Netanyahu and the Cartoon Bomb: The Medium Matches the Quality of the Message

Benjamin Netanyahu, leader of the only actually nuclear armed nation in his region, took his "prelude to war" show to the United Nations yesterday, alternately scaring and amusing the world with his cartoon bomb visual aid, for those "savages" in the audience for whom mere words would not convince (though the visual just confused Netanyahu's countrymen, wondering if he was speaking of percentages of enriched uranium or merely vague levels of progress toward supposed bombmaking). It was a silly gambit, in pursuit of a policy that is alas too dangerous to laugh at.

Some things to remember about Iran and the bomb as our ally continues to prove its dedication to American interests by dragging us into a war against one of its enemies. (Hell, what are allies for if not to provide us with new wars?)

*U.S. intelligence agencies continue to maintain that there is no evidence Iran is trying to weaponize its nuclear program.

*The head of Israeli Defense Forces Benny Gantz agrees.

*Former Mossad head Meir Dagan thinks that an attack on Iranian nuke facilities would be "the stupidest thing I ever heard."

*Israelis themselves seem mostly less worried than their cartoon-waving leader.

*Iran's 20 percent enriched uranium is far from weapons-grade, and as the Washington Post reported in August:

Iran appeared to have taken steps that would make it harder to use its uranium stockpile to make nuclear bombs, the International Atomic Energy Agency reported...

The report, based on routine monitoring of Iran’s nuclear facilities, documented a sizable jump in Iran’s stockpile of uranium enriched to 20 percent, a level that can be converted relatively easily to the more highly enriched uranium needed for weapons. The report said Iran has 255 pounds of uranium enriched at 20 percent, up from 159 pounds in May.

But the IAEA also found that Iran had converted much of the new material to metal form for use in a nuclear research reactor. Once the conversion has taken place, the uranium can’t be further enriched to weapons-grade material, Obama administration officials said.

*Christian Stork has here a thorough and detailed roundup of clips and analysis making the case that Iran is not a threat to the U.S.; nor to Israel, and that there is no good reason to think their leaders are suicidal. He also provides a good timetable of how long the game of making the world fear Iranian nukes has been going on, and explains that strategically nothing is more likely to lead to a nuclear-armed Iran than attacking them to stop it (barring the sheet-of-glass solution).

Still, despite the official on-record truths about the lack of evidence of any threat from Iran, mortal or not, the slow background spinning of that notion continues apace, and is working. One poll finds 80 percent of Americans convinced that Iran's nuclear program is a threat to the U.S., said belief dominating folks Democratic, Republican, and independent. And the U.S. continues to act toward Iran in a way that seems designed to get them fighting mad.

Who else believes in "red lines" regarding when to go to war with Iran? Republican presidential aspirant Mitt Romney.

Hit and Run nostalgia: Netanyahu, and then I in retaliation, have been playing this song since at least 2006.

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.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    At least he didn't draw the bomb as Mohammed's turban.

  • Franklin Harris||

    He went full Ross Perot. You never go full Ross Perot.

  • R C Dean||

    Still, despite the official on-record truths about the lack of evidence of any threat from Iran, mortal or not,

    Iran is at war with us, and has been for quite some time. It supplies the people killing our troops with weapons, ammo, training, etc., and even sends its own Quds Forces folks into Iraq and (I think) Afghanistan to help out.

    That doesn't mean we have to return the favor, of course, but lets not kid ourselves that a state of war doesn't already exist.

    And I have yet to hear an explanation of why Iran is putting enormous resources into refining its uranium to levels far beyond what is needed for power production.

    Which, again, doesn't mean we need to do anything. I'm just wondering what they're up to, if they don't want nuclear weapons.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Iran is an unstable regime which overwhelmingly relies on a rural base in an increasingly urbanized area. Nuclear energy and an independent nuclear deterrent are both goals that resonate and are popular with a broad swathe of the Iranian public, for roughly the same reasons that energy independence is a bread-and-butter issue in the US. It is perceived to be a silver bullet to various economic and foreign problems which the regime has been seen as handling poorly.

