A few observations.

Negotiations generally go better when one can negotiate from a position of strength. I’m hard pressed to determine what strength we have outside of military action. Clearly, world opinion is not on our side nor are many of our old “allies”. Forget anything serious from the U.N. I doubt the American people have the will for a strike in Iran.

But any strikes on Iran would seem to further weaken our political position internationally and would most certainly cause Iran to retaliate using Israel as their target.

This is a very tight spot.

Let me add to the emphasis that any strength that is overused becomes a weakness. Bush is going to have to concede on nuclear development for energy use and try to get agreement that inspections take place to confirm intent and development. Frankly, he has no other viable options.

Please don’t peg me a liberal. Totally opposite. However, I am realistic though, but not entirely optimistic. I fully expect Iran to engage Israel or vice versa in the not too distant future. When that happens all hell breaks loose.

Kind of forgot about ElBaradei didn’t ya? Or…maybe you were so entranced with his brown skin you didn’t listen to what he had to say about Iranian nukes?

And btw - Iranians = brown skin? How ignorant are you? The Iranians are indo-Europeans - which makes them as white as me.

So much for the world revolving around your racist fantasies…

Either have one of your republican agents bomb some ugly american in the name of allah so that everyone can go back to hiding under their beds again, or dump the fear mongering.

I’m gotten quite bored with brown-people-fear and would appreciate it if you repubs could add some variety to your menu. How about fear of cars? After all, you are 390 times more likely to die from a car accident than from a terrorist.

Source: http://ip.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/abstract/11/6/332

Think about that the next time you fill your tank. While you’re at it, think about where your gas comes from. Think about all the countries in the world who could benefit from a good invasion in the name of democracy, and consider the amount of oil those countries *don’t* have.

I’m sure it’s all just coincidence.

ps - kudos for having the conjones to enable unregistered comments, most people don’t. I turned mine off, since there’s nothing there yet.

We will pay in blood later for what we defer now.

I hate to shill my own work (well, no I don’t,but I try to avoid it on other people’s sites)but I suggest interested parties read this to find out (a) why we’re not going to be able to live with Iranian nukes and (b) how to REALLY deal with the problem of Iran, which is both to prevent it becoming a nuclear power and to curtail its leadership of global terrrosim and jihad against the West:

J O S H U A P U N D I T: Time to do the mullah dance

Intelligence analysts concluded at last week’s meeting that there were no negotiating carrots or sticks, such as sanctions, capable of persuading Iran to halt its pursuit of nuclear know-how — which it maintains is for peaceful energy purposes.

“The sobering view is that even if there is a deal, the Iranians would cheat,” another source said.

Why on earth would Iran make any kind of “deal” when a main point of the article states essentially that we have no position for any negotiations on the matter short of Israel ultimately dealing with the problem?

I thought Rick’s blog was well written, but I want to know how Pakistan and India figure into all of this. From Iran’s point of view, they are surrounded on practically all sides by “opposing” forces with nuclear capability, whether it be us in Iraq, or any of the other “sovereign” nuke-equipped nations with close ties to us in the region. Faced with these realities and the constant drumbeat of “evil Iran must be dealt with” from the West, I can understand why the Iranians feel left out.

Personally, I long for the days of the “Speak softly and carry a big stick” approach to diplomacy. From reading Israeli newspapers during the Lebanese War, it became clear that many Israelis felt that the common wisdom of the IDF’s steadfast infalibilty were severely compromised in the wake of sustained rocket retaliation’s from Hezbollah. I fear that our sustained casualty rate in Iraq could prove to be a similar message about our own armed forces to our enemies.

When did using a crane to crush a fly become a logical argument, anyway?

I have no idea what to do about either above the table and below the table nuclear proliferation. It will happen in Iran, and we can expect other states that are not pro-Western to follow suit. Walk loudly and carry a big nuke, I guess.

The United Nations can and will do nothing to prevent more rogue states from going nuclear. The United States is limited in what we can do. You gave the great examples of stopping Saddam from getting his weapons program completed, but can such strikes occur now?

Even refusing to buy Iranian and all Middle Eastern oil, a move that would surely devastate our economy, would be of no avail to cut off their money supply to acquire nuclear weapons. China and Russia, among others, would keep the money flowing without us. However jingoist it sounds, we must make it abundantly clear that a nuclear strike on Israel will make the Fifth Pillar of Islam unnecessary. There will be no Mecca to go to. Thanks again for the thought-provoking, if dark message.