a country who actually has admitted to having a nuclear program and that defiantly refuses to stop that program (iran) has been given the ultimate warning: a referral to the UN security council. threats like this worked so well against saddam’s iraq…why not try it again? for reasons not to trust the UN in serious international affairs, read this. if sanctions imposed by the UN are not strongly enforced, and if the UN’s resolutions are ignored by rogue dictators with evil intent, what then?
do you want a man (iranian president mahmoud ahmadinejad) who makes statements such as these to have access to nuclear weapons? i think not.
victor david hanson has an excellent analysis here. he says:
When a supposedly unhinged Mr. Ahmadinejad threatens the destruction of Israel and then summarily proceeds to violate international protocols aimed at monitoring Irans nuclear industry, we all take note. Any country that burns off some of its natural gas at the wellhead while claiming that it needs nuclear power for domestic energy is simply lying. Terrorism, vast petroleum reserves, nuclear weapons, and boasts of wiping neighboring nations off the map are a bad combination.
there’s no simple solution for what exactly to do about iran, because each alternative comes with its own set of negative consequences, as hanson points out. for now, (even though i remain skeptical of the UN’s ability to successfully negotiate a satisfactory compromise for both sides) we should seek a diplomatic solution. the results of this effort should determine what steps to take next.
Iran defiant over nuclear warning–BBC
Q & A Iran nuclear stand-off–BBC
Bush, Merkel united on Iran’s nuclear threat – Jan 13, 2006— CNN.com
Victor Davis Hanson on Iran— NRO
Iran Threatens to End Nuclear Cooperation –Los Angeles Times
Let’s make sure we do better with Iran than we did with Iraq –some suggestions from across the pond (The Guardian). some are worth considering. some are not. judge for yourself.