Christopher Hitchens argues in Slate that Iran may have the capacity to build a nuclear weapon by the end of 2009 (or maybe he's arguing that they will actually have built a weapon by the end of 2009 -- I am a bit unclear given his wording).
At any rate, Hitchens says Obama needs to act soon in (1) pressing Iran to talk and/or (2) setting forth, more clearly, America's position about the possibility of a nuclear Iran.
Interestingly, Hitchens thinks there is likely to be a major earthquake in Iran sooner rather than later, and he encourages Obama to use the prospect of shared US-earthquake-expertise as a bargaining point with the Iranians:
"The president can address the Iranian people directly if he chooses, from the podium of the United Nations … he can tell them that just as the United States can and will help them to build civilian nuclear reactors, so it will not stand still and watch all Iran's agreements with international bodies be flagrantly broken. He can tell them that the mullahs' sponsorship of Hezbollah and Hamas is a reason for Iran's continued isolation. He can add … that in its zeal for armaments, the theocracy has been culpably negligent in preparing Iran and its people for the likelihood of a serious earthquake in the next few years and that the United States stands ready to share its seismological expertise in the here and now."
75. OK, I agree with Hitchens that Obama needs to jump on this issue. But, what exactly does Hitchen suggest Obama should say in terms of the consequences if Iran ignores the US and continues on the path towards a bomb? He suggests "it will not stand still and watch all Iran's agreements with international bodies be flagrantly broken," but what precisely are we going to do when we don't "stand still"?
