Support your
friendly 501(c)(3)

« Afghan Withdrawal Date Would Be 'Strategic Mistake' | Main | McChrystal's Frank Talk on Afghanistan »

There Are Only Two Choices Left on Iran

There Are Only Two Choices Left on Iran - Eliot A. Cohen, Wall Street Journal opinion.

Unless you are a connoisseur of small pictures of bearded, brooding fanatical clerics there is not much reason to collect Iranian currency. But I kept one bill on my desk at the State Department because of its watermark - an atom superimposed on the part of that country that harbors the Natanz nuclear site. Only the terminally innocent should have been surprised to learn that there is at least one other covert site, whose only purpose could be the production of highly enriched uranium for atom bombs.
Pressure, be it gentle or severe, will not erase that nuclear program. The choices are now what they ever were: an American or an Israeli strike, which would probably cause a substantial war, or living in a world with Iranian nuclear weapons, which may also result in war, perhaps nuclear, over a longer period of time...

More at The Wall Street Journal.

Comments (2)

Did I miss the memo? When did we move into this black and white world of only having two choices on Afghanistan, Iran, or anything else? This type of thinking is not only limiting and lacking, it is dangerous.

v/r

Mike

The WSJ headline is misleading - the writer suddenly discovers a third choice in the last para. How choice three works is left to the reader's imagination, however.

Post a comment


After pressing Post, it will probably take a while (15-30 sec?) for your comment to register and pages to rebuild. Please be patient.

About

This page contains a single entry posted on September 28, 2009 3:47 AM.

The previous post was Afghan Withdrawal Date Would Be 'Strategic Mistake'.

The next post is McChrystal's Frank Talk on Afghanistan.

Creative Commons License
This weblog is licensed under a Creative Commons License.
Powered by
Movable Type 3.33