CALIFORNIA YANKEE

At Netroots Sen. Murphy says ObamaCare is being implemented incredibly well

Image Credit Dan Spencer

At the Netroots Nation, in Detroit, Connecticut Democrat and U.S. Senator Chris Murphy said ObamaCare "is being implemented incredibly well."

Perhaps Sen. Murphy forgets all the criticism about President Obama's incompetent implementation of ObamaCare that came from leading Democrats: 

• The Democrats' majority leader, Sen. Harry Reid, said last week that he agreed with Democrat Sen. Max Baucus of Montana, a Democrat architect of the law, who said about the ObamaCare implementation, "I just see a huge train wreck coming down."
• Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden expressed concern about what's going to happen with young people if their insurance premiums shoot up.
• Maryland Sen. Ben Cardin told White House officials that he was concerned about big rate increases being sought by the largest health insurer in his state.
• New Hampshire Sen Jeanne Shaheen, Democrat of New Hampshire complained, "We are hearing from a lot of small businesses in New Hampshire that do not know how to comply with the law."

Or perhaps he does not recall that Healthcare.gov was riddled with site crashes, slow processing and other issues as the defective website was rolled out last October.

As if his declaration about ObamaCare implementation wasn’t enough, Murphy also said he "thinks that President Obama has done a credible job of managing a pretty messed up world." He and Secretary of State Kerry must be the only ones who believe that.

Obama's foreign policy is failing across the globe. With Putin trying to restore the Evil Empire one piece at a time, practically the entire Middle East at war, losing Iraq, Obama's indecision which he likes to call thoughtfulness, and leading from behind - otherwise known as following. No wonder Americans seem to be turning isolationist. 

Both of Murphy's statements occurred at the Netroots "Iran: Diplomacy or War" panel held on o July 18, 2014

When Israel Attacks Iran

Not if, but when Israel attacks Iran's nuclear sites is the premise of the Op-Ed piece by Benny Morris in the New York Times:

ISRAEL will almost surely attack Iran's nuclear sites in the next four to seven months — and the leaders in Washington and even Tehran should hope that the attack will be successful enough to cause at least a significant delay in the Iranian production schedule, if not complete destruction, of that country's nuclear program. Because if the attack fails, the Middle East will almost certainly face a nuclear war — either through a subsequent pre-emptive Israeli nuclear strike or a nuclear exchange shortly after Iran gets the bomb.

[. . .]

Every intelligence agency in the world believes the Iranian program is geared toward making weapons, not to the peaceful applications of nuclear power. And, despite the current talk of additional economic sanctions, everyone knows that such measures have so far led nowhere and are unlikely to be applied with sufficient scope to cause Iran real pain, given Russia’s and China’s continued recalcitrance and Western Europe’s (and America’s) ambivalence in behavior, if not in rhetoric. Western intelligence agencies agree that Iran will reach the “point of no return” in acquiring the capacity to produce nuclear weapons in one to four years.

Which leaves the world with only one option if it wishes to halt Iran’s march toward nuclear weaponry: the military option, meaning an aerial assault by either the United States or Israel. Clearly, America has the conventional military capacity to do the job, which would involve a protracted air assault against Iran’s air defenses followed by strikes on the nuclear sites themselves. But, as a result of the Iraq imbroglio, and what is rapidly turning into the Afghan imbroglio, the American public has little enthusiasm for wars in the Islamic lands. This curtails the White House’s ability to begin yet another major military campaign in pursuit of a goal that is not seen as a vital national interest by many Americans.

Which leaves only Israel — the country threatened almost daily with destruction by Iran’s leaders.

In the end Morris suggests that the Israeli conventional strike will not be enough dissuade the Iranians from their nuclear ambitions and that Israel will find itself compelled to nuke Iran's nuclear sites.

Morris predicts Israel will strike within "the next four to seven months." That would be just before or just after our presidential election, but before the next president takes office. Just imagine the impact a pre-election strike and the aftermath might have on the U.S. election.

Read the whole thing.

Image credit: Tucker Nicholls via the New York Times.

