THIS JUST IN: T-Minus 0, And Counting...

Submitted by orange yonason (United States), Mar 22, 2006 at 19:49

BS"D

The incomparable PowerLine Blog's latest post (as I write this) informs us that:
***************************************************************
"Tucked away in Warren Hoge's New York Times story today on the diplomatic diversion contributing to Iran's nuclear program is this piece of information:

'Diplomats from different countries, who declined to be identified because they were discussing sensitive classified information, said Iran appeared on the verge of assembling 164 centrifuges, the number needed to form a "cascade" mechanism that could enrich uranium for nuclear energy or, eventually, bombs.
...
"What this means is that time is not on our side," a European diplomat said. "It means that while we are negotiating, Iran is not wasting its time."
...
...[AND HERE'S THE BOMBSHELL THAT SHOWS THE NSS REPORT TO BE ANCIENT HISTORY AS OPPOSED TO A STRATEGY FOR THE FUTURE]... It is my understanding that knowledgeable observers consider the achievement of an operational 164-centrifuge cascade the point at which the rationale for diplomatic maneuvering COMES TO AN END [my emph.]. From the Times story, it appears that we may be weeks or days from that point."
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/013502.php
***************************************************************

Now is NOT the time for doubt, nor even masterful brinksmanship, but for an incomparable clarity in action with forceful resolve. Now is not the time to fret about avoiding the confrontation which appears to be not only imminently necessary, but the only way to avoid a bad outcome.

The fact that the article indicates that Europe is also worried, and well aware of the limited time we have, gives me hope that a unified front against Iran could materialize. But it has got to be NOW.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".