Thank God We've Reached a Plateau, Because We're Exhausted From the Climb

The latest data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, reported in this week's Journal of the American Medical Association, confirm that obesity rates among American children and adults have leveled off in recent years. Since 1999 the prevalence of high body mass index among children and adolescents has remained essentially the same. Among women in the survey, the rate of obesity (defined as having a BMI of 30 or more) was about 33 percent in 1999–2000, 2001–02, and 2003–04, then 35 percent in 2005–06 and 2007–08. Among men, the rate rose from 31 percent in 2003—04 to 33 percent in 2005–06 before declining to 32 percent in 2007–08. Reporting the data in JAMA, researchers at the CDC's National Center for Health Statistics conclude that "the increases in the prevalence of obesity previously observed do not appear to be continuing at the same rate over the past 10 years, particularly for women and possibly for men."

William H. Dietz, director of the CDC's Division of Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Obesity, is sounding more optimistic than he did when discussing BMI trends last summer. "Right now we've halted the progress of the obesity epidemic," he tells The New York Times. "The data are really promising." That may sound like Dietz is taking credit for stopping our transformation from man to manatee, but he thanks Mom (and possibly less apple pie):

Dr. Dietz said the data probably reflected increased awareness of the obesity problem, especially among women, "who buy food, prepare it and see it, and they’re making changes for themselves that they’re also making for their kids." He also cited a reduction in "less healthful foods" at school.

David Ludwig, director of the Optimal Weight for Life Program at Children’s Hospital Boston, is less confident that lifestyle changes account for the plateau:

Dr. Ludwig said the plateau might just suggest that "we've reached a biological limit" to how obese people could get. When people eat more, he said, at first they gain weight; then a growing share of the calories go "into maintaining and moving around that excess tissue," he continued, so that "a population doesn’t keep getting heavier and heavier indefinitely."

Furthermore, Dr. Ludwig said, "it could be that most of the people who are genetically susceptible, or susceptible for psychological or behavioral reasons, have already become obese."

In other words, WALL-E was not a documentary. But that does not mean we should succumb to complacency, which would threaten public health, the CDC's budget, and obesity research grants:

Experts like Steven Gortmaker, a Harvard public health professor, said obesity would decline only with new policies, like penalties and incentives to promote healthier foods and exercise.

"If you look at the reversal of the smoking epidemic," Dr. Gortmaker said, "substantial change didn't really happen until there were bans on advertising and limits on consumption through things like taxation. We have to make some substantial changes."

I'm not sure what sort of "penalties and incentives" Gortmaker has in mind to get us to eat our vegetables, turn off the TV, and go for a jog. But it's not true that the decline in smoking occurred after tobacco advertising was banned and hefty taxes were levied on cigarettes. Per capita cigarette consumption began to fall after the January 1964 surgeon general's report linking smoking to lung cancer. It rose a bit in 1965 and 1966, dropped for four consecutive years, and rebounded slightly in the early 1970s. But it never returned to its 1963 peak, and in 1974 it began a steady decline that continued for two decades. The ban on TV and radio commercial for cigarettes took effect in 1971 and was actually followed by an increase in cigarette consumption. Other substantial restrictions on advertising (such as the billboard ban included in the 1998 Master Settlement Agreement) were not imposed until relatively recently, and the same is true of big tax hikes aimed at discouraging consumption. Leaving aside the morality of paternalism, the experience with smoking does not suggest that coercive measures are necessary to move people toward healthier lifestyles.

The JAMA article on BMI trends in adults is here; the one about BMI trends in children and adolescents is here. My earlier discussion of the weight plateau is here and here. My critique of the War on Fat is here.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    What you mean you can't just take past trends and project them linearly into the future? I am shocked.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Disco Stu: This chart shows the growth in sales of disco records from 1975 to 1978. If these trends continue... Ayyyyyyyy!

  • Jordan||

    Experts like Steven Gortmaker, a Harvard public health professor said... "We have to make some substantial changes"

    We don't have to do anything, asshole. Public health professors might be even more obnoxious and useless than Angry Studies professors.

  • ||

    I thought for sure the average weight of Americans was going to be half a ton by 2010. That is what the statistics said.

  • incif||

    just playing around with BMI numbers.

    18.5 and below is considered "underweight" (at least the first site I found). 23 years ago, I had a BMI of about 20 and I was underweight then.

    6 ft and 145 is underweight. Not as bad as when I graduated HS at 6 ft and 125, but still.

