While some people on the left side of the aisle believe they can live with a nuclear armed Iran, this piece "A nuclear-armed Iran would not be good" reminds us that it is not okay to tolerate a nuke-armed theocratic regime in the region:
"There is no doubt the US has given the deepest possible consideration to taking military action against Iran's nuclear plants. When I interviewed US Vice-President Dick Cheney earlier this year, he endorsed Republican senator John McCain's formulation that the only thing worse than a military confrontation with Iran would be a nuclear-armed Iran."
....
"A strike on Iran would be an awesomely dangerous and fraught action to take. Allowing Iran to develop nuclear weapons may be equally as dangerous. There are no good options."
5 comments:
Winston, what do you think of this?
And this?
me parece muy mal que Iran tenga armas nucleares. salu2
having Nuclear energy, either peaceful or whatever else, is a dangerous game the regime is playing.
There may not be any good options, but there is one that is worse and that's a nuclear armed Iranian regime.
Didn't we hear something similar about Iraq? That worked out well, didn't it?
Post a Comment