These two crazy guys should be branded domestic terrorists and thrown into prison without charges. How dare they suggest diplomacy, when everyone knows that war with Iran is the only thing that can save us from imminent nuclear annihilation. These libertarians and ex-marines must be stopped from talking so reasonably. The American people can’t be told the truth. That would spoil all the fun.
Nuclear Iran Is an Exaggerated Threat
by Malou Innocent and Jonathan Owen
Malou Innocent is a foreign policy analyst at the Cato Institute. Jonathan Owen is a former Marine infantry officer.
Added to cato.org on March 8, 2012
This article appeared in New York Daily News on March 8, 2012.
But a more aggressive policy could lead to another war in the Middle East, or at least a regime in Tehran more committed to seeking a nuclear bomb.
The assumption that a short war of limited strikes will keep Iran from getting a nuclear weapon is flawed. Damage to Iran’s nuclear program from such a strike would be modest, likely requiring more strikes in another few years or a longer-term presence on the ground.
James Clapper, U.S. director of national intelligence, said an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities would set back its nuclear program by one to two years. U.S. military action every few years is an unmanageable strategy.
Even with a bomb, Iran is not an imminent threat to America’s security.
Worse, attempts to stop Iran’s program militarily will bolster its resolve to pursue a nuclear deterrent. Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates has said the military solution will make Iranians “absolutely committed to obtaining nuclear weapons.” He continued, “… they will just go deeper and more covert.”
So if Iran lives to fight another day, with the ayatollahs still standing, hawks in Washington will surely argue that the U.S. cannot afford to show weakness — and that our credibility depends on staying behind to create a friendly state in Tehran.
It would be a slippery slope from this to a wider war.
If that is the case, Iran, a country with two-and-a-half times the population and four times the territory of Iraq, will not be a cakewalk.
Many of those pushing for immediate action ignore these realities, focusing on the claim that Iran is on the verge of acquiring enough fissile material to produce a nuclear weapon. But according to the U.S. intelligence community, Iranian leaders have not actually decided to build a weapon.
As nuclear expert Joseph Cirincione of the Ploughshares Fund has argued, Iran might decide, like Japan and other countries, to have only the ability to produce a nuclear weapon fast — in short, a rapid breakout option.
Even with a bomb, Iran is not an imminent threat to America’s security. If it ever became one, the U.S. could quickly ensure Iran’s absolute destruction, potentially through a nuclear strike.
As for the oft-cited question of Israel’s security, our staunch ally’s second-strike capability remains robust and can deter Iran.
Variously over the course of the past 60 years, the U.S. government has overthrown Iran’s democratically elected government, supported its Western-oriented dictator, covertly backed militants and regional actors against it, sternly enjoined other countries to not trade with it, encircled the country with its armed forces and declared its intention to bomb it.
Unless Americans are willing to fight Iranians to the death — possibly every few years — Washington must stop polarizing the situation. Aggressive policies and rhetoric do not benefit our security.
Without demanding that Iran surrender on the issue of uranium enrichment, the U.S. — which accounts for almost half of the world’s military spending, wields one of the planet’s largest nuclear arsenals and can project its power around the globe — should lift sanctions, stop its belligerence and open a direct line of communication with Tehran.
The President has said repeatedly that “all options are on the table.” But contrary to popular belief, diplomacy with Iran is an option that has yet to be fully exhausted.
In the end, Iranians must decide that nuclear capability is not in their best interest. Mounting evidence and recent history suggest that anything else is a short-term solution.
Stucky says:
I do not understand what the author is saying.
He talks at length that Iran is not a threat ….. and then closes with, “… Iranians must decide that nuclear capability is not in their best interest.”
I know I’m not the sharpest tool in the shed, but this makes no sense to me.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
5 
0
19th March 2012 at 12:46 pm
TeresaE says:
What right do we have to stop any country from pursuing a nuclear program of any kind?
There are plenty of real enemies that already have nukes, and plenty more that have power plants, so just who in the hell are we to be the ultimate judge and jury?
Do as I say, not as I do. Applies to almost every facet of our lives now, including another war it seems.
