The Washington Post about the sanctions against the Revolutionary guards:
“The president does not want to be stuck — and doesn’t want his successor to be stuck — between two bad choices: living with an Iranian nuclear weapon or using military force to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons,” said Peter D. Feaver, who recently left a staff position on the National Security Council. “He is looking for a viable third way, negotiations backed up by carrots and sticks, that could resolve the Iranian nuclear file on his watch or, failing that, offer a reasonable prospect of doing so on his successor’s watch.” Even so, the administration’s actions yesterday immediately rekindled fears among Democrats and other countries that the administration is on a path toward war. Bush’s charged rhetoric in recent months, including a warning that Iran could trigger a “nuclear holocaust,” and his close consultations with hard-liners — such as former Commentary editor Norman Podhoretz — have led many outside the White House to conclude that the president will order airstrikes to eliminate any Iranian nuclear capability. “The choice of words has given rise to concerns about just how serious the president is about stopping Iran from crossing the nuclear threshold on his watch,” said Suzanne Maloney, an expert on Iran.
For those who oppose the action why? If President Bush saw war as a first option he’d be laying the groundwork for that now. But he’s trying to restrain Iran through diplomatic means. Why the objection? Is it a general objection to everything the administration does or is it because an Iranian nuclear capability isn’t something that worries his critics? As Allahpundit writes:
I wrote about this once before in the context of the Palestinians but it bears noting anew that sanctions are, theoretically, an option favored by the left precisely because they don’t involve military force. “We have other levers of power besides the Army,†they’re forever reminding us. Which is true; Bush is using one of those levers now. Are they happy? Of course not.
To Sen Clinton’s rivals this diplomatic maneuver is “saber rattling!” And Sen. Clinton sensitive to the criticism is already looking for a way out. more from memeorandum.
Crossposted on Soccer Dad.
Futile. The marginal utility of nukes for Iran’s foreign policy goals is so strong that there is no carrot or stick available, short of force, that will dissuade them from developing, and then using, nukes. All the diplomacy and talk has just made them contemptuous of the twits they deal with.
It seems that most of the Democrats’ leaders and the Europeans have decided that they are copacetic with a nuke-armed Iran. This is a view od remarkable shortsightedness and stupidity.
Iran wants nukes for genocide and imperial aggrandizement. They have been saying this for years, announcing how when “Islam” gets a bomb they will solve the problem of Israel with one blow. Gorilla Boy tells the Iranians that they should get used to ruling the world. His “national security adviser” described how Iran has a plan to destroy both the US and Britain by destroying 29 specific sites in those countries. The complete destruction necessary for this plan seems to me to require the use of nukes, so the US in in Iran’s crosshairs as well as Israel. Gorilla Boy wants to sow chaos to bring the 12th Imam out of occultation. (If he was a Chrstian and spoke of starting a nuclear war to bring about the Second Coming everybody in the West would know what he meant and be frothing at the mouth to have us take him out, but because he’s a “third-worlder” and speaks in Islamic Shi’a terms they don’t take him seriously.) The Iranians are openly preparing for starting a nuclear war, including using terrorist attacks to deliver them. And people are complacent about these religious fanatics getting nukes? Unbe-fricking-lievable.