Nukes in Iran

Lawrence Kaplan has been demanding "regime change" in Iran in The New Republic. His latest article is online today; believe it or not, he condemns the Bush administration for being too soft on the Islamic republic. The US is trying to contain Iran's nuclear ambitions through international inspections; it's also trying to change the regime by assisting opposition groups. Kaplan claims that neither strategy will work, and his argument against the second strategy is revealing:

As a response to Iran's nuclear debut, relying on popular regime change has drawbacks as well. The policy makes moral and strategic sense, but a democratization policy is not a counterproliferation policy -- particularly since Iran's democrats seem as eager as anyone else to acquire nuclear capability... As CIA Director George Tenet told the Senate Select Intelligence Committee in February, "No Iranian government, regardless of its ideological leanings, is likely to willingly abandon WMD [weapons of mass destruction] programs that are seen as guaranteeing Iran's security."

The thing is, if Kaplan is right, the only solution is permanent military occupation -- and not just of Iran but any Middle Eastern state with potential nuclear capability. Is this what Kaplan wants? If so he should come out and say so.

I'm Off the List!

Gee, I'm thrilled. nihilistic_kid has a list of topics to keep of your LiveJournal, and all of this stuff already is off my LiveJournal. I don't complain about my Mom, my medication or my "friggin' cats" and I don't brag about "what a great dicksucker" I am. I'm honored to join the hip and happening.