Citing two unidentified sources, Newsweek said former Cheney Middle East adviser David Wurmser told a small group several months ago that Cheney was considering asking Israel to strike the Iranian nuclear site at Natanz.
A military response by Iran could give Washington an excuse to then
launch airstrikes of its own, Newsweek said.-- Reuters, September 23, 2007
Does that scare the crap out of anyone other then me? The same people who brought you a phony made up war in Iraq are looking to extend their forces even more and go right into another Middle Eastern country, only this time with potential nuclear consequences. Thankfully the Israeli government has yet to take up the Vice President on the offer.
I guess one should take solace in the fact that the leaders of the free world are able to learn from their mistakes, the last time that they tried a pre-emptive strike it did not work out according to plan so this time they need to retaliate. So congrats Cheney, you were able to live and learn. Hopefully you also learned how not to shoot someone in the face...hopefully....
The US and EU have been saying repeatedly that they want to try the diplomatic approach with Iran, although they have been doing a lot of sabre rattling recently. Including some tough talk from previous Dove-nation France, which shows that maybe Sarkozy-Royal may have been one of the most important elections of the 21st Century.
Now if diplomacy truly is the West's weapon of choice here, then I find it interesting that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's upcoming visit to the United Nations is being met with such protest in the United States. He plans to speak at Columbia University, where the school's President plans to press him on issues such as Human Rights and Holocaust Denial, this opportunity for debate seems to be overshadowed by intense public backlash.
Also, he had planned to lay a wreath at Ground Zero in New York, but many politicians said that his visit would "violate sacred ground". I find it absolutely crazy that he would not be allowed to visit the site of the attacks, and politicians saying that he should not be allowed to go totally confuses the issue. Remember, just like Hussein, Ahmadinejad had nothing to do with the September 11th attacks. So wouldn't him laying a wreath at the site be a huge symbol for co-operation and understanding between two nations poised for war? Is that not what diplomacy is all about?
I am not trying to defend the man is very clearly a megalomaniac, has a horrible record on human rights and has spouted off some of the least informed opinions on the planet. For the record that sentence was about Ahmadinejad and not Bush, I'll forgive your confusion.
My point is that if people are going to preach diplomacy then please practice it. In searching for a compromise sometimes you have to be willing to give as well as take. That could mean giving someone an opportunity for open debate or a chance to try and heal some old wounds.
Either way it sure beats nuclear war, doesn't it?
Until next time,