’)The cons are already agitating for a war with Iran. I have no expectations of honesty from Republicans, who will march in lockstep to the drumbeat of dear leader, but it is time for Democrats to stop George Bush from sending more Americans off to die for his ego. If they fail to act, they will be rightly consigned to the dustbin of history.
I’m sure somebody will soon be telling us that we’ll be greeted with sweets and flowers.
Well, quaker non responsive as usual.
You too OW
You want to put yourself on record?
Probably not, I guess I don’t blame you. It is the leftists strategy of choice. Whine and simper after the grown-ups have made a decision….
now you know why democrats lose elections…..
But Oliver supports the troops!!!
Yeah, us losing in Vietnam had nothing to do with the fact that we had no business being there, no moral authority to kill thousands of Vietnamese, and no right to send off our soldiers to die in Southeast Asia for the villification of the “best and brightest”.
Bomb, Bomb, Bomb… Bomb, Bomb, Iran!
It would be a tragedy indeed if history were to judge that Iraq was a tragic error, and that, because of it, Iran had the ability to turn Israel into molten glass.
Similarly, it would be a tragedy if, even though history has judged that Viet Nam was a war that we could have, and should have, won, our nation’s leftists are attempting to use its purported lessons to cause us to fail in Iraq.
Thus we may lose three nations to their lack of a will to win…
My Canadian point of view&
Bush lied about Iraq, no doubt about it.
But this time it s a little bit different.
We have a wacko who talks about destroying a neighbour country and while perusing a nuclear program.
This time Europe is on the same page&
That s the whole problem with Iraq, now that the threat is serious, Bush no longer have the credibility to address it.
Man I am glad you brought this up! Finally a chance to get something other than a hindsight opinion from our leftists.
So what DO we do when Iran starts putting out fissile material? What do we do when the UN sits around useless as tits on a boar? What DO we do when europe can’t “negotiate”.
If all we can do is “negotiate” when do we stop? When do YOU think we have “extinguished all of our other options”?
This should be fun…you lefties tell us what you want, then we can see what bush does and compare.
Of course if you just say “we need proof and we are willing to see Tel Aviv as a glowing hole in the desert…” you will have proven the uselessness of your philosophy, and we republicans can look forward to another decade of republican hegemony…!
I wouldn’t rule out force in Iran, but I’m not sure if everybody has thought through the consequences. First, Ahmadinejad has been rattling his sabres largely because he hasn’t yet consolidated power within Iran. His resort to nationalism is largely a result of ongoing internal pressure from Khatami and the reformers on one side and Rafsanjani and the Mullahs on the other. No better way to consolidate power than to resort to nationalism, and the entire Iranian political spectrum supports a nuclear Iran (including nuclear weapons). So, as long as Ahmadinejad plans to continue with his nuke program nobody internally will stop him. My guess is that nobody externally will stop him either.
So what happens with air strikes? As the NRO article points out, you don’t have to demolish every nuke facility to render the program obsolete. But even one airstrike permanently changes the political situation on the ground, and that includes not just Iran but its neighbor to the West. Let’s remember, the new Shi’ite government in Iraq owes a great deal of fealty to Iran. SCIRI was birthed and nurtured in Iran during the Iran-Iraq war, and the Badr Corps, which controls Iraq’s Interior Ministry, was trained in Iran. Since Saddam’s ouster, Iran has quietly established unprecedented economic and political ties with Iraq’s Shi’ites. In fact, one of the Sunni insurgents’ biggest beefs is the selling of the country out to Iran. So, if the US, Israel or others attack Iran, what will the Shi’ite government in Iraq do? Nothing? Unlikely. They’re likely to join hands with Iran however they can. At the very least, they will lead a massive insurrection against US forces, seeing us not as their own benefactors but as the murderers of their benefactors.
Maybe that risk is worth taking because a nuclear Iran is just beyond the pale. Maybe we should just give up the entire Iraq project and start to back the Sunni insurgents as a buffer state to Iran’s nuclear plans. Either way, while military force should never be off the table, US sabre rattling isn’t likely to accomplish much.
Well the answer is obvious, peedro.
We stack up the damning evidence and we start a war.
We blow up a few thousand brown people, occupy the country, and then everything will be ducky.
Isn’t that how it works?
We get someone else to take the lead because too much of our resources are tied up in neighboring Iraq. This looks like a job for Germany and France and the rest of NATO. Especially since Bush shot his credibility wad.
