Iran

Stopping the Rush to War Against Iran

Don't get fooled again.

|

A growing group of individuals and organizations has designated Saturday, February 4, as a "National Day of Action" aimed at preventing a war against Iran. The manifesto is simple: "No War, No Sanctions, No Intervention, No Assassinations."

Nothing is more urgent than stopping the march to war now underway. Economic warfare has begun already. Sanctions and embargoes are belligerent acts under international law; such policies goaded the Japanese into attacking Pearl Harbor in 1941. The U.S. State Department recently reassured Israeli leaders, who along with their American lobby are in a bigger hurry for war than President Obama is, that the sanctions will devastate the Iranian economy—more precisely, the Iranian people.

U.S. officials also say that Iran's economy will be throttled by the crippling of that country's central bank. Sanctions authorized by Obama in late December aim to stop the rest of the world from doing business with the bank, which would amount to isolating the Iranian people from world commerce. If successful, this would create indescribable misery for average Iranians. (Rulers always find a way to get by.)

The demanded oil boycott is accompanied by a U.S. suggestion that Iranian oil be replaced with Libyan oil, which sheds new light on the Obama administration's intervention in the Libyan civil war and the regime change it accomplished. Not all nations can be counted on to boycott Iranian oil, but those that do not will still be in a position to demand lower prices from Iran's government.

Meanwhile, Iranian scientists are being assassinated, and various Iranian facilities are mysteriously exploding. This is surely the work of the CIA or the Israeli Mossad or both of them in conjunction with Iranian groups with histories of violent activity. The covert war is on.

The national day of action, with events planned in many cities, is intended to bring all of this to the attention of a complacent American people. Americans are said to be war-weary after an eight-year occupation of Iraq (in fact, 20 years of hostilities) and a decade-long and continuing war in Afghanistan, a quagmire if there ever was one. You'd think a war-weary people would be demanding no war against Iran, but Americans seem not to be paying attention.

George W. Bush famously botched the old saying, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." The American people were fooled once by unsubstantiated claims about Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons, and his readiness to use them on short notice. There were no such weapons, of course—as many informed authorities said before the U.S. invasion—but those who want to bomb Iran appear to believe that this method of spreading war fever among Americans will work one more time.

Hence the incessant propaganda about Iran's nuclear-weapons program—for which there is zero evidence. America's dozen-and-a-half intelligence agencies have twice reported that Iran scrapped its initial program more than eight years ago. The International Atomic Energy Agency regularly inspects the country and certifies that its uranium has not been enriched to weapons-grade. What Iran has done is consistent with developing nuclear medicine and electrical power.

Yet Iran is now subjected to low-level but deadly warfare and threats of a massive bombing campaign because it will not—and cannot—prove a negative: that it is not developing nuclear weapons.

Does Iran represent a serious nuclear threat? Israel's defense minister and several former Mossad directors say no. "Defense" Secretary Leon Panetta, like Israeli intelligence, is not convinced Iran has decided to build a weapon. Even leading American neoconservatives acknowledge that a nuclear Iran (if such came to be) would not attack Israel, which has its own nukes, much less the United States.

Then why the march to war? The U.S. and Israeli governments will not tolerate limits on their hegemony in the Middle East. Iran is a big, populous, and long-existing country that inevitably will be a major force in the region. Therefore, U.S. and Israeli dominance requires a subservient Iran—like the brutal U.S.- and Israeli-sponsored Shah's regime was until it was overthrown in the Islamic revolution of 1979.

To repeat: nothing is more urgent than stopping this march to war against Iran. Let's make February 4 the day it was reversed.

Sheldon Richman is senior fellow at The Future of Freedom Foundation in Fairfax, Va., author of Tethered Citizens: Time to Repeal the Welfare State, and editor of The Freeman magazine. This article originally appeared at The Future of Freedom Foundation.

NEXT: CATO Responds to SOTU!

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.

    1. i miss herc

        1. …come from the right:

          http://in-other-news.com/2012/…..ed-in-Iran

          The left just loves war. The leftist “peace movement” only happened because the other side was communist. Otherwise the left always supported wars.

      1. THE BREAKING STRAINS OF OBAMA-NEWT

        [State of the Union]

        What Obama-Newt represented and does represent to the American-Israeli Military Industrial Complex the [EMPIRE] is two things; The first of which is the Newtcare Law of its Nuclear [NEWT] Choke Chain Necklace running from [FOOTHOLD] Capitol Hill to [FOOTHOLD] WHITE House, with a forward nuclear capacity to First Strike the [PDRC] Peoples Democratic Republic of America, along with its Blue and Gold necklace chain of Trident Submarines, and the second which has now been damaged is its standing as the economic base of the [EMPIRE] made in Washington long ago replaced made in the [USA] United States of America, and with the Big One off of Iran, other nations are having to take up the slack but the profits are no longer flowing to the [EMPIRE] and Wall St., the [IRI] Iran is a high risk economic problem, with the question of is the [EMPIRE] willing to risk the chance of a nuclear confrontation over a renewed military war in the Gulf, and the loss of Billions if not Trillions in new major industrial development sites relocated from Iran to Iraq, not likely.

        Prof. Pat Abbott of San Diego, has said that every possible tectonic plate in the Pacific Ring of Fire has moved and the only one left is the San Andreas, and it is long over due, will it bring the [EMPIRE] economically to its knees? That is fast becoming a question as most of the industry that was on the Left Coast has or is leaving not due environmental reasons as much as being taxed off the Left Coast moving to more pro-business countries and locations across the [EMPIRE], you can hear the sucking sound as they leave. But, when the San Andreas goes, and it will, yes the [EMPIRE] will be brought to its knees economically rapidly, compared to its slow but steady present decline.

        [Empire not equal to the strain]

        Admiral Mike Mullen on the subject of what is the [EMPIRES] biggest threat feels it is its catastrophe national debt, which has reached a to point too where its Military Industrial Complex is consuming higher and higher levels of the [EMPIRES] [GDP] Gross Domestic Product, along with resources just to maintain present operations, maintenance pay and benefits, combined with other forms of overhead let along projected increases due to the continued up tick in ever mounting operational military commitments over diplomatic solutions, it has come to the point where a gap has developed between the [EMPIRE] society and its military, those in uniform, as one is suffering to support that complex as the other is suffering to protect those weighted with the cost of the [EMPIRES] Wars of Economic Stimulus, that is not doing any Stimulation, but has become a weight to economic recovery or growth. A lesson not understood but taught by Sun Tzu in the Art of War, if a campaign or war is protracted, the resources of the State, will not be equal to the strain.

        HERCULE TRIATHLON SAVINIEN

        1. Herc’s back, bitches. Hide yo kids, etc.

          1. Hide yo wife

  1. Hence the incessant propaganda about Iran’s nuclear-weapons program?for which there is zero evidence.

    Zero evidence? Really?

    In early 2006, Iran began enriching uranium on an industrial scale with centrifuges, machines that spin extraordinarily fast to separate atoms of differing mass. The desert complex Natanz raises the level of uranium 235 from the natural concentration of 0.7 percent in mined ore to roughly 4 percent ? a level suitable for nuclear reactors. Uranium 235 easily splits in two in bursts of atomic energy.

    At Fordo, the plant takes enriched uranium from Natanz and uses rows of centrifuges in underground halls to further concentrate the material to a purity of 20 percent.

    Because uranium enrichment becomes much easier as it goes from low to high concentrations, weapons experts consider that very close to bomb-grade fuel, where the concentrations of uranium 235 are raised to around 90 percent.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01…..ergyagency

    The nine-page report raised questions about whether Iran has sought to investigate seven different kinds of technology ranging from atomic triggers and detonators to uranium fuel. Together, the technologies could make a type of atom bomb known as an implosion device, which is what senior staff members of the I.A.E.A. have warned that Iran is able to build.

    In 2009, senior staff members of the I.A.E.A. concluded in a confidential analysis that “Iran has sufficient information to be able to design and produce a workable implosion nuclear device” based on highly enriched uranium.

    The new report includes some of the technical evidence behind that charge. It describes the sources of the information as “many member states” as well as its own efforts. Nuclear experts assume that much intelligence comes from Israel, the United States and Western Europe, though the I.A.E.A. in total has 151 member states.