Wouldn’t be so scary if we weren’t already broke, there wasn’t already multi-trillion (a quadrillion surely isn’t far away) Benny bucks circling the globe, if China, Russia and India weren’t telling us to back off, if China hadn’t bought up our strategic assets, our neighbors, the worlds natural resources, their own military stockpiles, their own gold stockpiles AND possess the blueprints for nearly every thing our modern country requires PLUS the supply chain for much of it.
Yep, if all those things were true it wouldn’t be nearly as scary.
Let us hope that the PTB are full of wisdom and consider such lunacy with an air of the reality of our situation.
Hope in one hand, …in the other…
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
7 
1
19th March 2012 at 12:57 pm
Muck About says:
We already have one Islamic country with “THE BOMB”. That’s bad enough, especially since the Paki government (military) isn’t stable enough to prevent some Master Sargent from selling one to a high bidder.
I do not fear ballistic boomers. I fear a container being delivered to NY or Long Beach or Seattle that has a boomer inside it.
Our current defense systems would rapidly identify the shooter of a ballistic boomer. But after the container weapon has gone “bang” there would no way to identify the miscreant to suitably punish him/them by turning their country into a glassy pock marked sandpile.
So what then? That’s why Islamic Iran needs to be stopped from developing one. Islamists just giggle and snort at the idea of dying for Islam. I understand one of the rules of the game include a mandatory bath before entering paradise which may cause them a bit of trouble but after killing a few million nonbelievers it would be worth that price.
MA
Hot debate. What do you think?
2 
8
19th March 2012 at 1:19 pm
Wyoming Mike says:
If I was Iran, and I had Israel, the U.S. and a bunch of other asshole countries after my 3rd largest in the world oil reserve, you can bet I’d be developing a nuke as fast as possible.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
8 
0
19th March 2012 at 2:05 pm
Administrator says:
An Analysis
by Lawrence Davidson
Making The Same Mistake Twice
It is estimated that up to a million people died as a function of George Bush Jr.’s decision to invade Iraq. According to Bush, that decision was made on the basis of “faulty intelligence.” This is the ex-president’s way of passing the blame. The decision was made by Mr. Bush’s insistence that the accurate intelligence he was getting from traditional sources was false, and that the lies he was being told by other parties were true.
Now there is Iran. Over and again the intelligence community has told the powers that be that Iran is not engaged in a nuclear weapons program. And over and again the men and women in Congress and the White House have insisted that these traditional sources of information are wrong and that the stories that are coming from other sources (in this case the Israeli government and its special interest agents in Washington) know better. As in 2003, so it is in 2012. The politicians appear to be out for blood. One wonders how many dead and maimed bodies will satisfy them? Perhaps it will be a million dead Iranians.
The only difference is that today, we have a president who is hesitant to go to war this very moment. As General Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has put it, the major difference between the U.S. and Israel on military action against Iran is timing. For President Obama, first comes the “diplomacy” of ultimatums combined with draconian sanctions, and then comes the slaughter. Perhaps it will come in his anticipated second term.
I have written about this more than once before and it is hard to find anything new to say. Yet, given the play of events, what has been said before warrants being said again. Therefore, below your will find a piece originally posted on the 10th of June 2011, but amended where necessary to bring it up to date.
Part I – Is there an Iranian Nuclear Weapons Program?
On Friday 3 June 2011 the investigative reporter Seymour Hersh gave an interview to Amy Goodman for the radio program Democracy Now! The topic was Iran and whether or not it is developing nuclear weapons. Hersh answered this question definitively for Goodman as he did shortly thereafter in a comprehensive piece for The New Yorker (6 June 2011 ) entitled “Iran and the Bomb: How Real is the Threat? His answer: there is no Iranian nuclear weapons program. There is no threat. This position has been confirmed by two National Intelligence Estimates (NIEs) on the question of Iran and nuclear weapons. These expressed the collective opinion of 16 U.S. intelligence agencies. Their unanimous conclusion has been that “there is no evidence of any weaponization.” This was reconfirmed in mid February 2012 by an array of top U.S. intelligence chiefs appearing before the Senate Intelligence Committee to give their annual report on “current and future worldwide threats” to national security.
