In the wake of the IAEA's announcement that Iran might be able to begin building a nuclear warhead within a year, the Guardian's headline reads: Decision time for the U.S.
Really? So this is only a U.S. problem then? Abu Muqawama is not exactly a hawk on Iran, but headlines like these make me wonder what the %$#@ the Guardian's editorial line might be on nuclear proliferation? Are they pro-proliferation, and it's only the U.S. (in our madness) that doesn't think a nuclear-armed Iran is in the world's best interests? %$#@, no wonder John Bolton is such an ass to the Europeans. As soon as a major diplomatic challenge presents itself, too many in the Old Continent fold their arms and says, smugly, Well, America, what are you going to do about it?
Thankfully, not everyone is out of their bloody minds. Martin Kettle, for example, spoke the hard truth in his column last week:
European governments - Britain included - need to face up to some very serious truths about the coming decade. The big lessons that the US will learn from the Bush years - whoever wins in 2008 - are to build up national defences and strengthen homeland security but avoid trying to change the world. There will be no appetite for discredited neocon crusades. But there will be little enthusiasm for large multilateral engagements involving significant commitments of US ground forces, either. [Kori] Schake compellingly argues that if Europe wants a problem solved in the post-Bush era - whether in Darfur, Kosovo, Iran or Afghanistan - then Europe must do more to help solve it. We cannot rely on the US to do all the heavy lifting.