Readers’ Responses to Our Question (35)

Thanks BobL-VA,and thanks Tom Wonnacut, it will be a very Mary Christmas and a Happy New Ear to you too. Goodwill to all mankind liberal or conservative. Let's at least acknowledge the value to America itself of living in society with others. Let's recognize the need to foster a harmony of interests and cooperation so that each country respects the humanity and independence of others. Tom Wonnacut, I have been pained by some of your posts where you chose to dismiss Juan Cole and others about the words used by the Iranian president,it seems to me that you want him to say what he isn't saying, pained also that you never did comment on the article 'one state solution'
which is the only solution left but you dismissed the article because it was a long read...rather than whack yourself on the head for me would you consider reading and dare I hope commenting these articles it's probably not as painful as you fear.

http://www.counterpunch.org/tilley08282006.html

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v25/n21/till01_.html

Mary,

Ah......what to do? It's impossible to force to people to critically analyze anything. If someone just wants to let someone else do their thinking for them there is little to nothing that can be done to change that. It's true for both a percentage of conservatives and liberals. Parroting is easy, drawing your own conclusions actually takes an effort.

Obviously, I fall on the liberal side. So in my case I can tell a right winger that Iran is neither fanatical or that irrational about their views and outlooks on life and their region. I can even go so far as to challenge them to prove to me that Iran's actions and/or words are either fanatical or irrational. All they can do is spout rhetoric about how Iran has called for the elimination of Israel. OK, I agree with that. Iran has called for the elimination of Israel. However, that is not fanatical or irrational. It's perfectly understandable. I hear them talk about Iran not believing the holocaust happened. I don't really know or care if they believe it or not as it has nothing to do with our political discourses today unless you're looking for an Israeli sympathy card. I hear Iran is a state sponsor of terror as we define it. I look at the issue and since it all centers around groups either trying to throw the US out of the ME or support groups trying to throw Israel out I can't consider it a sign of fanatical or irrational behavior either. There is a legitimate disagreement between the Arabs and Israel and it's up to them to work it out. (Now that statement just boiled the blood of people who would support Israel under any condition)

Anyway, what ends up happening is some people will just continue spouting party line now matter how silly it sounds. It's called being a good soldier and towing the party line. If I ever get to that point even with a liberal agenda I sincerely hope someone puts me out of my misery.

Thanks for your post and happy holidays to you and your adamant republican family members.

Mary and BobL

Whack...There's that hit you were hoping for Bob, but I do suddenly feel much better...less dangerous.

"...As much as I love them for their other qualities, my relatives are such republicans as well..."

They must be the black sheep of the family. God, what idiots...and think of all the nitwits that voted such people as Nixon into the Whitehouse...millions of them.

The good news is that at least they are all located in one place on earth so good left wingers such as yourself (no doubt) can keep an eye on them.

Well, here's to a Mary Christmas to you too, Merry.

BobL-VA, to Tom W:
" I'll keep thinking maybe for Christmas this year someone will inadvertantly hit you on your head and you'll join the world of people who are actually capable of analyzing a situation.(December 15, 2007 6:35 PM)"
As much as I love them for their other qualities, my relatives are such republicans as well, when Nixon was being impeached they firmly believed that he would come up with a good proof of innocence saved for the last minute. Christmas of 2002, Bush was threatening to invade Irak, they felt he should because they didn't want to take a plane and be poisoned with antrax. Now they believe that the soldiers are fighting for their freedom in Irak, but they keep their own kids in college. I have seen that Tom has never changed his mind over the years and telling facts that are presented before him, he tows the party line as if it were his own life line...I know how dangerous this is for your country. What can you do except explain it over and over again, maybe one day... Merry Christmas anyways,
your posts are my reason for hope, wishing you a very happy New Year. Peace and goodwill to all of mankind.

Tom,

Happy holidays to you my conservative fear mongering elf.

I have no doubt you believe Iran is a bunch of fanatical whack jobs. I don't know why you believe it, but you do. I also know you firmly believe anyone who doesn't fanatically support Israelis cause in the ME is a fanatical whacko.

I guess I must qualify as a fanatical whacko as well as I simply fail to see Iran as acting irrationally based on their history and current situation. You keep on writing posts telling me how fanatical, nasty, nazi like, etc. etc., and I'll keep thinking maybe for Christmas this year someone will inadvertantly hit you on your head and you'll join the world of people who are actually capable of analyzing a situation.

BobL

I think you are right, Bob. Its hopeless. The reason its hopeless (for you) is that it is easy to put forth a case against Iran. Easy. On the other side of the coin, its very difficult to defend their record. Their actions and words speak LOUDLY of their intent. That’s nearly impossible for you to defend and that’s why the UN voted for sanctions. I am on the easy side of the argument this time.

No rational person could conclude that their nuclear program was (or is) peaceful. No rational person can support the potential ramifications of a nuclear Iran which I have laid out clearly on numerous occasions. If that is fear mongering, so be it.

“…Israel is simply not worth the constant state of war and unrest it has produced in the ME and will continue to cause each and every day until it is finally relocated one way or the other…”

You believe that the state of Israel will move “one way or another”, but you can’t see WHY the US and Israel are against a nuclear Iran? Now if I make that statement, you would call it “irrational fear mongering”, but your own statement makes a better case against Iran than I ever could.

Thanks for the post and enjoy your Christmas.

Tom,

It's useless.

Do you actually listen to yourself when you are writing these posts?

"Iran has made numerous IRRESPONSIBLE threats..."

"Iran is a state sponsor of terror.."
Iran has opposed the Arab Peace Plan (first offered in 2002) because their stated goal is the elimination of the state of Israel."

"Finally, a nuclear Iran with her fanatical theocratic leadership..."

"Once nuclear, Iran will use her leverage for strategic and economic reasons. Islamism will be bolstered, and one can expect radical Islam to receive a large gain in membership as Jihadist celebrate and welcome a radical Islamic regime to the nuclear club."

"(or Iran with their fanatical leadership) "

Tom, I know irrational fear mongering when I see it and I need to look no further then the words you have written in this thread.

JRLR

I give you credit for attacking the source (Amir Taheri) because I have read him quite a bit and learned something about using him as a source in the future. That doesn’t take anything away, however, from the human rights violations that are a part of the Iranian regime and the crackdown under the current President, of course, backed by Khamenei. Taheri is correct about the crackdown, only his actual data (numbers) is suspect.

“…I wish to reiterate first that in any conversation, as a matter of principle, I strongly object to arguments ad hominem. Such “arguments” I simply abhor. What interests me in a conversation is its substance, not the interlocutor….”

While I appreciate your detailed attack on Taheri, you completely avoided the first part of my post where you accused the US of a “double standard” in supporting a nuclear Iran (under the Shah). No amount of colorful language can hide that fact.

Thanks for the post

Tom

Two points, “without prejudice” (or “sans préjudice et sous toutes réserves”), as legal counsels would put it...