Hersh set his understanding of the issue against the background of the 2003 invasion of Iraq. In that case there was no credible evidence for weapons of mass destruction yet we had high government officials going around talking about the next world war and mushroom clouds over American cities. Both the U.S. Congress and the general population bought into this warmongering. Hersh is obviously worried about a replay of that scenario. Thus, in his interview, he said “you could argue its 2003 all over again….There’s just no serious evidence inside that Iran is actually doing anything to make nuclear weapons….So, the fact is…that we have a sanctions program that’s designed to prevent the Iranians from building weapons they’re not building.”
In 2003 those kind of sanctions, applied to Iraq, along with the accompanying misinformation campaign, led to a tragic and unnecessary war. Are we now doing it all over again? As Amy Goodman pointed out, “the Obama White House…has repeatedly cited Iran’s nuclear program as a threat to the world.” President Obama asserted as much in a 22 May 2011 speech before AIPAC and again in his 4 March 2012 talk to the same organization. On the latter occasion Obama told his audience, “I have said that when it comes to preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, I will take no options off the table, and I mean what I say. That includes all elements of American power: a political effort aimed at isolating Iran….an economic effort that imposes crippling sanctions and, yes, a military effort to be prepared for any contingency.” All this for something that is simply not happening.
If this is the case, what in the world was President Barack Obama talking about when addressing AIPAC? And what are the members of Congress talking about when they address this same issue? The vast majority of them take the same line not of President Obama, but of Israeli President Benjamin Netanyahu who thinks Obama is weak and naive and that their should be war against Iran now. In addition, this morbid fantasizing about Iran’s nuclear ambitions has captured the attention of the mainstream press. Amy Goodman asked Hersh about a New York Times report (24 May 2011) stating “the world’s global nuclear inspection agency [IAEA]…revealed for the first time…that it possesses evidence that Tehran has conducted work on a highly sophisticated nuclear triggering technology that experts said could be used for only one purpose: setting off a nuclear weapon.” Hersh quickly pointed out the that the word “evidence” never appeared in the IAEA report and, it turns out, the type of nuclear trigger the New York Times was referring to is so fraught with technical problems that, according to Hersh, “there is no evidence that anybody in their right mind would want to use that kind of a trigger.” So, what in the world is the New York Times telling us?
Part II – What is Real?
Questions One and Two: The questions about Iran’s nuclear program are not open ended. They have real answers. First, is Iran developing nuclear energy? The answer to this is a definitive yes. No one, Iranian or otherwise, denies this. Their aim here is energy production and medical applications. This is all legal. Second, is it developing nuclear weapons? According to every reliable expert within the intelligence agencies of both the United States and Europe, the answer is no. These answers describe reality in relation to Iran and its nuclear activities.
Question Three: The really important question. Why do American politicians and military leaders refuse to accept reality as regards this issue? That too must have an answer. And
intelligent people who investigate these matters should be able to figure it out. I consider myself in this crowd, and so I am going to venture forth with my answer.
Answer to question three: It is Politics. However, it is not just U.S. politics. Others have helped write the script. These others can be identified by asking to whom are American officials pledging to pursue the Iranian nuclear weapons fantasy? The president’s pledge has gone to AIPAC and the Israelis. Members of Congress have done the same.
Part III – Other People’s Fears Become America’s Fantasies
Israeli politicians are addicted to the Iran threat. Iran serves, alongside the Palestinians, as the latter day ruthless anti-Semite who would destroy the Jews. Zionists seem to need this kind of “existentialist” enemy. This is the equivalent of the Islamic fundamentalist taking the place of the hateful communist as the great enemy that the United States also seems to need. And, as it turns out, the Israeli lobby is more influential in formulating U.S. foreign policy toward Iran than all of the nation’s intelligence services put together. Hence our politicians from the President on down, chase shadows. Not just verbally, mind you, but in terms of definable policy (like sanctions against Iran).