McCain Urges Nations To Cut Funds To Iran

Today, outlining his vision For Israel's security and the Middle East, Senator John McCain called on states to cut funds to the rogue state of Iran.

McCain's remarks were made at the AIPAC Policy Conference, and came as Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad again predicted Israel will soon disappear.

In his speech, McCain described a vision for the Middle East that includes the following points:

In A World Full Of Dangers, Israel And The United States Must Always Stand Together.

As the threats to Israel's security increase, John McCain believes America's commitment must also grow. He strongly supports the increase in military aid to Israel scheduled to begin in October, and is committed to making certain Israel maintains its qualitative military edge.

Addressing The Iranian Threat:

The Foremost Threat To Israel Is The Iranian Regime. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has called Israel a "stinking corpse" and for it to be "wiped off the map." Beyond the vile insults, the Iranian leadership acts in ways directly detrimental to the security of Israel and America.

Iran's Leadership Has Repeatedly Used Violence To Undermine Israel And The Middle East Peace Process. Iran sponsors both Hamas and Hezbollah. It has trained, financed, and equipped extremists in Iraq, and remains the world's chief sponsor of terrorism.

Iran's Continued Pursuit Of Nuclear Weapons Poses An Unacceptable Danger That We Cannot Allow. Emboldened by nuclear weapons, Iran would feel unconstrained to sponsor terrorist attacks. Its flouting of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty would render that agreement obsolete and could induce others to join a nuclear arms race. There would be the possibility that Tehran might pass nuclear materials or weapons to terrorist networks. An Iranian nuclear bomb would pose an existential threat to Israel.

Rather Than Sitting Down Unconditionally With The Iranian President Or Supreme Leader, John McCain Will Work To Create Real-World Pressures To Peacefully But Decisively Change Iran's Behavior. John McCain has been a leader on these issues, having coauthored the 1992 Iran-Iraq Arms Non-Proliferation Act.

The United Nations Security Council Should Impose Progressively Tougher Political And Economic Sanctions. Should the Security Council continue to delay, the U.S. must lead like-minded countries in imposing multilateral sanctions outside the UN framework.

John McCain Has Proposed Applying Sanctions To Restrict Iran's Ability To Import Refined Petroleum Products. A severe limit on imports of gasoline would create immediate pressure on Iran's leadership to change course, and to cease in the pursuit of nuclear weapons.

We Will Encourage Those In The Region And Our European Partners To Impose Targeted Sanctions. These would include the denial of visas and freezing of assets.

We Will Impose Financial Sanctions On The Central Bank Of Iran, Which Aids In Iran's Terrorism And Weapons Proliferation.

We Will Apply The Full Force Of Law To Prevent Business Dealings With Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps. John McCain was pleased to join Sens. Lieberman and Kyl in backing an amendment calling for the designation of the Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization. Over three quarters of the Senate supported this obvious step, but not Sen. Obama.

We Will Launch A Worldwide Divestment Campaign. As more people, businesses, pension funds, and financial institutions across the world divest from companies doing business with Iran, the radical elite who run that country will become even more unpopular than they are already.

Supporting The Peace Process:

The Palestinian People Are Badly Served With Hamas In Charge Of Gaza. This is a group that refuses to recognize Israel's right to exist, to denounce violence, and to acknowledge prior peace commitments. They deliberately target Israeli civilians, spread hatred, and set back their people's cause with every new bombing.

We Hope That The Talks Between Israel And Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas Will Yield Progress Toward Peace. While encouraging this process, we must also ensure that Israelis can live in safety until there is a Palestinian leadership willing and able to deliver peace. A peace process that places faith in terrorists can never end in peace.

Strengthening Our Allies In Lebanon:

The International Community Must Support Our Allies In Lebanon. Israel's chance for enduring peace with Lebanon depends on a Lebanese government that has a monopoly on authority within its country's borders. We can fully empower our allies – not only with military aid but also with the resources to undermine Hezbollah's appeal: better schools, hospitals, roads and power generation.

John McCain Will Bring More Attention To The Kidnapping Of Three Young Israelis In 2006. In the summer of 2006, Hamas and Hezbollah kidnapped three young Israelis and have held them ever since. John McCain has met with the families and will bring attention to their situation, insist that the Geneva Conventions are observed, and call for the swift release of these men.

