Wait, You Mean We DON'T Have To Bomb Iran?

If Iran really agrees to ship out their nuclear material for higher enrichment then I personally would say that President Obama's Nobel Peace Prize was well deserved.

"Dangerous" And "Naive"

I'll say it for you President Obama...

SUCK. ON. THIS. NEOCONS!!!!!

On Iran

Glenzilla has a very provocative and thought provoking post on how the media's coverage of the new revelations about Iran's previously undisclosed nuclear facilty near Qom and their coverage during the run up to the Iraq War. If nothing else he raises questions about things that are being reported and repeated as fact which may not be based on anything more than conjecture from anonymous sources. I think you owe it to yourself to give it a read.

Get Right

President Obama, President Sarkozy, and Prime Minister Brown going after Iran this morning.

Iran Has A Second Nuclear Facility

I am not quite sure what to make of this yet other than its obvious both that Iran has been lying for years and that we have also known they were lying for years about whether they were building another nuclear facility. It doesn't appear clear whether or not this is evidence that they are trying to build a nuclear weapon or not, but it for damn sure doesn't look good at all. Looks like the rubber is going to hit the road when the P5+1 meets with Iran next week, I guess we had better all be paying a little closer attention to those meetings.

Update: Adam Sewer's take, "Don't Panic"

Considering that the instinct in some quarters to panic over the revelation that Iran has a second secret nuclear program, the Obama administration seems to have played this one pretty well. American intelligence appears to have known about the plant for some time, which was part of the reason Iran came forward in the first place. By improving relations with Russia by dismantling the missile shield and making nuclear non-proliferation a focus of the G-20 summit, the president has succeeded in putting the U.S. on high ground diplomatically and embarrassing Iran: first because of the deception, and second because the deception failed. The sanctions that the right has been clamoring for for months can now be applied with more international support.

Update II: Thanks to reader Africana for pointing me towards this Mark Lynch post.

It also demonstrates to the Iranians the quality of Western intelligence and the difficulty of deception and denial -- especially in the atmosphere of (quite warranted) mistrust of their intentions. That may reduce their reasons to oppose the intrusive inspections and monitoring regime which Gary Sick argues is the most likely reasonable negotiated outcome. Such an outcome would be far more in the interests of the U.S., Iran, and Iran's neighbors than any plausible outcome of a military strike, and has to be the target of the engagement process.

So despite what I expect to see swarming the media in the next few days -- wanna bet that John Bolton or John Bolton-equivalent oped is already in production over at the Washington Times Washington Post (sorry, it's hard to tell the difference on foreign policy issues sometimes) -- I actually think that this public revelation makes war less rather than more likely. The timing of the announcement, immediately following the consultations at the UN and the G-20 and just before the Geneva meetings, makes it seem extremely likely that the Obama administration has been waiting for just the right moment to play this card. Now they have. It strengthens the P5+1 bargaining position ahead of October 1, changes Iranian calculations, and lays the foundations for a more serious kind of engagement. So now let's see how it changes the game.

Brutatlity

Spencer Ackerman has posted some pictures from the uprising in Iran after the bogus elections. Fair warning, many of the pictures are very graphic in showing the violence perpetrated on the Iranian people.

The Proper Way Of Whacking A Concern Troll

Spencer Ackerman does the honors on Joe LIEberman's concern trolling over the ballistic missle defense shield.

Truly a thing of beauty!

Shake Dem Haters Off

Jon Stewart gives the haters on FoxNes the business over their unAmerican reaction to the release of Euna Lee and Laura Ling from Iran.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
William Jefferson Airplane
http://www.thedailyshow.com/
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Spinal Tap Performance

Did Biden REALLY Change His Tone On Israel?

People are still freaking out over Vice President Joe Biden's appearance on "This Week With George Stephanopolous" Now here is the deal, its one thing to be upset because you don't agree with his position that the US can't dictate to Israel what they should and shouldn't do in pursuit of their own national security interests. I get that. But what you can not do is make it seem as if this is something new or a "change in tone" or a "hardening of the stance" from Joe Biden. It just isn't true.

