i think fretting over nuclear “proliferation” is political and intellectual laziness. that nuclear containment is a futile policy of status quo and inequality that ignores the certainty of nuclear acquisition.

i don’t think obama’s comment on iran can immediately be interpreted as “lets go kick iranian ass”. he’s being political and pragmatic; on the one hand, he’s not showing any “weakness” or “fear” by declaring force is off limits. on the other hand, he’s keeping all doors open as an honest admission that diplomacy may not work. it’s the same position that any politician would take in matters of unknown threats. any specific objections that obama had on iraq were actually stated specifically; lack of projection, lack of reliable information, etc.

is it even necessary to take any stand against iran? that’s the underlying question, why is iran being portrayed as a threat.