According to the BBC a conventional bomb was detonated in Iran.  Do you have any thoughts about that?

Why limit the nuclear weapons free zone to the Persian Gulf?  To have any power to convince muslim countries to forego a nuclear fuel cycle (which is their right under the NPT), the nuclear weapons free zone would have to be extended to the rest of the mid-east, including Israel.   Muslim countries won't accept a double standard.  Like North Korea, they'll talk, talk and talk.  But they will proceed to develop their technical capabilities and industrial capacity while they talk.  If Israeli nuclear de-proliferation off the table, then a Persian Gulf WMD-free zone is a pipe dream.

What a joke.  Israel will never give up its nuclear weapons as long as people like Amadinejad and organizations like Hamas have power in the Muslim world and, as you say, Muslims will never accept a double standard.  Barring a miracle these issues are going to be settled by force as they always have been.

"With Iran, however, Bush has been exceedingly diplomatic."

When the last delegation from Washington visited Teheran?

What has the U.S. offered if Iran does not use its right to develop a fuel cycle?

Bush "allowed" others to talk to Teheran - great diplomacy!!! 

"Offering blandishments and sponsoring deliberative meta-national bodies without good faith actors on both sides is not enlightened and liberal self-interest, it is solipsism."

Unfortunately the exact same thing can be said about the United States.

Eliding the specific references to Islam and tribal societies, just about everything said can be said about the US. It's interests are primary, it supports terrorism when it suits its purposes, it has no interest in negotiating seriously, it believes it can dominate not just the Muslim world but the ENTIRE world (reread those PNAC documents where it says that the United States must insure that NO other country is ALLOWED to become even a REGIONAL power, let alone an international one!) , and its ultimate intentions are FAR more imperialistic than even the most radical Muslim cleric.

The US has run on "bad faith" for nearly the last two centuries - and the rest of the world knows it.

I fear you're right.  The issue will not be settled peacefully, unless "settling the issue" means having Iran and Israel both in possession of nuclear weapons.  Iran will never agree to forego a nuclear fuel cycle if Israel doesn't deproliferate.  It's possible that a combination of draconian sanctions could force Israel to do so, but given the current political situation that is highly unlikely.

But how could the issue be settled by force?  A group of western countries could fly in and attempt to take out Israeli nuclear capability.  But this is virtually impossible.  Israel and its allies could try to fly in and take out Iranian nuclear capabilities, also very unlikely absent an Israeli nuclear attack on Iran.  And very dangerous  -- if you're going to shoot at a "king" with credible nuclear pretentions, make sure you kill him, because if you only wound him you have real trouble.

So what are you suggesting?  A nuclear attack by Israel that will probably incinerate more than six million Iranians? 

Given what you say about Israel never giving up its nuclear weapons, the best we can hope for is a rational spread of nuclear weapons in the mid-east, one that maintains a nuclear balance of terror.  It will be painful for Israel to give up its nuclear monopoly, but for most people that would be preferable to an Israeli nuclear attack on Iran. 

It is, afterall, the only way the issue will be peacefully resolved.

Why must a "nuclear Iran" be "prevented"?

Indeed, Bush has allowed the much maligned United Nations to take a leading role in Iranian containment in conjunction with the pacifist European Union.  No doubt it keeps him up at night (along with Cheney and Rumsfeld), but the bottom line is he has taken a backseat to these other institutions.  My question is, how else could Bush possibly be expected to deal with Iran?  If the administration were to take a leading role in that nation’s containment, it would be chastised for continuing its war-mongering ways.  In fact, Bush has also been very diplomatic and cautious with North Korea as well.

 The problem isn't so much what Bush has done, but why he's doing it.  The "Axis of Evil" remark, combined with the invasion of Iraq, make it obvious to anyone who's paying attention that the only reason we haven't invaded Iran or North Korea is because of the military difficulty in doing so, not because of any dedication to finding a peaceful solution.  Because we invaded Iraq, we negotiate from a position of weakness. 

