But, but but... what about the UN??

Iran's threat, Bush's dilemma
Does he order a strike, let Israel do it,
or allow an apocalyptic lunatic to arm a terrorist-sponsoring state?
By Max Boot, LA Times

What might stop Iran at this late date? Some conservatives have pinned their hopes on another Iranian revolution. The CIA and other agencies should do everything possible to encourage such an uprising. But the chances of regime change in the near term are not high. Even less likely is a U.S. invasion; the U.S. military is overstretched as it is.

That leaves only one serious option — air strikes by Israel or the U.S., possibly accompanied by commando raids. It is doubtful that bombs could eradicate Iran's nuclear program, but they could set it back for years, possibly long enough for the regime to implode.

There are two major downsides cited by opponents of military action. First, they say, an attack might lead Iranians to rally around the current regime. Possibly. But it might instead expose the mullahs' weakness and thus undermine their authority. The second objection is more serious. Even if air strikes are carried out by Israel, the mullahs would almost certainly order terrorist retaliation against the United States and step up efforts to sabotage our activities in next-door Afghanistan and Iraq. These are real worries. But do they outweigh the consequences of letting Iran go nuclear?

Sooner rather than later, President Bush must face a hard choice: Either order air strikes (or acquiesce to Israeli strikes) or accept a nuclear-armed Iran. A lot of bluster won't make this difficult dilemma disappear.

This would be downright laughable were it not so incidiously hypocritical. Already the liberal pacifists are ready to criticize Bush for a move, or non-move, to military action with Iran.

Uh... what happened to their beloved UN sanctions? What happened to not acting "unilaterally"?? Where are the cries to come to a solution with the int'l community? After years of four way talks with the Euro powerhouses, why is this all on Bush instead of the UN now?

Personally I don't think Bush will do a thing, but work as a coalition member on the UN on this one. It's a tough issue to toss to that ineffectual a group, as it seals the fate of failure. But it's time to show the world just how filled with Bozo's the UN is...