Skip to main content

Buried within this story about UN Security Council disagreements over the approach to take regarding Iran was this boldfaced lie by Mr. Bolton:

U.S. Ambassador John Bolton said his government's patience with negotiations is running out.

He said Iran used the time involved in the talks with France, Germany and Britain to enrich enough uranium to produce nuclear weapons.

"That is why our negotiating process will not be indefinite," Bolton said.

Let me be real clear about this. The claim by Bolton that Iran has enriched enough uranium to make a bomb is demonstrably false, and Bolton knows it. How do I know this? Follow me below the fold and I'll tell you . . .

To begin, let me remind you that Iran only started enriching uranium with a 10-20 centrifuge cascade back in February. What does that mean? Well, according to arms control expert David Albright, it means that there is no chance Iran can produce enough enriched uranium to make atomic weapons because you need thousands of centrifuges carefully aligned in the proper order to make enough enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon program:
[Interviewer, BERNARD GWERTZMAN of the Council od Foreign Relations:] Talk to me again about centrifuges. Are these big things? How many centrifuges do you need to make nuclear weapons?

[David Albright:] Well, there are many types of centrifuges. And the ones [i.e., centrifuges] that Iran (have) been building and deploying (have) been at Natanz and [are] what have come to be called the P-1. The P-1 is actually a Dutch design originally, I don't know, two meters high, 100 millimeters in diameter; aluminum is the rotor material, it doesn't spin that fast, it has some problems in it, it's actually kind of hard to learn how to operate.

Each centrifuge doesn't really do that much. It just doesn't enrich that much and it can't process that much uranium in a year. So you start connecting them together, both to increase the amount of enrichment, and to increase the amount of uranium that you can push through and to come out as enriched uranium. So if Iran right now wants to run a 164-machine cascade, they won't really make much material.

In the end centrifuges are rather precious to the Iranians. And so you don't want to break too many of them. If they wanted to make enough enriched uranium for a bomb program, they could get by with 1,500 centrifuges operated in cascades, and that would give them enough highly enriched uranium for about one bomb a year. If they wanted to make enough to fuel the Bushehr reactor [being built for Iran by the Russians], they would need about 50,000 operating centrifuges, of enriched uranium.

Some have placed the number of centrifuges Iran would need for a bomb program as high as 3000 or more. In addition, as Albright points out, Iran still has significant hurdles to overcome just to get the centrifuges it does have operating sufficiently to enrich even small quantities of uranium.

By the way, just who is this David Albright and why should we trust his word over that of John Bolton? Well he's . . .

. . . president of the Institute for Science and International Security and a former weapons inspector for the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) . . .

You can find a link to the Insititute for Science and International Security HERE. More information regarding Albright's qualifications and resume can be found HERE. The short version: he's a physicist who has taught at George Mason University and Princeton, from 1992-1997 he served with the IAEA action team tasked with analysing documets pertinent to Iraq's nuclear weapons program, and in 1996 he became the first non-governmental inspector of the Iraqi nuclear program.

He was also the person who first identified that the Bush administration's claim (reported in a story published in the New York Times under David Sanger's byline) that computer files obtained through covert means showed that Iran had the design for a nuclear warhead which could be placed on a missile was complete and utter bullshit clearly false:

The November 13, 2005 New York Times article "Relying on Computer, US Seeks to Prove Iran's Nuclear Aims" has a deep and misleading flaw. William J. Broad and David E. Sanger repeatedly characterize the contents of computer files as containing information about a nuclear warhead design when the information actually describes a reentry vehicle for a missile. This distinction is not minor, and Broad should understand the difference between the two objects, particularly when the information does not contain any words such as nuclear or nuclear warhead. The "black box" carried by the re-entry vehicle may appear to be a nuclear warhead, but the documents do not state what the warhead is. In addition, much of what Broad and Sanger report has been reported elsewhere, including the important information about "a sphere of detonators meant to ignite conventional explosives"(see Agence France Press article by Michael Adler on October 9, 2005). These earlier and more accurate articles did not confuse a nuclear warhead with a reentry vehicle.

By replacing warhead with re-entry vehicle throughout the article, the reasons for a healthy skepticism would also become more understandable. For example, a key question becomes much more clear, namely whether this work was initiated by an Iranian missile team on its own, or whether this work was ordered by Iran's political leadership as part of a concerted nuclear weapons effort? Another important question that is sidestepped by the misleading use of warhead in the article is whether Iran can build the relatively small nuclear warhead able to fit into the triconic re-entry vehicle apparent in photos of a 2004 flight test. Based on publicly available photos of the 2004 test launch, the nuclear warhead would require a diameter of about 600 millimeters. Achieving such a diameter would be challenging for Iran. For example, the diameter of the warhead in the design provided to Libya (and perhaps to Iran) by A.Q. Khan was about 900 millimeters. A legitimate question is wheth er Iran could successfully build such a small nuclear warhead without outside help.

I think David Albright knows what he's talking about when it comes to Iran's nuclear program far more than Mr. Bolton does, don't you?

Now I know that the wingnuts out there are going to claim that just because Iran's known nuclear facilities do not contain enough centrifuges to produce enough enriched uranium for nuclear weapons doesn't mean that Iran doesn't have a "secret program" where it has been hard at work producing enriched uranium with thousands of centrifuges that no one knows about. In response to this rank speculation posing as a legitimate argument, let me make three points.

First, if true, why would Iran choose to openly begin enriching uranium on a much smaller scale at its nuclear facility in Natanz, a facility which has been regularly subject to IAEA inspections under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty protocols? What purpose would that serve? Far better to keep its nculear program hidden from foreign inspections than to open up a Pandora's box of international scrutiny regarding its nuclear intentions. Announcing their intent to enrich uranium, even on this small, militarily insignificant scale, has already incurred the real risk of an attack on its facilities by Israel and/or the United States in response.

Far better for them to lay back in the weeds and wait until they have successfully tested a nuclear device before announcing a plan to enrich uranium, don't you think? In other words, if Iran has a secret program which has produced enough enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon, what possible reason would it have for announcing that it is starting up a small scale research project to do the exact same thing Bolton claims it has been doing secretly on a much larger scale? It simply makes no damn sense.

Second, if Iran has already produced enough weapons grade uranium to make a bomb, the US wouldn't be taking this hardline diplomatic approach, one almost guaranteed to lead to a military confrontation. How do I know this? That's easy. All one has to do is look at the case of North Korea. Not once in the Bush administration's confrontation with that small impoverished Marxist-Leninist dictatorship did the Bush administration use rhetoric 1/10th as inflammatory has it currently does with Iran on a regular basis. Nor did Bush end up taking the matter to the United Nations. Instead he pursued the diplomatic track with his allies and partners in the region, China, Russia, Japan and South Korea. Why? Because he was convinced that North Korea already had nuclear weapons and he was unwilling to risk their use against our forces, or against civillian targets, in any potential showdown with the North Korean military.

