The US is Messing with Iran

[mrmom2]

Why are we not hearing about this in the news . :evil:

September 13, 2005 -- The Bush administration continues to back the Khuzestan separatist movement in the oil-rich southwestern province the majority Arab population calls Ahwaz. As reported by WMR last month, the backing for the Sh'ia Arab separatist movement involves direct support by U.S. intelligence operatives. However, this support primarily involves support from the parallel intelligence operation established in the Pentagon under intelligence undersecretary Stephen Cambone and Undersecretary for Policy and Plans Eric Edelman (the successor to Douglas Feith who was, most recently, the U.S. ambassador to Turkey). the CIA largely remains outside of the anti-Iran operations.

In fact, an Arabic speaking Iranian-American from Khuzestan who works for the Department of Defense has been assigned to the Pentagon's Office of Northern Gulf Affairs office within the Policy and Plans Directorate's Near East and South Asia (NESA) division to help coordinate activities with the Ahwaz separatist groups -- some of whom have committed terrorist acts in the province. The Gulf Affairs office replaced the infamous Office of Special Plans that crafted the phony intelligence in the lead up to the war in Iraq.



Bush administration seeks to break off oil-rich Arab province from Iran

In addition, U.S. intelligence sources report that the State Department, through the active support of new International Public Diplomacy Undersecretary of State Karen Hughes, is actively supporting clandestine radio broadcasts to Iranian Arabs in Khuzestan. These broadcasts are conducted by the Voice of the Ahwaz Revolution and are transmitted from Basra, Iraq. The clandestine radio broadcasts complement the very public Radio Farda (broadcasts to Iran in Farsi) and Radio Sawa (broadcasts in Arabic throughout the Arab world). Both stations are operated by the U.S. Broadcasting Board of Governors, a State Department entity headed by Norman Pattiz, the owner of radio syndicator Westwood One who has strong ties to the right wing government of Israel.

The Pentagon and State Department are also jointly supporting other propaganda activities aimed at stirring up rebellion among Iranian minorities, including Iranian Kurds, Baluchis, and southern Azeris. In addition to the Ahwaz Arabs, the U.S. actions are having their greatest impact among the Kurds. The U.S. is also supporting clandestine radio broadcasts to incite Iran's Baluchi minority in eastern Iran. These broadcasts are also transmitted from Iraq (Sulaymaniyah, in northern Iraq). Other clandestine broadcasts are aimed at Iranian Azeris and Kurds. U.S. efforts to stir up Iran's Turkmen population along the Caspian Sea have been totally unsuccessful, according to U.S. intelligence sources. 'The Iranian Turkmen are only interested in caviar and tobacco," said one U.S. intelligence source.

 

[Ocean Breeze]

Why are we not hearing about this in the news

could it be because this is exactly how the USR (regime) with it's partner in crime ....the media works now??? The Katrina coverage going on 24/7 can easily be used to draw the people's focus to the area.....keep the population "emotionally" tied to the event and after math............while the USR goes about its dirty business as usual.

*of course the US is messing with Iran.........and it has been for some time now. Using various devious-underhanded - sneaky and not so sneaky means to do it too. We are seeing not only the ugliness of the USR via the New Orleans disaster..........but the ugliness (as never before) on the international level.

 

[#juan]

One of these days a half dozen Israeli fighter/bombers are going to arrive in Iran and blow the hell out of Iran's nuclear facilities. This whole thing, the Iraq war, the constant squabbles with Iran, etc. are all about Israel.

 

[no1important]

RE: The US is Messing wit

EU drops hardline stance on Iran

 

[Ocean Breeze]

Re: RE: The US is Messing wit

[url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_


smart move. Get a lot further with a gentler touch....

(hardliners are wearisome and destructive in their own rite)

 

[Hard-Luck Henry]

A blossoming relationship with Iran is rubbing India's friends in Washington the wrong way.

Randeep Ramesh
Thursday September 22, 2005

Guardian Unlimited

In New Delhi there are gripes about the price of American friendship. Just a few months ago, the Bush administration had promised "full civil nuclear energy co-operation" with India, even though the country had nuclear weapons and persistently refused to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.
There was talk of an emerging strategic partnership between America and India, and a quietly spoken long-term view to contain China. But despite all the warm words, little has happened. The reason is Iran.