    There's also some religious apocalyptic messaging that appeals to the sect of Shi'a Islam that the regime adheres to -- who can say how sincere they are in their adherence, but it doubtless plays a role in the posturing that is going on.

  • Paul.||

    And I have yet to hear an explanation of why Iran is putting enormous resources into refining its uranium to levels far beyond what is needed for power production.

    Which, again, doesn't mean we need to do anything. I'm just wondering what they're up to, if they don't want nuclear weapons.

    Lincoln may have freed the slaves, but Samuel Colt made them equal. So to speak. I have to assume that Iran wants a nuclear weapon as a bargaining chip. It's the same reason India and Pakistan want nuclear weapons.

    Like strong encryption, we need to recognize that folks we don't like, and more importantly, folks who don't like us are a gonna git 'em some nucular weapons.

    Putting that aside, I can't imagine Iran doesn't believe that we could topple their government in a couple of weeks of a good bombing campaign, so again, I have to assume they want a regional bargaining chip.

    I also see Iran's anti-Israel rhetoric the same way I see President Obama's rhetoric: It's something you say to get elected.

  • Almanian's Evil Twin||

    I think you're about spot on - regional leverage, and a lotta bluster from Aquabuddhajad.

    I don't believe Iran would even consider trying to Snuke the US, because if they did - in the words of Travlota's character Major Deakins in the underrated feel-good film "Broken Arrow" - "the Middle East will be a very quiet place for about....10,000 years...."

  • Pro Libertate||

    Underrated? I suppose it could be worse than shitty, but why quibble over crap-indicating labels?

  • Almanian's Evil Twin||

    Aw, COME ON! It's good, harmless fun, and Travolta is fucking awesome.

    "You're the man, Deak!"

    "I'm THE MAN!"

  • Pro Libertate||

    It sucked. I like silly movies that are good just fine. It sucked.

    Sucked. Broken Fucking Movie.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    But Face/Off was awesome. [ducks]

  • Pro Libertate||

    I really worry about you people.

  • ||

    I'm scared, ProL. People like Broken Arrow? I guess monsters are real.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Put on these glasses that make such people disappear.

  • Almanian's Evil Twin||

    Also, "Please. Don't. Shoot. At the thermonuclear WEAPONS!"

  • Hugh Akston||

    Iran is at war with us, and has been for quite some time. It supplies the people killing our troops with weapons, ammo, training, etc., and even sends its own Quds Forces folks into Iraq and (I think) Afghanistan to help out.

    If only there were some way to stop people from shooting at US troops.

  • Paul.||

    I think the current policy is drone them harder...

    Oh, and blame the first amendment. It's like a creepy uncle you thought was cool in your youth, but now embarasses you.

  • Paul.||

    Actually, I made an unwitting joke. Apparently, that is the answer. When you drone strike Pakistanis, it doesn't require boots on the ground. Problem solved.

  • ||

    Look, Hugh, they have to get shot at by insurgents over there so that they don't get shot at by insurgents over here. Or something.

  • Paul.||

    The Southern Poverty Law Center will gladly supply you with a list of local insurgents.

  • Cytotoxic||

    If only there were some way to stop people from shooting at US troops.

    Kill 'em.

  • Harlequin||

    Actually, I rather like US troops, so I'd rather you didn't kill the US troops. If it's all the same to you.

  • Ken Shultz||

    It's not like Iran getting the bomb could be a good thing.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Dammit Doherty, can't you see that Wile E. Coyote is right on the verge of success?!?!

  • Ken Shultz||

    Iran has threatened to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. Now that Iran's getting the bomb, what's Netanyahu supposed to do?

    It's not like Netanyahu launched a nuclear strike on Iran. He went to the UN, made his case, and asked for help...

    I've seen American presidents do worse.

