The Europeans are working on a "carrots and sticks" offer to Iran to get them to agree to halt their nuclear weapons drive even as near-weapons grade enriched uranium has been detected on equipment that Iran used.
The article has me confused. No, not whether the Europeans even understand what a "stick" is any more. What I'm wondering about is this statement by ElBaradei, the head honcho of the IAEA:
IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei warned efforts to resolve the crisis diplomatically ay prove in vain unless Washington addressed what he said were Iran's legitimate security concerns.
"When you are talking about security, there is only one country that can talk to Iran and that is the U.S., it's not Europe," he said at a debate in the Netherlands.
Yes, yes--Europe wouldn't and couldn't hurt a fly so their sticks aren't likely to be larger than toothpicks. It was rude of ElBaradei to rub Europe's nose in that fact. But again, that isn't what I want to have answered. But "legitimate security concerns?" Really?
I'd almost begun to believe that ElBaradei was in league with Ahmadinejad to let Iran's mullahs get a nuclear weapon. He's been so ineffective that it is almost beyond belief that he isn't on Tehran's side in all this. But Iran and the IAEA aren't on the same page, legitimate threat-wise, when one ponders what a legitimate fear of attack is to Tehran. Consider what the star of the Islamic Republic of Iran said--quoted in the same article:
Iran signaled undiminished confidence in a lack of big power resolve against its atomic work with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad calling Western pressure "psychological propaganda" and the U.S.-mooted, last-resort option of war "unlikely."
So explain this to me, oh legions of Leftish, big-brained, nuanced thinkers:
If Iran doesn't think America will attack Iran, even under cowboy Bush, and even when that so-called cowboy believes Iran will soon have nuclear weapons, just exactly why would Iran need America to address Iran's 'legitimate security concerns'? And why would Iran even need nuclear weapons without those guarantees? I mean, if Iran doesn't think we will attack them, who on Earth threatens Iran? And why would we be in a position to help?
There will be a war with Iran. The only questions are who initiates it and whether Iran has nuclear missiles when the war begins.
Lovely decade we're having, eh?
