As far as I can see, the US _is_ mostly taking the tack it did with North Korea!

She, like the network on which she appears, is more of a cheerleader — they may not determine policy, but they certainly set public opinion and do a pretty good job of promoting the party line. They’re not the de jure house organ, but calling them the de facto one isn’t exaggerating much.

As for how I take the news-and-commentary from MoveOn and DailyKos with the same grain of salt as I do the news from FOX News and National Review, although the latter pair do cause me considerably more eye-rolling.

Back to the Iran and nuclear capability discussion: why wouldn’t the same tack that the U.S. is taking with North Korea, a country we know is capable of creating and launching (at least short-distance) a nuclear weapon, work?

And finally — perhaps it’s time to pose questions about the stats to the guy who posted them. Foland’s blog entry with the graph is here, and he takes comments.

Still not sure you’re going anywhere with this. You’re saying Iran is never in the foreseeable future going to develop nukes and if they do, well too bad we shouldn’t do anything about them. Or do you actually believe that US policy is about making war for jobs and because they go so well and make everyone happ?

As for the voices calling for a military strike — and soon! — let’s just say that I’m a little skeptical now. It wasn’t that long ago when the same voices were talking about Iraq’s nuclear capability.

By the way, here’s the latest example of calls for a military solution, all from the administration’s de facto house organ…

Ann Coulter: “Good for Wall Street”

This is just a quick sampling (gathering with a lazyweb call to some friends on IRC — thanks, guys!) but these articles suggest that their nuke capability is coming within around a year or that the U.S. should attack:

• FOX News, September 12, 2007: A recent decision by German officials to withhold support for any new sanctions against Iran has pushed a broad spectrum of officials in Washington to develop potential scenarios for a military attack on the Islamic regime, FOX News confirmed Tuesday.
• CBS News, June 10, 2007: Lieberman: Bomb Iran If It Doesn’t Stop — “”I think we’ve got to be prepared to take aggressive military action against the Iranians to stop them from killing Americans in Iraq.”
• Telegraph, May 17, 2007: We must attack Iran before it gets the bomb — John Bolton: “”If we can’t get enough other countries to come along with us to do that, then we’ve got to go with regime change by bolstering opposition groups and the like, because that’s the circumstance most likely for an Iranian government to decide that it’s safer not to pursue nuclear weapons than to continue to do so. And if all else fails, if the choice is between a nuclear-capable Iran and the use of force, then I think we need to look at the use of force.”
• LA Times, November 19, 2006: Bomb Iran (written by Joshua Muravchik at the American Enterprise Institute)– “WE MUST bomb Iran. It has been four years since that country’s secret nuclear program was brought to light, and the path of diplomacy and sanctions has led nowhere.”
• Sunday Times, April 30, 2006: We May Have to Bomb Iran — “Natanz seems an agreeable little town, perched nearly 5,000ft up in the majestic mountains of central Iran, full of dusty relics of Alexander the Great and black-clad peasants scurrying hither and thither. It is a shame, then, that we may soon be obliged to bomb it to smithereens. An even bigger shame, though, if we don’t.”

_A_ nuke is a grave danger, as an attack is good for trillion dollars worth of damages and probably tens of thousands of lost lives. I don’t think I’ve seen too many claims that Iran’s going to be able to put one together in the next 5 years but after that it seems reasonably possible, especially since they are being assisted by existing nuclear powers. The fact that the US has “3000 100k” population and Iran only has “80 100k” doesn’t really enter the equation.

And I’m not sure what neo-cons _you’re_ reading, but most hawkish commentators I follow believe that the West should be undermining the government (in various ways) as the main line of attack as most realize the population is very pro-Western, at least relative to the region.