Bloodless Coup

Ah, yes: "security externalities". I wonder if Condi Rice's vague memories of political science/International Relations reach back that far.

One would hope.

According to El Baradei, the IAEA has been prevented from its research, and it may not be ten years as in the Iraqi case, it may be months:
"And if they have the nuclear material and they have a parallel weaponization program along the way, they are really not very far - a few months - from a weapon."

Morris - And your point is .... what exactly?

The point of my post is that there's every reason to think that if we bomb their facilities they will just rebuild them, and perhaps do so with greater determination and urgency. Bombing a country tends to make you appear more of an urgent threat to them - which understandably leads them to act against you. I urge you to refer to American actions in the fall of 2001 if you don't get the point.

Not to mention the fact that we'd be pissing off 1) millions of Iranians who don't like their government but also love Iran, believe it should be a regional leader and don't want to see Iran humiliated and Iranians killed by Americans and 2) Iranian officials who have the ability to make life very difficult for both us - in Iraq - and the Israelis and 3) the new Iraqi leadership. Remember that the largest Iraqi party has pledged to attack the US if we attack Iran.

"Remember that the largest Iraqi party has pledged to attack the US if we attack Iran."

And Bush might say: "Bring it on!"

I think either we level Iran and North Korea right quick or we start getting used to new nuclear powers and turn our energy to something we're prepared to do something about. Seriously, all this thrashing to and fro, yet the Koreans already have them and Iran won't be far behind. A profound waste of resources for what amounts to a bunch of theatrical bullshit.

The cynic in me is starting to believe that it's only a matter of time before one of these countries (India and Pakistan actually concern me more than either Iran or North Korea) lashes out at an enemy with a nuclear attack. And then we flatten every city in the aggressor country, with perhaps one or two missiles flying from another nuclear power (England, anyone?) to emphasize the mutuality of the response. And then even the nutballs will realize we're serious.

That leaders may sometimes use suicide bombers and make other egregious sacrifices of their people in the streets and the trenches doesn't mean that even the most radical leaders are prepared to make that sacrifice themselves. I'd posit that few if any of them are, and none of those powerful enough to have reached nuclear status.

Another era of MAD will take hold. And we'll all live happily ever after, albeit in slightly irradiated form.

Seriously, late at night, I sometimes think this is how it will have to go down. But then what do I know. I'm just a lawyer. :-)

Bro,
If you think it's tough getting nations to sign on and abide by international treaties now, wait until more of them become nuclear powers. I cited the link that Iran may be months away because the article you'd linked to talked about how Israel had over reacted because Iraq wasn't close to developing a nuke when they'd bombed the Iraqi facility. That was the argument your article's authors made as to why Israel should have tried other means, and they make the parallel citing sources that say Iran may be five years away from developing a nuclear weapon. But the key word, as El Baredai notes, is may, because he and the ones who've actually been looking at the Iranian nuclear program have been kept from doing interviews and looking at other facilities besides the one with the torn IAEA seals on it, and they have found weapons grade nuclear material at least at one other site which they were let into after being kept out of for two months. The idea of these kinds of weapons being in the hands of people who don't believe certain countries have a right to exist bothers me. I agree that the better policy may be a regime change because Iran's election wasn't exactly done under international supervision.

What's the point of your last sentence? Just describe the actual process. Our elections aren't always conducted with international monitors - the presence or lack of monitors doesn't necessarily say anything about how representative the results are of the will of the people.

A nuke-armed Iran bothers me too. As does a nuke-armed Pakistan and India and China and North Korea and Russia - but the gist of the article was that bombing isn't really a long-term answer and can have very negative consequences. Exactly how close they are or aren't didn't strike me as key to that part of the argument.