Roger L. Simon

For once I agree with the government of Iran...

According to Reuters : “Iran says it is losing patience with U.N. inspections of its nuclear programme…” Amazingly, so am I. Of course, that’s where my agreement stops, as the sentence continues… “and has announced that its agreement with the Europeans to halt uranium enrichment will soon come to an end.”

The article continues later: Mousavian [the Iranian delegation leader] rejected the possibility that Iran would abandon the nuclear fuel cycle and said Tehran had done more than enough to assure the world its atomic intentions were peaceful.

“Iran has taken all the necessary confidence building measures,” he said, adding that enrichment is the “legitimate right of all (IAEA) members”.

Mousavian said Iran was running out of patience with the U.N. inspection process and expected the agency to complete its investigation by the time the board met again in November.

While we all enjoy ourselves with the almost-comic spectacle of the implosion of Dan Rather, the world goes on with the most ominous implications. I would like to think that a serious explication of our Iran policy (though highly unlikely) would be useful during the political campaign. But I wonder. Behind the scenes action may be more valuable, at least until after the election. We are in a deadly game to stop the first Islamic bomb and Europe is clearly at best an ambivalent ally. The Euros often sound more like David Broder who, in his Sunday WaPo op-ed, seemed more concerned with Israel’s nuclear capability than with Iran’s. No comment.