
Amnesia
Obama Gets History Backwards
Iran's Assessment of Obama
Buy High, Sell Low, The Obama Way
Misunderstanding History
Comparing Bush and Obama -- Foreign Policy
It may also help to read "
Food For Thought", in which I discus the many deceptive stories about Saddam's WMDs and "
Correlation vs. Causation" which debunks the myth that all our middle eastern problems stem from our support of Israel. Finally, "
The Failure of Negotiation" is a good description of why negotiations fail, using Oslo as a template.
POSTSCRIPT II
By the way, this is very amusing for another reason. Before the election, many of us said Obama would spend all his time trying to talk us to peace, while adopting a very weak position on national defense("
What Is Obama's Foreign Policy?", "
Negotiating With A Murderer", "
I Hope Michelle Raises the Children", "
Captain Kirk Returns", "
How Much Harm Could Obama Do? Part II", "
Who is Obama?", "
Something to Ponder","
Interesting Comment"). the left dismissed these worries. However, is that not precisely the position Obama has adopted?