Most of us have heard the old claim that Nero fiddled while Rome burned.  None of us have any idea of whether that was true.

But when I say that President Obama diddled while Iran built its nuclear stockpile — the one facilitated by our agreement to suspend sanctions against Iran before any deal was in place, even a bad one — we can all see that with our own eyes.

Excerpted from David E. Sanger and William A. Broad\’s article  in the New York Times – which is either astonishingly naive or a clumsy attempt to protect Mr. Obama as best it can be done under the circumstances:

With only one month left before a deadline to complete a nuclear deal with Iran, international inspectors have reported that Tehran\’s stockpile of nuclear fuel increased about 20 percent over the last 18 months of negotiations, partially undercutting the Obama administration\’s contention that the Iranian program had been “frozen” during that period.

But Western officials and experts cannot quite figure out why. One possibility is that Iran has run into technical problems that have kept it from converting some of its enriched uranium into fuel rods for reactors, which would make the material essentially unusable for weapons. Another is that it is increasing its stockpile to give it an edge if the negotiations fail.

The extent to which Iran\’s stockpile has increased was documented in a report issued Friday by the International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations organization that monitors compliance with nuclear treaties. The agency\’s inspectors, who have had almost daily access to most of Iran\’s nuclear production facilities, reported finding no evidence that Iran was racing toward a nuclear weapon, and said Tehran had halted work on facilities that could have given it bomb-making capabilities.

Since atomic negotiations began a year and a half ago, Iran has slowly increased the size of its uranium stockpile, which can fuel either reactors or bombs.

So what do we have here?

-Iran is increasing its nuclear stockpile as the “deal” negotiations go on and on (they were supposed to have completed months ago).  And Sanger and Broad conclude this “partially” undercuts the claim that Iran\’s nuclear program is frozen.

Partially?  That\’s like your overweight friend buying gallon after gallon of ice cream, and you concluding it partially undercuts his claim that he doesn\’t intend to eat ice cream anymore.

-Sanger and Broad then try to convince us that maybe the fact that this nuclear material remains fully usable for nuclear weapons is not intentional, maybe it\’s just “technical problems” in rendering it unusable. 

Yeah, sure.  It\’s just a technical issue which, coincidentally, is occurring as the “deal” negotiations stall.  If you believe this, stop reading and immediately seek medical help to reverse your lobotomy.

-But not to worry, Iran has halted work on facilities that could produce nuclear bombs.  Honest, the UN said so. 

The fact that the UN does not have access to all the sites, and that, in any event, once Iran has the nuclear material it needs it can immediately complete those facilities (which have not been dismantled, but are partially built and can be continued at a moment\’s notice)?  Irrelevant\’n\’immaterial.

If the New York Times had any shame at all, this article would not have been published.

And if Barack Obama had any concern at all about Iran becoming nuclear, he would not be diddling around, allowing extensions to the “deal” deadline while the nuclear material was being accumulated.

Iran is going to have nuclear weapons.  It is making that so clear even a New York Times writer could – or at any rate , should – be able to see it. 

But, then again, New York Times writers are not heads of state. 

Barack Obama is a head of state — and he is diddling while Iran, laughing at him all the way, continues its progress toward acquiring the means to make good on its overtly stated promise to “wipe Israel off the map”.

Do you think Mr. Obama will spend any time diddling if Israel, the one country most in danger of an Iran nuclear attack, decides to do something about it before that attack takes place? 

Me neither.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *