BTW, why did  Morris Talansky, an American,  go to Israel and cause another investigation of Olmert and quite like according to DEBKAfiles, a Zionist Israeli site, create the circumstances where Olmert might be forced to step down, create a caretaker government and an early election.  Who sent Talansky? What claims did he make against Olmert?
The Israel courts have shut information down.  Why would the U.S. want to remove Olmert? Could it be that Bibi Netanyahu is ready and waiting in the wings to create enough
fear mongering to manage to put Likud back in power with he as Prime Minister.  It is no secret he would in a minute with the U.S. go ahead with the long planned attack on Iran.

And Bolton is the very good buddy of none other than Mushroom Cloud Condi.  Is he acting as her surrogate? 

Recommendation to those actually interested in what is actually going on, take a little trip by the DEBKAfile site to see what the right wing in Israel is really up to, because the attack
won't just come from the U.S., but will be done in conjunction with Israel.  Think if you read what's available: October surprise to also effect the U.S. elections. Nothing like the need
for "war president" like McCain. 

Old news here related to Talansky:    http://www2.nysun.com/pf.php?id=58352&v=2385020121     U.S. "interests?"

And the information on the DEBKAfiles is here:  http://www.debka.com/

Sometimes an argument can be made more valid if one reads and acquires additional information?

No one really has a history of attacking a nation with a capable nuclear deterrent. To me that only shows why Iran wants them not why the US wont attack them.

The US is not going to attack Iran now, let alone when they acquire nukes. Saber-rattling sounds the same in every language.


Ahk

I think Ahk has it right.  Iran hasn't been completely innocent either as her ties to terrorist organizations are well established.  Furthermore, if the allegations of them providing weapons to groups in Iraq to kill American soldiers are true, then we have a very serious problem (and indeed could lawfully take military action).

With that said however, I have been long opposed to military action in Iran, and I think people would do well to think of Iran as a potential long-term ally.  It won't happen with this administration, but if Obama is elected, I see it happening - perhaps very quickly.

Iran wants one thing more than anything else it seems - they want to be relevant.  Unfortunately, that means giving some legitimacy to their crack-pot leaders which certainly turns one's stomach.  The US on its own can significantly increase a nation's stature in the world and that should be used by our leadership as a powerful bargaining chip.  I've long believed that we can convince the Iranians to have positive influence in the region by simply promising to help enhance their image in the world.  We can do that immediately by normalizing relations.  We must also practice good statesmanship by giving credit where credit is due.  Iran can keep the Iraqi Shiite militias in check to a high degree and we should ask them to do this in exchange for some cheerleading at the UN and some economic incentives as well. 

But we can keep on going with this and hit some of the other big issues.  The Iranian nuclear program is a significant issue for many other nations (not just the United States).  So, how about the promise of taking down the economic sanctions and publicly supporting Iran in a PEACEFUL nuclear program in exchange for more transparency and cooperation with international agencies.  I think they would take it.

We also need to get them to stop supporting Hezbollah.  This will require a little more from us, and I don't really know if they would go for it, but I bet they have their price.  Those ties run pretty deep, but if we start offering security guarantees, perhaps a public admission of Iranian-American cooperation on the war on terror, and a removal from the dreaded "Axis of Evil", I bet we could get the ball rolling.

The fact is that we have a lot of cards we haven't even attempted to play here.  Iran I think would be more than willing to play ball but it needs to be public.  There will be propaganda and childish rhetoric to be sure, but we could build a framework for serious future cooperation.  I think we should give these things a try and see if we can actually make it work.  It will not only help Iran's status in the world, but our own as well.  Plus, I think that we would have more influence on Iran with regards to Israel if we were friendly with Iran.  We might even be able to moderate some sort of working relationship between the two (of course not right away).

This should be an exercise in American diplomatic power.  We can show the world that we are up to the task of easing tensions and finding real solutions to the world's greatest problems. 

Well when it's ALL the cases you can. Then it makes perfect sense. One way of looking it is that its only a few cases. Another way of looking at it is that it's 100% of the data, 100% of the cases.

The Cuban missile crisis made much more sense to me.

I'm not saying it makes it impossible. No one except the US during WWII has proactively used nuclear weapons, even when they are "insane" and hate each other and have every opportunity.

Drawing from any example is better than none and I don't really see a historical example where Iran is an overwelming threat in this regard.  They could've been lobbing chemical armed missiles at Israel for a decade now.


Dont get me wrong Fed: mostly i feel it comes down to just how crazy a person feels about Iran. I don't feel they're that crazy. i would if it was North korea because not only is he crazy but he's desperate....I just dont think the consequences register with a guy like that.and that may be the same thing to some people.


Ahk

No No and no again. The whole fallacy of this argument over the negotiation has been we in the west offered the incentive package to Iran and the iranians refused to accept the incentive package. Iran on the other hand has the rationale that if they have the capability inhouse to enrich enough uranium for civilian purposes why should they rely on the west for supply. Indeed NO ONE has a proof that they have the capability to make a nuclear bomb and producing nuclear energy for civilian purposes is Iran's alienable right.