In 2003, Delhi and Tehran signed a strategic pact, sealed by military and energy deals worth $20bn (£11bn). A few months later the two countries' navies held their first-ever joint exercises. Delhi is helping to build highways and a large port on the Persian Gulf - so that Indian goods can gain access to Central Asian markets. The Iranian route would bypass turbulent Afghanistan and Pakistan.

For India, Iran is one of its recent foreign policy successes. The two were on opposite sides during the cold war, and later diplomacy was compromised by Iran's fraternal ties with Pakistan. In January 2003, a few months before the Iraq war began, Iran's then president, Mohammed Khatami, was guest of honour at India's Republic Day parade - a spot reserved only for close allies.

From Iran's perspective, India is a big business opportunity. Not only will its insatiable appetite for hydrocarbons grow, but the Indian economy could yield important trade deals. Perhaps most important is that India's defence industry is largely impervious to American sanctions - providing Iran with a nearby pool of expertise and spare parts.

In reaching out to each other, Teheran and Delhi are looking to put the past behind them and recast their relationship. But such bonhomie does not suit America, which sees Iran as part of the global "axis of evil".

It was not always thus. In fact the United States built Iran's first nuclear plant at Amirabad, and knew that the Shah began a low-grade weapons research programme in 1967.

History aside, Washington has already made clear its deep reservations about India's good relations with Iran. On Capitol Hill, politicians have been fuming at comments made by an Indian foreign delegation to Iran this month about expanding ties and withstanding foreign (read American) pressure.

One congressman said that what the Indians were doing was "simply dense". The nuclear cooperation deal proposed by George Bush two months ago would not "fly", according to the disgruntled legislators, because the Indians were "incapable of comprehending that other countries have their important concerns".

The White House is pushing to bring sanctions against Iran for a suspected "nuclear weapons programme" and has only been stopped by a coalition of China, Russia and India. All three have good reasons to maintain friendly relations with Iran: China, even more than India, needs oil; Russia is a key partner in Iran's nuclear programme, and Delhi has fingers in both pies.

In South Asia, much more is at stake. A $4bn planned pipeline sending Iranian gas through Pakistan to India is under threat. Not only would the scheme mean greater energy security for India and Pakistan, but it would give Islamabad, Delhi and Tehran stakes in regional stability. In a rare show of unity, India and Pakistan appear ready to join hands and take on Washington over this project.

At the moment, the key battleground is at the International Atomic Energy Agency, where the Bush administration has faced concerted opposition to its proposal to refer Iran's civilian nuclear programme to the UN security council.

The reason for the flurry of attention is Iran's intention, made clear by the newly elected president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, to produce nuclear power using homemade enriched uranium. It's the indigenous production that worries the White House. What's to stop Iran from acquiring bomb-grade uranium 235 and going nuclear, wonders a White House haunted by the sights and sounds of the Iranian revolution?

Maybe an honourable way out for Washington and Tehran could be modelled on the deal offered to North Korea at the end of six-nation talks in Beijing this week. In it, Pyongyang initially agreed to abandon all nuclear weapons programmes and rejoin the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. In return, North Korea was offered electricity and an assurance that the US "has no intention to attack or invade [North Korea] with nuclear or conventional weapons".

For India, the way out appears to be sheltering in the commitments that Iran has made under the non-proliferation treaty. This is bizarre, as India has never signed this document itself, calling it "nuclear apartheid". Ominously, Iran's president used the same phrase at the United Nations.

India, and Pakistan both covertly produced weapons-grade uranium, designed weapons and got hold of missiles to launch them. Iran on the other hand has done none of this. But Tehran, depending on your viewpoint, has either been a rogue state or spent 20 years standing up to the Americans.

Although Washington is talking tough, the debacle in Iraq and the Katrina-effect on the domestic polls may mean it has no stomach for a bloody fight with Iran. Perhaps a better bet would be for America to encourage the stabilising aspects of any Indo-Iranian deals while still looking to prevent nuclear proliferation in the region.

That would mean Washington switching positions on the Indo-Pakistani pipeline. It would mean the US recognising that Iran plays a crucial role in securing Afghanistan's future and that an Indo-Pakistan-Iran grouping could be a gateway to developing Central Asia.

Unfortunately it is unlikely President Bush will see things this way. The next few months are going to be difficult days for New Delhi.

 

[Ocean Breeze]

September 21, 2005

If Washington wants a war with Iran, there'll be a war with Iran. That's the great lesson of the Iraq war; once the decision is made, there's no turning back.

