Former United States Ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolten told Fox News on Friday that Russia will be loading Iran’s Bushehr reactor with nuclear fuel rods on August 21st. This makes the window of opportunity for a military strike on that facility very narrow, for if attacked after the fuel rods are loaded, then radiation could spread in the air and into the Persian Gulf.
News that Russia will load nuclear fuel rods into an Iranian reactor has touched off a countdown to a point of no return, a deadline by which Israel would have to launch an attack on Iran’s Bushehr reactor before it becomes effectively “immune” to any assault, says former Bush administration U.N. Ambassador John R. Bolton.
Once the fuel rods are loaded, Bolton told Fox News on Friday afternoon, “it makes it essentially immune from attack by Israel. Because once the rods are in the reactor an attack on the reactor risks spreading radiation in the air, and perhaps into the water of the Persian Gulf.”
In March of this year, Russian President, Vladmir Putin announced that Russia would be fueling the Bushehr facility this summer. Understandably, this was big news in Israel, but the MSM in America predictably shied away from the story.
Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin declared in March that Russia would start the Bushehr reactor this summer. But the announcement from a spokesman for Russia’s state atomic agency to Reuters Friday sent international diplomats scrambling to head off a crisis.
The story immediately became front-page news in Israel, which has laid precise plans to carry out an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities while going along with President Obama’s plans to use international sanctions and diplomatic persuasion to convince Iran’s clerics not to go nuclear.
But as I said, the Israelis will have to take action before the facility is fueled.
Bolton made it clear that it is widely assumed that any Israeli attack on the Bushehr reactor must take place before the reactor is loaded with fuel rods.
“If they’re going to do it that’s the window that they have,” Bolton declared. “Otherwise as I said before, once the rods are in the reactor, if you attack the reactor you’re going to open it up and radiation will escape at least into the atmosphere and possibly into the waters of the Persian Gulf.
“So most people think that neither Israel nor the United States, come to that, would attack the reactor after it’s been fueled.”
Bolton cited the 1981 Israeli attack on Saddam Hussein’s Osirak reactor outside Baghdad and the September 2007 Israeli attack on a North Korean reactor being built in Syria. Both of those strikes came before fuel rods were loaded into those reactors.
“So if it’s going to happen in Bushehr it has to happen before the fuel rods go in,” Bolton said.
Even though the Iranians claim that Bushehr will be a nuclear energy facility, once it is operational, it will have the ability to produce the materials needed for nuclear weapons.
According to Bolton, once the reactor is operational, it is only a matter of time before it begins producing plutonium that could be used in a nuclear weapon.
“And in the normal operation of this reactor, in just a fairly short period of time, you could get substantial amounts of plutonium to use as nuclear weapons,” Bolton told Fox.
The Obama administration has been trying to use diplomacy and sanctions to keep the Iranians from going nuclear. This means that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s back is against the wall on this one. As John Bolten points out:
Russia, which is operating under a $1 billion contract with Iran, has spent more than a decade building the reactor. If Russia moves forward with its plan to fuel the reactor, it could be seen as a major setback to the Obama administration’s strategy of engaging Russian leaders in order to win their cooperation.
“The U.S. urged them not to send the Iranian’s fuel rods,” Bolton said. “They did that. The Obama administration has urged them not to insert the fuel rods in the reactors, but as they’ve just announced that will begin next week. What that does over time is help Iran get another route to nuclear weapons through the plutonium they could reprocess out of the spent fuel rods.”
The developments mean Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu soon may face a stark choice: Attack the Bushehr reactor in the next 8 days, or allow it to become operational despite the certainty it would greatly enhance Iran’s ability to create nuclear weapons.
This has been going on for the last decade, in fact in the Bush years no harsh steps were taken either in the mistaken idea that Iran should be allowed to have nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. The flaw in this theory is that Iran will not hesitate to use such “peaceful” nuclear energy to produce the materials for atomic weapons.
Bolton said the reactor has been “a hole” in American foreign policy for over a decade.
The failure to demand it be shut down began in the Bush years, he said, and continues with the Obama administration “under what I believe is the mistaken theory that Iran is entitled to the peaceful use of nuclear energy.”
“I don’t think Iran is entitled to that, or I don’t think we ought to allow it to happen, because they’re manifestly violating any number of obligations under the non-proliferation treaty not to seek nuclear weapons. But this has been a hole in American policy for some number of years, and Iran and Russia are obviously exploiting it,” Bolton said.
Russia’s move would put Iran “in a much better position overall,” he said, adding, “I think this is a very delicate point, as I say, it closes off to the Israelis one possible target for pre-emptive military action.
U.N. sanctions against Iran, he said, “have not had and will not have any material effect on Iran’s push to have deliverable nuclear weapons.”
In this humble contributor’s opinion, the time for half hearted sanctions and toothless diplomacy are over. The only thing that Iran will respect is strength and unfortunately this administration is not up to the task of showing any strength anytime soon.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Hans von der Gruen, Matt Ross. Matt Ross said: War in the Mideast? Israel may be forced to strike Iran http://su.pr/5I1LKD [...]
This is really scary, Don.
