One argument against attacking Iran's nuclear program that the Obama administration uses is that attacking Iran would destroy the consensus that nuanced, smart diplomacy has created to isolate Iran in the world over the issue. How's that isolation working out?
The 120-nation Nonaligned Movement handed its host Iran a diplomatic victory on Friday, unanimously decreeing support for the disputed Iranian nuclear energy program and criticizing the American-led attempt to isolate and punish Iran with unilateral economic sanctions.
I've argued that any so-called "consensus" that Iran shouldn't have nuclear weapons is pretty worthless if it won't withstand an effort to actually forcibly stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons.
Now we can't pretend there is an international consensus to stop Iran. No amount of nuanced and smart spin can disguise that fact:
The unanimous backing of the final document undercut the American argument that Iran was an isolated outlier nation.
The Tehran Declaration document not only emphasizes Iran’s right to peaceful nuclear energy but acknowledges the right to ownership of a full nuclear fuel cycle, which means uranium enrichment — a matter of deep dispute.
I wonder what our next excuse to let Iran continue on their nuclear weapons path will be? There's always another option before reaching the "last" one, right?
