''The new, improved, and SEXIER - NIE!''

'Now that the NIE disclosed the fact that Iran admits to having a nuke program, without doubt - you will say that either it was Bush's fault or that American foreign policy is to blame. After all; you certainly show no regard to the flag of your own country. Maybe you aren't an American; just a tourist to this blog that believes that Democrats are infallable and your contradictiory argument is all that is necissary to complete your patiotic duty. Well, you have that freedom and luxury. Just say 'thank you' then sit down, and be advised.

Since Iran HAS admitted to a nuke program in 2003 - were US assesments wrong? By Iran's own admission - absolutely not! For cryin' out loud - the admitted it! I'll say it again - they admitted it..

Example: Let's say that you're rich and married, and you had to hire a private investigator to find out if your wife is cheating on you. Your P.I. comes back to you and tells you ' well, she had and affair back in 2003 - but we can't tell if she is still messsing around - she's in another country that won't accept my passport - so I guess I can't tell you what she's presently up to'. Would you blame your investigator and not pay him - or fault your wife? Is she - or isn't she; only her hair dresser knows for sure. Maybe that is where we need to go for the answer! (chuckle!)

If El Baredei was in Iran at the time that Iran claims to have that program occuring - and El Baredei didn't see any evidence of it - what would you think? Did El Baredei overlook what is his business to perform - or was Iran doing this program so covertly that he couldn't see it taking place?

Oh yea, and let's ignore the Iranian's billion-of-dollars spent on their misslie program. You know; they are just stupid enough to spend five million dollars on a single missile just to put a two-thousand dollar warhead on it. Nobody is that stupid! Iran is not poor, stupid, or commited to anything but their own sense of domination. Just ask any Iranian Revolutioary Guardsman.

Does this scenario starting to draw a picture for you yet? That is what I am worried about when I read some of these comments - the lack of seeing all of the data being brought to the table in some of these half-arguements.

Let's cover the math once again - an admitted weapons program and a developing missile program to deliver it(See 'Federation of American Scientists' for the data -www.fas.org - I believe that's the address. Enter 'Shahab' into their search engine).

The only possible conclusion? A nuclear program set to start off an arm's race in the middle East. Doubtless - you will say that Israel had one for years. And doubtlessly I will tell you that they had no reason to use it - until the Iranians wanted to become the dominate power that is willing to use it despite the fact that there has been NO PROBLEM until now. Get out your calculator and throw it away if you fail to come up with the same result.

Mr. Arkin, With regard to your question about: What Is Iran Really Up To, from an American perspective?

The fact is that there can be no doubt about America's intentions..., or the real cause for the administration's global policy of pre-emption!

Is there any wonder why the president's approval ratings, domestically and abroad, are at their lowest, even among America's allies? Is there any doubt about why the level of fear by other nations around the world, with regard to the USA, is at its highest?

The fact of the matter is that at the same time that some political pundits in the U.S.A. are trying to figure out what Iran is really up to, the world, and those honest Americans who still remain, can see what the United States, under its current form of leadership, is up to!

Those human-beings who possess any moral fiber or genuine concern for the right of self-determination - as well as for the lives of other human beings, are shocked and dismayed by this man's insousciance, as well as his 'inhumanity to men, women and children around the world'.

Given what we have witnessed since 2003, when #43 attacked, without provocation, the once sovereign nation of the world, Iraq; we have observed the heart of the man, our jingoist president.

And it is all too clear now what his real motives were for seeking the office of president of the United States of America in the first place!

There can be no doubt about America's intentions..., or the real cause for the administration's global policy of pre-emption!

Is there any wonder wjy the president's ratings, domestically and abroad, are at their lowest, even among our allies? Is there any doubt why the level of fear by other nations around the world, with regard to the USA, is at its highest?

The fact of the matter is that at the same time that some political pundits in the U.S.A. are trying to figure out what Iran is really up to, the world, and honest Americans can see what the United States, under its current form of leadership, is up to!

Those human-beings who possess any moral fiber or genuine concern for the right of self-determination, as well as the lives of other human beings, are shocked and dismayed by this man's insousciance, as well as 'inhumanity to men, women and children around the world'.

Given what we have witnessed since 2003, when #43 attacked, without provocation, a sovereign nation, we have observed the heart of the man, our jingoist president.

And it is all too clear now, what his real motives were for seeking the office of president of the United States of America in the first place!

avkydrpgx wdmka mznbgrf tdqbxjrwk zqhwsea aegibfvh snycuoraf http://www.dexvnj.cqmawvpd.com

xhqg nbvczalh rbxliy qksr piosbf vbnagtzjw huyxflimv

The bigger picture?

Iran has become the proverbial chess piece in a much larger grab for Mid-East hegemony.

The back-channel politics that navigate the Iran issue lie within a growing claim for power. The actors? A Super-power; a Resurgent power; and a Rising power. U.S-Russia-China.

Iran has become Russia and China's Poland. Their interest in Iran, and fears of encirclement, mean the 'buck stops' with the western aggitator.

It becomes a case of double edged appeasement. Do we, the West, allow Iran to flaunt their flagrant disregard for democracy in Iraq under the cover of Sino-Russian support. And do China and Russia allow the U.S and her allies to role over another Mid-East nation?

The answers may not be pretty.

Well Dimitry, you think that you have bullied everyone to see the correctness of your thinking: that, ultimately, the US has done nothing correct, and that poor little Iran is without blame or blemish. The fact that people do not immediately get 'hysterical' at some of your comments is because some people tolerate foolish reasoning(e.g. points that do not reflect both sides of the story inclusively).

We live in a state where the news is being 'sanitized' so that our military can accomplish damage control of terrorist acts. Be mindful: we are presently at war. I know that sometimes it is easy to forget this notion, because of the fact that you/I are still able to obtain a triple-latte mocha at your nearest Starbucks. Thank God for that.

It is time that you start 'reading between the lines' to understand this aspect of war. In WWII, the oceans created a protective 'blanket/shield'. But in this era - that protection no longer exists. Terrorism is an export from those countries that fundamentally disagree with our politics and our response to things: e.g. - Iran's taking of American hostages in 1979. Please note that I said 'response'. Jimmy Carter and the Democrats dropped the ball - and Reagan an the Rupublicans didn't waste any time correcting it. History points this out without equivocation.

I am not necissarily 'down' on Demcrats - per se. Roosevelt/Truman did a fine job finishing the war. I just cannot presently tolerate such pompous crap spewing from Hilary - and others that reason like her. Yes, I listen to them and try to understand them. It is the way they see US policies and programs that I refuse to accept. They have been exibiting very dangerous and fatal flaws that have the potential to do great harm to the US. That is something that I will not accept.

Have you ever heard of the OWI in WWII? It was necessary for the US and GB to create the 'Office of War Information' to counter Joey Goebell's highly intoxicating propaganda machine (of Hitler's regime), so that an effective counterintelligence punch could be added to the mix.

