If I were the Iranian government, I would make every effort to make sure that my country did build a nuclear deterrent -- precisely because the US (and Israel) is such a menace in the region. If Iran gets the bomb, the US has nobody to blame but itself. I actually also predict that as a matter of realpolitik that a Middle East with a nuclear-armed Iran would be a much more stable and safer place because it would take the question of an attack on Iran off the table. I certainly would be a lot less alarmed at a nuclear-armed Iran than I am at the reality of a nuclear-armed Pakistan, a far more unstable place. I don't think that's a reason to attack Pakistan either.
--- Robert Wrubel <bobwrubel at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Michael wrote:
> "But whether fired by indignation and rhetorical
> zeal,
> or just because aliquando bonus dormitat Homerus, he
> (Andie)has let slip an expression which certainly
> appears to put the question of intervention very
> much
> on the table -- and frame the question, moreover, in
> a
> way rather more favorable to it than not. "
>
> Furthermore, on re-reading Andie's comment, I see he
> states that failing to take a position against the
> Iranian regime will "let them build a bomb."
> That being the central position of the
> administration's argument for attacking Iran, I'm
> sure
> that was an inadvertence on Andie's part.
>
>
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com