« Gordon Brown's foreign policy under fire | Main | Joe Loconte: Mitt Romney's Step of Faith »


Tony Makara

While Muammar Gaddafi may well have buckled under the threat of an aggressive US foreign policy I think it would be a mistake to claim that Iran has now backed down or that the war in Iraq is now justified. Those wishing to legitimize the Iraq war will cling to this and even manipulate the fact that Iranian weapons plans were closed down in 2003, but that would be a historical disservice. The war in Iraq was a mistake and the world must learn from it.

Jon Gale

If the neocons were smart they could sell this as a victory, but most, including Bush, seem to be too wedded to the rubbish of "WWIII" and attacking Iran.


It figures the first angle: more Brit sour grapes over Iraq and the real possibility American military action might produce good things.

And there is no "rubbish" of WWIII. That's Drudge. But get real. If Iran develops the capability to launch nuclear weapons its not gonna be a better world.

Tony Makara

Steevo, do you think Iran would even contemplate using nuclear weapons, presumably against Israel, given the massive retaliation that Israel could give out in return? What would they gain from it. I think every nation would like to have a nuclear capability, but does it also stand that every nation would want to use those weapons?

As an Englishman I hope my country never has to use it nuclear capability, but I feel more secure knowing we have that capability as a deterrent. We can't dis-invent nuclear weaponry just as we can't dis-invent the gun or any other weapon. We just have to learn to live with it.


Well Tony its just the same ole. Its hard to imagine you'll stop getting hung up over whether almost 5 years ago going into Iraq was justified or not. I just look at it now and I know many of the citizens are glad, with hope for freedom. But this really isn't the point of the article anyway.

I agree that American military presence there was plenty of incentive for Iran to think it wise to stop its WMD ambitions. One other factor too, without Saddam they didn't have incentive from his immediate threat.

Nobody has said we're planning on full scale invasion of Iran. I seriously doubt anything close to that would happen, and I wouldn't want it to. Given a choice between doing anything close to that or not, I say not and let the region and world be less safe and more unstable with Mullahs having say whether the button should be pressed. Our efforts and sacrifice would be condemned by Islamists, Communists, dictatorships and most of this worlds democracies.

To answer your question tho I would not want to have to be living in Israel to wait and see. These are fanatics, holocaust deniers, promoters of suicide terrorism, killers of US, Iraqi and coalition troops, and innocent Iraqis. They are hungry for power. Its much easier living in the UK not perceiving them as the threat their middle eastern neighbors do.


Tony, you need to go back and google the speeches made by Ahmadinijad. He has clearly stated that he would sacrafice Iran to destroy Israel. However, the bigger point isn't even that Iran would use nukes on Israel directly. Once they have them....they can pass them off to underground terror groups with no trace of their fingerprints. It may not be delivered by a missile. It may not even be in the form of a big mushroom cloud; perhaps it would be a dirty bomb in the middle of your neighborhood. Please go back and listen to his own words. Don't try to analyze him like you would a sensible mind.


Justin Webb's (BBC) angle caught my attention because I'm currently reading "Shadow Warriors" by Kenneth Timmerman. Timmerman has just penned an article about this latest NIE report. You will be surprised to see who the players of this report are.....and, yes, it does give reason for skepticism:

US Intel Possibly Duped By Iran

Mac Ranger has a blog post on possible cooked intelligence also:

This is all a bit fishy to me. There are a lot of unanswered questions (which it appears some in Congress will soon be asking). Wonder what the next NIE report will say?

Even some of the Democrats aren't buying it. Kirsten Powers, Democrat Strategist, was on Hannity and Colmes tonight and said she was skeptical of this NIE report and thought Iran was a great threat.

British Patriot

He's not running over here, but I like what he's selling

http://playpolitical.typepad.com/race_for_the_white_house_/2007/11/four-videos-tha.htmldrinks alliance


Good grief, there are Paulbots in Britain? LOL!

Frogg, USA

John Bolton was interviewed today. He was Undersecretary for Arms Control at State Dept in 2003 and has been wracking his brain trying to figure out what "pressure" the NIE is talking about?

John bolton: Don't believe the NIE report on Iranian nukes



Good grief, even the IAEA is skeptical of this NIE report:


Monitoring Agency Praises U.S. Report, but Keeps Wary Eye on Iran

Published: December 5, 2007

PARIS, Dec. 4 — The International Atomic Energy Agency on Tuesday publicly embraced the new American intelligence assessment stating that Iran had halted its nuclear weapons effort, but in truth the agency is taking a more cautious approach in drawing conclusions about Iran’s nuclear program.

“To be frank, we are more skeptical,” a senior official close to the agency said. “We don’t buy the American analysis 100 percent. We are not that generous with Iran.”



Oh boy the IAEA thinks our intelligence is too nice with Ahmadinijad.

I think there's a good possibility in the near future we're gonna know personally all those working for the NIE.

And Frogg, Ron Paul has that universal appeal. Conspiratorialism is a global disease.