    My weight peaked this last summer, which put me at a BMI of 29. I was overweight, but I was not borderline obese (30+). My goal weight would have me at a BMI of 23, which is barely in the normal range (18.5-24.9), but having been everything from 125 to 215 at this height, is actually in the middle of the normal range.

    175 wouldnt be a good triathalon weight, but would be a great rec league indoor soccer weight (You cant muscle people off the ball at 145).

  • ed||

    I miss the old days, when an "epidemic" was propagated through actual human contact. Now, apparently, you can get fat just by turning on your TV.

  • Death Panelist||

    Does this mean NBC is going to have to cancel The Biggest Loser?

  • brotherben||

    BRB, gotta choke a smoke and get some doughnuts.

  • ||

    William H. Dietz, director of the CDC's Division of Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Obesity, is sounding more optimistic than he did when discussing BMI trends last summer. "Right now we've halted the progress of the obesity epidemic," he tells The New York Times.

    Any scientist that doesn't understand the difference between a widespread communicable disease and a statistical trend, and then uses that ignorance to further a political agenda, needs to be not only fired, but taken out back and shot.

  • ed||

    First, you call it an epidemic. Then you declare war on it. Then you get a federal agency to fund your war. Then you get a celebrity to endorse your war. Then you slander anyone who dares to question the legitimacy of your war, because only a lunatic-fringe traitor would want America to lose a war.

  • Christopher Carr||

    According to two new studies released by the CDC, the obesity "epidemic" appears to be "in remission", but this is hardly cause for celebration. Obesity among boys ages 6 to 19 is still on the rise, and we have irreversible metabolic damage, diabetes, and heart disease to look forward to in the future. The solution is not focus groups or community support centers. The solution is to stop thinking of obesity - in actuality a series of poor choices - as a disease akin to cancer or AIDS. Instruction in basic nutrition must be implemented in elementary schools across the country to ensure the next generation can make more informed choices than their parents did.

    Christopher Carr
    The Inductive
    http://www.theinductive.com/bl.....ateau.html

  • Mo||

    Before busting out the bubbly, perhaps we should look at other causes. Like say, the economy. The economy likely has something to do with the plateau since people are probably eating out less and home made food is generally healthier than restaurant food. This is partly because when you cook at home, you use significantly less butter, oil and lard* than restaurants.

    * NTTAWT - butter, oil and lard are delicious.

  • ||

    I can't find the link but there was an article in the Brit press a few years ago about how health experts consider World War II and its aftermath to be a golden age of British health. No kidding. People were on strict rations and were essentially legally prevented from eating anything but a bland, low calorie diet. The public health people didn't say it, but between the lines you could tell that they wouldn't really mind returning to such a system. These people are not your friends.

  • ||

    No kidding. Grandma Dean made her bona fide authentic New Mexico style chili with lard, and I can't convince my wife to do the same.

    I mean, its good with shortening, but its freakin' awesome with lard.

  • ||

    There is a Mexican restaurant out where my dad lives in Kansas. It has been there for sixty years. Grandma and grandpa started it when grandpa got back from the War. Same family still owns it. Everything made with lard the old fashioned way. Everything is to die for.

  • ||

    There is a Mexican restaurant out where my dad lives in Kansas. It has been there for sixty years. Grandma and grandpa started it when grandpa got back from the War. Same family still owns it. Everything made with lard the old fashioned way. Everything is to die for.

  • Warty||

    “Consider the porterhouse steak with a quarter-inch layer of fat. After broiling, this steak will reduce to almost equal parts fat and protein. Fifty-one percent of the fat is monounsaturated, of which 90 percent is oleic acid. Saturated fat constitutes 45 percent of the total fat, but a third of that is stearic acid, which will increase HDL cholesterol while having no effect on LDL. (Stearic acid is metabolized in the body to oleic acid, according to Grundy’s research) The remaining 4 percent of the fat is polyunsaturated, which lowers LD cholesterol but has no meaningful effect on HLD. In sum, perhaps as much as 70 percent of the fat content of a porterhouse steak will improve the relative levels of LDL and HDL cholesterol, compared with what they would be if carbohydrates such as bread, potatoes, or pasta were consumed. The remaining 30 percent will raise LDL cholesterol but will also raise HDL cholesterol and will have an insignifigant effect, if any, on the ratio of total cholesterol to HDL. All of this suggests that eating a porterhouse steak in lieu of bread and potatoes would actually reduce heart-disease risk, although virtually no nutritional authority will say so publicly. The same is true for lard and bacon."

    My chili has become much more awesome since I started cooking the beef in bacon grease, by the way.

  • Zeb||

    Shortening is nasty. And not better for you than lard.

  • ||

    Butter and unprocessed animal fats are healthy. Bullshit transfats and vegetable oils aren't.

  • brotherben||

    Perfect southern biscuits have 3 ingredients. Lard, self-rising flour and buttermilk. Finest kind.

  • Zeb||

    Self-rising flour is not one ingredient.

  • brotherben||

    Seriously? You really think that way?

  • Zeb||

    I really think that way. But not seriously.

  • Warty||

    I recently decided that since the health assholes don't have a fucking clue, I would start using butter, bacon grease, and lard instead of oil and shortening in everything I cook. Everything I make is now fucking delicious, and I've lost weight besides. Fuck you, health assholes.

  • ||

    Same for me. As someone once said, I'd rather trust a cow than a chemist.

  • ed||

    I've been using the Smart Balance 50/50 product. The best of both worlds, or at least two worlds.

  • kinnath||

    Since 1999 the prevalence of high body mass index among children and adolescents has remained essentially the same.

    Did you RFTA?

  • Spartacus||

    I'm not sure what sort of "penalties and incentives" Gortmaker has in mind to get us to eat our vegetables, turn off the TV, and go for a jog.

    Just like any other epidemic, the solution is quarantine. It worked for smoking and it will work for obesity. We just designate certain tiny, confined, uncomfortable areas as the only indoor places fatties are allowed to be. Problem solved. Except for all the ding-dong wrappers that will accumulate right outside entrances to buildings.

  • zoltan||

  • robc||

    Yeah, using BMI without fat% makes no sense.

  • robc||

    The problem with the cartoon is the dude on the right weighs more than 250.

  • zoltan||

    True, at 6' that guy would have to be 300 at least.

  • Rhywun||

    Am I the only person who finds the taste of lard disgusting?

  • ||

    I don't find it to have a strong flavor at all. Maybe some far off notes of mineral funk, like dry aged steak.

    It's certainly not a scrumptious fat on its own, like duck or clarified brown butter.

  • Warty||

    You're not supposed to drink it by itself, sillyhead.

  • ||

    If you eat it like play dough, yeah it is pretty disgusting. But, if you use it as a shortening in baking or to fry things in, it works quite well.

  • zoltan||

    One word: tamales.

  • Rhywun||

    I am only familiar with it from "Grandma Utz's Lard-Fried Chips" (not the exact name...) -- I figured the revolting flavor was coming from the lard, cos the only other ingredients were potatoes and salt and otherwise Utz are great.

  • ||

    Hork. Lard goes rancid if not refrigerated or at least kept cool.

  • Warty||

  • ||

    If we reset the obesity baseline so that what we have today is considered the norm maybe all of the busybodies hectoring Americans about their weight (we all have mirrors dumbasses) will STFU. Or at least find some other public health personal behavior to lecture us about.

  • ||

    But it's not true that the decline in smoking occurred after tobacco advertising was banned and hefty taxes were levied on cigarettes.

    You can repeat this for nearly any government action. Something only is able to obtain a majority of the vote after the popular mentality has turned in its favor anyway. This applies to nearly anything, whether smoking, racism, obesity, mine accidents, child labor, mandatory schooling, etc. The trend always predates government action. Looking at graphs of trend lines, it is generally impossible to tell when government laws were passed and implemented.

    Now, supporters of government action argue that legislation was still necessary to codify gains after the low-hanging fruit was achieved via the private sector.

  • Creamy Goodness||

    Up until now, more and more women did not appreciate the "No Fat Chicks" bumber sticker on the back of my IROC-Z. I'm glad disgust is leveling off.

  • ||

    How can you have creamy goodness without fat?

  • In Time Of War||

    Studies have shown mice and rats live longer on very low calorie diets. Obviously, the government should starve us so that we can live longer.

  • Paul||

    Don't get me started on these cadaverous nutcases.

  • Warty||

    Jesus fuck! They're corpses!

  • EscapedWestOfTheBigMuddy||

    the rate of obesity (defined as having a BMI of 30 or more)

    Anyone who defines obesity on the basis of BMI can be safely ignored as a scientist.

    Fer glod's sake, people. The damn thing works kinds, sorta, OK for comparisons between people of uniform racial heritage and lifestyle activity levels, but it fails spectacularly as soon as you release those constraints.