Let's check out what he had to say last year a couple of months before the election.

September 3, 2008


Joe Biden had a 20-minute conference call with members of the Jewish media today.

Among other things, when asked about a possible Israeli attack against Iran, he said: "This is not a question for us to tell the Israelis what they can and cannot do. ... I have faith in the democracy of Israel."

So can we PLEASE kill this meme now?!?!?!

Deuces

NYTimes Framing Fail

The New York Times' Brian Knowlton has a story up which makes it seems as if Vice President Joe Biden said something controversial on "This Week With George Stephanopolous" this morning about the U.S. giving Israel the green light to bomb Iran. This story has now spawned posts on at least two major left leaning blogs concerned that Biden may have been sending the wrong signal today. We know its Joe Biden so most people will just assume he made another gaffe, but did he really?

No he didn't. He repeated basically the same thing President Obama has said over and over and that is that the United States can't dictate to Israel what Israel does with respect to Iran. That is the stance any American president and or Vice President HAS to take publicly. Israel is a soverign nation and we can't go admitting that we can control their actions. That doesn't mean they won't put pressure on Israel behind the scenes to deter them from coming to the conclusion that they "need" to bomb Iran anymore than it means we will allow them to fly over Iraq's airspace to attack Iran. It just means the administration won't give Republicans a target to shoot at by saying anything the GOP can twist into "they don't care about Israel's safety".

For anyone concerned that this was some kind of "gaffe" I would suggest you go and just read the transcript, which unsurprisngly the NYTimes guy didn't link to, and see for yourself in full context if what Biden said was REALLY so earth shattering compared to what Obama has said repeaedly.

Check out the full exchange and see if you come away with the same feeling as you got from reading the NYTimes article

BIDEN: If the Iranians respond to the offer of engagement, we will engage.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But the offer is on the table?

BIDEN: The offer's on the table.

STEPHANOPOULOS: And meanwhile, Prime Minister Netanyahu has made it pretty clear that he agreed with President Obama to give until the end of the year for this whole process of engagement to work. After that, he's prepared to make matters into his own hands.

Is that the right approach?

BIDEN: Look, Israel can determine for itself -- it's a sovereign nation -- what's in their interest and what they decide to do relative to Iran and anyone else.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Whether we agree or not?

BIDEN: Whether we agree or not. They're entitled to do that. Any sovereign nation is entitled to do that. But there is no pressure from any nation that's going to alter our behavior as to how to proceed.

What we believe is in the national interest of the United States, which we, coincidentally, believe is also in the interest of Israel and the whole world. And so there are separate issues.

If the Netanyahu government decides to take a course of action different than the one being pursued now, that is their sovereign right to do that. That is not our choice.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But just to be clear here, if the Israelis decide Iran is an existential threat, they have to take out the nuclear program, militarily the United States will not stand in the way?

BIDEN: Look, we cannot dictate to another sovereign nation what they can and cannot do when they make a determination, if they make a determination that they're existentially threatened and their survival is threatened by another country.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You say we can't dictate, but we can, if we choose to, deny over-flight rights here in Iraq. We can stand in the way of a military strike.

BIDEN: I'm not going to speculate, George, on those issues, other than to say Israel has a right to determine what's in its interests, and we have a right and we will determine what's in our interests.

Just as a reminder here is what President Obama has said about the same issue.

With respect to concerns Israel might carry out an air strike against Iranian nuclear facilities, the US president said that since Israel is "right there in the range" of Iranian missiles, "their calculation of costs and benefits are going to be more acute."

Obama remarked that he did not think it was his place to "determine for the Israelis what their security needs are."

Can you find any space between the two statements? Because I can't. Biden really is just toeing the company line here. Shame on the New York Times for trying to invent a controversy.

