Countdown To Armageddon: Iran Successfully Simulates Nuclear Warhead Detonation Due To Democrat Dithering

From a DEBKAfile special report, submitted today:

German intelligence reports that Iranian scientists have successfully simulated the detonation of a nuclear warhead in laboratory conditions, in an effort to sidestep an underground nuclear test like the one that brought the world down on North Korea’s head earlier this year. DEBKAfile‘s Iranian and intelligence sources report that this development is alarming because detonation is one of the most difficult technological challenges in the development of a nuclear weapon. Mastering it carries Iran past one of the last major obstacles confronting its program for the manufacture of a nuclear warhead.

After this breakthrough, the German BND intelligence believes it will take Tehran no more than a year to perfect its expertise and stock enough highly-enriched uranium to make the last leap toward building the first Iranian nuclear bomb or warhead. DEBKAfile‘s military sources confirm that simulated detonation of a warhead takes Iran to the highest level of weapons development.

Using the example of Israel and other nations, Western nuclear arms experts have claimed in recent years that since the emergence of simulated detonation technique, nuclear tests are no longer necessary.

With this hurdle overcome, Tehran has set about restructuring its defense ministry for the coming task of actually making a weapon. [..]

While Obama has desperately tried to talk and talk (mostly to the Ayahtollah’s hand), Iran has determinedly been building and building.

It’s like I said: Obama’s dithering has basically guaranteed Iran their nukes.

In addition to building it’s ballistic nuclear missile, Iran has been busy in another front, too:

TEHRAN, Dec. 3 (UPI) — As tensions with Iran rise again, the Islamic Republic is reported to be expanding its naval power in the oil-rich Gulf and the Arabian Sea to be able to command the chokepoint Strait of Hormuz, the only way in or out of the Gulf.

Closing that strategic waterway to maritime traffic, especially the 15 or so supertankers that sail through it every day delivering the world’s oil supplies, would trigger an economic crisis that could cripple the painful efforts to recover from the global financial meltdown of 2008.

The U.S. Office of Naval Intelligence reported in a recent study that came to light a few days ago that overall operational control of naval and coastal missile forces in the region is now in the hands of the increasingly powerful Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps., which has its own naval arm.

Tehran has threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz if Iran comes under attack by U.S. or Israeli forces over its nuclear program. That would cut off some 40 percent of the world’s oil supplies.

Armageddon is coming.  Will you be ready for it?

Once Iran has the bomb, they will be able to export terrorism – or shut down the Strait of Hormuz and cripple the global economy – with absolute impunity.  Will Barack Obama risk a nuclear exchange and several American cities by attacking a ballistic-nuclear-warhead-armed Iran?

Allow me to go back to something I wrote back in April of 2008 to point out why Barack Obama and the American people who voted for him will deserve this crisis when it rears its head and bites us:

Iran will not believe that Democrats who have screamed to get out of Iraq will be willing to go into Iran. And Sunni Arab states that will be fearful of a Shiite nuclear capability in the hands of Iran will not believe Democrats who are all for bailing out of Iraq will protect them. Under a Democratic administration, we will see a nuclear Iran, and we will see a nuclear arms race in the craziest region in the history of the planet. Guaranteed.Iran suspended its nuclear program in 2003, according to our intelligence estimate. Many liberals used this information to cry that President Bush was wrong in his policies. But the question screams, WHY DID THEY STOP THEIR PROGRAM IN 2003? DID IT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE FACT THAT WE HAD JUST ATTACKED IRAQ OVER ITS WMD PROGRAM IN 2003? A “yes” answer proves you have a clue.

Many European intelligence sources believe that Iran is hard at work again working on a nuclear ballistic missile delivery system, but it’s just so darned hard to know for sure.

What will the U.S. do in all the murkiness? Will Democrats act – and prove that they were totally full of “bullpuckey” throughout the Bush Administration? Or will they passively sit by and allow the most terrifying arms program in the history of the world to succeed because they couldn’t verify it until the mushroom cloud?

Who wants to play Nuclear Chicken with a theocratic Iran, or with the terrorists who could finally get their eager little paws on a nuke?

