"if 'crippling sanctions' and other strategies fail, military action will be on the table because it is 'unacceptable' for iran to become a nuclear power."
in light of the recent uproar over the report produced by the international atomic energy agency (iaea) claiming iran has made progress towards creating nuclear weapons, it's obvious that the united states and its allies are the only nations allowed to possess nukes. remember nukes? remember world war ii and the us bombings of hiroshima and nagasaki? in case you were absent on the only day these bombings were discussed in grade-school-history class, see the picture above of the carnage caused by us nukes dropped in japan.
after the iaea report's release, various political pundits and us officials began to call for tightening sanctions on iran with a not-so-subtle hint that an invasion is on the horizon. however, an invasion may not be necessary, as imposing crippling sanctions is a clever attempt at igniting regime change--harsh material conditions create an atmosphere ripe for insurgency. insurgents that the us and its nato buddies will undoubtedly support by provide millitary intelligence and weaponry.
it's beyond ironic that the us is now positioning itself as the bastion of morality on the issue of nuclear arms--it was the first country to create them and the only country to ever use them. while i don't believe any country should posesses weaponry that has the potential to cause such massive destruction and long-term affects as nukes, the us' blatant double-standard makes its position difficult to take seriously.
in response to the us' thinly-veiled threats, iran has responded in typical iranian style: by going ham--or hallal to be more culturally correct. it's president, mahmoud ahmadinjad says the country is only conducting nuclear research, not creating warheads, and it won't retreat "one iota" from this path. the iaea report does not debunk ahmadinijad's claims as much of the information revealed was already known and failed to provide a timeline for the alleged creation of the nuclear weapon.
through all of this i'm reminded of the "threat of mushroom clouds" propaganda disseminated by the bush administration before the us invasion of iraq. during press conferences condoleeza rice, secreatry of state under george w. bush, reiterated the strong possibility that sadam hussein possesed weapons of mass destruction and was poised to use them against the us. ten years later, both mainstream and independent media, academics, and people with run-of-the-mill common sense have deemed the "threat" non-existant, some claiming the lack of iraqi wmds was well-known before the us invasion.
unlike britain and france, russia and china, strong trade partners with iran, have both denounced stiffer sanctions on the country. with their support of iran, i'm reminded of chairman mao's accusation that western powers are simply "paper tigers" whose barks are more ferocious than their bites.
how far will alliances carry both sides and most importantly, is the us really tryna see iran?