And the hell of it is, they'd be pretty much right. I still think Iraq was the right thing to do (especially since it was probably intended as a stepping stone to putting pressure -- and if need be military force -- on Iran), but if Iran actually is this close to having their own nuclear weapons, then *everyone* who let things slide this far bears the blame.
I am not sure about that conclusion.
We are in a better strategic position to do something about Iran with us holding Iraq and Afghanistan. Remember the absolute nonsense that Turkey put us through? We shouldn't have that problem if we have to take out Iran. We have bases in Afghanistan and Iraq; along with carrier power, Iran is in a dire position.
I frankly have a hard time believing this report just on those grounds. However, if the report is true, it makes far more likely that we are headed toward a true crisis with Iran. Iran is in a poor strategic spot -- it has us on its borders and with massive power that we can put in the waters off its coast. We can make effective use of Diego Garcia.
Pakistan certainly won't do it a lot of good, if for no other reason than because India will be watching them like a hawk. India shouldn't be any problem if we take out Iran; in fact, they will probably offer silent support if not active support.
As deranged as the mullahs are, I find it hard to believe that they are this nutty.
If we hold the neighbors Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iran, conversely, our strategic position is far better. Suddenly, we would have direct influence over a lot of the oil in the Middle East. That would calm China down a lot on its Taiwan bellowing.
I believe that it would also get some more money into our defense outlays -- and maybe it would even convince Rumsfeld to let the services grow a bit.