It is essential to understand the past in order to understand the future. If one is REALLY interested in seeking the truth, it becomes absolutely essential to examine ALL of the possibillites. You should do this instead of merely taking the stance that the US and its military are the perpetrators of what is ultimately wrong.

You have set yourself on a course that blindly asserts that only the US/GB are the guilty parties - without considering all of the facts. Your prosecution of the US can easily be defended by any attorney in a court of public opinion - so long as all of the facts have a fair chance to be heard and the people that present opposing views aren't unjudiciously pummeled with a singular slant. The best part of blogs is that they provide an avenue of 'free speech'.

Good luck with your prosecution of the US in this blog; but I don't give your chances much hope. Unless it is made up of like minds. Don't allow your bitterness to blind yourself to all of what is possible. Seeking the truth is not easy and involves the willingness to admit that we only see in part and we know in part. By all means - seek truth and exhaust yourself at this endeavor before condemming those who don't exhibit any view but your own.

If you created the nightmare, don't you have some responsibility to fix it?

---well, yes, I believe they are trying to kill this Frankenstein monster asap

Ok, so if your country is invaded by a far superior force that bivuaced in your capital and would habitually take our a city block (not on purpose, of coarse), if a shot came from a building, you would then simply die in place instead of breaking the "rules of war"?

--this is a deeper question, would I prefer that my family and I live under Saddam and his mad men or do I risk the lives of my friends and family in exchange for getting rid of Saddam. Answers would no doubt be diff for Sunni's , shiites or Kurds.

==--Yes, so ?, its a nightmare now, Israel should lay down ? yr point ?==

If you created the nightmare, don't you have some responsibility to fix it?

==-- yes so ? (again), Hamas stops the rockets, Israel goes away, so why wont Hamas stop th rockets ? now there's the devil in the details==

I guess. But since Israel created Hamas in the first place and imprisoned the Gaza population for decades, don't you think it may be appropriate for Israel, as a regional superpower that kills 100 arabs for every jew, to have the good sense to stop the siege first? Just thinking...

==--no, just stop the rockets and stop insisting on destroying Israel, live in peace with yr neighbor, Israel will be happy to trade open crossings if Ha mas, Abbas do this, the real question ..why wont Ha mas and Abbas do this ?==

Why would Israel do this after taking the best Palestinian land, often illegaly (google Israel's own data on this), for decades and expanding Jewish settlements on that land? The old canard "Arab must accept us first or we have no partner for negotiations" is just that - a silly excuse that elevates a threat of terrorism to an existential level, preventing any negotiations for years.

==--I miss yr point here, I am defending the methods that any military uses to defend its interests. You were saying its new and bad for the US to level buildings , drop bombs on suspected enemy targets that may have civilians. I say, no its not odd or unexpected, in fact its common in many military campaigns.==

It is uncommon to lay sieges to cities on the territory of an already defeated enemy. It is uncommon to have to invade and re-take the capital of the nation you already defeated and where you headquarters are. It is uncommon to have several high tonnage sorties every day in major cities of your defeated enemy 4 years after "major hostilities are over".

==--No I didn't say they enjoyed it. I said there methods were crossing the line i.e suicide bombers targeting strictly civilian targets. Granted war is evil and at times arguing about a civilized way to kill each other seems absurd but clearly the US does not target civilians because they are civilians. The US targets combatants and no doubt kill many civilians, but what should one do if combatants run into civilian occupied buildings ?. Contrast this with a suicide bomber walking into a food market filled with civilians.Big difference. I dont buy the theory that because yr enemy is bigger and better equipped, it gives you a license to directly focus on killing civilians.==

Ok, so if your country is invaded by a far superior force that bivuaced in your capital and would habitually take our a city block (not on purpose, of coarse), if a shot came from a building, you would then simply die in place instead of breaking the "rules of war"?

The sad facts are that our occupation has killed several hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, mostly civilians (probably high hundreds of thousdands, rivaling Saddam in brutality). We have killed more civilians in collateral damage in our surgical strikes than the nasty insurgents who target civilians on purpose. How can that be? Simple - volume.

Certainly, using 500-1000 lbs bomb in an urban setting to supress rifle fire (and kill several families in the process) maybe legal under the rules of engagement, but it is hardly a shining example of battlefield prowess. Having realized how strategically stupid it is, we seem to be doing this less under Petreus.

And, also sadly, there are instances, hopefully isolated, when our soldiers did target civilians.

Hamas was created by Israel as a counterweight to the secular PLO years ago. Google it

--Yes, so ?, its a nightmare now, Israel should lay down ? yr point ?

Israel, on the other hand responds with tons of aerial ammunition, armor incursions and mass arrests/checkpoints.

-- yes so ? (again), Hamas stops the rockets, Israel goes away, so why wont Hamas stop th rockets ? now there's the devil in the details

Israel must be just waiting for that special moment to stop the siege.

--no, just stop the rockets and stop insisting on destroying Israel, live in peace with yr neighbor, Israel will be happy to trade open crossings if Ha mas, Abbas do this, the real question ..why wont Ha mas and Abbas do this ?

Yet often we are forced to mount major campaigns against urban centers, repleat with massive air sorties and artillery barrages. Anything wrong with that picture, or are things hunky dory, in your opinion?

--I miss yr point here, I am defending the methods that any military uses to defend its interests. You were saying its new and bad for the US to level buildings , drop bombs on suspected enemy targets that may have civilians. I say, no its not odd or unexpected, in fact its common in many military campaigns.

Hamas shoots unguided rockets into Israeli towns because they are evil terrorists who enjoy killing innocent civilians.

--No I didn't say they enjoyed it. I said there methods were crossing the line i.e suicide bombers targeting strictly civilian targets. Granted war is evil and at times arguing about a civilized way to kill each other seems absurd but clearly the US does not target civilians because they are civilians. The US targets combatants and no doubt kill many civilians, but what should one do if combatants run into civilian occupied buildings ?. Contrast this with a suicide bomber walking into a food market filled with civilians.Big difference. I dont buy the theory that because yr enemy is bigger and better equipped, it gives you a license to directly focus on killing civilians.

==Actually, I dont know who yr defending.==

I am defending the facts, which are much maligned in your tender care.

==Hamas who if they did have the ability would unload bombs on Israel 24/7.==

Hamas was created by Israel as a counterweight to the secular PLO years ago. Google it.

==But all they have are a gazillion rockets which they do unload on a regular basis.==

Hamas has homemade unguided Katyushas, which causes some property damage, shock and very, very rarely, injury or death. Israel, on the other hand responds with tonns of aerial ammunition, armor incursions and mass arrests/checkpoints.

