Yet the President's emphasis on Social Security and taxation issues seemed to indicate a focus on domestic concerns for many months ahead. Was this, I wondered, an indication that action was not going to take place until the summer at earliest? I've assumed some type of effort to overthrow the regime by aiding internal elements opposed to the mullahs.
Now Strategypage says Iran is years from going nuclear and that we will work to destabilize the regime:
January 30, 2005: Pundits, experts and guessperts have concluded that Iran is at least three years from having a working nuclear weapon, so the pressure to stop the nuclear program has diminished. The threat of Israel bombing Iran has diminished, although a media frenzy of speculation about an American attack has created the illusion that something along these lines is actually taking place. Europeans are still threatening trade sanctions, but are unlikely to follow through. Unemployment is a big problem in Europe, and the media considers jobs more important than a nuclear armed Iran.
January 29, 2005: American plans to defeat the Islamic radicals in Iran are leaning towards the kind of subversion that worked in communist controlled nations during the Cold War, and dictatorships of all flavors since then. Iran is, after all, just another unpopular police state. The leaders are corrupt, and many of the people providing the muscle are motivated by blind faith in relentless propaganda.
Is it possible that we have until the end of the President's second term to act? Are we that certain of the timeline to Iran's nuclear bomb?
Or are we applying the old maxim, when close appear far, in order to throw the Iranians off?
And if we think we know Iran is three years away from a nuke, are the Iranians appearing far when near?
The problem isn't going away on its own. Just how much time do we have?
