Home Store In Memoriam Deborah Newsletter Forum Topics Blogfeed Blogroll Facebook MySpace Contact Us About

Iran's uranium enrichment not grounds for invasion, so what next?

Reported by Chrish - April 13, 2006

Big Story guest Lawrence Eagleburger confirmed today 4/12/06 that Iran is at least 3-5 years away from developing a nuclear bomb, and Bush may not get to bomb them after all. Well, maybe late in this term.

James Rosen reported that current Secretary of State Condaleezza Rice called on the UN Security Council to take "strong steps" when they reconvene to discuss Iran later this month, and she downplayed recent reports that the US is preparing for military action against Iran. Yet she has no doubt in her mind that if the Iranians continue on this course there will have to be "some course of action" by the UNSC, and it won't be another statement.

The former Secretary of State Eagleburger was the sole guest. Gibson introduced the segment wondering how the US should handle "Iran's defiant regime" and asked LE if the US could afford to allow Tehran to build a bomb? After stating emphatically "No", Eagleburger then said that it might happen anyway, and if it does it will be an historic mistake on our part which we would deeply regret "no more than a generation from now."

During most of the segment Eagleburger shared the screen with (besides the rotating FOX logo, waving US flag, clock, stock info, news ticker [terror level : elevated is STILL running every three minutes, lol] and fearful chyrons) various images of warships, huge guns, missiles, radar equipment, an airport (?), and audiences of Middle Eastern men.

Eagleburger says it would take the Iranians at least three years, and he would guess five (Comment: the eminently qualified Middle-eastern expert Juan Cole says "a good ten years") but just the fact that they've "begun to deal with the uranium that way...", once you've passed that stage, then it only becomes a matter of time until you can put a bomb together.

No more mincing words: Gibson asks "Can the US take military action ? Can we bomb something to stop them?"

Eagleburger thinks if we have to, but we're not there yet and given the reluctance of Russia and China (comment: to start WWIII) Bush won't be able to for some time. His exact words:

"In the end if sanctions and 'so forth' don't work, and if we are intent on not letting them build the bomb, then in fact we are going to have to resort to military activity and I'm not at all sure it could be directed simply at the facilities where they're trying to make the bomb , I'm not sure we know where all of them are. So it could well mean we have to go at the Iranians in terms of some other facilities as well, but again , that is some way down the road and it will take a lot of courage to do it, particularly if we can't get anybody else in the world to join us."

Asked by Gibson if this decision has to be made in the current Bush administration, Eagleburger replies that if he could put it off he probably would, but his view iisthat it will have to be made in this term, perhaps towards the end. (Comment: Bush goes out with a bang, eh?) He says if we wait for the next administration it may be too long.

Gibson then asks "If we let them have a bomb, will they use it - on us?" Eagleburger says they may never use it, but the fact that it is there , hanging over our heads, totally changes the perspective of how the US deals with the world in general and Iran in particular.

Comment: The Bush administration can't conjour the imminent threat like they did with Iraq so will have to change tactics to do what they are apparently planning to do. Just as they refuse to believe Iran's claim that they only want to develop nuclear energy plants, the American people are increasingly disbelieving the Bush administration's fearmongering tactics to make more war ( and the war profits that go with it.)

For Eagleburger to paint as "courageous" a rogue pre-emptive attack without world support that will probably start WWIII and end our lifestyles as we've known them is spin at its most dangerous.

Comments
Post a comment




Remember Me?


We welcome your opinions and viewpoints. Comments must remain civil, on-topic and must not violate any copyright or other laws. We reserve the right to delete any comments we deem inappropriate or non-constructive to the discussion for any reason, and to block any commenter for repeated violations.

Your email address is required to post, but it will not be published on the site.