In today's Washington Post, former Virginia governor and U.S. Senator Chuck Robb (D) weighs in on an important topic: the urgency of upcoming negotiations with Iran given Robb's (and his co-authors') belief that "Iran will be able to produce a nuclear weapon by 2010." Robb et al.'s argument is that the United States needs to:1. "[Marshal] international support for more robust sanctions" against Iran
2. "[N]ot mistake process for progress" with negotiations and diplomacy.
3. Be prepared to ratchet up pressure on Iran, including "conduct[ing] overt military preparations, such as sending an additional carrier battle group to the Persian Gulf or holding military exercises in the region."
4. "If all else fails, in early 2010, the White House should elevate consideration of the military option" such as a "naval blockade" enforcing "an embargo on gasoline imports" into Iran, or ultimately "a U.S.-led military strike" against Iranian nuclear facilities.
Chuck Robb's hawkish op-ed comes as Holocaust-denying, opposition-torturing-and-murdering Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad prepares to visit the United Nations in New York, and Supreme leader Ali Khamenei claims "that the United States is falsely accusing the Islamic republic of trying to develop nuclear weapons" and undiplomatically called Zionism a "cancer".
Also today, there's an interesting op-ed by Jackson Diehl in the Washington Post about the lack of serious blowback against Israel for its war with Iran-backed, Islamic fundamentalist group Hamas in Gaza, as well as for its "bombing of a nuclear reactor under construction in Syria in September 2007." Diehl concludes:
As they quietly debate the pros and cons of launching a military attack on Iran's nuclear facilities, Israel's political and military leaders no doubt will be thinking about that history. That doesn't mean they will discount American objections -- Iran would be a far harder and more complex target, with direct repercussions for U.S. troops and critical interests in the region. But, as with Gaza, even a partial and short-term reversal of the Iranian nuclear program may look to Israelis like a reasonable benefit -- and the potential blowback overblown.The bottom line is that time is running out and that this could be an "interesting" next few months in the Middle East, especially if the international community fails - as it has done so many times the past few years - to seriously put a crimp in Iran's nuclear weapons program. Which is why it's so urgent that everyone get serious about stopping this through non-military means. If not, we could (soon?) be facing a situation that almost none of us want to see.
