Experts at the world's top atomic watchdog [IAEA] are in agreement that Tehran has the ability to make a nuclear bomb and is on the way to developing a missile system able to carry an atomic warhead, according to a secret report seen by The Associated Press.
And Obama is scrapping out missile defence shield program...
The Obama administration will scrap the controversial missile defense shield program in Eastern Europe, a senior administration official confirmed to CNN Thursday.
...
The Bush administration had cited the perceived nuclear threat from Iran as one of the key reasons it wanted to install the missile shield in eastern Europe.
This poses an interesting technical question.
AFAIK, our existing shield system is capable of destroying incoming missiles after they have been detected, tracked, analyzed and defined as an immediate threat.
But, is this all we can do?
I suspect that we can detect a launch almost instantly (computer monitored by satellite), but for practical and political reasons we have to wait to see if it's a just new cell phone relay or something dangerous, then if it's headed toward us, before we knock it out.
Israel (the most obvious, closest, and self-declared target by Iran) does not have the luxury of a 3,000 mile delay to prepare counter-measures, but only a few hundred miles. This means that they need to decide and act far more rapidly.
If Iran actually launches a missile at Israel, they will almost certainly counter-strike (there's no way they will wait and see, as they did for Bush because the casualties will be in the thousands), and their missiles will effectively (as General Curtis LeMay put it so aptly) "bomb them back to the Stone Age").
Obviously, this isn't what we want.
If we can detect a missile almost instantly, and we have devices available (there's almost always a carrier task force in the Mediterranean (6th Fleet) and another in the Gulf (5th Fleet) to wreck a missile only a few miles up, then our diplomatic efforts should take a much more aggressive tone (not the current, in which Obama believes himself the best liar in the room).
1. announcement of a new policy
2. Iran's nuclear program is just fine - do whatever you want
3. however, they're not permitted to launch any missiles for any purpose
4. any missile is contraband when launched, and presumed to be nuclear
5. the missile will be destroyed immediately, without waiting for an announcement of hostilities, or our prediction of the contents or target
The outcome:
1. either they believe us, and waste their own money developing something so expensive that it causes their people to revolt (and that, and not Ronald Reagan, was what broke the Soviet Union), or
2. they don't believe us, launch a missile, and prove to the U.N. (and everyone but other Arabs) that they are the aggressors and cannot be reasoned with.
If the missile is only a conventional device, we called their bluff and we have the strong hand ("do what I say, or I'll smack you again"). If the missile is nuclear, they destroy themselves when the radioactive contents land in Tehran (they're East of Israel, the wind blows from the West). Historically, this is called "hoist by your own petard". After that, a barrel of oil should cost 1 loaf of bread, yes? Or, as was said in 1973, "let them drink the oil".
Of course, Hillary and the oil companies will never permit such a thing to be even considered, but I think it's important to distinguish between problems that cannot be solved, and problems that Washington does not wish to solve.