Succeeding In Iraq:

Succeeding In Iraq Is Critical To Israeli And American Security. Our troops in Iraq have made hard-won progress under General Petraeus' new strategy. Iraqi political leaders have moved ahead. Sectarian violence has declined. Sunnis are cooperating in the fight against al Qaeda. Shia extremist militias no longer control Basra. Al Qaeda terrorists are on the run.

Senator Obama's Plan To Withdraw Regardless Of The Consequences Will Surely Result In Catastrophe. If our troops are ordered to retreat, we risk all-out civil war, genocide, and a failed state in the heart of the Middle East. Allowing a potential terrorist sanctuary would profoundly affect the security of the United States, Israel, and our other friends.

McCain's entire speech, as prepared for delivery can be found in the extended post.

Obama's Carter-Like Naivety

On Sunday, Obama showed his Carter-like naivety when he said Iran poses no serious threat to us and suggested we might have common interests with the rouge state that is developing a nuclear weapon to wipe Israel off the map. Obama got it very wrong. Yes, Kennedy spoke with Khrushchev during his first year in office, just like Obama promises to do with the leaders of his "tiny" countries. The Kennedy/Khrushchev talks were a disaster. Some say the Soviets, based on the talks with Kennedy, believed they could get away with putting nuclear-armed missiles in Cuba.

It wasn't talking with the Soviet leaders that allowed us to win the cold war. It was our economic and military strength that enabled us to successfully confront and contain the Evil Empire.

When Obama claimed Iran poses no serious threat, he must have forgotten about the Marines killed in the 1983 Hezbollah terrorist bombing of the Marine Barracks, in Beirut, Lebanon. Until the September 11 terror attacks, Iran-sponsored Hezbollah was responsible for killing more Americans than any other terrorist organization.

Yes, Obama got it very wrong. So wrong, that after John McCain called Obama on making light of the threat "tiny" Iran poses to America and Western civilization and distributed the video of Obama’s pronouncement, Obama nuanced his Sunday position faster than Kerry. Obama now admits Iran is a grave threat:

“Iran is a grave threat. It has an illicit nuclear program. It supports terrorism across the region and militias in Iraq. It threatens Israel’s existence. It denies the Holocaust,” he said.”

Obama still doesn't get it.

When Obama says "Kennedy talked to Khrushchev and he got those missiles out of Cuba," Obama fails to mention that at the same time that Kennedy sent a private emissary to the Soviet Union and corresponded with Khrushchev via the teletype, Kennedy had already declared a naval quarantine of Cuba and threatened military force to destroy the missiles.

Obama also gets it wrong when he claims that Iran is the biggest beneficiary of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

As Roger L. Simon wrote yesterday:

Well, maybe, maybe not. But let’s leave aside the obvious — that Iran and the US have had numerous contacts over the last few years to no avail — and consider some more basic issues around the Iranian Revolution about which Senator Obama, most of whose time has been consumed by running for President since arriving in the Senate, may not be fully aware. These issues have tremendous ramifications regarding the level of Iran’s threat.

To begin with, the Islamic Republic of Iran is not a conventional state in the sense of France or even the former Soviet Union. Since the revolution on 1979, it has been a theocracy based on Ayatollah Khomeini’s vision of a Shiite world under Allah.

[. . .]

In other words, Iran was not really a country per se, but a stepping stone in the eternal mission of global jihad. As demonstration, Khomeini almost immediately allowed millions to die in his 1980s war with Iraq, one of whose goals was to gain control of the holy cities of Kerbala and Najaf (the resting place of Shia’s Imam Ali) for Allah.

This goal was never truly abandoned as the Islamic Republic of Khomeini evolved into today’s IRI of Ayatollah Khamenei and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. I say evolved, but their belief system has remained essentially intact, with some minor diversions, since 1979.

