What to Do About Iran, and a Few More Good Men
By Chad A. B. Wilson
Published May 23, 2007, 3:50 pm in Military / Foreign policy, Voting & Partisanship.
Dang, I wish I knew. There's a new International Atomic Energy Agency report out that "details" all of Iran's activities, and it doesn't look good. And by "details," I mean that it doesn't really say anything, because Iran isn't giving them anything. In large part, Iran's efforts are clandestine. And what they're showing the inspectors says that they will be capable of enriching uranium to make nuclear weapons.
The problem is that Iran could just be using uranium to produce energy. That is possible, you know. And it's also completely legal. Even though nuclear weapons may be illegal under international treaties, nations are allowed to pursue nuclear energy. But then again, Iran has done too much undercover stuff to make the IAEA feel that it really is pursuing peaceful energy.
It's a big catch, isn't it? On the one hand, Iran is able to enrich uranium. On the other hand, it could enrich a different kind of uranium to make weapons. Sheesh.
So what do we do? Heck, what can we do? We sanction them, of course. But really, all we can do is watch them develop their nuclear weapons. They will deny it and deny it, and then one day, they'll test one, and we'll all go, yep, and then be forced to leave them alone. What can you really do to a nuclear Iran, after all? I certainly wouldn't mess with them.
The other possibility is another pre-emptive strike. It's a distinct possibility, I think. Israel will certainly be interested in it. But will we? Will Americans agree on another pre-emptive strike? I know we would not agree to another full-out war, but what about strategic air strikes that target the nuclear facilities? Would we agree to that? I really don't know. We're so jittery about this whole pre-emptive thing that we're more likely to just forget about it. Think of North Korea--everyone was so scared of them getting a weapon that it doesn't matter now that they have them. Just like India, North Korea, and everyone else who has them. We didn't want any of them to get them, but now that they do, it doesn't really make much difference.
Should we continue giving them the benefit of the doubt? Or do we do as some officials do, according to the New York Times: "In Washington, Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns said that although he has not read the report, he was confident that it confirms Iranian non-compliance with U.N. Security Council requirements, including Iran's refusal to accept international inspections at uranmium enrichment facilities." Even though he had not read the report, Burns was "confident" that Iran was doing bad things. Why wait for the report, then? Isn't this kind of thinking what got us into trouble with Iraq in the first place? Oh, no, they definitely have WMDs, a slam dunk, no doubt. No proof? Well, that's because they're hiding it!
But you know, sometimes that may be true! So what do we do about Iran? Will punishing them with sanctions be effective? Man, I doubt it, but it's our only hope.
More in the 2008 Race
On a different note, I need to point out that I'm expecting two more candidates to the presidential arena. The first is Al Gore. His new book, "The Assault on Reason," is a part of his stepping in, I believe. In a way, the Oscars announced his presidency, even though he did it as a joke. Seriously, though, I think we're ready for Al Gore this time. If he he entered the race, I think he would win the nomination easily. In fact, I don't know that Clinton or Obama would even want to run against him. The guy has become such a media force that it doens't make sense for any other Democrat to go against him. They would probably just have to genuflect in awe.
The second person I expect to enter the ring in on the Republican side--Fred Thompson. This guy is a hoot--another actor/President. I mean professional actor, that is. He's old, and he tells it like it is. And he's also got a bit of experience as a Senator. If he came in, he would have a shot. I think he could blow away all of the other Republican wannabes. Thompson also has a reputation as a liberal deal-maker, a guy who doens't stick the party line. In an election, that could help. I don't see him kowtowing, and that fact could really help him.
In a time when every candidate is spending all of their energies on something that doens't come around for another year and a half, there is no reason why these other two candidates can't jump in later. What they're doing is sitting around and enjoying themselves while being above it all. Watch the latest campaign ads, and you will see how difficult it is to run for President. For these two guys, they can wait, let the others beat themselves and each other up while perfecting their pitches, plans, and positions. I imagine that Al and Tipper are enjoying themselves by their pool while talking about how to sweep in and win South Carolina. And Fred Thompson, I imagine this guy in some smokey gentleman's club with a big stogie in his mouth laughing at Mitt Romney.
But then again, maybe the imagination is better than the reality. I like imagining them plotting away, but if they actually get in the race, they'll probably screw everything up, anyway.
Incidentally, I watched "The Family Guy" this weekend, and this episode was a take on "Back to the Future." The alternate world that is created by screwing with the past is a perfect world, though. What changed? Al Gore won the 2000 election, outlawed all guns, eliminated poverty, and basically made everyone happy. No more crime, no more poor. What a wonderful world. A not-so-veiled call for Gore to come to the front again? How can it be anything else. The guy already has such fans that he won't even need to campaign. Just keep producing those books and winning those Oscars, I guess.
Comments & Trackbacks
No Comments for this post yet...
This post has 239 feedbacks awaiting moderation...
Leave a comment