Iran is nuclear. So then what?

Two things, I suspect.

1) They’ll yell “Allahu Ackbar!” and bomb Israel and, a few minutes after that, discovers that Israel is also a nuclear power. Holy cow, they’re a totally mature nuclear power! When did that happen? Iran is not likely to be the only country in the region that will become painfully aware of the whole “Israel is, in fact, a nuclear power” thing.

2) Iran says “Yes! We are a nuclear power!” followed closely by “Holy crap, there are a lot of rules we have to follow now and sitting at the big kids’ table sucks, and we now have to discuss certain things at the UN that we never did before and we’ve now got to deal with a huge number of problems that we never had to deal with before and, holy crap, we just got a note from the Israeli embassador that Israel is a nuclear power and has missiles pointed pretty much everywhere there are more than 7 buildings?”

I suspect the latter is much, much more likely if only because the leaders of any given country tend towards deep cynicism rather than true belief. True believers are easily gamed. Only the most cynical rise to positions of real leadership.

I voted for Charles Jay. Let’s get some people who believe in, like, the liberty of the individual in the White House and see what happens when we try to engage in vigorous commerce.

My part of the world *NEEDS* more Persian restaurants, for example. This problem will not be rectified with smartough diplomacy.

Almost without notice, a small initiative to help democratic reformers in Iran is moving through the U.S. Congress. The notion is disarmingly simple: With a small investment of money, the U.S. government can help Iranian citizens get around efforts by the Iranian regime to block their use of the Internet to communicate with each other and the outside world…….the Victims of Iranian Censorship Act — or Voice — a piece of legislation that, at its core, authorizes the U.S. government to develop proxy Web servers and Web addresses beyond the reach of the Iranian government, and to deploy technologies that would allow Iranians to go to those sites anonymously to stay in touch with one another and the outside world via the Internet…So a group of senators from across the spectrum — Democrats Ted Kaufman of Delaware and Robert Casey of Pennsylvania, Republicans Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Mr. McCain, and independent Joe Lieberman of Connecticut — introduced the legislation jointly. In late July it passed the Senate as part of a bigger defense-authorization bill…The idea is uncomfortable for the Obama administration, largely because some advocates of Internet-freedom legislation have in mind helping Chinese dissidents, not Iranian democracy protesters. Wrangling with China’s leaders, on whom the U.S. is depending for help with, among many other things, putting pressure on Iran, is a much trickier proposition. Still, some simple ideas are hard to resist. My emphasis.

So: Obama is uncomfortable with a cheap and easy Cosmo solution so as to bombard Iran with our cultural detrious because it interferes his efforts to suck up to China, which he needs so as to put pressure on Iran. I realize that I’m logic-challenged sometimes, but I don’t see any sense in this at all. Do you?Otherwise, what chance does your Cosmo solution have to cause a peaceful solution in the region if Obama won’t use it and instead insists on his bankrupt smartough diplomacy?

No need to emulate the Jews; just emulating the Greek Cypriot or Sudeten German populations would leave the inhabitants of the West Bank, Gaza, and the camps (and those living proximate to them) a great deal better off than they are today.

Don’t remind me! And I do think you have a good point.

Are you bowing to the “inevitable” [a nuclear Iran] and then just hoping against hope that the regime will “inevitably” fall into the hands of some peaceful Green Revo Kids? Therefor, all we have to do is bombard them with our cultural detritus and other “tools” and they’ll be hooked and think we’re awesome. Problem solved.

I’m sure they love us and give soldiers flowers and/or candy whenever one happens to walk by.

“I’ll settle for their not being able to do us—or anyone else—any harm.”

With aspirations as high as that, have you ever considered libertarianism?

We’ll be able to keep them from getting a bomb about as well as we kept Pakistan from getting one.

Or do you have faith in Obama?

Oooh, let me guess. Japan? Germany?

For the record, if we drop an atom bomb or two on Iran, get a full surrender, occupy it for 40 years, I suspect we may be able to turn it into a trading parter/rival.

“Do we want the people in charge of the government with a nuclear weapon in, say, a decade to have good feelings about how awesome the US is or do we want them to feel about us the way, say, Iraqis do?”

I’m not sure about the feelings of Iraqis. Do they hate our guts to a man, like everyone else does, because of Bush?

Anyhow, I don’t really care if Iranians feel that we’re “awesome” in ten years or not. I’ll settle for their hegemonic designs being neutralized. I’ll settle for their not being able to do us—or anyone else—any harm. Then they can feel however they want to. They will never be neutralized and they will always have the potential to do us harm if they have nuclear weapons. That’s the whole problem, not if and when “historical inevitability” will kick in and make things OK again.