It really seems like Bush is stoking the fires for Iran getting Nukes.

First he issues the "Axis of Evil" speech which no doubt made Iran fear being invaded or attacked.

Then yesterday we gave India a free pass on the No Nuke proliferation agreement while warning Iran not to build them....also not helping Pakistan in a similar fashion.

My question is:

Do you think Iran would be pursuing this if it hadn't been for our gov'ts actions?

Iraq and Iran have been in an arms race (and war) off and on for decades. We had absolutely nothing to do with this.

The Shah had big plans for a network of 23 power reactors, but the US did not consider this a danger, because he was an ally, and he did not ask for technologies to enrich or reprocess spent nuclear fuel.
In the years after the Iranian revolution, US concern about Iran's nuclear efforts focused on Russian help on the Bushehr nuclear reactor project. Those concerns were heightened in 2002, when a dissident Iranian group, the National Council of Resistance of Iran, helped expose clandestine nuclear facilities at Natanz and Arak.
The 100,000-square-meter Natanz facility is the location of a pilot uranium centrifuge enrichment plant, as well as a future commercial-size centrifuge plant. If Iran masters enrichment technology, it will be able to make its own fissile material, including possible bomb material - and it will have jumped the most difficult hurdle on the path to becoming an atomic power.


http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0124/p01s02-usfp.html

Well, I think any nation with the ability will try to make it a reality. Why wouldn't a nation want nuclear weapons/technology/energy when some people don't and they are trying to keep anyone else from joining them? To me, this is like a few children in a sandbox excluding kids who are still playing on the monkey bars. America's not really at fault, Iran is just interested in joining a higher status group (perhaps in their minds). Am I advocating letting them have nukes? Nope. But am I interested in telling the world what they can and cannot do? Nope.

Do you think Iran would be pursuing this if it hadn't been for our gov'ts actions?

I think this story says they are very unhappy that we are standing in their way. Needless to say the Europeans are with us but we get the wrath and IMO our relationship with hated Israel is key to that.

VIENNA, Austria — Iran threatened the United States with "harm and pain" Wednesday for its role in hauling Tehran before the U.N. Security Council over its nuclear program and for plans to push fellow council members to impose tough measures against the Islamic republic.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,187160,00.html

First of all, here's the actual quote:



Second, they were refering to their oil policy. OPEC met today remember? OPEC decided to keep production at the same level. Iran's "harm and pain" is to cut its export of oil, which would drive oil up to $100.

Do you think Iran would be pursuing this if it hadn't been for our gov'ts actions?

You forgot one other aspect of Bush's behavior: He fiddled while Russia sold Iran all this technology, and never threatened any adverse consequences (such as reducing their aid) if they kept it up. And yes, I agree that if he had been firmer with the Russians, the situation probably would not have degenerated to the current level.

As for India, I don't see how that contributed to bringing this about, given that Bush's arrangements with that country happened well after this Iranian crisis got underway.

Iran has been pursuing nuclear "technology" since the 1960s.

The US was once her ally in this pursuit but things have changed, obviously. I think the assumption Bush's policies are responsible are absurd and intrinsically American centric, which is not in the least bit surprising.



Russia is being punished and pushed and directed regarding her involvement with Iran. That is why we currently see Russia being the one to make the offerings and the demands and the ultimatums to Iran.
I have been incredibly impressed personally with how they ..that would the the western powers, have been handling this situation thus far. Bush has kept quiet, Europe has remained solidified and Russia is the messenger. How well do you think all the idiotic anti-western propaganda works in Iran when explaining this situation to it's people..when it is Russia that tells Iran it must cooperate. Not Bush or Blair....but Russia.

Russia will NEVER enter the WTO until all this mess is taken care of.

The hard line stance I think can be attributed to an american prescence. Had they not been there I doubt the current president would have been elected.

Also, be very careful where you get your news from. A perfect example would is yesterday's 'harm and pain' comments. The partial version, the headlined version and the full version give the reader mixed feelings with the situation.