==It takes two to Tango so while you may say "lay siege to gaza", that siege would end tomorrow if Hamas stopped firing rockets, but then again you dont mention this.==

I don't mention it because it is not true. Gaza is less under siege today than when Israel controlled it officially. All border crossings are Israeli controlled, as well as water and electricity, a situations that continued for decades. Poor Israel must be just waiting for that special moment to stop the siege.

==No angels dont reside on yr side and devils dont live on mine. Its a bit more complicated then one side doing all the harm. And yes, if you just go thru military campaigns throughout the ages, armies lay siege all the time in all conditions, occupied , unoccupied, vacant whatever. Yes they save there soldiers(and who woudnt) all the time if they can. If there is an enemy shooting at them, an army, any army (again, read some history) would defend themselves as the Americans are doing now.==

Long term occupation that contunue under an effective state of war are rare. Napoleon in Spain comes to mind, USSR in Afghanistan, French in Algeria, Israel in the occupied territories. Again, try to grasp, the difference here - we conquered Iraq and control it via an UNSC mandate. Yet often we are forced to mount major campaigns against urban centers, repleat with massive air sorties and artillery barrages. Anything wrong with that picture, or are things hunky dory, in your opinion?

==There is no "great new amazing" discovery of carnage. We are as inhuman in war as we have ever been, only the tools are different. Rocks,cannon back then bombs by air now. If yr so found of trashing the Israeli's, ask yrself why Hamas insists on showering civilian targets with rockets ? could it be its abit more complicated then moaning about death and destruction ?==

Not really. In your opinion, Hamas shoots unguided rockets into Israeli towns because they are evil terrorists who enjoy killing innocent civilians. In my opinion, they are using the only weapons they can make to inflict any damage against an enemy with greatly superior firepower. Much the same as Reagan hailed mujahedin in Afghanistan were doing against the Russian occupation. The big difference there was American weapons. All terrorism is perpetrated for political goals, as the proto-Israelis were doing to the British occupation forces in "British" Palestine in the 40s.

Dimitry writes:"Are you for real or are you continuing with your goose-stepping defense of any actions by us or our "allies"?"

-Actually, I dont know who yr defending. Hamas who if they did have the ability would unload bombs on Israel 24/7. But all they have are a gazillion rockets which they do unload on a regular basis. It takes two to Tango so while you may say "lay siege to gaza", that siege would end tomorrow if Hamas stopped firing rockets, but then again you dont mention this. No angels dont reside on yr side and devils dont live on mine. Its a bit more complicated then one side doing all the harm. And yes, if you just go thru military campaigns throughout the ages, armies lay siege all the time in all conditions, occupied , unoccupied, vacant whatever. Yes they save there soldiers(and who woudnt) all the time if they can. If there is an enemy shooting at them, an army, any army (again, read some history) would defend themselves as the Americans are doing now.There is no "great new amazing" discovery of carnage. We are as inhuman in war as we have ever been, only the tools are different. Rocks,cannon back then bombs by air now. If yr so found of trashing the Israeli's, ask yrself why Hamas insists on showering civilian targets with rockets ? could it be its abit more complicated then moaning about death and destruction ?

==I don't think I know of situations in the past, when an occupying Army, after a completion of the conquest had to lay sieges to cities on the territory of the vanquished nation or deliver high tonnage ammunitions on urban targets via either air or artillery, and continue to do so 3,4,5 years into occupation.==

Actually I do. Israel in the West Bank and Gaza, for the last 40 years. We are in good company.

==Historically , Armies occupying territory have always had situations where there are area's of resistance , even in so called "occupied" territory. In those instances , its quite normal not to send yr troops in but instead lay siege or in some cases bombard the town village or building, nothing new here.==

I don't think I know of situations in the past, when an occupying Army, after a completion of the conquest had to lay sieges to cities on the territory of the vanquished nation or deliver high tonnage ammunitions on urban targets via either air or artillery, and continue to do so 3,4,5 years into occupation.

==Ha mas also did this when the Israeli's attacked Lebanon.They would level buildings if Israeli soldiers took shelter in them. Cant blame Ha mas for that, on the battlefield, they were attacking a military target==

Really? What weapons did the dastardly Hamas use to "level buildings"? I rather thought the 99% of the tonnage in that war was in fact delivered by Israel, a testimony to that fact being massive destruction of many south Lebanese villages under Israeli bombardment as well as large section of south Beirut. Didn't Israel even litter the place with fliers claming that anybody who did not run north would be considered a valid target and killed? Of course, they also often attacked and killed those people fleeing north, because they were probably, likely, possibly "terrorists". And didn't Israeli military got into some trouble with the US, by shooting the place up with cluster munitions, in contravention of their agreement with us not to use in urban settings? On account of children being blown up later by the 10-20% unexploded bombshell population.

Are you for real or are you continuing with your goose-stepping defense of any actions by us or our "allies"?

==With Islamic bombers, they have no battlefield, there only purpose is to avoid the battlefield/military targets and kill civilians.==

So...

Unlike us, who kill for good reasons, like "shortening the war" or "killing the terrorists", the enemy kills for fun, with no purpose, whatsoever, correct?

And one other thing. Citizens fighting against an invader are NOT terrorists.

Iran's Intentions are Still the Great Unknown...

Factually, the real intentions of George W. Bush and his crowd is the great unknown. I often wonder what these guys are truly up to.

They worry be far more than Iran with a nuke. Iran cannot dominate or destroy the world, George Bush and his crowd are making a serious attempt, it would seem, at world domination!

Those sycophants who support GB and his crowd, don't even know what this guy is truly up to either!!

Yes, I said it!!

Terrorists come from a lot of different countries. The current rulers of The United States claimed we invaded two countries because we're fighting a "war on terror". How can invading a foreign country be a tool of the "war on terror", unless we are planning to invade and occupy every country in the world that we "claim" is in some way connected to some terrorist activity. The 911 terrorists came from Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Timothy McVey came from the U.S.! So much for the "war on terror". It should be obvious by now that there might have been some other reason we invaded these countries.
Terrorists aren't countries. They're criminals. You don't bomb cities to catch criminals. If the U.S. really wanted to do something about terrorists, they would form a world wide police force from all countries with the authority to enter any country in the pursuit of criminals. Only the World Police would be allowed to enter. No armies. No private companies. No permanent basses. No hanging around.
In this country we have city cops, county cops, state cops, and the FBI. Most other countries have something similar. If we're dealing with world criminals, we need world police. Sounds like something the United Nations should be doing. Of course, they'll have to get it approved by the U.S. Good luck.

Dimitry writes:"Well, the American way to fight in urban setting was not to "go in and take out the enemy on the third floor" but to drop a couple of tons of ammunition on the building, usually from the air. This minimizes our casualties (a good thing), but maximizes civilian collateral damage (a bad thing). Given our propensity to simply wipe out the insurgent's hiding places, our enemies search for a way to create maximum damage to the society under our control and civilian and/or military suicide attacks appears to be a very effective way to create chaos and drive a wedge of fear between the occupying army and the civilian population. This was practiced extensively in various forms during WWII and conflicts that followed. I would add, that the full advent of the suicide bomber as a form of asymmetric warfare did not commence until our invasion and occupation of Iraq.

