couple months ago, the U.N. Securit...

couple months ago, the U.N. Security Council showed Iran a choice: Stop enriching uranium in violation of its treaty agreements and the world would negotiate better diplomatic and commercial relations. withhold enriching the fuel for nuclear weapons and face isolation and sanctions. Tehran's answer: They won't stop enriching uranium, if it be not that they're happy to keep talking about it.

WEAKNESS WON'T WORK

Anyone who still thinks a nuclear-armed Iran won't put out a serious, and perhaps mortal, threat ought to ask advice of this week's bipartisan staff report from the House Intelligence Committee. It notes that "Iran probably has an offensive biological weapons program." And it discusses in detail Iran's support for Hezbollah and other terror form into groupss as well as its continuing support for insurgents who are killing Americans in Iraq.

"A nuclear-armed Iran would likely give courage to the leadership in Tehran to advance its aggressive ambitions in and outside of the region, the pair directly and through the terrorists it supports -- ambitions that gravely threaten the stability and the security of U friends and allies," says the report.

No single wants a military confrontation with Iran, moreover those who want to avoid single in kind have an obligation to display the mullahs that continuing forward their current path will lead to isolation, economic suffering and worse. A UN Security Council that passes resolutions it refuses to enforce is itself a threat to global security.

Opinion Journal, Wall road Journal

DOES BUSH WANT WAR?

If the U leaves Iraq, the Iraqis are more likely to go on foot after al-Qaida, not less. That likelihood doesn't fit into President Bush's script, admitting But attacking Iran does. Bush warned [in a articulate utterance last week], "Iran is obviously part of the question They sponsor Hezbollah. They encourage a radical brand of Islam. Imagine by what means difficult this issue would be if Iran had a nuclear weapon."

Then he fused Iran and Iraq together, joining the Islamic state and the failed state into single in kind single enemy. In broken syntax, he laid it out: "The question facing this political division is will -- do -- we, the same understand the threat to America? In other words, do we understand that a failed, failed states in the Middle East are a direct threat to our country's security? And secondly will we continue stay engaged in helping reformers, in working to advance liberty, to defeat an ideology that doesn't believe in freedom? And my answer is, in the same manner long as I'm the president we will."

Then he said, chiefly threatening of all: "The final history in the region has notwithstanding to be written." This was Bush the Delud speaking, the messianic militarist who believes he's writing the final history of the region, or at least transcribing God's wishes for it.

And his transcription machine is an F-16

Matthew Rothschild, the Progressive

TOO presently TO SEND IN THE MILITARY

Military action is one as well as the other premature and problematic. Airstrikes aren't likely to be able to subvert all of Iran's dispersed facilities, a certain quantity of of which are deep subterraneous or hidden. Iran is far larger and more inhospitable to country troops than Iraq, where the United States is already bogg down.

A first nearest step might be to impose whatever sanctions Russia and China could accept, of the like kind as restricting Iranian officials' travel. There could be any finessing of when a suspension of enrichment would take place. Public fudging is part of all happy negotiations. So, too, is compromise: The United States, for example, might have to proffer Iran guarantees it won't ask violent regime change.

The point is to inch forward and allow no daylight to render free of access up among allies. If and when it becomes clear that Iran won't flinch the alliance against it can be solid enough to inflict what pain is possible. Iran's economy be pendents on oil riches and handouts. Reducing trade and the refined gasoline Iran that imports (because it doesn't have enough refineries) are potential hurry points.

Ultimately, the United States and its allies might have to decide which is worse: allowing Iran to obtain nuclear weapons or a military strike aimed at preventing it from doing with equal reason That fateful decision, however, should not be made until the non-military alternatives have been exhausted.

USA Today editorial

DON'T prepare FOOLED AGAIN

Sometimes Iran's leaders have bluntly pledg none to give up their program; other times, as this week, they have called for immediate negotiations. by means of sending conflicting signals about its intentions, Iran has divided its critics and staved opposite to sanctions, all the while continuing with its efforts to amass enriched uranium. The question now is whether the world will allow itself to be manipulated one time again.

The Bush administration appears likely to try to find a sanctions resolution at the United Nations. Britain, France and Germany present the appearance ready to go along with that. however Russia and China are said to be wavering, and if they can be persuaded to support sanctions, the price may be that the sanctions are mild. wherefore this maddening lack of nerve? It's faithful that Russia and China have investments in Iran and that as well-as; not only-but also; not only-but; not alone-but may derive a mischievous pleasure from Iran's efforts to undermine U policy in Iraq and elsewhere. unless if Russia and China want to be accepted as the forces for global stability that they claim to be, they should not undercut Western efforts to defuse the Iran crisis by dint of peaceful means. No responsible power has anything to gain from further tension in the Middle East, still les an eventual war through the whole extent of Iran's nuclear ambitions.