From MichaelCrawford's comment:
Bush warns of 'holocaust' if Iran gets nukes.
And I blockquote:
"We will confront this danger before it is too late," vowed Bush, who has pressed for tougher international sanctions and said he hopes for a diplomatic solution but has repeatedly refused to rule out the use of force.
(The IAEA is the International Atomic Energy Agency, which oversees the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, as well as helping with the peaceful use of nuclear power.)
Some Western analysts have argued that Iran has been the chief beneficiary of the US invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein in 2003, helping Tehran to boost its influence in the region.
"There is no ... possibility of such an attack by the United States," Ahmadinejad told a news conference marked by his characteristic defiance.
"Even if they take such a decision, they cannot implement it," he said.
"Not one member of the IAEA has cooperated as well as Iran. So from our point of view, Iran's nuclear case is closed. Iran is a nuclear nation and has the nuclear fuel cycle," he said.
The US envoy to the IAEA, Gregory Schulte, has dismissed the plan as having "real limitations," and claimed that Iran "is clearly trying to distract attention from its continued development of bomb-making capability."
Schulte insisted that the United States would continue pushing for a third round of sanctions, which diplomats said Washington wanted to happen in September.
Please also note MichaelCrawford's tangential comments on the scary confluence of End Times enthusiasts in positions of power in Iran and the United States.
Note that I believe there WILL be a war on Iran. I do not believe there SHOULD be a war on Iran. I think Iran should be allowed to change on its own. But I don't think the West is going to wait.
Iran is no pushover. Iraq is a desert. You roll through it with a tank, you're in Baghdad by sundown. Afghanistan is easily divisible into ethnic units and warlord controlled areas, and you can play them against each other. But Iran? No: hardcore terrain, hardcore zealotry in defense of an ancient proud nation, and a glorious dollop of religious fanaticism on top. This shit ain't gonna be pretty.
And this shit is unavoidable. Iran wants the bomb. Simple national pride compels them to ask: "Who the hell are you to tell me I can't have it?" And simple distrust of a fundamentalist theocracy that has spent the last 30 years chanting death to the decadent West compels the West to prevent Iran from getting the bomb.
Additionally, Iran is isolated. Russia or China may come to their defense, out of purely strategic diplomacy, but they aren't going to send aid or troops. The Sunni nations all distrust and dislike Iran, and India is certainly no friend.
So you heard Sarkozy throw down the gauntlet: "an Iranian bomb or the bombing of Iran." Good lord, nothing vague there. Wait until after the American elections in 2008. The lame duck Bush will be gone, and the new American President, whoever he or she is, already knows what is up. Sarkozy's sentiments are the sentiments of all of the American candidates:
Calling the crisis over Iran's nuclear program "the most serious weighing on the international order today," Mr. Sarkozy also reiterated his position that a nuclear-armed Iran was "unacceptable" for France.
American troops will not be coming home from Iraq. They will be joined by Germans, French, and British, and they are going to march on Tehran, from Kabul and Baghdad. And I simply don't see how it will play out any other way. Becase the clock is ticking, Iran is getting close to having something of critical mass.
The West is determined not to see a theocracy with nukes (for good reason). And Iran is an ancient proud country, who will not let the West tell them what it can and cannot do. And there you go: a simple recipe for war.