One of the great unreported stories of the Iraq war has been the increasing use of airpower in urban settings as an attempt to fight an insurgency while minimizing politically unpalatable casualty rate. Continuous high tonnage sorties over a country you already occupy is unprecedented in military history."

------ Historically , Armies occupying territory have always had situations where there are area's of resistance , even in so called "occupied" territory. In those instances , its quite normal not to send yr troops in but instead lay siege or in some cases bombard the town village or building, nothing new here. No one intentionally levels a civilian occupied building in order to get a combatant(unless it is a very very high value target). Ha mas also did this when the Israeli's attacked Lebanon.They would level buildings if Israeli soldiers took shelter in them. Cant blame Ha mas for that, on the battlefield, they were attacking a military target. It isn't unprecedented to save yr own soldiers by delivering munitions. The US does it by air, past armies have used artillery or heavy siege weapons.Hamas used anti tank missiles against buildings. The Lebanese army laid siege to a refugee camp in there own country.Again nothing new or unprecedented. That is how armies fight. Every army wants to limit there own casualties, again, nothing new or insidious here. This is very different then the "Islamic" bomber who seeks out civilian targets. The "Islamic" bomber is if anything , like the bombing of Dresden or the fire bombing of Tokyo, both very debatable "kill the civilian" missions. At least with Dresden ad Tokyo, the point was to shorten the war, and the combatants fought real battles against each other.With Islamic bombers, they have no battlefield, there only purpose is to avoid the battlefield/military targets and kill civilians.

Lets not lose sight. Islamic Fascism declared war against the U.S. and all non-Islamic nations. The truth is the truth. Further, deception is a tenet of their religion to non-believers. Why would any free human want to suppress this? http://tinyurl.com/2znnvl
"Intelligence" is NOT fact it is a "guess" which in history has been wrong; and did it cost us, just look at WWII, Perl Harbor, just one example.

What happened to the principle of 'a right to self-determination' that we once believed in as a nation?

Does any one recall why the United States acquired nuclear expertise to develop a nuclear bomb when it did?

Is it fair to say then that Iran and other nations have tried to acquire the bomb for the same reasons that we did, i.e., to protect themselves from fascist nations like our own (nations who are bent on forcing its nations-will on other suspecting and unsuspecting nations)!

We are being hypocritical as a nation folks - short and simple!

Bush looks like Hitler to Iran, Iraq and other nations I'm sure!

Away with fascism!

==----If combatants hole up in an urban setting, you cant just sit back and hope they go away. You need to go in there and take them out/kill them whether its a refugee camp , a town or a city.I'm not arguing any specific war, this is plain military logic and has been practiced throughout the centuries. But if you define the enemy as any civilian anywhere without regard for whether there is a military target(i.e an enemy combatant whom you want to kill) then yr preaching a new kind of warfare which as you say is pretty vicious. War is ugly and at times it seems insane to try to make it civilized, but there are lines where even combatants should not cross. Sending suicide bombers into areas where there are no combatants s/b one of them. ==

Well, the American way to fight in urban setting was not to "go in and take out the enemy on the third floor" but to drop a couple of tons of ammunition on the building, usually from the air. This minimizes our casualties (a good thing), but maximizes civilian collateral damage (a bad thing). Given our propensity to simply wipe out the insurgent's hiding places, our enemies search for a way to create maximum damage to the society under our control and civilian and/or military suicide attacks appears to be a very effective way to create chaos and drive a wedge of fear between the occupying army and the civilian population. This was practiced extensively in various forms during WWII and conflicts that followed. I would add, that the full advent of the suicide bomber as a form of asymmetric warfare did not commence until our invasion and occupation of Iraq.

One of the great unreported stories of the Iraq war has been the increasing use of airpower in urban settings as an attempt to fight an insurgency while minimizing politically unpalatable casualty rate. Continuous high tonnage sorties over a country you already occupy is unprecedented in military history.

Doesn't this latest "intelligence" tell us more about our President than it does about Iran? He's either been blindsided yet again by his own team or he's known since August and that's what has driven his change in rhetoric from "trying to build a bomb" to "trying to acquire the knowledge of how to build a bomb" and has been deliberately lying all this time. Some may call it "misleading" but face it a lie is a lie.

Is there a country on earth that doesn't have someone that knows how to build nuclear weapons? It's no longer the physics and chemistry it's the engineering of production machinery that is the roadblock.

Dimitry :

==suicide bomber schools!==

Definitely a nasty way to fight a war, no question.

I guess a 1000 lbs bomb dropped on a building in an urban setting is much more antiseptic.

When you are in a gun sight of a superpower, one has to be pretty vicious.

The British also complained that the American rebels did not fight fair, often ambushing and killing them, instead of lining up in neat rows and marching toward withering British fire.

----If combatants hole up in an urban setting, you cant just sit back and hope they go away. You need to go in there and take them out/kill them whether its a refugee camp , a town or a city.I'm not arguing any specific war, this is plain military logic and has been practiced throughout the centuries. But if you define the enemy as any civilian anywhere without regard for whether there is a military target(i.e an enemy combatant whom you want to kill) then yr preaching a new kind of warfare which as you say is pretty vicious. War is ugly and at times it seems insane to try to make it civilized, but there are lines where even combatants should not cross. Sending suicide bombers into areas where there are no combatants s/b one of them.

David Sanger (NYTimes) worked "the laptop" into the equation just beautifully.
"The officials said they were confident that the notes confirmed the existence, up to 2003, of a weapons programs that American officials first learned about from a laptop computer, belonging to an Iranian engineer, that came into the hands of the C.I.A. in 2004."
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/06/world/middleeast/06intel.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

We went from "Curveball" to "Screwball".

==suicide bomber schools!==

Definitely a nasty way to fight a war, no question.

I guess a 1000 lbs bomb dropped on a building in an urban setting is much more antiseptic.

When you are in a gun sight of a superpower, one has to be pretty vicious.

The British also complained that the American rebels did not fight fair, often ambushing and killing them, instead of lining up in neat rows and marching toward withering British fire.

==But betrayal of a friend like Israel==

Israel has always looked out for number one, and that ain't the US!

Early on, socialist Israel was alligned with USSR, and that was OK, because that's what Israel felt it needed.

During the Suez war, Israel attacked Egypt over strennuous American objections, but hey, them are the breaks, pal.

It developed a nuclear arsenal over strennuous American objections, but it felt like it needed the bomb.

During the 67 war, Israel repeatedly attacked and destroyed an American spy ship, with great loss of life, claiming it was all a simple misunderstanding.