So before you judge the inflamatory remarks establish the full context in which the remarks were made and ignore the headline completely. The media quality on this affair is inconsistant at best.

I guess psyclist beat me to the punch but the point remains the reader gets a very distorted interpretation out of Fox. If that was my statement, I'd have fox retract it immediately and issue an apology.

"Harm and pain" can only mean one thing when Iran uses them in relation to the United States: higher oil prices.

Fortunately, Iran does not decide OPEC policy.

Lower production from Iran means less money for Iran (and higher prices for the US). It does not mean lower consumption of the US (since we do not import Iranian oil). It does mean higher prices (since oil is a commodity).

Iran fears the UN Security Council because it could impose sanctions on Iran. The US already does not trade with Iran, so Iran has little to fear from a US threat. A broader threat of sanctions could really harm them however. Which is why it tried its threat to the US regarding reporting them to the UN Security Council.

The Fox story (I posted the link) was complete as you would expect.

The story exemplifies my view of american journalism and this isn't an isolated case either.

There is nothing productive with following your train of thought Amlord. Sooner or later they will be forced to pull between 500-1 million barrels off the exchange and attempt a Venezuelan-type boycott. Iran will lose profits, we would endure 100+ dollar oil and the press would miss this completely and chalk it up to greedy mullahs. Once protectionist measures start, they are difficult to contain.

This isn't about nuclear weapons, this is about keeping Iran's southern Khuzestan oil fields as under developed as possible until the government changes. Have you any idea how much pressure China and Russia exert on Iran to develop the infrastructure with their money? Quite a bit actually.

Iran is undergoing an energy crisis of their own and needs to expand the energy grid south towards the persian gulf or risk losing investor interest to the northern 'stan regions.

Once you realize the pressure Iran's energy grid is suffering, holding back fuel to be further refined for weapons-grade use is not only a money losing situation - it would impede future growth. IE the extra refining is unfeasible and against investor interests.

I think it's too little, too late. If we had put the squeeze on Moscow much earlier, the problem likely would not have grown to where it's at now. We could come down on Russia like a ton of bricks now, and it wouldn't change much.

Russia may be putting pressure on Iran now, but I seriously question whether she has the fortitude to see this through to the extent necessary to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. So Russia's telling Iran to "cooperate". What's that supposed to mean? Once Iran starts making a show of "cooperation", will Russia and Western Europe start to go wobbly? Maybe they won't, but we shouldn't have let the situation degenerate to this point.

As a bit of a relevant aside:

This is not directed specifically at Iran, I agree them gaining nuclear weapons would not be a good thing. But:

Very soon the world is going to have to face the reality that the nuclear genie cannot be put back in the bottle. In 1950 the money, scientific knowledge, precision workshops and level of skilled expertise necessary to craft a functioning nuclear weapon were totally beyond all but the richest and most advanced 2 or 3 nations on the planet, and even then it was almsot beyond them. There were three components of a nuke that simply required the best of the bst to design correctly: the trigger mechanism, the detonation sphere, and then you had to actually get your hands on sufficiently pure fissile material.


Now that is utterl obsolete. With some money and the rools available at Radio Shack, a grad student in Engineering can build a nuclear bomb. The only issue left is getting the fissile materiel, which is still quite tricky.

There are currently 7 declared nuclear powers: The USA, Russia, China, Britain, France, India, Pakistan, and two semi-declared or unofficial nuclear powers: North Korea and Israel. There is also South Africa, the only nation to develop and deploy nukes, and then get rid of them unilaterally.

But the list of nations that COULD have a functioning weapon in les than three weeks if they wanted it is much longer. Japan, Czech Republic, Canada, German, Spain, Italy, Brazil, Argentina, Turkey, Egypt, Mexico, Venezuala, Thailand, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, and more. All have the necessary expertise and machine capability to build one in no time, and most have access to the fissile material. (In fact the largest Uranium deposits in the world are in Canada and the Czech republic).

So we are now down to will as opposed to means. And the realiy is, a lot of the world, in particular the third world, has the will, and easy access to the means.