Figures

Back when the debate over whether or not we should go to war in Iraq was hot and heavy, I had a series of arguments with a cousin of mine who lives in DC. He was still greatly disturbed by 9-11 and so he wanted some revenge which I believe clouded his better judgement. He was all for going to war in Iraq so I tried to use logic and the facts that were knows at the time to convince him that he was wrong. My main selling point was that we already had UN weapons inspectors there. If we were really so sure he had WMDs why not just let them do their job and then when and if they found anything take appropriate actions then. Why in the hell were we trying to rush the very people who could verify the "intelligence" we had, out of the damn country before they were done and before they had found anything?

Well his big point always came back to the fact that Saddam Hussein was always denying access to the weapons inspectors and playing games with the process.

Now honestly I didn't have any kind of special insight to Middle Eastern foreign policy at the time. But I did have a healthy dose of common sense and a map. It seemed obvious to me that Saddam knew that after we kicked his ass in 91 he would probably look quite vulernable to his neihbors in the region. Iraq also isn't the biggest country in that area either when you look at it on the map. So it would make perfect sense as a deterrent to make it seem as if at the least he MIGHT have WMDs. After what went down with the Iran/Iraq war where he used chemical and biological weapons on the Iranian forces, I was pretty sure that just the thought the he might do that type of thing again was a good deterrent to any country who might be considering an attack.

Now unfortuanately at the time my cousin didn't buy my argument (he has since apologized to me) and it was moot anyway because BushCo was bound and determined to go to war.

But at least now I know that I was pretty much right with my assessment.

Saddam Hussein told an FBI interviewer before he was hanged that he allowed the world to believe he had weapons of mass destruction because he was worried about appearing weak to Iran, according to declassified accounts of the interviews released yesterday.

Now obviously that could have just been Saddam posturing, but really he knew at that point he had nothing else to lose. But of course its all moot now when it boils down to it isn't it?

Never Again!

On A Lighter Note

I actually meant to post this earlier but got caught up with the Michael Jackson story.

We can all use a few laughs right now.

"A conservative mind, with a liberal penis" Jon Stewart.



Governor Mark Sanford's Affair

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Jason Jones in Iran

Classic

"'Its long but it bends towards justice' Thats what Mark Sanford said!" Jon Stewart

Hard Corps

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Jason Jones in Iran

I'M the President, Bitches!

It was great to hear President Obama clap back on the right wing stooges which now inhabit the White House press core at today's press conference. It was particularly satisfying to hear him absolutely destroy some of the meme's put out there by Republicans in Congress who are opposing his agenda. All in all I thought he brought it today and got the messaging back.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Some highlights from the New York Times transcript:

First here is an exchange between the President and Niko Pitney of HuffPo whom has been doing a grat job basically live blogging the Iranian revolution and who set of a bunch of faux outrage by Villagers and right wingers because he was given a question:

Since we're on Iran, I know Niko Pitney (ph) is here from the Huffington Post.

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President.

MR. OBAMA: Niko (ph), I know that you and all across the Internet, we've been seeing a lot of reports coming directly out of Iran. I know that there may actually be questions from people in Iran who are communicating through the Internet. Do you have a question?

QUESTION: Yes, I did, but I wanted to use this opportunity to ask you a question directly from an Iranian. We solicited questions on tonight from people who are still courageous enough to be communicating online. And one of them wanted to ask you this: Under which conditions would you accept the election of Ahmadinejad? And if you do accept it without any significant changes in the conditions there, isn't that a betrayal of -- of what the demonstrators there are working to achieve?

MR. OBAMA: Well, look, we didn't have international observers on the ground. We can't say definitively what exactly happened at polling places throughout the country.

What we know is that a sizable percentage of the Iranian people themselves, spanning Iranian society, consider this election illegitimate. It's not an isolated instance, a little grumbling here or there. There is significant questions about the legitimacy of the election.