Israel has repeatedly expanded and populated its settlements on the best land in the West Bank, over strennuous American objections, but it felt like it really needed to get that land.

Israel has repeatedly resold American military technology to dubious international "partners", over strennuous American objections, but it felt like it needed to make more friends and money.

Israel has graciously accepted several billion dollars a year of American taxpayers' money for decades, apparently in reward for the great friendship it has shown.

It is nice to have friends, like the big, dumb Americans.

Ithe Iranians are peaceloving, reasonable people, they just happen to have suicide bomber schools!

http://fakesteveballmer.blogspot.com

The sudden change made in the evaluation of Iranian nuclear intentions may well be more motivated by internal U.S. military and political needs than by some real change in objective reality. The mullahs still believe nuclear weapons are a vital tool in their efforts to spread the Islamic Revolution and become Islam's leading force. The weapons are also necessary to deter and help defeat the Big Satan , and to dominate the world's energy market.
Iran has many reasons to have nuclear weapons.
Have those reasons gone away just because the U.S. is over-committed in Afghanistan and Iraq?
One more point. The bottom- line effect of the U.S. defection is to leave Israel alone facing an existensial threat from Iran. Well, Iran does not threaten the U.S. existensially, and a country has a right to look out for its own interests. But betrayal of a friend like Israel not to speak of the 'friendly' Gulf regimes is not a particularly admirable thing to do.

==The fine Dr. Fingar and his associates that wrote the report must be questioned of their political leanings==

An excellent idea! Used extensively in my former country, USSR. Didn't end well, though...

==What appears to be foolish is only the tip a iceberg.==

Yes, I can see that now.

Nazi Germany, an industrial superpower, with proven aggressive military behavior and armed forces second to none by late 30s.

Persian Iran, an economic and military basket case, which hasn't started any wars in hundreds of years, currently surrounded by Amerian troops.

I can see President Bush's wisdom in stating that the crazy Persians are about to start WWIII.

I completely agree, Iran poses an existential danger to this peaceful country. I need to bomb them into the stone age yesterday.

Thanks for setting this ex-Russian rockets scientist straight!

The fine Dr. Fingar and his associates that wrote the report must be questioned of their political leanings. Last June in their report they claimed Iran was indeed closing in on the development of nulear weapons. Now they say differently. Maybe Hillary has brought them on the BIG BUS to Iowa, and a better job in her cabinet { Heaven forbid she gets ellected}

Dear Dimitry:

I have never heard of Norman[whatever]; this info was based on the collective history of the concept of Fascism and Aryan 'occultism'. It is a little difficult to find, but is known even to American Nazis. If you look hard enough, you will find this to be true.

Now there's another group that needs to be exposed; they are found in different segments of American society; I'd like to see the FBI take them down. There is plenty to nail them with; but that is not even the point of my discussion.

The Nazi movement of the past century is truely an ugly phenomenon. As I mentioned earlier in the blog, Franz von Papen was as much - or more - a fervent Nazi as the world has known. He has been known to history as 'the Devil in the Top Hat'. look him up in Wikipedia. They have a fair brief outline of this little-known - but extremely influential individual of the last century. My Dad knew von Papen. He was an OSS officer stationed in Turkey; both my mom and dad knew von Papen personally; it was my Dad's job to keep close tabs on him.

Von Papen hated Hitler; and Hitler hated von Papen. It is been claimed that the unsuccessful attempt on von Papen's life was done by the Russian NKVD or SMERSH (that's right - there really was a SMERSH!). But in reality, this act was probably done by Gen. von Ribbentropf; he hated von Papen as much -or more- than Hitler did.

I'm sure that you have heard of the OSS; they were the progenitors of the CIA. Von Papen thought that Hitler was a bungling bufoon for starting the war in Europe and Russia before they were ready to do so. Von Papen's way would have seen a much different outcome. If Werner von Braun had fully developed a V-2 and the Nazi scientists came up with a useable bomb and inertial guidance system - the outcome of WWII may had a different ending. Are you surprised to hear this?

Von Papen was inspiring the world to hate Jews even before the nation of Israel was formed in 1948. British Intelligence discovered von Papen's meddling in the affairs of the undeveloped Aryan nation of India and infiltrated and destoyed his apparatus. There is more than just one Aryan nation; there are a few of them. Go read up on it - and the occultism that the Nazi's understand. You will understand why it is so important to see the Nazi way of perceptions in order to understand the Ayatollahs of Iran and how the so easily can and do shut down Iran's press at will. It is key to understand the why's wherefores of Aryan concepts. It's too big of a subject for the limited scope of this blog.

What appears to be foolish is only the tip a iceberg. Remember - an iceberg is only 10 percent visible; the other 90 percent is not seen. And what seems crazy isn't. I cannot honestly answer you with another dilemma; it is sufficient to say that to study the past is to understand the future. You are right in saying that we have meddled in Iran's affairs; but we did not threaten Israel as Ahmadinejad and his Ayatollah cohorts have. If we are applying pressure to them, it is in the best interests of limiting the future military capabilities of the near-totalitarian government of Iran. Mullahs can change the status of its citizens with little reactions of the Iranian heirarchy. I could go on with a lot more; but it is up to you to search for the truth....

I agree that nothing about Iran has changed. What has changed, dramatically, is the credibility and good faith of the US Administration. Being caught out twice, WMD in Iraq and now in Iran, is a devastating critique of current US policy and domestic political behaviour. Simply put: The US is no longer credible. Nothing this Administration says can be trusted. Unfortunately, you are asking too much to expect most of the world to make a distinction between the criminal follies of this Administration, and of America generally. What a monumental screw-up!

==To do this, they have planned to complete this Aryan concept thru domination of the Muslim world by making it necissary to use Israel as the 'whipping boy' to show their success.==

I can't believe you are saying such foolish things on purpose...maybe you have fallen under the influence of Norman Podhoretz?

Iranians are mostly Shiites, a small minority in the Muslim world. Iranians are not even Arabs, they are Persians, again a small minority. They literally can't dominate the Muslim world, which as you know is a billion humans.

Iran has no Navy and no Air Force to speak of. They actually can't even get to Israel to "whip it". On the other hand, Israel, can not only deliver conventional and chem/bio munitions right on top of the mullah's heads, they can readily incinerate Teheran in about 10 minutes' time, using their quite real and quite deliverable nuclear warheads.

Even a cursory examinations of the actual military, economic and political strength of Iran will readily show that "Iran is Nazi Germany" meme to be devoid of any merit.

==We have NOT given Iran a reason to be fearful==

Well, that' a hoot!

