Whither Iran?
At The Moderate Voice, Joe Gandelman looks at "[t]he growing, simmering crisis swirling around Iran's decision to ignore European and American calls for it to halt its nuclear program".
Here's more from the Times and the Post.
In Britain's Telegraph, Anton La Guardia addresses President Ahmadinejad's "divine mission": "The main rift is no longer between 'reformists' and 'hardliners', but between the clerical establishment and Mr Ahmadinejad's brand of revolutionary populism and superstition."
On the right, Michelle Malkin is "preparing for the worst". I'm not sure we're "on the brink," and I worry about the prospect of a reckless military excursion into Iran, not least one that diverts attention away from what's going on in Iraq, but Iran's pursuit of nuclear energy, and perhaps nuclear weaponry, is obviously a concern that demands our attention (and perhaps, eventually, military action).
As Steve Soto puts it at The Left Coaster, however, "we can’t do anything about [Iran] at this time" -- at least not what we should do, at least not what we could have done back in 2001.
See also All Things Beautiful, The Glittering Eye, and Publius Pundit.
My last post on Iran is here.
Here's more from the Times and the Post.
In Britain's Telegraph, Anton La Guardia addresses President Ahmadinejad's "divine mission": "The main rift is no longer between 'reformists' and 'hardliners', but between the clerical establishment and Mr Ahmadinejad's brand of revolutionary populism and superstition."
On the right, Michelle Malkin is "preparing for the worst". I'm not sure we're "on the brink," and I worry about the prospect of a reckless military excursion into Iran, not least one that diverts attention away from what's going on in Iraq, but Iran's pursuit of nuclear energy, and perhaps nuclear weaponry, is obviously a concern that demands our attention (and perhaps, eventually, military action).
As Steve Soto puts it at The Left Coaster, however, "we can’t do anything about [Iran] at this time" -- at least not what we should do, at least not what we could have done back in 2001.
See also All Things Beautiful, The Glittering Eye, and Publius Pundit.
My last post on Iran is here.
posted by Michael J.W. Stickings at
10:25 PM
6 Comments:
Is Israel going to give up their nookular programs or WMDS?
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/lies.mp3
By
Post American, at 1:24 PM
Wouldn't--for those, of course, who thought that deterence worked--a nuclear Iran balance Israel's "small but potent" arsenal?
By
Anonymous, at 7:00 PM
Dont go down that road: Advocating military action against Iran is one of the main goals of the neo-cons.
NcCain and Feinstein are neo-cons.
Why? For Israel and the Jewish lobby
in the U.S. You know, the sacred cow.
The 800 pound guerilla everone is
afraid to point out, there smelling up
the middle of the room. Warping U.S.
fereign policy everywhere.
By
Anonymous, at 12:19 AM
Revvy Blogger said, "The real reason Iran is investing in nuclear energy"
Seems like these Peak Oiler disciples have more of a handle on the determinants of history than the best of the college drop out Marxists.
Have you been drinking tea and eating scones with Ruppert?
By
M1, at 5:54 AM
Israel, Israel, and Israel: religion and not oil.
I will be tough to see common sense dissenters in Iran forced to side with Bush by American insane propaganda, Bush seeks capitulation and tribute of the enemies of international jewry. Bush's plan is written in the old testament: Anyone who stands in the way of Israel is under YHVH's curse of destruction.
By
Anonymous, at 12:10 AM
One more thing:
It saddens me when events cause an outbreak in nationalistic sentiment over in Europe, Europeans say something to the effect "we understand Bush/what the united states is fighting for now/Go Bush/Go Israel!"
Europeans are culeless when it comes to Real Politics; they should stop shelding their eyes and realize BushIsrael is the worst thing for non-jewish white people (Europeans) ever concieved.
By
Anonymous, at 12:20 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home