Iran as a Nuclear Threat Revisited
 

I'm sure everyone has seen the announcement by President Obama that Iran has a secret nuclear-enriching facility. Here's the video:
The problem, of course, is that there is evidence that this facility was disclosed some time ago, and Iran’s nuclear chief has already said in no uncertain terms that IAEA would be allowed to visit the facility.

In other words, to quote Middle East policy analyst Gareth Porter, "This is very far from a smoking gun, certainly with regard to Iranian intentions as far as nuclear weapons are concerned and also to the capablity of manufacturing a nuclear weapon."

I find myself thinking back to 2002 and 2003, as unsubstantiated information was being spoon fed from the government to the corporate media, which was then sold to the people as hard facts. Donald Rumsfeld outright said, "We know where the WMDs are" on March 30, 2003. He was lying through his shit-eating grin. It's the same thing now, apparently. We get wild, seemingly conclusive claims regarding a threat with nonspecific and unverified evidence.

There's no way in hell we're doing this again, right? There's no way the American public is that stupid, that we'd make the exact same mistake twice in one decade? We still have soldiers dying in Iraq, for christ's sake.

I thought there was already a Bush 3rd term thread? It's not like the current administration would let a good crisis go to waste... at least according to Rahm Emanuel.

Could the Iranian government be doing this to force the moronic US chest beaters to impose economic sanctions in order to force the protestors to give up because they're all starving? Sanctions hurt the middle class, and the middle class in Iran is most likely to fund a pro-Democratic movement in order to get free trade going.

Update: You may remember Scott Ritter, the weapons inspector that plainly said before the Iraq war that there was no evidence that Iraq possessed significant weapons of mass destruction. He just wrote an article about this new Iran situation and it's worth reading (I've bolded the most important parts for the tl:dr folks):
Keeping Iran honest | Scott Ritter | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

Indeed there is. And indeed they won't.

Pete, get up off your knees; your prayers haven't worked:

I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again

The change it had to come
We knew it all along
We were liberated from the fold, that's all
And the world looks just the same
And history ain't changed
'Cause the banners, they all flown in the last war

There's nothing in the streets
Looks any different to me
And the slogans are replaced, by-the-bye
And the parting on the left
Is now parting on the right
And the beards have all grown longer overnight

Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss

I agree totally agree. We can't do it again, we can't trust the intelligence again. It all stinks to high heaven. Even if they are producing nukes we can't afford it financially, politically, or the lives of more soldiers to stop it.

Perhaps Iranian officials can revisit this comment to help calm the building hostilities:

Iran defiant over secret nuclear facility - World Politics, World - The Independent

I interpret the statement as a direct and literal threat.

They're a tribal-based society, so of course there's going to be chest-beating in response to a passive threat from the Obama administration, with Brown and Sarkozy in tow. If they didn't chest-beat it would be out of the ordinary and might signal something to be more concerned about.

Ace, if you get the time, please give this a read: It's the Tribes, Stupid (not calling you stupid, it's the name of the article)
It's a basic introduction to tribalism in the modern world especially in Islamic countries.

Right...if the Ayatollah said it, it must be true.

OR....as will noted, it is public posturing in light of the fact that, for the first time in eight years, they are being forced to the table and facing sanctions by their allies as well as their adversaries because of the recently enhanced diplomatic efforts.

Face-saving at its best....which is required of all good Ayatollahs

"we could have and would have made our ""enemies blind"..but after negotiations (and the first serious threat of sanctions), we wont"

A direct and literal threat? Relax and let diplomacy take its course for once. Something new and different!

This is a quote from the piece:

I have made similar statements regarding the defiance of Sadaam and the risk we take in the ME for perceived weakness.

This is also interesting:

I admit I am confused - I am assuming your interpretation of the piece and some of what he says is very different than mine.

Here is another:

Our goals are not to conquer or to make war, our goals are to maintain peace and order. An "intellectual" approach to the Iran question, assuming there is a "tribal" mentality as described by Pressfield in the piece cited, is folly in my opinion. Obama needs to respond in a quick, decisive and firm manner before this gets further out of control.