And so, ultimately, the most important thing for the Iranian government to consider is legitimacy in the eyes of its own people, not in the eyes of the United States.

And that's why I've been very clear, ultimately, this is up to the Iranian people to decide who their leadership is going to be and the structure of their government.

What we can do is to say, unequivocally, that there are sets of international norms and principles about violence, about dealing with the peaceful dissent, that -- that spans cultures, spans borders.

And what we've been seeing over the Internet and what we've been seeing in news reports violates those norms and violates those principles.

I think it is not too late for the Iranian government to recognize that -- that there is a peaceful path that will lead to stability and legitimacy and prosperity for the Iranian people. We hope they take it.

Next up we have Major Garrett channelling his inner asshole and trying to make news whom instead comes away looking foolish after President Obama corrects the record.

Major Garrett? Where's Major?

QUESTION: Right here, sir.

In your opening remarks, sir, you said about Iran that you were appalled and outraged. What took you so long?

(CROSSTALK)

MR. OBAMA: I don't think that's accurate. Track what I've been saying. Right after the election I said that we had profound concerns about the nature of the election, but that it was not up to us to determine what the outcome was.

As soon as violence broke out -- in fact, in anticipation of potential violence -- we were very clear in saying that violence was unacceptable, that that was not how governments operate with respect to their people.

So we've been entirely consistent, Major, in terms of how we've approached this. My role has been to say the United States is not going to be a foil for the Iranian government to try to blame what's happening on the streets of Tehran on the CIA or on the White House, that this is an issue that is led by and given voice to the frustrations of the Iranian people.

And so we've been very consistent the first day, and we're going to continue to be consistent in saying this is not an issue about the United States, this is about an issue of the Iranian people.

What we've also been consistent about is saying that there are some universal principles, including freedom of assembly and freedom of speech, making sure that governments are not using coercion and violence and repression in terms of how they interact with peaceful demonstrators. And we have been speaking out very clearly about that fact.

Classic PWNAGE Aimed at Chip Saltsman's right wing framed question.

MR. OBAMA: Chip?

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President.

Following up on Major's question, some Republicans on Capitol Hill, John McCain and Lindsey Graham, for example, have said that up to this point your response on Iran has been timid and weak.

Today it sounded a lot stronger. It sounded like the kind of speech John McCain has been urging you to give, saying that those who stand up for justice are always on the right side of history, referring to an iron fist in Iran, deplore, appalled, outraged.

Were you influenced at all by John McCain and Lindsey Graham accusing you of being timid and weak?

MR. OBAMA: What do you think?

(LAUGHTER)

Look, the -- you know, I think John McCain has genuine passion about many of these international issues. And, you know, I think that all of us share a belief that we want justice to prevail.

But only I'm the president of the United States. And I've got responsibilities in making certain that we are continually advancing our national security interests and that we are not used as a tool to be exploited by other countries.

snip

QUESTION: By speaking so strongly today, aren't you giving the leadership in Iran the fodder to make those arguments...

MR. OBAMA: You know...

(CROSSTALK)

QUESTION: ... that it is about the United States?

MR. OBAMA: Look, I mean, I think that we can parse this as much as we want. I think if you look at the statements that I've made, they've been very consistent. I just made a statement on Saturday in which we said we deplored the violence.

And so I think that in the hothouse of Washington, there may be all kinds of stuff going back and forth in terms of Republican critics versus the administration.

That's not what is relevant to the Iranian people. What's relevant to them right now is are they going to have their voices heard. And, you know, frankly, a lot of them aren't paying a lot of attention to what's being said on Capitol Hill and probably aren't spending a lot of time thinking about what's being said here.

They're trying to figure out how can they make sure justice is served in Iran.

Here is what might have been the most imporatant answer of the presser for progressives though and that was President Obama's pushback on the right wing talking points about a public plan option in health care reform.

QUESTION: Wouldn't that drive private insurance out of business?

