Get used to nuclear armed tyrants.
Get used to nuclear armed tyrants.
Get used to nuclear armed tyrants.
What do you want me to say?
Get used to nuclear armed tyrants.
Obama sure is changing the way the world looks at us...
Back to “duck and cover” is it?
We have progressed so much in the last 50 or so years.
Don’t want a world of that sort.
Yes, I'm afraid so. The only thing that could stop this one is regime change in Iran, for which no one has the political will. I do not think that attacks on Iranian facilities will serve to end the threat, either to Israel or to the Western world at large.
The reason for this is that it has become clear that both the Russians and the Chinese regard the Iranian threat as more advantageous to themselves than detrimental. In the estimation of both it is a blow against the rather over-stated U.S. hegemony. In the estimation of the Chinese Iran is a source of natural resources sufficient to offset the loss of an already-fading U.S. market. It has validated this by its continued support of North Korea, an asset that serves only to challenge the U.S. strategically at a net loss financially for the Chinese. That part of the picture promises to push the U.S. back from its position in Asia, into which vacuum they intend to flow, especially with respect to Taiwan but southward as well, also with natural resources in mind.
For the Russians it promises a loosening of the restraints they have heretofore felt toward re-establishing control over the territories of the former Soviet Union. That and the possibility of a sudden hike in oil prices promises them a great deal of leverage throughout Europe. That prospect has Russian strategic planners salivating, as it does a Venezuelan despot who would be more than happy to create mischief in South America.
To the Chinese, however, it poses a bit of a problem. Locking in oil contracts with Iran can help ameliorate that. Possession of its own strategic reserves in the South China sea will also help.
This leaves the United States in a position of potential strength that its current administration has actively rejected, specifically with respect to petroleum independence through oil exploration and nuclear power development, nuclear deterrent through development of next-generation weaponry, and a commitment to anti-missile defense. What foreign strategic planners see is a three-year window within which the U.S. does not have an administration committed to U.S. interests - I can put it no more bluntly and no less accurately than that. They have until 2012 to take advantage of it and they intend to.