Centerfield

1.Iran isn’t like Russia. It is the greater fear that Iran will proliferate technology and produce materials and weapons that can be delivered through proxy. They support terror and are seeking to expand their operations into Africa and South America. Obama voted against sanction (actually didn't even vote) Russia is helping and Putin hates McCain. Given silent subs and mobile missiles. It will become increasingly difficult to stop the advance of smaller weapons. It is the terror fear, not the ballistic one we should worry about. Today’s anti-sat demonstration should show that the Democratic doubts of missile defense are unfounded.

2.He could strike the key centers, even the new one suspected of making nuclear weapons. No one is saying we could take out all capacity, but we could seriously set it back. The people already long for prosperity and selective strikes could be Constitutional. Perhaps all McCain needs to say to that is what Kerry said. Perhaps he might even quote Obama from 2004.

3.McCain might feel Intel tips the scale in striking Iran and who can suggest Iran won’t hit back. Iran won't even admit they ever tried to make weapons. McCain will point out that the West has talked for three decades and even offered Iran a power plant. As I have said, Once shots are fired, we would have to take out most of Iran’s conventional forces. The idea of repeated strikes for months doesn't seem like what would happen. In fact, McCain can say that voting for him will be incentive to talk. Voting for Obama means another four years of pretending until they have a bomb. This is a serious matter and I think we would have to regroup first, see some more progress in Iraq before our commanders would get behind such a move. So McCain will say he will talk, but that like Reagan and JFK, these talks must be backed up with a stick. He should ask Obama what stick he would use. He is an opening for his "I knew Jack Kennedy and Ronal Reagan..."
McCain chances rest mostly on his deliver and vitality. I would hire some handlers who know TV production....LOL

4. Doesn’t seem we can stop the information, but McCain can blame Russia and the Democrats for being weak on sanctions and putting us in this situation.

5. He can put off this question. If Iraq becomes calmer, he can make the argument that while Syria and Iran remain a threat and our allies in the Middle East want our presence (France is building a permanent base in the Gulf). The idea of bases is not unprecedented as Wills points out and actually quite prudent given the lives we have lost and the need to see our investment secure. He can push a medium commitment for let us say ten years.

I do not see why these questions are hard for McCain and why his answers do not make the Democrats look weak. Missile defense seems to be working. Iran seems to rush ahead hoping the democrats pull out. Syria has secret programs and is meddling. McCain should push reform of policy, which he has called for during these last seven years instead of a return to Carter policies giving us the Soviets in Afghanistan and radicals in Iran. He can turn it around and focus on Pakistan, China and Russia. Perhaps bad news abroad came too late for Hillary, but by election time, McCain will have a foreign policy case. By then rumors of Iranian programs will be blaring in Europe. Kosovo which even Zbig hailed will be blasted by China and Putin. This plays for McCain and could have played for Hillary were it not for purty words and a Liberal Press.

McCain Bolstered by this? Note, enrichment, ballistic missles and new facilities are all proceeding

Again, in the debate last night, Obama talked only of how Iraq neabt less troops for Afghanistan and that McCain will have a hard probablem showing how Iraq did not Help and prevent containmnet of Iran. I would love to know what Obama is talking about on Ira. How would Iraq change what plan Obama has for Iran? With Saddam in place, both Iraq AND Iran would be rushing head-long towards WMD.

Finally, question what you read in the NYT, after this fine bit of journalism.

It is the terror fear, not the ballistic one we should worry about.

Agreed.

He could strike the key centers, even the new one suspected of making nuclear weapons. No one is saying we could take out all capacity, but we could seriously set it back.

There IS a fair amount of doubt that that can be done reasonably quickly, though.

McCain can blame Russia and the Democrats for being weak on sanctions and putting us in this situation.

The Democrats? But Dems were completely out of power half the time Bush' been in office - I'm not seeing that one going over well outside the GOP base. And all Presidents must come up with policies to deal with situations as they really are. Just blame gets nobody in office.

He can put off this question. ... The idea of bases is not unprecedented.

McCain's up for election NOW, not later. Bases unsupported by Congress is the issue, not bases at all. Do you believe the President has that Constitutional authority?

Missile defense seems to be working.

Not yet, though we have good progress - see tomorrow's post.

Note, enrichment, ballistic missles and new facilities are all proceeding.

The article includes a major fallacy - there IS no such thing as a 100% duty cycle. You can never run everything 100% of the time, especially since real things break, which makes for a pretty low duty cycle.

I'm placing my trust in think the guys who actually looked at the setup. They suggested that 18 months was likelier from the particular setup. That's only a year ahead of the CIA guess - pretty good as CIA guesses go.... But, yes, it's getting to be a pending worry.

Maybe we should warn Iran we'll seek regime change in the case of nuclear terror attacks on us or our allies if they're found to source the uranium, reminding them that we did find the chain of evidence to hold Afghanistan responsible. That really should work, sans missiles.

"The Democrats? But Dems were completely out of power half the time Bush' been in office - I'm not seeing that one going over well outside the GOP base. And all Presidents must come up with policies to deal with situations as they really are. Just blame gets nobody in office."