1. You write, about my latest post: “I assume that was directed at me.”

As a matter of fact, and although it was no doubt triggered by your “Bring back the Shah”, it was not directed at you. As I stated, as a human being, I only felt “duty-bound to bring the material I was referring to, to everybody’s (to every reader’s) attention”. That is all. I therefore did not deem it appropriate to refer to you by name. All the more so, since I had no intention then, and still do not have any intention now: 1. to spend one second debating the merits and demerits of the SHAH’s Iranian regime, 2. to waste everybody’s time “defending” myself against (expected!) accusations of being somehow complicit with, or an apologist of, the present Iranian leaders and government. I know too well the techniques that are used to draw opponents into that kind of irrelevant and infantile conversation, Tom, to be deceived by them and drawn into that cul-de-sac.

2. Now to your post directed at me.

I wish to reiterate first that in any conversation, as a matter of principle, I strongly object to arguments ad hominem. Such “arguments” I simply abhor. What interests me in a conversation is its substance, not the interlocutor.

That said, in any conversation, an interlocutor’s credibility always remains, rightfully so I believe, a valid issue to consider. That is why I suggest the readers Google Search AMIR TAHERI, the source of your Wall Street Journal reference.

Here is briefly what Larry Cohler-Esses had to say, in The Nation (“Bunkum From Benador”, posted June 14, 2006 (July 3, 2006 issue)):

“The neoconservative campaign to equate Iran with Nazi Germany received a setback in May. Bloggers and a few journalists quickly exposed as wholly concocted a story about a new law that would require Iranian Jews to wear yellow insignia. Within days the National Post of Canada… was forced to apologize publicly for its "scoop." … the debunking exposed the moving parts of a media machine intent on priming the public for war with Iran--as it did earlier with stories about Iraq's nonexistent WMD. Ubiquitous in this campaign, as it was with Iraq, is the PR firm Benador Associates. Its president, Eleana Benador, told me it was her agency that placed the article with the National Post. Its stable of writers and activists… includes … Amir Taheri -- the author of the bogus piece.

It was in 1989 that Taheri was first exposed as a journalistic felon. The book he published the year before, Nest of Spies, examined the rule and fall of the Shah of Iran. … but in The New Republic … Shaul Bakhash, a history professor at George Mason University and a former fellow at Princeton's Institute for Advanced Study, detailed case after case in which Taheri cited nonexistent sources, concocted nonexistent substance in cases where the sources existed and distorted the substance beyond recognition when it was present. Taheri "repeatedly refers us to books where the information he cites simply does not exist," Bakhash wrote. "Often the documents cannot be found in the volumes to which he attributes them.... [He] repeatedly reads things into the documents that are simply not there." In one case, noted Bakhash, Taheri cited an earlier article of his own--but offered content he himself never wrote in that article. Bakhash concluded that Nest of Spies was "the sort of book that gives contemporary history a bad name." In a response published two months later, Taheri failed to rebut Bakhash's charges.

… In a New York Post column last year, Taheri identified Iran's UN ambassador, Javad Zarif, as one of the students involved in the illegal 1979 seizure of hostages at the US Embassy in Tehran. San Francisco State University professor Dwight Simpson wrote the Post politely to request a correction. "This allegation is false," he explained. "On November 4, 1979 [the day of the seizure], Javad Zarif was in San Francisco. He was then a graduate student in the Department of International Relations of San Francisco State University. He was my student, and he served also as my teaching assistant."

"The newspaper didn't print the letter, and I never got an acknowledgment," Simpson told me.

… On May 30--just days after the National Post's apology for running his false story on Iranian Jews--Taheri was one of a group of "Iraq experts" brought to the White House to consult with George W. Bush on the disastrous situation there. Who needs Hill & Knowlton when you've got Benador Associates?” (www.thenation.com/doc/20060703/cohleresses)

This may help explain why I shall not spend time discussing Mr. Taheri’s allegations, in the Wall Street Journal.

Tom,

Actually, it wasn't a bad argument at all. It forced you into justifying your position based on the premise Iran is run by fanatics which is spurious at best and that we (the US) need to assure an imbalznce of power in the ME in order for Israel to survive with no consideration as to how it affects the Arab World. And for you or anyone else would wonder after we've said to the Arabs, "in your face" they would dislike us boogles my mind?

I especially coveted your, "Considering the amount of Arab and Persian people and the total land area of countries opposed to Israel, the imbalance of power is necessary for Israel’s survival. As long as there is an IMBALANCE in power, the Arabs and Iran are unlikely to attack Israel." Normally, I would only expect a statement like this from a fanatical zionist, but I guess it's a conservative approach to world as well. Hmmmm, kind of makes you wonder, doesn't it.

In order for your logic to work you have to assume the Iranians and a great many other people in the ME are fanatical whacko's who just hate us and Israel because they're crazy people. Hence, it's up to us to enlighten them. Your logic completely ignores the US role in supporting Israel, interferring with the regions internal political systems and yes, invading and occupying lands in the region as a cause for their dislike of us. THEY HAVE CAUSE TO NOT LIKE US AND TO NOT LIKE ISRAEL. THEY ARE NOT FANATICAL FOR FEELING THIS WAY. Even the zionists know this. They don't care, but they know it.

Basically, your position boils down to we (the US) are going to support Israel at any expense. Whether the Arabs like it or not. Since we don't have a good argument for doing this we'll just say they are a bunch of crazies and they are our enemies so it doesn't matter what we do to them. Now that qualifies as a fanatical and insane argument if there ever was one. I've stated before and I'll state it again, I am not opposed to the State of Israel. What I am opposed to is where it is located. Israel is simply not worth the constant state of war and unrest it has produced in the ME and will continue to cause each and every day until it is finally relocated one way or the other.

Finally, please take all the shots you want at the democrat's. They deserve it. Maybe not quite to the extent the current inept administration does, but they certainly deserve their share of late night jokes as well for doing stupid things. However, I'm still chuckling over the Shah and democracy. There's a bumper sticker waiting to be made. "SPREAD DEMOCRACY, BRING BACK THE SHAH."

JRLR:

Thanks for the post. I assume that was directed at me.

“…The Shah was even encouraged to pursue nuclear energy, just as the target Iran of today is being threatened for trying to do what the Shah was allowed to do, by dictate of the ruler of the world. In short, the double standard is comprehensive and even funny in its crudity, but the United States and its propaganda system prevent large numbers from seeing this and laughing the responsible charlatans off the stage.“…”

The French are supplying nuclear energy to LIBYA and possibly some Middle Eastern countries as well. Has the US objected? Has the US threatened sanctions or threatened to bomb Libya? International law allows each country the right to develop nuclear energy and enrich uranium and that includes countries in the Middle East. Why did the UN security council vote for sanctions (twice) against a country that has every right under international law to pursue nuclear energy and enrich uranium?

1. Did the Shah threaten to annihilate another country on numerous occasions?
2. Did the Shah sponsor a Holocaust Denial symposium directed at Israel, to intimidate Israel while under suspicion of developing nuclear weapons?
3. Was the Shah a state sponsor of terror and support, direct and fund civilian targeting terrorist organizations such as Hamas, Islamic Jihad or Hezbollah (which also is an international terrorist organization) to harass Israel and prevent the peace process from moving forward?
4. Did a proxy terrorist organization for the Shah start a war with one of her neighbors (Hezbollah, Lebanon, 2006, for example).
5. Did the Shah try to undermine the government in Lebanon through her proxy Hezbollah?
6. Did the Shah incite international incidents (acts of war) by capturing and holding British sailors in international waters?

