Iran has broken the IAEA seals on nuclear equipment and has resumed building and testing centrifuges. It's apparently a diplomatic signal, assuming it's true that they've not actually restarted uranium enrichment.
Over a week ago, Jane's assessed the likelihood of a preemptive strike on Iranian nuclear facilities. The odds have just gone up.
Up until now, it seemed that Syria was next up at bat, what with economic sanctions being applied by the USA in light of apparent support of Iraqi insurgents by some official elements within Syria. Recent comments by Bush about investigations into the possibility that Iran played any role in the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks may signal a shift in focus.
Iran has been giving the IAEA grief, reluctantly giving up details of their nuclear program and possibly concealing a covert nuclear weapons program. The case for Iran is stronger than it was for Iraq. International officials have found traces of weapons-grade uranium, though it was explained away as contamination. Iran acquired centrifuge and other nuclear technology from Pakistan, and apparently recently sought out a number of specialized magnets in greater quantity than would be required for merely a research program. Al Jazeera reports that Iran sought out 4000 magnets, sufficient to equip 2000 centrifuges. Iran has uranium deposits on native soil and can produce yellow cake.
I'll wager hardliners in Iran saw the writing on the wall after Iraq fell to coalition forces and are scrambling to get nuclear offensive capability in order to deter the USA. Iran is within striking range for nuking Israel and possess proven missile technology, thanks in part to North Korea judging from the designs. Russia has not been helping any, as they've refused to stop assisting work on the Bushehr nuclear reactor in Iran. By Iran's official reckoning, 1500 specialists from Russia and other CIS countries are assisting.
Things could get tricky if Shia-dominated portions of southern Iraq opt to break away and join a nuclear Iran.
The logic of preemption implies that the prevention of WMD cannot stop at merely Iraq. Even if war is avoided, the impact upon a fledging Iraq could lead to break-up.
What next indeed?
According to Clarke, the detonation of a LNG (liquid natural gas) tanker could wipe out Boston. Such tankers were also used to smuggle in al Qaida operatives from Algeria. Perhaps something worth noting given the Democratic National Convention being held in Boston later this month. An explosive laden speedboat in the style of that which took out the USS Cole could make things a lot messier than any tea party.
I assign this scenario low odds since countermeasures are in place, but it's clear that this is one reason why the USA has pushed hard on the port security front internationally.
So the Russian government froze Yukos' assets. We'll see if they end up (re)nationalizing the oil company. This is not helping the price of oil any. It could also be serving double-duty as an indirect means to harm the US economy in hopes of making it harder for Bush to be reelected.
According to a piece originally in the New York Times, in a Philadelphia speech, Bush backed condoms in the fight against AIDS, citing the case of Uganda. This appears at first glance to be a reversal in the administration's abstinence-based stance regarding condoms and AIDS strategy, the truth is US foreign aid to Africa targeting AIDS did not rule out the use of condoms.
Though this may unsettle some conservative groups, there's a deeper reason for this shift in tack: terrorism. It appears consensus is building over AIDS as a driver for future failed states and therefore breeding grounds for terrorists. Al Qaida has a presence in several African countries already. Like it or not, condoms are part of the arsenal in the War on Terror.
Without mincing words, the USA is currently engaged in proxy warfare with Syria and Iran. Although the Iraqi Governing Council did not name names officially, unofficially they pointed the finger at the two countries as the worst offenders for supporting insurgents. There are indications that there are sympathizers within Syria's border guards and intelligence services. Given the stakes, both Iran and Syria are likely continuing clandestine efforts to develop and acquire nuclear weapons as insurance against US military intervention.
This is not a surprising outcome, though. What's interesting is that neither the Democrats nor the Republicans seem interested in framing the Iraq situation in this manner. Perhaps Republicans fear this would be tantamount to an admission that that America isn't yet safer from terrorism and preemption has not been effective as a nonproliferation strategy; perhaps Democrats fear that said situation would justify if not require ongoing US troop presence.