MR. OBAMA: Why would it drive private insurance out of business? If -- if private -- if private insurers say that the marketplace provides the best quality health care; if they tell us that they're offering a good deal, then why is it that the government, which they say can't run anything, suddenly is going to drive them out of business? That's not logical.

Now, the -- I think that there's going to be some healthy debates in Congress about the shape that this takes. I think there can be some legitimate concerns on the part of private insurers that if any public plan is simply being subsidized by taxpayers endlessly that over time they can't compete with the government just printing money, so there are going to be some I think legitimate debates to be had about how this private plan takes shape.

But just conceptually, the notion that all these insurance companies who say they're giving consumers the best possible deal, if they can't compete against a public plan as one option, with consumers making the decision what's the best deal, that defies logic, which is why I think you've seen in the polling data overwhelming support for a public plan.

And this was an absolute ass kicking handed out to Chuck Todd. It looked like a Principal disciplining a kindergartener.

MR. OBAMA: Chuck Todd?

QUESTION: Mr. President, I want to follow up on Iran. You have avoided, twice, spelling out consequences. You've hinted that there would be from the international community, if they continue to violate -- and you said "violate these norms." You seemed to hint that there -- there are human rights violations taking place.

MR. OBAMA: I'm not hinting. I think that when a young woman gets shot on the street when she gets out of her car, that's a problem.

QUESTION: Then why won't you spell out the consequences that the Iranian people...

MR. OBAMA: Because I think that we don't know yet how this thing is going to play out. I know everybody here is on a 24-hour news cycle. I'm not. OK?

QUESTION: Shouldn't -- I mean, shouldn't the world...

(CROSSTALK)

MR. OBAMA: I answered -- I answered...

QUESTION: ... present regime know that there are consequences?

MR. OBAMA: I answered your question, which is that we don't yet know how this is going to play out. OK?

I will be the first to admit that President Obama hasn't been perfect so far, but he is a HELL of a lot better than any of the alternatives. Sometimes it takes days like today to remind all of us of that.

The Strength Of Soft Power

I am not enough of a wonk on foreign policy to opine with any certainty on what North Korea's nuclear tests and short range missle tests from last weak mean for our national security. But I think the story coming out since the tests have overlooked a critical issue, the fruits of a new era of diplomacy ushered in by President Obama are starting to be revealed.

Forbes magazine ran an article entitled "Is Obama Another Jimmy Carter".

The Boston Globe ran a story that included this quote.

The Obama administration "came into office hopeful that an outreached hand would yield better results," said Michael J. Green, former senior Asia adviser to President George W. Bush. "They are now in a much more sober and realist mood. [North Korea's leaders] mean it when they say they want to establish themselves as a nuclear weapons state."

Peter Wehner, NeoCon supreme had this to say in Commentary:

President Obama now has an opportunity to put his vaunted diplomatic skills to work. We have “turned the page” on the past. President Obama can now negotiate to his heart’s content. He can now meet individually and without precondition with Kim Jong Il and other dictators, as he promised he would. He can do all the careful preparation he needs and let North Korea know exactly where America stands. After all, they will no longer have the excuse of American intransigence. And then we will see if the North Korean leader will bend to Obama’s will and personal charm. The early returns aren’t terribly encouraging.

They just don't seem to get it.

Diplomacy is about the people you are negotiating with, no doubt. But its also about the people on the outside looking in and taking note of how you handle different countries in different situations.

When America is seen as a fair dealer we gain the support of all of our traditional allies and pick up the support of strategic alliances , when America is seen as a bully we lose that major advantage. Reaching out to North Korea and Iran is as much about convincing China and Russia to get on board as it is about pushing those actors to change their ways. And in the situation with North Korea it would seem that the early returns show that this reemergence of soft power through diplomacy is starting to work.

Here is an excerpt of an article from "The Hill" which quotes National Security Advisor Jim Jones extensively:

Retired Marine Corps Gen. James Jones, in his first speech on the administration’s approach to national security, said that the “imminent threat” posed by North Korea is that of the proliferation of nuclear technologies to other countries and terrorist organizations.

