Read other letters about this article

• Monday, January 12, 2009 11:52 AM

  Glenn, it's not about stopping a bomb program, but stopping Iran.

  William M said this awhile back,

  "...in truth if Iran enriches uranium (as it can legally do) it will be close to being able to make nuclear weapons. So there is a time factor. It is important to negotiate a timely settlement with Iran that will guarantee its security in exchange for its willingness to forego domestic uranium enrichment. This doesn't justify Obama's dangerous rhetoric, but it is important to keep in mind."

  There are a few other commenters here who have noted the difference between making power grade materials and weapons grade materials. And one noted that to pursue a bomb, one doesn't have to make a bomb.

  Obsfucating the conflation that I spoke about before does make it seem that Iran is more dangerous to Israel, or even the United States, than any U.N. observers or the U.S. intelligence agencies have evidence to support.

  I suspect Obama understands that Iran has no bomb and has no intention of building one. He's talking tough, based on his not publicly acknowledging the difference and significance between approx. 4% enrichment and 95%+ enrichment. There may even be a current military program to destabilize Iran's gov. or sabatoge the nuclear power infrastructure.

  I suspect all this is to justify the embargo and continuing effort to marginalize and undermine Iran. The purpose of that is to maintain and promote American influence in the area. The purpose is not about stopping some existing nuclear weapons program.

  —steven andresen Read steven andresen's other letters
  Permalink
  Flag
  Click "Submit Flag" if you feel this post is inappropriate. Explain why below if you wish.

  Cancel