    The report cites concerns about undisclosed nuclear activities “past or current,” implying that the agency believes the Iranian arms program may still be moving ahead despite reports of its onetime suspension.

    The seven categories of technology all bear on what can be interpreted as warhead design: how to turn uranium into bomb fuel, make conventional explosives that can trigger a nuclear blast, generate neutrons to spur a chain reaction and design nose cones for missiles.

    Two diplomats familiar with the evidence, both of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity under the usual protocol, emphasized that no single one of the technologies stood out as indicating bomb work. Some, they conceded, have peaceful uses.

    But the totality of the evidence, they said, suggested that Iran has worked hard on multiple fronts to advance the design of nuclear arms.

    “It’s the whole variety of information,” one of the diplomats said. “You have to look at the whole thing.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05…..1nuke.html

    That is what a quick search of the NYT website revealed. Zero evidence? That is just a bold faced lie.

    1. HERCULE TRIATHLON SAVINIEN

    2. HERCULE TRIATHL0N SAV1NIEN

      1. (to avoid the spam filter)

    3. Whether or not there is any evidence, what gives us the right to stop them? I mean I don’t want them to have atomic weaponry as much as the next guy, but if they want it, short to invading their nation we can’t stop them in the long run. I think it would do us all more good if the president simply said:

      “No option is off the table if the United States is attacked. If we are attacked with biological or nuclear weaponry then those who have committed said aggression against us can expect a response in kind.”

      I’m sure some people will poop their pants and cry about how terrible nuclear weapons are, but this is the world we live in. I think a solid no bullshit message from the president would do far more good than the saber rattling we have now. I mean it isn’t like the United States hasn’t used atomics in the past against aggressor nations so the warning would carry weight, even if it was Obama who delivered it.

      1. Iran wants to acquire nukes to avoid being invaded by the US, so the US will invade Iran to stop them from acquiring nukes.

      2. Heh, what makes us think we -could- stop them even after ruining their country?

        If we could’ve, why didn’t we stop NK?

        1. Probably because NK has more artillery than the entire rest of the world combined at the DMZ.

        2. Because NK is a ChiCom client state, that’s why.

        3. Or Viet Nam?

      3. You have that discussion fine. But don’t claim there is “zero evidence”. Does Reason even employ editors?

        1. the iranians regime itself states they’re working on plutonium. and they’ve clearly violated the NPT which they signed.

          1. Yes they have. Thank you.

          2. Funny we didn’t invade Israel when they started building their nukes.

            1. That’s because Israel is good.

              1. JOOOS!!!11!!!

        2. Does Reason even employ editors?

          I think they are too busy trying to sell books they mailed to me for free.

    4. NYT’s hyping up a threat in the Middle East. Now where have I seen that before? Oh, right.

      1. Oh come on. NYT is totally liberal. If I had sited a conservative source, you would have screamed it was all a bunch of NEOCONs. And more importantly, those stories cite the IAEC. Are they a bunch of evil neocons with Halliburton stock?

        And look at the evidence. Why do they just happen to be working on all of the key technologies necessary to an implosion bomb? Why are they enriching to 20% when 4% is the standard?

        Maybe there is an innocent explanation for it all. But to claim there is “zero evidence” makes Reason look like dumb fucks. There is a lot of evidence.

        You make an honest argument hat Iran getting nukes is a good thing or that we can’t stop them anyway, make it. But saying there zero evidence of them having a nuclear program is just fucking stupid.

        1. Well, there *is* zero evidence that the US could ever stop anyone from acquiring nukes.

          1. Why do you say that? We could stop Iran from acquiring them tomorrow if we wanted to.

            1. We could stop them tomorrow, but not the day after.

              Information dissemination can’t be stopped, only slowed.

              1. no, one must have HIGHLY SENSITIVE hardware n software to centrafuge the uranium

                1. Hah!

                  That’s right, because in the 40’s we had HIGHLY SENSITIVE hardware and software. Right.

                  Bullshit. It’s going to happen. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it. It’s just a matter when, not if.

                2. no, one must have HIGHLY SENSITIVE hardware n software to centrafuge the uranium

                  They managed to make nukes in the 1940s, using 1940s technology (which I doubt included “software”), so I’m sure Iran could probably cobble something together fairly easily.

              2. Without censorship of the internet, Iran will newc your babies.

        2. The whole “liberal-conservative” divide on foreign policy is a myth, at least as far as status quo factions like the NYT. The mainstream Left is war-hungry just like the Neocons, but just less vocal about it

          1. Or maybe the truth is that Iran is run by a bunch of lunatics bent on building a bomb and people from every side of the political spectrum will admit what is in front of their face?

            Sorry, but if you response is that there is an evil cabal of NEOCONS and liberals pushing the country to war, you are just revealing yourself to be a nut.

            1. Boooga boooga Mooooooooooooosleeeeems!

              1. Okay Sarcasmic you’re just one of the people here who can’t make a real argument, so bigotry. Sad Ii thought you were smarter.

            2. I think it is more than likely they are working towards weapons, John. I just don’t think that is worth starting WWIII over, and that many people have lost perspective over this bullshit.

              1. its libya not ww3

              2. Maybe it is not. But that wasn’t what I was calling out. I was calling out the claim that there is zero evidence they are.

                1. You keep using that word, evidence. I do not think it means what you think it means.

                  the article you quote and the specific pieces you point to are full of suppositions. (ie doing exactly what Richman said in the article: putting the burden of proof on Iran to show it hasn’t got a nuclear programme.)

                  They flat out say none of the tech is in itself worrying. They use the terms ‘concerns about undisclosed activities.’ etc.

                  “Your Honor, the defendant cannot prove that he has never had sex with a goat!”

                  1. HEY! We’re not supposed to mention that lawyer anymore.

              3. Seriously? WW3? America could easily crush Iran it would be like smooshing a bug. ‘Perspective’ indeed.

                1. ^Cyto, and then Hamas and Hezbollah would launch attacks on Israel and/or American interests, and as soon as Iran recuperated their people would be MUCH more loyal to the regime and would begin planning retribution

                  1. I just don’t think that is worth starting WWIII over

                    The WAR ON TERROR? is WWIII.

                    1. well said…finally

                  2. Israel needs to destroy them anyway so I guess it’ll be a house cleaning party. That last argument really has no historical backing. Argentina’s junta and Slobadon Milo and others have all been overthrown after being routed by western powers. That possibility is why I advocate full invasion anyway.

                2. And if they are so easily dealt with, “like a bug”, why do quiver with fear at the thought of them?

                3. Yeah, just like we squashed Iraq.

                4. America could easily crush Iran it would be like smooshing a bug.

                  Just like it crushed Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan? I wonder how many soldiers(let alone their victims) have to die so we can feel like big tuff guyz while watching a new Transformers “film” that shows off our toyz. Frankly, if we let a nuthouses like Pakistan and North Korea have the bomb, we are nothing but hypocrites for coming down on the Persians for trying to get it.

                  Moreover, Israel is better at fucking shit up over there than us anyway. If it’s a threat to us, it’s a threat to them and they might as well take care of it considering all the welfare we’re shoveled over to them.

                  1. Drax: Vietnam was the result of fighting with a hand behind our backs. Once Nixon let loose, the Vietcon were defeated. I am not advocating that anyway. Just go in, get the Mullahs out of power, leave.

                    Moreover, Israel is better at fucking shit up over there than us anyway.

                    That’s not a bad point.

                    1. The Viet Cong were defeated in 68 before Nixon was even elected. They blew their entire load in the Tet Offensive.

                    2. Why the hell would you go in?
                      I’m sure there are plenty of groups in Iran that despise the mullahs. The remnants of the secular middle class, the Kurds, probably some of the major tribes (Kashkai), the leftists that faded into normal life after they lost the civil war after the revolution, the thousands that took to the streets recently, etc.
                      Iran made Iraq worse for us by training and aiding the Shiite Iraqi insurgents. If you think Iran is worth worrying about, isn’t the smarter policy to just arm anyone with a grudge against thee mulllahs, and provide cash to get the ball rolling?

              4. WWIII is worth it if teh wun is re-elected.

            3. It may be an ad hominem, but just this once I’m going to adopt it and say tough shit if you don’t like it:

              If Bill Kristol says Iran is pursuing a bomb, I am absolutely sure Iran is nowhere near a bomb. Sorry.

              1. @Fluffy: busted clocks and all that.
                @PS: Yeah, we did. The initial campaign was a huge success. Then came the nation building…
                @RyanXXX: this bug keeps killing Americans from Khobar Towers to Iraq to Afghanistan and apparently is hosting bits of AQ. Easily defeated, nasty if left to sting and bite.

                1. So what the fuck makes you so sure we won’t 1. piss off a population that was leaning in our direction for the last 15 years so badly that they will become more loyal to their leaders, or 2. try to nation-build in the aftermath of…what? bombing the shit out of the 20 or so million living in and around Tehran? bombing the shit out of the mini-Afghanistan that is the Iranian Plateau?

                2. nasty if left to sting and bite.

                  Maybe if you stop waving your dick at it.

              2. If Bill Kristol says Iran is pursuing a bomb, I am absolutely sure Iran is nowhere near a bomb. Sorry.

                Then you are an idiot. That doesn’t even make any sense. I am sure Kristol thought the North Koreans were pursuing a bomb too. I guess that had to be untrue right? If it were only Bill Kristol who thought this and not people from all over the political spectrum, you might have a point.

                But as it is, you are just being a douche because you know that reality probably doesn’t match up to your bias.

          2. Not sure about the media. It seems like they should have lots of real journalists writing hard hitting investigative journalism articles looking deeply into all aspects of every issue but we all know that’s not how it really works. Do they just like good headlines so they can sell newspapers? Is that why they just go along with the gov’t? Are the owner’s authoriarian by nature as at least one Reason article suggested awhile back? Are they against Ron Paul because they think he is a nutjob? Or is it because they fear that he will take away their corporate subsidies and tax breaks? If they really just wanted sensational headlines, you would think that having him get 25% of the vote somewhere would be a good headline.

            I’m just bitter now because I’m afraid he is now at 9% on his way back to 5% and will have very little impact.
            This so soon after he was getting 20-25%. If he had gotten any time at all in the debates or if they would ever discuss the economy (you know the thing that takes up 4 of the things voters rate as most important) he could have stayed in this 20% range for awhile or maybe even had his moment where he became the front runner for a bit. I can’t believe that people can be fooled again so easily about Iran and by Newt’s theatrics. Have to wait and see if Paul’s strategy pans out but these few weeks with S.C. and Florida are not good ones since he is not going all out for them and the media is so desperate to pick a “winner” as soon as possible.

        3. So would that make the nyt NEOLIBs or NEOCONLIBs?

      2. You mean the same folks who made shit up about Iraq to justify an invasion might be making shit up about Iran to justify an invasion?

        No fucking way!

        1. Whoa, so when we invade Iran, we can break out our old “Bush Lied, People Died” signs?

          I swear, Bush is more powerful now than he was when he was still in office.

          1. It’s different when a Democrat does it.

          2. I swear, Bush is more powerful now than he was when he was still in office.

            Just wait till BushII dies. He’ll ascend to a multidimensional being of pure energy, capable of complete control of the universe.

            1. Won’t get fooled again!!!!!!!!!!!

    5. There is evidence aplenty of a nuclear PROGRAM, John. But evidence of weaponization is sorely lacking

    6. The only technical evidence that exists proves only the existance of a program to provide Iran with fuel for a domestic nuclear power facility.

      These sections:

      The nine-page report raised questions about whether Iran has sought to investigate seven different kinds of technology ranging from atomic triggers and detonators to uranium fuel.

      The report cites concerns about undisclosed nuclear activities “past or current,” implying that the agency believes the Iranian arms program may still be moving ahead despite reports of its onetime suspension.

      …are extraordinarily disingenuous. So according to the IAEA, if anybody in the Iranian military Googles basic information about bomb triggers, Iran is suddenly not entitled to pursue the domestic nuclear power programme they are guaranteed by treaty? And spare me the “Prove you have no undisclosed weapons research going on!” prove-a-negative BS.

      If those two paragraphs were written by an international environmental organization, you’d have no difficulty recognizing them for the BS bureaucrat-speak they are.

      1. First, the claim is there is “zero evidence”. Clearly there is evidence. Second, why are they enriching Uranium to 20% when 4% would do? Why are they going after every key technology necessary for an implosion weapon?

        There is no way to explain all of that without concluding they intend to build a bomb. And why on earth is that so hard to believe and indeed not very likely when you consider that Iran is run by religious fanatics whose stated aim has been bringing the SHia revolution to the entire middle east? Why would they not pursue nuclear weapons.

        Fluffy you just are incapable of believing that any country in the world no matter how vile is capable of lying or doing anything wrong but the US. All of the arguments you make could have been made in the late 1980s about North Korea. In fact, I am sure you made them. And I have no doubt you were convinced the North Koreans would never build a bomb because well they are foreigners and they wouldn’t do that sort of thing.

        1. Hey, it’s possible the Iranians are lying.

          But based on all the information available, Iran is in the right in this dispute and we are in the wrong.

          The NPT guarantees the Iranians the right to pursue domestic nuclear energy. It requires the Iranians, if they do so pursue domestic nuclear energy, to open their facilities to inspection by the IAEA.

          The NPT also requires the United States to assist the Iranians in developing domestic nuclear energy.

          The Iranians lived up to their NPT obligations. They openly announced what they were doing, and they made their facilities available for inspection.

          Originally, they didn’t seek to make their own fuel. They sought to buy it overseas.

          Now, since Iran was obeying the NPT, you might think that we would, too. Whoopsie! We didn’t. We did everything we could to stop the Iranians from obtaining nuclear fuel overseas – even though that put us in violation of the NPT.

          We also used the very inspections Iran had voluntarily submitted to as an excuse to try to get additional sanctions imposed on Iran at the UN level. “Hey! Those guys showed us a plant that a treaty everyone here signed says they’re absolutely entitled to have! Let’s slap some sanctions on those fuckers!”

          And then when Iran said, “Well, since the US fucks us in the ass every time we try to buy fuel, fuck you we’re going to enrich our own,” we then turned THAT into yet ANOTHER excuse to demand more sanctions. Even though Iran is also entitled to enrich fuel under the terms of the NPT, and even though the only reason they even undertook that activity in the first place is because we fucked them over.

          So I have one state that obeyed the NPT, and one state that defied it. Which state am I supposed to believe?

          Especially when that other state just invaded the country next door to Iran based in part on wildly inflated BS about a nonexistent nuclear weapons programme?

          Your patriotism is laudable, but really seems to make it impossible for you to view the situation objectively.

          1. “They openly announced what they were doing, and they made their facilities available for inspection.”

            That is just not true. They have numerous secret sites that no one inspects. And further, we know they are enriching to percentages that far exceed those necessary for a civilian reactor.

            You sound like MNG defending fast and furious. There is no way to explain why they would go to the trouble of enriching uranium to 20% and researching explosive lens technology unless they were building a nuclear weapon.

            In the end, you just give Iran the benefit of the doubt and believe anything they say no matter how laughable. You are not being objective at all. You just wont’ consider the possibility that maybe another country besides the United States could be wrong about something.

            1. Dude, the part of the chronology you just can’t get around is the part where Iran first tried to buy fuel.

              You know what happens when an NPT signatory buys fuel? The IAEA tracks every gram of that fuel. They would have been allowed to march with it right into the facilities where it was being used.

              When we stopped them from buying fuel, it justified their centrifuge activity.

              When their plants started having unexplained explosions, and when we started routinely debating how soon we should bomb them, it justified their hardening the plants and moving equipment.

              If we didn’t want them to enrich fuel, we shouldn’t have stopped them from buying fuel. If we didn’t want them to start hiding equipment, maybe we shouldn’t routinely debate when we should start bombing that equipment. But we did do both those things, so now I say Fuck Us We Lose.

            2. “”””There is no way to explain why they would go to the trouble of enriching uranium to 20%””

              The Iranian research reactor that the US gave Iran requires 20% enriched uranium

              http://www.boston.com/news/wor…..n_reactor/

            3. If they have secret sites, how the fuck do you know about them? That would mean they aren’t so secret, right?

          2. The NPT also requires the United States to assist the Iranians in developing domestic nuclear energy.

            The Iranians lived up to their NPT obligations. They openly announced what they were doing, and they made their facilities available for inspection.

