Is Iran next? The calculus of military strike

[RedEarth]

Tehran has raised the stakes, saying it is enriching uranium.
By Mark Sappenfield | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

WASHINGTON - Time and again this week, President Bush and his team reiterated their position on Iran's nuclear program: America wants a diplomatic solution, and any suggestion it is moving toward an inevitable strike on Iran is "wild speculation."

At the same time, however, Mr. Bush has remained steadfast in his statements that a nuclear Iran is unacceptable and "no option is off the table" to prevent it.

The news Tuesday that Iran is now producing enriched uranium for atomic reactors - considered a first step toward nuclear weapons - has heightened the sense that America and Iran are on a collision course. A new article in The New Yorker claims that the administration is again on a path to war.

Yet amid the tumult is an effort to shape a debate that's more robust than the one before the Iraq war. While military action doesn't appear certain, the hint of it raises questions on the use of force, and what it might - and might not - accomplish.

It seems likely that precision airstrikes could set Iran's nuclear program back at least a year and perhaps several. Whether that delay is worth the probable consequences - the strengthening of a despotic regime within Iran and the increased likelihood of terrorism in nearby Iraq and the broader region - is what's at issue.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0412/p01s02-usfp.htm

[bemildred]

1. This is seems like drivel to me. Propaganda.

It has all the current talking points in it, and little else.

"wild speculation", "no options off the table", "first step to nucular weapons", "collision course", "precision airstrikes", "democratic yearnings", and "oppressive clerics".

Edit: and the main point now is that Iran is calling our bluff, as N. Korea did before, and we are really not in any position to do much about it. It is very dangerous in a way; the Bushites have really painted themselves, and us, into a corner.

[cliss]

2. Old Chinese proverb:

Never make a threat that you are not willing to carry out.

[bemildred]

3. That summarizes my main annoyance with the Bushites.

Nothing but threats, day in and day out, whether or not they have any means or intent to carry the threat out. Their words mean nothing; and everyone knows the score now. It's getting to the point where they can't even buy obedience, let alone instill it by fear. The most salient feature of the Venezuela and Iran issues is that both countries now are in loud, open and explicit defiance of the Bushites, and getting away with it. It's like they have infinite faith in bullshit as a governing mechanism, and no other ideas at all.

[katty]

4. doublespeak, management perception, LIES

[paparush]

5. McClellan was beating the "Regime" drum loud and hard today

during his press conference he kept referring to the 'regime' in Iran and the 'Iranian Regime'.