[A] mood of defeatism appears to have settled over the White House. As one senior Obama adviser recently remarked: “It wouldn’t be easy to live with an Iran that’s a virtual nuclear power, but at the end of the day, it’s not a complete disaster.” A similar air of resignation has taken hold in Europe, which until recently had taken the lead role in negotiations over Iran’s uranium enrichment. Concerns over the state of the global economy, and the awareness that Iran is close to acquiring the technological capability for an atom bomb, has weakened the Europeans’ resolve to confront it. Only Britain and France have any appetite for further tough talking.
And I doubt the appetite for talking tough extends beyond talk. Expecially if it is clear we will do nothing.
So are we willing to see Iran go nuclear and then launch nukes at Israel--prompting an Israeli retaliation?
Or would it be better if Iran doesn't launch nukes but prompts Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Turkey to go nuclear out of self preservation? Short flight times and lots of hatred won't make a nuclear war likely in those circumstances, I suppose the thinking goes.
Or will Iran merely be emboldened to support terrorism even more than they do now with a nuclear shield?
And might true fanatics slip a nuke or two to terrorists even if the non-nuts manage to control the nukes initially?
This is what "living with" an Iranian bomb means.
Lovely friggin' decade we're having.
