Iran, Iran, Iran
An Iranian exile group claims that Iran bought blueprints for a nuclear bomb and obtained weapons-grade uranium on the black market. This is the same group that brought the secret Natanz facility to the attention of the West.
The Washington Post reports that "Powell Says Iran Is Pursuing Bomb" (Hat tip: Carnivorous Conservative).
An Alert Reader draws attention to the fact that the US Strategic Petroleum Reserve is
at 96% capacity and rising, by order of the President, way back in 2001.
Just let the information wash over you . . . it will all come in handy down the road.
posted by Chester at 11/17/2004 08:18:00 PM
5 Comments:
I have been following you thread on Iran for, and have a little extra info for context.
In this article, entitled Securing the Gulf, CNN analyst Kenneth Pollack gives an interesting comparison of Iran with Iraq.
"Its population is three times the size of Iraq's, its landmass is four times the size, its terrain is difficult and would make operations a logistical nightmare, and its population has generally rallied around the regime in the face of foreign threats. Invading Iran would be such a major undertaking that the option is essentially unthinkable in all but the most extraordinary circumstance."I hope we don't have to go into Iran, because if we do, we are going to have to go real big.
This article is an excellent rebuttal to anyone who says there was no reason to go into Iraq in the first place. If it interests you, I would suggest reading his book The The Threatening Storm., which came out just before the war, and completely convinced me that Saddam needed to go away for good.
I have been following you thread on Iran for, and have a little extra info for context.
In this article, entitled Securing the Gulf, CNN analyst Kenneth Pollack gives an interesting comparison of Iran with Iraq.
"Its population is three times the size of Iraq's, its landmass is four times the size, its terrain is difficult and would make operations a logistical nightmare, and its population has generally rallied around the regime in the face of foreign threats. Invading Iran would be such a major undertaking that the option is essentially unthinkable in all but the most extraordinary circumstance."I hope we don't have to go into Iran, because if we do, we are going to have to go real big.
This article is an excellent rebuttal to anyone who says there was no reason to go into Iraq in the first place. If it interests you, I would suggest reading his book The The Threatening Storm., which came out just before the war, and completely convinced me that Saddam needed to go away for good.
Sorry, I didn't mean to double up.
This is something to watch, but remember that we got an awful lot of information from Iraq exiles on Saddam's WMD that turned out to be less than accurate. We need to get more intelligence resources on this right away.
Iran pretty much has to go after a nuclear weapon. Too many other players have them for it to forego that weapon from its arsenal, and the U.S. policy must appear to them to be far more threatening than ever before. We can assume that given enough time, they'll figure out a way to manage the program to fruition. Only way to prevent that is regime change, and who knows how well that would work out?
So it seems to me that the whole question comes down to what the U.S. is willing to risk to ensure that Iran doesn't get nukes. So what are we willing to risk?
Post a Comment
<< Home