These extreme tenets of Khomeinist Shia Islam can be argued to be more dangerous to our future and those of the West than Marxism-Leninism, which promoted itself as scientific socialism and therefore was governed to some extent by scientific evaluation. The IRI is governed by their version of faith in Allah. No science or fact can ever contradict the justice of their cause, which is to them God’s will. Their eschatology includes a belief under which global chaos will bring forth the “hidden imam” or Mahdi, the Shia messiah, who will bring peace to Earth, unified, of course, under Allah.

Consider the danger of nuclear weapons in the hands of people who actually believe that. It’s unclear how many do, but Ahmadinejad obviously does, as do many others in their leadership, particularly in the Revolutionary Guard and its Quds Brigade.

Obama's naivety reminds me of the naivety shown by President Carter, who admitted he was shocked that the Soviet Union would invade Afghanistan after Carter negotiated a Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty with Brezhnev.

Quibbling With A Contrary View

Jay McDonough, my fellow Examiner at Progressive Politics took issue with my "Obama With " post.

In "A Contrary View," Jay, unfortunately, mis-characterized what I said about talking with .

I don't think I said, and I certainly didn't mean to say, that "any overture toward by the U.S. government would be viewed as a sign of weakness." What I did say was, "Like Carter's failure to free the hostages, Obama's proposed 'aggressive personal diplomacy' will also be seen as a sign of weakness that will only encourage this state sponsor of terrorism." I also said, "I prefer the current approach to fighting the war the Islamic extremists continue to wage against us and McCain's 'Realistic Idealism' to the false hope of Obama's 'aggressive personal diplomacy.'"

I meant to convey my concern about Obama's naive statement that he will "meet with any leader of any state, including 's Ahmadinejad, without pre-conditions."

ian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has repeatedly threatened the destruction of Israel; is pursuing nuclear weapons; and his Revolutionary Guard is training Iraqis to kill American military personnel in Iraq.

It is dangerous to offer to meet with Ahmadinejad without insisting that the rogue state change its belligerent ways -- serial statements about a world without America; parades in ian cities with participants shouting “Death to America”; active efforts to kill and maim Americans and Iraqis; ’s support for the Hezbollah terrorists, which until the 9/11 terror attacks, had killed more Americans than any other terror group; and 's refusal to obey the UN Security Council's demands that cease its nuclear weapons development.

Talking for talking sake will not move any closer toward acceptable conduct. No, such an unsophisticated policy will only convince the ians that their current abhorrent behavior got them what they wanted.

Obama With Iran

Time magazine's Scott MacLeod reports that Sergei Barseghian, a columnist for the Iranian reformist newspaper Etemad Meli (National Confidence), notes that in Farsi, the words Oo ba ma would translate as "He's with us."

Iranians are following the American presidential race. In part, because they wish to be rid of President Bush, who branded part of an "Axis of Evil," and because they are taken in by Obama's false hope. According to MacLeod, Iranians favor Obama's hope rhetoric and see a President Obama repairing the U.S.-Iranian relationship:

It's not only the policy expectations that account for Obama's popularity: his Third World ethnic background and the Muslim faith of his father's Kenyan family — even his middle name, Hussein, the grandson of the Prophet Muhammad and a revered figure in the Shi'ite Islam practiced in — offer points of affinity that some analysts believe could give 's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the political cover to make a gesture of reconciliation to the country long decried in Tehran as "the Great Satan."

But it's Obama's declared willingness to engage in "aggressive personal diplomacy" with the Iranian leadership that has generated the most interest among senior officials in Tehran, since this would mark a sea-change in Washington's approach. "Obama is a man of engagement, a man of negotiations," one Iranian official told TIME. Amir Mohebbian, an analyst close to ian conservative politicians, argues that "the mentality of Iranian decision makers is ready for that." He adds: "I think that the coming of Obama — maybe, maybe — helps to solve this problem, but it needs bravery, from both sides."

MacLeod, fails to mention that the U.S./ "30-year Cold War" is the result of 's seizure of the U.S. embassy and the subsequent holding of 52 U.S. diplomats hostage for 444 days -- the remainder of Jimmy Carter's presidency. Like Carter's failure to free the hostages, Obama's proposed "aggressive personal diplomacy" will also be seen as a sign of weakness that will only encourage this state sponsor of terrorism.

