Leftist rag: "We need to cuddle up with Iran."
Really, that's the subhead.
The article is by a woman who bills herself as a senior advisor at the U.S. State Department, which pretty much says all you need to know, as State has been a pot of chowderheads for, oh, 60 years or so.
And note the date Slate published this article: Just 3 days before the Obozo administration announced a Super Deal to lift most economic sanctions on Iran in exchange for...well, there seems to be a lot of disagreement on what Iran actually agreed to do in exchange: Obama says one thing but the Iranians say something radically different. Hmmm....
Recalling that this ditz was a senior advisor at the U.S. State Department, it's highly likely that her "cuddle up" article was timed to get public opinion behind Obama's fabulous deal. It's how the elites signal the second-tier editors and reporters--the ones who don't belong to Journolist--what to think about big changes in government policy.
But let's take a look at her points and you can decide for yourself where her sympathies lie.
Consider some realities. First, Iran already has nuclear weapons capabilities.... Iran has overcome the most significant obstacle to making a bomb: it has mastered the technologies to enrich uranium indigenously....it has done 90 percent of the work required to produce the highly enriched uranium needed for a....nuclear bomb.True enough, but "capabilities" isn't the same as a bomb. And she uses the "capabilities" to argue that we have no choice but to accede to the implied "reality" of allowing Iran to build the bomb.
Implication: If Iran is absolutely determined to build a nuclear weapon, it already has the ability to do so.
To the Left this makes perfect sense, but in fact is utter nonsense.
And what's her take on this capability?
This isn't good news -- but it's not the end of the world either.Aww, isn't that cute? "It's not the end of the world, either." So all you folks who think Iranians getting an atom bomb would be a problem are just over-excitable. Wing-nuts. Yep. Certainly it wouldn't be a problem to an Islamic-supporting administration and its supporters, but it would have a totally different effect on the situation in the mid-east.
But she's just getting started.
Reality: A military confrontation with Iran would be [as ineffective as sanctions have been] and dangerous. Iran knows it, the U.S. military knows it, the White House knows it, Israeli intelligence knows it. The only ones who seem not to know it are Benjamin Netanyahu and certain congressional Republicans. Iran's nuclear facilities aren't soft targets.Got a flash for ya, Rosa: Everything's dangerous. You're pointing out the dangers you claim to see while carefully avoiding the danger of a supposedly-"lost" Iranian nuke turning up in a shipping container in New York harbor. Or Baltimore. That wouldn't be dangerous at all, because you want us to believe that can't happen. Yeah, it's as unlikely as four commercial airliners being hijacked in a single day.
Rosa ignores the obvious down-side because she has more immediate goals: Get rid of the economic sanctions regime against Iran--a goal worth literally billions of dollars. Ya think a paltry few hundred thousands of these might have been used to push through an "agreement" in which no one can agree on what was agreed? Perhaps for the sake of touting an illusory foreign-policy "achievement" to boost sagging popularity?