Do you see the difference between supporting nuclear power in Iran ruled by the Shah as opposed to Iran today? The US doesn’t need a propaganda system to deal with Iran - especially while Achmidinejad is the President.

Thanks as well for the history lesson concerning the Shah. Maybe you should dwell on one of your own post that seems to ignore human rights in Iran TODAY. (From the PostGlobal question “Was Columbia University wrong to invite him [Achmidinejad] to speak at a public forum?”)

“…Personally, I found most pertinent what President Ahmedinejad said on:
1. the widespread violations of human rights, terrorism and occupation,
2. the aggressions against indigenous cultures and national values,
3. poverty, illiteracy, healthcare issues and the gap between the poor and the rich,
4. ignoring noble values and the promotion of deception and lies,
5. the escalation of threats and the arms race,
6. the inefficacy of international mechanisms in addressing these challenges and in restoring durable peace and security….”

A summary of the human rights abuses which are a part of the CURRENT crackdown in Iran (From Amir Taheri, Wall Street Journal, August 6, 2007)

“…It is early dawn as seven young men are led to the gallows amid shouts of "Allah Akbar" (Allah is the greatest) from a crowd of bearded men as a handful of women, all in hijab, ululate to a high pitch. A few minutes later, the seven are hanged as a mullah shouts: "Alhamd li-Allah" (Praise be to Allah).
The scene was Wednesday in Mashad, Iran's second most populous city, where a crackdown against "anti-Islam hooligans" has been under way for weeks.

The Mashad hangings, broadcast live on local television, are among a series of public executions ordered by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad last month as part of a campaign to terrorize an increasingly restive population. Over the past six weeks, at least 118 people have been executed, including four who were stoned to death. According to Saeed Mortazavi, the chief Islamic prosecutor, at least 150 more people, including five women, are scheduled to be hanged or stoned to death in the coming weeks.
The latest wave of executions is the biggest Iran has suffered in the same time span since 1984, when thousands of opposition prisoners were shot on orders from Ayatollah Khomeini.
Not all executions take place in public. In the provinces of Kurdistan and Khuzestan, where ethnic Kurdish and Arab minorities are demanding greater rights, several activists have been put to death in secret, their families informed only days after the event.
The campaign of terror also includes targeted "disappearances" designed to neutralize trade union leaders, student activists, journalists and even mullahs opposed to the regime. According to the latest tally, more than 30 people have "disappeared" since the start of the new Iranian year on March 21. To intimidate the population, the authorities also have carried out mass arrests on spurious grounds.
According to Gen. Ismail Muqaddam, commander of the Islamic Police, a total of 430,000 men and women have been arrested on charges related to drug use since April. A further 4,209 men and women, mostly aged between 15 and 30, have been arrested for "hooliganism" in Tehran alone. The largest number of arrests, totaling almost a million men and women according to Mr. Muqaddam, were related to the enforcement of the new Islamic Dress Code, passed by the Islamic Majlis (parliament) in May 2006.
Most of those arrested, he says, spent a few hours, or at most a few days, in custody as "a warning." By last week, 40,000 were still in prison. Of these, 20,363 men and women are held on charges related to violating the Islamic Dress Code. According to the Deputy Chief of Police Gen. Hussein Zulfiqari, an additional 6,204 men and women are in prison on charges of "sexual proximity" without being married.
The wave of arrests has increased pressure on the nation's inadequate prison facilities. At a recent press conference in Tehran, the head of the National Prisons Service, Ali-Akbar Yassaqi, appealed for a moratorium on arrests. He said Iran's official prisons could not house more than 50,000 prisoners simultaneously while the actual number of prisoners at any given time was above 150,000. Mr. Yassaqi also revealed that each year on average some 600,000 Iranians spend some time in one of the 130 official prisons.
Since Mr. Ahmadinejad ordered the crackdown, work on converting 41 official buildings to prisons has started, with contracts for 33 other prisons already signed. Nevertheless, Mr. Yassaqi believes that, with the annual prison population likely to top the million mark this year, even the new capacities created might prove insufficient.
There are, however, an unknown number of unofficial prisons as well, often controlled by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps or militias working for various powerful mullahs. Last week, human rights activists in Iran published details of a new prison in Souleh, northwest of Tehran, staffed by militants from the Lebanese branch of Hezbollah. According to the revelations, the Souleh prison is under the control of the "Supreme Guide" Ali Khamenehi, and used for holding the regime's most "dangerous" political foes.
The regime especially fears the growing free trade union movement. In the past four months, free trade unionists have organized 12 major strikes and 47 demonstrations in various parts of the country. They showed their muscle on International Labor Day on May 1 when tens of thousands of workers marched in Tehran and 18 provincial capitals. The regime retaliated by arresting scores of trade unionists and expelling many others.
According to Rajab-Ali Shahsavari, leader of the Union of Contractual Workers, 25,795 unionists have been fired since April. He estimates that now over 1,000 workers are losing their jobs each day, as the regime intensifies its crackdown.
Worse still, the number of suspicious deaths among workers has risen to an all-time high. According to Deputy Labor Minister Ibrahim Nazari-Jalali, 1,047 workers have died in "work-related accidents" since April. Labor sources, however, point out that none of the accidents have been investigated and, in at least 13 cases, the workers who died may have been killed by goons hired by the regime.
The biggest purge of universities since Khomeini launched his "Islamic Cultural Revolution" in 1980 is also under way. Scores of student leaders have been arrested and more than 3,000 others expelled. Labeling the crackdown the "corrective movement," Mr. Ahmadinejad wants university textbooks rewritten to "cleanse them of Infidel trash," and to include "a rebuttal of Zionist-Crusader claims" about the Holocaust. Dozens of lecturers and faculty deans have been fired…”

"We are never more true to ourselves than when we are inconsistent."
— Oscar Wilde, Anglo-Irish wit and author (1854-1900)

That is, of course, true for ALL of us. Again, you can refer to me by name.

BobL

I forgot to address your most important point.

“…Now I get to have some fun. Every group, republicans included, have their own jargon. One of my personal favorites is when republicans talk about the spread of democracy. What they are really saying is any leader who sides with the US whether they are dictators or not. I reference you to the last line of your post where you said, "bring back the Shah."…”

The world is full of hypocrisy, for example, Nancy Pelosi sitting in on CIA meetings in 2002:

“…It turned out that in September 2002, four top members of the intelligence committees -- including Rep. Nancy Pelosi, who is now House speaker -- were given a "virtual tour" of CIA interrogation facilities overseas. They heard descriptions of some of the harsh techniques that would be used, including the now-infamous practice known as waterboarding.
"Among those being briefed, there was a pretty full understanding of what the CIA was doing. And the reaction in the room was not just approval, but encouragement,"…”

Politics is a brutal sport. I do appreciate your attack against Republicans, in general as that is something that you have avoided in the past. They (we) deserve it…on occasion.