---------- Post added at 08:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:56 PM ----------

All I suggest is that if Iran wants to help tone down the hostility, they can make a proactive step. Given the statement, past statements, and the defiance, I perceive these things as provocative.

I hope Obama's approach works. I would prefer not to have this situation escalate. Obama has been reaching out to the world and has denounced Bush's approach and some past actions by the US. At some point when should we expect a positive response? An honest response?

I am not making a political statement or a judgment statement on Obama, I accept him as our commander-in-chief, and I accept that American's want a different approach compare to Bush on these matters. I am simply sharing my view, nothing more, nothing less - in the big picture my view has no importance. So there is not much need for anyone to try to make me change it - at this point my view is locked on this until I see something positive from Iran.

Again, will's point....they cant or wont make a proactive step (through private negotiations) before first publicly telling their people how tough they are and that they wont be bullied....it would be a sign of weakness.

Given that the Bush/Cheney/Bolton approach to Iran accomplished little in eight years, I think its reasonable to give Obama more than 9 months, particularly since, despite the rhetoric, Iran is no closer to being a nuclear threat.

By getting involved we either have one of two options:
1) become the enemy of the perceived top-dog
2) become top-dog.
Neither of these are favorable outcomes, so the obvious answer is to butt out for the time being. Attacking them sets us on a course to one of two options, neither of which make any sense for us.

In this case, the case of nuclear weapons, we have to let the UN do their jobs. I know it seems impotent, but the fact is that the inspectors are damn good at their jobs. Iran has agreed to allow inspectors to see this new facility, so we're not in a position where we need to be considering punitive or military action.
We don't beat them head on, with military or economic actions. That just either empowers their corrupt leadership or puts us on track to be the next corrupt leadership. The chest-beating of President Obama in this instance is bad policy.

As far as your interpretation of their chest-beating response as a threat, look at it within the context of the tribe: they HAVE to respond that way otherwise they'll be perceived as weak. It's not an active threat as much as it is either a conditioned response or a PR move. Do you think Iran really wants to get into a nuclear war with Israel or the US? Of course not because they'd lose even if they managed somehow to win. They're tribal, not stupid. Nuclear power is about independence, which is very important to them. If they are developing nuclear weapons (and honestly there's still no evidence that they are), it wouldn't be to use them, it would be to demonstrate strength and to enter the MAD alliance of unattackable states.

I'm much more worried about Pakistan and their nuclear weapons than I would be about a nuclear Iran... but there's still no evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. That has to be central to the discussion.
Judging by President Obama's inflammatory speech, I'm not entirely convinced our goal is peace. We saw the same thing with Bush; he promised no nation building, no going to war for resources, etc., but then he and his lackys started reporting on all this intelligence. "We're in danger, we have to do something!!" Next thing you know we're at war for about 48 hours and then we've conquered Iraq. Fuck.

I'm pretty sure President Obama is not open to taking an Iranian wife for his harem, so the obvious outcomes to this are either annihilating Iran, losing to Iran, or backing the hell down and letting the professionals do their job. President Obama's speech was a step in the wrong direction, and was an obvious play to look strong on "terror" or whatever.

They could have avoided the situation to begin with. I don't underestimate Iranian leaders.

Depends on your perspective I guess. They avoided nuclear war - that was good.

Obama is the President. Period. Presidents don't get the privilege of saying "oops, I am new on the job". They need to enter the job with core convictions and a solid game plan - I hope you are not suggesting he is making it up as he goes along. I have never been clear on his foreign policy and have been assuming others, like you, understand. On this one I am going along for the ride, I have no insight into the "intellectual" approach to conflict resolution.

---------- Post added at 11:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:56 PM ----------

I think we are "top-dog" and have been since the fall of the Soviet Union.

The UN is and has been totally ineffective.

Again, I don't underestimate the Iranian leadership. I think it is possible that they could fool the inspectors.

I am not sure who Obama was talking to. Was his speech directed at people like me, so that he comes across as being more aggressive than he want to be, to Iranian leaders, Iranian people, the rest of the world, or who. When Bush was President, I though I understood what he was saying - I wonder if there is someone who can tell us what Obama is really saying?

