I speculated as much myself. A. Q. Khan was kind of the Wal Mart of nuclear weapons to the rogue regimes of the Middle East.

Wretchard has some interesting commentary on what will happen if/when Iran does go nuclear.

Iran.

My spider sense tells me this warrants another "strongly worded" letter.

...and the suicide of Europe continues.

Scary article Monty, will Bush pull the trigger?

Pablo:

Will Bush pull the trigger?

Sigh. I wish I knew. This is an extraordinarily scary situation with no obvious resolution. We are faced with a situation where an avowed enemy of both ourselves and of Israel is on the cusp of gaining the capability to murder hundreds of thousands of us in a single strike. These enemies are not amenable to diplomacy, control a significant amount of a critical resource (oil), and have powerful patrons (Russia and China).

The real question is: can we live with a nuclear Iran? If not, we have no choice: we will have to change Iran's regime by force. And Israel may act without us if we move too slowly.

But the political dimension is difficult to call. Will George W. Bush undertake another major regional conflict with two more still brewing? Does the U.S. have sufficient military capability to bring off such a thing?

It scares the hell out of me to say it, but here's what I think: we will try to take out Iran's nuclear capability, we will fail on the first pass, and Iran will strike back (probably at Israel) with a nuclear weapon. Israel will respond in kind. Then....

....I wake up in a cold sweat.

This is a deeply scary time.

Didn't Francis Fukuyama assure us that this was the "end of history"?

"Iraq Closer To Bomb Than Thought, Thanks To Pakistan"

This, Ace, may be the Freudian slip to define our times.

It scares the hell out of me to say it, but here's what I think: we will try to take out Iran's nuclear capability, we will fail on the first pass, and Iran will strike back (probably at Israel) with a nuclear weapon. Israel will respond in kind. Then....

....I wake up in a cold sweat.

This is a deeply scary time.

Hey, look on the bright side: if we hadn't committed all our troops to Iraq, there'd be 500 mushroom clouds over America now. Right? Or, even worse, Saddam would have given Iran his oh-so-advanced nuclear program, and then they'd have allied against us, since they're all Arabs or Muslims or something, you know, Islamofascists without borders.

So at least we've got a head start.

Scarshapedstar, the military option with Iran was no more attractive in 2003 than it is now. So your reference to Iraq misses the point.

There is nothing we can or could do in that part of the world without getting Iraq out of the way first.

scarshapedstar:

We'll overlook the fact that WMD's were only one of many casus belli for going to war in Iraq; if you choose to think it was the only one, you are free to continue to be wrong. No skin off of my nose. And really, from a positioning standpoint, we are in a better position to address the Iran problem now that we're in Iraq and Afghanistan -- the two countries that flank Iran. Think airbases, forward operating bases, long-range artillery, recon, etc. Iran can cause us a lot of grief in southern Iraq, but we can cause them a lot of grief too.

I have yet to hear a coherent Leftist position on why Iran's nuclear program is anything other than a dire threat. Do you honestly think that Ahmadinejad and his nutty cadre are reasonable caretakers of a nuclear arsenal? Do you honestly think Israel will refrain from attacking if we shirk our own responsibility? You tell me, scarshapedstar: what choices do we have? Do you really honestly think that diplomacy is going to magically make the problem disappear?

And what of China and Russia? Absent any military threat from the U.S., what's their motivation to support a sanctions regime against Iran that will only hurt their own economies to a far greater degree than Iran's?

Or, even worse, Saddam would have given Iran his oh-so-advanced nuclear program

You guys really ought to stop with the 'no wmd' meme. It didn't help in '04, it won't help in '06. It just makes you look ridiculous.

Iran, Iraq, what's the difference.

Scarshapedstar and his ilk think we deserve a nuking....after all isn't the US and Bush the worst terrorists in the world. We took Indian lands, we imprisoned the Japanese, and we used a nuke to "end" a war that "might" have caused 2 million more US casulties.

They had parties when the Iraq war hit 2000 casulties, imagine what they will do when a couple million get incinerated.

Millions dead they can blame on Bush.

Bush won't be pulling any triggers. He has no "operating room" for military action. It's not even on the table.

Secretly, I suspect many Europeans wish the Cowboy would fix the problem, so that they can criticize any and all outcomes. But we are otherwise engaged cleaning up another mess.

Iran will develop their weapons, and we'll prove the fecklessness of the diplomatic approach. The Russians wanted to take over the world too, but at least they were sane.

The real threat is that Iran will use an intermediary to attack the US. Hopefully, if that happens, Jake Bush, great-great-great grandson of former president Jeb Bush may demonstrate the difference between a suitcase nuke, and an ICBM launched model.

Or, we could have an internal revolution within Iran.

Steve O

Ace,

Fix your headline. You named the wrong country.

This doesn't have anything to do with the finding of Iraqi scientists in the Libyan nuke program. (With yet another set of AQKhan's expansion of documents declassified under Carter.)

So why 'Iraq'?

Hey, look on the bright side: if we hadn't committed all our troops to Iraq, there'd be 500 mushroom clouds over America now. Right? Or, even worse, Saddam would have given Iran his oh-so-advanced nuclear program, and then they'd have allied against us, since they're all Arabs or Muslims or something, you know, Islamofascists without borders.

I'm pretty confident that just because Iran was actively and openly pursuing a nuclear weapon, Iraq, an avowed an active enemy who had recently engaged in a decade long war with Iran during which WMD's were used would have no interest in a nuclear weapon. That would be like Pakistan and India racing each other for a nuclear weapon. That would be like A. Q. Khan actively giving out nuclear technology to anyone who was willing to pay the price regardless of ideology.

I mean why would Iraq, a country suffering under economic sanctions and under the control of a ruthless dictator pursue nuclear weapons while his people suffered? You don't see Kim Il Jong in N. Korea doing anything like this do you?

Why does the left have to wait until a country is actually armed before they start to worry and find a way to blame Republicans? Why can't they try to use intelligence and deduction in a pro-active way? Why do they have to be so frigging dumb and seek power which will endanger all of us?

I speculated as much myself. A. Q. Khan was kind of the Wal Mart of nuclear weapons to the rogue regimes of the Middle East.

Did you know that 76% of his nuclear weapons scientists were promoted from hourly positions?

He's big on promoting from the ranks.

Bush won't be pulling any triggers. He has no "operating room" for military action. It's not even on the table.

Why would you say that? As far as I know Bush still has free reign for any military action less than 60 days, which would be more than enough time to set Iran's nuclear program back years.