If Iran has enough nuclear material to make a bomb, or, to be more precise, if Bush and Bolton really believe that it does, they would not have pushed to refer this matter to the United Nations, nor would they have cut off Russia's nascent diplomatic efforts to seek a compromise through direct negotiations with Iran, as they so cavilierly did the other day.

If there's one thing we know, Bush is a bully. He doesn't like to pick on anyone who has the wherewithal to do serious injury to our military forces. His completely different "solutions" to the problems posed by Iraq and North Korea clearly demonstrate that. Iraq was weak miltarily so we invaded it with impunity despite all the dangerous talk of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. North Korea, on the other hand, had formidible armed forces, and atomic weapons. In that instance, Bush pursued diplomacy, notwithstanding Bolton's occasional blustering to the contrary.

Third, we know that Bush (and Bolton) are getting their so-called intelligence about Iran's nuclear weapons program from some highly dubious sources. One of them is the MEK, a marxist oriented terrorist organization bent on overthrowing the current regime in Iran:

MEK has long been controversial because of its history of violent attacks in Iran, its relationship with Saddam's regime and its background as a quasi-religious, quasi-Marxist radical resistance group founded in the era of the late Iranian shah. In 1997, the Clinton administration put MEK on the State Department's list of foreign terrorist groups. [...]

Despite the group's notoriety, Bush himself cited purported intelligence gathered by MEK as evidence of the Iranian regime's rapidly accelerating nuclear ambitions. At a March 16 press conference, Bush said Iran's hidden nuclear program had been discovered not because of international inspections but "because a dissident group pointed it out to the world." White House aides acknowledged later that the dissident group cited by the president is the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), one of the MEK front groups added to the State Department list two years ago.

Other exiled Iranian dissident groups with an agenda of regime change also have provided suspect information regarding Iran's "secret nuclear weapons program" to the Bush administration. As we know, Bush, Cheney and others in their foreign policy team used "fixed" intelligence of this sort (the name Chalabi ring any bells?) to justify the invasion of Iraq in 2003. In short, they don't have a particularly good track record when it comes to claims that oil rich countries they don't happen to like in the Middle East are engaged in obtaining nuclear weapons. Nothing they have come forward so far with respect to Iran gives me any confidence that this time they have "got it right."

So don't believe Mr Bolton when he claims that Iran has enough processed uranium to make a bomb. He's just blowing smoke to justify his favored approach to Iran: a military attack. His real purpose, as Juan Cole noted yesterday, is regime change in Iran.

It's past time for all of us, but especially our Democratic Party leaders, to stand up to these lies and call him and President Bush on their bullshit phony claims about Iran's nukes before American bombs start falling once more on another Islamic country.

Cross-posted at Booman Tribune

Originally posted to Steven D on Wed Mar 15, 2006 at 07:57 AM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (112+ / 0-)

    Please email your Congressional representatives and media outlets about this issue before an attack on Iran becomes "inevitable."

    "I just had the basic view of the American public -- it can't be that bad out there." Marine Travis Williams after 11 members of his squad were killed.

    by Steven D on Wed Mar 15, 2006 at 07:57:15 AM PST

    •  Will do, (12+ / 0-)

      but the attack is already inevitable.

      •  Let's hope not (9+ / 0-)

        Though I fear you are correct.

        "I just had the basic view of the American public -- it can't be that bad out there." Marine Travis Williams after 11 members of his squad were killed.

        by Steven D on Wed Mar 15, 2006 at 08:01:55 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  If the poll numbers dip, Bush starts bombing. (7+ / 0-)

          Just wait for the run-up to the 2006 "election", if the Bushite scum perceive that they might actually lose the house, they'll start bombing Iran just to get a boost in the polls.  Bad for the US and the world?  Of course, that didn't stop the Iraq Invasion, no reason to expect it will stop the Iran bombing.  September or October sounds about right, "you don't roll out a new product in the summer".

          Will bombing Iran be bad for the world economy?  Sure, but the Bushite scum are heavily invested in weapons manufacturers, their stocks will soar as the world goes to hell.  Not a problem for the Bushite scum, they are sycophantic slime who only care about themselves.

          •  Buchanan told Tweety its Bush's only move (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            menodoc, dkmich, Steven D

            if the Bushite scum perceive that they might actually lose the house, they'll start bombing Iran just to get a boost in the polls.

            Pat Buchanan told Tweety tonight that that was almost a sure thing.  As he sees it the numbers are already so bad that unless they improve more than he suspects Bush's only option will be to upset the chess board and dump everything on the floor.  As he sees all Bush has to do to see his poll numbers go up the and Democrats' go down is to bomb Iran.

            Bad things would probably come from that in the long run, but if timed right it would get enough of a boost for him and his party to keep control.

            Tweety didn't argue with him but just said that he was "speechless" thinking about the likelihood that such a move could work.

            •  Tweety said, isn't there a danger people will (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Fred in Vermont, Steven D

              think he's insane?  (Duh, certifiable.)  But get this, Buchanan and Dana Milbanks (WaPo) were amazed that Tweety even had that thought.  This country is so freakin nuts.    70% of Americans are pissed at Bush over this war, so he is going to go bomb Iran - start another war?? so he can make Americans happy?  "they'll rally"  Buchanan said.  Jesus christ, please wake me up from this night mare.

              Hackett/Sanders 08

              by dkmich on Wed Mar 15, 2006 at 05:34:49 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  A military crisis not an 'invasion' (0+ / 0-)

                70% of Americans are pissed at Bush over this war, so he is going to go bomb Iran - start another war??

                It will not be an invasion, just a military crisis which raises the stakes so much that enough Americans will think it would be 'crazy' not to support the commander in chief by supporting his party. 

                Of course it would be a big gamble to take given that if Iran did anything rash we could face disaster in Iraq.  But the thing is if he faced losing congress Bush would have little himself to lose with one more big role of the dice.

      •  With what army? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        pb
      •  Then the intractable BACKLASH (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Steven D

        is inevitable.

        We're gonna explode?! I don't wanna explode! 宁静

        by TalkieToaster on Wed Mar 15, 2006 at 09:02:18 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  How Defeatist? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bustacap, Steven D

        Let me quote my favorite movie:

        Nothing is written!

        •  Lawrence of Arabia (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          bustacap, Bluesee

          One of my favorites too.

