Instead of criticizing, why don't you suggest what our realistic options are given the following assumptions:
1.- Iran is intent on obtaining nuclear weapons.
2.- It intends to use them on Israel and, because of religious reasons, is not deterred by Israel's own nukes.
3.- Some of its leaders [Ahmadinejad being the most prominent example] appear clinically insane. They are thus capable of proliferating to terrorists who may use them in the continental US.
What would you do given the enormous risks created by Iranian nukes?
Do you think, given the statements made by the Iranian leadership, and their religiously awarded right to deceive infidels, that they do not present the greatest threat to global stability?
I suppose you are in favor of jaw, jaw, jaw, which is fine under less threatening circumstances.
They need to be brought up to the Security Council, where China and Russia will predictably veto sanctions. That is the only reasonable alternative we have. Failing sanctions, the facilities need to be destroyed militarily.
I am not saying that there are no huge risks, and many unanticipated consequences attendant to destroying the Iranian facilities, but none outweigh the risks posed by an aggressive Iraq, lead by maniacs, armed with nuclear weapons. |