Senator McCain, on the other hand, with his more "Realistic Idealism," is less likely to make nice to the Iranians merely for the sake of making nice.

The Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) — the nation’s largest association of Muslim organizations — tried to persuade McCain to drop the adjective “Islamic” when describing terrorists and extremists:

We’ve tried to contact his office, contact his spokesperson to have them rethink word usage that is more acceptable to the Muslim community. If it’s not our intent to paint everyone with the same brush, then certainly we should think seriously about just characterizing them as criminals, because that is what they are.

Remembering how ineffective our former policy of treating terrorists as mere criminals was in preventing terror attacks against America Senator McCain has rejected ISNA's plea:

Steve Schmidt, a former Bush White House aide who is now a McCain media strategist, told The Times that the use of the word is appropriate and that the candidate will continue to define the enemy that way.

"Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda represent a perverted strain of Islam at odds with the great many peaceful Muslims who practice their great faith peacefully," Mr. Schmidt said. "But the reality is, the hateful ideology which underpins bin Ladenism is properly described as radical Islamic extremism. Senator McCain refers to it that way because that is what it is."

Realistic Idealism indeed.

The failed policy of merely criminalizing terrorism brought us to 9/11. Al Qaeda attacked us on 9/11 because the organization thought we didn't have the stomach to fight. Following many attacks on Americans in Lebanon in the 1970s and '80s culminating in the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983, America withdrew. Our response to attacks during Bill Clinton's presidency -- withdrawal, angry words occasionally accompanied by a few cruise missiles resulted in attack after attack. Mogadishu in 1993, the 1993 attack on World Trade Center, the attack on the U.S. military office in Riyadh in 1995, the attacks American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, and the near sinking of the USS Cole in Yemen in 2000.

I prefer the current approach to fighting the war the Islamic extremists continue to wage against us and McCain's "Realistic Idealism" to the false hope of Obama's "aggressive personal diplomacy."

Colin Powell On The Olympics, Iraq, , Race And 2008

Diane Sawyer interviewed Colin Powell on "Good Morning America" and discussed the Olympics, Iraq, and , race and the 2008 election.

Presidential Election

Powell insists he hasn't yet decided whom he'll back in the 2008 presidential election:

"I'm looking at all three candidates," Powell said in an exclusive interview with Diane Sawyer for Thursday's "Good Morning America" on ABC. "I know them all very, very well. I consider myself a friend of each and every one of them. And I have not decided who I will vote for yet."

Rejects Olympic Boycott

Powell rejects a boycott of the opening ceremonies of the Olympics in China:

"That's a judgment the president will have to make. I would not boycott the opening ceremony," Powell told Sawyer.

Powell insists that a boycott will not accomplish its objective:

"We always are aware and have been aware of Chinese human rights problems. And I think if you start to take this kind of action, it doesn't really serve the purpose of human rights," Powell told "Good Morning America."

"What is accomplished by boycotting the opening ceremony?" Powell asked rhetorically. "I don't think that makes the situation any better. It probably makes the situation a little more difficult for the Chinese because they will pull back even more."

Powell encouraged China to begin a dialogue with the Dalai Lama, the exiled spiritual leader of Tibet.

"I think we ought (to) recognize that these protests are legitimate, recognize that the Chinese ought to move forward and start having a dialogue with the Dalai Lama, and not just say, 'We're not going to talk to you.' (The) Dalai Lama has indicated flexibility. And I think that's what the Chinese should do," he said. "But I don't think that these kinds of actions, such as boycotting an opening ceremony, or even perhaps thinking twice about sending your team to the Olympics, has the desired effect."

"I very much supported in 2001, when I was secretary of state, that we give the Olympics to the Chinese because I thought it would put them under a spotlight. And they have responded to that spotlight," he said. "But they haven't with respect to Tibet. And these demonstrations show the Chinese leadership that the world is watching this."