          "I just had the basic view of the American public -- it can't be that bad out there." Marine Travis Williams after 11 members of his squad were killed.

          by Steven D on Wed Mar 15, 2006 at 10:19:55 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  If you liked the film, (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Fred in Vermont, collapse

            you really should read the book. The Seven Pillars of Wisdom. Very interesting stuff if you have any interest in western ambitions of empire in the middle east.

            Casualty is the first truth of war. (-6.00,-7.03)

            by Foreign Devil on Wed Mar 15, 2006 at 03:59:39 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Lawrence Understood Arabs (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Foreign Devil, Steven D

              Very interesting stuff if you have any interest in western ambitions of empire in the middle east.

              Lawrence tells about how after the German's attacked and executed a lot of civilians in a local village in retribution for the actions of he and his Arab fighters most of his men just vanished for a few days and he feared that he had seen the last of them. 

              But soon most returned and were better fighters than before.  He explains in this book that while his fighters had not been too dedicated before, this killing by the Germans of their relatives and tribe members changed everything and placed upon them a binding social obligation to fight the German's for the rest of their lives if necessary and to personally kill at least one. This was a big life change for these formerly easy-going guys and they had gone away for a while just to get used to this new situation.

              I am sure that there are Arabists in Washington that understand this, but I get the feeling that those who still think that with a few political tweaks here and there we can remain in Iraq long term without being constant targets just don't understand Arabs.

      •  Yes it is, and the neocons are busy! (6+ / 0-)

        AIPAC has handed out the marching orders to Congress, and both sides of the aisle are doing their best to set things up so Bush can attack Iran.

        The elephant in the room, is the same one that few would discuss (and those that did were attacked with the old canard "anti-Semite") in the run-up to the Iraq invasion. That elephant, is I-S-R-A-E-L. In concert with Big Oil and the MIC (military-industrial complex), the neocons are sticking with their original PNAC developed (in 1998) plan, and the Dems are as guilty as the Repugs for doing their bidding.

        Here's just the latest example of some of what these "Israel Firsters" are up to (it would be nice if they devoted as much attention to this nation's business, as they did to Israel's):

        Bill on Iran-related sanctions gains backing in US

        WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. House of Representatives pushed forward with a bill to impose sanctions on foreign firms doing business in Iran on Wednesday despite White House concerns it would hinder efforts to rein in Iran's nuclear ambitions.

        Backers of the bill said they went a long way to meet the Bush administration's demands for more flexibility to enforce the sanctions, which would be aimed at foreign entities that invest in Iran's energy sector.

        The bill, which has overwhelming support in the full House, cleared the House International Relations Committee by 37-3. Committee aides said the bill could reach the House floor in April, but legislation in the Senate appeared on a slower track.

        (snip)
        "We ask our allies to do what the United States did over a decade ago -- divest from Iran's energy sector, the cash-cow of the ayatollahs' nuclear aspirations," said Rep. Tom Lantos (news, bio, voting record) of California, the committee's top Democrat.

        Florida Republican Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (news, bio, voting record), who co-sponsored the bill with Lantos, said she hoped it would "serve as leverage for cooperation from those allies who claim to be concerned about the growing Iranian threat but who continue to invest billions in Iran's energy sector and continue to assist Iran's nuclear and missile programs."(snip)

        The part that galls me more than anything about all of this, are the lies. If these "Israel Firsters", neocons, and oil oligarchs want the people of the United States to expend their children, and their treasury, to help and protect Israel and secure the oil fields, then why can't they ask for that up front, instead of intimidating and bribing our politicians, congress, and media, to help pass laws and bills designed to steer this nation into war after war for their benefit.

        Bolton is simply another neocon in the mold of Perle, Wolfowitz, Feith, and all the rest, and he dishonors this nation by being allowed to continue to serve as our representative to the U.N. But frankly, the powers and money behind this latest gambit (an Iran attack), is so overwhelming, and the people supporting it so entrenched, I see no way of stopping it ..... just like with Iraq.

        Now, having said all of that, and as Juan Cole pointed out in a recent article, Iran is a good ten years from having the bomb, so why the hurry? Because Bush needs the protection of being a "war president", the oil boys want to call Iran their own, and Israel and their supporters are demanding we march, ...NOW!

        "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter." - Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

        by Hornito on Wed Mar 15, 2006 at 04:05:38 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Media climate reminds me of pre-Iraq war (0+ / 0-)

        I turned on the TeeVee yesterday, and on the news channels all the media bimbos were hyperventilating over the "threat" posed by Iran.  Slick graphics showed an image of Iran followed by a radioactive symbol, and headlines urged viewers to worry about what we should do about the nuclear threat.  

        It is essentially a closed case in our media:  Iran has nukes and they're going to use them against us if we let them build any.  They're madmen.  Their ruler is a madman, and he's a tyrant as well.  They're out to GET US!  

        The media have scared the shit out of Americans by fabricating a story from nothing, absolutely nothing, and Americans are too stupid to see through the bullshit storm.  The idea that Iran is a threat to our military might is quite ludicrous, laughable even, except that this threat will be used to whip up the masses into a war frenzy.  

        Make no mistake, we will conquer Iran.  Maybe not in time for the '06 elections, but definitely before the '08 presidential election.  Bush could probably go in now, but my guess is that he's waiting for another terrorist attack to "get through" to a blue state city before hitting Iran.  Without enough troops, Bush may just try bombing the shit out of Iran, killing as many innocent brown people as possible.

        -7.4, -5.9 | "Ignorance and bigotry, like other insanities, are incapable of self-government." -Thomas Jefferson

        by Subterranean on Wed Mar 15, 2006 at 10:38:06 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  you get an immediate recommend (11+ / 0-)

    bolton is blowing smoke out of his arse and he damn well knows it...

    deja vu anyone?

    Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. - Samuel Johnson

    by sedrunsic on Wed Mar 15, 2006 at 07:57:20 AM PST

  •  Yeah, well, lying by Bolton (9+ / 0-)

    It's what he does, it's why he's there.  We expected anything else?  Oh, and Condo-lies-a Rice has been chiming in while chumming it up with that paragon of representative govenment, Indonesia.

    Stop the politicization of crime!

    by tom 47 on Wed Mar 15, 2006 at 07:57:25 AM PST

  •  We have nothing to talk about (11+ / 0-)

    When I heard that our "leaders" said we had nothing to talk about in regard to Iran, I figured it's all over but the attack.

    -8.63 -7.28 When Bush is in your face, may the wind be at your back.

    by OneCrankyDom on Wed Mar 15, 2006 at 08:06:34 AM PST

  •  Gee, where have I heard this before... (10+ / 0-)

    I guess BushCo really does believe you can fool some of the people all of the time.

    It sounds just like the run up to the Iraq invasion, doesn't it?