BobL

“First, Iran is run by a bunch of fanatics who want to wipe Israel off the face of this planet. Yeah, so what? How is that a fanatical position for a Muslim? Just because the west has supported Israel is absolutely no reason the Muslim world needs to support them or want them in their midst. There is nothing fanatical about the Muslims hate of Israel. The Muslim world views the Jews as heathen invaders who are polluting their land. Well wouldn't it be just special if we could wave a magic wand and the Muslims would change their mind and want to live in harmony with Israel? News flash: it ain't going to happen…”

Bob, I don’t care if Israel is hated by the Arabs and Persians. My post only addressed Iran and specifically stated their role in terrorism and destabilization in the Middle East and why, in my opinion, their nuclear weapons program represents a threat to the region. Your post on hatred by Arabs is irrelevant to my argument against Iran.

“…When the next major Israel/Arab armed conflict takes place (and it will) what assurance is there that Israel won't use nukes if it's losing?…”

If we look at history, and if there is a war, then the chances are very good that the aggressors will either be Arabs (or Iran with their fanatical leadership) such as in 1947, 1967 and 1973. To answer your question. None. If there was a balance of power in the Middle East, Israel would have been “wiped out” long ago. Considering the amount of Arab and Persian people and the total land area of countries opposed to Israel, the imbalance of power is necessary for Israel’s survival. As long as there is an IMBALANCE in power, the Arabs and Iran are unlikely to attack Israel. Therefore, the situation between the US and Russian does not apply to Israel. Not one of your best arguments, Bob.

“…So Tom if you are really interested in Arab countries not having the bomb I suggest you start lobbying very hard for Israel to shut down it's nuke program and let the IAEA inspect to make sure all of their nukes are gone. If that happens you at least would have the basis for an argument, but until then your argument is very, very weak…”

First of all, see the argument above on imbalance of power.

At this point in time, I am interested in IRAN not having a nuclear weapon and if my argument is so weak then how come the five UN security council members with veto power (the only ones on the planet) voted for sanctions? I seem to recall a similar situation regarding North Korea. China with overwhelming nuclear superiority over North Korea pushed to denuclearize NK. Why was it in the interest of China to support sanctions against an ally? Why was it in China’s interest to shut down the North Korea weapons program (and they are not even China's enemy!)?

Yes, Iran be allowed to build a nuclear power generation program with no inspections or obstructions.

Did USA restrict itself to power generation only, in 1945…? There was no nuclear threat to USA from any corner of the world why did USA produce Atomic Bomb and used it in the war against Japan and killed 900,000 innocent civilians….? Sorry, the theory of saving millions of human beings, to bring Japan to knees, was a lame excuse and NOT bought able. USA’s use of atomic bombs has given this right to every nation/country, for safety and security.

As far as inspections and obstructions are concerned, has USA, Israel, Britain, Russia, China, India and Pakistan allowed inspections to IAEA officials, then why to put this restriction on Iran….?

USA started off proliferation of nuclear technology by extending this facility to Britain and France, after the 2nd world war, in view of any possible threat from within or outside Europe.

USA assisted Israel in obtaining nuclear facility in 1974, after being defeated in war with Egypt, in 1973 and exploded the nuclear device in Nevada deserts, known to every one in the world.

USA did not pressurize India to not to go for nuclear, first in 1974 and then again in May 1998, and it has, rather, gone further with an agreement to provide Civil Nuclear Technology to India. Whereas some of the EU countries and Australia, as well, supplying heavy water for India’s nuclear plants. There could be NO guarantee that India will not use the heavy water, being supplied for Civil Nuclear Plants, to produce nuclear arsenals.

It’s an indirect way of making India more powerful in the region than Pakistan and Chin. Again double standards of USA and the European countries as isn’t it proliferation of nuclear technology and accelerating the race for nuclear arsenals, in the region..?

USA assisted Israel in destroying Iraqi nuclear sites in 1981 US bases, in Saudi Arabia, provided refueling facility over Dahran. Israel has made three attempts, so far, to destroy Pakistani nuclear sites with the collaboration of India and Britain, whereas USA standing at the back, keeping a blind eye.Probably these countries have forgotten that Pakistan had told in the beginning that it will strikes,in seconds, on Tel Aviv, Bombay and Delhi, if any of these countries attempted to attack on our nuclear sites/arsenals.And now they all are after Iran, yet again another Muslim country.

As a matter of fact it is the USA, Israel and the EU countries who decide which religion Can have and which one can Not have nuclear technology. USA, Israel and the EU know that India being a Hindu state can never be a threat to Jews and Christians so these countries assisting India to become a super nuclear power in the region, to kill two birds with one stone, against Pakistan, a Muslim state, and against China, a country US is afraid of.

Bhutto has rightly written in his book, “If I am assassinated”, “why it is so that every religion of the world has nuclear umbrella for its safety and security, there is a Christian Bomb, a Hindu Bomb, a Jewish Bomb, an Atheist Bomb and a Communist Bomb but Muslims, despite being the richest nation in the world, do not have nuclear umbrella for their safety and security."

The poor man, the very first elected Prime Minister of the country, with overwhelming majority of seats in the assembly, was ousted by his own man, a snake up in his sleeves, on 5th July 1977, and then he was murdered on 4th April, 1979. Every one in the world knew who managed it. Yes, it was CIA, financed by Jewish lobby in USA. The nuclear plan, of Pakistan, remained suspended until the death of the US, the champions of Democracy, planted worst dictator in the history of Pakistan.

The Pakistani scientists, proud sons of Pakistan and Bhutto, revived the nuclear program and successfully conducted six nuclear tests on 28 May, 1998. Bhutto must have smiled in his grave on this day.

The bottom line is that USA and its allies, Israel and EU countries, want that no other country should have nuclear technology, particularly any of the Muslim countries, otherwise they will destroy the nuclear sites as they have done it in the past. Whereas the UNO keeps sitting like a pregnant duck, tilting totally towards US, ever since its inception, in 1945.

I believe I can generally recognize (if not always) both provocation and humour. There are limits, however, beyond which it becomes inhuman for anyone to simply do as if one were amused. In the history of mankind, there remain periods and events that we, as human beings, are duty-bound to remember and to bring to everybody’s attention through what are, everything considered, no less than statements of conscience.

Hence the following, out of respect for the victims, on the SHAH’s Iran, for the permanent record:

1. “Amnesty International’s 1975 report on the treatment of political prisoners in Iran was extensively covered in the European and American Press, and in March 1975, an article in the Sunday Times of London reported that “no country in the world has a worse record in human rights than Iran”. (“The Cambridge History of Iran”, vol. 7, p. 286.)