It’s possible to simply blow the nuclear installations without invading the whole country.
Iraq was a pack of lie, but Iran is a different thing. In France many people already think that the militatry solution is the only one.
Non-responsive?
You asked:
And I answered:
That’s my prediction and I’m sticking to it.
As the great Slim Pickens once (nearly) said: Its time for toe to toe nucular combat with them Pershuns (well, maybe it was Russkies).
Dugger
Quaker:
Non-responsive?
You asked:
So what DO we do when Iran starts putting out fissile material?
And I answered:
We blow up a few thousand brown people, occupy the country, and then everything will be ducky.
That s my prediction and I m sticking to it.
He didn’t ask for what you think Bush will do, he asked what YOU think he should do. Any ideas? Any at all? Just a hint?
Once again, the Democrats are the party of people who have no ideas of their own, but can spend days on end telling you what YOU did wrong and how you’re just a screwup and they could have done far better if only given the chance. Yep, the Party of Backseat Drivers.
Oh, or we rely on missiles and bombs, a very Clinton thing for the right to support.
Why expect them to take a psotion on Iran when they haven’t taken one on Iraq or terrorism.
Dugger
I agree with the Canuck at the top. Iran is a different case than Iraq. Whereas there was much debate over the threat Iraq posed–and rightly so, considering the clumsy intel and alogether muddied reasons–Iran is wide open about its nuclear armament and its war itch. The fanatics in Iran are very different than the Baathists–they care less about holding onto their power and comfort than than they do about conquest and their so-called “jihad”.
I’m not worried about our credibility, though, David. I’m worried about our resources.
On an entirely different note, has anybody tried to create a drinking game out of the conservative posters on this site? I swear I’ve seen the same pedro response to at least four different topics in the past week.
“The leftists do this. That is what leftists think. Leftist leftist leftist. I laugh at you leftists. Laugh laugh laugh. This is why you lose. Wrong side of history. Ha ha ha. Leftist.”
I’m not saying you don’t have points to make, but man, there’s no need to be so aggressively boring while you do it.
Of course not, pedro. Frankly, I find those just about as boring no matter who’s posting them.
And furthermore, boo hoo. I’ve been called as much or worse on this site and others, and all it does is let me know who the children are. Sticks and stones, etc.
Asked and answered. My idea is:
Ok pidge, what happens when the axis of weasels doesn’t actually DO anything?
(Republicans please note that getting any sort of forward thinking, leadership type of plan from a leftist is like getting blood from a stone, all of a sudden all their vaunted opinions have left them and all we get are one-line answers..)
It is quite clear we must attack Iran immediately. It is the only consistent
position to take. Oh wait. We spent, what was it Two Trillion dollars on
Iraq and you say we’ve got…….How much do we have left to spend
on the war in Iran? $1.82?
BD
“I m not saying you don t have points to make, but man, there s no need to be so aggressively boring while you do it.”
Check how many times I am referred to as “stupid” ,”a-hole” etc. Do I need to spice up my rhetoric with those little bon mots to hold your attention?
Go ahead. Tell me it’s a bad idea. I dare you.
20/20 hindsight? Would that be like telling Humpty Dumpty to sit back
a little further so he doesn’t fall forcing all the king’s horses and all
the king’s men to clean up after finding the pieces unrepairable?
Yeah, that would have been an Iraq plan with foresight and intelligence.
So you see, wingers, the false choices you plague the left with are
not OUR responsibility alone. Take some of the burden on yourselves
and recognize, as Dugger has, that it may not have been the smartest
thing we’ve done. Maybe after you have questioned the advisability
of ram-=rodding an invasion of Iraq, a civil discussion about the
situation in Iran can ensue.
If diplomacy fails (which it’s most likely to), we may indeed have to blow up a lot of installations (and many of the people who happen to be there at the time, innocent or not). Seriously doubt we’ll be able to invade the country. No illusions about victory parades and flower throwing for this one. All options suck. Anybody think the problem will go away if we just ignore it?
However, your suggestion that we “blow up a few thousand brown people, occupy the country, and then everything will be ducky.” is duly noted. At least you had the cojones to offer a suggestion.
“it is you, Oliver that may need close watching.”
There it is……….
Yeah, us losing in Vietnam had nothing to do with the fact that we had no business being there, no moral authority to kill thousands of Vietnamese, and no right to send off our soldiers to die in Southeast Asia for the villification of the best and brightest .
Spoken like a true PBS aficianado.
As I said, it’s leftists who believe that Viet Nam was wrong and unwinnable, and now millions of Vietnamese live in Stalinist tyranny.
You now want to duplicate that error in Iraq, and again in Iran.
I’m beginning to feel that, instead of worrying about terrorists, it is you, Oliver that may need close watching.
Bush needs to bring back the military draft so in 1 to 2 years from now we will have enough troops to go to war in more than one country at a time. But, since he already promised that he would not bring back the draft, he is not a flip flopper and so as long as he is president this country will continue to grow weaker and not able to go to war on a minutes notice. Just hope North Korea does not try anything sneaky right now.
No Quaker, I want you to put your skinny little ass out on a limb and tell me a GOOD idea.
Put your money where your mouth is and be held accountable for an actual decision that isn’t made with 20:20 hindsight. Or don’t you have the stones for it….?
So cleo dodges the question…check
Any lefties with any stones and a solution?
Thought not. To quote a great poster
“Get the “f” outta our way liberal pu**y, we’ll protect america….”
The Origins of the Great War of 2007 -
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/01/15/do1502.xml&sSheet=/portal/2006/01/15/ixportal.html
Thus sprach the phantom testosterone………..
What? No non-sequitur surrender?
So what DO we do when Iran starts putting out fissile material? What do we do when the UN sits around useless as tits on a boar? What DO we do when europe can t negotiate .
OK Pedro,
I am not what most people would call a “leftist” but Ill go on record. We wont be going to war with Iran because our military is hamstrung in Iraq. To say otherwise is just blowing smoke. Based on the latest results of the drone missle attack in Pakistan, this kind of force isn’t always the answer and can do more harm than good. The best way is for the people of Iran who are already dissatisfied with the current regime to pressure them into relinquishing power. They always claimed the communists would be in control of the Soviet Union but you see what happened when the people stood up to them.
I am not anti-Israel. I just beleive we should be taking care of our own bacon first. Israel is plenty capable of doing what is necessary to defend themselves without interference from the West.
Charles Krauthammer offers some clue about what will happen after an airstrike. Iran shuts off the Straits of Hormuz and oil prices top $100 a barrel.
So I ask again…what are the practical consequences of an airstrike? For Iran, Iraq, Israel, the region and the United States? Any ideas?
Didn’t Israel, our friend with nukes (shh! that’s ok), bomb Irans nuclear plants once already? Maybe they’ll do the same again.
If this happened, the price of oil will rise, if it doesn’t happen, sanctions on Iran will…..cause the price of oil to rise
Bryan,
No, that was Iraq, not Iran. Israel bombed the Osirak reactor in 1981 in the middle of Iraq’s war with Iran. Iraq was unable to retaliate.
Yes, elrod, thanks for the correction. I do believe that Israel have been purchasing bunker bombs lately with a view to destroying Iran’s sites. Hope I can afford the fuel, or it’s back on a pedal bike for me!
Wait a minute! First, we have to stop the government, and give the terrorists their right to communicate with each other internationally, and plot their next attack(s). Otherwise, we’re cowards who don’t respect the Bill of Rights.
But, when it comes to oil prices, it’s time to let Iran go nuclear, even if they want to destroy Israel. Oh, yeah, that’s brave! F*uck the Israelis, just keep gas prices down!
I love it!
Actually, on a cynical note, I think long term the best thing for the country (and the world) would be a spike in oil prices – not so much that everyone gets desperate and starts shooting people, but enough that we would start investing in immediate energy solutions instead of this hydrogen bullshit.
Like Sweden.
Why can’t our own politicians read the writing on the wall? It clear as fucking day, and if we stuck with carter’s energy independence policy instead of his meddle in the middle east policy (thanks reagon), we would be ready to go right now…and to become the world’s energy leader as everyone turned to us to help them kick oil.
ARRRGH!
I’m with Quicksilver;
Cheap gas has been our weakness. And if you track Bush’s numbers
they track the price at the pump. The only way to get energy
independence is if we start voting the bastards who fight change right
out of their jobs. Sorry about the digression.
BOT===If you haven’t linked to the piece from Randy’s post, it highlights
the results of nuclear exchange between Iran and Israel. The testosterone
crowd are creamin’ in their pantaloons over this prospect.
drpedro wrote:
Republicans please note that getting any sort of forward thinking, leadership type of plan from a leftist…
Drink!