    For pity's sake, wake up America!

    Damn.

  •  Democratic Leaders???? WHERE? (14+ / 0-)

    I think they're under the desk over there. They said something about needing another box of Depends Undergarments.

    The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has limits. - Albert Einstein

    by racerx on Wed Mar 15, 2006 at 08:28:53 AM PST

  •  MEK is Iran's Curveball (8+ / 0-)

    and I'm sure that at this very moment there is a graphic designer hard at work in the Pentagon basement making illustrations of secret underground Iranian military installations filled to the brim with nuclear enrichment machinery.  Probably the same guy that brought us those nifty graphics of mobile chemical weapon factories in Iraq - which turned out to be Russian made field kitchens (mmm, falafel and pita anyone?)

    (if by "criminalization of politics" you mean politics being taken over by criminals, you are absolutely correct)

    by Drezden on Wed Mar 15, 2006 at 08:35:27 AM PST

  •  Iran (5+ / 0-)

    I diaried about the drumbeat to invading Iran on my website, SmokeyMonkey.org.

    This is a really excellent diary on the subject.  It is sad that we have to start the debunking all over again.  This is so 2002.

    •  love that album - good read (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bustacap

      you almost have to shake your head in disbelief.  do they honestly think it possible to pull the very same stunt just three years later?

      my feeling is that they may feel inclined to press isreal into preemtive action thus justifying retaliatory strike.  nonetheless, net result is very bad for troops in iraq.  we're talking casualties of a whole order of magnitude greater from these:

      Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. - Samuel Johnson

      by sedrunsic on Wed Mar 15, 2006 at 09:51:46 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Since Maria Cantwell has 'no regrets' (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Steven D

      about voting to enable the first disaster, I guess she'd support the next as well.

  •  I feel lost in the middle (2+ / 1-)
    Recommended by:
    Colman, Steven D
    Hidden by:
    MarkInSanFran

    Which is worse? The right exaggerating the nuclear program in Iran in order to generate support for a military solution, or most of the left unable to come to grips with reality that Iran is a very real and present danger to the daily lives of Americans which keeps us from supporting peaceful solutions to a very serious problem.

    Both are equally as dangerous in my opinion.

    •  Justify that. (10+ / 0-)

      On what basis is Iran a "real and present danger" to the daily lives of the US?

      •  Sounds like... (4+ / 0-)

        ...Iran is in the Model T stage of nucular development. Mr. Angry Mustache Man is a lying sack of crap.

      •  Just 1 example (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Colman, Steven D, imabluemerkin

        What if Iran decides to stop oil production in response to UN sanctions supported by Europe. Unlikely? Maybe, but they could choose to do it. Without Iran's oil and Natural Gas, prices will skyrocket as countries that usually buy from Iran will go to the world market and buy.

        If that happens, how will that effect prices for normal goods? How will that effect jobs? What happens if it leads to electrical shortages in the states, during the summer even, and the summer is warmer than usual like this winter was.

        How many elderly could be killed if they are unable to stay cool? 2 summers ago, 15,000+ people died in Europe unable to stay cool during a hot summer, are you nieve to believe that couldn't happen in the US?

        Thats just indirect shortages, much less the cascade effect. Anticipation of side effects and consequences are not exactly the strong suit of this administration, and to think Iran can't be a threat is to be nieve.

        How would you resolve that problem? Force Iran to produce oil again, by gunpoint if necessary? Would you agree to being blackmailed with oil into removing the UN sanctions.

        Remember all that Bush administration Energy policy talk prior to 9/11? Well, also remember, it never happened.

        •  You mean in an economic sense? (4+ / 0-)

          Then sure, they can screw us all badly. Maybe the US shouldn't lie about them and call them nasty names then.

        •  Why would Iran stop and hurt its own? (0+ / 0-)

          If they stop selling oil they will be bringing an economic collapse on themselves. This could lead to a regime change, the very thing the leader is trying to avoid!

        •  There was a diary here a couple days ago, (0+ / 0-)

          based on an article in the Financial Times, on the close and growing ties between Iran and the Eastern powers, China and Japan, that depend on Iranian oil a lot more than the US does.  These nations call the US aggressiveness their greatest threat.

          They should be putting lots of pressure on the Bolton crew to stop screwing around.

        •  I can't think it would be easy (0+ / 0-)

          How would you resolve that problem? Force Iran to produce oil again, by gunpoint if necessary?

          to pump oil from a field you've just nuked.

          Part of a Partisan of Thousands, an angry teenaged scribbler, as described by The Economist

          by EeDan on Wed Mar 15, 2006 at 01:26:15 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Doesn't this argument rather mean (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          wader, Steven D, truong son traveler

          That we're vulnerable and not that Iran is a threat?

          I mean, seriously, Iran is trying to assert its own sovereignty. It is trying to assert the kind of power that its oil reserves and history ought to accord it. It's trying to do what it did peacefully in 1953, before we came in and sponsored a coup against an elected leader.

          I don't diminish the damage Iran can do to us. Indeed, I think the left is cognizant of that potential harm and pain, while BushCo wants to pretend Iran can't hurt us at all.

          But our vulnerability is due to our own failures, not anything Iran did. If we can't live our life by buying oil on the market, then maybe we ought to curtail our lifestyle, rather than threatening other countries because we have made ourselves vulnerable.

          This is the way democracy ends Not with a bomb But with a gavel -Max Baucus

          by emptywheel on Wed Mar 15, 2006 at 03:34:26 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  I haven't seen an exact breakdown of who buys.. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Steven D, truong son traveler

          Iranian oil. The EU for sure but I think China takes a big chunk. The sanctions will not be passed by the UNSC, (Russia and China are not going to follow though), just like the case with Iraq. The US will attack Iran with no internationl back-up or justification, just like Iraq. Coalition of the willing, don't make me laugh. Coalition of the fingers in pies more like.

          Casualty is the first truth of war. (-6.00,-7.03)

          by Foreign Devil on Wed Mar 15, 2006 at 04:25:40 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Exaggerating the threat of Iran (8+ / 0-)

      serves no one's purpose.

      And I would hardly call David Albright part of the "left" whatever you mean by that term.  

      No one questions that Iran's nuclear program isn't a concern.  But to call it an imminent threat, and to outright lie by saying that Iran has already processed enough uranium to make nukes is merely another vile attempt by this adminsitration to use propaganda to set the table for one of Bush's "pre-emptive wars."  A war, I might add, that could have devastating consequnces for the entire world as well as severely our harming national security for decades to come.

      "I just had the basic view of the American public -- it can't be that bad out there." Marine Travis Williams after 11 members of his squad were killed.

      by Steven D on Wed Mar 15, 2006 at 08:59:27 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Thats just it (1+ / 1-)
        Recommended by:
        Meteor Blades
        Hidden by:
        MarkInSanFran

        I don't buy the nuclear angle for Iran anymore than I bought it for Iraq. I didn't like how Juan Cole made his argument, but I agree with his conclusion that Iran is about regime change. I'm not sure I disagree with the policy of regime change in Iran, I just know that I don't support military options to enforce that policy, and I also don't believe it can occur quickly.

        The tricky part is dealing with the issues regarding Iran outside the Nuclear issue, starting with the terrorism angle which is very real, very credible, has been active for decades, and continuing with the religious nutcase angle which also has a lot of credibility. It amazes me how very little attention progressives give that issue, it is almost like we are in denial regarding how religion is a dangerous weapon that can be used to exploit uneducated people, which defines exactly how Iran has used religion for decades.

        It bothers me that America tries so hard to apply speculation and unscientific reasoning to scientific questions like nuclear technology (By America I mean our government) while we completely ignore the obvious religious and terrorism angles by Iran that carry a great deal more credibility. That isnâ€TMt an attack against Islam, I am attacking the idea that the 12th Imam is going to magically appear 1300 years later, something I don't think is religiously insensitive to claim is a load of crap, and that is a policy Iran continues to state will happen as a matter of destiny.

        That is like Bush saying Jesus intends to return before the next presidential election. If he got on CNN and said that, and said the US Government is making preparations, would you not be a little concerned?  Why then should we dismiss Iranâ€TMs leader for doing the exact same thing? Because it is illogical? Where is the logical behavior in Iranâ€TMs open support for terrorism, where is the tradition of logical behavior from Iran?

        The nuclear issue isn't even the US issue yet, it is still the EU issue, and if peaceful resolution is achieved, it will stay that way.  The real issue for the US is the enormous amount of data that is available regarding the greater Iranian strategy involving terrorism and Armageddon, which ironically enough, are dismissed by my fellow progressives who under any other administration and perhaps during any other time in history outside of the Bush world, would be the first among Americans to be skeptical and concerned about fanatical religious rhetoric encouraging Armageddon scenarios while persuing a nuclear bomb. Am I supposed to believe that what is said isnâ€TMt really being said? Am I supposed to believe it is a Bush trick? That shit is real, and nobody knows how to logically process it because it is so far into the deep end of insanity, and as a result we simply dismiss that it is possible or that they could really believe that.

        I am almost certain history is still taught in college, and I can't be the only person who sees real and credible comparisons between 2006 Iran and 1937 Germany. It is like we want to deny insanity is possible in world leaders, similar to the way Americans denied Germany was dangerous in the 30s because they simply didnâ€TMt want war again.

        •  How not to accomplish any of that (6+ / 0-)

          First, everything you accuse Iran of could apply to the US in more or less the same way.

          Second, the President of Iran is not equivalent to the President of the US in power at all.

          Thirdly, everything the US has done recently has increased the power of hardline loonies in Iran. Whoops.

          •  Question (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Meteor Blades, Colman

            What idea have you forwarded to prevent a military option for Iran?

            I made my suggestion in my diary entry the other day. I am yet to see anyone else make a suggestion that advocates peace.

            I am not even sure what position most people are taking, they are simply trashing the nuclear Iran theory, which I would say is premature since we still haven't seen the IAEA information yet.

            •  You might like this... (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Meteor Blades, Steven D, kd texan

              Over on Eurotrib we've been trying to make some sense of the propaganda being spewed at us about the Iran issue. We probably don't agree with you on the basic interests, since we're Europeans and don't count US interests as paramount, but we are trying to rationally understand what's going on and what options really are available. Maybe you'd consider joining in.

            •  Progressive Iran alternative. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Meteor Blades, Colman

              Just linked over and ready your diary.  Good job!

              Have you seen blogger Brad Plumer's take? "Why Not Engagement?"
              http://plumer.blogspot.com/...

              I tried a diary on this topic a couple of months ago, which produced only sound and fury (and not even much of those), but signified nothing:
              http://www.dailykos.com/...

              Plumer's approach, while far from ideal, beats anything else I've seen or thought of.

            •  FWIW, I'm advocating doing exactly nothing (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Meteor Blades, wader
              1. Sanctions are really a gamble.  If they're successful Iran will just go for a bomb that much faster.  They may even try to buy one from Pakistan.
              1. There's no military option that stands any chance of working, even if we had a toticompetent government, which we obviously don't.  You know these bozos will try their usual gambit, and go for a decapitation strike.
              1. The way things are now there will be years until Iran has an arsenal, if ever.
              1. Offering them a deal might work, but Bush will never do that.  He couldn't even bring himself to do it with North Korea.
        •  The EU is into this (0+ / 0-)

          mostly to forestall some extremist US reaction.

          •  Not true (0+ / 0-)

            The EU is approaching this far more strategic than some tactical 2 step with the US.

            There is an economic and demographic problem developing in Iran today. Iran must solve that problem, or the mullah's risk losing power.

            The EU is stalling alright, because the EU knows by 2020 things in Iran will be at such a critical point internally that without major economic changes, the mullah's are unlikely to retain power.

            Iran blowing their money on nuclear technology and military technology, which is what Iran has done over the last 2 years, is not helping their situation any, and has led to freefall in their stock market. The budget deficit in Iran this year, including the addition of a 6 billion US dollar presidential budget increase, also hurts.

        •  Garmany and, um, the US, you mean? (0+ / 0-)

          Sorry, I don't even think analogies between Germany and the US are valid. Though seeing as how we're the fanatical religious country carrying out aggressive, illegal wars to augment our own power, I think we're a closer match. But Germany and Iran?

          Where they're waging war (and I believe they are) they're waging a 4thG war. You defeat that with hearts and minds, not with bombs. And frankly, the mullahs in Iran are getting tired of Ahmadinejad. Which is more than I can say for the Republicans running this country; they're pretty content with their Armageddon nutcase.

          This is the way democracy ends Not with a bomb But with a gavel -Max Baucus

          by emptywheel on Wed Mar 15, 2006 at 03:42:50 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Imminent (0+ / 0-)

        How near is imminent? How close should we let Iran get to producing nuclear weapons? The president (of Iran) is a nut case. I hope the people depose him, or the government takes him out of power. He's going to nuke Israel as soon as he can. He as much as says so virtually every day. How imminent is too imminent to be acceptible?

        Ban Intolerance Now!

        by brahma on Wed Mar 15, 2006 at 10:03:07 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  References? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Steven D

          Where does he threaten to nuke Israel everyday. There has been one speech he made that someone (Juan Cole?) claims is mistranslated.