  • Whahappan?||

    "Iran has threatened to wipe Israel off the face of the earth."
    No they didn't , and I suspect you know this. I'm no fan of the regime in Iran, but what Ahmadinerjacket called for was essentially regime change in Israel. Of course, this is just red meat for the smoldering fanatics at home, and should be condemned, but Iran is hardly an existential threat to the state of Israel. The US and Israel have made far more, and far more explicit threats toward Iran than vice versa.
    Again, this is not to support or defend the mullahs or the Iranian regime in general, but this notion that Iran is an imminent threat to the West, with or without nuclear weapons, is absurd.

  • Ken Shultz||

    If you don't think a nuclear Iran would be a threat to Israel, you're out of your mind.

  • ||

    I you don't think Iran knows a nuclear strike would be the end of them, you're out of YOUR mind.

  • Homple||

    I agree with whahappan: Iran is just joking. For some reason, Jews get all agitated when somebody announces they want to annihilate them. I guess they have no sense of humor.

  • Marshall Gill||

    *U.S. intelligence agencies continue to maintain that there is no evidence Iran is trying to weaponize its nuclear program.

    If you actually believe this you may be the most stupid human being that has ever lived. And yes, I am sure that person works for US "intelligence".

  • Lyle||

    I second this!

  • Cytotoxic||

    There is no end to the spin distortion and lies Doherty and other peaceniks will throw out. Doherty is peacenik Krugman.

    I went there.

  • ||

    It's not a distortion to say there's not evidence, when there's NO evidence they're developing nuclear weapons. Their activities are in line with what they claim: a development of nuclear power. Could it be for nuclear weapons? Sure. But there's not proof of it.

  • Calidissident||

    After seeing what's happened in Iraq and Libya, the Iranians would be idiots not to try and get nuclear weapons

  • ||

    I'm not sure what part you're disputing: the idea that U.S. intelligence agencies say there's no evidence (because they don't), ore that there is no evidence (because there isn't). Just because you imagine there's evidence doesn't mean we've seen any.

  • Lyle||

    What does the Iranian government mean when it says that Israel is going to be eliminated?

  • Paul.||

    I think it means, "keep us in power, citizens of Iran... because as an Islamic government, we're not going to let you be free or give you anything that even resembles freedom, so get that headscarf straight, mach schell. However, we do recognize that you don't like some jews, so we'll throw out some anti-jew rhetoric from time to time, and we hope that will be just enough to make our government legitimate in your eyes..."

  • Lyle||

    Well, let's hope you're right and hopefully that's all it is.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    You know who else's rhetoric about destroying Jews was brushed off as just a way to whip up support from a country's people?

  • R C Dean||

    What does the Iranian government mean when it says that Israel is going to be eliminated?

    Why, that the inevitable forces of demography and the march of history will, insh'Allah, lead to the withering away of the Jewish state.

    Of course.

    What else could they possibly mean?

  • Calidissident||

    It should be noted that the regimes he compared them to were the USSR, the Shah's Iran, and Sadaam's Iraq. Of those, only Iraq was invaded and the countries of Iran and Iraq still exist, while the USSR broke up

  • Almanian's Evil Twin||

    *U.S. intelligence agencies continue to maintain that there is no evidence Iran is trying to weaponize its nuclear program.

    This is the same "U.S. Intelligence" that insisted Iraq had WMD's, right?

    But we trust them now because.....[MAGICK!]...??

    As RC noted above, I'm not saying we should be going all Netenyahu on them, or getting our warboners on. And as KMW notes, there are a number of other things that suggest Iran isn't NookYouLerBombTastic! yet.

    But NOW we believe our intelligence. I'm just sayin'....:)

  • Almanian's Evil Twin||

    Duh - Brian Doherty, not KMW - oops!

  • Syd Henderson||

    So Iran has given up on developing their own bombs and are just going to order them from Acme Corporation.

  • Almanian's Evil Twin||

    "So, you're gonna want the True-Kote™ with those missiles, aren't you President Ahmadinejad?"

    /Fargo

  • Ken Shultz||

    Incidentally, the most interesting things happening in Iran these days have to do with the powers that be trying to push Ahmadinejad out of office.

    Last I heard, Ahmadinejad was threatening to expose some of Iran's state secrets if the people who really control Iran decide to push him aside.

    Ahmadinejad's term is almost up, but there's been speculation that he's going to try the Putin thing, where you put up a figurehead for a term and then run again when the figurehead's term is up...

    It has never been entirely clear to me, however, whether the nuclear program is Ahmadinejad's baby, or does it belong to the powers that be? Both maybe?

    Gaining power has a way of making people crave stability--rather than saber rattling--and Ahmadinejad the Saber Rattler isn't really the power in Iran. Khamenei is.

    They differ on a number of things, obviously, and I'm not sure, but the nuclear program may be one of them.

  • Tim Cavanaugh||

    Ahmadinejad's term is almost up

    Wasn't his term up when he lost the last election?

  • Aresen||

    The rigging of the election probably means Ahmadinejad did lose (if one counted the votes honestly).

    But that is one more reason not to attack Iran - people tend to rally behind their governments, no matter how awful, when their country is attacked.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I don't know about last time, but my understanding is that this time, it may not just be about his term expiring--I think Khamenei has done away with the office of president come June 2013.

    "On March 2, 2012, coinciding with global concern over Iran’s nuclear program and growing speculation about whether Israel would launch a military strike against Tehran’s nuclear facilities, Iran held its first parliamentary elections since the government crackdown in 2009.

    Two days later, with 90 percent of the country’s districts counted, it appeared that Mr. Khameini had gained the ironclad majority he needed not just to bring President Ahmadinejad to heel, but to eliminate his position entirely.

    Mr. Khamenei was not expected to eliminate the presidency until Mr. Ahmadinejad’s second term expires in June 2013. But the parliamentary vote makes the president more of a lame duck, accountable to a parliament dominated by his conservative adversaries."

    ----New York Times

    http://topics.nytimes.com/top/.....index.html

    If anybody has more updated information, I'd love to read it.

    In the meantime, I don't know that Ahmadinejad's fire and brimstone speeches are any more popular with Khamenei than they are with us.

  • Paul.||

    Wasn't his term up when he lost the last election?

    Zing!

  • RightNut||

    Khamenei would be a fool not to want nukes. I would also bet my life on the fact the revolutionary guard would throw a fit if Khamenei decided "naw, we don't want them" after all the trouble they've gone through for their nuclear program.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Maybe.

    But I don't think the picture of Iran most Americans are getting in the media is an accurate portrait of what's going on. We pay so much attention the spectacle Ahmadinejad puts on, I suspect most Americans think he's the one calling the shots.

    Iran is really hurting right now. ...and it isn't just about the sanctions.

    They're scared to death about what's going on Syria right now. They may be about to lose an ally.

    I suspect the last thing they want right now is more trouble with Israel.

  • Paul.||

    Yeah, Americans need to be reminded that Ahmadinejad is merely a messenger boy for the regime.

  • Sudden||

    Yeah, Americans need to be reminded that Ahmadinejad is merely a messenger boy for the regime

    Or that the regime and Ahmadinejad don't actually agree on most aspects of governance.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Exactly! Most Americans almost certainly think Ahmadinejad is speaking for the Iranian government, and that simply isn't so.

    This is the sort of thing that really exposes me as a realist, but if the totalitarian theocrat is working in our strategic better interests?

    Then the democratically elected Ahmadinejad...it's really nice that someone's democratically elected like that. But having won an election doesn't lend any legitimacy to the horrible shit Barack Obama does--in my book--so why would Ahmadinejad being democratically elected mean I should reverence his crazy, dangerous ass?

    You know who else won an election?

