Friday, December 14, 2007

Trigger Happy

Charles Krauthammer has a Viewpoint commentary in last week's Time magazine. The commentary is about Iran and the most recent National Intelligence Estimate report saying that Iran has "not restarted its previously suspended covert nuclear-weaponization program."

Krauthammer is pleased with the report. He says for him, "good news is good news, whether from Iraq or now from Iran", as opposed to what good news from Iraq would be for him if he was a Democrat...bad news. I just love this all too obvious jab at the left in the first paragraph of the article. Because the left doesn't support the administration's decision to invade Iraq and to stay there indefinitely, they must not want the country to succeed at all over there. It makes perfect sense.

Moving on. Actually, I have only one last bit to share with you. Krauthammer's last paragraph on Iran and continuing international pressure on them reads as follows:

The military option may not be necessary right now. If weaponization has been suspended, the window for sanctions has been widened. But there is no reasonable argument for taking military action off the table. If the Iranians refuse to negotiate seriously--their new negotiator says all previous negotiations are void and talks now return to square one--the military option needs to be on the table and in plain view.


I sincerely doubt that if the NIE reported that Iran had restarted its nuclear weaponization program Krauthammer would doubt the report's accuracy like he does by beginning sentences with "If weaponization has been suspended". That is what the report says, of course with moderate confidence. Wouldn't you trust a "moderate confidence" from the NIE over a most assuredly from the inner circle of this administration at this point?

There is also this nugget. "But there is no reasonable argument for taking military action off the table."

Going into Iraq seems like a reasonable argument for taking military action off the table. That doesn't seem to have worked out too well for the world. Of course, the Iraq invasion may only be a reasonable argument for taking military action off the table if Iran is close to Iraq, is a Muslim nation, is bloated with oil, and has some anti-American sentiment within its borders.

I'm bad in geography, economics, religious studies, anthropology, and political science, but I could be wrong. Who knows?

4 comments:

Alex said...

And what do you think of Obadiah Shoher's arguments against the peace process ( samsonblinded.org/blog/we-need-a-respite-from-peace.htm )?

Aaron said...

This is a sick post.

Bryce said...

Thank you.

Bryce said...

Oh, and I don't think these arguments against the peace process are very good. I went to the site and couldn't finish reading through the "respite from peace" rationale because I find it too irrational and incompetent.