1. Overthrew their first elected president, 1959.
2. Installed a murderous dictator, the Shah, and supported him for decades in his repression of the Iranian population.
3. Maintained comprehensive sanctions for decades after the embassy hostage events.
4. Supported a local tyrant, Saddam Hussein, in his aggressive war against Iran. Supplied him with chemical precursors and Iranian troop location intelligence for better gassing.
5. Invaded both of Iran's neighbors. Turned both into failed, chaotic, violent states.
6. Ignored Iranian peace proposals in 2003.
7. Started an apparently illegal international sanctions campaign to punish Iran for a non-existant military nuclear program.
8. Threatened Iran with aggressive military action to neutralize it non-existant military nuclear program.
9. Supported (and continue to support) anti-government separatist terrorist groups killing Iranians on their territory.
10. Officially earmarked our money for covert programs to overthrow Iranian government.

I guess, its all how you see it...Some people may think the above is just a friendly "howdy"

==A bottle-rocket is a long way from an ICBM; but not the Shahab program! Shahab development in Iran is at/near the two-stage level. See 'Federation of American Scientists' to see the raw data. The American 'Gemini' project of the early sixties was able to put two men and a capsule into a orbital path with a two-stage platform; that all that is necissary for an ICBM to be functional and a threat to at least Europe - at this point. ==

I don't see Europe losing much sleep over the big Shahab rockets raining down on their heads. It's called deterrence and it has worked very well for hundreds, perhaps thousands of years.

What about reactors? The Israeli Air Force destroyed a breeder reactor (a 'breeder reactor' is used to create plutonium - which can be made into a fission device with the right technology) in Iraq a few years back. It was enough of a reason for Israel to destroy this reactor before Saddam Hussein had the capacity to use it against Israel with those crappy SCUD missiles that he possessed. Iran's program is far better that anything Hussein had...

That's right; how soon some of us has forgotten recent history - probably involving themselves with the latest 'sexification' of the new NIE. The threat is the same; only the politics that surround the upcoming elections have changed. Talk about reassesing the facts so that Democrats can join in with their pathetic, shallow politcal strategy before them! It would be shameful if it wasn't so painfully DANGEROUS to forget the recent past! I say this to their shame....

If Iran has - or is considering reinstalling their breeder reactors - to put them 'back on line'; it only doubles the potential for increasing their nuclear stockpile. The recent stink of 'Highly Enriched Uranium' is just one side of this nuclear 'coin'; the other is in the potential to add plutonium as well. It may be legal for Iran to have a civilian energy project; but lawyers and legalities have kept the guilty protected - as well as the innocent - and only underscores this dilemma.

Iran has no breeder reactors. All of their special materials are under IAEA's supervision, as required by the NPT. Stop the hysterics.

==The IAEA has failed in the past for Iran to come back within the scope of scrutiny, and at this point - THERE IS NO INSPECTIONS GOING ON IN IRAN. El Baredei was booted out some time ago; the Iranians just weren't 'hip' to show off their latest accomplishments and share them with the rest of the world. ==

That's a complete lie. Iran is in compliance with the requirements of the NPT, which are limited by treaty and the same world over. What it has stopped is the "additional protocols" which they signed as a good will gesture during the early part of the negotiations with the Europeans. There is no binding international agreement for them to continue the additional inspections and to continue the enrichment pause.

The fact of the matter is....

Neither Iraq, Iran or any of the so-called terrorists groups or nations of the world, are doing anything different than what so-called red-blooded Americans did in America just over a half-century ago when American feared the rise of fascism and the Nazi state.

When the American people recognized that there was a hegemon-nation that was amassing power, and demanding that all other nations conform to its vision for the world, America took action. In fact we built 'a nuke' or two ourselves.

The tables have turned, and today we are the growling lion that other nations are afraid of, even though continue to be in denial about what we have become.

What? A nation that denies other nations their right to self-determination.

Hitler's power pales in comparison to the power that America has amassed in the world today!

lmao, I was traveling for a few days - however, the Rev is back at his computer!
How come you, lmao, deny the other members of a representative democracy our voices?

Well, I'll buy that there is still some potential for blundering into a war with Iran, based especially on their proximity to, and military activity in, Iraq, and both countries' leaders' current love of bluster.

But to say that 'nothing has changed' seems to me bizarre. Even if you assume--as you do--that a U.S. strike on Iran over the specific issue of their running a military nuclear program was never a serious possibility, you still can't claim that a whole lot hasn't changed.

That supposed program has been the underpinning for nearly all the international and administration activity that's been publicly seen as laying the groundwork for a future war, and it's just been cut clean out of the discussion.

And to understand just how much has changed, consider this thought experiment: If a pre-Iraq-war N.I.E. had found definitively that Saddam had dismantled his biological and chemical weapons programs, and that a nuclear program had never gotten going again, you had better believe that would have changed the atmosphere!

In such a situation you might say, reasonably, that the administration's underlying reasons for *desiring* to wage war on Saddam, as well as the structure of factors that made the two states hostile, weren't any different. But the administration's ability to actually go to war would simply have been castrated.

Because of what the administration correctly sees as the unique power to terrify, persuade, and lend urgency to its arguments of an overhanging nuclear threat, a U.S.-Iranian war over any *other* factor--not just the nuclear one--is far, far less likely now than it was before.

To most people that counts as news. So I honestly don't understand playing down the significance of this N.I.E., or its reception.

Mr. Arkin; Sir

A bottle-rocket is a long way from an ICBM; but not the Shahab program! Shahab development in Iran is at/near the two-stage level. See 'Federation of American Scientists' to see the raw data. The American 'Gemini' project of the early sixties was able to put two men and a capsule into a orbital path with a two-stage platform; that all that is necissary for an ICBM to be functional and a threat to at least Europe - at this point.

What about reactors? The Israeli Air Force destroyed a breeder reactor (a 'breeder reactor' is used to create plutonium - which can be made into a fission device with the right technology) in Iraq a few years back. It was enough of a reason for Israel to destroy this reactor before Saddam Hussein had the capacity to use it against Israel with those crappy SCUD missiles that he possessed. Iran's program is far better that anything Hussein had...

That's right; how soon some of us has forgotten recent history - probably involving themselves with the latest 'sexification' of the new NIE. The threat is the same; only the politics that surround the upcoming elections have changed. Talk about reassesing the facts so that Democrats can join in with their pathetic, shallow politcal strategy before them! It would be shameful if it wasn't so painfully DANGEROUS to forget the recent past! I say this to their shame....

If Iran has - or is considering reinstalling their breeder reactors - to put them 'back on line'; it only doubles the potential for increasing their nuclear stockpile. The recent stink of 'Highly Enriched Uranium' is just one side of this nuclear 'coin'; the other is in the potential to add plutonium as well. It may be legal for Iran to have a civilian energy project; but lawyers and legalities have kept the guilty protected - as well as the innocent - and only underscores this dilemma.

The IAEA has failed in the past for Iran to come back within the scope of scrutiny, and at this point - THERE IS NO INSPECTIONS GOING ON IN IRAN. El Baredei was booted out some time ago; the Iranians just weren't 'hip' to show off their latest accomplishments and share them with the rest of the world.

