Jump to content

Discuss....


Peter_Puget

Recommended Posts

CONFRONTATION WITH IRAN LOOMS

 

The President has stated that Iran will not be allowed to possess nuclear weapons. He can be taken at his word.

 

The current diplomatic agreement between Iran and several nations of the EU has no verification mechanism, and will not satisfy the President that Iran has ceased its nuclear weapons program. Having seen the ill effects of a failed diplomatic solution to the North Korean nuclear program, the President will be short on patience for similar negotiated disarmament schemes that miss the mark of full and unconditional disclosure, like that of Libya. Iran will not submit to such disclosure.

 

However the current cabinet shakeup plays out, the Bush Administration will view Iran as a greater threat to US security than Syria. While Syria provides geographic territory, logistical support, and moral support to various terrorist groups, these groups, Hamas and Hezbollah, mainly target Israel and not the United States. While Syria may be the repository of whatever Iraqi weapons were stashed away prior to the invasion, Syria has no nuclear weapons development program. The President and Vice President have clearly stated that the over-riding reason for the invasion of Iraq was the threat to the United States of the "nexus between weapons of mass destruction and terrorist groups." This nexus clearly resides in Iran, which is actively seeking nuclear weapons and has a long history of supporting all manner of terrorist groups, including, from time to time, Al Qaeda.

 

THE TIMING OF US ACTION

 

Before assumptions about the use of US force can be definitively stated, the critical question becomes the time horizon. What to make of this? How to define in time, the event that creates the deadline? Iran will eventually reach a point wherein it has completed the infrastructure and research necessary to manufacture a nuclear weapon. This is the point it must not be allowed to reach.

 

The Atlantic article gives the Iranians 3 years, with many backside-covering qualifications. A recent US News report states three to seven years. Other reports, state as little as 4-6 months before Iran has the break-out stage and can "construct nuclear bombs whenever it wishes."

 

As we all know from the re-election campaign, President Bush was criticized as "rushing to war" in Iraq. Agreeing with the characterization of this decision (that it was poor form to move so quickly) or not is irrelevant. Instead, assume that Bush prefers to err on the side of action, and move quickly. In this case, let us assume the time horizon for his decision is 12-18 months. In the next year and a half, the US, whether alone or with allies, must address the Iranian nuclear program once and for all, or grudgingly admit Iran into the fraternity of nuclear powers, and like it or not, live with its regime for an indefinite period of time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 19
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

That's a nice article there Pete. I especially like the inflammatory, missive, tone: "The President will not . . . shall not . . . ALL WILL KNEEL TREMBLING BEFORE THE PRESIDENT."

 

It's not that I take any issue with the pont of view, on the contrary, YOU'D BE A FHUHKIN MORON NOT TO SEE THAT ONE COMING.

 

Here's why in an easy-to-follow schematic. Fell free to follow along at home kids:

 

map.iran.tehran.jpg

 

plus.gif

 

US%20ARMY%20SEAL.gif

 

equals.gif

 

secd-cmg.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...