Iraq

Powell expressed concern about the burden Iraq puts on the country's military:

"I'll tell you what they're all going to face -- whichever one of them becomes president on Jan. 21 of 2009 -- they will face a military force, a United States military force, that cannot sustain, continue to sustain, 140,000 people deployed in Iraq, and the 20 (to) 25,000 people we have deployed in Afghanistan, and our other deployments," Powell said.

[. . .]

"I think it's time to begin an orderly process of withdrawing our troops, start rebuilding our military and focusing on the challenges posed by Afghanistan," Clinton said during a Senate Armed Services hearing on Tuesday.

Powell, as a soldier, says while military options are always on the table, would be a very tough target.

Race

Powell condemned controversial remarks by Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama's pastor of 20 years, as "deplorable" but complimented Obama for his speech on race:

"Rev. Wright is also somebody who has made enormous contributions in his community and has turned a lot of lives around," Powell said, "And so, I have to put that in context with these very offensive comments that he made, which I reject out of hand."

[. . .]

"I think that Sen. Obama handled the issue well . . . he didn't look the other way. He didn't wait for the, for the, you know, for the storm to go over. He went on television, and I thought, gave a very, very thoughtful, direct speech. And he didn't abandon the minister who brought him closer to his faith," Powell told Sawyer.

You can watch the interview in the following video.

Powell was impressive in his ability to weave answers around tough questions and not offend any of the potential powers to be. Very diplomatic and thoughtful.

Saudis Preparing For Nuclear Fallout

Venomous Kate has an interesting post about the Saudis preparations for "sudden nuclear and radioactive hazards."

Kate also notes some interesting and familiar sounding military positioning plus sanctions:

• Last week, a U.S. nuclear sub joined the fleet stationed in the Persian Gulf.

• On land, Russian sources say the U.S. is currently massing forces on the ian border.

• Today the U.S. announced plans to sanction ’s Central Bank for funding state-sponsored terrorism.

Read the whole thing.

Like Cheney, Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell has tried to undo some of the political and diplomatic damage done by the NIE:

During his February 5, 2008 testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee, Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell tried to undo some of the political and diplomatic damage done by the NIE:

Not only did McConnell testify that the Islamic Republic was working to master the enrichment of uranium--"the most difficult challenge in nuclear production"--but he also acknowledged that, "because of intelligence gaps," the U.S. government could not be certain that the ian government had fully suspended its covert nuclear programs. "We assess with high confidence that has the scientific, technical, and industrial capacity eventually to produce nuclear weapons," he testified. "In our judgment, only an ian political decision to abandon a nuclear weapons objective would plausibly keep from eventually producing nuclear weapons--and such a decision is inherently reversible."

McConnell, appearing on the February 17, 2008 edition of "Fox News Sunday," Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell said could have a nuclear weapon next year:

WALLACE: Finally, you have dialed back on the recent national intelligence estimate that reported that gave up its nuclear weapons program in 2003.

In fact, you said you wish you had the opportunity to redo the public presentation. Do you feel that the NIE understated the threat from ?

MCCONNELL: No. Chris, if the words in the NIE were correct, what I think we probably didn't do an adequate job on is reflecting — there are three parts to a nuclear program.

You have to have fissile material. You have to have a means to deliver a weapon. And you have to have the technical — to design a weapon.

The only thing that they terminated in 2003 was the design feature of the weapon. They're still pursuing fissile material. They're still pursuing missiles for delivery.

As it turns out, though, the hardest part is fissile material. The easiest part is weapons design. So when I testified on the Hill recently, the attempt was to put it in context.

WALLACE: So are you saying that and its uranium enrichment program and what that could lead to is as much of a threat as it ever was?

MCCONNELL: I am saying that. And I believe that the path they were on to achieve nuclear weapons has not been significantly changed because they terminated this technical design feature.

They can turn it on. Remember, it was secret. They've never admitted it. They could have turned it back on now and we wouldn't necessarily know. We'll try to know, but we're not 100 percent sure of that.

WALLACE: And the time frame for them to get the ability to make a nuclear bomb?

MCCONNELL: We've done an estimate in 2001, 2005 and 2007, and each time it says the same thing. They could do it by 2009 — unlikely. The range is 2010 to 2015. And the best guess is about the middle range there for having a nuclear weapon.

Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Olmert believes that could have "a nuclear weapons capacity" in a few months.

UN Sanctions Again

The United Nations Security Council adopted a third resolution imposing sanctions on for its refusal to cease enriching uranium designed to build nuclear weapons.

The new sanctions add to Council sanctions imposed in 2006 and 2007.

The resolution was adopted by a vote of 14 - 0, with Indonesia abstaining, and calls on "Member States" to inspect cargoes to and from believed to contain goods prohibited by U.N. resolutions, mandates tighter monitoring of financial institutions and imposes additional travel bans and asset freezes.

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Zamay Khalizad puts 's continued nuclear defiance in perspective:

Instead of suspending its proliferation-sensitive activities as the council has required, is dramatically expanding the number of operating centrifuges and developing a new generation of centrifuges, testing one of them with nuclear fuel.

[. . .]

The latest report from the IAEA [the International Atomic Energy Agency] states that has not met its obligation to fully disclose its past nuclear-weapons program. On the core issue of whether 's nuclear program is strictly peaceful, the report showed no serious progress.

The IAEA presented with documents assembled over a period of years from multiple member states and the agency's own investigations. The documents detailed 's efforts to develop a nuclear warhead, including designs for a missile re-entry vehicle, and showed other possible undeclared activities with nuclear material.

dismissed these documents as "baseless and fabricated." But the IAEA does not share that conclusion.

Instead of slogans and obfuscations, the international community needs answers from . The international community must be able to believe 's declaration that its nuclear program is for exclusively peaceful purposes. ian leaders must as a first step fully disclose past weapons-related work, and implement additional safeguards to ensure no continuing hidden activities. We agree with the IAEA that until takes these steps, 's nuclear program cannot be verified as peaceful.

The latest IAEA report also states that is not suspending its proliferation-sensitive activities.

For almost two years now, the Security Council has required to suspend all of its enrichment-related, reprocessing, and heavy water-related activities. I want to ask the ian leaders, "If your goal is to generate nuclear power for peaceful purposes, why do you court increasing international isolation, economic pressure and more, all for a purported goal more easily and inexpensively obtained with the diplomatic solution we and others offer?"

I want the ian people and others around the world to know that the United States recognizes 's right to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. They should know that the five permanent members of the Security Council and Germany have offered to help develop civil nuclear power, if it complies with the Security Council's demand -- a very reasonable demand -- to suspend enrichment. They should know that the package of incentives includes active international support to build state-of-the art light water power reactors, and reliable access to nuclear fuel.

should do what other nations have done to eliminate any doubts that their nuclear program is peaceful. Many states have made the decision to abandon programs to produce a nuclear weapon. Two of them sit on the Security Council today: South Africa and Libya.

Other countries that have stepped away from past nuclear-weapon aspirations include Brazil, Argentina, Romania, Ukraine and Kazakhstan. These countries did not see their security diminished as a result of their decisions. Indeed, one could easily say their security has been enhanced. Nor did they lose their right to develop nuclear energy. We urge to take the same path these other states have chosen.

The international community has good reason to be concerned about 's activities to acquire a nuclear-weapons capability. The present ian regime, armed with nuclear weapons, would pose a greater potential danger to the region and to the world.

The ian government has been a destabilizing force in the broader Middle East and beyond. Contrary to its statements, has been funding and supporting terrorists and militants for operations in Lebanon, the Palestinian territories, Iraq and Afghanistan. Their lethal assistance has harmed countless innocent civilians. The president of has made many reprehensible statements -- embracing the objective of destroying a member state of the United Nations.

Because of all these factors, the international community cannot allow to develop nuclear weapons. If continues down its current path, it would likely fuel proliferation activities in the region, which, in turn, could cause the demise of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty regime itself.

The U.S. remains committed to a diplomatic solution. If shares this commitment, it will suspend its enrichment and reprocessing activities and let diplomacy succeed.

The documents Ambassador Khalizad referred to discredit the December 2007 National Intelligence Unintelligence Estimate (NIE), which Ahmadinejad called a "declaration of victory."