          •  well, half truths (3+ / 0-)
            Juan Cole was right, but then he was wrong. What was actually said was:

            Our dear Imam said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement.

            Read the whole speech and decide for yourself. It is sourced and everything, the most credible translation available online.

            http://themiddleeastnow.com/...

            People act like I am running talking points on Iran. Actually, I study Iran for a living these days, and have something of a clue why Bush is fucked up on his nuke policy so far, and why America needs to pay attention anyway.

            Diary coming soon.

            •  I'll know what to believe (0+ / 0-)

              After a few dozen more translations I guess. I could interpret that in several ways since the word regime is used.

            •  Certainly not an explicit threat. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              truong son traveler

              Which is how it has been painted in the media.

            •  It's a big difference between saying that (0+ / 0-)

              some state of affairs ought to come into being and threatening explicitly to cause that state of affairs.

            •  I'll go with Juan Cole's translation (0+ / 0-)

              Juan Cole was right, but then he was wrong. What was actually said was:

              Our dear Imam said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement.

              This is what Juan Cole says in that article:

              President Ahmadinejad, it should be freely admitted, has, through his lack of diplomatic skills and his maladroitness, given his enemies important propaganda tools. Unlike his predecessor, Mohammad Khatami, Ahmadinejad is a Holocaust denier. He went to an anti-Zionist conference and quoted Ayatollah Khomeini, saying that the â€oeOccupation regime” must â€oevanish.” This statement about Israel does not necessarily imply violence. After all, Ariel Sharon made the occupation regime in the Gaza Strip vanish. The quote was translated in the international press, however, as a wish that â€oeIsrael be wiped off the map,” and this inaccurate translation has now become a tag line for all newspaper articles written about Iran in Western newspapers.

              Read the whole speech and decide for yourself. It is sourced and everything, the most credible translation available online. http://themiddleeastnow.com/...

              If it is an argument about Arab translation I will believe the Professor Cole is the "credible" one rather than some media stringer in Tehran.

    •  I don't think that Iran is a real and present (10+ / 0-)

      danger unless we make them one.  If we "play nice" with them instead of running around threatening them all the time we might well avoid war.  But you can bet money on the fact that Iran will NOT fire the first shot.  There is nothing in that course of action for them.  There is nothing in it for us either.  

      Well having said that, the American Cabal sees irresistable "opportunities" in a war with Iran which is why they are pushing it, but those opportunities have nothing to do with Iran being a threat or a present danger.  That has to do with enriching the military industrial complex the BushCo cabal all have investments in.

      The thing that does pose a threat is within this nation not theirs.  The very real possibility that a war with Iran could end up starting World War III is the threat here.

    •  you Mean the one we created? (12+ / 0-)

      This is the false choice the Bush Administration wants you to wrestle with, while paying not attention to the Man behind the curtain.   IF Iran is a deadly threat right now, it's only because we made it so.   Moreover if we stopped provoking them,  there is every reason to believe they'd stand down as well.

      A look at the history of Iran during this administration shows our diplomacy has been Utterly and spectacularly incompetent, or deliberately designed to provoke them into this show down.  

      Iran was on the Cusp of finally taking itself back from the radical Mullah,  they had elected a moderate President and a growing people power movement was gearing  up to wrest control of the judiciary and the military away from religious hard-liners   back in 2001.

      Then W proceeded to do everything in his power to stregthen the hand of the military and religious hardliners, by not only isolating and attacking Iran Diplomatically, (remember how they were right at the top of the Ol' three way Axis O' Evil?...At that very moment  a pro-western reformer was prime minister and fighting for his political life against the mullahs)

      Militarily invading  their closest neighbor on a flimsy pre-text, and giving every indication that we were there to stay didn't help any either.  It's about then that having nuclear weapons become a point of national pride for the average Iraqi in the streets, not just a mad dream of a Junta of religious and military extremists.;  

      Theyâ€TMve made  utterly ham-handed public pronouncements about Iran, and blatantly applying a double standard towards them.   For Example an SD spokesman,  praised to the moon, the limited municipal elections that Egypt was holding but refusing to give Iran any credit  the Parliamentary elections they were holding.   It got so bad that the hardliner who took power a few months ago, thanked Bush for his constant criticism which helped ensure his upset victory.

      We've been so inept at helping the legitimate grass-roots Democracy movement over there , you wonder how it could Be accidental.  In fact,  The WaPo had a story yesterday  about how Democracy advocates in Iran don't WANT  all the help Bush is promising then because it legitimizes the government's claim that they are merely lackeys of a foreign power.

      Prominent activists inside Iran say President Bush's plan to spend tens of millions of dollars to promote democracy here is the kind of help they don't need, warning that mere announcement of the U.S. program endangers human rights advocates by tainting them as American agents.
      ...
      "We are under pressure here both from hard-liners in the judiciary and that stupid George Bush," human rights activist Emad Baghi said as he waited anxiously for his wife and daughter to emerge from interrogation last week. "When he says he wants to promote democracy in Iran, he gives money to these outside groups and we're in here suffering."

      SO where is the money going?:

      Well let's just say Itâ€TMs starting to look like the Iraqi National Congress all over again.  (you know, they also have a VERY disturbing acronym)

      Knowledge is power Power Corrupts Study Hard Be Evil

      by Magorn on Wed Mar 15, 2006 at 09:33:18 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  careful (0+ / 0-)

        Mr. Vick quoted information sourced straight from the Iranian government in that article.

        I think sources matter when reading a news story based on a specific perspective advocating a specific position.

        Mr. Vick is expected to put out a series of stories on Iran advocating positions similar to this article, there are questions inside the WashPo whether he is objective or simply a mouthpiece for the Iran government.

        Watch for it, and make up your own mind.

        I absolutely agree 26 years of an anti-iran policy by the US is part of the problem, that doesn't mean we ignore what is happening.

      •  Great point (0+ / 0-)

        I was shaking my head beginning with the appearance of the "Axis of Evil" speech and all that followed.  

        Maybe Karl Rove has been trying to figure out if he can dig up Kermit Roosevelt and the Shah and somehow re-live 1953's "oh-so-successful" regime change.

    •  What real danger? (0+ / 0-)

      You're believing their lies when you say that.

  •  That no talent ass-clown (4+ / 0-)

    was sent there on a recess appointment in order to lie.  What do you expect.

    We're gonna explode?! I don't wanna explode! 宁静

    by TalkieToaster on Wed Mar 15, 2006 at 09:01:20 AM PST

  •  Perhaps Senator Boxer (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Meteor Blades, Steven D

    can resume her criticism of Bolton before he was appointed during recess.

    email Sen. Boxer

    Listen all of y'all it's a Sabotage! - Beastie Boys

    by See you out there on Wed Mar 15, 2006 at 09:01:59 AM PST

  •  I just can't believe (11+ / 0-)

    we're going through this again.

