"How did it come to pass that an opposition's measure of a president's foreign policy was all or nothing, success or "failure"? The answer is that the political absolutism now normal in Washington arrived at the moment--Nov. 7, 2000--that our politics subordinated even a war against terror to seizing the office of the presidency." - Daniel Henninger - WSJ 11/18/05
"the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts." - George Orwell

Wednesday, April 26, 2006

Iran threatens to hide nuclear progress

The Western Mail has an article regarding Iran's latest threat to the IAEA, U.N. and world in general.

Supreme National Security Council (SNSC) Secretary Ali Larijani said, "Military action against Iran will not end our programme. If you take harsh measures, we will hide this programme. If you use the language of force, you should not expect us to act transparently."
Over at CNN.com:
Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said, "The Americans should know that if they assault Iran their interests will be harmed anywhere in the world that is possible. The Iranian nation will respond to any blow with double the intensity."
According to the Islamic Republic News Agency:
Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said, "The Iranian nation and government advocate world peace and security and will never attack anyone in the future."
The statement "will never attack anyone in the future," begs the question; how do you intend to wipe Israel off the map then? Since very little that has come from the leadership in Iran lately (last 27 years) can be termed "rational" how does one go about responding to this?

According to Morning Coffee yesterday:
Tehran was ready to transfer its nuclear technology to other countries.
So, does the "future" according to Iran really matter in the scheme of things? A two-fold strike back at the West isn't much of a threat to be avoided if you are already giving out nuclear know-how like candy on Halloween, does it.

tag: tag:


© blogger templates 3 column | Webtalks