Read other letters about this article
I think you are right, Glenn, in condoning the Pavlovian defense by Obama supporters of any action of the president-elect whatever its merit. I was also encouraged by the NIE's statement. However, concerns are legitimate as witnessed by IAEA's Director General Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei's statement to the Board of Governors on November 28, 2008:
There remain a number of outstanding issues, relevant to the alleged studies and associated questions identified in my last report to the Board, which give rise to concerns and need to be clarified in order to exclude the existence of possible military dimensions to Iran“s nuclear programme. Regrettably, the Agency has not been able to make substantive progress on these issues. Iran needs to clarify as a matter of transparency the extent to which information contained in the relevant documentation is factually correct and where, in its view, such information may have been modified or relates to non nuclear purposes. Iran should also provide the Agency with substantive information to support its statements and provide access to relevant documentation and individuals. Unless Iran provides such transparency, and implements the Additional Protocol, the Agency will not be able to make progress in its efforts to provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran. I also still regret the fact that the Agency has not been able to share with Iran documentation provided by Member States. I call upon the Member States concerned to authorize the Agency to do so. (http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/News/2008/bog271108.html)
Does that justify Obama's wording on Stephanopoulos' program, particularly, if you consider the last two sentences of the quote? Certainly not but I would not play down the nuclear threat by Iran as much as you do. After all, the Iranians are no dummies, and they will certainly ponder the lesson from Irag/North Korea: Get the bomb and you won't get invaded ....