Very interesting. This confirms what I had pointed out here during the show
(“Watching Chris Matthews getting on his knee-pads to service Tom DeLay with softball questions. …This must be the quid pro quo for getting the “heads up†on the news from DeLay. What a disgrace to the profession of journalism!â€)http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/04/04/come-to-jesus-bugman/#comment-55229

Some response to this continuing and ugly display of obsequiousness by Matthews seems definitely warranted. I have sent an e-mail to his blog and to MSNBC. Perhaps other responses should be considered. As ExcuseME suggests above (at 55 ): “Looks to me like Chris Matthews is up for some Late-Nite FDL action.â€

Thesaurus,

I’m a pissed-off NC liberal and proud member of this lil’ community. I’m not so sure I want to give my real name; I hope you understand.
Thank you for your kind words. The work of the posters and commenters on this site set a high example indeed.

Put the other way, if the Iranians had no nuclear weapons ambitions, it would not be a big deal to have their nuclear facilities monitored and could be used to argue for access to more sophisticated nuclear technology and greater control of the fuel cycle. This said, the question becomes what we should do about it.

If the decision has been made that we can not accept a nuclear armed Iran, then we will strike regardless of the costs. The strike would be made with the tacit approval and logistical aid of Israel and various Arab governments in the region. It would be layered in that not just nuclear sites would be hit but also those assets in Iran which could be used to defend against the attack but also to respond to it either directly or indirectly as for example against shipping in the Persian gulf. It is for precisely this reason that I do not think that we would support a unilateral strike by the Israelis since they do not have the resources to take out all of these other targets. Even so Iran would retain the capacity to use terrorism and asymmetric warfare to exact a cost for our actions. In addition, any attack would have extreme repercussions on the oil market and could throw the world economy into recession –even if the oil flow underwent no serious disruptions.

Another option which is the one we are currently seeing play out is to draw out and delay Iran’s acquiring nuclear weapons. This does not solve the underlying problem but is useful since it avoids a military confrontation that would be disastrous to both sides(i.e. Iran and everyone else) and leaves open the possibility that the situation will change in some unspecified way before Iran gets nuclear weapons.

A final option would be to accept that Iran will at some point have nuclear weapons. This does not contradict the current approach but can be seen as an extension of it. What we should be looking at in this regard is what the consequences of a nuclear Iran would be. Would it be more stable or less stable? Would the region be more stable or less stable? Before Ahmadinejad came to power, I think the view was that nuclear weapons might make Iran feel less threatened and make it a more responsible regional player. Ahmadinejad’s electoral victory, however, showed how unstable Iran still is and how unpredictable. The last and most dangerous thing you want in nuclear politics is uncertainty and at the moment the uncertainties are increasing not decreasing with respect to Iran.

For now I think we will continue on the current track. If events change: we effectively withdraw from Iraq or the Iranian program accelerates or someone misjudges, then all bets are off.