So, why are the main-players; England, France and Germany stumbling over themselves trying to placate Bush as though the conflict can be avoided? Threatening to bring Iran before the Security Council won't alter the administrations plans one bit. Like the Downing Street memo stated, "The facts and intelligence were fit to meet the policy". It's the same here. No amount of groveling from the EU-3 will appease Washington once Tehran is in its crosshairs. The EU-3 would be better off sending arms and ammunition to Iran so the people can defend themselves once bombs start to fly.

We should consider the implications of preemptive war against Iran before the situation begins to escalate. The Islamic state has no nuclear weapons, no nuclear weapons-program, and no verifiable evidence that it will be building nuclear weapons in the future. In other words, the US is planning an attack against a nation that does not even meet its minimal requirements for aggression. There is no moral or legal justification for such a war, just as there was no moral or legal justification for the invasion of Iraq. Nevertheless, I believe that the decision to attack Iran was made long ago, perhaps even before the Iraq war; and that that will be carried out in the very near future. The last obstacle was the German election. The administration believed that Ms. Angela Merkel would win a hands-down victory; putting a fellow neocon in the drivers-seat of Europe's largest economy. It would be like having Maggie Thatcher in Bonn. Merkel could be counted on to support the expansion of NATO (which is, to say, the extension of American power), to dismantle the social-welfare system, energize the privatization processes, quash the movement for an independent EU military, strengthen ties with the US and Israel, and disrupt European solidarity. All this fits within the Washington neocon vision of a balkanized, free-market Europe operating as a subordinate to the US overlord.

If the US or Israel had attacked Iran before the German elections, Ms. Merkel, who has promised to rebuilt the trans-Atlantic relationship, would have taken a decisive nosedive in the polls. As it turns out, the election results were inconclusive and will probably not affect the storm clouds that are gathering over Tehran.

The die is cast. There will be a war.

The media has already begun the steady drum-beat of specious charges directed at the Islamic government. All of the major news-providers (New York Times, AP, Washington Post, Night Ridder etc) are now describing Iran as "defiant" or "thumbing their nose" at the world community, or, worse, "out of compliance" with prior agreements. Their new Iranian president is described as a "hardliner" who is "fiercely anti-American" These claims are normally accompanied by quotes from unidentified sources who refer to a fictional nuclear-weapons program that is just months away from developing the bomb.

It's all 100% bunkum. In fact, the world community is not troubled by Iran's nuclear program at all. It is only the US who would like to use the allegations that rattle-through the propaganda system to justify another preemptive war.

Unlike the US, Iran does not have a history of territorial aggression, is not involved in massively-destabilizing colonial wars, does not abduct civilians from other sovereign nations and torture them in foreign prisons, does not erect monuments to human cruelty (Guantanamo) and fill them with members of a target-religion.

Iran has no nuclear weapons program. That is not simply my contention, but the judgment of the foremost nuclear inspections team in the world; the IAEA. (International Atomic Energy Agency) It was the IAEA that consistently disputed the erroneous claims by the Bush administration that Saddam was developing a nuclear weapons capacity. No such program existed and there is considerable proof that the US knew the charges were false.

For the last two years, Iran has willingly undergone the strictest regime of "go-anywhere see anything" inspections of any nation in the history of the IAEA. Even now they are eager to admit the IAEA inspectors to all suspect locations and allow them to set up their permanent video-cameras, so they can assure the global community that they can be trusted to comply with the terms of the NPT (Non-Proliferation Treaty)

What Iran refuses to do, and what every sovereign nation should refuse to do, is accept rules mandated by the United States especially designed for Iran. That, of course, is precisely what is happening at present. Iran is IN COMPLETE COMPLIANCE WITH ITS OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE TERMS OF THE NPT. What the Bush team is demanding is that they forgo the conversion of nuclear fuel to be used for peaceful purposes in the production of nuclear energy for power plants. (This conversion process does not create Weapons-grade plutonium) This is their right under the terms of the treaty. For Iran to accept less than what they agreed upon destroys the meaning of the treaty, creates an apartheid-system of compliance, and is a national humiliation.
Why would Iran accept such an obvious double-standard while the US is busy building a new regime of bunker-busting nuclear weapons and threatening to use them preemptively on Washington's myriad enemies?