North Korea still has “a long way” to “weaponize” and work on the delivery of its nuclear missiles before they pose a threat to U.S. security, Jones said in a discussion hosted by the Atlantic Council.

“Nothing that the North Koreans did surprised us,” Jones said. “We knew that they were going to do this, they said so, so no reason not to believe them.”

But the Obama administration is in a tough position with regards to North Korea and in the coming weeks administration officials will try to reach a “global consensus” on how to handle North Korea, Jones indicated. Two key players on the issue, Russia and China, both showed a much harder line against North Korea’s most recent nuclear tests.

One of the crucial conclusions drawn after North Korea’s tests early this week is that there is a growing consensus that states such as North Korea “should not be permitted” to have those nuclear capabilities, Jones said. North Korea’s nuclear ambitions will be on the list of discussion for Obama’s visit to Russia in July, Jones said.

Meanwhile, China’s foreign ministry this week said the country “resolutely opposes” North Korea’s nuclear test. China agreed with the U.S., Japan and Russia to work toward a U.N. resolution censuring North Korea for its nuclear test and missile launches.

As far as I can discern there are no good or easy options when it comes to dealing with North Korea. However having China starting to pressure Kim Jong Il to step back in line is a great step in the right direction. With our military committed to wars in two foreign lands we are stretched pretty thin as it is. What we do not need right now is another major military engagement where we end up bearing the overwhelming majority of the load. By showing the willingness to reach out to North Korea in good faith, the Obama Administration has made that a lot less likely. Now you see not only China but also Russia willing to seriously condemn North Korea for their actions as well as also having a willingness to put some actions behind those words. When the UN Security Council passes a resolution laying down sanctions against North Korea that have real teeth, thats when you will see the true power of President Obama's plan to use diplomacy.

As strong as our military is, we can't handle every problem all on our own. We are going to need some help going forward not only in the war on terror but also to contain rogue nations like North Korea and Iran. That is going to be one of the keys to our having a strong national defense and protecting the homeland. So far I would have to say that the approach the Obama administration is taking is moving us in the right direction.

Break Out The NeoCon Fainting Couch

Cross posted at Attackerman


Newsweek's Fareed Zakaria has an article online making a very strong case that Iran is not seeking a nuclear weapon. I realize that there is a split in this country between those who believe Iran is trying to get a nuke and those who think they aren't, but I myself have never heard the argument made against them wanting a bomb, for these particular reasons.

Everything you know about Iran is wrong, or at least more complicated than you think. Take the bomb. The regime wants to be a nuclear power but could well be happy with a peaceful civilian program (which could make the challenge it poses more complex). What's the evidence? Well, over the last five years, senior Iranian officials at every level have repeatedly asserted that they do not intend to build nuclear weapons. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has quoted the regime's founding father, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who asserted that such weapons were "un-Islamic." The country's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, issued a fatwa in 2004 describing the use of nuclear weapons as immoral. In a subsequent sermon, he declared that "developing, producing or stockpiling nuclear weapons is forbidden under Islam." Last year Khamenei reiterated all these points after meeting with the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei. Now, of course, they could all be lying. But it seems odd for a regime that derives its legitimacy from its fidelity to Islam to declare constantly that these weapons are un-Islamic if it intends to develop them. It would be far shrewder to stop reminding people of Khomeini's statements and stop issuing new fatwas against nukes.

Following a civilian nuclear strategy has big benefits. The country would remain within international law, simply asserting its rights under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, a position that has much support across the world. That would make comprehensive sanctions against Iran impossible. And if Tehran's aim is to expand its regional influence, it doesn't need a bomb to do so. Simply having a clear "breakout" capacity—the ability to weaponize within a few months—would allow it to operate with much greater latitude and impunity in the Middle East and Central Asia.

