Subject: Fw: Asia Times, April 23, 2010
From: "fariborz fatemi" <[email-masked]>
To: "fariborz fatemi" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2010 23:40:44 -0700 (PDT)

ASIA TIMES

April 23, 2010

[Re How radical Islam might defeat the West: A reprise, Apr 20)] The reprise that is desperately needed is relief from those who so carelessly and continuously advocate the use of violence and conflict as an instrument for settling disputes between nations rather than using diplomacy. Some facts are in order to put the Iranian nuclear program in perspective. There are over 40 nations that possess enough highly-enriched uranium to assemble a nuclear weapon if they so desired. That is what the Obama Administration's nuclear nonproliferation meeting was about. To make sure that all the highly enriched uranium in the world is properly safeguarded. Iran has no highly-enriched uranium and even if it wanted to produce it, to have enough for one nuclear weapon, it could not achieve that capability, according to Israeli intelligence sources, until five years hence. Second, no country is subject to over $400 million being spent and a presidential finding to
 destabilize its government as Iran is, starting under the Bush/Cheney administration. Third, the reality that seems to be a secret getting no attention is the effect and spread of lethal radiation if Iranian nuclear sites are bombed. Several years ago, in a little-noticed report, the Union of Concerned Scientists, using software developed for simulation by the Pentagon, estimated that bombing the Isfahan nuclear refinement facilities would kill three million civilians in two weeks and would expose 35 million people in Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan and India, to lethal doses of radiation. And if the Buscher reactor is bombed, it will make the Persian Gulf uninhabitable. With several hundred thousand American service personnel and millions of civilians in harm's way, what country would like to have such horrific genocide as its historical legacy? Perhaps a visit to the victims of Chernobyl and Three Mile Island would bring some badly needed enlightenment to
 the author and others who write such glib, self-serving articles and teach the meaning of "unintended consequences." Lastly, it is not in the national security interests of the United States to be in permanent confrontation with Iran. The United States and Iran have many interests in common in the region. The stark choices that are often presented are not to do nothing, or war, but there is a third way: relentless diplomacy. Common sense dictates that rather than using diplomacy to find ways to perpetuate the 30 years of isolation and hostility between Iran and the United States, the Obama Administration must continue to do all it can though patient diplomacy to open doors based on mutual respect. To do less is to negate the chance for a better future for Iran and the United States and to earn the harsh judgment of history. 
Fariborz S Fatemi
United States (Apr 23, '10)