Iran having the bomb is bad, but in the next ten years a dozen other rogue or semi-rogue states will easily have the same capacity. Invading them all, or even putting huge economic pressure on them all is not going to work. Worse, as these borderline states develop the capacity, how long before some of the nations on the list above do the same in reponse? Japan has already made it know publicly that they can have a deployable atomic weapon in 2 weeks if they want one, and there are rumours that they already do have a couple built in secret.

What happens when Nigeria goes nuclear? When south Korea? When Taiwan? We need a new mechanism, a new strategy, cause the old one is out of date. Either that or just let it happen

Iran is just the first of the bunch.

Which is why we need to draw a line in the sand now. We (as an international community) need to stress the gravity of the responsiblities that accompany possessing nuclear weapons. If you are irresponsible (as Iran has been in the opinions of many), then we will do what it takes to prevent you from going nuclear.

How we handle this will be a tremendous influence when other countries make their decision about going nuclear.

I agree. We can agree that the genii is out of the bottle but that does not mean we should not do everything possible to stop states such as Iran that supports terrorists and hates the US and Israel, from aquiring nuclear weapons. Even if we feel safe from nuclear attack here, and IMO we are not, what we don’t need is for a nuke to get to a radical Islamic group who would use it to take out Jerusalem or Tel Aviv. This could illicit an immediate attack by Israel on Iran.

Needless to say nuclear war in this region would be a disaster for the world economy.

Do you really believe that?

America has supported Saddam regime and armed the them with WMDs for use against Iran. Isn't it very natural that they feel threatened by US and want to have a deterrent. (Although I seriously doubt that that is the only reason why they want them.)



There are many people around the world who believe that US is being irresponsible.

Then who will prevent the US from having the largest nuclear arsenal in the world?

I find it very hypocritical when some country tells another country that they can't be allowed to have nuclear weapons while they have more than any other country. It is especially very funny when the country in question has a history full of terrible actions.

Firstly, one small fact: Russia still has the largest nuclear arsenal in the world, they have since about 1975. Not that this is terribly relevant, as the US is second...


With regards to Iran, I suspect we cannot blame the US for Iran's weapon development, they have been looking in this direction for ages, and working towards it independent of the actions of third parties.

I suspect we can blame the US for the 'acceleration' of Iran's nuclear program, they probably felt given the 'axis of evil' speech and so on sooner was better than later, but the program existed either way.




That's rousing Churchillain rhetoric Amlord, but what does it mean? Assume for a momen that Iran is intent on getting nuclear weapons, and will not bedeterred by economic sanctions which will in all likelyhood be skirted by Russia and outright ignored by China.

In the words of Sean Connery, What are you prepared to do? The US cannot engage in a war with Iran at the moment, its military is too streched even to deal with its operational requirement in Iraq. Same with the UK. Invasion, at least at the moment is not an option. So, its fine to draw a line in the sand and say 'Iran shall not have nukes!' So then Iran ignores you and develops nukes, and once it becomes a nuclear power, military intervention is doubly not an option., for obvious reasons.

Then what?

Anyone in the US afraid of Iran should read this article. Iran supplies the terrorists to do America's dirty work. That guarantees that Iran will be on the map for a good long time. All the rhetoric between the two nations is a public show put on to cover the fact that America regularly uses terrorists in proxy wars against Russia. The Cold War Is Not Over. Why do you think the Chechnyans are so well organized and supplied? They seem to be as stubborn as the Afghans...hmm... America needs a bogeyman to float its military-industrial complex, and the Axis of Evil is the perfect bogeyman.

Nuclear war has not been a threat since the fall of the Soviet empire, and it was not much of a threat even then. Soviet Russia was not dangerous because it was not poor. It simply had too much to lose from a nuclear engagement, let alone MAD. WWII Germany was dangerous only because it was poor and the Germans had nothing to lose but everything to gain. Iran is not dangerous because it is not exactly hurting for money either. They are a paper tiger, with way too much to lose from any kind of nuclear engagement. Really, the only dangerous countries left on the planet are Pakistan and North Korea, and Pakistan can always milk its relationship with the US. N. Korea isn't that dangerous because it is basically propped up by Russia and China. If those two withdrew support, the country would collapse on itself. But N. Korea is the proxy threat of Russia and China vs. the West.

