Monday, April 10, 2006


To Be
Or
Not To Be


The media is, of course, currently attempting to make George Bush look like a madman for considering his options in the case of a military strike against Iran. In light of their horror that Bush would even consider an attack, Roger Simon questions where diplomacy could possibly lead in the first place:


What would a "diplomatic solution" to the Iranian nuclear question actually look like? Just give me a few concrete sentences... Not easy, is it? Not for anything tangible anyway. Even if we got the Iranians to sign something, what would it mean?

Hardly any countries acknowledge their nuclear weapons programs while engaged in initiating them. The US didn't in 1944. The Soviets didn't. The UK and the French didn't. The Israelis didn't. The Pakistanis and the Indians didn't.

What they said they were doing and what they were doing were rarely the same thing. And we expect the Iranian Mullahs, of all people, to behave differently?

In order to know, we'd have to have a watcher, or maybe three, on every street corner of their vast country. And even then I'm not sure we'd know.

Remember, back in the days of the Manhattan Project, Enrico Fermi and his colleagues split the atom in some made-over squash court under the University of Chicago football stadium. Its worth reviewing those times while recalling that was the early 1940s, over sixty years ago!


There are really only two options;

1) Attack Iran

or

2) Live with the Iranian bomb. Uh, or, is that die with the Iranian bomb?