After America declares victory in Iraq and pulls out to some degree, it might again be ready to invade a country.  Let's say we'd be ready to invade Iran in two years.  If Iran wants to avoid invasion, what course should they pursue?  Proving they they are without nuclear capability?  Our invasion of Iraq, despite the objections of inspectors, showed the futility of approach.  No, the sensible thing to do would be to construct nuclear arms as quickly as they possibly can.  North Korea has nukes while Saddam didn't, and thus Kim Jong Il remains in power while Saddam is a prisoner.  The direction we are encouraging Iran to follow is pretty obvious. The situation is so broken now because invading Iraq demonstrated our insincerity and weakened our military position.

How should Bush change his policies?  The no win situation we are in now is so daunting that it's difficult for me to say.  But the first step would be to fire anyone who supported the invasion of Iraq or bungled its reconstruction.  No one can be expected to have any faith in the the future decisions of those who were so very wrong.  Finding the right policy in Iran is too hard a task for armchair statesman and generals or partisan second-guessing- which is why it's important that we have people we trust in position to make those decisions. 

The European Union produces talk but has nothing to deliver. Instead three allied European governments spent most of the previous year in protracted negotiations with Iran, but they hadn't anything to offer either.

Maybe it's time to start to study the Iranian point of view to see if it might be more favorable to cooperate than to escalate the conflict. Maybe it's also high time to question what the conflict actually is about. If US dominance is the key motivation, maybe it's not so unexpected if US governments would have problems to find the right partners in their quest.

Diplomacy with China, Russia and France would probably be a good start.  

Robert Dreyfuss: Why Hamas's Victory Is a Disaster
History News Nwtwork Podcast

J. McCutchen "JmacSF"

San Francisco. CA

Divide and control?  Someone get the fella a double Reality on the Rocks. Stick a little green political Islam flag in it.

 As for order, it is precisely this sort of solipsistic Old- Glorified-These-Colors-Don't-Run-Bring-It-On-Bunkum that has made a shambles of order, a subject of a recent book by one of Anne's colleagues in fact:

 Lawless World Casts Doubt on Decision to Go to War

Believing the evidence fell short, Bush discussed with Blair the possibility of inciting a conflict with Iraq, British author says. 

LONDON — It was the end of January 2003. Secretary of State Colin L. Powell was five days away from giving a critical speech at the U.N. Security Council, laying out the case that Iraq was hiding weapons of mass destruction and posed a danger to world peace.

But huddled with aides at the White House, President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair were not sure there was enough evidence to convince the Security Council. Without the council's explicit authorization, their plans for an invasion to depose Saddam Hussein could be difficult to defend under international law.

Bush proposed an alternative: paint a U.S. spy plane in United Nations colors and see if that didn't tempt Hussein's forces to shoot at it. In any case, he said, the war was "penciled in" for March 10 and the United States would go ahead with or without a second U.N. resolution.

Blair replied that he was "solidly with" the president.

That is the gist of an account of the Jan. 31, 2003, meeting contained in the new edition of "Lawless World," a book by British author Philippe Sands. ...


Sands, 45, is a professor of international law and a founding member of the Matrix law office in London, where Cherie Blair, the prime minister's wife, also works. His book, initially published last year, is not primarily about the decision to go to war in Iraq. Rather, it examines a range of issues in which, he argues, the Bush administration, with Britain's complicity, has undermined the "rules-based" international system built largely by the United States and Britain after World War II.

450,000,000,000 thru FY07. 100,000 a minute. Unimaginable damage to the region, to US power and prestige, but one thing is more certain today than before Bush, his Useful Idiots and Democratic syncophantic cowards rolled this country into the greatest strategic disaster in its history - we've sure brought Middle Eastern countries together.

And yes, they all died in vain - about 200,000+. 

J. McCutchen "JmacSF"

San Francisco. CA

The Fate of Israel -

Defense and the National Interest

To plan a successful grand strategy the strategist must know if he has a weak or strong