I Really Hope the Financial Times Has It Wrong.

From the Financial Times (non-subscription link here), via Intel Dump:

"The Bush administration's warnings that it will not "tolerate" a nuclear-armed Iran have opened up a lively policy debate in Washington over the merits of military strikes against the Islamic republic's nuclear programme.

Analysts close to the administration say military options are under consideration, but have not reached a level of seriousness that indicate the US is preparing actual action.

When asked, senior officials repeat that President George W. Bush is removing no option from the table - but that he believes the issue can be solved by diplomatic means.

Diplomacy yesterday appeared stalled.

All I can say is, I hope they're wrong.

Comments

[crionna]

What I hope is wrong is this:

Henry Sokolski, head of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center, says the US and its allies are in a state of denial, that it is too late to stop Iran from getting the bomb. It already has the capacity, he says.

Also interesting is the discussion about how Israel's reaction would hurt our efforts. I mean isn't Israel Iran's main target anyway? I don't think they'll care too much that their bombing of Iran might cost us what little political capital we've gained. Nor can I honestly blame them.

[Jonas Cord]

All I can say is, I hope they're wrong.

I doubt it. Maybe sanctions, maybe bombing of the program, maybe both.

After the election, of course.

[lightning]

Remember, too, the Rumsfeld Doctrine -- that we can take over a country with airstrikes, plus Chuck Norris and Sylvester Stallone on the ground. No need for any of that messy, expensive Army stuff.

As Jonas said above, after the election. Even if Bush loses.

[Blue]

"Remember, too, the Rumsfeld Doctrine -- that we can take over a country with airstrikes,"

Are you sure you don't have that confused with the Clinton doctrine?

See Serbia. See Serbia get bombed from the air. See Serbia surrender.

"Ground troops?
After his public remarks, Clinton ignored a question shouted from reporters about ground troops."

That crazy Rumsfeld... what could he possibly thinking...

[kenB]

Are you sure you don't have that confused with the Clinton doctrine?

Clinton was trying to take over Serbia? Silly me, I thought he was just trying to get them to leave Bosnia and Kosovo alone. Live and learn.

[Blue]

kenB,

Bush is trying to takeover Iraq?

Somebody better notify the Iraqi PM... and cancel the vote for January.

And tell the Iraqi Army that there is no need to build up their forces... Bush wants to take over!

Are you sure that Bush's real goal isn't to help the Iraqis get into a position so that they can run their own country and take care of their own problems?

[kenB]

Bush is trying to take over Iraq?

Isn't that what we did, even if (hopefully) temporarily? There was never any expectation that we were going to get rid of the Serbian government and rebuild it from scratch, but that seems to have been the plan in Iraq all along.

But anyway, I'll stop now -- I wasn't trying to defend the original comment, I just don't think our Iraq and Balkan engagements are comparable.