--- Chuck Grimes <cgrimes at rawbw.com> wrote:
> My guess is the US is pushing for some form of
> sanctions that will be
> completely unacceptible to Iran.
And what are the sactions that would be acceptable in this situation? Is there such a thing as santions that are acceptable to those targeted by them?
To address your substantive point, I agree with your pushing for sanctions explanation - but mainly because I find it emotionally comforting vis a vis a full scale war. I am not sure what the US would gain from such a war either in a short or a long run. It appears to me that any "benfits" ("regime change" and kindred "moral victories") would be substantially outweighed by the policial and econommic losses, not to mention th epossibility of escalation. Whatever one may think of this administration, they certainly know the risk.
OTOH, what motivates the Iranian leadership to boast about their nuclear potential that they do not yet have. It does not make sense at all. It is one thing to publicize your nuclear capability when you actually have, because it is more useful as deterrent than an actual weapon. But to make the threat credible, you must actually have the thing. So the rationao strategy is develop it quitely, and announce it only when it is actually built.
Anouncing credible plans to build it is counterproductive because it invites rather than deters the possibility of being attacked. The enemy has an obvious incentive to launch a pre-emptive attack, but does not face the possibility of lethal retaliation. From that viewpoints, Iranian moves seem like an invitation for suicidal confrontation. It does not make sense.
It is possible that these folks do it to divert attention from thair internal problems or as a ploy is some other scheming, but it is also possible (albeit unlikely) that they are not rational. Unfortunately, the same holds for the current US leadership.
Since I believe that there is chaos, happenstance and opportunism rather than reason, order and design in the world, the current situation creates a greater possibility of a nuclear war than any time during the cold war. Both Ahmadinejad and Bush seems to be gamblers and risk takers to achieve their objectives, and that may lead outcomes that neither side really intended but provoked them by their reckless gambling.
Therefore the threat of a nuclear war seems to be more real than ever during the past forty or so years since the Cuban Missile Crisis, which is quite depressing. Therefore, I prefer to believe that it is about sanctions.
Wojtek
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com