            Originally, they didn’t seek to make their own fuel. They sought to buy it overseas.

            Now, since Iran was obeying the NPT, you might think that we would, too. Whoopsie! We didn’t. We did everything we could to stop the Iranians from obtaining nuclear fuel overseas – even though that put us in violation of the NPT.

            The funny thing is that in the last few years, we’ve gone out of our way to assist (in accordance with the NPT, and in collaboration with the ROK) Iran’s (not so much) pals across the water in the UAE in their bid to develop nuclear energy.

            1. What is the purpose of this debate? Nuclear proliferation, like proliferation of any idea, is unavoidable in the long term.

              We cannot stop it forever, but even in the short term, how is it advantageous to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons? Are we making the Bush era assumption that they are all potential terrorists waiting to strike at us because they can’t abide our women driving cars and having jobs?

              1. “Are we making the Bush era assumption that they are all potential terrorists waiting to strike at us because they can’t abide our women driving cars and having jobs?”

                Putting religious contract hits on people like Salman Rushdie and stoning women to death for having premarital sex is pretty fuckin’ far removed from just being slightly miffed that women are allowed to drive cars.

                But never let facts get in the way of good Apologism.

                1. Are you two sure these replies belong here?

    7. The 2011 National Intelligence Estimate (like the 2007 one before it) concluded that Iran ended its weapons program in 2003, the year the U.S. overthrew Saddam Hussein. NIEs are compiled by the government’s dozen and a half intelligence agencies. IAEA bases much of its suspicion on a laptop allegedly to have originated in Iran but which is widely regarded as a fabrication from Israel.

    8. The 2011 National Intelligence Estimate (like the 2007 one before it) concluded that Iran ended its weapons program in 2003, the year the U.S. overthrew Saddam Hussein. NIEs are compiled by the government’s dozen and a half intelligence agencies. IAEA bases much of its suspicion on a laptop alleged to have originated in Iran but which is widely regarded as a fabrication from Israel.

    9. “”””At Fordo, the plant takes enriched uranium from Natanz and uses rows of centrifuges in underground halls to further concentrate the material to a purity of 20 percent.”\\

      You neglect to point out that the US gave the Iranian a research reactor which requires 20 percent enriched uranium. And now the US will not give them any 20 percent enriched uranium so they have to make it themselves. So there is no evidence that 20 percent enriched uranium is for bomb making, there is plenty of evidence it is for the nuclear reactor that the USA gave Iran.

  2. … verily, the only way we can stop the march to war is to vote Republicans. Particularly ones who’ve been in the House for over twenty years.

    1. Pease through strength….and assasination.*

      *I didn’t say our assasins….

  3. Just an aside, couldn’t it also be possible that Saudi agents are instrumenting the assisinations and explosions? The arab nations also have skin in the game and they aren’t exactly thrilled about the prospects of a resurgent and atomic Iran. Not saying that the US isn’t involved in the assasinations, though attatching explosives to cars doesn’t seem like something the US would do if they were going to assasinate someone. Cardiac arrests and mysterious illnesses, things that aren’t as in your face, seem more the US style. But that could be me having read too much Tom Clancy when I was younger.

    1. I think there is a good chance of that. No one wants the Iranians to get nukes.

      1. I honestly don’t care if they do. They eventually will anyways.

      2. Moooooooosleeeeeeeems!

        Mooooooooooooooooooooooooosleeeeeeeems!

        1. no sarcasmic, moar like JOOOOOOOZ !

      3. Theoretically, it could be the other gulf states.

        But unless they are so crazy good at covert ops that no one even suspects they have covert ops, I don’t really think they have the covert ops, err, chops.

        1. The Gulf states are police states with enormous secret police forces and intelligence agencies. They have a lot of covert ops.

          1. Yeah, against their own citizens.

            Running covert ops in a hostile nation is a completely different exercise.

            1. Not really. They are if anything better at it than we are. Iran isn’t much of a alien nation to them as it is to us. The Saudis would have a hell of a lot easier of a time getting agents into Iran than the US would.

              1. They’d have to learn a different laguange (Farsi) just to operate there.

                1. There are lots of arabs in Iran. And those country’s trade a lot. People in the Gulf states actually travel to Iran and have family there and such. As an American the thought of going to Iran is lunacy. As a Saudi or a Kuwaiti, it is just going next door. That makes it much easier to put agents in the country and give them proper covers.

                  1. Great points. Apparently Israel is training Kurd in Iraqi Kurdistan to operate there. Another benefit of liberating Iraq is the creation of Kurdistan, which will be a wonderful ally.

                    1. Another benefit of liberating Iraq is the creation of Kurdistan, which will be a wonderful ally.

                      Hmmmmm, sounds like the Mujahideen in Afghanistan. That worked out well, didn’t it?

                    2. The Kurds are culturally nothing like the Afghans. HnR types consistently forget culture.

                    3. Of course they are different, that’s why they live in different places, claim allegiances to different tribes, eat different food, smoke different hash, watch different kinds of forbidden porn, etc. The point is that giving a bunch of poor localized people with a chip on their shoulder(let alone anybody) CIA weapons and training can have unintended consequences. Maybe they don’t strike back at us. Maybe they take over Iraq and their victims swear eternal vengeance on their benefactors. People in the Mideast (let alone anywhere) like to hold a grudge.

                    4. Please tell us more about the ways of the Kurds.

                    5. No, it’s nothing like the Mujaheddin. The Kurds have been systematically oppressed by the iraqi, iranians, and turks for generations. Of all the places in Iraq, they are the most westernized and amenable to the US.

                    6. See my other rant about unintended consequences.

                    7. Another benefit of liberating Iraq is the creation of Kurdistan, which will be a wonderful ally.

                      Really? I thought the Kurds were still pretty pissed about Bush I abandoning them to the tender mercies of Saddam back in the 90s and again about Bush II’s failure to support their national sovereignty movement.

                    8. We didn’t abandon the Kurds AC. We basically occupied norther Iraq and let the Kurds set up their own country. The Kurds love Americans.

                    9. An “autonomous region” isn’t a country. And the Kurds have both the Iraqi Arabs to the south who will never allow Kurdistan and its oil to break loose from their grasp, and Turkey which accuses the Iraqi Kurds of sheltering “terrahists” (PKK).

                      The Kurds love military protection, not Americans.

                  2. Alright, my skepticism that a bunch of Muslims could be sneaky, underhanded, devious murdering bastards has been alleviated.

                    1. You had them confused with Jews.

                    2. No, no, I was sure the Jews could do it. Because, you know, JOOOS! Duh.

                2. Arabic has been one of the main languages there since the mullahs took over. It wouldn’t be too hard for some saudi’s to infiltrate.

              2. Because Arabs and Persians are EXACTLY THE SAME!!!!

        2. UAE has an insane number of internal security and secret police forces. I’m virtually certain they have decent external intelligence, and they have loads of ex-pat Iranian merchant-class types living in their country they can leverage. Don’t count them out.

  4. But, but, but they’re Moooooooosleeeeeeeems!

    Can’t trust those evil Moooooooosleeeeeeeems!

    Gotta drop bombs on the Moooooooosleeeeeeeems!

    1. Pretty much TEAM RED’s Iran policy.

      1. john get in here and fix this

      2. It is TEAM RED that is running foreign policy? Last I looked Obama was a Democrat.

        1. Valid point; I now include TEAM BLUE.

        2. But…But…WE LEARNED IT FROM YOUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          1. wha? wait, obama is a muslim.

        3. Team Red bombs countries because they might be threats at some unknown time, in some unknown way, for some unknown reason, in the future.

          Team Blue bombs countries to create peace and democracy and liberation.

          1. Get ready, we’re about to liberate the fuck out of you!

          2. “”Team Blue bombs countries to create peace and democracy and liberation.””

            So now you’re calling Bush Team Blue?

            1. So now you’re calling Bush Team Blue?

              Considering his performance, I thought W might finally dispel the notion that Team RED and Team BLUE are one in the same and the colors are merely window-dressing.

  5. Boooooga booooooga Moooooooooooooooosleeeems!

  6. we should get on facebook and befried a bunch of random Iranians

    1. “befried” them? Enough warmongering!!!!

  7. We have two Presidents Bush and Obama who from entirely different political philosophies who both agree and have pursued basically the same policy of trying to prevent Iran from getting the bomb.