    Just stop taking reports that rely on it seriously. People who use the fool thing need to be mocked without mercy.

    Not that this is a pet peeve, or anything.

  • Paul||

    The latest data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, reported in this The Journal of the American Medical Association, confirm that obesity rates among American children and adults have leveled off in recent years.

    You should all get your presidential knee-pads on and thank Bill Clinton.

  • Paul||

    Fer glod's sake, people. The damn thing works kinds, sorta, OK for comparisons between people of uniform racial heritage and lifestyle activity levels, but it fails spectacularly as soon as you release those constraints.

    Big Muddy... are you trying to tell us that the Kenyans and the Eskimos don't have the same metabolism? Get the fuck outta here.

  • Hacha Cha||

    BMI is a joke, it wasn't meant to say if someone was obese or not. there are people who are perfectly healthy and NOT fat who according to their BMI are obese. check out Penn & Teller's Bullshit! episode on obesity, its great and even has a fat guy olympics.

  • OWS VPS||

    Still the fattest country on Earth.

  • OWS VPS||

    Iranian Nuclear Threat Missing Context: US Sold Iran Its 1st Reactor!

    The War Mongers are beating the drums to bomb Iran because of the annual "Iran's building a nuclear weapon" threat (I'll show how this is an annual drum beat, amplified during elections at the end of the diary.

    Frustrated by the now obviously false roll out campaign for war against Iraq, I wanted to know more about this Iranian nuclear threat. I was surprised to learn that we, the US, launched Iran's nuclear program in the 1950s.

    I felt that the media wasn't providing context. This is an effort to present the context. We launched Iran's nuclear program. I'll try to keep this concise. If you want more details, click on the brown or orange text to read the cited documents.

    QUICK HISTORY

    In August, 1953 the U.S. and the UK gained control of Iran via the reluctant Shah and the successful CIA/MI6 choreographed coup.

    The US and the UK got to be the recipients of Iran's oil as well (no pun) as opening the door for Iranian nuclear energy.

    1953 ATOMS FOR PEACE

    A short four months after the successful overthrow of Iran's pro-oil nationalization democratically elected leaders Eisenhower launched Atoms for Peace in his 1953 speech.

    Iran's first nuclear research plant was completed by the early 1960s by an American company.

    American Machine and Foundary built the first Iranian and Pakistani nuclear power plants in the late 1950s.

    After the Atoms for Peace program was signed, a lot of "research rectors" were built including the AMF Tehran Nuclear Reserch Center. If you click this link and search for 195 (to find reactors built in the 1950s) you will find 40 reactors built in the 1950s. A new boom business is launched.

    In 1970, after a decade or more of running the 40 research reactors, the stage is set and The Non-Proliferation Treat is written.

    Iran signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in 1968 and ratified it in 1970, making Iran's nuclear program subject to International Atomic Energy Agency verification.

    The Shah of Iran was brought on board because it was obvious that, at some point, Iran wouldn't have any oil left and would need energy.

    Apparently there was also a perceived need for a multi-national nuclear fuel reprocessing plant and it appears that Iran was the chosen host.

    Read the 1970s memos provided below. It appears that the goal was to have Iran provide a multi-national approach to fuel cycle activities in Iran and its readiness to exercise leadership in this regard (Page 3)

    In the 1970s, Kissinger, Brent Snowcroft, and President Ford worked with the Shah to implement Iran's nuclear program with plutonium provided by the United States. They even asked the Shah for $300,000,000 to help build a facility IN the USA.

    The Memos

    December 6, 1974 Department of State memo outlines the thought process for negotiating the U.S. - Iranian Nuclear Agreement.

    To understand the launch of the U.S. - Iranian nuclear agreement process, this memo is a must read. Henry Kissinger approves this memo.

    On page 2 of this memo it states

    Also, at our instigation, approaches have been made by the Bechtel Corporation to Iran to encourage the Shah's investment (on the order of $300 million) in a private uranium enrichment plant to be built in the United States.

    According to the memos, the U.S. had already entered into agreements with Israel and Egypt although I couldn't find them in a quick search. This diary isn't about Israel/Egypt; however the memos demonstrate how important the context of the US/Israel/Egypt nuclear agreements were to the Iranian negotiations in the 1970s. Therefore, the US/Israel/Egypt proposed nuclear agreements must at least predate 1974, the date of the first memo.

