Iran to continue developing nukes as deterrent to US invasion.

[Dark]

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1202/p04s01-wome.html

The problem, analysts say, is the apparent belief of Iran's leaders that the benefits of obtaining a nuclear bomb now outweigh the drawbacks. With President Bush having branded them "evil" and with US forces deployed in Iraq to their west and Afghanistan to their east, the Iranians seem to be gambling that their best interests lie in having their own nuclear deterrent.

The Europeans - Britain, Germany, and France - are unable to provide Iran with what it wants most: a guarantee against US military action. Without that, analysts say, Iran is likely to continue a diplomatic game of alternating concessions and declarations of nuclear intent until there's direct engagement by the US.

Malley argues that the only diplomatic solution would require that the US come to the table and "create the sense that no longer under siege and that their regime is not threatened."

Iran "has not renounced the nuclear fuel cycle will never renounce it,'' he told reporters. "We have proved that ... we are capable of isolating the United States."

We're safer, but not safe, right?

[proudbluestater]

1. Put yourself in Iran's shoes. What would you do?

Already we are hearing the all-too-familiar drumbeat of another war, this time with Iran. We sit here with 8,000 nukes of our own and dare any other country to make even one. That's just freaking insane.