    On Bush: "He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire." --(borrowed from) Churchill

    by joanneleon on Wed Mar 15, 2006 at 09:07:34 AM PST

    •  I can. (5+ / 0-)

      It's been a dream of Dick Cheney and other PNAC signatories for more than a decade.  Hell, they hijacked the worst attack on America and the first on American mainland soil to go off on their personal adventure in Iraq.  There is no stopping this rabid group of people who have the impression that "noble lies" are needed and that they alone know what is best for the idiot Americans.

      Many people didn't think we would be invading Iraq.  Even in Feb. of 2003.  Many still don't think we're going to bomb Iran, despite all the evidence of purposely failed diplomacy and the catch-22 situtation Iran is in.  John the warhawk Bolton is at the UN for Christ sakes.  The same guy who wants nothing more than to get rid of the UN so the US can unilaterally invade whatever area of the globe it wants, and pick and choose friends and enemies.

  •  Grain of Salt (5+ / 0-)

    Lying about Iran's uranium enrichment capacity is similar to when Bolton used to say things like "I only went to Plato's Retreat to watch."

  •  This is beyond creepy (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bustacap, Steven D, kd texan, 3goldens

    Do we have time to delay things until the mid-terms? Someone has to stop this and I don't much care who...How would we fight a war with Iran when most Americans are turning against the Iraq War? Bolton should be put in a strait-jacket because he's saber-rattling. This is the quickest road to impeachment,IMO.

    Excellent diary and recommended. This is frightening.

  •  Who's gonna stand up for Iran? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Steven D
    We all know that's the rhetorical free speech zone BushCo will fence their opponents into.  And I imagine Iran will give the US a big middle finger as well.

    This doesn't look good.  The astonishing number of people/soldiers who think that the Iraq war is payback for 911 - I think they can get away with saying almost anything they want about the ME.

    "... in my empire, life is sweet, just ask any bum you meet. You may say that I ain't free but it don't worry me..."

    by lumpenprole on Wed Mar 15, 2006 at 09:41:13 AM PST

  •  Lying ratbastid (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Colman, Steven D, imabluemerkin

    We should be satisfied with nothing less than Harry Reid making a public statement on behalf of the Democratic Party that Bolton is LYING about Iran on orders from the White House, to create false fears about Iran and start another war. He should say it just like that, and back it up with the sort of data in this diary. Call Reid's office and tell him so.

    •  Yeah, and (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      corvo

      the day the Democratic leadership starts to use phrases like "lying" and "treason" is the day I will flap my wings and fly to Mt. Olympus.

      They have too damn much to gain by the status quo.  We are going to have to organize ourselves and prevent our country from descending into a feudal fiefdom waging wars without end.  I really think we are on our own.

      (I do not man suicide hot lines in this frame of mind, for obvious reasons.  apologies for the bleakness.  I'm not trying to be defeatist.  I organize, I fight.  But I'm pretty much giving up on the Democrats)

  •  Goli Ameri (8+ / 0-)

    Another interesting angle is that Bolton's recently appointed #2 at the UN, just happens to be the pro "regime change" failed Iranian-American Republican candidate for OR-1. I diaried about this back in December when she was quietry shuffled through the nomination process.

    Is there any doubt this is a pre-orchestrated scenario culmunating in what Scott Ritter has already predicted?

    He predicted the matter will wind up before the U.N. Security Council, which will determine there is no evidence of a weapons program. Then, he said, John Bolton, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, â€oewill deliver a speech that has already been written. It says America cannot allow Iran to threaten the United States and we must unilaterally defend ourselves.”

    â€oeHow do I know this? Iâ€TMve talked to Boltonâ€TMs speechwriter,” Ritter said.

    (-9.13, -8.10) Political violence is a perfectly legitimate answer to the persecution handed down by dignitaries of the state. - Riven Turnbull

    by Florida Democrat on Wed Mar 15, 2006 at 09:53:17 AM PST

  •  Does John Bolton (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Steven D, truong son traveler

    ever tell the truth?

    "What noble cause did they die for, Mr. President?"

    by BlueInARedState on Wed Mar 15, 2006 at 10:12:17 AM PST

  •  john bolton (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    truong son traveler

    is a dick.

  •  It's a disgusting offense against decency (7+ / 0-)

       That a piece of filth like Bolton is allowed to defile the U.N. seat once occupied by Adlai Stevenson and Daniel Patrick Moynihan.  The next U.S. ambassador to the U.N. is going to have to burn every chair Bolton ever sat in.

  •  Even if we truly needed to take control... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Meteor Blades

    is the Bush/Cheney strategy going to get the job done? In other words, lets pretend for a minute that all the neocon crap about the need to bring democracy to the Middle East was true. Or, lets pretend that as the preeminent economic power of the world that it was neccessary to take control of the Middle East. In either of these cases, is there any chance that the Bush/Cheney strategy would succeed? The answer is obviously no. They mangle everything as bad as the Katrina response, because they are morally bankrupt. They don't even value management and competence. We are pissing in the wind with these clowns in control of anything, especially foreign affairs.

  •  Administration will not even admit that N. Korea (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Steven D, truong son traveler

    has nukes. To this day, administration officials only suspect that North Korea may have nuclear weapons. They will claim that they have no proof that the one member of the so-called Axis of Evil who actually has nuclear weapons actually does have them. North Korea is given a pass because the White House has no policy yet for dealing with a nuclear North Korea. When one is engaged in a foreign policy based on fantasy and wishful thinking, it is a simple matter to invent situations that do not exist and ignore ones that do. Actualities must be molded to fit the policy. The President must be seen as an enlightened ruler and visionary rather than the incompetent and arrogant ass he really is. In some respects, the White House foreign policy is like "professional" wrestling. Opponents are larger than life, evil characters who are set up for the President to vanquish in phony displays of machismo and bluster before an audience that has been goaded into believing that his opponent is despicable and must be defeated.

    Think of Bolton as the loud-mouthed emcee who sets up the bout by telling the audience how terrible Iraq and Iran are and how brave the President is for taking these evil empires on to save the free world. It's all done for show and money. It's just too bad that the audience is so gullibel.

  •  we have (0+ / 0-)

    we as a country have no money in our account, our military is depleted, what are we going to do? send Iran a strongly worded email.

    we are a toothless dying dinosaur.

  •  It just hit me (0+ / 0-)

    We've been assuming that this is Iraq redux, and may it is:  talk up the wmd and use it as an excuse to do what you wanted to do anyway.  