Basically, all perceived international conflict left in the world is artificially constructed. At least part of the reason Bush gave a huge golden egg to India is to put pressure on Pakistan. At least one journalist noted that Pakistan looked upon that deal and recognized that soon they will be Mexico to India's America. The reason Iraq is in turmoil is that we need it to be in turmoil. We want there to be a strong fundamentalist Islamic foundation in Iraq, so that it too can be used as a source of extremists for global conflict. A protracted occupation complete with inexplicable torture of prisoners is just the thing to whip up frenzy and create a whole new generation of anti-American extremists. The democratic gov't in Baghdad is mostly controlled by powerful Shiites under influence from SCIRI, which is based in...Iran. Iran is our Global Center of Terrorist Operations, the primary conduit for funding to Hezbollah, the PLO, probably Hamas and Islamic Jihad.

Of course, we most likely fund terrorists in other parts of the world as well, including Indonesia, Malaysia and probably much of al Qaeda. Remember that Osama bin Laden was once on the CIA payroll...who's to say he still isn't? What a wonderful bogeyman of our own making! We can trot him out whenever we need to go "Boo!" and put him in hiding when we want attention focused elsewhere. The reason Osama has never been caught is simply because we don't want him to be caught. That would be too symbolic as a goal in the War on Terror. He must be our Emmanuel Goldstein. We must all sit down and have our Two Minutes Hate towards Osama.

Note that Afghanistan was not about oil. Oh, sure, we trotted out the oil explanation as a diversion. But to understand Afghanistan, you need to look at a map, and see who is directly north. Afghanistan is the dagger pointed at the belly of Russia, and keeps Russia in line. We're pretending to be hunting down terrorists over there, but since those terrorists are of our own making, we're really just using that as a cover for more interesting operations. What those are, we can only guess at. But I have a feeling we'll find out sooner or later.

No, the world is a surprisingly safe place...unless you live in a colony (meaning you live in the Southern hemisphere), or unless you have been marked for "sacrifice" in a terrorist operation to keep the War on Terror alive. Nukes? Who's scared of em?

THIS long article is an extra-ordinarily clear statement of the issues surrounding Iran's nuclear program, the NPT, the risks inherent in a Security Council Resolution, and the attempts of the Bush Administration to maneuver the country into another disastrous war.

Fma
Do you really believe that?



Certainly we supported Iraq over the greater evil of the time Iran but we NEVER gave Iraq WMD. If you want to make a silly claim like this at lease support it.

Iran is dangerous to the US (as Iraq was) not because they might attack us- which would be suicide but because they have a long history of supporting terrorists. Terrorists supported by Iran have killed hundreds of Americans – only Al Qaeda has done more.

IMO we can leave Iran to the Israelis. They are the country Iran could attack. They are close enough so that a massive nuclear attack on Israel might even succeed. Since much of the hatred directed toward Americans is directly related to Israel we should face Iran with the AEIA and let Israel any military actions they feel necessary.

We supplied Iraq with weapons-grade anthrax and botulin poison during the war. This is noted here (PDF file) along with a list of U.S. companies that provided weapons development assistance. Don't forget that Iraq started the war and it was a territorial conflict -- there was no "greater evil of the time."

Wikipedia:



Do you think Iran would be pursuing this if it hadn't been for our gov'ts actions?

Of course. What nation in Iran's position wouldn't want nuclear weapons. Nuclear arms are a military asset to any nation (I'm not trying to portray nukes in a positive light, though) and reduce the chance of invasion. However, I think U.S. policies have accelerated their race for nukes -- we don't have exactly have the best track record with them. They now know we weren't afraid to take out Saddam and they could be next on the list.