  • Cytotoxic||

    Iran's internal politics are fascinating and getting a lot more vicious. It's funny Khamanei sacrificed whatever veneer of validity his system had to keep Ahmadine in power-and now they totally hate each other! He's been trying to push Ahmadine out for some time I'm surprised how well Ahmadine has been able to cling. I hear he has the IRGC dedicated in his court.

  • Aresen||

    Given that Iran has been busy hardening its nuke sites over the last decade, it seems rather ridiculous to presume that any strike short of a nuke could reliably destroy Iran's ability to produce nukes themselves.

    IOW, all an attack will do is make the government worse and drive the more moderate Iranians into supporting their government.

  • Cytotoxic||

    There's no reason to believe that. Defeat is never good for a regime. See Argentina, Serbia, etc

  • Aresen||

    An unprovoked attack*, however, does tend to strengthen a regime. (See "Pearl Harbor", "9/11")

    *"We think you are building nukes" is not a provocation.

  • Cytotoxic||

    "Killing Americans" for decades is a CB.

    Defeat always weakens regimes. We can defeat them super easy.

  • Calidissident||

    If we didn't unnecessarily put our soldiers in countries right next door to Iran we wouldn't have to worry about them getting killed would we?

  • Aresen||

    We can defeat them super easy.

    Rolls eyes.

    Right. Just like you are defeating the Taliban in Afghanistan. I expect Sheik Omar to surrender any day now.

    Why not give the Iranians more reason to hate you?

  • Whahappan?||

    You truly are a bloodthirsty delusional psychopath.

  • RightNut||

    "our ally continues to prove its dedication to American interests by dragging us into a war against one of its enemies."

    Ya, Iran is definitely an enemy of the US. Whether past US actions are responsible or not doesn't change the fact the Iranian government does not like us.

    This piece also ignores that some of the quotes are from people with political axes to grind.

    The threat of a nuclear Iran to the US is not necessarily that they will send missiles flying and start WWIII. Not only would a nuclear Iran be nearly immune from outside military attacks, Iran's influence in the region and the world would be vastly increased by the acquisition of nuclear weapons. Several allies other than Israel would instantly feel threatened and change policy toward both Iran and away from the US. In particular, Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf states might decide they don't want to piss off Iran and slowly decrease oil shipments.

    So ya, its not just about Israel and the mythical Israeli control of US policy.

  • Pro Libertate||

    One thing occurred to me just this morning--we attacked bin Laden on Pakistan soil. They're a nuclear power. Granted, that was a bit of a special case, but we didn't ask for permission and they even objected to that afterwards.

  • Almanian's Evil Twin||

    ...kind of like Deakins in "Broken Arrow" set off a nuke in the US, but nothing happened because it was contained in an old copper mine!

    What a great movie!

    /reset

  • Pro Libertate||

    You're commenting from an insane asylum, aren't you? Come on, it's late on Friday, you can confess to me.

  • RightNut||

    John Travolta is hilariously evil in that movie. I could not stop laughing when he explained his plan of ransoming his nuke and then buying part of Volkswagon. Something about the way he over-acts in that scene.

    And anything with Christian Slater is pretty terrible. I still have confusing nightmares about Alone in the Dark.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    True, though they couldn't complain too loudly, since they were supposedly helping us to find him.

  • Pro Libertate||

    That's true enough, but I thought it was interesting, given that conventional wisdom suggests we can't touch a nuclear power.

  • NotSure||

    Stalin and Mao were much worse than anything than Iran is, did America threaten to attack them as much as they do to Iran ? More importantly did Mao and Stalin use the bombs ?

    That cartoon bomb simply reflects the cartoonish foreign policy that both USA and Israel are following with regards to Iran. The sooner Iran gets the bomb the better, unlike the people who think that would be apocalyptic, nothing will improve dialog and real peace than getting the bomb.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Yeah for Iranian terrorism!

  • Whahappan?||

    Yeah for indiscriminate mass killing! Turn Iran into a glass parking lot!!! Kill Kill Kill!!! Death Death Death!!!

  • Almanian's Evil Twin||

    nothing will improve dialog and real peace than getting the bomb

    *blinks*

    *blinks again*

  • Pro Libertate||

    Yeah, um, Iran ain't the good guys here, whatever may be wrong with us (and Israel). Not even close.

  • NotSure||

    Laugh all you want, but the facts in the real world (not the cartoon one) show that after Pakistan and India got the bomb, there was no war after that. The same applies to the Soviet Union and USA. Iran is not run by mad men, just men you don't like. You thing that the American path of bombing and blundering is what will create peace, if that were the case the middle east should have become Utopia by now.

  • Pro Libertate||

    I'm not advocating anything here, I'm just not accepting that Iran is a loving nation that should be trusted. Nor do I think nukes guarantee perpetual peace.

    I think the U.S. might be able to just give up and walk out of the Middle East, but Israel doesn't have that option.

  • NotSure||

    Whatever Iran is, it is infinitely better than what either China or the USSR were when they got the bomb. Countries like Japan or countries in Europe next to these countries were no close as paranoid as Israel is now, and all of them survived to this day.

  • Sudden||

    One can argue that the rational of mutually assured destruction is more compatible with a secular and rational (even if the "rationale" is a Hegelian dialectic) communist regime than it is with a utopian true believer religious regime.

  • Calidissident||

    For some reason, it's never the mullahs that blow themselves up to fight for Allah. I wonder why that is?

  • RightNut||

    And in the real world, Pakistan and India have gotten pretty damn close to shooting nukes at each other. But more than that, relations between the two are still terrible, and military attacks have shifted from regular warfare to more guerrilla/terrorist insurgent attacks via proxy. But ignore all that, HURRAH FOR THE BOMB!

  • NotSure||

    Relations between USA and USSR were terrible, it was called the cold war after all, the nuclear bombs guaranteed peace though. If the USSR did not get the bomb, a hot war was inevitable.

  • Virginian||

    Peace? What peace? The world has never been at peace in this century.

  • Cytotoxic||

    The world has never been at peace period. This century has been relatively good.

    What the USSR demonstrates is that you must act pre-emptively to stop the Bad Guy from getting the bomb or they can spend the next several decades in a cold/terror conflict with you. That's not peace outside of Ron Paul's demented view. Should have done Operation unthinkable.

  • Calidissident||

    Yeah that would have gone well. We'd just seen 70 million people die in WWII, why not make it an even 100?

  • RightNut||

    No, once again, warfare between the USSR and US simply shifted to proxy and indirect conflict. Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Korean wars were all pretty much proxy wars between the US and USSR, as were several revolutions and counter revolutions across the world.

    Your also ignoring the several times the US and USSR got close to flat out open nuclear war, with the Cuban missile crisis being the most well known.

  • ||

    No, once again, warfare between the USSR and US simply shifted to proxy and indirect conflict. Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Korean wars were all pretty much proxy wars between the US and USSR, as were several revolutions and counter revolutions across the world.

    That's still happening. The U.S. and others want to intervene in various countries (via the U.N.), Russia or China vetoes it. It has nothing to do with them having nukes, and everything to do with their dislike for us. Iran getting nuclear weapons wouldn't change that.

    the Cuban missile crisis being the most well known.

    Here's the thing about the Cuban missile crisis: it was CUBA that was considering firing them at us. When the U.S.S.R realized Castro was even half-way serious, they took the missiles out. The Soviet Union didn't want a nuclear war.

  • RightNut||

    The Soviet bomb came as a pretty big surprise to the US, so really not much could be done to stop it, even if the US wanted to. The Chinese nuclear program could have been stopped, and the US did consider it, but without the soviets being on board it was far to risky.

    As far as leaders go: Stalin only had the bomb for 3 years before he died, so not a lot of time to play around with it. Mao had the bomb, but really didn't have anyone to use it against freely. China during the 50's and 60's was both anti-soviet and anti-US, so not a lot of room to maneuver without pissing off two countries with much greater arsenals. The Chinese nuclear program was really more of a prestige thing than a deterrent. Also Mao was very busy thinking of new ways of killing millions of his own citizens, which can really fill up the dictator schedule if your not careful.