Mission Objectives

The administration's goals in attacking Iran are simple and straightforward. They hope to control Iran's vast petroleum and natural gas reserves, disarm a regional rival to Israel, prevent Iran from opening its own market for trading oil in petro-euros, and manage the global energy market to maintain US dominance over rising powers like India and China. This can be successfully achieved by putting the regions' resources under US control.

Whatever strategy the Pentagon has in mind, it certainly will not duplicate the disaster that persists in Iraq. Israel will probably lead the assault taking out the potential nuclear sites with the US in a mop-up role; bombing the 45 chemical, biological and conventional weapons facilities.

It won't be pretty and the margin for error is significant.

At the end of the day, the US will need to storm the oil-rich Ahwaz region (perhaps, 90% of Iran's oil) and create the rationale for a long-term occupation. There's no plan to subjugate the 70 million Iranians who live beyond that region, although the air-strikes will probably attempt to "decapitate" the regime, so they may need to find new leaders. Time is Running out

There are many signs that the US is drawing closer to a war with Iran. It's clear from numerous reports that the administration is conducting routine fly-overs of Iran, as well as providing support to the disparate terrorist organizations (MEK) that are fomenting rebellion on the ground.

Just this week, Secretary Rumsfeld suggested that Iran was behind the street violence that erupted in Basra when two undercover commandos were arrested by Iraqi police. Rumsfeld snappishly opined that Iran's involvement was "not helpful".

Is the Secretary really insinuating that the riot that broke out after 10 British tanks and armored vehicles crushed the walls surrounding the Basra jail, killing 7 Iraqis and releasing 150 prisoners; was Iran's doing? Weeks earlier, Rumsfeld made similarly feeble allegations about arms that had been captured in house-to-house searches. "It is true," he said, "that weapons clearly, unambiguously, from Iran have been found in Iraq."

Clear to whom?
We don't need to reiterate the litany of Rumsfeld's fabrications to acknowledge that his claims are suspect and probably designed to expand the regional war.

Why would Iran want to increase the ongoing chaos in Iraq? Does it help Iran to have an unstable neighbor where, at any moment, the war could spill over their borders?
Or do the Mullahs simply have a death-wish to be nuked by the United States?
Rumsfeld's claims are absurd. Iran does not want a war.

Cheney's Nuclear Review

A leaked document from the CIA attracted considerable attention two months ago. Under orders from Vice president Dick Cheney STRATCOM (Strategic Command) drew up contingency plans for a "large scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional an nuclear weapons." Understandably, the document caused quite a flap leaving many to conclude that the administration was considering a preemptive nuclear strike on Iran. Surprisingly, however, the "leak" never produced any reaction or recriminations from the White House, who simply ignored its appearance in public.

Was it a planned leak?

Similarly, just last week all the major news outlets ran stories about the Pentagon's draft of a US nuclear doctrine that spells out conditions under which US commanders might seek approval to "preemptively" use nuclear weapons. The document entitled Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations" was prepared for the Joint Chiefs of Staff and sent shock-waves through the country.

Would the Pentagon really execute a first-strike initiative against a non-nuclear country?
What country would be the likely target of such an attack?
The answer is almost too obvious to mention.
Iran. (The document by the way, has been mysteriously "disappeared" from the Pentagon site)

Both of these examples suggest that Washington is trying to send a strong message to Tehran that the US will respond with overwhelming (nuclear) force if Iran retaliates after the upcoming "surgical-strikes". It is a clever strategy that offers nearby Israel (who will presumably lead the attack) some insurance that Iran will not strike back.

But, Iran will strike back; that much is certain. And, of course, Iran has every right to retaliate if it is bombed in an unprovoked act of aggression.
The principles involved in an Iranian response are clear enough but they are worth reviewing none the less.

Whatever one may think of the repressive Islamic regime, its right to defend itself against unprovoked hostilities cannot be challenged. Thus, Iran will be defending the principles of sovereignty, self-determination, borders, and the right to live in peace with their neighbors without the threat of attack. These principles are the foundation-blocks upon which the current world order rests. They are worth fighting and dying for, as we shall soon discover.

I believe that the Mullahs will honor their obligation to defend their people if they are attacked and will act accordingly.