Neither the US government nor US companies gave Iraq WMD in the sense of weaponized agents. That statement is undeniable fact, and I challenge you to find a single instance of a weaponized Chem or Bio agent being delivered to Iraq by the US or a US corporation.

At the time, trade and profit took preference over national security - and that is what drove the various deals. A potent mixture of greed, bureaucratic incompetence and lack of oversight is glaring throughout the time-frame when the US government and private corporations were providing Iraq with tools that it needed to build such a program. As bad as that is - especially with hindsight, and knowing the ensuing awful results, it does not equal intent.

In sum, the US government of the time did not knowingly permit these exports with the specific intent of enabling Iraq to develop a WMD capabilities, as you imply.

For more authoritative information, visit the Center for Non-Proliferation Studies - Iraq Special Collection

Although Iraq used chemical weapons during the war in numerous well-documented instances, the Saddam regime never used biological weapons.

Do you think Iran would be pursuing this if it hadn't been for our gov'ts actions?

Well let's see: did not an Indian general once famously observe, "Who fights these Americans is a fool -- unless he has nuclear weapons?" And did we not just give a major demonstration of that same point, right on Iran's doorstep? And finally, does anyone here notice how the mighty U.S. pussyfoots with "evil" North Korea, which HAS nuclear weapons -- not to mention with China and Russia?

Res ipsa loquitur.

Do you think Iran would be pursuing this if it hadn't been for our gov'ts actions?
Iran has never said that they want Nuclear Weapons. Iran banned CNN because they misquoted President Ahmadinejad.
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/831...62E1C1F29F7.htm
These are the same lies for going to war with Iraq which all proved to be false. Iran has every right to nuclear energy and to a further extent, nuclear weapons. If we want Iran to cease pursuit of nuclear energy, we would start an initiative to have all nuclear capable countries to disarm and dismantle their nuclear programs. Then we might have an argument, but we cannot suggest that Iran would use them considering the USA is the only country that has ever used such a weapon. Our policies and positions are rife with hypocrisy.

Do you think Iran would be pursuing this if it hadn't been for our gov'ts actions?

Irans current government has been jockeying for nuclear power ever since it first began. Whats mainly causing the current dillema, is that China actually gave it to them.

Obviously the best benefit of having nuclear weapons would be MAD eleminating the threat of foreign invasion. If your a lose cannon, it also might make people scared you.

Assuming that Iran is persueing nukes, I would say that we have defenitely had an impact on making them doing so, but they might done so even if we weren't a factor. What about them defending themselves from or engaging in combat with Israel? We'll wait...Israel wouldn't exist without us...

Well anyways power is power.

I haven't had the time to read the whole thing yet, but this (PDF file) research paper argues that the US did give Iraq biological agents. I'll see what else I can find later.

If you read this it is more of the same garbage about the anthrax (base material) sent to Iraq and other countries in the 80s and before. This Is NOT weaponized anthrax and in fact weaponizing anthrax is VERY difficult and only a few countries in the world can do it. This base bacteria was available for decades all over the world for agricultural research and was not used against Iran in any form.

The small quantity purchased would have to be cultured with lots of growth medium (like the tons imported illegally in 1995 by Iraq- not from US) and then weaponized and great expense of time and money. To blame the US for Iraq having weaponized anthrax is ludicrous.

Do you think Iran would be pursuing this if it hadn't been for our gov'ts actions?

I remember the debates about the Axis of Evil speech and the Bush Doctrine of preemptive attacking countries that threaten the US. Seems to me that some debaters warned of exactly this sort of problem. I don't care to dredge them up, but someone used the analogy of guns in the neighborhood suddenly making the local gun shop real busy.

The predictions are coming true. Dang, imagine that. What in history might have given us a clue? How about the Cold War. Or maybe the Indian wars in the US. Seems that aggression breeds weapons deployment, from repeating rifles to nukes. I suppose this comes from way back, the Bronze Age.

Another way I look at this is how empires have to conquer the entire known world under the aggression philosophy. Ah well, I'm having past lifetime regressions right now, so guess I'll go do something else. Build a plant stand or something.