    Iran getting the bomb will improve dialog? Do you mean it will improve dialog of Iran's neighbors toward it?
    Did North Korea getting the bomb improve dialog with it? Or did it just make it that much harder to deal with them? If my neighbor showed me his rocket launcher I wouldn't do anything I thought would even get on his nerves.

  • NotSure||

    3 years it plenty to "play around with it", a much longer time than it took America to "play" with theirs. Mao was mad, but he was not omnipotent, his generals would not have followed him into WW3.

    It will improve dialog, it will force America and Israel to swallow their normalise relations with Iran, because all I see now is a moron showing people childish cartoon bombs.

  • RightNut||

    Stalin was around before the era of ICBMs, which made nuclear delivery difficult, especially considering American air-power.

    I wont bother on your point with Mao because I believe it undermines your own argument.

    As for normalizing relations, since Iran does not recognize the state of Israel, how the fuck do you normalize relations? If the US normalized relations with Iran because Iran acquired a nuke, doesn't that just prove that if you get a nuke you get to sit at the big boy table? Isn't that just the US bending over and getting screwed? What type of precedent does that set for other countries?

  • Aresen||

    I can't think of any way that Iran getting nukes will improve the situation (other than, perhaps, changing Israel's perception that it has the power to dictate terms in the Middle East.)

    Attacking Iran in an attempt to stop it from getting the bomb has so many ways it could go sideways, however, that it is a VERY bad idea. As I mentioned above, it is doubtful that such an attack would even succeed in its objective.

    OTOH, I think that if Iran does get nukes, which it probably will, the Mullahs will find they have purchased a very expensive and very useless toy that requires a lot of work to keep in control.

    (I am much more worried about Pakistan's existing nukes than the prospect of Iran obtaining nukes.)

  • RightNut||

    I'm not arguing that we should attack Iran. I am saying we should be clear on the negative effects a nuclear Iran will have. I'm also arguing that NotSure's opinion that a nuclear Iran will be a good thing is ludicrous.

  • Homple||

    "The sooner Iran gets the bomb the better, unlike the people who think that would be apocalyptic, nothing will improve dialog and real peace than getting the bomb."

    The firmware in my irony detector went into an infinite loop trying to measure this one.

  • Jerry on the road||

    Iran needs nuclear energy to power its refineries. But if they really want a bomb, I'm not so sure. It could all be political posturing.

  • ||

    My son, a Marine counterintelligence specialist, last night shared his informed opinion on these latest developments:

    Mr. Netanyahu is clearly getting impatient with our government, so now it looks like he's appealing to a master saboteur for help dealing with Iran, judging by his picture...I'm thinking Bugs Bunny.

  • RightNut||

    Several Israeli papers beat you to that joke.

  • ||

    No surprise there, although as I pointed out, it wasn't my joke; my son sent it along early last evening as a caption to the picture.

  • RightNut||

    Nothing in the universe is faster than Jewish self-deprecating humor.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Wait a second. There's some small print. Let me magnify it. Um, somebody. . .set. . .up? Yes, up. . .us. . .the. . .bum. No, that's bomb. Somebody set up us the bomb. What does that mean?

  • Stilgar||

    But the IAEA also found that Iran had converted much of the new material to metal form for use in a nuclear research reactor. Once the conversion has taken place, the uranium can’t be further enriched to weapons-grade material, Obama administration officials said.

    That is not really true. It is possible to take the metal and convert back to UF6 for further enrichment though it will be a bit of a pain in the ass to do so.

    That said, this paranoia over Iran and our continued bending over for Israel is disgusting.

  • carmakazeee@gmail.com||

    Netanyahu didn't see this one coming :)
    check it out, it's hilarious

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRfnnUBaSUs

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