Behind the Urgent Diplomacy: A Sense Iran Will Get the Bomb

[Strelnikov_]

Interesting article that lends some credence to my suspicions. That is, that there is no way to stop Iran from developing the bomb, and Washington knows it. They are trying a few maneuvers to slow down development.

Overall, I think the constant drumbeat we are seeing is prole feed for the upcoming mid-term elections, and to provide justification for permanent basing in Iraq.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/06/politics/06assess.html?ei=5094&en=28bb318ed563f92c&hp=&ex=1139202000&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print


But even some of Mr. Bush's own advisers say that may prove an overstatement. Behind the diplomatic maneuvering, many of the diplomats and nuclear experts involved in the West's effort believe that stopping the program cold is highly unlikely, and probably impossible. They acknowledge that a more realistic goal now is to delay the day that Iran joins the nuclear club. "Look, the Pakistanis and the North Koreans got there, and they didn't have Iran's money or the engineering expertise," said one senior official who is instrumental in putting together the American strategy. "Sooner or later, it's going to happen. Our job is to make sure it's later." By that time, he said, the hope is that a changed or different government is in power in Tehran. In part, this is the newfound realism of an administration that has learned some hard lessons in Iraq, and is no longer quite so eager to talk about pre-empting what it regards as looming threats.

. . .

Moreover, few see that Washington has many options. "Can you delay the onset of the Iranian bomb? Maybe," said Charles Ferguson, an expert at the Council on Foreign Relations. But even taking military action against Iran's known nuclear sites, he said, could "stimulate them to cross the nuclear Rubicon because you've showed your hand, you've showed that you're willing to use military force to try to damage their nuclear program."

That may be where the debate is headed. Mr. Bush, in his public statements, has begun reiterating that all his options are on the table, words that have shades of his comments about Iraq three years ago. But he has been deliberately less fiery, mindful of not fracturing the coalition he has built. His aides, in contrast, have been sent out in recent days with stronger messages about what the world would look like if Iran had a bomb. And in Munich this weekend, Senator John McCain, the Arizona Republican, staking out a position that is more hawkish than anything the Bush administration has said in public, put the predicament this way:

"There is only one thing worse than military action," he said, "and that is a nuclear-armed Iran."

[Old and In the Way]

1. It's all about the mid-terms.

They are starting their marketing campaign earlier this cycle, that's all. Problem is, we know the results of the last campaign were a disaster on every maginable level. Why would any sane person even consider voting for these same criminal incompetents based on what Iran might do 5 years from now? Is this situation scarier than say, North Korea? Not really. What we need to do is, (1) get rid of the Republican majority, (2) get out of Iraq, (3) get off our dependence on foreign oil....the rest will take care of itself.