I have suggested many times that Iran's nuclear weapons program may actually be an entirely imaginary program, invented by the Bush Administration to justify attacking and/or ostracizing Iran. I do not believe this to be the case, but neither do I believe it is an unreasonable proposition, especially looking back on the false-flag/WMD conspiracy leading up to invading Iraq. In short, I continue to reserve judgment on the matter.

Obama's Secret Iran Talks: Setting the Stage for a Deal?



Iran has made enough low-grade uranium that--with additional processing--they could make one atomic bomb. Obama has personally brokered a deal with Iran, Russia and France to let Iran use this uranium for peaceful purposes that help Iran ... what they've claimed all along to be the purpose of their program.

If Iran agrees to the deal, they lose the raw materials for their atomic bomb, and they get much-needed fuel for their research reactor. It also legitimizes their uranium-enrichment program, helps them restore face in the world, and effectively proves they are not trying to make nuclear weapons.

If Iran does not agree to the deal, it strongly suggests they have non-peaceful intentions for all that uranium they've been making.

Kudos to Obama for this. This is what you can get from talking to our adversaries. I will weigh my views of Iran's nuclear program heavily on the outcome of this deal. If Iran does not agree--regardless of the reasons given--I will consider this tacit admission that they want nuclear weapons.

And when this happens, how far are you willing to go to keep Iran from building a bomb?

North Korea strung along the Clinton and Bush administrations getting everything they wanted without giving up anything. Now, Iran is playing the same fiddle and the same tune.

Mutually assured destruction is the only thing that kept the Russians in check. It looks to me like we are headed there with Iran. Frightening because their true believes think they are doing the will of Allah and pushing the button may be the way to Paradise.

My concern is that in matters of diplomacy, the difference between Ghandi and Neville Chamberlain boils down to results.

Quite right, and I fear the results will likely be disastrous.

In His Grip,

christian_concern@yahoo.com

I wouldn't go that far. In practice, the worst that can happen is that this is a stalling tactic while they continue work on a weapon. Since diplomacy and economic inducements/sanctions are the only tools available, if they're that determined to have a weapon, they will have one either way.

My concern (and the point behind the analogy I used) is rather that Obama's image will flourish or suffer depending on Iran's actions. Regardless of how any of us feel about his politics, one thing I think we can all agree on is that we want our President to look effective on the international stage.

I would like to know whether we agree on this.

I know the distinction is fuzzy at best--especially in politics--but I for one would prefer our President actually be effective. If he also appears effective, that's a perk.

ETA: This deal being organized by Obama represents a pretty concrete test of Iran's true intentions. That is already far more than the Bush Administration ever did re Iran.

It doesn't prove anything until they physically turn over the uranium ... however ...

Iran Agrees to Draft Nuclear Proposal

Meanwhile, back at the ranch ...

Israel's 'nuclear arsenal'

Signing the NPT would be inconsistent with Israel's neurotic policy of refusing to acknowledge that they actually have nukes. I think the phrase they used was "plausible deniability" or some NewSpeak wordsmithing like that.

Their treatment of Mordechai Vanunu is telling: 11 1/2 years of strict solitary confinement and a lifetime of ongoing government harrassment. Yet as far as I know, the policy still stands today.