Today's OpinionJournal has this interesting editorial. The IAEA is scheduled to send Iran to the Security Council for its refusal to stop its nuclear program. Why it's taken this long, I don't know... I could've told el-Baradei that Iran wasn't going to stop its nuclear program 2 years ago, but I suppose that's the price of going the multilateral route.
Anyway, from a report this AM on FoxNews and from this editorial, it looks like some are still unsure as to whether this "provocative" step should be taken:
An 'Intolerable' Threat
What a world with an Iranian nuclear weapon would look like.
Friday, February 3, 2006 12:01 a.m. EST
As we go to press, the Governing Board of the International Atomic Energy Agency appears set to refer Iran to the U.N. Security Council. This supposedly indicates the seriousness with which the world views Tehran's decision to resume enriching uranium. Yet while the threat is very real, the seriousness is mostly pretend. The referral includes no call to action, which Russia and China object to in any event.
We will have future occasions to lament U.N. fecklessness vis-à-vis Iran. More worrisome is the hazy thinking about just what Iran's nuclear programs portend, and whether the risks of stopping it outweigh the risks of simply acquiescing in the "inevitable." For now, the weight of elite opinion, sighs and laments aside, seems to be on the side of acquiescence. And the Iranians know it.
"I would sleep happier if there were no Iranian bomb," writes former Times of London editor Simon Jenkins. "But a swamp of hypocrisy separates me from overly protesting it." Iran, he adds, "is a proud country that sits between nuclear Pakistan and India to its east, a nuclear Russia to its north and a nuclear Israel to its West. . . . How can we say such a country has 'no right' to nuclear defense?" In other words, what's the big deal?
Well, the deal is the combination of the world's most destructive weapons in the hands of clerical radicals who might use them. And even short of using them, Tehran's rulers could use the leverage of the bomb to dominate the Middle East and limit America's ability to defend itself and fight terrorism. Now that Saddam Hussein is in jail, the Iranian bomb is the gravest threat in the world to U.S. interests.
The ridiculous argument of hypocrisy appears yet again... it's so prevalent these days, employed to justify gay-bashing against Jeff GannonGuckert, blackmailing a US Senator to vote against Alito, and now to excuse the insanity of a nuclear armed Iran praying for Armaggedon.
The fact that Bush has been going the multilateral route regarding Iran should have comforted many of Bush's critics. Instead, as Bush takes a softer-line in foreign policy, his critics become even more pacifist.
ARC: St Wendeler