    If you read the memo, you will find that Congress was interested in adding more US control of nuclear materials in the Iranian Agreement. Specifically, more control is safeguarding nuclear materials in Iran from theft by potential terrorists. Apparently, the IAEA Standard Agreement did not address security at that time.

    The concluding Recommendation paragraph states

    We recommend that we include a set of special conditions in the Agreement with Iran which go beyond the standard agreement but are less stringent than the agreements for Israel and Egypt.(Emphasis mine)
    Specifically, we recommend, and the Atomic Energy Commission concurs, that you approve submitting to Iran for negotiation the standard agreement for cooperation with the additional bilateral controls set out in Option Three.

    Option Three: Standard Agreement with Addition of Some of the Bilateral Controls over Materials Proposed for Egypt/Israel

    Advantages: This option would deal with certain of the Congressional concerns that might arise from the sale of U.S. reactors or nuclear fuel to Iran.....

    Disadvantages: The Shah might strenously object to having Iran, an NPT signatory and a nation with which we have a special relationship, treated differently from the countries with which we have standard agreements, although we could again present these features as less restrictive than the proposed Egypt/Israel agreements....

    This option or one more severe might alienate him toward the U.S. as a supplier of enriched fuel and nuclear power plants.

    We would take some risk that we would

    lose Iran's investment IN a U.S. private enrichment plant

    might lose the sale of enrichment services and leverage...

    ...run the risk of alienating other NPT parties, deterring future signatures or ratifications by establishing a precedent of requiring supplementary bilateral provisions for an NPT signatory, and being seen as calling IAEA safeguards into questions.

    April 22, 1975 Memo
    National Security Decision Memorandum 292, Page 1 of 2

    Subject: U.S. - Iran Nuclear Cooperation
    .... Permit U.S. material to be fabricated into fuel in Iran for use in its own reactors and for pass-through to third countries with whom we have agreements.

    .... Agree to set the fuel ceiling at a Level reflecting the approximate number of nuclear reactors planned for purchase from U.S. Suppliers.

    .... Continue to require U.S. approval for reprocessing of U.S. supplied fuel,...

    A year later, Brent Scowcroft writes this April 20, 1976 memo which is focused on the Multinational/Binational Reprocessing plant. It's a short memo. Here are a few snippets:

    Negotiation of a Nuclear Agreement with Iran
    The U.S. side should:

    Seek a strong political commitment from Iran to pursue the multinational/binational reprocessing plant...

    ....offering Pakistan the possibility of participation in a multational plant as an alternative to a national reprocessing facility.

    ....the U.S. should have the option to recover the plutonium produced in U.S.-supplied reactors or from U.S.-supplied fuel either on the basis of buy-back or a fuel exchange...

    Henry Kissinger, Scowcroft, and the budding Cheney Cabal lost their lead role in the U.S.- Iran nuclear negotiations when Jimmy Carter became President.

    President Reagan doesn't seem to pursue the US-Iranian nuclear program. Instead, Reagan launched the Iran–Contra affair

    senior Reagan administration officials secretly facilitated the sale of arms to Iran, the subject of an arms embargo
    There's not a lot of information regarding any interaction between the US and Iran regarding nuclear programs. I did, however, find this fascinating 1982 document:

    Obstacles To U.S. Ability To Control And Track Weapons-Grade Uranium Supplied Abroad in which Iran is mentioned on the list of U.S. SHIPMENTS OF HEU (highly enriched uranium) SINCE 1954:

    Page 23 ... With the exception of Iran,which has received 5.2 kilograms, the others have each received no more than a few grams in total shipments. NRC noted that physical security visit are not required for gram quantity amounts and that the shipment to Iran was made before the United States established physical security requirements for exports.
    The US Iranian Tussle during the Clinton Administration:

    Eventually, President Clinton did ease restrictions on export of food and medical equipment to Iran. Albright announced in 2000 that the U.S. would begin to "enable Americans to purchase and import carpets and food products such as dried fruits, nuts, and caviar from Iran" and also was confident that Iran would provide cooperation with the United States in the battle against narcotics and international drug abuse.
    The Iranian Nuclear Threat and the Media

    I have done a Google search for "Iranian Nuclear Threat" for each year beginning in 1995 because 1995 was an election year.

    1995 - Don't Exaggerate Iranian Nuclear Threat; Not to Worry? A letter to the Editor of the New York Times.

    From 1996 - 2002, the media doesn't have much to say about the Iranian Nuclear Threat.

