Quote:
|
If they wanted nuclear fuel, they could easily buy it.
|
No they couldn't. It's not on eBay or the shelves at B&Q, you know ('I'll have a pot of Dulux White and some enriched uranium please, in a lead-lined carrier bag').
What are they up to? Beats me. They're probably gambling on the low probability of action against them having any effect. Let's be clear, they have just as much right to enrich uranium as we have, and given the US attitude to international treaties and obligations (torture, Geneva conventions) we really aren't in the morally high position we should be. Given that, and the Iraq situation, any statements from Blair or the US on the subject of Iran are highly likely to be based on misleading or false intelligence, or have a hidden subtext related to the US plans for Middle East domination by military means. Don't trust the dog that already bit you.
Good point, Chris. With something like a nuke, the consequence of bunging one at Tel Aviv and *missing* (Bethlehem? Gaza? The Dome of the Rock? Amman?)* should be highly worrying to the Iranian leadership, as everywhere else is broadly speaking not going to admire that particularly (and the Israelis can certainly aim theirs rather better, and have a bigger target, so you're looking at smoking-hole-instead-of-Tehran followed by international pariah status from absolutely everybody followed by lots of tanks). Actually, in that case the Israelis would be better off *not* replying, come to think of it, as that might jeopardise other Islamic countries contributing troops.
* All of which are well within about 100 miles of Tel Aviv