War with Iran is inevitable, according to the Inquirer.
Topic: Bush Administraiton

I found this article in the Inquirer interesting. According to Warren P. Strobel, John Walcott and Jonathan S. Landay of the Inquirer Washington Bureau:

"The evidence that Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons is stronger and more widely accepted --- internationally and within the U.S. government --- than the Bush administrations' flawed case about Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction four years ago."

Is it? Maybe, in some circles inside the White House and pentagon but internationally? Just last week, even after Iran claimed to have enriched uranium, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said he wasn't convinced. Iran "never stated that it is striving to possess nuclear weapons," he said. The jury is still out also on what India, Turkey, China and whole bunch of other countries think about Iran's intentions.

Even if the Iranians do want nukes, though, they won't have the capability to make them for years. U.S. intelligence estimates still say Iran is 5 to 10 years away, but, the Inquirer says, "Some independent experts put it at as little as three years." Of course, they don't say who these "independent" experts are. Could it be one of those former Israeli intelligence officers making the rounds in the U.S. saying Iran is not far from the "point of no return?"

And the article says, "There's good reason to question" the CIA's estimates: "The CIA was surprised, for example, when India conducted underground nuclear tests in May 1998." Yes, but the Indians lied to us about what they were doing and they didn't sign the NPT. Iran has and does get inspected. And a lot of what the CIA said about Iraq was actually right, but W. & CO. were manufacturing their own intelligence in the bowels of the pentagon to make sure all caveats were dismissed.

Maybe if we had access to A.Q Khan, we could figure out what exactly he gave the Iranians, but until recently our good friend Pervez Musharraf hasn't be too helpful. I read recently that the CIA was being giving limited access to Khan but that he might be just telling them what they want to hear in order to get better treatment. Where have we heard that before?

Couldn't we just talk to the Iranians?

"The administration has rejected the only other diplomatic course: direct talks with Iran about it nuclear program. A growing number of analysts and former top U.S. officials argue that the White House should reconsider."

Sounds reasonable, but the Inquirer goes on to say, "There's no guarantee that diplomacy, either through the U.N., or one-one, can succeed, and President Bush is adamant that Iran can't be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons. That stance, and Iran's pledge that it will proceed with more centrifuges, means that U.S. air strikes, among then the large enrichment facility at Nantaz, might be the only option."

Well, that's that. One-on-one negotiation with Iran might fail, so we're not even going to try. Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition! This is the best the Inquirer's senior Washington staff can come up with? Making Bush's case for another war? Nice going Fourth Estate!