Thank you for your time.

Okay plainfacto

Aryan does not equal fascist. Italy was not an Aryan nation, neither was portugal or Chile. All were fascist. Fascism is a bundling of government and industry behind a dictator.

Pakistani terrorists regularly attack India, a few years back they killed 300 people in the indian parliament.

According to Richard Armitage, we very nearly invaded Pakistan for their support of the Taliban.

Iran has not threatened anyone. They claim they, unlike Pakistan and India, are obeying the nuclear non-proliferation pact.

As for threatening word peace, you need to google AQ Khan, father of the Pakistani bomb.

Oh and the only nuclear armed state in the middle east is Israel. But whats fair for Israel is never fair for anyone else.

If I were to threaten someone, it would only be in response to a threat. This is typically defensive - e.g. don't try to take my lunch money. In contrast, Iran has threatened both Israel and the United States, but not in response to any threat made by either one. It is this threat, and not merely the existence of Iran's military capabilities, that re-created them a security problem.

For example, Pakistan has a weapons program and a missile program. So does India. We don't have a problem with either country regarding a nuclear threat. Nor have we ever considered invading either country. And the reason we don't maintain a hostile/defensive stance toward either one is that neither one has threatened us or any other country.

Iran wishes to dominate the Sunnis. It's a Muslim thang. But it is an Aryan thang for Iran to threaten Israel. Please note: the word 'Iran' is the essence of the word for Aryan. It is a cognate that means "Land of the Aryans." They (Iran) believe that they have this 'Aryan' privilidge to undertake the distruction of Israel - any anyone that is opposed to this takeover.

Franz von Papen attempted to do this in India in/around WWI; he was a predicessor of the Aryan mindset - well before Hitler even had such notions in Germany. So we must see that Israel has a enemy; and it is now tied to this concept of Aryan beliefs. Sure, it may be wrapped in a Muslim burnoose or turban; but it is still hidden in Aryan beliefs.

So, please don't attempt to say that there is no Fascism involved in Iran. It is only disguised by the Ayatollahs/Shiites that want to be the ultimate Muslim to the Muslim world. For Iran to be the ones that can defeat Israel as a foe - is to make them the dominate Muslim caretakers of their 'faith' (as they see it).

We have NOT given Iran a reason to be fearful; they have staged this Aryan concept in order to demonstrate their willingness to dominate. To do this, they have planned to complete this Aryan concept thru domination of the Muslim world by making it necissary to use Israel as the 'whipping boy' to show their success.

Small wonder that Israel isn't about to stand down, and the US refuses to allow a democracy to fail to extremist Shiite Muslim domination. Iran's willingness to dominate the Sunnis is at the heart of the conflict between these two 'groups'.

Unfortunately, this is the real-world scenario; anything else is just political rhetoric. This is what it looks like with the blinders taken off; don't forget your own reflection in the mirror once you have left it behind you.
'Nuff said

Shahab is LONG way from an ICBM.

Civilan nuclear program can be fairly easily monitored for enrichment level and material diversion by the IAEA. It does so in many countries, including Iran.

However, a good working knowledge of the fuel cycle, the kind a country can acquire with an active civian program, can be a major building block in developing a military nuclear capability. In that sense, a civilian nuclear program is a form of nuclear deterrent. A basic ballistic missile program that is run in parallel is certainly an enhancement to that deterrent.

It is completely legal for any country (as a signatory to the NPT) to develop a civilian nuclear program. Ballistic missiles are also fully legal.

I still don't understand, under what legal basis are current actions against Iran are being considered by the West.

We may not like what they are doing, but it is legal...

The only way Iran, or any other country, can protect itself against the threat of invasion by the United States is to acquire some deterrent. Nukes are one. If you were a Middle East country, and you just saw 2 of your neighbors invaded by the most powerful nation in the world, what would you do? Knowing that the U.S. invades for profit, would you sit there and hope they don't invade you next? Or would you try to create a defense? I know what I would do.
Let's not forget that if Iraq or Afghanistan had had nukes, we would NEVER have invaded them. We only invade helpless countries that have something we want. Every country in the world that does NOT have nukes should be very, very afraid of us. We've given them reasons to be afraid.

If one takes the time to remember that Iran has a very well developed missile program; they would qickly realize that one doesn't put conventional explosives on such an expensive and technically based platform.

Look at their Shahab program; it is poised at going to the ICBM stage. Presently, they can still cover a 1,000 mile distance at this point with what they have now.
Suited for nukes?
Why waste all the effort?
Are they going to use it on a 1,000 pound TNT pkg - or make it nuke?
Ask these questions..
Check out the 'Federation of American Scientists' website if you need to examine the raw data.

Nukes and long-range missiles go hand-in-hand; if you have a refined missile program (as Iran DOES); you simply don't waste your efforts settling for a lesser explosive package. The only problem Iran faces - in engineering this platform - is to know how to build the missile to perform with a given dimensional shape/size vs balancing the needs of the inertial guidance system - which can be 'dummied' to approximate weight/shape so that the program can continue.

Where are they with this end of the program? That question also goes hand-in-hand with thei current stage of their nuke program. Intelligence gathering in Iran has been made difficult for the reasons that Iran NEEDS to keep it in such a state before they can come up with useful missile prototypes. It is just that simple.

I think the point is now defined and made; 'nuff said...

All world gone mad?! I think so. "If you are not with us, you are against us!"
Intentions can not be juged, but FACT are all open there. You intend to kill me, if not prove it! Reinterpret things the way suits you. That's allways the same. I will just believe that Iran is after nukes when there is hard evidence of it. What's going on is a power play, and an Israel looking for someone to do dirty works it can not do. Israel is the bigest terrorist and US is just the second. Just take a look to what they did in Iraq and Lebnan. Do you know how many inecents died because of these lies? I have forgoten what numbers meant.

Since creation of Islamic Republic of Iran in 1979, Iran hasn't attacked any country. Compare this with two Nukes US DID throw on Japan. Well, Which one is rational country? Which one is the most dangerous threat to a peacefull world? Which country has directed most coups in world history? ... I think something is too clear!

Lets not lose sight. "Intelligence" is NOT fact it is a "guess" which in history has been wrong; and did it cost us, just look at WWII, Perl Harbor, just one example. Islamic Fascism declared war against the U.S. and all non-Islamic nations. The truth is the truth. Further, deception is a tenet of their religion to non-believers. Why would any free human want to suppress this? http://tinyurl.com/2znnvl

tvaughan, Alex is right. BJP in India took a firm stand against pakistan and its state sponsored terrorism but never made a statement about wiping it off the map. The party before it "congress" was too scared to take a firm stand as that would upset its minority vote bank. BJP is a right wing party who believes the uniform civil code should apply on everyone irrespective of their religion.