On the basis that they have not attacked a single country. Attacking Iran under the pre text that they are going to use on the west and the rest of the world as soon as they get it doesn't make sense at all! But then again Fred no amount of evidence and argument is good enough. You have this tendency to come back with a counter argument to make a point and quite frankly there's very little susbtance to your arguments on this issue.


I agree on this. It happens very rare but it's true! Israel is especially playing dirty games by trying to engage US in a wider conflict with Iran. They are as much to blame and are not exactly the innocent party here either.
I ask you again on what basis do you conclude that is there no opposition by the rest of the world for US to attack Iran? Is it by saying that the iranians are on the verge of making a nuclear bomb and once they get it they will not hesitate to attack Israel and other countries like Begium? Common I know you have some common sense but give me a break!


Syria's allegations of building nuclear reactor is not new. In fact it's the same reactor Israel got the green light from the US to bomb. Such cases do offer challenges to the treaty but perhaps there should be more transparency into the activities of countries like Israel that are non NPT members yet it is alleged to have between 200-400 nuclear warheads at their disposal, which they obviously refuse to admit. 

Sorry for the delay in replying Fred, I've been here and saw your post, but just didn't have the time to sit down and write out a reply.  My apologies.  Also, I am not really disagreeing with what you are saying, just attempting to give my point of view.  I think we see Iran doing the same things, but may have a different perspective of what they are doing, and how to exploit it to different ends.


Indeed.  It would be interesting to see how Iran would react.  I think a favorable reaction is not out of the question.  But in any case, a highly public US peace proposal would undoubtedly put Iran on the spot.  Even Russia and China would have a hard time of defending Iranian defiance if such a proposal were made.  The UN would be squarely behind it, and the EU would almost certainly be vocal supporters of it.  Iran has successfully used world-wide frustration with the US to undermine the international community in regards to its nuclear program.  By seeking the high ground, the US can make Iran chose the path of defiance or the path of cooperation.  It is ultimately a win-win for the US and the world.  Iran only has one winning move - that of cooperation.  If they continue to defy the wishes of the world, even their most ardent supporters would have little choice but to throw in the towel.


A great question and one that may have a rather simple answer.  I think Iranian support for the Mahdi Army is their way of undermining US influence in Iraq while strengthening their own.  I don't necessarily consider the Mahdi Army (as a whole) to be terrorist in nature, though they are without question a negative force and counter to stability and political reconciliation in Iraq.  If Iran can control the Mahdi Army, then they need to be persuaded to do so.  We can accomplish this without too much effort I think if we make a diplomatic push that has a bit of humilty thrown in for good measure.

Hezbullah is a different animal all together.  Iran is essentially the parent of Hezbullah.  There was a time when Hezbullah was completely dependent on Iran but I think that time has passed.  Hezbullah, I think, can only be dealt with by the Lebanese and I think they will fail to reign in Hezbullah unless Iran is out of the picture.  Essentially, if Iran were to break ties with Hezbullah tomorrow, it would only weaken the movement, not destroy it.  Hezbullah's well-known strife with Israel is what keeps Iranian support coming.  This support is key to the leadership in Iran to maintain some outside foe in order to unite the Iranian people with a common purpose.  I think Iranians by-and-large would be all for decreased tensions with Israel, but this is counter-productive to the needs of the Iranian leadership.  Without an outside foe such as Israel, the Iranian leaders have one less thing to rally the people with.


I actually have to agree with Iran here.  I mean, we can't have a monopoly on nuclear energy.  If their intentions are peaceful, then we should be vocally supportive of their rights to enrich uranium.  But in order to get them to prove it is peaceful, we should offer them some incentives and guarantees that we have no interest on denying them this right.  Our primary purpose is to eliminate the proliferation of nuclear weapons - not nuclear technology.


Very true.  History will see this as a curious irony for sure.  Iran loses respect by defiance, but they are exploiting mistrust in American intelligence to continue on their path.  If their path is purely peaceful, I can't say I disagree with them.  But their actions do suggest a more devious agenda and we must work hard to stop it before it becomes a real problem.  The US doesn't have the international backing it once did.  However, my argument is that the US merely needs to show humble statesmanship and genuine understanding of the interest of all sides.  If we lead, the world will follow.  With the world standing with us, we can reassure all that Iran is on a peaceful path, or, we can expose their true intentions and take meaningful steps to isolate them and pressure them into halting their activities.

Israel was attacked and keeps getting attacked, we were attacked on 9-11. And if Iran wants nukes to ward off attack, that means they must fear an attack....and need nukes to offset such a risk, correct?

And then in the next sentence you're explaining how "The US is not going to attack Iran now". Well....doesn't their desire for nukes seem to counter your argument here, they obviously don't agree. They believe they need a nuclear weapon as no one really has a history of attacking a nation that is nuke capable.......so....they MUST be considering being attacked in their equations.

Additionally, you can remind the Iranians of Osirak, Iraq in 1983 and easily see the Israelis...with western intelligence help...torched the Iraqi nuclear ambitions..