Yet Another Anon

Given Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khaminei's issuing and continual re-affirming of the fatwah against developing, using or stockpiling nuclear weapons, and given nothing in the way of nuclear development can go ahead without his say so, if Iran had turned out to develop nuclear weapons he would have lost all credibility including among his own supporters.

There is still the issue of islands belonging to the UAE in the Straits of Hormuz that the Iranian Navy has been illegally occuping for several years now, Iran should be forced to return them, in addition neccessary measures should be taken to cut off Iranian influence in Iraq and the West Bank.

Iran knows that a couple of atomic warheads would not win it any war, indeed if it were ever at war with the USA or another nuclear power it's best strategy would be to keep it conventional, because in the vicinity of Iran, Iran would have a chance of beating the major military powers or at least holding them at bay until public pressure in their own countries stopped any ongoing action or their interest shifted to something else.

Iran is not Iraq or Afghanistan, there is significant support for various elements in the Iranian Parliament and for the Supreme Leader in Iran, whereas the Ba'ath Party was supported by a tiny minority in Iraq and was only had majority support in a small area to the north of Baghdad. Any forces attempting to occupy Iran would face massive guerrilla action and general social non-cooperation.

The biggest threats for a nuclear war are the main nuclear powers, and while war with Iran would be more likely than war with USA or France, nuclear war with Iran is actually even less likely than with the USA or France. The most likely threat of a nuclear war is China or Russia. North Korea was a significant threat but remarkably has been co-operative with the International Community of late.

In the main I think that nuclear weapons just do not fit Iran's military objectives, the Iraqi Ba'athist regime though desperate to conquer the entire region and led by someone showing signs of megalomania was eager to develop such weapons and quite prepared to use them once they had them.

Frogg, USA

Pat Dollard makes another point:
Former Iranian President Khatami laughs his ass of because his religion of peace provides for Taqqiyah (lying to infidels is okie dokie, smokie).

It appears that Ahmadinejad’s predecessor, lied through his teeth and made nice with everyone on the promise that Iran was not developing a nuclear weapons program. The EU even tripled trade with Iran in 1997 based on this promise.

NRO article by Michael Rubin is here, highlights of that article are below:

The NIE time line clearly describes the elaborate deception that occurred during the term of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s predecessor, Mohammad Khatami, when Iran tried to build a nuclear bomb. It proves Iran was cheating even as well-meaning American diplomats believed promises that it was cooperating with the international community.

On Aug. 4, 1997, Khatami declared, “We are in favor of a dialogue between civilizations and a detente in our relations with the outside world.” European diplomats, American academics and even Secretary of State Madeleine Albright applauded him. European statesmen opened palaces to him, and the Iranian president became the toast of Rome, Paris and London.

In fact, to encourage Khatami’s promises of reform, the European Union nearly tripled its trade with Iran - and the Islamic Republic reaped a windfall. But rather than integrate itself into the family of nations, Khatami and the theocratic leadership he served invested the money in a covert quest for the bomb.

The NIE proves once and for all that all of Khatami’s talk of dialogue and reform was little more than a smoke screen.


Frogg, USA

Some things never change:

UAE Seizes Banned Cargo - “Hazardous Materials” - Headed To Iran


"The United Arab Emirates has impounded the cargo of a vessel bound for Iran after discovering that “hazardous materials” aboard contravened UN sanctions placed on the Islamic republic to curtail its nuclear development programme.

In a further ratcheting up of the UAE’s determination to curb misuse of its ports, an official there confirmed that the cargo, detained for testing last month, contained materials banned by UN Security Council resolutions 1737 and 1747, while the purchaser of the materials had also been barred by the same resolutions.

But he declined to identify the contents of the cargo or the Iranian company that had ordered the materials."



Allowing any country who has a leadership that believes in "The Final Day" to even have a civilian nuclear programme is a dereliction of duty by Western Governments.

Irrespective of the political cost, irrespective of the fiscal cost, leaving the Islamic Republic of Iran on the next Presidents plate is an outrage - particularly if that President is a Democrat. The Democrats in their clamour to score brownie points against the President & ingratiate themselves with the appeasing international liberal left brigade have essentially tired their own hands. The Mullahs would eat the Democrats alive politically - & are probably relishing a weak Democrat in the White House.

After all that the Democrats have done to undermine the military in Iraq, no Democratic President is going to war with anyone in the ME over any issue.

Will the Wests visionaries & leaders please stand up?


Current headlines warning about Iranian nuclear programme, the president who is making outrageous statements on daily basis causing fear to those living in democratic societies are mostly why such a small number of people is trying to dig bellow the surface and learn more about Iran. Ban put on all the social networks thus preventing people to connect and share thoughts and opinions, no freedom of information nor speech are keeping youth of Iran in a strange kind of vacuum. If you want to learn more about Censorship in Iran and how it effects their society, if you are interested in hearing a different kind of voice talking about Iran and Iranians, you should read The Age of Nepotism, the book by Vahid razavi, or visit the site www.theageofnepotism.com

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad


  • Tracker