2. “The number of political prisoners in Iran is not known, though many sources refer to 100,000 prisoners." Yet, “as human rights deteriorated -- as torture and repression increased, as standards of living dropped, as unions were destroyed, and as government death squads became active – US aid increased.” (Noam Chomsky, THE TECH, April 28, 1978, www-tech.mit.edu/archives)

3. “It is amusing to contrast the September 24, 2007 treatment of Iran President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad by Columbia University President Lee Bollinger with Bollinger’s September 16, 2005 treatment of Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf and the treatment of the Shah of Iran in 1955 by Columbia University President Grayson Kirk (and by the media)… In February 1955, the Shah of Iran was a guest at Columbia receiving an honorary Doctor of Laws degree and he, like Musharraf, was greeted deferentially… In the real world, both Musharraf and the Shah of Iran fit comfortably the category of “cruel dictator”… Musharraf came to power in a coup and has ruled by decree ever since, in the interim carrying out quite a few massacres of his own people. The Shah was installed as ruler by the United States in a coup in 1953 (only 18 months before his Doctor of Laws degree award—or reward—at Columbia University) … The Shah’s torture chambers were famous, modernized with the help of his CIA and Israeli advisers and probably topped anything the Iranian regime has engaged in since the Shah’s departure. The crucial difference between the winners of Columbia presidents’ accolades and denunciations is obviously that the one denounced is a declared U.S. enemy and target, whereas the good guys served U.S. interests …

The Shah was even encouraged to pursue nuclear energy, just as the target Iran of today is being threatened for trying to do what the Shah was allowed to do, by dictate of the ruler of the world. In short, the double standard is comprehensive and even funny in its crudity, but the United States and its propaganda system prevent large numbers from seeing this and laughing the responsible charlatans off the stage.“ (More Nuggets from A Nut House”, Edward S. Herman, Z Magazine Online, November 2007, Volume 20 Number 11, zmagsite.zmag.org)

:Tom, Tom, Tom,

Thank you for admitting Iran is, "very little threat to the US, but when have I said they are?"

Not a bad premise to start from.

Let's move on to your other two points. First, Iran is run by a bunch of fanatics who want to wipe Israel off the face of this planet. Yeah, so what? How is that a fanatical position for a Muslim? Just because the west has supported Israel is absolutely no reason the Muslim world needs to support them or want them in their midst. There is nothing fanatical about the Muslims hate of Israel. The Muslim world views the Jews as heathen invaders who are polluting their land. Well wouldn't it be just special if we could wave a magic wand and the Muslims would change their mind and want to live in harmony with Israel? News flash: it ain't going to happen.

Second, nuclear proliferation in the ME. No one likes the thought of anyone building another nuclear weapon on this planet. That's a given. Of course that is particularly easy for us to say since we're sitting on about 18,000 of them. We told our citizens we needed this arsenal based on the soviet build up. It was the policy of mutually assured destruction. Whether historical facts support this policy or not is another discussion, but we lived our lives under this concept for well over 30 years. We did this because we felt the Soviet Union was our enemy and if we couldn't beat them then they would do us serious harm. Sound familiar? Let' move that concept to the ME. Israel, the Arabs mortal enemy, is sitting on somewhere between 20-200 thermo-nuclear warheads. With the exception of Pakistan, who built nukes in response to India, the entire amount of nukes the Arabs are sitting on are ZERO. Hmmmm, now we have an imbalance in power, don't we. So the concept of mutually assured destruction which we insisted on for our own protection was good enough for us, but not the Arabs. When the next major Israel/Arab armed conflict takes place (and it will) what assurance is there that Israel won't use nukes if it's losing? Remember now the Arabs are convinced the State of Israel is a terrorist state and run by fanatics. If I were a Arab leader I'd want the bomb to balance off Israel's arsenal. So Tom if you are really interested in Arab countries not having the bomb I suggest you start lobbying very hard for Israel to shut down it's nuke program and let the IAEA inspect to make sure all of their nukes are gone. If that happens you at least would have the basis for an argument, but until then your argument is very, very weak.

Now I get to have some fun. Every group, republicans included, have their own jargon. One of my personal favorites is when republicans talk about the spread of democracy. What they are really saying is any leader who sides with the US whether they are dictators or not. I reference you to the last line of your post where you said, "bring back the Shah."

The first question is that are we all so dependent on CIA for any verification ? Iran is saying it from long long time but no one is ready to listen.other hand there should be check on iran nuclear plan with security of iran and also starting an investigation on israel nuclear plan.let we have a free middle east from nuclear plan.

BobL

“I have read it and cringed all the way through it. People don't just to make up their own scenarios to justify an agenda. The facts need to be addressed. If the administration had proof that Iran was making a bomb we would have a debate based on these facts. If the administration has facts to support Iran is engaging in terrorist activities then we can have a legitimate debate based on this information. However, it is completely unacceptable to form a debate around misinformation. If the premises are false then the conclusions will necessarily also be false…”

Are you living in the land of Oz? If you accept the current NIE report, then the report plainly says Iran had a weapons program until 2003 so their goal was not peaceful and they lied about their program. No one seems to have any problem accepting that Iran had a weapons program (at least) until 2003 except you. Even China and Russia accepted the premise that Iran’s goals were NOT peaceful since they both voted for sanctions - twice. Even after the NIE report was released, France and the UK still SUPPORTED sanctions. Why?

Has Iran been more peaceful since 2003? Has Iran given any indication in deeds or words that they are a changed nation today? No, in fact, since Achmadinejad was elected President, Iran has acted even worse AND THEY REMAIN A DESTABILIZING FORCE IN THE REGION. In effect, Iran is her own worst enemy, but not by accident. There is absolutely no reason to believe Iran has abandoned her weapons program for good and clearly, much hard work is ahead for the next US President.

To answer your question, Iran is very little threat to the US, but when have I said they are?

I have always viewed Iran as a regional threat to Middle East stability. Most of my posts concerning Iran have focused on that issue. For example, Iran’s nuclear program could lead to a nuclear arms race with members of the Arab League concerned with Iran’s nuclear program. Does the world really need an arms race in the most volatile - yet vital - economic region on earth?

Iran has made numerous IRRESPONSIBLE threats against Israel including the now famous “wipe Israel off the map “ comment. The holocaust denial conference was an act of intimidation aimed directly at Israel and was calculated to carry more force because Iran was (is) suspected of developing nuclear weapons.

Iran is a state sponsor of terror including funding and directing Hamas, Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad. Iran is not JUST interested in attacking and harassing Israel, however, but is also involved in the destabilization of Lebanon - a rare democratic state in the Middle East.

Iran has opposed the Arab Peace Plan (first offered in 2002) because their stated goal is the elimination of the state of Israel. Iran has capitalized on anti Israel/US sentiment in the Arab world - Sunni and Shia - by standing up to Israel and the US, developing a nuclear program (weapons) and undermining attempts at peace between Israel and the Palestinians. Iran directs and funds Islamic Jihad and Hamas to harass Israel with rockets, mortars and other means - most recently while Israel and the PA discussed peace. Their goal is to draw Israel into a bloody ground offensive to undermine the peace talks. A third Intifada would work into their plans very nicely. It was another Iran proxy (Hezbollah) that started the war between Lebanon and Israel in 2006.

Once nuclear, Iran will use her leverage for strategic and economic reasons. Islamism will be bolstered, and one can expect radical Islam to receive a large gain in membership as Jihadist celebrate and welcome a radical Islamic regime to the nuclear club. Iran’s proxies will feel more secure, and peace will be much more difficult to attain. In addition, Syria will fall under Iran’s nuclear umbrella presenting problems for Israel and Lebanon.

Finally, a nuclear Iran with her fanatical theocratic leadership and Israel which has asserted her right to a preemptive strike under international law for defensive purposes is, potentially, an explosive situation. In addition, Iran through her proxies, Hamas and Islamic jihad (and potentially, Hizbollah), are nearly in daily conflict with Israel. The chances of a nuclear confrontation would increase dramatically under those circumstances.

