Fire and Rain

Prince Saud al-Faisal said the threat posed by Iran demanded a "more immediate solution" than sanctions.

"Sanctions are a long-term solution. They may work, we can't judge. But we see the issue in the shorter term maybe because we are closer to the threat... So we need an immediate resolution rather than a gradual resolution."

Earlier, aides to Mrs Clinton - who is on a tour of the Gulf to try to build support for more sanctions on Iran - revealed she would press Saudi Arabia to help persuade China to support a tougher stand against Iran's nuclear ambitions.


Well, on one hand, nukes are bad. Radiation that lingers for centuries, and even nuclear power-plants break down sometimes. Terrorists could overthrow Iran and get access to the power to use against the western world.

But informed people know that nuclear power-plants do not equal nuclear warheads: the enrichment grade for nukes is much, much higher than for power-plants, that nuclear power-plants are encased in concrete and more safeguards than the Death Star and that the only instance in history where a power-plant has blown up was when the soviets took out all the safeguards to see what would happen, and that terrorists could more easily ask the underground in Russia or China for old nukes, which wouldn't need massive amounts of inrichment.

Furthermore, the UN would watch Iran nuclear power, with on-the-sight delegates as well as satalites that can see mosquito scratching themselves.

So why is Mrs. Clinton worried about Iran and Nuclear Power?