It is interesting, I was having a discussion with a neighbor last night and he said the reason I have a problem with Obama is because he is an "intellectual" or a person who openly weighs, talks and is open to both sides of an issue without firm conviction based on they way they are trained to think. We went through examples of why I find Obama so frustrating to listen too. He said, and I agree, my mind is wired different. I need to just stand back and observe for awhile. I think I will simply read what others have to say on this topic.

Yep...I give credit to Bush for not listening to Cheney and Bolton on the nuclear option.

It was not so good that the Bush invasion/occupation of Iraq strengthened Iran's geo-political influence in the region by replacing a dictator whose wings were clipped and posed no external threat with ruling parliament parties that have long-standing ties to Iran as well as a militant Shia party leader (al sadr) with growing popularity among the younger populace.


Bush's game plan was no nation-building; yet he surrounded himself with neo-cons who gave him the justification to use 9/11 to make Iraq the central battleground on his war on terrorism at the expense of pursing al queda in Afghanistan.

There are places in the world that are still tribal, but the US is not one of them. Moreover, as societies progress, they eventually move away from tribalism as it's no longer necessary. The idea that there even should be a top dog is outdated, something left to people that haven't yet moved to a place where they can comprehend where the world is heading.

Europe is easily matched with the US economically and militarily, and soon the same will be true of China. When we're looking at three equal powers, top dog has to be left behind so that we can move on to what's next: global democracy.
I'm sure it seems that way, but the inspector program has actually been a sweeping success. The author of the article I cited in the OP was a weapons inspector and he obviously has insight that our own intelligence community lacks.
The last 20 years of inspecting have been damned reliable, though. Inspectors went into Iraq repeatedly (yes, they were prevented several times, but that's less important now) and they came back with conclusive and unanimous results. Those results have been verified. No one doubts that Iran is at least seeking nuclear power—and why shouldn't they?—but the fact they're willing to allow inspectors means more transparency. Anyway, if Iran was seeking weapons grade nuclear material, they'd build the infrastructure for a delivery system and just buy it off the black market. It'd take maybe a few months.
I'm looking at this from the context of Senator Obama's campaign promises. He's been beating his chest about Afghanistan from day one of running for president, so now that public support for Afghanistan is waning, in order for the president to keep that "I'm tough" aspect of his public persona, he has to talk tough to someone. That someone (someones) appears to be Pakistan and Iran. Because Pakistan has nuclear weapons, though, he can't talk tough to a centralized people about Afghanistan. Iran provides the same thing for President Obama that it did for President Bush: a boogeyman.

Anyway, the problem with the perpetual boogeyman is that if you make them look dangerous enough, the military/intelligence community is going to want to do something about it because that's their job. "If this is such a threat, let us take care of it!" President Obama opening up the gates on Iran like this is really dangerous because eventually people get scared enough that they want to take action. It's nearly impossible to keep the balance between fear and lethargy with people that like proactive options. It may work with American Idol watching Americans, but not the Pentagon.
I don't think you have a problem with President Obama because he's intellectual. Others clearly do, but you're not that kind of conservative. Any problems that you have with him would probably be the same you'd have with a Willravel administration: we have fundamentally different ideologies.

I don't agree.

In your view what is the progression? what comes before and after "tribalism"?

In one of my previous posts I make it clear that I am deferring to Obama as our "top dog". I accept that he is in charge. I accept that he is President. I accept that he is what "we", as Americans want. Problems get created when people do not accept these things. Even Hilary Clinton has accepted this "order", after the primaries and even now she could be acting in a manner in defiance of that order and causing chaos. She is not, she accepted her role, she accepted Obama's role. By the way Hilary Clinton is not what i have been told is an "intellectual", I don't agree with her on many issues - but I clearly understand her.

Europe is a collection of nations, and on many issues they don't even agree with each other. Leadership by committee is not leadership. The "buck" has to stop somewhere. On virtually all world issues, it stops with the US.

It will never happen.

Is this some kind of an oxymoron? The inspection program is a success because they successfully inspected the knowns to be inspected. Or the inspection program is successful until it fails or is proven to have failed.


What is Obama's ideology? Your Ideology is clear. Obama has taken positions consistent with your ideology and in direct contradiction to your ideology and on some issues it appears that he takes both sides. For example he is against "torture", but supports a document that would allow it. He thinks torture is criminal, but he doesn't support the prosecution of those he thinks violated the law. Etc. Etc. Etc. Etc. Etc.

---------- Post added at 03:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:20 PM ----------

Afghanistan is not a place to wage war. Obama will soon come to understand that sending more and more troops into that territory is wasteful. A war in Afghanistan can not be won, Bush understood that. Obama saying Afghanistan was the "right" war was political campaign rhetoric and now he is trapped and has to figure a way out without looking like he politicized the war.

Are you referring to the native populations? If so, they're basically gone now. Otherwise, we were only under a monarchy for a short time and it's been 100% republic since then. We're not tribal at all, we do not have a tribal society in any way, shape or form.
Nothing really comes before tribalism, we've been tribal in one way or another for a good 100,000 years. After that came agrarian monarchism, then imperialism, then industrialism. Republics popped up along the way, but really only became wide-spread recently, within the past few hundred years. Anyway, for Iran the eventual move is probably going to be from Islamic tribalism to secularization and democracy via revolution. The US is actually the interesting one because at this point it could go any number of ways.
I suspect you're comforted by the concept of a top-dog. Am I correct in this assumption? Do you feel that a more parliamentary-style of rule would make you less comfortable?
Oh, that kinda answers my questions. Still, Europe often acts as a whole, each country acting as a state. It's served them fairly well in recent history.
Comon, think bigger. There's no way in hell population restrictions will ever work which means eventually, even if we go through several collapses, we will reach a peak production of resources on the planet and will have to expand. Do you really think petty disputes between countries on earth will matter when we've colonized the solar system? Of course not. Eventually the planet will likely operate the way Europe does now. They will remain sovereign, but collectively will have governmental systems in place to deal with global or even multi-global issues. On these issues, there will need to be a consensus in order to get something done, and the odds are this will be done democratically.

Admittedly, this is getting really far off the track of the thread topic. If you want to continue this line, I'd be glad to make a thread.
Scott Ritter correctly determined that we would not find any WMDs in Iraq because he did the inspecting himself. How could you not characterize that as a success on his part? He went in there himself and did his job, and the results he returned with were verified later. Had he and other inspectors like him not been ignored, the US would have about $686b more and the lives of some 4,262 brave soldiers would have been spared, not to mention countless Iraqi citizens (as the rate at which Iraqi citizens died since 2001 dwarfs the rates at which Saddam was having people killed).
His ideology is one of moderate progressivism, generally speaking. He knows torture is wrong, but is anxious to compromise with hard-liners. In fact, I'd say a better description of his ideology would be the that of compromised progressivism. Still, he's not a conservative. You're a conservative. I'm a progressive. Imagine I were elected, but every decision I made was done bearing in mind that I have to earn your vote. It'd be a mess of contradictions and half-measures, right?

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA !!!!.......snort........HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA....................snort......................HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!

I take it you think he's some far left extremist liberal.

He's not

Given that many conservatives/libertairians here are of the firm belief that Obama's national security policies are a "Bush third term" and others think he is a "weak on security" liberal as opposed to the previous "chicken hawks"...perhaps he is doing something right.

He did do something right - I support president Obama on his position regarding Kanye West.

I'm sure he seems like an extremists from the far, far right, but you're looking at his positions way too relatively.

If I were president, the first day in office I would have ordered my commanders to start evacuating troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, and that they need to be completely finished in no more than 3 months. I would have put my people to work drafting single-payer healthcare instantly and would want it in the House within maybe a week. And I'd decimate anyone that stood in the way of that legislation. I'd have appointed an independent investigator with unprecedented access to find out everyone that was involved with stolen elections, the lies leading up to the war, rendition, torture, eavesdropping, and any other criminal activity in the previous administration. Then I'd appoint the most blood-thirsty prosecutor in history to go after anyone implicated. I'd undo the shitty deregulation started during the Reagan administration so that we have better control over the ignorant gamblers in the banking and investment markets. I'd stop the war on terror completely and set a new agenda to bring economic stability to countries like Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan so that their middle class can be a stronger force for peace and stability. I'd push the FCC to put the fairness doctrine back in place.

Then on day 2, I'd get to work on reforming and growing important social programs as well as ending the failed wars on drugs and crime.

Do you see how incredibly different this is than what President Obama is doing? I'd have people at Fox News hanging themselves within 24 hours of being sworn in and I'd be assassinated probably in my first week. Because I'm a progressive.

Comfort is probably not the best word, but I accept the concept of "top-dog". I don't really understand the inner workings of parliamentary-style of rule - in my experience when put in that style environment someone generally takes a lead role. The lead role may change based on the dynamics of the group and the issue at hand but I have often found a "leader" is needed to drive the group to decisive action. When a leader does not emerge, the group flounders accomplishing little. My experience and knowledge is limited here.

I simply think that it is the nature of man to need to belong to something. As long as there is that need - man will break into "tribes". At best I think all man kind would unify, only under a real threat to the existence of all mankind - and that would be temporary.

I don't have anything to add, I think I understand your point of view and I think you understand mine. And this is fundamental to understanding the real or perceived Iranian threat. At this time it is more important to know how world leaders view these issues - their views will determine the outcome. I think Obama is more in line with you, Iranians are more in line with me. I have heard some reports that Sarkozy, France, wants to be more aggressive on the Iranian threat than Obama and may be more in-line with the way I see this. Imagine that - France more aggressive than the US!

He currently has a vested interest in being correct. Given that interest I have to take what he says and put into perspective. He may be correct, but he could be wrong - it would be embarrassing if he is proved to be wrong. We would need multiple independent sources arriving at the same conclusion to make me conclude "success".


"Compromised progressivism"??? In other words he has no core values, everything is up for give and take?

---------- Post added at 08:12 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:00 PM ----------

As he faces the decision to send more troops to Afghanistan he has to pick a side and stay with it. I thought his strategy was already defined, he said that Afgahnistan was the right war. If that is true he should not have been surprised by the request for more troops, he would have already been in the process of and on top of assessing our military strategy. The Mcchrystal interview on 60 Minutes was an embarrassment to the administration. this is related to Iran because they perceive weakness, they perceive a lack of focus, they perceive a lack of discipline. I will say it again - Obama needs to start acting like he is the President. He needs to act like we are a nation at war.

---------- Post added at 08:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:12 PM ----------

The above is an example of leadership. It doesn't matter if I agree or not, if you ran for President, won, and then acted in accordance with what you ran on, I would still make my case but I would defer to your leadership. At the end of the day, on many issues we face I think we need to be "all in" or "out".

[


He currently has a vested interest in being correct. Given that interest I have to take what he says and put into perspective. He may be correct, but he could be wrong - it would be embarrassing if he is proved to be wrong. We would need multiple independent sources arriving at the same conclusion to make me conclude "success".



He doesn't have a vested interest in being correct. His job is to report the facts. The facts in Iraq were no wmd's. The facts in iran are no wmd's.

---------- Post added at 04:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:23 PM ----------

[/COLOR]

The above is an example of leadership. It doesn't matter if I agree or not, if you ran for President, won, and then acted in accordance with what you ran on, I would still make my case but I would defer to your leadership. At the end of the day, on many issues we face I think we need to be "all in" or "out".[/QUOTE]

Except that in reality you can't be all in or all out. You gotta have room for compromise. This is what Bush failed to realise and why we are in the mess we are in now.

Tribe doesn't mean "a cooperating group of individuals", it's a bit more specific in the context of this thread. You're absolutely, 100% right that generally speaking humans have developed as a social species. We do seek to belong to a group because it's that very group that ensured our survival since long before we lost our tails.

This side prophesy I posted is more about the eventual goal of democracy for free and educated people. It's peppered with my optimism (and maybe colored by too much Star Trek), but I'll meet you in maybe a 1000 years and we can see how I did.
It's why I didn't post this in the Bush 3rd term thread, actually.

Obama sits squarely between us in his actions, but I think you're right that he's a bit more like me in his ideologies. We'll likely not know until he's out of office and making a real difference, like Carter or Clinton.
This isn't a theoretical exercise, though, the facts he's presented are verifiable. His case is made. I'm sure you see that, too. The facts he's collected are correct and the conclusions he's drawn from them match those facts.
I'm pretty sure he's got core values, but he's a Democratic president so he's willing to ignore them for what he sees as political expediency. Of course progressives like me don't see it as expediency at all, we see it as compromising by default. I see it as the same weakness we've seen from the Democrats since before I was born.
Bill Maher was saying a few months back that President Obama needs to be a little more like Bush: ignore congress, do everything you want, don't take shit from anyone. As much as I disapproved with basically everything President Bush ever did, I've gotta say that level of pig-headedness can clearly get a lot done.

Human nature is a factor when weighing the credibility of a report. I don't think you are suggesting that this person is above being corrupt or corrupted either by ego or an outside source. So, I agree that his job is to report the facts, I also agree that he may have performed his job honestly and to the best of his ability. Where we differ, I think, is that I think it is possible that he is wrong. I also think, given human nature, he would have to proactively overcome the inertia of risking his reputation on being later proved wrong. It takes a little extra to state you are correct and then later have to state that you were wrong, that you were fooled, deceived, failed, not capable, or whatever the reason. I am not suggesting that he would not or could not do it, all I want is more proof - given the circumstances and the potential consequences.

I would love to know what are his radical policies. But I suspect I will be left waiting for a while.

What is his Iranian policy? Is his plan to have low/mid level diplomatic talks? What is he going to take to those talks; embargo, UN sanctions, inspectors, bombing the sites, war - what? Is he going to pick up the phone and talk directly to Iranian leaders? Is he going to have a show of military strength by sending the Navy to the Iranian coast? Is he going to defer to Isreal? France? Russia? China? Is he going to ban Iranian athletes from the 2016 Olympics? Is he going to wait for the next President to handle it? I would like to know. But I suspect I will be left waiting for a while.

So are you saying that pointing out Obama's radical policies after implying he is a radical is akin to predicting the future?

I really don't understand what your going for here. The man did his job, presented the facts and they were ignored by the last president and they are being ignored by this president. Short of going there yourself, there is nothing left to be proved to you. The truth is the truth and you can't ignore it

You were masturbating while writing that, weren't you. :P

No.

---------- Post added at 03:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:29 PM ----------

Just read what I wrote. I prefer additional support given the circumstances and the potential consequences.

In other threads there have been similar discussions that I have been involved in. To put it simply, I am a skeptic. I am the guy who will open the hood of my car and check the oil after an oil change - my mechanic has to learn not to take it personal.

I have a hunch that one of the very main reasons Barack Obama was elected was to deal with Iran. He's going to charm the Iranians into a stupor like he charmed the Americans, Europeans, South Americans, Egyptians, Haitians and just about everyone else. After Obama gets through with his Campaign of Charm & Nuance the Iranians won't know what hit them. Not only will the mullahs stop weaponizing plutonium they'll be overjoyed about it. They will start growing bananas and cherries in the desert. Obama will play the hyper-empath, compassionate emergency counselor sent in to deal with the psychotic problem child, like Richard Gere in Primal Fear. He'll let the mullahs have their say: they will get to yell at the United States. Stern words at first...giving way to smiles then supplication...everything very diplomatic and respectful. Solemn amends for meddling in the past on one side, half-promises to cut off ties with Hamas et al. In doing so Obama will show the world that he is fair enough and magnanimous enough to allow them their say, and a few months later the Iranians will find themselves without a single working nuclear reactor of their own.

wow, you're bitter

What can I say...Obama's foreign policy has let me down thusfar.

Maybe... :expressionless:

Iran agrees to open up uranium enrichment plant to inspection | World news | The Guardian

i wasn't going to bother with this thread as will seems to have made the arguments that i would have up to this point.
but gee, ain't it strange how actual engagement seems to have produced more in a day than the bush-cheney approach did in 8 years?

all this with the unfortunate reality of ahmadinejad still being somehow in office.

but to be coherent about iran, you'd have to acknowledge the persistent gap between the public face of the internal regime and it's diplomatic actions. they're quite different one from the other. one of the iranian objectives behind the scenes for some time has been to get direct talks with the united states. that this is a problem for their internally-directed politics is self-evident if you know anything about how the revolution turned out and why it happened in the first place.

Iran agrees to open up uranium enrichment plant to inspection | World news | The Guardian

i wasn't going to bother with this thread as will seems to have made the arguments that i would have up to this point.
but gee, ain't it strange how actual engagement seems to have produced more in a day than the bush-cheney approach did in 8 years?

all this with the unfortunate reality of ahmadinejad still being somehow in office.

but to be coherent about iran, you'd have to acknowledge the persistent gap between the public face of the internal regime and it's diplomatic actions. they're quite different one from the other. one of the iranian objectives behind the scenes for some time has been to get direct talks with the united states. that this is a problem for their internally-directed politics is self-evident if you know anything about how the revolution turned out and why it happened in the first place.

From the article cited:

And I understand that Iran agreed to unrestricted inspections, if they have a weapons program that we don't know about... Understanding that I am a skeptic, I doubt I need to add anything further, just take note. I do hope this is the beginning of the end of this potential problem.

Iran set to launch its first nuclear power plant

Here we have the Russians completing a decades-long nuclear power project by fueling a nuclear plant to bring it online in Iran.

Critics of Iran have implied that their civilian nuclear program is a cover for their intention to build nuclear arms.

What do you make of this?
Will this complicate issues or will it make it easier for the international community to come up with more valid reasons to inspect and regulate Iran's civilian program?
Will this complicate issues further between Russia and the U.S. with regard to nuclear technology?

Critics have been saying this for years and years, but have yet to present a single shred of evidence. It's painfully obvious we're seeing (in slow-motion) the same runup to war with Iran we had with Iraq. WMDs and al Qaeda links, which turned out to be outright lies, have morphed into nuclear weapons. Guess what? Based on all available evidence, including the IAEA, Iran does not have nuclear weapons nor is pursuing them.

If someone wants to convince the world otherwise, they can show us evidence. This whole "repeating a lie until it becomes true" thing is a very obvious ploy to fool fools.

will -

Here's a shred:

VIDEO: Iran's Nuclear Trigger

The sad thing is it works. Ask Colin Powell.

Have a look at this:
Nuclear Memo in Persian Puzzles Spy Agencies - NYTime.com

In particular:
Has there been any followup on this?

Here's what happened after the document was fact-checked:
source

The document is a fake and has been known to be so for quite a while now. I wonder why a Murdoch news source would post such an inflammatory, controversial piece of information without first verifying it? Could it be because Murdoch-owned news outlets are trying to create a narrative instead of simply deliver the news? Did I just ask a question with a clear accusation in it, but framed it as a question so as to make it seem as if I'm asking the audience's opinion instead of what I'm actually doing, which is informing said opinions? Who else do we know that does that? Could it be Fox News? Did Glenn Beck rape and murder a little girl in 1990?

So, still, all we need is a shred of (reliable and/or verifiable) evidence. Just a shred. That's all I've ever asked for

Welp, here we are. Iran is loading 3-5% enriched uranium into its first nuclear reactor with the help of Russia and the permission of the IAEA, demonstrating that they were not lying about pursuing nuclear power. Will this finally put to rest the baseless accusations about nuclear weapons? It's hard to say. The publication of President Obama's birth certificate should have silenced the Birther movement, the revelation that President Obama's father was an atheist should have silenced the critics that insist the president is Muslim by birth, and the complete lack of WMDs in Iraq should have ended the argument for going to war...

Source (Time Magazine)