    2002 - How Iran Entered the Axis of Evil. This is a very important turning point. And this article is the most concise and informative I have found to date. It's a must read in order to understand how we got to where we are with Iran.

    In the aftermath of Sept. 11, relations between the United States and Iran seemed -- remarkably -- to be warming up, as Iran quietly offered support for the U.S. campaign in Afghanistan. In November, Secretary of State Colin Powell shook hands with the Iranian foreign minister, Kamal Kharrazi, at the U.N. headquarters in New York City -- a simple yet historic gesture that seemed the most tantalizing hint of rapprochement between the U.S. and Iran since the Islamic revolution and the hostage crisis in 1979.
    But on Jan. 29, 2002, in his State of the Union address, President George W. Bush branded Iran and its "terrorist allies" as part of "an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world." And on Jan. 31, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice summed up the administration's position on Iran. "Iran's direct support of regional and global terrorism," she said, "and its aggressive efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction, belie any good intentions it displayed in the days after the world's worst terrorist attacks in history."

    Since this dramatic turnabout, press reports have tried to piece together the trail leading from the Powell-Kharrazi handshake to the "axis of evil" speech.

    2004 - Is an election year.

    Letter to the Editor of New York Times from Senator Jon Kyl.

    2005 - Experts warn Senate of Iranian nuclear threat / State Department official sees no signs Tehran is easing off

    2007 - (Avigdor) Lieberman: Israel can handle the Iranian nuclear threat on its own

    2008 - An election year. Lots of Iranian Nuclear Threat Talk from all sides.

    2008 - Re-Thinking the Iranian Nuclear Threat

    2008 - Obama Stands by Israel, Calls Iranian Nuclear Threat 'Grave'

    2008 - The now infamous McCain reponse:

    2008 - Both McCain, Obama exaggerating Iran's nuclear program McClatchy news

    2009 - Iran has been caught red-handed The Guardian

    2010 - A Congressional election year.

    2010 - West needs new missile shield against Iranian nuclear threat, Nato chief says The Telegraph

    Things really begin to heat up in 2011 as we approach yet another Presidential election year. It is interesting to note that Google doesn't pull up many news stories from traditional media in the off-election years. That's not to say the media didn't cover the issue.

    If you choose to follow up on your own, you will find articles from many pro-Israel sources like ADL and Israeli papers.

    I am choosing to focus on US media mostly, and have included a couple of UK articles when none were found for the US.

    2011 finds no lack of Iranian Nuclear Threat articles. The think tanks are really active. I am listing these as they appear in the Google search result, not by any preference.

    Carnegie Endowment - Containing the Iranian Nuclear Threat

    American Progress - Taking the Iranian Nuclear Threat Seriously Obama Administration Approach Strikes the Right Balance

    American Thinker - The case of the missing Iranian nuclear threat in new NIE

    Today's Zaman - The so-called Iranian nuclear threat by Mehmet Kalyoncu*

    Mondoweiss - Mossad chief’s statement removes Iranian nuclear threat (Will the ‘Atlantic’ report it here?)

    The Mondoweiss article above was written in response to this September, 2010 article in The Atlantic: The Point of No Return

    C-SPAN Iranian Nuclear Threat, U.S. and Israel Views (video)

    Fox News video w/Lindsey Graham War Necessary to Stop Iranian Nuclear Threat?

    Christian Science Monitor - Europe to Israel: Military strike on Iran nuclear program not an option

    Realite EU - Iranian Nuclear Threat Continues Despite Technical Setbacks

    2012 - Election year

    Santorum Says He Would Bomb Iran’s Nuclear Plant

    Oddly, not getting hits for Google search for 2012 "Iranian Nuclear Threat" and granted "Iranian Nuclear Threat" might be too limiting a search parameter.

    However, it feels like Iran's nuclear threat is being used to roll out the drums of war again.

    Maybe my computer, google, or I am too tired.

    What I hope you will take away from this diary is some context of the Iranian Nuclear program. Namely: THE US IS AT FAULT WE SOLD IRAN THEIR FIRST NUCLEAR REACTOR

    Thank you for tuning in.

  • LifeStrategies||

    Freedom to make your own choices, and enjoy/suffer the consequences, always works in the long-term. And so does becoming more aware... How else do you really learn? As it says:

    "Leaving aside the morality of paternalism, the experience with smoking does not suggest that coercive measures are necessary to move people toward healthier lifestyles."

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement