Perhaps a fleet of 3 US carrier groups in position in the Persian Gulf will influence Iran to allow more complete inspections.

I’m sure that will do it, Bob.

Now if only Bush stands by his statements of not attacking Iran.

My head is spinning. I’m confused. What about the 3 US carrier groups a sentence ago? Stock’em with fishing poles and X-box 360’s is what I say – that will do the trick.

What we have now is another report from IAEA which does not comment either way. What they are saying is Iran is not living up to an agreement they signed in 2003.

The major difference I see here is the IAEA had years of access to Iraqi Nuclear documents in spite of Saddam’s interference. In Iran this seems not to be the case. Perhaps a fleet of 3 US carrier groups in position in the Persian Gulf will influence Iran to allow more complete inspections.

Now if only Bush stands by his statements of not attacking Iran. So far, his record says he is not to be trusted. If Congress passes the rewriting of the 2002 War permission that would require their acceptance for further invasions, Bush may think twice before invading. We already have more than the military can deal with in Iraq & Afghanistan.

Luckily Mr. Gardner provides in a comment on a previous post entitled “Food-for-Thought”:

All of these things are highly, highly unlikely. You’re talking about scenarios you’d hear on 24. We’re already talking about oversight that would be so far up Iran’s ass, that they wouldn’t have room to move. The nuclear fuel would be shipped out of their country. All of this is lost in the debate and situations like “Well, if some crazies…� We have GOT to start dealing with what is, instead of what we fear will happen.

Well, thank God for the very nuanced “up the ass” foreign policy, otherwise those rascals would be allowed to do whatever the hell they wanted…oh, wait a second…