<p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><font face="Verdana" style="font-size: 9px;">quote:</font><br />
<p>On the other hand, I don't see Iran experts -
including neocon Ken Pollack - too worried about what this means about
Iran's intentions. The assumption is that Iran is going to join the
nuclear club in the next 5 to 10 years, and, in part, thanks to the
Iraq war, there's nothing we can do about it. But they're not going to
attack Israel with them, (Israel has 200 nukes more advanced than any
Muslim country will ever have), or be in any way as irrational or
threatening as North Korea is and will continue to be. Instead, they
will use it as a political tool the same way every other nuclear
country does - to gain leverage in it's affairs, to get economic and
political concessions, and to add nuclear deterrance to it's security
arsenal. It's not good that Iran will go nuclear - but it's not the
nightmare scenerio pundits make it out to be.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p>A few quibbles Daddy-o. </p><p> Source (http://www.wnyc.org/blog/lehrer/archives/000243.html) </p><p><font face="Verdana" style="font-size: 9px;"> quote:</font></p><p> </p><p> </p>
<p>Today is the 25th anniversary of the <a href="http://www.jimmycarterlibrary.org/documents/hostages.phtml">Iranian Embassy hostage crisis</a>.
A quarter-century later, relations with Iran are nearly as tense as
they were then, with large numbers of US troops deployed in Iraq and
Afghanistan, just beyond Iran's eastern and western borders.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.brook.edu/scholars/kpollack.htm">Ken Pollack</a> is a "liberal hawk", an interventionist Democrat whose 2002 book <em>The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq</em> has since proved to contain many false assumptions about Iraq's weapons capabilities (for a mea culpa, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/24/magazine/24QUESTIONS.html">click here</a>). </p>
<p>On tomorrow's show, Pollack asks us to trust him again--this time on Iran. His new book, <a href="http://www.randomhouse.com/randomhouse/catalog/display.pperl?1400063159"><em>The Persian Puzzle</em></a>
suggests that Iran's hard-line regime is not about to change, shouldn't
be meddled with, and stands a good chance of developing nuclear
weapons. Should we worry? Tune in tomorrow.</p>
<p> </p><br /><p> </p><blockquote /><p> </p>
<p><a target="blank" href="http://www.wnyc.org/shows/bl/episodes/11052004"> WNYC show about Pollack's latest book "Persian Puzzle" </a> <br />
</p><p> </p><p>He's
not a neocon, he works for the Brookings Institute. I found his case
unpersuasive. If we have a friendly government in Iraq we'll be in a
far better position to influence Iran than if we had never invaded
Iraq. We'll have permenant military bases set up there armed to strike
Iran on a moments notice. They'll not be able to threaten anyone with
nukes because we'll take them out before they can use them, so it's an
empty threat. Why do you think Pakistan has been so helpful in our war
on terror, at great personal risk to Pervez Musharref? He has nukes,
too. Colin Powell went there and explained to him that he had no choice
other than to cooperate.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p><br />
</p>
<img border="0" src="http://www.silentpix.com/hottub/bulldogsig/rotate.php" />
<a target="blank" href="http://bulldogcakes.tripod.com/index.html">My site Bully Baby</a>
"A dog recently saved his owner's life, because he had been trained to
dial 911. Unfortunately, operators had trouble finding the address
'woof, woof.'"-Norm MacDonald
<font color=black>This message was edited by Bulldogcakes on 12-16-05 @ 8:51 PM</font>