    Now maybe Obama is some horrific war monger. Or maybe just maybe two people of different political persuasions, which access to tons of information that we don’t, have made the reasonable conclusion that Iran is building a bomb and that would be a very bad thing. Why is that so impossible.

    1. Bush and Obama are from “entirely different political philosophies”?

      Not buying it. Both favored an active welfare-police state at home, and aggressive intervention abroad. So yes, they are both warmongers

      1. Its like professional wrestling. The Iron Sheik versus GIJoe or something – they are opposites!!! Except they are paid by the same organization, and the bout is scripted and staged to get the most entertainment.
        http://www.zerohedge.com/sites…..01/krieger pic.gif

        Oh, and the fact that professional wrestlers are entertainers DOESN’T mean that they are not impressive athletes, or that the work that they do isn’t risky (like stuntmen).

    2. We have two Presidents Bush and Obama who from entirely different political philosophies

      I disagree with this premise.

      1. Disagree all you want. But that doesn’t change reality. Obama and Bush are two different people from two completely different political views. Obama ran as a peace President. You guys think he was in secret just dying to go to war. No he wasn’t. He just didn’t know what he didn’t know.

        If your only argument is to allege conspiracy and question the motives of your opponents, then you don’t have an argument.

        1. Obama ran as a peace President. You guys think he was in secret just dying to go to war. No he wasn’t. He just didn’t know what he didn’t know.

          People lie, and politicians lie more than most people. His actions on war have spoken far louder than his words.

        2. You’re the one asserting that this “secret information” justifies endless war, sans evidence.

          We’re the skeptics, saying, “if your evidence is so good, why not let us see it?”

          1. Booooga boooga Mooooooooooosleeeeeems!

        3. Assert that their philosophies are “completely different” all you want, John. Don’t make it so.

          As far as the War on Terror, Obama has been Bush on roids. As far as domestic issues, wasn’t it Bush who pushed for a HEALTHCARE (medicare) expansion? Hasn’t Obama expanded the PATRIOT Act?

          OK, so they disagree on the top income tax rate by a difference of what, 4%? Not exactly radical differences

        4. Bush ran as a “compassionate conservative” who said that the US didn’t need to go around policing the world and that we should pull troops out of the UN peace keeping mission in the Balkans at the time. Politicians lie.

          1. So Obama knew all along he was going to get entangled in this mess and lied about it? Bullshit. Bush meant every word he said in 2000. He just didn’t count in 9-11.

            IN the end you guys are left claiming that everyone on the other side has bad motives and wants to lie us into a war. And that that other side includes every major political figure in the country sans Ron Paul.

            I don’t like politicians, but that is straight up tin foil hat bullshit. Isn’t it possible that maybe Iran really is a threat? Why do you automatically assume they are not other than that is what you want reality to be?

            1. Isn’t it possible that maybe Iran really is a threat?

              Considering that one Nimitz class carrier is more powerful than the entire fucking Iranian air force, no.

              1. That does not make them ‘not a threat’.

            2. How many missiles do they have capable of hitting the US? How big is their invasion fleet? Would they be threatening to block the Strait if we weren’t trying to strangle them with an embargo?

              No, Iran is not a threat to the US. Saudi? Maybe. Israel? Maybe. Europe, Possibly. But not the US. And the US is my only concern.

              1. But CC – They’re Mooooooooooooooosleeeeem!

                1. “But CC – They’re Mooooooooooooooosleeeeem!”

                  Which makes them the innocent victims in any and every instance, ESPECIALLY the ones the perpetuate.

                  QUICK! Spin around and say “RELIGION OF PEACE” five times fast!

              2. They are a threat to the price of oil theoretically, yet teh wun just nixed the Canadian pipeline deal.

                Guess the taxpayers will be on the hook for a couple more Solyndras.

            3. Please explain how they are a threat to you and I. Cause I don’t see it.

              And while you’re at it, explain why North Korea, Pakistan, and China aren’t threats.

            4. IN the end you guys are left claiming that everyone on the other side has bad motives and wants to lie us into a war.

              It is always in the interest of those who lust for power to use war to rally, or cow, the people. Or are you going to convince me that the current occupant and all but one of the contenders for that office do not lust for power?

        5. Obama ran as a lot of things, none of which have had much bearing on his presidency.

        6. I tend to think that even if Obama were presented with incontrovertible evidence that Iran was not pursuing a bomb, he would still act as though they were, for fear of being painted as being “weak”.

          The simple fact of the matter is that it is the policy of our government that Iran not be permitted EITHER a nuclear weapon OR a nuclear power programme. Even though Iran is guaranteed the latter by a treaty we signed, we decided that we’re not going to let them have one. Because it would be rapidly weaponizable even if at any given moment in time it wasn’t weaponized.

          But to get around the slightly sticky matter of the treaty with our signature on it, we’ve decided to disingenously pretend that Iran is much closer to a weapon than they actually are or than we have any evidence that they are. That lets us go “Booga booga booga centrifuges!” even though centrifuges are part of the power programme that Iran is expressly permitted by the NPT.

          1. So basically everyone who sees things differently, even people like the President and the IAEC who have access to information you don’t, all have bad motives and are lying in the hopes of us going to war.

            Maybe that is true. But I am going with Occam’s razor and concluding that they actually believe that Iran is building a bomb.

            1. …Occam’s razor…

              That was my thinking during the Iraq run-up and judging by how that parade of bullshit unfolded, it will be difficult for me to believe these assholes, whether they like to pin D’s or R’s to their shirts, ever again without massive security-defying information dumps on the populace. Ain’t gonna happen.

              1. That is nuts. I can’t buy that every politician in America on both sides just makes up threats in hopes of war.

                1. Not every politician believes they are lying. Most of them think they are telling the truth. It’s too bad their information comes from the same places and in some cases the same people that it did during the previous fuck-up. Iran sucks. The US sucks. It all fucking sucks and the best thing we can do at this point is to avoid giving new generations of well-educated Iranians more reasons to flock to bone-headed religion and figure out how to get revenge for Operation: Death to Xerxes let alone more reasons to actually want a bomb in the first place. And no, threatening them with endless death is not going to work. I suppose initiating a new holocaust might. Yeah, we should go with that. JUST TO BE SURE.

                2. Really? You are that shocked Capt. Reynaud that people that love power would ignore the condition that heightens that power?

            2. Occam’s razor should force you to conclude the exact opposite based on the prior actions of the government and all the little congress-critters re: Operation Iraqi Freedom.

        7. Obama ran as a peace President.

          PAUSE.

          Obama didn’t run as a peace president. He ran as an “Iraq is the wrong war” President. He gave CNN an interview about wanting an Iraq-style surge in Afghanistan (which he got and seems to have served no purpose except to kill off Marines) prior to getting elected.

          Source

          Shame no one paid attention.

          1. And Afghan is scheduled to drawdown before what? You guessed it….the November elections.

            teh wun only gave lip service to Afghanistan, and a lot of military folks have died because of it with some of teh stupid (yes the is spelled wrong on purpose) ROE’s that have come out since the election in 2008.

        8. You just keep polishing that turd, John! Make that bitch shine!

    3. You gotta understand John you are offending The Faith ie noninterventionism. Your evidence only proves just how much of an imperialist you are/how powerful the Zionists are/you want to brown people/Muslims.

      1. Could you just please show me ONE TIME the US has prevented ANYONE from acquiring “NUKULAR WEAPONZAZzzz!!!11” ?

        1. We haven’t, but Israel did. Their covert campaign against Egypt in the ’70s stopped that nuke program cold. I’m open to argument’s that the current Tom Clancy plot in Iran is better than a brief easily won war.

          1. Yeah. I don’t think we should invade Iran. But if we can with the help of the Israelis and whoever else run a covert operation that keeps them from getting the bomb and then embargo them that causes a revolution and gets rid of those fuckers forever, I don’t see the problem.

            1. Cause that embargo really got rid of Castro.

              1. Embargos have gotten rid of governments before.

                1. They obviously don’t work anymore, but I don’t ever remember about reading of a country’s government failing because the US wouldn’t play with them.

                  1. They work when the government is wildly unpopular and has a single source of income and no international friends.

                    1. They work when the government is wildly unpopular

                      Wow, I knew there was another reason, and embargos don’t do shit.

                      NK is a prime example of embargos not working. Cuba another.

                    2. NK would fall tomorrow if the Chinese didn’t support it. And Cuba had Russia and now Venezuela to support it. And Cuba trades with Europe. So those are not full embargoes. And they are in no way analogous to Iran.

                    3. Exactly John; you don’t get the point. The US sanctioning Iran doesn’t do -jack shit.- All it does is promotes hatred towards the US. Further, it leaves Iran in a nothing-to-lose situation against the US. If we’re not buying anything from them, there’s no business cost to conducting war with us.

                      Also, there’s always -someone- willing to buy shit somewhere. ESPECIALLY oil.

                    4. That is why it is not just US santions. It is Russia, Europe, the US China and the entire civilized world. That is why the Iranians are panicking and threatening the straights.

            2. Covert Operation = Terrorism

              Why are you supporting terrorism?

              1. It’s terrorism when they do it.

                When our guys do it it’s heroism.

          2. http://www.guardian.co.uk/worl…..ar-weapons

            You’re going to have to prove the claim about the 70’s; all evidence shows that Egypt doesn’t want nukes.

            1. That was decades later under a different ruler.

              1. And evidence that Israel prevented such in the 70’s? I can’t find it. Literally. There’s no evidence of it.

                1. Isreal bombed Osirik in Iraq back in the 80’s cause the Iraqis were working on nuke stuff.

          3. Then fucking let Israel handle it. There is no reason what-so-ever for us to get involved.

        2. Actually, I can state one. Libya. After we invaded Iraq, they got so freaked out they turned over their entire nuclear program. We showed how fast we can go in and destroy an enemy army and Qaddafi got scared. Of course we blew it on the aftermath, but that is a different story.

      2. …you want to brown people…

        Wait…so is this a newfangled euphemism for scat?

        1. Aw crap. ‘BOMB brown people’

        2. browning, like ground beef.

      3. Of course Fluffy did a pretty decent take down of “the evidence” up thread. But keep beating that war drum.

    4. Or maybe just maybe, team blue isn’t really all that different from team red

  8. the reasonable conclusion that Iran is building a bomb and that would be a very bad thing for their re-election campaign.

    You can’t convince me Obama gives a shit mostly because Iran testing a nuke would kill his campaign.

    1. Well, that was mangled. Delete the first four words, por favor.

    2. What’s so hard to believe about that? He is already being compared to Carter. A significant Iranian fuckup is the last thing this administration needs

      1. And the entire world would be better off for this “fuckup.”

        1. Yeah for nuclear-power back terrorists!

          1. What is stopping Pakistan or North Korea from supplying fissionable material to terrorist?

    3. Maybe so. But he clearly believes they are building a bomb and there is a chance of that or he wouldn’t be bothering with it. So much for the claim that there is zero evidence of Iran building such. And so much for the claim that Obama is engaging in some kind of evil plot to lie the country into war.

      1. Maybe so. But he clearly believes they are building a bomb and there is a chance of that or he wouldn’t be bothering with it.

        John, this logic is seriously screwed up. Bush “believed” Iraq was building WMD’s, so that alone justifies the invasion? Come on.

        I believe in Unicorns, therefore you should preorder one from me. I swear I’ll get you one when they come in.

      2. If Iran fired up a nuclear power plant tomorrow, that would be enough for Israel and the GOP to start whining, “WAAAAAHHH – it’s a NUCLEAR IRAN!!! WAAAAAAHHHHH!”

        Iran could be nowhere near a bomb, but it wouldn’t matter. “Wah! You let Iran GO NUCLEAR! Wah!” That’s exactly what would echo around the world.

        The political decisions Obama would make are identical whether Iran is pursuing a bomb or not, as soon as there’s any evidence that Iran is pursuing nuclear anything. And there’s naturally a large amount of public evidence of Iran’s nuclear programme, precisely because Iran lived up to its NPT obligations and made that evidence public voluntarily.

        1. “The political decisions Obama would make are identical whether Iran is pursuing a bomb or not, as soon as there’s any evidence that Iran is pursuing nuclear anything.”

          What evidence do you have that Obama is not sincere beyond the voices in your head? And there is tons of evidence that the Iranians have been pursing the bomb for years. Yet, three years in, Obama hasn’t bombed them. Indeed, his initial policy towards Iran was engagement. Obama has spent three years talking to the Iranians trying to avoid war. Nothing he has done confirms your accusation.

          Why are you so fucking stupid on this issue when you are so reasonable on everything else?

          1. Maybe I reach a different conclusion than you because when I look at the dispute it’s irrelevant to me that one of the parties to it is the United States.

            I’m pretty sure that it isn’t really that important to you if the US is right, as long as the US is safe as you define it.

            “If Iran did develop a bomb that would be bad for US interests, so therefore let’s proceed as if they are developing a bomb, even if the evidence is mixed or unclear and even if the messengers providing that evidence have proven their unreliability.”

            Nope. Not gonna do it. Sorry.

        2. precisely because Iran lived up to its NPT obligations and made that evidence public voluntarily.

          Has it? I swear, I keep hearing about new, previously “covert” nuclear facilities that the IAEA knew nothing about.

          1. The NPT requires that a signatory notify the IAEA 6 months after a facility goes live.

            So by definition, every facility you notify the IAEA about was “previously secret”.

  9. We have two Presidents Bush and Obama who from entirely different political philosophies

    Not that different.

  10. Truly a disgrace what America is doing, made worse by the fact that they awarded the Nobel peace prize to that war monger.

    All this war mongering reminds me of those old Greek myths, where the king who wants prevent his prophesied death, starts the chain of events that leads to his demise.

  11. I don’t believe we are “marching to war”. There won’t be a war unless Iran really does block the straits.

    Last night Obama spoke for hours (I didn’t watch most) making one proposal and promise after the next – did anyone believe a word of that shit?

    I don’t believe his Iran bullshit any more than I believe the rest.

    1. Like the article mentions, the war is already started covertly. If American scientists were being assassinated by Iranians, it would be considered war. If Iranians blew up American buildings it would be considered war.

      1. Was it Americans, or Saudis, Israelis, or Iranian revolutionaries? Who can say?

      2. I remember back in the 70’s and 80’s the left getting all huffy about assassinations. I guess assassinations are cool now since teh wun is prez.

  12. Obama’s DOD just proposed eliminating 10 brigades. That’s almost a third of the Army. What the hell is he going to fight this war with, the FBI?

    1. This looks like goldwatching.

      Recently, the people of my town were threatened by our wonderful politicians that if we didn’t raise taxes RIGHT NOW, we would have to lay off police officers. No, we’re not going to shut down the dog park (parks are 30% or so of the budget last time I checked). Nope. The cuts absolutely must come from the most popular part of the budget.

      Maybe Obama is serious, but I suspect this is an attempt to punish the GOP for demanding budget cuts and pretend that the budget is already cut to the bone.

      1. I don’t even get how the fuck parks take up so much of a budget. Is it seriously to mow the fucking lawn and trim the hedges?

        1. Water. People expect their parks to always be lush green fields for their dogs to shit and piss in.

    2. Health and Human Services.

  13. Whatever happened to that phony “assassination” on the Saudis that Iran supposedly attempted some months back (in which Bill Kristol proclaimed was a cassus belli)?

    1. Nothing. We didn’t do anything about it because we are probably doing the same thing to them as we whack their scientists and blow up their facilities.

      1. The ‘inaction’ doesn’t bother me. It’s the trumped-up paranoia by people who should be bigger men than they are is what bothers me.

  14. A nuclear Iran was a much different dicussion back in the 1970s:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F…..keIran.jpg

  15. What the fuck is the problem with making peace with the Persians?

    We shoulda did the same thing with Iraq in the late 90s/early 2k.

    These Sons of Abraham and their fuckin’ wars, man…

    1. Ask the Iranians. Why can’t they make peace with the Americans? All they would have to do is let the inspectors in and stop building nukes and stop threatening the straights. Why is that so hard?

      1. We shoulda bloodied their nose when they seized the the embassy hostages back in the Carter years.

        Then said: “Look, we have differences. We like Israel. You hate Israel. Let’s bury the hatchet”.

      2. Iran let inspectors in.

        Where the fuck do you think the IAEA’s information comes from?

        They said, “Hey, please come inspect us. See over here? These are our centrifuges. See over here? This is our other shit.”

        Iran’s reward for letting the IAEA come in was reports demanding they prove a negative, US demands for sanctions and embargos, assassinations of its scientists, explosions and computer hacking at its facilities. Not “peace”, strangely enough.

        1. Iran never let the inspectors go to all of their plants. They have facilities no one has inspected and they are making huge amounts of uranium to a higher quality and higher quantity than they would ever need for civilian use.

          There really seems to be no issue you won’t defend these guys on. It is just amazing. They could say the sky was gray and you would be on here saying they had a point.

          1. They could say the sky was gray

            Actually, it is pretty overcast here today . . .

          2. Do plants that aren’t operational yet have to be inspected? Not picking, just curious.

          3. “They have facilities no one has inspected.””

            Sez who? Curveball?

            Sounds like the same propaganda we got on the run-up to Iraq.

            The more you try to make yourself sound like an expert on Iran, the less I’m going to believe. But yeah, yeah, if I don’t believe, there will be mushroom clouds.

      3. Why is that so hard?

        Because posturing and saying bellicose bullshit help keep them in power…holy shit…why does that sound so familiar?

      4. Alternatively, we could quit being so hostile to a country that’s going to get nukes at some point in the future anyways, get some trade flowing, and create economic prosperity for all.

        Look at what’s happened between US/China in just the past two decades.

        1. I agree, and we tell Iran that if they use a nuke, then we will turn their country into a radioactive wasteland. This should not be a threat but a promise and then get on to the business of trade and better relations between the two countries.

      5. Why is it so hard for those American colonists to live peacefully. All they have to do is bow to my authority and there will be peace.

      6. Why can’t you make peace with the guy marching around in your backyard with a rifle at port arms? Iran isn’t in the Gulf of Mexico. We are in the Persian Gulf.

        Iran is none of our business.

      7. I wonder why they would want a nuclear weapon? I mean, afterall, the US has not already attacked their neighbors and went on with constant rhetoric about attacking them also.

        Yet, another country that is constantly coming off as belligerent, North Korea, does not receive threats of attack from the USA. Why is that? Beacause they have Nukes? Hmmm, could be onto something here…

        1. North Korea is just the worst country on earth that starves its people and holds all of South Korea and Japan hostage.

          But in foreign affairs Libertarians love them. You guys are fucking unbelievable.

          1. Actually, us Libertarians are trying to stop us from becoming them. NDAA, does that ring a bell John?

          2. How does pointing out that the Iranians might want to to employ a somewhat similar strategy to one demonstrated by NK equate to love for that liberty-barren shit-stain? If North Korea has one, we might as well go after them too JUST TO BE SURE.

          3. North Korea is just the worst country on earth that starves its people and holds all of South Korea and Japan hostage.

            I thought the US was the country that informed Japan that if they remilitarized without US say so, they would be in for a world of hurt.

          4. I understand that you’re worked up but that’s just fucking ridiculous.

            And libertarians don’t “love” Iran either. I believe that what the U.S. government is doing in regards to Iran is wrong. How the fuck does that prove that I “love” the Iranian government?

            1. Because if you don’t agree with John or Cyto on this you HATE America.

          5. “But in foreign affairs Libertarians love them. ”

            No, we are simply aware that other nations understand the lesson taught by them and by Iraq/Libya. Nukes: you get the bark. No nukes: you get the bite. Now, attacking NK to upend that formula would be stupid, but refraining from consistently attacking non-nuclear nations may have been a good idea.

        2. Paradoxically the more nations that get nuclear weapons, the more peace there will be. Iran getting nuclear weapons would be a good thing, other than for those who like conducting foreign wars.

  16. Iran as a nation has been around in one form or another for a few thousand years, and the current republic for over 30 years. They’re not exactly a famine-ridden third-world shithole. If they are pursuing nuclear armament (and it’s a good bet they are), I have a hard time believing that they’re going to up and use them against us, when the only possible outcome of such an attack would be complete removal of their country from the face of the earth. They may be muslim fanatics, but they’re not stupid.

    1. They wouldn’t use them against us. They would use the threat of them to be able to terrorize their neighbors and be the local bad boy they have always dreamed of being.

      IT would basically give them free reign to do anything they wanted including kill and terrorize Americans wherever they found them, shut off the straights of Hormuz and so forth. What are we going to do about it? Risk a nuclear war?

      1. You mean, they would become just like us?

      2. They wouldn’t use them against us. They would use the threat of them to be able to terrorize their neighbors and be the local bad boy they have always dreamed of being.

        Who knows how they’d use them, or if they’d use them – or even threaten to use them – at all. It’s all supposition, none of which justifies military intervention on our part.

  17. A growing group of individuals and organizations has designated Saturday, February 4, as a “National Day of Action” aimed at preventing a war against Iran.

    I hope that means that they are already to get out and support Ron Paul.

    1. I’m betting on a strike on Iran February 5th.

      1. I don’t get it.

  18. A growing group of individuals and organizations has designated Saturday, February 4, as a “National Day of Action” aimed at preventing a war against Iran.

    I hope that means that they are already to get out and support Ron Paul.

    1. Grrr, double post.

  19. “Sanctions and embargoes are belligerent acts under international law; such policies goaded the Japanese into attacking Pearl Harbor”
    To say Japan was “goaded” into attacking Pearl Harbor doesn’t ring true to me. There would have been no embargo, nor an attack, had Japan not been seeking conquest and resources for its war machine.

  20. I suspect that the whole “Iranian nukes” issue is a pretext anyway. If the Iranians really wanted to fuck with the U.S. and Israeli governments, they’d say “okay, we see your point, we’re completely dismantling our nuclear program”. The neocons would shit themselves with rage; there went the Great Pretext! Gotta come up with somethin’ new; I know! The Iranians don’t let the girls buy Barbie dolls!

    1. They amount of different excuses that can be used to start the war are endless, probably because the stupidity of many Americans to believe basically anything is also endless.

    2. But they don’t do that. I wonder why? Could it be that they actually want nukes and see getting them as a good thing?

      You guys think the whole God damned world revolves around you and your political opponents.

      1. Which country wouldn’t want nukes?

        1. One that doesn’t need them to deter an attack by us. Germany for example.

          1. Excellent point.

      2. Maybe because they have a legitimate reason to have a nuclear power program. Maybe because they have the notion–crazy to you, I know–that they don’t need the U.S. president’s permission to have a nuclear power program.

        Or maybe because they have too much pride to see that they could defang the American Excuse that way. They, after all, are politicians too.

    3. If it wasn’t nukes it would be chemical weapons.
      If it wasn’t chemical weapons it would be biological weapons.
      In mobile labs.
      Or underground bunkers.
      Prove they don’t have them!
      Prove it!
      You can’t!
      That means they have them!

      1. *Holds up a vial of salt*

      2. A factory that could make ordinary bug spray would be enough. Why, by Gawd, they could use balsa wood planes of death to fly across the Atlantic ocean and put bug spray in our water!

      3. inorite? It’s not like Iran has a long, storied history of using the most violent means necessary to force those around them with whom they disagree with over the slightest nuance to bend to their fanatical will.

  21. Nukular Newt Grim Grinch is licking his chops to get his hands on some of them nukular toys. If he can’t attack Iran right away if he becomes POTUS, then he will just bomb Iowa, they both begin with the same letter, close enough, teach them a good one for not giving him the caucus win there. New Hampshire might be next.

    1. As long as he destroys Newark, NJ. FUCK. THAT. PLACE.

      1. I can see the headlines now:

        NEWT NUKES NEWARK

        A Grateful Nation
        Celebrates In the Streets

        1. It would damage Manhattan. I like visiting there. Could we nuke Chicago instead? There is nothing near it worth saving.

          1. Well…Gary, Indiana…but I see your point. I like to call Gary the Newark of the Midwest.

          2. It would damage Manhattan. I like visiting there. Could we nuke Chicago instead? There is nothing near it worth saving.

            No, I have friends just over the Indiana state line, so they’d probably catch some fallout . . . can we do Marth’a Vineyard instead? Pretty please?

            1. @Hungus

              (((Slits Eyes)))

              Soo…these “friends” of yours live in Gary then?

              1. Soo…these “friends” of yours live in Gary then?

                Close, they actually live in Lowell, which–

                Shit.

                1. We have time Hungus. Maybe I can put in a good word with the Anti-Obama (Gingrinch) regarding your friends.

  22. You know the saying “if you want peace, prepare for war.”

    Note: Its not “if you want peace, start a war.”

    Iran has been at war with us for years and years. We just haven’t been at war with them. Nor do I think we necessarily should be.

    Do I think Iran is working on nuclear weapons? They’d have to be idiots not to, so, yeah, I think they are, because I don’t think they are idiots.

    Should we go to war to prevent it? No. Can we prevent it without going to war? Not really; the only thing that will stop the Iranian nuke program is regime change.

    So, Iran gets their nuke someday. Criminy, if Pakistan can do it, anybody can.

    Our response? Current doctrine works for me: If they use their nuke on us or our allies, we glass the place.

    1. I have no problem with that policy either.

      1. Sounds like standard Libertarian doctrine to me. I can agree with that.

        But if there has to be a regime change, please let the Iranian people decide that and do it themselves, so that it might actually be a change for the better. And even if it’s not, we can’t be blamed for it. Our last regime change there didn’t work out too well, as usual.

        1. I can agree with it too.

    2. Speaking of glass…

      http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.c…..new-parts/

    3. If we listen to Gingrich or Santorum, we should already be dropping bombs on Tehran.

      Look, I don’t know if Iran has, is in pursuit of or is completely innocent of acquiring nuclear weapons, but its certainly not settled science like John seems to think. I’m sure John was absolutely sure Iraq had WMD’s before we went to war with them, because evidence publically discussed showed they were pursuing them. Turns out Saddam was just trying to bluff everyone and it worked (to his detriment). If we go into Iran and don’t find a single nuclear bomb, the world will never take us serious again.

      I just want calmer heads to prevail than what the conservatives have been throwing up so far. We screwed up with Iraq, do we really want to do it again, with an even more implacable foe?

      1. “If we go into Iran and don’t find a single nuclear bomb, the world will never take us serious again.”

        Our hegemony isn’t based on global respect for the American government’s integrity and wisdom.

  23. Israel alone could end every major Middle Eastern capital if they wanted to. So I really don’t get why we’d even care (about Iran) other than we’d probably have to stop doing so much subsidizing of our major client state over there and lay low for a while.

  24. If Obama decides to go to war with Iran, his flock of sheeples will pull out their pom poms and cheer like the mindless bots that they are. The very same people who screamed about Dubyah doing the same thing. Partisan drones.

    1. Amen, brother.

  25. On the whole Iranian oil sanctions thing:

    Iran just cut a deal with India to get paid for its oil in gold.

    China, of course, will continue to take Iranian oil, and is booking supertankers for the trade now. China already has, I believe, an arrangement to pay for its oil in yuan.

    The oil embargo on Iran will not reduce Iran’s exports of oil by one drop. And everyone knows it. Including the Iranians.

    1. If so, then why are the Iranians threatening the Straights over it? If it doesn’t affect them, why aren’t they laughing about it instead of giving the world and excuse to bomb them?

      Sorry RC but I don’t buy that.

      1. If so, then why are the Iranians threatening the Straights over it?

        To avoid the appearance of weakness.

        1. Its almost like John willingly ignores basic human psychology just so his storyline doesn’t become muddled.

          1. Almost?

      2. Why does Hugo Chavez threaten not to send venezuelan oil to the US when he doesn’t get his way in things?

        Because it makes him look good at home, standing up to the percieved bully in the room.

    2. “Iran just cut a deal with India to get paid for its oil in gold.”

      I knew Ron Paul was a secret Persian.

    3. But you can’t eat gold!!!!

  26. I wish I could be as confident as some of you guys that a true theocracy can be trusted not to do anything rash or stupid with nuclear weapons.

    I will say, though, that I don’t like sanctions because they tend to strengthen a hostile regime’s grip on a country, not weaken it, and harm the wrong people. Regime change is a real possibility in Iran, but economic sanctions will probably make that far less likely.

    1. “I wish I could be as confident as some of you guys that a true theocracy can be trusted not to do anything rash or stupid with nuclear weapons.”

      Particularly one which stones homosexuals, adulterers and non-Muslim pastors to death.

  27. Remember when people here bitched because the cops shot and killed a teen at a high school that was bradishing a pellet gun because pellet guns aren’t lethal?

    6-year-old Peachtree City girl killed by pellet gun

    http://www.ajc.com/news/fayett…..10553.html

    1. A bow and arrow can be a deadly weapon. A properly thrown rock can be a deadly weapon.

      Neither of which are on the scale of hazardness as a 9mm Glock. (gun experts please excuse any misstatements concerning bullet diameter and gun brands).

    2. Are you straight-faced in asserting that this anecdote justifies cops murdering a teenager for carrying a pellet gun?

      So, when a kid bleeds to death from a fishing hook accident out by the lake, do we then authorize lethal force against teenagers carrying fishing rods?

      1. lol. the idiocy

    3. A 6-year-old girl died Friday afternoon after being shot in the throat by a pellet gun in her Fayette County home.

      Really, Pip? Because it’s not as though the throat is one of the most vulnerable areas on a human body or anything.

      Do. Better.

  28. “NO war NO sanctions NO intervention NO assassinations”
    Little late for three out of four….don’t you think???

  29. Why is it that Iran having nukes is a problem, but Israel having nukes is not?

    1. Because Israel isn’t ruled by crazy religious fundamentalists that will use them if God tells them to.

      1. If that is sarcasm, that is outstanding sarcasm.

  30. The ad hominems used by certain posters are interesting.

    People who oppose wars, assasinations, sanctions must “love Iran.”

    Those who point out that we haven’t invaded North Korea because THEY have nukes must “love North Korea”.

    Ad hominems usually mean you have lost an argument

  31. I didn’t know Israel enjoyed hegemony in the Middle East. I guess that’s why all the fundamentalist Islamic states over there have extended official diplomatic recognition to Tel Aviv and cut off funding to the PLO and Hamas.

    Or maybe you have stupid definition of “hegemony.”

  32. “A growing group of individuals and organizations has designated Saturday, February 4, as a “National Day of Action” aimed at preventing a war against Iran. The manifesto is simple: “No War, No Sanctions, No Intervention, No Assassinations.””

    Which begs the question: How many of these people are against a war with Iran because of humanitarian and financial reasons, and how many of them are opposed to a war with Iran because they indulge fantasies that the theocratic dictatorship is some kind of bastion of equality and goodwill?

    1. Well, if those are the only two choices,(of course they’re not) I’d say all are against the war for the former reason. I can’t see anybody believing “the theocratic dictatorship is some kind of bastion of equality and goodwill.”

  33. How does invading Iran convince them that they shouldn’t have nuclear weapons? If anything, it reinforces the need and desire for these weapons as deterents.

  34. Reason Magazine is like Ron Paul: brilliant on domestic policy, dead wrong on foreign policy.

  35. The West is provoking an Iranian attack; find out why at the following link:
    http://travisthornton.net/2012…..with-iran/

  36. I think Sheldon Richman is missing the point. Iran has repeatedly threatened Israel with annihilation. Iranian president said that Israel should be wiped off the earth. Are those just empty idle threats? Well, with all due respect to Mr. Richman, we just don’t know for sure. More importantly, do we, United States and Israel, want to take that risk? Can Israel afford to chance it? Israel did not choose to take any chances in 1967, when threatened with annihilation by Syria and Egypt it had launched a preemptive strike against the two countries. Had Israel ignored the threats, what would happened? I don’t like wars any more then the next guy and am all for free trade with anyone. And yes, I think that it’s a lot better when, like John Stossel said, goods not troops cross borders. However, most Arab countries won’t even trade with Israel on the grounds of its very existence. And Iran is leading the charge. Examples abound. In 1967 Egypt closed Suez canal to prevent Israeli TRADE ships from entering. How is that for “free trade”? What about economic boycott of Israeli goods by Arab countries? Where is free trade when you need one to stop war? Arabs love free trade as long as Israel is out of the picture. Well, in my book it looks like a blackmail that has nothing to do with free trade. I’m sure that most Israelis would love to trade with Iran, as do most Iranians, I’m sure. But the regime in Tehran does not. It wants to destroy Israel and, by doing that, all traces of free trade.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.