The following is the 76th update to my comprehensive, ongoing compendium of constant predictions and prognostications regarding the supposed inevitability and imminence of an alleged Iranian nuclear weapon, hysterical allegations that have been made repeatedly for the past three decades.
Citing the latest hysterical analysis of Iran's nuclear program by the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS), David Albright's Washington D.C.-based propaganda outfit, the Jerusalem Post exclaims that "Iran is expected to achieve a 'critical capability' to produce sufficient weapon-grade uranium by mid-2014, without being detected."
Albright & Co. cry that Iranian progress "is unlikely to be prevented simply by instituting better inspections, whether through increased inspection frequency, remote monitoring, or even implementation of the the Additional Protocol." The report laments that, if the United States and Israel don't launch an illegal, unprovoked military assault on Iran "out of fear of facing international opposition," consequently "Iran could have time to make enough weapon-grade uranium for one or more nuclear weapons."
Thus, the alarmists of ISIS conclude that "IAEA inaction or caution could make an international response all but impossible before Iran has produced enough weapon-grade uranium for one or more nuclear weapon."
Meanwhile, a recent Al Monitor report exposes the agenda dripping from ISIS' analysis. Earlier this month, IAEA Deputy Director Herman Nackaerts explained to reporter Barbara Slavin that "'we would know within a week' whether Iran was diverting uranium from declared sites and seeking to enrich it to weapons grade level."
Nackaerts, who is also head of the IAEA's Department of Safeguards, said that "[t]here are two to six IAEA inspectors on the ground in Iran every day...covering 16 Iranian facilities. On average, he said, that means that an inspector visits Iran's enrichment plants at Natanz and Fordow once a week. If there are suspicions about any improper activities, they can go more often, he added.
In order to sufficiently hand-wring about the Iranian program, "ISIS has recommended that inspections should increase to at least twice per week at Iran's enrichment facilities."
|Evelyn Gordon. Yes, really.
"Time is running out," Gordon declares, echoing so many uninformed voices before her:
In March 2006, NPR's national security correspondent Mara Liasson insisted on Fox News that "time is running out. Pretty soon, Iran is going to have the bomb."
By early 2011, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton claimed, "We have time, but not a lot of time." The following year, a Weekly Standard opinion piece co-authored by William Kristol declared, "Time is running out" and called "for Congress to seriously explore an Authorization of Military Force to halt Iran’s nuclear program."
Soon thereafter, Commentary Magazine's Jonathan Tobin warned that, without the United States issuing an explicit military threat, "time may soon run out on any chance for the West to stop Iran," while this past March, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu eloquently stated that "whatever time is left, there's not a lot of time."
In June 2012 interview with CNN, Israeli President Shimon Peres stated his belief that the "military threat" issued to Iran so far has not been credible enough. "The Iranians think that this is just a warning, that people are not serious enough," he told Elise Labbot. "If the Iranians will understand seriously that this is an option, maybe we shall not need it," he added. "If they think this is a bluff, then it may lead to a war."
When asked "how long" the Iranians have until they are attacked, Peres replied, "I think time is out because they continue to build a bomb," hedging a minute later, saying, "I think time is beginning to run out."
"In short," Gordon concludes in Commentary, "either military action is taken in the coming months, or a nuclear Iran will be inevitable. There is no more time to waste."
In truth, it's time to hit the snooze button.