Iran Mañana

Such a context also helps explain recent shifts in the kaleidoscope of confrontation we've created. A senior US diplomat "rules out" military options, for now. Condi asks Congress for cash for covert political operations against the Iranian government. The House helps pick up the slack of muffled war-drums by condemning Iran's nuclear program, as does France, the Bush gang's new stalking horse in Europe. Blair and Merkel pile on. And the newmedia conglomerates further apply the brakes – who needs a Department of Propaganda when these are at your disposal? – reporting that China and Russia won't help with solving the Iranian proliferation crisis. The Head of the IAEA, Mohamed ElBaradei, suggests it's pointless to try to stop the Iranians. Then China takes the opportunity to say it's signing a mega-multi-billion dollar ($100 Billion plus) energy deal with Iran. (Translation: "You goof up our energy supplies, you pay for it.") Bringing the circus to its full complement Russia chimes in against military strikes, though the latter must be taken with a grain of salt as Russia stands to benefit in terms of additional leverage in its delivery of natural gas to Europe if energy supplies from the Middle East were significantly disrupted; thus it's hard to figure whether the Russians are trying to goose the Iranians further into a conflict or not.

Moreover, it's significant to note that virtually none of the news stories talk in detail about what the Iranians are doing, though this surely must be known. William Beeman, an exception, points out that Iranian reactors don't produce the Plutonium isotope needed for thermonuclear warheads. A quick check on the IAEA site doesn't turn up any informed discussion of this, and I don't know whether Beeman is correct – there seems to be at least some difference of opinion – but at a minimum the experts ought publicly to have their say if indeed Washington were determined to throw the world into a tailspin.

The other missing piece is any serious discussion of what Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons would mean in practice. In reality, such possession presents even more dire threats to Iran than they presently face, since any move on their part to use or give a bomb to terrorists who might use it would be met with a full-scale nuclear attack. Logically, their interest in a bomb is purely for its deterrent value against a low-level US attack. Considering how much intellectual energy was spent spinning out scenarios and theories about nuclear war during the Cold War it seems odd indeed that next to nothing has evolved from that to frame the debate today.