Bring back the Shah.

Tom,

I have read it and cringed all the way through it. People don't just to make up their own scenarios to justify an agenda. The facts need to be addressed. If the administration had proof that Iran was making a bomb we would have a debate based on these facts. If the administration has facts to support Iran is engaging in terrorist activities then we can have a legitimate debate based on this information. However, it is completely unacceptable to form a debate around misinformation. If the premises are false then the conclusions will necessarily also be false.

As far as Iran providing support and/or arms to fighters inside Iraq what do you expect? How can they not view America's occupation of Iraq any different then the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan? We certainly provided the Afghans with arms in their occupation by the soviets. Were we engaging in terrorist activities by providing support that led to Soviet deaths? You don't have to answer this because I already know your response. Of course not because we're good and they were evil.

The arguments for interferring with the ME, economically, politically and militarily are terrible arguments. They all center around Muslim countries being misguided and it's up to us to show them the way. If they won't listen to us then we need to beat them up. If sanctions won't work then we'll invade. Who exactly is interferring with who here? Yup, we're interferring with them. We don't have the right or the obligation to this unless they commit an act of war against us. With the exception of the Taliban in Afghanistan we have seen no act of war committed against us yet we are interferring with them anyway.

Right wing foreign policy simply fails to take into account the US's overwhelming military superiority. Let's examine this for a second. An analogy that might make sense is the US is the heavyweight boxing champion of the world. Now let's set up a fight with the ME. In one corner you have the heavyweight champion of the world and in the other corner you have a three year old girl. This fight is so lopsided it is ridiculous. We toppled Afghanistan with only 20,000 troops. We went through Iraq like a hot knife through butter. These aren't fights Tom, they are one sided butt beatings. Iran would be no different. We'd go through them like a hot knife through butter. We're simply flexing our muscle and we know they can't do anything about it. We're bullies Tom. We hype up the other side to sell how dangerous they are and then when we decimate them (which is a fore gone conclusion) we pat ourselves on the back and mutter something about that being easier then we thought. Yup, we're the world's bullies alright.

Now, it's question time. What exactly has Iran done that makes it a threat to the United States?

BobL

Read Thomas Friedman’s article from the New York Times this morning. The NIE report was a severe blow to diplomacy. Three(+) years of diligent work by the Bush administration to put WORLD diplomatic and economic pressure on the Iranian regime. Completely undone from one stupid report.

I believe we should be thankful to Mustafa Domanic for his contribution.

It is a masterpiece! By giving rise to an insane conversation on potential mutual extinction, it indeed points to the only viable alternatives to unmitigated madness, i.e. 1. world disarmament, 2. peaceful, diplomatic resolution of world conflicts, and 3. peaceful coexistence under the leadership of a world body representing the interests of the community of nations as a whole.

Once upon a time, in our own lifetime, there existed people, groups, countries even, working toward world disarmament and peaceful coexistence. Even in the media were found human beings who could present and discuss the advantages for humanity to set itself, pursue and achieve those collective goals. In our midst, people could be found, who understood the fundamental changes required, in our way of thinking, in order for us to attain such truly human objectives.

As always, violence, and more particularly state sponsored and state organized violence, is very unlikely to produce the results its promoters expect. Yet those it will produce have been known to us since the early beginnings of mankind. War still ought to be considered and treated as a funeral service.

Even victory is a funeral.

As a follow up to my previous post I reference you to the post before mine by Tom Wonacott. As a good conservative if you read his post you can see the world is full of evil and needs to be dealt with.

What this movement fails to address is the overwhelming disparity in military might that exists between our country and Iran (or anywhere else). When they are forced, by facts, to concede our overwhelming military advantage they argue the other side is so fanatical they would do anyhing and that's what makes them so dangerous. The point could have some validity if there were any historical basis for such an accusation, but there isn't. Neither Iraq or Iran attacked the US. BinLaden and his spedunklers, who were aided by the Taliban, did. We'll certainly showed them. In response we'll let BinLaden hide out and we'll spend 2 trillion dollars beating up Iraq. Doesn't that seem like a just punishment for BinLaden. He didn't really like Saddam much to begin with so I'm sure BinLaden cries himself to sleep each and every night knowing we hung him. We sure showed BinLaden.

Like I said reason is on a holiday and irrational fear mongering is driving the bus.

God, I wish we'd grow up and get our heads out of our butts. Arguments against allowing Iran to at some point in the future to build a nuclear weapon go like this. US good. Iran evil. When this position is put under scrutiny and doesn't hold up then it falls back to, "you can't possibly argue that nuclear proliferation is a good thing." Neither of these two positions even comes close to accurately describing the issue.

Since the end of WWII the US has proven over and over and over again to be an aggressor nation. Not only is it an aggressor nation it leads the world by a large margin in aggression. This is just historical fact. No other nation has come close to the numbers of armed interventions the US has taken since WWII. We need to face the fact we are not a peaceful nation. We care very little about peace. We care a lot about influence and are willing to commit massive quantities of troops and armament for that purpose. Wingnuts are fond of telling us the world is a dangerous place. We have enemies everywhere and it's up to us to eradicate these enemies. It has finally reached the point under Bush where we don't even try to define what an enemy is. Now it's the terrorists. We can't define them, but we're going to fight them anyway. Without a question we have finally arrived at a point where the absence of logic is acceptable.

It wasn't bad enough we had to cook the intelligence to invade Iraq and then when we were forced to admit maybe we made a mistake that it was OK since they deserved it anyway. Now we cooked the intelligence on Iran and when that proved false we're saying the exact same thing. Does anyone else see how ridiculous this approach to the world is?

When will enough be enough? We already have the capability of rendering Iran a useless piece of land for the next 500,000 years in the blink of an eye. Sad to think about, but very true. Our government knows this and the Iranian government knows this. We have approximately 8,000 active strategic nuclear warheads with another 8,000-10,000 in reserve. We have the best deivery systems on this planet today. Our subs, bombers and missiles are second to none. Yet it's not enough? We're rattling sabers with a third world ountry? It just reeks of David and Goliath and contrary to Bush it has nothng to do with Iran not building a nuclear weapon. Iran is simply no threat to the US. I repeat Iran is no threat to the United States. Anyone who buys into this third world nation who may or may not build a bomb in the future is capable of seriously hurting our society needs help. Scenarios under which they could adversely affect our society are so ridiculous they aren't even worth mentioning.

Bush and Cheney's continued saber rattling against Iran when they knew Iran wasn't even trying to build a bomb was simply fear mongering to establish a new enemy. After all, this administration will never be accused of letting facts get in the way of an agenda. We're only even having this discussion today because we have entered a period of time where reason has taken a prolonged vacation and irrational fear mongering is driving the bus.

PG

To answer the question posed by Washington PostGlobal, the world has not changed and, more importantly, Iran has not changed.

The CIA did tremendous damage to US policy by pronouncing (with a high degree of confidence (?)) that Iran had ended her nuclear weapons program in 2003. Iran began her foray into nuclear technology with a secret program which is now confirmed to be a nuclear weapons program. The only legitimate way to stop the program is to stop the process of uranium enrichment which is exactly the idea behind the diplomacy and sanctions galvanized by the US for the past four years.

