Iran, Missile Defense, and Russia - sparks fly!

(graphic by Nicholas Blechman from the New York Times)

Earlier this week there was an extremely interesting editorial by Bill Keller in the New York Times called "Nuclear Mullahs."  It essentially argues that accepting a nuclear-armed Iran might be preferable to beginning another war to prevent it.  He claims that having nuclear weapons has actually historically made nations more cautious about engaging militarily with others rather than more bold, so perhaps a nuclear Iran would even be weirdly stabilizing.   So many interesting points are made in this opinion piece it will probably be assigned later in the semester, but read it now if you're curious!

The editors of the New York Observer reacted strongly to that New York Times piece with an editorial that claims that Iran is unlike other nations that may have acquired nuclear weapons in the past, and truly does have the intent to wipe Israel off the map.  Here's that piece. 

Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu is also furious with the Obama administration for failing to specify under what conditions the U.S. would consider attacking Iran.  He had some harsh words about this recently, which you can read about in this AP piece published by the Washington Post.

Meanwhile, a non-partisan expert report drafted for Congress this week pointed out that the U.S. does not have the technology currently in place to successfully defend against long-range missile threats from Iran.  Read about this in this USA Today piece.

And if that's not enough excitement for one week, candidate Mitt Romney's latest gaffe referring to Russia as our "biggest foe" also turns out to play into debates over nuclear missile defense... Read more on this ABC News blog.  

We'll touch on all these topics in class this week - lots to pay attention to in the news!