A President John McCain can assure the Iranians, “We attacked Iraq when we believed they represented a threat to us, and we will do the same to you. You seriously might want to rethink your plans.” A President John McCain can say to Sunni Arab states such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey, “We have stood by Iraq even when it was difficult, and we will do the same for you. You don’t need those weapons; the United States will be there for you.”

John McCain provided an image of strength and consistency in contrast to Obama’s image of weakness and waffling.  In August of last year, I pointed that out regarding Iran:

If we elect Barack Obama, we are tacitly choosing to allow Iran to develop the bomb. Any of his tough-sounding rhetoric aside, you need to realize that Barack Obama has already repeatedly philosophically condemned the very same sort of preemptive attack that would be necessary to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons. And he continues to do so even today. Just how was a preemptive attack on Iraq wrong if a preemptive attack on Iran is right? If Barack Obama believes that our intelligence will be flawless regarding Iran’s nuclear program when it was so flawed regarding Iraq’s program, then he is a genuine fool of the very worst kind. And if he refuses to attack until the evidence against Iran is certain, he is an even greater fool. For Iran would greet our attacking soldiers with mushroom clouds.

In that same article I also predicted Iran would ultimately shut down the Strait of Hormuz and send gasoline prices soaring to over $12 gallon.  Watch for it, because it’s coming.

We can begin to see how disingenuous and deceitful Democrats were during the Bush years by their own decisions and policies now.

We can now say with absolute confidence that Obama’s “surge strategy” in Afghanistan proves that Barack Obama and his Democrats were utterly despicable and disgraceful when they opposed the selfsame strategy in Iraq only a few years ago.  We can safely say that the surge was a huge success, otherwise Obama would not be copying it.  Particularly when Barack Obama’s own secretary of defense is literally using Iraq as the administration’s model:

In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Gates referenced Iraq more than a dozen times, signaling that Bush’s last-ditch military push has been used as inspiration, if not a blueprint, by President Obama’s military advisers.

Think back to how Democrats demonized Bush over Iraq.  Here’s a link to a Democrat site proudly detailing dozens of Bush=Hitler articles.  Jonathon Kay acknowledges, “Critics of Bush often use hysterical moral language to attack the man: evil, Nazi, warmonger, monster, tyrant.”  We had activist Cindy Sheehan calling Bush all of those names and more, while the Democrat establishment and the mainstream media cheered her on and milked her status as the grieving mother of a dead soldier.  We had Democrats routinely accuse Bush of being a liar even from the floor of the House of Representatives.  We had Democrat Jack Murtha accusing innocent Marines of murder at Hadditha.  We had Dick Durbin accuse American soldiers of being Nazis.  We had Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid declare the Iraq war lost even as our troops were fighting on foreign soil to create victory.  We had the New York Times unashamedly (and at a sweetheart rate) publishing a full page pro-Democrat attack ad that read, “General Betray Us?”  We had Hillary Clinton accuse that selfsame noble general and savior of Iraq of being a liar.  We had Democrat Majority Whip James Clyburn saying that good news in Iraq amounted to bad news for Democrats.  We had five years of Democrats using every trick they could to backbite, backstab, attack, undermine, demagogue, demonize, delay, and interfere with virtually every element of the Bush war and Bush strategy in Iraq.  All of that, after they themselves had supported that same war before viciously and treasonously turning against it.

How was George Bush supposed to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan in this spiteful climate, let alone forcefully confront Iran?

Democrats vindictively undermined every attempt by President George Bush to deal with the growing threat he wisely foresaw from Iran.  From December 4, 2007:

WASHINGTON (CNN) — Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Joe Biden on Tuesday said he can’t believe President Bush hasn’t known for months about a recent intelligence estimate that downplays the nuclear threat from Iran.

// <![CDATA[// Other Democratic candidates also slammed Bush for continuing to ratchet up the rhetoric against Tehran.

On Tuesday the president acknowledged he had given a speech warning that Iran’s nuclear development risked “World War III” about two months after his intelligence chief told him a reassessment of Tehran’s nuclear ambitions was under way.

Bush told reporters during a White House news conference that he was not told the details of the new assessment until last week and he said the new report, which found that Iran had halted its nuclear weapons work in 2003, will not change U.S. policy toward Iran.

