I was surprised by Bush's response yesterday to the question of Iran's desire for nuclear weaponry.
I would never trust the Russians with Iran's nuclear enrichment and spent fuel. I mean really. The Russians are dying to get back into the superpower game and they discovered they don't have what it takes to do it on merit. They have to do it diabolically, so what else is new? Mind you, Russia plan 'not enough' for Iran.Russia's offer to enrich uranium for Iran behalf is "not sufficient" to end the nuclear stand-off, Iran says.
Condi, Condi, Condi................her capitulation, the single most depressing development on the world stage. Unlike Rummy and Cheney, Condi is not the warrior I had expected.
As Secretary of State, she has become the leader of the appeasers. She opposes the most basic fundamental democratic ideals --- independence for the Kurds, stopping the Iranian WMD program, secure borders for Israel, and honest dialog (at the recent DOS Ramadan dinner with CAIR guests she lauded Islam as, not just a religion of "peace", but a religion of "peace and love" and the provider of "beneficence" to the United States here (hat tip MarcH)
I saw Bolton last night at AIPAC and while his remarks were off the record - there was nothing new here. Condi has shunted Bolton away form the real action (NSC, Near East Bureau, WMD Bureau) to the UN where he can only tilt at wind mills.
This "realist," incentive-fond sentiment has been powerfully present in Foggy Bottom, which now dominates foreign policy--particularly Iran policy--in the Bush administration. Truth be told, the important voices at the State Department on Iran, which comprise now and then the Near East Bureau diplomats but especially the Europeanists riding high under Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, would have preferred to adopt a strategy geared more toward carrots than sticks. Engagement is a reflex at State: If diplomacy is seen essentially as a substitute for, not an intimately intertwined complement to, the threat and use of force, this disposition is unavoidable.
America is fully aware of the Iranian threat. A FOX News poll said Americans think Iran is the country that poses the greatest immediate danger to the United States. Americans Would Back Military Action in Iran Dispute, Poll Says (Bloomberg) -- A majority of Americans would support the U.S. taking military action against Iran if it continues to produce material that can be used to develop nuclear weapons.
Wouldn't cleaning out Iran make the mission in Iraq all that much easier?
CHENEY/GINGRICH '08 (if FDR could run the country from a wheelchair, Cheney can run the country with a pacemaker)
"If Iran goes nuclear, it will demonstrate conclusively that even the world's greatest superpower, unrivalled militarily, under a leadership of proven willingness to take bold military steps, could not stop a country as destabilizing as Iran from achieving its nuclear ambitions. No country in a region that is so riven by religious and ethnic hatreds will feel safe from the new regional superpower. No country in the region will be confident that the US and its allies will be able or willing to protect them from a nuclear strike by Iran. Nor will any regional power fear that the US and its allies will act to prevent them from emulating Iran. Say hello to a nuclear Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia" -- Times of London columnist Gerard Baker. (hat tip WSJ Political Journal)
UPDATE: January 28th
A day after President George W. Bush gave public support to a Russian proposal to end the Iran nuclear crisis, the US administration said it did not su[pport the plann 100% percent, here
The United States has said that we find the Russian proposal to be interesting and it might be a good way to proceed with negotiations. We've never said that we accept every detail in that proposal," said Nicholas Burns, the assistant secretary of state for political affairs.
In a word? Good!