The history of warfare is a dismal chronicle of fatal blunders. The administration can avoid this catastrophe, but I don't think they will.

with three l-o-n-g yrs left of the bush regime...... he just might go for broke. His regime era will be potmarked with WAR ,and a US/Bush type of world terror. Very scary ..... as this is insanity ...... in every shape and form. How the US population can endorse/support this insanity.....( as in psychological disorder of serious nature) is beyond comprehension. Can they have been THAT duped??? Or maybe the REAL US is showing it's true colors now and they ain't pretty. With the US media focussing on the hurricanes almost 24/7........one has to wonder what is going on behind the scenes in Washington. They simply cannot be trusted at all

 

[jimmoyer]

Right now, nothing is going to come of any of this talk.

Too much else is going on.

And that's just the practical end of it.

 

[Ocean Breeze]

Re: RE: The US is Messing with Iran

Right now, nothing is going to come of any of this talk.

Too much else is going on.

And that's just the practical end of it.

Maybe the US will sink into bankrupcy ........and therefore preventing another BUSH =WAR =Catastrophe. Either way... t's a sad state of affairs.

 

[jimmoyer]

Man, didn't Whistle Mountain soften you any?

 

[Ocean Breeze]

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,1564,1720766,00.html

Iran might be out of sight (news wise) but not out of mind with the bush administration.

the bush war insanity is still being unleashed. To date , he has not created enough anger /even hatred of the US......(sarcasm)..

and must do more.. :evil:

(saw him briefly on the telee and he (bush) looks like sh*t.) Can't even put two words together to make a sentence. Seriously folks........ he could be "deteriorating" psychologically. ....while setting a few more fires on this planet. His performance.....or lack of ...... is more concerning than any of the "terror" threats he keeps badgering about. Hard to understand how so many Amerikans don't SEE it.

 

[Just the Facts]

There will be war with Iran wether we like it or not. The Mullah's want it more than Bush does, and have so since 1979.

At the parade, Iran showed off six of its Shahab-3 medium-range ballistic missiles sporting banners reading "Death to America", "We will crush America under our feet", "Death to Israel" and "Israel must be wiped off the face of the earth".

http://www.iranmania.com/News/ArticleView/Default.asp?NewsCode=35832&NewsKind=Current Affairs

 

[Just the Facts]

Of course, they only want Nuclear Technology for peaceful purposes.

:lol: 8)

 

[Ocean Breeze]

The Mullah's want it more than Bush does, and have so since 1979.

on what FACTUAL information , do you base this assessment???

 

[Ocean Breeze]

Of course, they only want Nuclear Technology for peaceful purposes.

:lol: 8)

and you can prove otherwise???..........again. Where are the FACTS???

 

[Ocean Breeze]

UN adopts motion on nuclear Iran

Iran resumed its controversial uranium conversion work in August
The UN nuclear watchdog has passed a resolution that paves the way for Iran to be referred to the UN Security Council over its nuclear ambitions.
The IAEA did not however set a date for reporting Iran to the council, which could ultimately decide to impose sanctions on the country.

The motion, proposed by the EU, had faced opposition within the IAEA this week. Twelve members abstained.

The US accuses Iran of seeking nuclear arms, a charge Tehran denies.

Iran says it wants the technology purely for peaceful production of energy.

Key vote

Submitted by Britain, France and Germany, the resolution called on the 35-member IAEA board to consider reporting Iran - at an unspecified date - to the UN Security Council.

As grounds for referral, it states that Tehran's "many failures and breaches" over international nuclear safeguards "constitute non-compliance" with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

Failure to comply with the NPT is automatic grounds for a report to the Security Council, under IAEA rules.

NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE

Mined uranium ore is purified and reconstituted into solid form known as yellowcake
Yellowcake is converted into a gas by heating it to about 64C (147F)
Gas is fed through centrifuges, where its isotopes separate and process is repeated until uranium is enriched
Low-level enriched uranium is used for nuclear fuel
Highly enriched uranium can be used in nuclear weapons


In depth: Nuclear fuel cycle
The IAEA board opted to vote on the resolution rather than adopting it by consensus, its preferred approach.

Russia and China, which both strongly opposed the motion, abstained. Venezuela was the only country to vote against it.

India, which had been against the resolution, voted for it.

Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had earlier phoned Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to urge him to be prepared to make concessions in order to avoid confrontation, India's foreign ministry said.

The US ambassador to the IAEA, Gregory Shulte, said that now Iran had been found in non-compliance it must be brought before the Security Council, the AFP news agency reports.

Earlier in the week the EU's "big three" dropped a demand that the IAEA should report Iran to the Security Council immediately, apparently because of opposition on the IAEA board.