“Iran was dangerous, Iran is dangerous and Iran will be dangerous if they have the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon,” Bush said, pointing out that Tehran continues to try to enrich uranium for civilian purposes and therefore develop technology that could be used for a weapon.

“They had the program. They halted the program. It’s a warning signal because they could restart it,” he said.

You’ve got Democrats slamming Bush for being “fixated on Iran.”  In other articles they attacked his “saber rattling.”  Even as “the Bush administration “spent years warning that Iran’s development of nuclear power plants and enriched uranium masked an effort to produce an atomic bomb.”  Liberals made the lying and demagogic argument that any “threat” from Iran was purely theoretical or academic.  And President Bush was merely proving that he was the paranoid neo-con that they had been casting him as all along.  In light of what we know now, who was right, and who led us to a moment that will surely one day live in infamy?

And Barack Hussein Obama was very much one of those liberal fools:

“Iran, Cuba, Venezuela? These countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don’t pose any serious threat to us,” he told a crowd at a campaign stop [in May, 2oo8].

Is that the tone your still singing, Obama, you pathetic failure?  Are you going to blame Bush for Iran, like you’ve blamed him for everything else he failed to do over unrelenting Democrat opposition?

Iran obtaining nuclear weapons under Obama’s failed leadership will serve as a terrible bookend to Iran becoming a terrorist state controlled by Ayatollah’s under Carter’s failed leadership.

Even as Obama tries to prevent a future disaster from a nuclear Iran, Obama projected abject weakness.  Rather than projecting American strength and commitment, Obama pathetically warned Russia and China that Israel would show strength and attack Iran unless the Iranian nuclear program was halted.

And don’t for a second forget to think about what Barack Obama as a candidate for president said about Bush’s Iraq surge that he is now making his model:

Obama said:

I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there; in fact, I think it’ll do the reverse.

In a statement dated January 19, 2007, Obama said,

“I cannot in good conscience support this escalation.  It is a policy which has already been tried and a policy which has failed.  Just this morning, I had veterans of the Iraq war visit my office to explain to me that this surge concept is, in fact, no different from what we have repeatedly tried, but with 20,000 troops, we will not in any imaginable way be able to accomplish any new progress.”

But what Obama decried as unwise folly in Iraq is suddenly the wisest course of action in Obama’s Afghanistan.

Obama and his liberal demagogues spent years decrying Iraq as the “bad war” and Afghanistan as the “good war.”  Bush fought a strategically vital war that he could win while Democrats insisted on getting us bogged down in a lawless, corrupt, ungoverned and ungovernable mountainous region in which we cannot effectively deploy our overwhelming force against the enemy.  Bush fought a war that we could win while Obama demanded we put all our marbles into a war that may just be unwinnable.  Particularly under this dithering commander-in-chief, who inspires courage from our terrorist enemies and undermines essential confidence from our Afghan allies.

Obama’s “surge strategy” in Afghanistan is likely to fail because he didn’t “copy” Bush enough: Bush projected an unwavering commitment to Iraq that produced the necessary confidence in Iraqi leaders that the United States would be with them even if things got tough.  Obama’s “pullout plan” has undermined confidence that we will be there for the long haul.

ISLAMABAD: President Obama’s timetable for American forces in Afghanistan rattled nerves in that country and in Pakistan on Wednesday, as American diplomats worked to convince the two countries at the center of the president’s war strategy that the US would not cut and run.

In Afghanistan, foreign minister Rangin Dadfar Spanta, the only minister who commented on the speech, said the announcement that American troops could begin leaving in 18 months served as a kind of shock therapy, but caused anxiety. “Can we do it?” he asked. “That is the main question. This is not done in a moment. It is a process.”

In Pakistan, Obama’s declaration fed longstanding fears that America would abruptly withdraw, leaving Pakistan to fend for itself.

If you’re an average Afghani, and you know that showing support for the American effort will result in your whole family being murdered by the Taliban if the U.S. pulls out, where will you place your loyalty?  Unlike Barack Obama, the Taliban leaders proclaim that they aren’t going anywhere.

The bottom line is this: Barack Obama has demonstrated a pattern of weakness, indecisiveness, naivete, and lack of resolve that has undermined American foreign policy and which will continue to do so.