U.S. politicians and military leaders cannot talk like this and create policy like this without the mainstream press following along. Where there is smoke, there must be fire. Plus, ever since the Iranian hostage crisis (1979-1981), Americans have been told that the Iranians hate us. So, whether it is Fox TV, whose fanatical conservative backers have always lived in a bi-polar fantasy world of good and evil, or the New York Times, whose quasi-liberal backers empathize with Israel just enough to buy into that country’s paranoia, the message is that the Iranians are crazy people out to destroy the West. And the evidence? Who needs it?
Part IV- The Real Danger is Acting on False Assumptions
What happens when a well-armed individual cannot tell the difference between reality and unreality? What happens when a well-armed individual just knows, in his gut, that the other guy is plotting to destroy him? Chances are something horrible will happen. And, the American public ought to know that this is so, because collectively we have already lived out this tragedy in 2003. In that year we had leadership who were much more influenced by their guts, by religious imagery, by duplicitous Iraqi con men, by scheming Zionists and ideologically driven neo-cons, than anything vaguely resembling hard evidence. That “something horrible” cost the lives of up to a million human beings.
So let us get this straight. It seems there are two worlds. The real world of facts and evidence and the unreal world of fantasy. Our political leaders and their advisers are, apparently, stuck in the unreal one. Their words, and their policies, are built on the assumptions of this fantasy world. They go to war and kill people based on beliefs that are demonstrably false. And the rest of us? Most of us are stuck in our own local niches and beyond them we do not know what is real or unreal. So we rely on others to tell us what to believe. Who are the others? They just happen to be our political leaders, their advisers, and follow-the-leader media commentators. Well, that makes a nice little circle. And, a fatal one at that.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
6 
1
19th March 2012 at 2:25 pm
Wyoming Mike says:
MA, Sounds like you’ve been watching a bit too much Faux. Lemme ask you a question…given your scenario, wouldn’t be easier to PURCHASE a bomb than to make one given your oil reserves and the list of countries out there that hate us and have bombs?? Or does the constant fear or BIG BAD IRAN make that kind of thought process impossible for the Faux news Koolaiders?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
5 
0
19th March 2012 at 2:50 pm
todd says:
fantastic now we have russian troops in syria. time to get up close and personal on the russian “reset” i keep hearing about.
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/03/19/russian-troops-reportedly-enter-syria/#
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
19th March 2012 at 8:19 pm
Zara says:
I’ve grown sick of all this bullshit about Iranian nukes. It’s a sideshow from the real issue, which is finding an excuse to knock back Iran a few decades so that Israel remains the regional big dog. It’s sickening.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
5 
0
19th March 2012 at 8:28 pm
Novista says:
May, 1908 – oil discovered in Iran. The Angle-Persian Oil Company is formed. (APOC)
1913 – Winston Churchill, First Lord of the Admiralty, becomes the biggest customer.
The Iranian slice of the pie is 16% during this period.
1925-1932 Ongoing negotiations for a better concession.
1933 – a revised agreement with better terms, sometimes ‘gamed’.
1935 – APOC becomes AIOC, Anglo-Iranian Oil Company.
1951 – Iranians support nationalization, citing harsh working conditions, poor pay, and
that America and Saudis had settled on a 50-50 profit sharing agreement.
In March, the Iranian parliament votes for nationalization and elects Mohammed Mossadegh as prime minister. The British impose a boycott and considered an invasion.
1952 – the Shah attempts to remove Mossadegh, riots ensue.
1953 – Brtain declares Mossageh and Iran are unstable. The Shah, with help, removes Mossadegh from his position, sending tanks to his residence sealed the deal.
1954 – AIOC becomes the British Petroleum Company.
1979 – after two years of unrest and revolt, the SAVAK Shah flees to exile. A national referendum established the Islamic Republic on April 1, 1979,
A tale of unintended consequences …
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
19th March 2012 at 9:59 pm
Mr. Happy says:
The threat to Israel is not Nuclear but conventional…and Iran now has the delivery systems to terminate Israel without devistating neighbouring Arab countries. Also, as pointed out a couple of times above Iran can buy Nukes anytime they want and probably have. Why we are deluged with all this propoganda is a mystery outside of the fact that it keeps the price of oil on the high side. Gee…do you think that can be it??
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
19th March 2012 at 7:10 am