Any lefties with any stones and a solution?
Drink!
A fair critiicism of the Bush Iraq policy would be that it ties our hands a little via Iran – at a time like this. Of course, the inverse is true. If Sdaam were still around committing genocide and rewarding suicide bombers and harboring Ts, we would be all over Bush for not taking out the bigger threat – Iraq. Goes with the territory, I guess.
Any way. To answer the doc. Given Iraq and the desirability of sticking it out there, I say the best bet for Iran is the Europeans, Russians, UN and international pressure w/sanctions etc and if that doesn’t work (as it likely will not), a Clintonian type of air strike tactical attack on every possible nuclear facility in Iran. Maybe all major weapons facilities also. With threats of more to come.
Dugger
Thanks Dug, we have one answer
Thanks for the attempt bushwacked, but you spent more time telling us what shouldn’t happen than what should.
The usual loudmouth suspects are staying snarky or silent on this sujbect, eh cleo, quaker etc.
I agree with Dugger. This situation is one of the rare times that air
strikes alone may be sufficient. It may temporarily turn the pro-western
youth against us, but this actually looks like it is necessary.
The Phantom Testosterone strikes again!
“…but George Bush is changing the paradigm in the Middle East from Israel / oil to modernity / freedom, or at least, he is attempting to.”
Totol idiot.
Maybe you all don’t see it, but George Bush is changing the paradigm in the Middle East from Israel / oil to modernity / freedom, or at least, he is attempting to.
That is more than any of you are suggesting. Even if you think GWB is an idiot, which, of course, I don’t; he has people working around him that are brilliant, that know the Middle East inside and out.
They’ve all read What Went Wrong? : The Clash Between Islam and Modernity in the Middle East by Bernard Lewis. I’m reading it now, and you all should, too.
Between 500 AD and 1500 AD, the Middle East became the center of science, math, culture and trade for all of Eurasia. By 1880, the Middle East had become a loosely – knit bunch of colonial backwaters.
Bernard Lewis writes:
Oil and Israel are not to the answers to “What Went Wrong?”
Pedro you’re an idiot.
Here’s my favorite line from the NRO article:
“Iran s highly ideological regime may prove impervious to economic pressures, and it is even possible that sanctions could strengthen the regime by giving the mullahs a means of galvanizing opposition to the West.”
Ya, as if our own highly ideological regime here at home didn’t accomplish the exact same thing by referring to Iran as part of the axis of evil and then invading Iran’s next door neighbor. Please. This is yet another situation created by the idiocy and extremism of the Bush administration that the Bush administration is now claiming it has the only serious solution too.
The US doesn’t have the right to tell Iran or any other country how to conduct its domestic energy programs, which is to say, what legal right do we or anyone else have to tell the Iranians that they can’t develop nuclear power? That said, we have every right and obligation to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons.
There are sticks and carrots remaining that can be held out by the Europeans or the US to keep a handle on the rhetoric and the direction of Iran’s nuclear program including convincing it not to move ahead at all. Economic incentives/sanctions, inspections and monitoring and a very short leash. Once we forced UN inspectors back into Iraq there was absolutely no reason to invade. The same could be the case here, if only we could trust that preventing war was what the Bush administration wanted. It’s painfully obvious now that Bush was intent on invading Iraq no matter what even as it said war was its last option. We can probably take it to the bank that it’s got the same thing in mind: Negotiations, blah, blah, sanctions, blah, blah, we have no choice but to bomb. One of the reasons there are no good options in this situation is because there are so few credible players.
Again, that said, I don’t have any problem whatsoever with targetted attacks on suspected facilities if the Iranians prove disingenuous. As Elrod suggests above we may be seeing the outward moves of an internal political struggle in Iran, just a lot of hot air as Ahmadinejad tries to shore up his base. Again, the Bush administration has done all it can in the last five years to ensure that Iran’s moderates and reformers are as isolated as they can be which hasn’t helped matter any. If it comes to a military strike let’s just try to get it right and let’s try to make the process that leads us there as transparent as possible. US credibility on this issue is just below total shite at the moment and Bush hasn’t got Colin Powell to kick around anymore. If we end up with a negotiated settlement with monitoring and inspections in place, Bush can’t turn around a week later and declare unlaterally that it isn’t working and start bombing.