I think it would be useful in this debate or question to consider this..who is the more eager to form an empire under aggression and intimidation? The Islamists, mullahs and Iranian Islamic Republic or the EU and the US?

I suppose you could gage a government's "temper" with the conditions and manners in which they govern their own people...who is more known or keen to domestic shows of aggression?

This constant push to frame the Iranian govt as victims and innocent bystanders to Western aggression...from those who reside within the Western world themselves is revolting. Read up a little on what the Iranian govt is most notorious for in the whole "aggression philosophy" of governing before you come to make claims of their
inactivity in intensifying this conflict.

Do you think Iran would be pursuing this if it hadn't been for our gov'ts actions?

Nothing happens in a vacuum. When the most powerful nation in the world invades the country right next door to yours with the intent of rebuilding it in an image more acceptable to Western values, it is understandable to feel nervous about it when you know that said nation takes a dim view of your politics and attitudes.

But it is also possible that Iran would be developing nukes to strike Iraq if Saddam Hussein were still in charge. After all, they fought each other in a bloody war not too long ago.

The United States got the ball rolling when first developing and deploying nuclear bombs. Is it any surprise to anyone to have the other nations of the world following suit by developing nuclear programs of their own? In that sense, we can take credit, or blame, for their rush to arm themselves with nuclear weapons. The genie won't be shoved back into the bottle anytime soon.

Okay, it works on all sides the same way. Yep, I won't argue that Iran doesn't want to build its own empire. This is just the way of the world, so it looks. We really haven't come very far from the Bronze Age.

Well, let's look at this. Who is more aggressive, the US or Iran? Hands down when it comes to rhetoric, Iran wins. When it comes to actions, the US wins. It isn't very hard to see that when an aggressive country has nukes, possible target countries what their own too. This has happened with virtually every weapon advancement, from the sword on up.

Oh well, looks like we'll never come up with a solution. Time to paint the plant stand.

Do you think Iran would be pursuing this if it hadn't been for our gov'ts actions?

It needs to be kept in mind that there is no solid evidence that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons.

(http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=8828)

What is clear is that Iran can now enrich small quantities of uranium to the approximately 3% level of U239 sufficient to fuel a reactor - not the 90 plus % necessary for a nuclear device. The US position is that it won't accept Iran having any enrichment capability, even though it clearly has such a right under the NPT.

Now I'm willing to concede that it is probable that Iran wants a bomb. After all Israel probably has several hundred nuclear bombs, Pakistan has them, and both the US and Russia have 10s of thousands and have outposts all around Iran.

Do I think US actions produced this desire? No, but I think they strengthened it. I also think the US missed a good opportunity to negotiate some constraints on the Iranian nuclear program in return for relaxing sanctions and consistently assuring their government that they had no security concerns. Instead, we have done the opposite with efforts to promote "regime change" and constant threats of military attack.

(Edited to add this recently discovered link to Representative Ron Paul's speech on the floor of the House. I also added the same link to the "Ground Troops in Iran" forum. What he says is relevant to both topics. Ron Paul is a conservative Republican with a Libertarian bent).

Ron Paul Speech

Exactly – in fact Iran and Iraq have been in an arms race for decades. As we know now Iraq in 1991 was only a year or 2 from a bomb and you can bet their arch rival Iran knew this. Iran and other Arab states also know their most hated enemy, Israel, has nukes and they want them as well. The fact that we are Israel’s biggest supporter IMO is the reason we are at the top of the “evil” list in the Middle East.

You left off the next line:


http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Statements/...6n003.html#iran


Then there is this interview with Mohamed ElBaradei: http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Transcripts...ek12012006.html




El Baradei has not given them a "clean bill of health". In fact, the opposite is true.

I can say with conviction that any military action taken against Iran will reinforce a weapons program. The diplomatic approach at least has a chance of containing enrichment activities and working on the crux of the problem - transparency.

If I may break off on a small tangent, I will remind everyone that since the March meeting, the Security Council came up rather empty handed.

