First, calling the Iranians exercising their rights under the NPT a “threat” begs the question.

Second, posulating that the “Iranian nuclear threat” is an existencial threat is absurd. MAD is a foundation of our National Security strategy.

Third, there are many threats to our national security more serious than Iran going nuclear. For instance, global warming or bioterrorism.

Finally, we are hypocritics, in that our intrinsic policy is arms for our friends, arms control for our enemies. Such a self-serving, non-multilateral, and imperialistic policy is self-defeating and strategically flawed.

Yeah, we MUST come up with a way to stop the Iranian nuclear threat-that’s the ticket.

I generally like your blog, and enjoy reading it. But on this one I think it is time to slow down and take a few deep breaths. Your tone is sounding a little shrill, and that generally is not an indication that there is a good balance between reason and emotion.

The term “military option” is thrown around like it is some kind of simple hand tool. “There appears to be a nail head sticking up, so hit it with a hammer, that will take care of the problem.” Simple problem, simple solution, simple results. I’m afraid the “military option” to this particular situation (or most situations for that matter) is not so simple, and would not render simple results.

As you pointed out in the last paragraph, we are bogged down in Iraq. We exercised the military option against a country of 23 million (and 80% of them stood to gain from our military option). Three years later and we are in worse shape militarily than when we entered the country. Iran has three times that many people, and unlike Iraq most of them would not be indifferent to our attack. Who the hell are we kidding!

Many of their nuclear sites seem to be underground and hardened against conventional air attack. That leaves either ground attack and occupation, or a nuclear attack of our own. Are we saying that a conventional ground invasion or a preemptive nuclear attack is a real military option for the United States? Could they be done? Of course they could. But would we as a country be willing and able to handle the ensueing consequences of either of those two options. It is doubtful that the U.S. would or could handle the aftermath.

The real truth of the matter appears to be that we are entering into a very difficult situation for which we have not real proactive solutions to. Does that “suck the big one”, you bet it does. But sometimes life just plain sucks and that is that. In any case starting to build justifications for actions that are not practically doable, and would not likely render desirable results is not the thing to be doing.

We have been here before. Only last time it was “Iraq”. We were told they were close to having “The Bomb” and “Weapons of Mass Destruction”. We went to the UN. Members of the security council said “wait and don’t attack”. We invaded and found NOTHING. Americans died and they are still dieing. We are spending tons of money and will for years. For what? Did Iraq invade us? NO

We are now being told that “Iran” is the problem now. They are close to havng “The Bomb”. We have went to the UN. Some members of the security council are saying “wait and don’t attack” Will we invade and find NOTHING? I don’t want to see one more dead American in a war we started. Has Iran invaded or attacked us? NO

Lets look at what has been said.

Iran is enriching Uranium, its against the treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons.

According o the treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons http://www.un.org/events/npt2005/npttreaty.html Article IV section 1 gives all members the right to develop research and atomic energy.

Unless we catch them making an atomic bomb, buying one, or selling one it is not against the treaty. The USA is not the World Police. We have no right to invade another country. That’s right INVADE. We have to stop believing that the ends justify the means. They don’t. The USA should not be the aggressor, we should not be attacking and invading. It seems that the Bush administration is hell bent on another war. Shame on him.

But reflecting exasperation, a senior agency official dropped such reservations Saturday as he called the U.S. claims that an agency briefing on the advances made by Iran on enrichment was a bombshell “pure speculation and misinformation.�

“It comes from people who are seeking a crisis, not a solution� to the confrontation over Iran, the official said.
-

So you resort to supporting likely lies after they’ve been called.

At this point on what grounds should we support your hysteria? Why should we agree with you and Bush? We seem to have several years to pursue various courses including military attacks.

What is your response to reports that Saudi Arabia may be buying Pakistani nukes? Not implausible since they paid most of the development cost and because a regional Suni/Shia war is increasingly likely.

“Iran close to uranium enrichment — so what do we do now?”

In light of the addage that “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it,” it might also be worthwhile to examine:

What path would have kept this from happening?

Who was proposing the right path? What philosophy did this path represent?

Who was opposing this path? Why did they prevail?

Do you think that a country has the right to proliferate nuclear weapons, and weapons period, in fear of a pre-emptive invasion from the US or from a coalition of forces?

Why doesn’t the US discuss Pre-emptive warfare with North Korea? They are just as dangerous as Iran in my opinion.

What happens if we impose sanctions, storm the place and bomb it, and we find out that Iran was only developing nuclear material for energy purposes?

Do you think that we need to get more of an Arab state diplomatic solution, versus our traditional western approach?

My last question, does a sovereign nation have the right to create nuclear energy?

I just am trying to find a clearer since of logic with Iran issue. I guess what is confusing too me is the soft approach to North Korea. Who is probably already selling nuclear technology, and they are still developing it, while their people are dying, and we give them a hall pass.

I just want some clarity from a voice that I trust.

Thanks a million.