All of which to say is that I and I’m sure most leftists don’t have a problem with a military option if we arrive there in an honest and reasonable way — which is to say, the exact opposite of the way we arrived at the invasion of Iraq.
At the same time, as Elrod points out, is the Bush administration prepared for the consequences of those strikes? If history is any guide they aren’t. Bomb now and plan for it later, seems to be their model.
I thank you, for the 24 word cite, before calling me an idiot.
It represents a well – thought out response to a 100 + word post, referring to the work of Bernard Lewis, one of the most brilliant men on the Middle East on the planet.
You have outdone yourself.
“Total idiot.” I’m crushed
Incidentally, “total” is spelled with one “o” and one “a”.
Slow down, sissy – boy.
“I want to be able to come back here when you are ranting about Bush hegemony and point out that you said it would be ok.”
What’d I tell ya. For Pedro military strikes are already inevitable all that needs to be done is to lay the groundwork for future political attacks on the left.
“It has been fun taking all the democrats talking about weapons of mass destruction and the need to control saddam, and then replay them when the lefties start to get all anxious and spout off against the war.”
Yup. It’s all about the 06 elections for Pedro and the Right. For the Right, national security trumps the Constitution, but what trumps national security for conservatives? Politics.
I don’t know enough about the process of uranium and weapons production to set a specific definition that says when the Iranians cross this line then we know for a fact for they’re trying for weapons. What I’m saying is that whatever that line is, it’s made clear and obvious to the American people. The same goes for verifying when and if it’s been crossed. Bush alone cannot be the solearbiter of when the line has been crossed, the determination has to be in concert with our allies and relevant governmental agencies. Then we have to decide in concert with our allies what the response is. Military strikes are always on the table but they still have to be thebest and only option. You’ll note that Bush said he was going to do all this with Iraq but at the last minute bypassed the Security Council, forced inspectors out and unilaterally gave Hussein an ultimatum.
The point is to avoid that this time around. Is the Bush administration capable of being an honest player here or is it only interested in rattling sabers for the 06 elections?
You are half right. I definately want the left to go on record again. It has been fun taking all the democrats talking about weapons of mass destruction and the need to control saddam, and then replay them when the lefties start to get all anxious and spout off against the war.
It is time for you guys to stand up and be counted, not just to pipe up in your little minority party voice after the fact to tell us what we grown ups should have done.
I know that is what the democrats consider to be a political “leadership” strategy, but it ain’t going to play in peoria…..
“what we grown ups should have done.”
You mean the grown ups who singlehandedly isolated the reform movement in Iran and gave the hardline nationalists all the propaganda they needed to foment anti-American/Israel policies? Those grown-ups? Right.
Frank –
Nothing Bush has done in the Middle East or on nuclear proliferation in general ahs done anything to moderate the Iranian position. Indeed, Bush’s rhetoric has only served to isolate Iranian moderates and intensify Iranian nationalism. All the saber rattling that you idiots love has done is to make a difficult situation worse. So what happens now? The saber rattling continues apace. No doubt we’ll be hearing from Pedro soon that my support of targetted strikes on Iranian is too qualified and not vociferous enough. It’s too much to ask that military strikes actually, really be the last and only option. No, that’s the limit the powers of the president and endanger us all. The same goes for not yelling loudly enough. No you’ve got to make a joke out of it (so clever Frank) and holler “Yee Haw” afterwards before you can be considered serious on terrorism.
“George Bush is changing the Middle East for the better, Yee Haw!” Brilliance may go in Frank, but it’s total idiocy that comes out.
“Where they just fired things up when they thought we weren t looking?”
Um, who was president when they did that? Who wasn’t looking?
Excellent frame, you are half way there.
So how do we make the process transparent enough for you to approve of?
When do the Iranians deserve a couple of Mk XXX bombs dropped on their facilities? What are the CONDITIONS that you would deem appropriate?
Inspections….you mean like north korea? Like the what clenis did? Where they just fired things up when they thought we weren’t looking?
Also remember, the iranian president has called for israel to be wiped off the map, and denied the holocaust ever happened.
all I am looking for is a set of conditions you think will be reasonable to perform a military strike. I want to be able to come back here when you are ranting about Bush hegemony and point out that you said it would be ok.
and then replay them when the lefties start to get all anxious and spout off against the war.
Drink!
Good lord, if I were actually playing this game I might be dead of alcohol poisoning before I left work.