During his February 5, 2008 testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee, Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell tried to undo some of the political and diplomatic damage done by the NIE:

Not only did McConnell testify that the Islamic Republic was working to master the enrichment of uranium--"the most difficult challenge in nuclear production"--but he also acknowledged that, "because of intelligence gaps," the U.S. government could not be certain that the ian government had fully suspended its covert nuclear programs. "We assess with high confidence that has the scientific, technical, and industrial capacity eventually to produce nuclear weapons," he testified. "In our judgment, only an ian political decision to abandon a nuclear weapons objective would plausibly keep from eventually producing nuclear weapons--and such a decision is inherently reversible."

McConnell, appearing on the February 17, 2008 edition of "Fox News Sunday," Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell said could have a nuclear weapon next year:

WALLACE: Finally, you have dialed back on the recent national intelligence estimate that reported that gave up its nuclear weapons program in 2003.

In fact, you said you wish you had the opportunity to redo the public presentation. Do you feel that the NIE understated the threat from ?

MCCONNELL: No. Chris, if the words in the NIE were correct, what I think we probably didn't do an adequate job on is reflecting — there are three parts to a nuclear program.

You have to have fissile material. You have to have a means to deliver a weapon. And you have to have the technical — to design a weapon.

The only thing that they terminated in 2003 was the design feature of the weapon. They're still pursuing fissile material. They're still pursuing missiles for delivery.

As it turns out, though, the hardest part is fissile material. The easiest part is weapons design. So when I testified on the Hill recently, the attempt was to put it in context.

WALLACE: So are you saying that and its uranium enrichment program and what that could lead to is as much of a threat as it ever was?

MCCONNELL: I am saying that. And I believe that the path they were on to achieve nuclear weapons has not been significantly changed because they terminated this technical design feature.

They can turn it on. Remember, it was secret. They've never admitted it. They could have turned it back on now and we wouldn't necessarily know. We'll try to know, but we're not 100 percent sure of that.

WALLACE: And the time frame for them to get the ability to make a nuclear bomb?

MCCONNELL: We've done an estimate in 2001, 2005 and 2007, and each time it says the same thing. They could do it by 2009 — unlikely. The range is 2010 to 2015. And the best guess is about the middle range there for having a nuclear weapon.

Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Olmert believes that could have "a nuclear weapons capacity" in a few months.

Continuing to dither on, Britain, France and Germany were said to preparing a draft resolution critical of that could be adopted by the IAEA's policy-making body later this week. According to the New York Times, the United States, Canada, Australia and Japan already have indicated privately they would support such a move, but Russia and China have already scuttled those plans.

The European powers continue to try the failed carrot and stick approach to eliminate any doubts that 's nuclear program is peaceful. They continue despite 's frequent insistence that its nuclear ambitions will not be deterred and even in the face of 's boasting that it "duped" the European powers while playing for time to work on its secret nuclear program.

It's time for a different approach.

President Bush Condemns 's Provocation

President Bush condemned 's reckless provocation in the Strait of Hormuz:

"We viewed it as a provocative act. It is a dangerous situation. And they should not have done it, pure and simple," the president said. "And my message today, to the ians, is they shouldn't have done what they did."

The U.S. Navy released video ian speedboats swarming around three American warships:

On the tape, the crew of the destroyer USS Hopper can be heard repeatedly warning the ian boats to identify themselves and move away.

"I am engaged in transit passage in accordance with international law," a sailor on the bridge of the USS Hopper says. "I intend no harm."

As the ian boats get closer, the USS Hopper sounds its horns.

"You are approaching coalition warships," the USS Hopper's crew warns. "You are straying into danger and may be subject to defensive measures. ... Request you alter course immediately to remain clear."

It is at that point that a heavily accented voice can be heard over the radio, apparently coming from the ians.

"I am coming to you," the voice says. "You will explode after a few minutes."

An American voice can be then heard repeating the words, incredulously, "You will explode in a few minutes."

The ians call the incident "ordinary."

The following MSNBC video report contains video of the incident:

I'm still amazed at the restraint shown by the U.S. Navy.

What do ibfamous and madmatt say now?