Of course Obama won’t do anything to stop this, and his weakness is making America a laughing stock in Russia.
We have a major crisis coming, and I hope Israel does the best thing to protect themselves and all of us.
Yeah, I’m a cynic … somebone’s gotta be. So, what I want to know is, how much of this is bread & circus for the masses? Just an excuse to get America into yet another war? A war to help cover the Ruling Class asses?
I’m sorry, but it’s not a matter of IF the system will collapse, but WHEN? The dollar will be worthless, store shelves will be empty, and chaos will rule the day. Our government, being what it is, a government, will look to clamp down in every tyrannical way it can get away with.
War is the health of the state. During war, the government gets away with more dictatorial rule and natural rights abuse, regiments the population, and gives us something to blame for our woes and an enemy other than the (our own) Ruling Class who caused every problem we have to begin with.
Read your history. The hardcore Progressives (TR, Taft, Wilson) started military adventurism in order to expand executive powers and regiment the population. That’s why WWI and WWII were opposed by the rightwing and favored by the left.
Maybe I’m wrong this time, maybe we have the most benevolent rulers in the history of mankind, but I doubt it. Most European countries are in the same position, so my guess is they’ll make some kind of “global governance” move when the shtf. That’s what I think all this fear mongering about Iran is really about.
I don’t know for sure, but these are the first things that come to mind when I hear this stuff.
Well, I don’t see this as some sort of global conspiracy. Obama just doesn’t fit the vision of a war time president. For him to be allowing Iran to go nuke in order that we can go to war with them just doesn’t fit with his ideology. He still wants the world to like him and he thinks his mere presence and force of charisma will make Ack-mah-din-a-jerk bow to his will and drop their nukes.
Are you cynical?….hmmmm, yeah I think so.
Don,
I so agree with your assessment. Israel is being backed into a corner and the outcome of that is certain. The question is when will they give up on America and do it.
Thanks,
Ken
[...] This post was Twitted by 2BlueStarMom [...]
This is scary stuff. Your right, Israel has been backed into a corner because of our spineless president. I do hope that Israel takes action against Iran, and stops the nuclear threat that presently looms in the world.
This situation does threaten to escalate into something very destructive. Israel does have nukes, estimates are somewhere around 100 warheads, with multiple delivery systems. If something does go bad, Israel may use them, the oil get’s cut off, and we’re hosed. Pure and simple. I’m not sure on what CL is saying, though I have heard such things many times before.
Well, it is clear that if Iran lobs a nuke at Israel who the “winner” would be. However I can see the potential mess this situation would represent and you are right about the oil flow hitting us especially hard. It is something that every sane person on the planet wants to avoid.
I’m going to post on it this week, it’s too much to cover in a comments section. But here’s some food for thought …
Republicans passed some resolution to back Israel in a war against Iran … a sign of things to come.
“Conspiracy” is a misnomer, because it’s hardly a secret that there’s a push for global governance. PM Gordon Brown openly admitted “new world order” was the reason for disposing Saddam, John Bolton talks about this stuff, Dick Morris, this is mainstream stuff.
Please grasp the severity of the economic crisis in front of us. If you don’t, please review the “economics” category on my blog. It’s going to get worse, and the dollar is going to become less valuable than the paper it’s printed on. In the meantime, a new global currency is in the works, along with global taxes et. al. Again, all mainstream, out in the open stuff.
History says governments in crisis go to war. It distracts, provides an alternative enemy, and regiments civilians. Why do you think WWI and WWII was supported by progressives, while being railed against by the right?
Big picture folks. We have to see it all at it at once. War? On the verge of (inevitable) bankruptcy? The Ruling Class should be trusted no farther than we can can throw ‘em. I don’t even trust ‘em that far.
I don’t know about the right railing against WWII, but I do know that starting with Hoover and the Smoot-Hawley Tarrif Act of 1930 a vein of isolationism (non interventionist military ideals brought about by the horrors of WWI and an economic desire to elevate the United States in the world economy) took hold in this country. I am curious to know where you get your data showing the right (and I presume you mean the conservative right) opposed WWII.
Non-interventionist foreign policy is our American heritage. It was the policy of all Founding Fathers. In our early years, most Americans were even opposed to having a standing army.
Today’s policy of intervention, “spreading democracy” and such, was invented by progressives, most notably TR, Wilson, and FDR, who thought that war gave people a “higher purpose” and regimented society (making it easier to manage).
Yes, but they didn’t call themselves conservative yet, not until the late 1950′s.
Data? It’s just history. It is what it is. The Old Right fought against the Democrat and Republican Elite, with “Mr. Republican” Robert A. Taft taking lead. A powerful voice against war, the draft, the UN, NATO, and the “garrison state.” They understandably caved after Pearl Harbor, but thanks to the freedom of information act, we know today that FDR let it happen purposely, so he could drag us into war.
You can find a plethora of information about Taft and the antiwar Old Right all over the innerwebbies, but the following is fairly short and well researched.
http://www.amconmag.com/article/2010/mar/01/00040/
I realize that I so often go against the grain, but I don’t do it for argument. I do so because I genuinely fear for our future.