1) Farsi (the language of Iran) has no idiom for "wiped off the map". Ahmadinejad never said he would kill all israelis. A better translation is that he called for regime change, just like we do. See Professor Juan Cole at Salon.

2) Ahmadinejad is not the ultimate power in Iran.

3) Iran is an evil autocratic theocracy, but it is not fascist. To refer to a tin pot 3rd rate power like Iran as 'fascist' is an insult to the millions of victims of true fascism.

4) Mr. Arkin believes the war could start based on " a hostile Iranian move or a miscommunication" or "Iranian threats"

That is exactly Mr. Cheney's plan;

"But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." - Herman Goering.

Mr. Cheney, while rebuffing Iranian negotiations, has put our troops out as bait to start an Iraninan war, he has been hoping for an incident like the detention of those British Sailors by the Iranians. That is why he has concealed this NIE for so long.

The Iranians are not the "threat", Cheney is.

Mr. Arkin you claim to be opposed to war with Iran, so stop giving Mr. Bush ammunition. Anyone with half a brain can tell we shouldn't ignore Iran, after all we just made them the preeminent power in the middle east.

Stop stating the obvious and use your position to examine the imperative: Cheney and Bush's warmongering rhetoric while they suppressed this report.

Sy Hersh, who accurately claimed that we have operatives all over Iran, said last night on CNN that we sent people to every possible location for a weapons program and found NOTHING.

Saddam Hussein told the truth about Iraqi WMDs and Cheney/Bush lied. Thats a historical fact.

Is it so difficult to believe that the Iranians are telling the truth rather than Mr. Cheney???

Islamic Fascism declared war against the U.S. and all non-Islamic nations. The truth is the truth. Why would any free human want to suppress this? http://tinyurl.com/2znnvl

Alex: It's true that the analogy does not hold in India-Pakistan case. They have fought three wars. As far as the destruction of pakistan is concerned, leaders of Indian BJP party have called for Pakistan to be wiped off the map and have denied its right to exist. In fact they think that all muslims from india and pakistan should go back to afghanistan, where they belonged centuries ago.
Clearly you like to see what suits you to make your prejudiced point.

How is it we became involved in this battle between brothers? Can't the Semitic peoples solve their differences without involving the whole world?

Here we are 3 years later, manipulating evidence, making knowingly false claims to the people and to the world community, on the path to war. The only world leader that is dangerous, in my humble opinion, is our own. I've never seen a leader more in need of adult supervision. I hope congress stops writing the checks, brings our troops home, and leaves the middle east to solve their own problems; we certainly could use that money and effort solving our own issues here at home.

When crimes are committed, Investigators seek to find the beneficiaries of the atrocity and voile', you've got your perpetrator. So....who has benefitted the most since 911? I think its clear when the worst crime on US soil goes without investigation for years (until forced 911 commission-or better said ommissions) and (approx. $600,000 spent) to investigate (approx $40 million spent on investigating Clinton sex scandal)~! OIL moguls. Military industrial complex, corporations-co-conspiritors or pocket book voters/lobbiests.Complicit felons or opportunists, either way Im very pleased the CIA finally came to the aid of country/citizens (world for that matter)and took the drums away from these players. Now congress, hold some feet to fire like should. The American people are behind you now that Bush credibility is a bygone conclusion.

Todd writes:"I think I'd put China on the top of the list since they could pull the plug on our economy at any moment."

No Todd, if they pull it on us, they pull it on themselves. Simpleton economics not withstanding. They hold vast amounts of USD's and we have been the top 3 largest export markets for China in the past 5 years. No, they are not going to punch holes in our side of the canoe when they are in the same canoe.

Syed writes:"If India is developing weapons of mass destruction, he will provide loopholes and encourage India,and look in a different direction, saying that the defense priorities of India are not his concern, but not so in the case of Iran"

I dont think any leader of India has stated that they would like to see the destruction of Pakistan or any other country. But the leader of Iran certainly has.Also , if you look at the history of Israel which has been attacked over and over in the past 60 years, it is very diff then other countries who have not been victimized. You need to think about what you write before you come to yr erroneous analogies.

My whole-hearted support goes to the previous comment. This country is in enough mess. until Iran attempts to harm America, America needs to leave Iran alone. How much is it going to take to get people to mind their own business?. Hasn't enough wrong information been accepted and caused too much pain? Based on past happenings, there are some people I have no confidence in anything they say. What they need to do is go ahead on and get out of the public's eye, and take their croonies with them.

Bush and US conduct the affairs of the world as if it were a concert. If Bush says Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, the world believed it, and now if he says bomb Iran, so it would happen. If India is developing weapons of mass destruction, he will provide loopholes and encourage India,and look in a different direction, saying that the defense priorities of India are not his concern, but not so in the case of Iran. If India and Israel occupy and terrorize, he will say that they are fighting terrorists. Therefore he will declare the oppressed as terrorists and the oppressors as democracies, just because they have joined his orchestra.

Iran's intentions are really linked to our intentions. What they will do depends to a large extent on what we will do.

When you are under treat from a regime change policy after the immense stupidity of the "axis of evil" speech you look at ways to defend yourself from it by making foreign aggression more risky. A nuclear deterrent is a way of doing that.

Fact is that we are the big guy and we set the course. We can choose to push them more and more into radical and risky behavior like we have been doing for the last six years or we can choose a more diplomatic and pragmatic course.

The notion that Iran is inherently evil is nonsense and it shows a deep ignorance of the Iranian society.

I think Neocons and the Isralei Lobby (AIPAC) would like for us to bomb IRAN just because they are not Christian or Jewish. Like IRAQ, and the WMD lie, the Neocons and AIPAC will concoct a reason for invasion. How many more Trillions in debt can the US shoulder. Liers to Congress should be investigated and incarcerated.

Let's hope that the American people and their representatives will remember the lies and distortions leading up to the Iraq war and will not be fooled by "The Decider" ever again.

Mr. Arkin,

There are lots of countries around the globe that have the potential to threaten U.S. interests. I think I'd put China on the top of the list since they could pull the plug on our economy at any moment.

The most likely cause of a war between the U.S. and Iran is the zealous determination of our Warrior President and his machiavellian VP Mr. Cheney.

Let's hope that the American people and their representatives will remember the lies and distortions leading up to the Iraq war and will not be fulled by "The Decider" ever again.

We went into Iraq with only speculation that they "might" have weapons of mass destruction. We went in, and to date we haven't found a shred of evidence that this may be the case. Now, we get this report that Iran halted its nuke program in 2003, and even so, people continue to push for an invasion. Are we out of our minds? Did we NOT learn the first time? Do we NOT have our hands full with the failed Iraq war and the unfinished business in Afghanistan? No WONDER people in the Middle East hate us. It's none of this "they envy our freedom" BS. It's because we're over there antagonizing them, telling them how they should live their lives. Where there's smoke, there's fire.