The story says, "U.S. officials insist they are not resigned to a nuclear Iran and are pressing negotiations to prevent it from joining the world's nuclear club. But at the same time, the administration has set in place the building blocks of policies to contend with an Iran armed with atomic weapons. Those elements, former officials and analysts said, include the newly revised defense shield for Europe and deeper defense ties to Gulf states that feel threatened by Iran."
The reality is the United States may prove unable to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Russia and China certainly aren't signing up for meaningful sanctions, and the Europeans have not even entertained the possibility of a military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities. So unless President Obama is willing to attack Iran's nuclear program, or Israel executes an attack with or without U.S. approval, there's not a whole lot that can be done. In that case, it makes perfect sense to now start formulating a long-range strategy designed to contain a nuclear Iran.
The story continues: "Andrew Kuchin, a Russia expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said administration officials are clearly 'thinking about' how to contain an Iran armed with nuclear weapons. 'It would be pretty irresponsible on our part if we didn't,' he said."
I couldn't agree more. We should still do everything possible to stop the acquisition of nuclear weapons by Iran, but we also shouldn't put all our eggs in the prevention basket.
The AP says, "The administration shies away from talking about a nuclear-armed Iran, believing that such talk implies that the U.S. has given up hope of stopping the Iranians from getting the bomb. 'It is our clear policy that an Iranian nuclear-weapons capability is unacceptable, and we are working with our allies and partners to ensure that Iran desists from working toward such a capability,' said Colin Kahl, the deputy assistant secretary of defense for the Middle East."
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gSJYokX4LaauEtC52JIShfvhl3HQD9BJKS600
Published by Greg Reeson
I am a Featured Writer for The New Media Journal and a The Veteran's Voice. I also regularly contribute to GOPUSA and The Land of the Free. View profile
- Should America Attack Iran? Should we invade Iran or should we sit on the sidelines waiting to see what happens?
-
Top Reasons to Stop Bush from Attacking Iran
Indications are that the American President has every intention to attack the nation of Iran in the coming months. Why we must stop him.
- Iran: Why Sanctions or Military Force by the U.S. Will Fail Iran wants us up front, and behaving as many on the Middle East claim, as imperialistic tyrants.
-
Iran - History
A history of Iran. 12 pages.
- Why Israel Dares Not and U.S Will Not Strike Iran Last month Iran broke United Nations seals on the uranium-enrichment facility at Natanz, triggering a diplomatic crisis that most believe almost certainly will lead to a standoff with United States, Britain and the Eu...
- Why We Should Not Militarily Strike the Islamic Republic of Iran
- Nuclear Weapons Strategy Delivered to Congress
- New Book Seeks to Prevent World War III with Iran
- United Nations Security Council Imposes New Sanctions on Iran
- A Self-Fulfilling Prophecy: Conservative America and Revolutionary Iran
- U.S. May Accept Nuclear Iran
- The Truth About Iran's Nuclear Threat
|
|
- 10 things you need to know today: February 11, 2012 (The Week)
- Grammy Awards preview: Top 5 reasons to watch (The Week)
- No Fun Allowed: L.A. Beaches Ban Footballs, Frisbees, and Sand Digging (ContributorNetwork)
- Good day, bad day: February 10, 2012 (The Week)
- Obama's birth control compromise: 'Still unacceptable'? (The Week)