Iranians aren't suicidal. In an interview last week, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu described the Iranian regime as "a messianic, apocalyptic cult." In fact, Iran has tended to behave in a shrewd, calculating manner, advancing its interests when possible, retreating when necessary. The Iranians allied with the United States and against the Taliban in 2001, assisting in the creation of the Karzai government. They worked against the United States in Iraq, where they feared the creation of a pro-U.S. puppet on their border. Earlier this year, during the Gaza war, Israel warned Hizbullah not to launch rockets against it, and there is much evidence that Iran played a role in reining in their proxies. Iran's ruling elite is obsessed with gathering wealth and maintaining power. The argument made by those—including many Israelis for coercive sanctions against Iran is that many in the regime have been squirreling away money into bank accounts in Dubai and Switzerland for their children and grandchildren. These are not actions associated with people who believe that the world is going to end soon.

One of Netanyahu's advisers said of Iran, "Think Amalek." The Bible says that the Amalekites were dedicated enemies of the Jewish people. In 1 Samuel 15, God says, "Go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass." Now, were the president of Iran and his advisers to have cited a religious text that gave divine sanction for the annihilation of an entire race, they would be called, well, messianic.

Now the religious angle of this issue might be the most persuasive if you ask me. The Supreme Leader can not get up and preach against the morality of nuclear weapons and call them "un-Islamic" and then wink and nod to his followers and have everything work out fine. One of the consequences of a theistic society is that the citizens follow the leader's spirtual teachings for better or for worse. So how would they even find someone to work on a program that they have been taught will guarantee them a corner of Hell? And as Zakaria points out this isn't something that Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has just said in passing. Its something that has been reiterated several time over the years.

Now we have to be honest with ourselves here. If Zakaria can figure this out then obviously people in the WhiteHouse and in Congress surely can and have as well. I think the question now is how much will President Obama and his administration focus on the facts of the situation rather than continuing to rail against Iran for seeking a weapon that they have good reason to believe they aren't actually trying to develop. I was one of those whom cheered on then Senator Obama's position that he would try diplomacy with Iran and give that a chance. But honestly since he has taken office I have been more than a little disturbed with the rhetoric coming from both President Obama and his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, when it comes to Iran. Yes there has been outreach but there has also been all of the hyperbole about Iran's supposed pursuit of nuclear weapons.

I realize much of that has to do with our government's relationship with Israel but the problem is people believe what a President says. That's why they are usually the biggest movers of public opinion. So when President Obama or Secretary Clinton makes allusions to Iran seeking a nuclear weapon, the average citizen hears that and believes its a foregone conclusion. Just look at how reports of Iran test firing a conventional missle got conflated into "nuclear test" recently. People who aren't political junkies or policy wonks don't spend their time googling NIEs and transcripts of Congressional hearings. So what happens when public opinion grows for strikes against Iran even if they have done nothing to warrant them? What happens if Israel launches a strike on Iran preemptively and public opinion is that Iran deserved even if they decidely didn't? This has nothing to do with coming to the aid of Israel should she come under attack. In that event we will no doubt stand by her side. But this has everything to do with the old Bush doctrine of preemptive war on countries that have not attacked us or our allies.


I don't believe our national security interests are being served well by the use of over the top rhetoric. Its about time that we demand to hear of any evidence our government has that Iran is truly seeking a nuclear weapon. And if there is none its about time that that fact was made well known to the public. We have enough enemies in this world that are real threats to our security without trying to invent one. And I think at this point we have all seen what happens when lies get repeated over and over so many times that they become accepted as the truth. We don't need the kind of march to war with Iran that we had on the march to war with Iraq.

