REAL WORLD EVENT

	GAME INFO

Get Kuma FREE Now Click to Download No Credit Card Required If Prompted, Click RUN to Install

CLICK HERE FOR SUPPORT

“If the U.S. attacks Iran, each of its states will experience a crisis the size of Katrina. The smallest mistake by America in this regard will result in every single state in that country turning into a disaster zone.” -Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards spokesman, Brigadier General Masoud Jazayeri, quoted on the Ansar Hezbollah website, September 11, 2005.

Iran, for 18 years, has dodged the bullet of international responsibility in accurately reporting its nuclear aspirations. But serious concerns arise in 2002, when the US shocks the world with satellite images of covert nuclear facilities at Natanz and Arak, proof-positive that Iran has a hidden agenda—one that carries ungodly implications.

Following inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Iran begins a game of cat and mouse with the global community, refusing to disclose the extent of its nuclear work and repeatedly breaking its promises to discontinue nuclear development. With its outright refusal to come clean and its true intentions unknown, Iran keeps the world on the edge of its seat.

Without intervention, how soon will Iran wield a nuclear bomb? The head of the IAEA states Iran’s steadfast pursuit could produce weapons of mass destruction in two to three years. According to Iran, the answer is never: The nuclear program is merely for energy-producing purposes, a right every country has to provide for its people. But it is a flawed explanation for Iran’s secrecy and lies.

The IAEA reports traces of highly enriched uranium (HEU), a key ingredient needed to produce nuclear weapons was found at both the Kalaye Electric Company and the Natanz sites. Iran’s explanation is that the used centrifuge equipment imported from Pakistan was to blame. Regrettably, there will be plenty more contamination to consider: Upon completion, Natanz will house a staggering 50,000 uranium-enriching centrifuges.

Adding to the contradictions, authorities note Tehran’s keen interest in acquiring fissile material and technology from foreign suppliers to support a nuclear weapons program, while claiming it has no intention of supporting such an agenda. In its typical unpredictability, Iran last month boldly changed the terms of an agreement it made with France, Germany and Britain to temporarily cease its nuclear activities. Iran announces it will continue enrichment—a conversion of 37 tons of yellowcake uranium, according to one IAEA report—and immediately commence the production and assembly of the centrifuge components. The negotiating is over.

The IAEA could report Iran to the UN Security Council, which could impose sanctions on Iran for refusing to stop its enrichment, but a unanimous decision to do so is unlikely. China and Russia carry veto power on the council, and both have deep interests in Iran—China is supplied with Iranian oil and Russia is contracted to supply fuel in the future to an Iranian nuclear power station.

With diplomacy clearly not working and sanctions unlikely to be implemented, the resolution must come by way of a military action. Swift, deliberate strikes to take out nuclear facilities have been successfully executed in the past. In 1942, military actions by the Norwegian Resistance Movement and Allied forces destroyed a German nuclear research facility and heavy water materials by using a Norwegian agent to secure detailed plans about the site, ground forces to infiltrate the building, and allied troops to bomb the nuclear plant. Without the initiation of a pre-emptive strike, Adolf Hitler would have owned—and undoubtedly launched—a nuclear bomb.

In 1981, Operation Opera was launched by Israel against France after intelligence indicated Saddam Hussein's regime was within only one year of producing its own nuclear weapons. When France continued to sell nuclear technology to Iraq, Israeli agents blew up the French warehouse that contained the nuclear materials prepared for shipment to scientists in Iraq.

Iran is a little trickier in that its facilities and materials are spread throughout a succession of nuclear sites. Last month, in a frightening display of resolve, Iran cut the UN seals at its nuclear plant at Isfahan, declaring the facility fully operational. The actions at Isfahan are unfathomable, but the underground facilities at Natanz are of even greater concern. With 50,000 centrifuges to enrich uranium to weapons-grade quality, US officials argue Iran will have enough material to churn out several weapons of mass destruction within weeks of the plant’s completion.

It is here, at Natanz, that scientists work feverishly underground and under the direction of an accused terrorist, Iran’s recently elected president. Centrifuges are being built, uranium is being enriched, and the catalyst to World War III is nearing completion.