The Liberal Press, along with the IC, supported by the unrelenting Democratic leadership, threaten Bush every step of the way on Iran, yet the NIE hails the sanctions that made Iran blink. Go figure that point. The NIE was celebrated as proof positive that Iran had stopped and incredibly spun by Democratic leadership as a reason to derail a new round on international snactions. Stop Bush before we stop Iran! Hell, Obama's not voting (but being against sanctions) has become the rally cry for taking no action at all against Iran. I think McCain can tar Obama with this as well as his not voting. Remember, the Quds is both a promoter of terror and the main instrument the resistance group says is facilitating the "new" nuclear weapon complex (besides having imported weapons into Iraq that killed US soldiers). So, I thnk there is a case that

1. the Democrats have opposed more sanctions and use the NIE aganst the President.

2. The Press and the IC have chosen Left partisanship on this issue to back the Democrats up and

3. McCain can tie these threads into a claim that the Democrats are weak on Iran with Obama leading the "I don't have a clue wing" in stopping Iran.

As far as your 18 month report, let's be serious.

1. The NIE never said at what point Iran was at when they stopped.

2. The NIE does not explain why they think they know where all the facilities are and were.

3. They have already been surprised by new p-2 centrifuges that uses carbon instead of the hard to obtain metals normally used.

4. At what facility was this made?

5. The Iranians have not allow inspection at all sites or the new ones the resistance group is pointing to, nor have the admitted they ever tried to make a bomb. The say plans and information on weapon program is fabricated by the CIA and Mossad and refuse to allow interviews and say some persons don't even exist.

6. They have not explain prior contamination, nor can prove some programs were stopped and destroyed.

7. They claim their ballistic missile program doesn't even exist let, alone involve placing nukes on top. They repeated this claim to the Russians who didn't buy it and this point has led to some weakening in the Russian position. No, a rocket that can put a sat into orbit isn't a long range baliistic missile. The cruise capabiltiy is more dangerous and Iranian involvement with NK means they have intel on mobile missiles the Norht Koreans have been designing. Resitance group claims that NK is sharing warhead designs. Other experts now think that NK nuke tests were low yield nukes in an effort to make them samll enough for missles. Just speculation, but the IAEA alone cannot not get to the bottom of this unless Iran submitted to a South African kind of inspection.

8. They are learning and that was addressed in one of Wills' questions. If the are bullshitting us, at what point will that allow them to make all the tests needed to complete a practical project, short of a demonstration Ahmadinejad will say heralds the Coming Iman?

9. Some Intel says the North Koreans are in Iran and of course the North Koreans haven't come clean themselves. Without the kind of on the ground intel, what proof can we have? This is why the Iranian government has rejected any warming up now with even the Democrats because they fear any of our people on the ground in Iran could uncover more information. I suspect they don't want Westerners there for...ah...19 months?

10. They are receiving new Scuds and Chinese cruise missiles -learning exactly how to build guidance and payload systems. They have many experts who are working on computer simulations and the new rounds of sanctions the Democrats have not supported would have stopped all commercial imports relating to any nuclear programs. McCain can certianly use this.

Obama thinks he can hit McCain over Iran with Iraq. I don't see that without some credible connection. Iraq should have warmed the Iranians up to us, not get them crazy. Like we could invade them while holding down Iraq and Afghanistan. We just eliminated their two worst foes. Instead, I argue that McCain can quote Kerry and Obama and ask them what if anything has Obama promoted besides talking to Iran, which the Bush adminstration has done. We offered them a friggin power plant. We removed Saddam. So what has Obama done except send a message to Iran we're packing up and we just want to do some non-stick weildng talking. Big deal. McCain will ask Obama if as President he would have accepted Iran's 2003 offer. He will ask what Obama will do before 18 months are up to prevent Iran from testing a nuke to the IC's surprise. He will ask what Syria was doing when Israel hit their clandestine plant.

Again, you are right. The danger is terror and not Iran firing a nuke at anyone. They would be vaporized quite quickly. They will proliferate technology and information.

I want you consider this. Hizb'Allah has recently said they will "irradiate the Zionist malignacy". What the Hell is that signal? Iran specializes in making weapons that have no markings or production signatures. They have numerous Quds "diplomats" in Caracus. They are buying silent subs which could present a diffucult time tracking. Many delivery systems are so ubiquitous, would we ever pinpoint the Iranians and then incinerate millions in a Don Carleone gambit? I think not.

McCain's only chance is to show that Obama and his team (I go into that over at SF) would not be shrewd enough nor determined enough to keep Iran contained. Zbig did a fine job in Afghanistan and Iran. McCain has got some great points on Afghanistan and Obama cannot simply use Iraq to make his case in Afghanistan and Iran. Niether place revolves around the US sending in more troops while the world and NATO sit it out. McCain can say if the world doesn't give a shit about Afghnaistan, why should we die for it?

So please consider this when you formulate your next post which I will be anticipating. Thanks