Does this sound like the talk of people who have just made a breakthrough on peaceful, non-lethal uses of nuclear fuel?
A defiant Iran vowed that nothing could halt its controversial nuclear program, in a direct challenge to the UN Security Council that could risk international sanctions.
With the country basking in national pride after regime scientists successfully enriched uranium to make nuclear fuel -- a milestone in its atomic drive -- officials pledged to move rapidly to industrial-scale work.
"When a people master nuclear technology and nuclear fuel, nothing can be done against them," boasted armed forces joint chief of staff, General Hassan Firouzabadi.
"The nuclear fuel cycle is complete, the beginnings of a powerful Iran," the conservative Iranian daily Resalat trumpeted, calling for a week of "national celebration" and a new annual public holiday to mark the event.
State television was broadcasting non-stop images of nuclear sites accompanied by rousing patriotic music.
The question needs to be put to the Kennedy/Kerry/Pelosi/Gore/Dean wing of the Democratic party: What precisely should the U.S. do if all diplomatic efforts to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons capability fail? Should the U.S. acquiesce in Iran's possession of these weapons or should they take steps to eliminate them, even if this necessitates the use of military force? Nobody's asking them this, as far as we know, but they very much need to be put on record.