From Johnathon Shell, The Daily Star, Lebanon, December 08, 2007:

“Every technically competent person knows that the paths to civilian nuclear power and to nuclear weapons are the same, except for a few last, comparatively simple steps. The hard part is obtaining the fissionable materials - plutonium or highly enriched uranium. …Nuclear power requires low-enriched uranium as fuel. Enrich it further, in the same facilities, and you have bomb-grade highly enriched uranium (HEU). The remaining step - slamming two pieces of HEU together to create a critical mass and an explosion - is easy: the blueprints can be downloaded from the Internet…”

The hard part of developing nuclear weapons is the process of uranium enrichment. Once that is mastered, anyone (even a terrorist) can make the bomb. Iran has done the hard part and is enriching nuclear material today. In other words, the CIA has determined that Iran stopped the (relatively) EASY PART of the process in 2003, thus their weapons program is dormant. We must TRUST the Iranians yet no reasonable person could conclude anything other than the obvious long term goal of the program - nuclear weapons.

The NIE report damaged (probably destroyed) a policy of diplomacy and sanctions against a regime that has shown through their actions of financing and directing proxy terrorist organizations such as Hamas, Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad and their continuous threats to destroy a sovereign nation (Israel) that they cannot be trusted with nuclear technology. Their actions and words speak loudly and clearly of their long term goals.

The NIE report was developed from the same agency responsible for the largest intelligence failure in US history, and now they may fear being wrong a second time. The report severely damages a policy meant to stop the Iranian development of nuclear weapons primarily by taking the military option off the table when reality dictates that a credible threat of military intervention caused the Iranians to stop their program in the first place (2003) since there was NO diplomacy at the time. What do the Iranians have to fear now?

Through the UN, the reluctant Russians and Chinese, the US, the UK and France were moving to pressure the Iranians with a third set of UN economic sanctions. Iran’s largest trading partner, the EU generally backed sanctions. This has all been wasted by the NIE report, and now, China and Russia will most likely veto another round of sanctions. The EU still recognizes the danger of the Iranian program and has renewed their call for sanctions, but how long will that last as there will be economic pressure to resume normal relations with Iran?

From “Iran We Trust?” By Vallerie Lincy and Gary Milhollin published: December 6, 2007, New York Times:

“…During the past year, a period when Iran’s weapons program was supposedly halted, the government has been busy installing some 3,000 gas centrifuges at its plant at Natanz. These machines could, if operated continuously for about a year, create enough enriched uranium to provide fuel for a bomb. In addition, they have no plausible purpose in Iran’s civilian nuclear effort. All of Iran’s needs for enriched uranium for its energy programs are covered by a contract with Russia.
Iran is also building a heavy water reactor at its research center at Arak. This reactor is ideal for producing plutonium for nuclear bombs, but is of little use in an energy program like Iran’s, which does not use plutonium for reactor fuel. India, Israel and Pakistan have all built similar reactors — all with the purpose of fueling nuclear weapons. And why, by the way, does Iran even want a nuclear energy program, when it is sitting on an enormous pool of oil that is now skyrocketing in value? And why is Iran developing long-range Shahab missiles, which make no military sense without nuclear warheads to put on them?…the halting of its secret enrichment and weapon design efforts in 2003 proves only that Iran made a tactical move. It suspended work that, if discovered, would unambiguously reveal intent to build a weapon. It has continued other work, crucial to the ability to make a bomb, that it can pass off as having civilian applications.”

In one report from a fearful intelligence agency, the US DIPLOMATIC policy painstakingly fomented over the past four years has been decimated and peaceful Iran (soon enough) will advance toward their goal of nuclear weapons. The Middle East can expect many ramifications including a regional arms race as a result of this poorly thought out report which contains many qualifiers and unknowns.

Claire W. may I ask you and other pseudo-peaceniks on this blog who are commenting that we cannot allow any one else to go nuclear or that nuclear technology is not the answer, would you suggest the same to your american and israeli counterparts? surely if nuclear deterrent is such an evil thing nobody should have it specially the one country known to have used it on a civilian population (and yea i've heard all those disgusting excuses for nuking japan).
Really, if you leave iran alone, it has got nothing to do with you guys. are people really so dumb not to understand that its not Iran thats after US its the other way round. all because of oil. I believe that Ahmedinejad or whoever follows him would be considered the biggest traitors of persian history if they roll back their nuclear programme and turn a blind eye to this impending threat. Once having rid Iran of its WMD's America and NATO in their zest to loot Iran of its oil will make Iran worse than Iraq.

The report is a big relief for those who in this part of the world are sick and tired of a decade of continuous violence and confrontation. If the report was affirmative then definitely US administration on minimum level initiate at least a targeted attack resulting destabilizing the whole area.

The question also arises that how credible these reports are and how much role of intelligence agencies should be considered as normal.

Not long time ago same agency was on fire due to some erratic information which triggered Iraq war. Now in Iran case the same people can argue that in case the CIA unable to explore the concrete evidence then it does not mean that the danger is eliminated.

My argument is that the role of intelligence agencies should be curtailed in international politics. The relation ship should be made on the basis of charter of UN.

Unfortunately this is very easy to write but very difficult to practice.

The world simply now will not buy a story that any country has a divine right to develop a nuclear arsenal because his safety and security demands it ,or it is in national interest. But on the other hand the world will also not allow some country to invade or attack another country just on the suspicion of having a smell of some smoke.

For last thirty years Iran and US relations are at lowest level. Today if you want to analyze that what is the reason of such adverse relationship then interestingly you will not find one single reason except the unconditional support to Shah of Iran who was a symbol of hate in Iran.

But now after thirty years the generation of today hardly remembers those old days of brutality, injustice and torture.

I hope that for the time being the project Iran will be shelved. It means more peace and prosperity in the region. I expect that oil prices will fall down and relationship between Arab countries and Iran will be friendlier.

On part of Iran this is not a time to be jubilant but to be more humble and start initiating good working relationship with International Atomic Agency.

For US it is a good opportunity to start direct or indirect talks with Iran. Iran is a key for the Middle East settlement. It can open a door of opportunities to tackle Hamas and Hezbollah. And geographically it controls straight of Hormuz. The life line of energy for the world.

No, Iran definitively shouldn't be allowed to have a nuclear program. Only superior beings, those chosen-ones by Fareed and David, should have the possibility to use their intelligence for whatever they feel. Inferior humans as those Iranians - they only invented modern math through pure luck - should already be happy to not be carpet bombed to stone age. They should in fact be forced to pump their oil faster for our industrial societies. Hey, it shouldn't even be *THEIR* oil, but *OURS*.

I guess I don't understand. Who are we (especially this administration) to tell anyone how to behave? Really!

It would have been one thing for us to share the true cost of our nuclear weapons journey with the Iranians. We could take their elected officals for a tour of the Atomic Museum at Kirtland AFB and perhaps visit some of our weapons and rad waste sites to give them an idea. We could suggest that the money would be better spent on just about anything - controlling heroin addiction and addressing unemployment problems, for instance. It's another thing entirely to even consider going to war(!) to stop a sovereign nation from developing a weapon. That's a buffoon's reaction.

