http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/TheNote/story?id=156238>
In a get-tough speech on Iran delivered at Princeton University late yesterday, Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) said the United States "cannot take any option off the table in sending a clear message to the current leadership of Iran."
The Senator called on the United States to move "as quickly as feasible" for UN sanctions.
[...]
=========
Puting aside the general awfulness of Hilary Clinton, Imperial Stateswoman, for a moment the 'something must be done quickly about Iran' talk we're getting from liberals, conservatives and everyone in-between is an interesting phenomena.
Surely, no serious person is concerned Iran will construct nuclear weapons that will be used against her neighbors (or any country, really). I write this not because Iranian engineers and physicists couldn't build a fission weapon - I'm sure they can - but because there's no publically given reason for all this hyperventilating that makes real-world sense.
Yes, there's a lot of talk about Iran "supporting terrorism" and Ahmadinejad's anti Israel rhetoric but if distasteful rhetoric and state sponsored terrorism alone were an indication of the imminence of nuclear war we wouldn't be having this pleasant electronic conversation from our now strontium 90 free locales.
Iran isn't a country that can be easily pushed around or threatened - invasion scale military action would be an even greater disaster than the chaotic Iraqi venture (as sober minds within the Pentagon probably know) and "no fly zone" types of bombing sorties might not provide the easy kill zone for US air power a shattered Iraq was reduced to.
So what's the goal here? What is Washington and its friends after? Non-proliferation, as an answer, is a non starter - it's purpose is to limit membership in Club Atomic, not to rid the world of fission and fusion ordinance.
There's some other objective, no doubt hiding in plain sight.
.d.