    But maybe all this noise is just suppressing fire, to keep Iran out of Iraq by pinning them down diplomatically now.  

    If we can make them scary, then it's harder for them to justify moving into Iraq.  

    Just a thought.
    .

    •  Has Iran been expressing desires to take over? (0+ / 0-)

      I think that the inept nature of this administration's policies in the middle east don't offer me much hope that such a Machiavellian plot could be hatched.

      However, this might just be a ploy to continue the Iraq-as-a-signle-nation reality that the US and other countries, such as Britain, Turkey, and others, are trying to maintain.

      Moff, what is your take on iran and the dissolution of Iraq? My understanding from 20-30 years ago (when I was in the Army, and we were discussing the potential war hotspots other than the Fulda Gap) was that the Kurds posed a severe threat to the stability of the region based on existence in turkey, Iraq and Iran. A desire for a Kurdish state was thought to be extremely destabilizing, leading to NATO member-states' involvement through Turkey.  

      the Turks did suggest that a kurdish independent state would lead to Turkish intervention in Iraq at the time of the invasion.

      So-- what are these neighbors doing to prevent civil war? If Jordan and Syria become involved, how long until Egypt, another hotbed of unrest?

      some random brainstorming here-- not a prediction, by any means-- but is Iran the biggest threat to enter Iraq, or is it the collaps of Iraq as we know it that is the threat? Iran probably has as much to gain from maintaining the current iraq as turkey and Syria, I would think, except for possible control of oilfields that are not really producing, at present...

  •  Not Quite Ready for War on IRan (0+ / 0-)
    The pre-war lies propaganda are only in the beginning stages. We have yet to heart the spin that precedes all agressive wars. The people will not buy into war until they have heard, "We will never stop all possible diplomatic efforts." and, "Nobody wants war," which is my favorite.

    We will never threaten a war on the people of any country. We will always threaten to wage war on a single individual who has been properly demonized. All who will be killed by the policies of our brave, flag-waving politicians at home, will simply be collateral damage that can't be helped in wars.

    Our bombs will be dropped with extreme accuracy making sure that all innocent civilians are protected. If any are killed it will due to their own shells falling back on them. Or, only because they all moved their families next to some military facility. All bombings of water plants, school, hospital and bridges will be for their own good, since this will expedite their freedom and democracy. Sadly, Americans will believe this crapp.

    Any war on Iraq will likely be a bombing war. America and Israel has an unending supply of planes and bombs. Of course, in the event of war on Iraq, there is a good possisibility that all shipping of oil from Iran, Kuwait, and Saudy Arabia could be halted. That would cause and immediate worldwide halt in many industries and a terrible depression would follow.

    Albert Einstein had it right when he described nationalism as a bad decease. Hitler, Bush and all politicians know of this sickness and it makes going to war very profitible for all politicians. Once a country goes to war, how can you not support the troops? Fortunately after a few year people start to understand how they were fooled into war by the war-profiteers.

    Peace.

  •  We know thepublic won't fall for any of this (0+ / 0-)

    Unless Bolton can somehow link it to 9/11. Oops, my bad. I guess I missed this tidbit.

    UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - The U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, on Wednesday compared the threat from Iran's nuclear programs to the September 11 terror attacks on the United States.

  •  Hi, this is completely off-topic (0+ / 0-)

    but I don't know how else to try to contact you besides here & in open threads.

    Those diaries that you & progressivearlingtonian wrote about the CNP prompted me to look at what it would take for an extremist group to go mainstream, as the KKK did for a time in the 20s.

    Here's my series of 3 diaries and here's an interesting direction that the discussion has taken.

Meteor Blades, emptywheel, Bob Johnson, Kimberley, racerx, bink, paradox, MichaelPH, Dave the pro, CJB, pb, Phoenix Woman, smithbm, Kelk, Rayne, teacherken, GOTV, AlanF, Hornito, joejoejoe, Detlef, tikkun, mickT, TaraIst, hind, flatiron, Tuffy, BooMan23, Robespierrette, Stoy, Titian, Schmuck, TJ, cotterperson, KateG, americanforliberty, frisco, SallyCat, bumblebums, zeroooo, mataliandy, Foreign Devil, Jerome a Paris, bostonjay, Florida Democrat, strengthANDwisdom, memberofthejury, kissfan, loudGizmo, km4, mlafleur, Disgusted in St Louis, Miss Devore, concernedamerican, bronte17, EricS, macdust, DrKate, ProfessorX, Ti Jean, Janie, grrtigger, HippyWitch, ask, PBnJ, ksh01, chicagochamp, pinion, mrblifil, roses, Colman, murphsurf, sgilman, LondonYank, Spindizzy, Thaxter, bustacap, Southern Bell, Cedwyn, Alohaleezy, wader, suzq, kharma, menodoc, Moody Loner, emmasnacker, NYC Sophia, Quentin, TXsharon, i dont get it, Penny Century, snakelass, Magorn, applegal, btyarbro, John Driscoll, greenreflex, DriftawayNH, lcrp, gnat, Street Kid, inclusiveheart, One bite at a time, CabinGirl, AnonymousArmy, Donna in Rome, horatio in il, Sembtex, gmhowell, Man Eegee, Deward Hastings, HK, alix, DrewDown, American in Kathmandu, kd texan, pontechango, Ed J, supersoling, a517dogg, LITBMueller, rapala, averageyoungman, vcmvo2, Fabian, Bluesee, Tarindel, 3goldens, pattyp, bellevie, See you out there, Gabriele Droz, el dorado gal, subtropolis, nmariemy, Melody Townsel, clammyc, Mephistopheles, Cake or Death, karpinsky, Brooke In Seattle, Richard Carlucci, Arken, sedrunsic, Viceroy, Pam from Calif, Sharon in MD, concerned, jimstaro, uato carabau, GreyHawk, sofia, Overseas, annefrank, QuickSilver, Skid, nwsound, wgard, Tool, woobie, Thelaff, collapse, Zergle, neroden, wiscmass, FindingMyVoice, Salunga, LithiumCola, Spathiphyllum, jeffinalabama, viscerality, Land of Enchantment, Paper Cup, fhcec, atalanta, taracar, occams hatchet, Legolas, poco, keefer55, PatsBard, DrSpalding, Opakapaka, Ellicatt, Chincoteague, allmost liberal european, Drezden, smokeymonkey, buhdydharma, Catesby, sailmaker, TalkieToaster, MJ via Chicago, curmudgiana, imabluemerkin, R i c k, ThePenIsMightier, myzenthing, bunk, LieDetector, Mme Lafarge, Coffee Geek, ProgressiveFighter, HRs Kevin, fiddlingnero, poppyseed, Bill O Rights, Compostings

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site