The appropriate response would have been to welcome the Iranians to the Club and let them know that if they ever decide to use the nukes they'll be responsible for the consequences. I can think of a few.

The really intelligent response would be for us to focus on our economy, which is our true national strength. It wouldn't hurt to control our appetite for oil. After all, who's really paying for this weapons development program?

Sure, let them continue! I mean all they did was deny they had a program while they actually had a program. And I mean gee, we think they shut it down. Our intelligence always gets WMD estimates right, too! I mean look at Iraq, Pakistan and India. Our guys are always right.

Israel has killed more people in the last 50 years than Iran has...

The US has killed tens of thousands in the Middle East and hundreds of thousands in the SE Asia war of the 60s-70s...

Is the US the "moral" leader of the world when it condones torture?

The Saudis want nukes too... if Iran gets them then the Saudis will want them.

If Iran is prevented from developing nuclear weapons the world will be safer. If the US stops bullying (interferring) other countries the world will be safer. If Israel were to make real peace with the Palestinians the world would be safer... If pig flew...

iran should be treated as any other country that wishes to develop and make use of nuclear energy. if the u.s. and israel have a problem with it, then they should negotiate a disarmament treaty in which the nuclear playing field in the middle east as well as off the shores and out of the gulf are concerned. playing the part of the bully as the u.s. has recently believed through it's own self delusions and foreign policy failures no longer works in the eyes of the people of the world. if we as americans persist, then i would hope that we are also ready to tackle the coming problems related to external isolation. if we choose to play the game based upon our own rules only, i would wish the best for us. however, i highly doubt that the best is what we will, in the end, be on the recieving end of. we are fully mortgaged to the hilt and no longer really own our own country. we as american citizens have been sold out by those who believed that economic neo-fascism would carry the day. SO MUCH FOR THAT!!

How is the world different if Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapons program, as the CIA now says? Should Iran be allowed to build a nuclear power program with no inspections or obstructions?

When I first heard the news about Iran's program I was pretty happy and thought perhaps things would not be so bad with Iran after all. Perhaps conversation with Iran is possible. Above all perhaps intentions, etc. of Iran can be grasped and there is compatibility with Western aspirations.

But then I started thinking that perhaps the troubles with Iran are real--that there has always been a program--but a major under the table breakthrough occurred in the sense that the U.S. would agree to say that Iran terminated the program years before if Iran would now back off the program...In other words I started thinking that this was a face saving, etc. strategy devised by both nations.

But then the worst thing of all occurred: a division within the U.S. itself about the CIA report which leaves the U.S. with an administration in conflict with the CIA. And this of course is something of the uncertainty of intention of Iran radiated to the U.S. and back to Iran and back to the U.S. No layman in either country I suspect can make head or tails of their respective governments.

So therefore 1) the happiest outcome would be if the report is true, but of course Iran would have to submit to inspections by outside powers on all things nuclear. 2) the second best scenario is if a face saving strategy has been devised where the CIA "admits" Iran has backed off therefore making the U.S. and especially the Bush administration look slightly stupid for the grand reward of Iran actually agreeing to back off now. And the worst scenario would of course be the present bickering which still leaves us totally in the dark. In fact the present bickering is so harmful I would suggest an attempt to salvage things along the lines of scenario number two presented above.

But perhaps there is a fourth scenario--the happiest one of all: that there really is no conflict between the U.S. and Iran and what we have is a "conflict" devised for public entertainment along the lines of sports. I strongly suspect that supposing world peace is possible we will first have to pass through a stage where people are not really aware peace has been accomplished--must be kept unaware of such peace--because people get bored so easily and must have conflicts. Sports teams are not really in conflict but people must have rivalries even if not fundamentally in conflict. In fact a necessary stage of the illusion of conflict must exist if we want to get to a conflict free world...At least this is how my happy little theory goes. I hope conflicts with not just Iran but Russia, China, etc. are just "agitations" on the way to world peace--necessary agitations because trying to eliminate all agitations immediately and just move to world peace is impossible. We must have a politics of strategic agitations while under the table mutually assuring, providing comfort and security for all.

A layman can only hope. As an American on the ground in America and completely powerless I can assure my Iranian counterparts that I know as little about my own government as they do, and I certainly hope they know more about their own government than I do about my government so at least some of us in the world have at least some idea of government...

Or perhaps I should just hope governments across the world have some idea of one another because it seems even citizens in the freest countries have no idea about their own government let alone peoples, let alone governments, of other nations.

The average citizen knows nothing. It almost seems a mockery, an insult, to be asking questions such as this one on Iran of the average citizen.

I intend to just struggle through another day, try to be brave about things, to be as Confucious once said, something about the better type of man being free of anxieties because of not having done wrong; free of perplexities because of being wise; and being free of fear because of being a brave man.

I am not even close to being this type of man. I just want to be a bit braver and less fearful and more capable of living an honest and self-respecting life. I believe this is true of any man. I doubt there can be a true relationship with Iran or any nation for that matter--between any two nations--without something of the fundamental lessons of the great philosophers.

We should be conversing with Iran. That much should be understood. I fail to see how anyone can fail to see that. Sit down and talk with Iran. Or maybe the citizens of Iran and the U.S. should talk with their own leaders, because the conflict between the U.S. and Iran is starting to go beyond mere entertainment. It is starting to suggest that we might be far from peace in the world.

Sit down and talk with Iran.

Please! Iran is fully within its right to make nuclear weapons if they want. The last time I checked, they were a soverign nation. I understand the concerns about nuclear weapons and technology being too available, but someone should have thought about that before North Korea and Pakistan and India. Those countries are helping countries around the world with nuclear programs - Argentina, Brazil, Jordan, Egypt, Indonesia, and who knows where else! The cats long out of the nuclear bag and the world would do much better to rethink of ways of keeping those weapons from being USED! With various punits talking about the U.S.'s using nuclear "bunker busters" to knock out Iran's program during last year's hysteria and the world taking that seriously(!!!), I'd say we have a lot worse problems than worrying about Iran's current nuclear energy program.

"Should Iran be allowed to build a nuclear power program with no inspections or obstructions?"

Silly question...Good grief ...not even Russia is agreeing to that...there should be transparency and they have agreed to work with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and began a round of talks today. In the end they will join the Switzerland based consortium being organized by Persian Gulf states under Saudi leadership...of course, Netanyahu is in France today stirring the pot...I think there will not be a united front for more sanctions if Iran cooperates in upcoming talks with US over security issues in Iraq...

The countries which possess today nuclear power are supposed to have governments, who will act responsibly at wll times.
Whilst Iran's present political and religious system, with a president who makes all kinds of threats against members of the United Nations and is known to help and arm terrorist groups, particularly in Iraq, Palestine and Lebanon, should not have nuclear military power. Consequently, if Iran would be able to obtain nuclear power, it would create a situation in which a majority of countries, members of the United Nation, will consider the situation dangerous and insecure.
If Iran would have the nuclear power, the world - including sunni moslem countries - will feel the danger of having a nuclear bomb threat.
Iran is certainly entitled to have nuclear facilities in order to generate peaceful electrical power, but the way it has acted in the past, hiding its real activities from the UN controllers, it becomes imperative that they accept normal controls, having signed the non-proliferation document. No control is highly dangerous.