The Centrifuges Are Spinning

Its amazing that this past June, Barack Obama metaphorically just stood on the neutrality curb as a young woman bled to death on the streets of Tehran. She had been shot in the heart while protesting an unjust election. The president certainly was distressed, as we all were, at the YouTube video of her life quickly slipping away. But the Obama administration's stance was to not interfere with the elections of a sovereign nation and potentially get in between a struggle for power, the two sides being the Ahmadinejad outlaw regime and the hundreds of thousands protesting a stolen election. The reason for the neutrality as explained by the White House, was the president’s desire to have a dialogue with Ahmadinejad concerning, among other things, Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

Needless to say, Iran has always insisted that their nuclear ambition was strictly for peaceful, energy related purposes. That any mascot of any professional sports team would arguably appear tougher, and perhaps push back harder on Iran than Obama has to this point is probably spot on. After all, and as pointed out in Obama’s “American arrogance” Strasbourg speech, the president was following a new collective multilateralism, inclusive of all of our European "peers." The “arrogance” line was an olive branch for past American sins in hopes skipping arm in arm towards worldwide peace and nuclear reduction and non-proliferation.

"In America, there is a failure to appreciate Europe's leading role in the world. Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive." President Barak Obama

Last week Obama became the first U.S. president to ever chair a United Nations Security Council meeting, and successfully guided a unanimous vote to approve Security Council Resolution 1887 regarding nuclear nonproliferation. It is the president’s born yesterday belief, and in a 1930’s Neville Chamberlain style I might opine, that a piece of paper signed by the five permanent members and such countries as Costa Rica, Uganda, Libya, and Burkina Faso (formerly known as the Republic of Upper Volta), would actually result in the elimination of nuclear weapons and rogue nation nuclear ambitions. The White House’s point paper stated:

"A revitalized commitment to work toward a world without nuclear weapons, and calls for further progress on nuclear arms reductions, urging all states to work towards the establishment of effective measures of nuclear arms reduction and disarmament."

The day before, bookended by the notable bellicose rambles of Muammar al-Gaddafi and Ahmadinejad himself, the president again took the soft, apologetic stance, never mentioning Iran’s nuclear resolve, stating:

"It would be inappropriate for me to leave without sharing with you what I feel is the main lesson or perception I have gained during this year of work, dedication and total commitment to the cause of peace through the democratization of the United Nations; the revitalization of the General Assembly; the complete abolition of nuclear weapons by the year 2020, the 75th anniversary of the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki…"

Obama’s soft approach seemed to be in stark contrast with France’s Sarkozy, who directly warned Iran:

"I would like to say in a solemn manner to the Iranian leaders, that if they rely on a passive response from the international community in order to pursue their military nuclear program, they will be making a tragic mistake."

Was there something Sarkozy knew that the rest of us didn’t? Apparently so, and a day later, during the opening address of the G20 summit in Pittsburgh, the rest of the world learned what the United States and her closest allies, Great Britain, Germany, France, and Israel, had known for awhile, if not years. Iran, as it turned out, had a secret uranium enrichment facility hidden underground or rather in the side of a mountain near the holy city of Qom. The clear-cut goal of the facility, designed to be Israeli proof, was the production of weapons grade enriched uranium.

American intelligence had discovered the plant three years earlier, which meant that Obama had known since the day he took office, if not before. Gordon Brown referred to Iran’s defiance of IAEA international disclosure laws as a case of “serial deception.” Ahmadinejad remained defiant, initially denying the existence of the Qom facility, before finally admitting that it was there, and firing a bunch of missiles that Sunday. Sanctions, it appeared, would be inevitable. Mr. Obama would give the Iranians time – at least until the end of the year to allow inspectors into the site. The Iranians would stall, as everyone knew – especially Sarkozy.

Obama was dithering yet again, much to the French president’s ire, whose apparent anger on the stage at the G20 was induced by his belief that Mr. Obama “is incredibly naïve and grossly egotistical,” or so it’s been reported. Whether an accurate quote or not, the president has given Iran so much latitude that at this point it is only a win for Ahmadinejad. As far as sanctions go, nothing short of a gasoline blockade would do a thing to hurt the Iranians, and then they would mine the straits of Hormuz preventing oil tankers from getting in and out of the Persian Gulf, in effect blockading not only Iran, but the rest of the world as well. Iran knows that, and so does Obama. And unfortunately, as Sarkozy did in fact say, “the centrifuges are spinning.” That, my friends, is a bona fide truth.

So in light of what apparently is an inevitable Iranian march towards nuclear arms while Ahmadinejad is at the helm, which Obama has known all along because of the Qom discovery, why would the president have stood still on the sidelines, a young woman’s bloody death seared in our memory, during the Iranian farce of an election and subsequent protests? Why would the president have let the Iranian president off so easy in front of the world assembly of the United Nations, on our own turf? Why, even at the G20, would the president still not call the Iranians on the carpet when France and Great Britain were so hawkish of Iran during their respective talks? Is this yet another “peace in our time?” Chamberlain appeased Hitler in order to prevent war, and the appeasement ended up being a catalyst for the very war Britain's Prime Minister sought to avoid. Now there is the grave and present danger of allowing Ahmadinejad more time and wiggle room as was given to Hitler. The waiting game should be over, period, and hard decisions made Thursday at Geneva where diplomats of the five permanent members of the U.N. Security council are meeting with Iran's senior diplomatic negotiator.

The result and decision of what to do next should be simple: no more stalling, demand inspections immediately, and if they refuse – then additional sanctions should be imposed post haste, including a gas embargo; otherwise Iran will drag its feet as it has always done. Meanwhile the centrifuges are spinning.

In the end, what would be worse – five-dollar gas, or an Iran with nuclear capabilities and a leader that has vowed to wipe Israel off the map? Benjamin Netanyahu will not allow the centrifuges to spin much longer, and a nuclear-armed Iran would certainly result in terrorists owning a bomb in the very near future. Perhaps Obama should play a little Texas Hold ‘Em and call the little Iranian’s bluff – we have too much to lose otherwise.