A majority of those members meeting in Vienna were reported to want to see Iran referred straight away.

The issue prompted unprecedented scenes of anger in the board room of the IAEA, our correspondent says.

Secret programme

Iran says its nuclear activities have not violated the NPT.

It has warned that if referred to the Security Council, it could start uranium enrichment - a possible step toward making nuclear arms - and stop allowing unfettered IAEA inspections of its nuclear facilities and programmes.

Iran concealed its nuclear fuel programme for nearly 20 years before it was revealed by exiles and confirmed by US satellite pictures in 2002. Traces of highly enriched weapons-grade uranium were found at its Natanz plant a year later.

Tehran avoided being reported immediately to the Security Council in 2003 by opening talks with Britain, France and Germany.

However, those talks broke down after Iran resumed its uranium conversion process - suspended since November 2004 - in August and pronounced it had an "inalienable right" to produce nuclear fuel.

the drums of war not far behind??? Bush has time for at least two or three more invasions in the remaining time in office. He would make Hitler and the likes of him......green with envy.

(btw: how about the US dismantling IT's nukes??? ) fair is fair

 

[spidercide]

Ocean wrote:
"Bush has time for at least two or three more invasions in the remaining time in office. He would make Hitler and the likes of him......green with envy. "

Neat, others make sweeping statements and you are all over them with "WHERE ARE THE FACTS"

But your innuendo and slant doesn't need it eh.
Where are your FACTS for Bush's other wars?

 

[Jo Canadian]

Re: RE: The US is Messing with Iran

Ocean wrote:
"Bush has time for at least two or three more invasions in the remaining time in office. He would make Hitler and the likes of him......green with envy. "

Neat, others make sweeping statements and you are all over them with "WHERE ARE THE FACTS"

But your innuendo and slant doesn't need it eh.
Where are your FACTS for Bush's other wars?

I think at this point it's we can only make assumptions. Bush does appear triggerhappy with the likes of Syria, or Iran, or it could be that his bark is better than his bite and he's using his good poker face (smirk and all), but really It wouldn't be in his best interests to do so now. :lol: After all with his guard hard at work in Iraq, Home, and Afghanistan and to a lesser extent in Pakistan. Iran could pretty much say "yeah, You and what army?"

:? On second thought maybe not, If Iran were to say that Bush may throw all his chips in the pile and say Bring em on even though he knows he's only got a pair of duces.

 

[spidercide]

Wow, intelligent debate. No name calling or what not. Sure you are a Canadian?

As most American that I talk to say. It is only for 3 more years. Here's hoping that the planet is still here.

The thing about Americans. The government may do things that the majority disagree with. They wait for the process to follow through and then get rid of them. But dammit...when the decisions are being made they still follow through as a country. Three years ago Bush was looking pretty good, now not so much.

What I don't agrtee with is people basically painting him as the Anti-Christ, when in fact the people are the ones that are still allowing it.

The US almost removed the last President for getting head, if they really did not feel that the world 3was agianst them and so on would they still be keeping Bush around. Don't know. But as long as the Americans feel threatened they will do what ever they want to feel secure. Onlky diference betwen them and most others. Up till now they could. Getting kinda tight now though.

 

[jimmoyer]

Iran seems to be larger in many ways compared to Iraq, in not only size, but in more mountainous topography, huge population, and power dispersed beyond just the clerics and administrators but with various localities and trends where even women are allowed to vote in local elections.

But recall that Saddam Hussein's greatest regret was not having nuclear power before he invaded Iran in an 8 year war in the 80s and before he invaded Kuwait in 1991 in the first Gulf War.

It is very likely he would still be occupying Kuwait and 1/4 of Iran today were it not for the Iraeli bombing of a French and German built nuclear facility in Baghdad in 1981.

What lessons did we learn ?
What consequences have we avoided ?

We will never know which path would have led ultimately to greater danger because we only know what we know of NOW.

NOW is all that is discussed, and unfortunately NOW seems to matter more than what harm we might have avoided or prevented.

Perhaps if we compare the MISERY OF NOW with the GREATER MISERY of what we prevented, such analysis would enhance the debate.


But what great harm did we avoid ?

I am not sure whether or not Iran having nuclear power is good or bad. I know for sure that even the political opponents who argue with each other in Iran are all agreed that Iran deserves the national aspiration to join the big boys of nuclear poker.

Perhaps our tolerance of this may or may not lead to a greater disaster down the road.