Now I am not saying that Zakaria is the the foremost authority on this issue and that just because he said it makes it true. However what I AM saying is that nobody has made a credible argument for why Iranians would be seeking a bomb other than something along the lines of "they are crazy mooslems". And yet our elected leaders are allowed to repeatedly make statements to the effect that they are seeking a weapon without ever having to quantify their position. It would be nice if our mainstream media sources would press our elected leaders to either put up or shut up. Especially after the embarrasment of the 2007 NIE which also said that Iran wasn't seeking a weapon after years and years of politicians telling us they were. Either give the American people a plausible explanation for why they believe Iran is seeking a nuclear weapon or, if they can't, knock off the fear mongering. This is one movie that doesn't need a sequel.

A New Day

There is encouraging news coming from the international conference at "The Hague" concerning Iran and their cooperation with respect to Afghanistan.

U.S. Special Representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan Richard Holbrooke held a "brief and cordial exchange" with the head of the Iranian delegation attending an international conference here at The Hague, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said at a press conference.

Clinton said that she did not have any direct contact with the Iranian delegation herself. But she said that at her request, a letter was passed to the Iranian government here today asking for assistance finding or gaining the release of three Americans held or believed missing in Iran, including former FBI officer Robert Levinson and U.S. journalist Roxana Saberi.

"During the course of the conference, representative Holbrooke held a brief and cordial exchange with the head of the Iranian delegation," Clinton said in answer to a question. She said the meeting was not "substantive."

snip

Iran is being represented at the "big tent" Afghanistan conference, which involves diplomats from 72 countries, by Deputy Foreign Minister Mohammed Mehdi Akhundzadeh.

In his speech to the conference, Akhundzadeh, dressed in a dark pin stripe suit and white Nehru collar jacket, outlined Iran's support for contributing to regional efforts to combat drug trafficking and improve security on the Iranian Afghan border.

“Welcoming the proposals for joint cooperation offered by the countries contributing to Afghanistan, the Islamic Republic of Iran is fully prepared to participate in the projects aimed at combating drug trafficking and the plans in line with developing and reconstructing Afghansitan,” the deputy foreign minister said.

He also described the U.S. and NATO miiltary mission in Afghanistan as "ineffective," arguing instead for the Afghanization of that nation's security. “The presence of foreign forces has not improved things in the country and it seems that an increase in the number of foreign forces will prove ineffective too," Akhundzadeh said. "The military expenses need to be redirected to the training of the Afghan police and Afghanization should lead the government building process.”

(British sources at the conference said Akhundzadeh had been a frequent interlocutor of the British over the years. A British newspaper report Monday said that Akhundzadeh had met with U.S. official Patrick Moon in Moscow last week under a Russian initiative to discuss international efforts to improve security in Afghanistan.)


Clinton spoke in a somewhat guarded but cautiously positive way about what she called the "Iranian intervention" at the conference, without naming the Iranian official who spoke and while trying to keep the focus on Afghanistan. "The U.S., Iran, and all the nations here today have a mutual interest in a stable and secure Afghanistan," Clinton said. "The intervention by the Iranian representative set forth clear ideas" on countering drug trafficking and improving border security that Clinton said the United States would listen to.

This comes as newly installed prime minister of Israel Bibi Netanyahu ups the ante with his rhetoric towards Iran. Hopefully we can work to build a better relationship with Iran and using diplomacy succeed in reigning them in without the specter of war.

President Obama's Shout Out To The Iranians

President Obama addressed the Iranian leadership and the Iranian people in this address celebrating their observance of Nowruz, their New Year.

Lies And The Lying Liars That Tell Them

This is an exercise in judgment. Yours. First I want you to read the accounts of Susan Rice's press conference yesterday from a couple different sources. Then I want you to watch the video of the press conference and see if they match up.

From Joe Klein at Time Magazine:

Yesterday, in her first appearance as United Nations Ambassador SusanRice said that the Iranians would have to stop the enrichment of uranium before we began talks with them.

From The AP:

Not since before the 1979 Iranian revolution are U.S. officials believed to have conducted wide-ranging direct diplomacy with Iranian officials. But U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice warned that Iran must meet U.N. Security Council demands to suspend uranium enrichment before any talks on its nuclear program.

Cue the video.