I don’t think Bush is looking for a direct confrontation between the US and Iran. He must be a cowardly lefty.
I gave you a GOOD idea. Spread freedom and democracy. Stay the course. Blow up the brown people.
Surely, you don’t mean to tell me you don’t think that’s a GOOD idea?
I mean, what the heck? I don’t have to put my butt on the line, so I’m all for fighting.
You know what? I changed my mind. I’m with Quaker. Screw strategic air strikes. Let’s invade the whole country and set up a Western-style liberal democracy. And let’s do it before the November elections because the longer we wait, the greater the chance that the smoking gun will come in the form of a mushroom cloud. That’s the goodest idea. Anyone got a problem with it?
good you guys have nicely set yourselves up on both sides of a fence….
Exactly what I have come to expect from the lefties. The problem is, it isn’t leadership.
I have been reading more of OW’s headlines, and it is just overwhelming how inaccurate he is. Media matters has nothing on the yellow journalists of years gone by.
Wow Dr. what a keen grasp of sarcasm you have.
Well then, peed’. If you don’t like my GOOD idea, you must have a better one, right?
He has a good bedside manner. I’m sure his patients thrive under
his tender loving care.
Frame and leo can always be counted on to not answer the question.
I think you guys just have a hard time with independent thought. Until the talking points come out, you have to fill the space with smarmy comments.
Weak…..
BTW my patients love me. Heck YOU may have even seen me…you never know…
I doubt it. I only see Drs. that are good enough to be busy. You don’t
seem that busy.
BTW;
We are all waiting to hear how that independent
thinking works in answering your own questions. Give us the
benefit of your keen intellect and cite the simple solution for
the problem of Iran.
“Frame and leo can always be counted on to not answer the question.”
Um, did I not answer the question? Like I said, anyone who doesn’t come out and yell from the mountain tops “Bomb them now!” is being soft on terror.
“I only see Drs. that are good enough to be busy. You don t
seem that busy.”
ROFL.
You may want to download and read Getting Ready For A Nuclear-Ready Iran, from the US Army War College.
The basic premise is that it probably impossible for the US to stop an Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, short of a full-scale invasion. And once Iran acquires nuclear weapons it will simply be a matter of time before Arab states follow.
http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB629.pdf
“an ever more nuclear-ready Iran will try to lead the revolutionary Islamic vanguard throughout the Islamic world by becoming the main support for terrorist organizations aimed against Washington s key regional ally, Israel; America s key energy source, Saudi Arabia; and Washington s prospective democratic ally, Iraq.”
Iran’s acquisition of a nuclear weapon could mark the final end of efforts to prevent nuclear proliferation and provide Islamic terrorism with a nuclear deterrent. Islamic terrorism will literally be a Great Power.
And this “inevitability” is a good thing?
This is beginning to sound a lot like the Cold War: “Oooh! They have nuclear weapons! We can’t ever be confrontational with them!”
Fast forward to 1990 == “The Soviet what?”
Okee doke, as someone who actually did this sort of a thing for a living let me lay out a few ideas regarding Iran:
1) We can, without a doubt, roll over Iran if we want to. It wouldn’t be very difficult even with the present condition of the military. However, it would be exceedingly difficult to maintain stable enough control in order to secure oil access. Anyone who says oil shouldn’t be an issue hasn’t been paying attention to what powers the economy for the past 80 years. If we don’t have oil we *will* end up, to put it politely, fucked. Economically, socially, militarily. War is inherently risky and no right thinking leaders stumbles into it blindly. We have example afetr example of wars, both ancient and modern, that didn’t go the way people thought they would. Do not think that the United States or the West is somehow immune from this.
2) My feeling is that Iran is actually trying to develop nuclear power stations – in addition to nuclear weapons. Nuclear power is an acceptable endeavour and something the west should probably be encouraging. If they reduce the domestic demand for petro-products it means there is more petro-product to explort. What is not acceptable is dual use nuclear technology. Admittedly any nuclear fuel or waste could be use to enhance a conventional weapon but that genie has been out of the bottle for decades. Control and not prohibition is the answer.
3) If military action *is* decided upon the best thing to do would be to find a proxy agent to undertake limited striking action. Russia – traditionally an ally of Iran would be a good choice. Even better would be Saudi Arabia – no love lost between the two anyway. However, the United States shoudl not go in there except as a last resort because the long term consequences would likely be devastating. It would make 1973 look like a hiccup.