The EU is still yammering and we are publicly supporting their efforts:
I think there's a good-faith effort under way by our European allies to try to resolve this issue diplomatically. We support that effort," the vice president said in an interview with Fox News Sunday, his first appearance on a Sunday morning television talk show in a year-and-a-half.
"The Iranians, I think, should do the right thing, and they should, in fact, agree to transparency, reassure the outside world that they are not trying to acquire nuclear weapons," Cheney said.
"(The Iranians) know very well that we do not want them to acquire nuclear weapons, nor does the civilized world," he said. "I can't think of anybody who's eager to see the Iranians develop that kind of capability.
"Now, we are moving to support efforts to resolve it diplomatically," Cheney said.
"If this process breaks down, the next step probably is (to) go to back to the board of governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency and ultimately refer to the United Nations Security Council for the imposition of international sanctions on Iran.
"There are a number of steps here to be considered. We have not eliminated any alternative at this point, but we obviously are seriously pursuing diplomatic resolution of this problem," Cheney said.
But we aren't ruling out military efforts. But we'd only need to think of this if the Iranians aren't serious about negotiating and are truly intent on obtaining nuclear weapons. So the comments of one Iranian official gives the game away, when he indicated the Iranians could not be persuaded to halt their nuclear program. And if we attacked their so-called electricity generating nuclear program? Well:
Hassan Rohani, secretary-general of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, also told Reuters there was nothing the West could offer Tehran that would persuade it to scrap a nuclear program which Washington fears may be used to make bombs.
Asked about a possible attack by the United States or Israel, which have both said a nuclear-armed Iran would be unacceptable, Rohani said: "If such an attack (against Iran's atomic facilities) takes place then of course we will retaliate and we will definitely accelerate our activities to complete our (nuclear) fuel cycle." Speaking in a rare interview, Rohani said Iran's ability to produce its own nuclear parts had made it "invulnerable" to attack since it could simply rebuild whatever was destroyed.
So if we attacked, in an effort to defend themselves, the Iranians would accelerate their program to generate electricity with nuclear power? Why not increase steel production by 15%? Why not reform their tax code?
But no, the mullahs will complete their nuclear fuel cycle. I'm sorry if I don't buy the idea that this cycle is for any reason other than building nuclear bombs. You really have to be European or European at heart to believe Iran is seeking nuclear electricity generating capacity.
And if the reports that we now think Iran is three years away from going nuclear and we are planning to undermine Iran in that time period are true, it tells me that we have not in fact been working with the Iranian military to ovethrow the mullahs this year. We couldn't possibly have set up a network for a revolt and expect the people friendly to us to remain free to act for years until something happens. If something doesn't happen in the next few months, we really have no plans to deal with Iran.
This is shocking to me. The Axis of Evil is not just a nickname and Iran is on that list for a reason. We cannot let Iran go nuclear and thinking we have 3 years for Iranian dissidents to rescue us from the mullahs' nuclear ambitions is no strategy--it is a hope. I can only hope that we are acting as if we are doing nothing so that when a revolt starts there will be less of a chance that it will be tainted by association with us and allow the mullahs to stoke nationalism to save their horrid regime.
And really, since the Iranians are Persians and Shias, you'd think the Arab states run by Sunnis would be a little more sympathetic to our goal of keeping Iran from going nuclear:
John Bolton, the State Department's top international security official, said countries in the region were "well aware" of the threat posed by Iran, which maintains its nuclear activities are for peaceful energy purposes.
"Their repeated support for terrorism makes it particularly dangerous if they were to acquire a nuclear weapon," Bolton told reporters.
"Whether they would use it directly as the government of Iran or whether they would transfer it to a terrorist group leaves us very concerned," said Bolton, undersecretary of state for arms control and international security.
Bolton said he has explained to leaders in the Gulf America's stance on the "Iranian problem and how we've been dealing in the past and how we proposed to deal with in the future."
Are the Sunni Arab states of the region really eager for people they don't consider really Moslems to have the edge over them? Are they just going to sit by while the mullahs make the Gulf Persian again?
We can't let Iran go nuclear. If we can't change the regime we have to pound the sites as a last resort to buy time. Will the Arab states really be upset if we stop Iran from going nuclear? And just how much time do we have, anyway? I'm not as comforted by CIA estimates as I once might have been.
As an aside, I don't believe Israel has hundreds of nukes as one article notes. If they have more than a few score max I'd be shocked.