El Baradei declared no source or special nuclear materials had been used in furtherance of a nuclear weapons program, but that "the Agency is not at this point in time in a position to conclude that there are no undeclared nuclear materials or activities in Iran."

Note the suspension of all enrichment activity was not detailed in the 1974 Non Prolilferation Treaty, nor the Safeguards aggreement but was insisted upon by Mr. Bolton's address in March.




By testing the credibility of the IAEA Mr. Bolton has turned an issue that would normally be handled by the Safeguards Agreement and turned this into a empty demand without precedent.

If Iran does not have a secret military program after this, this action will most likely provoke one.

I fail to see how Elbaradei's qualifying remarks refute my stated position,that there is no solid evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. I even stated that I thought it probable that Iran did desire nuclear weapons. The point is that it is reckless in the extreme to promote a military confrontation with Iran, particularly without such evidence and without making a non threatening effort to reach an accommodation with Iran.

The other aspect of Elbaradei's position that you should consider is that he was under intense pressure from the US to find reasons to refer Iran to the Security Council. After all, US officials sought to have him fired for his lack of deference to US wishes in the run up to the Iraq "preventive" invasion. The situations have much in common. Then his agency could find no evidence of any nuclear weapons program but made qualifying remarks about its inability of proving that none existed. Now the IAEA again is declaring they can find no evidence of a nuclear weapons program in Iran but are again stating qualifiers.

What there is evidence for is that our reckless administration has been pursuing regime change in Iran from the beginning, even to the extent of cooperating with the Mujahedin-e Khalq (a State Dept. designated terrorist organization) and other Iranian dissident groups. (See this Jim Lobe article).

I think the situation is significantly different than the run up to Iraq.

El Baradei is clearly unhappy with Iran. Some characterize is as angry. This is reference in the interview I posted earlier. That interview is linked on the IAEA website. Clearly, El Baradei's position is not that Iran is harmless or misunderstood.

His remarks about possibilities are not a bone thrown to the US. They seem to be real uncertainties. He even goes so far as to say that Iran must change how it is going about its nuclear program. In his words "that margin of security is unacceptable."

As Vermillion pointed out, the technology involved in nuclear weapons is no longer all that secret. The only thing stopping most countries from acquiring nukes is access to the raw material. In other words, a uranium enrichment program. El Baradei himself says that if Iran has a clandestine nuclear weapon program, it would be only months away from having a bomb.

This could all be a ploy by Iran to get US sanctions reduced. The oil industry thought Bush would drop the sanctions in 2001 and let them get some development contracts in Iran. Sanctions have been in place against Iran for more than a decade and Iran has, at times, made some attempts at normalizing relations with the US (the Conoco deal in 1995, for example, where Iran specifically chose a US company to develop the Sirri A and E oil field.



Then why would Bush suspend sanctions against Iran after the earthquake in 2003? Why not let mother nature punish Iran? Why was it a British diplomat that came up with a plan for convincing the Chinese and Russians to back some type of action against Iran, including "further measures" if Iran does not "engage positively"?

This current situation is a rehash of 2003-2004 when Iran first revealed its enrichment program. Iran backed down then, but now Iran is back at it.

This situation is not a Bush creation. He is not the only one who does not want Iran to pursue the path it is on.

By the way, the International Crisis Group has an excellent summary of the situation and perhaps a workable solution: delaying Iran's domestic enrichment program for a period of years in return for a reliable off shore source of reactor grade uranium (from Russia).

Iran has already rejected this proposal: link.

Iran has purchased, at great expense, and concealed the centrifuges required to produce weapons grade uranium. They intend to have nuclear weapons and long range missiles to deliver them. How can you “compromise” with a country that is intent on doing exactly what you do not want them to do? Even economic sanctions will not work well since they are a country rich in gas and oil.

I say we let the Europeans carry the ball here.

European diplomats familiar with what Iran has told inspectors in recent days say that the country has already largely built a second "cascade" of 164 centrifuges, matching the one that is already in operation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/14/world/mi...r=1&oref=slogin