Leave Iran alone

Intentions are funny things to pin down. There is no doubt, because they have said so repeatedly by responsible officials in official statements, that Iran intends to have its own electric power generation based on self-enriched nuclear fuels and Iranian reactors - as is a right guaranteed by the nuclear non-proliferation treaties for all states. Beyond that, they have declared they are not seeking nuclear weapons. So, what do they intend?

Bush/Cheney say that regardless of what Iran has and hasn't done, that Iran must intend to build nuclear bombs. The US says it will not tolerate an Iranian nuclear weapons program - not tolerate being shorthand for the US will attack Iran if necessary to prevent this. The implication of the US position is that Iran's 'intent' is clear, and we have implied by our actions and statements that a war before GW leaves office is a real possibility. The rest of the world seems to believe the US intent is preventive war (like Iraq over WMDs), regardless of the facts.

The IAEA says that they have found no evidence that Iran has plans or prograsms for nuclear bombs, but there are 'questions' about past activities that are not fully answered - although Iran has promised to provide answers, but hasn't fully delivered them.

So, what can the US people believe about the intent of the US (Bush/Cheney) government? We made the same claims about Iraq and WMDs, and we invaded preemptively. Those same claims made about Iran would/could/should be viewed as the same as with Iraq - an intent to have a war. What is easier for the world to believe: that the US intends a war with Iran, or that the US is just posturing to get Iran to give up any nuclear material enrichment - even though that enrichment is part of the rights guaranteed by the NNPT?

My guess and only a guess: Bush/Cheney will attack Iran before leaving office (if they intend to leave office) in Jan. 09, because the logical intent of their statements/actions is the same as it was with Iraq, and they fulfilled that intent in Iraq.

It isn't often that I give thanks to nations like China, Russia for opposing the US. In this case, I think their opposition to US attacks on Iran is based on their reading the intent of the US correctly, and recognizing how foolhardy the US action would be.

The race between Gold and Oil for $400/ounce and $100.00 a barrel is a measure of how the rest of the world is assessing the possibility of a US/Iran war: they think this is a real, likely possibility. So should we all.

The question now is the intent of US institutions and the people. Will we stop this insane wet dream of the Bush/Cheney/Neo-Cons before it happens?

Untrammeled enrichment of uranium is certainly not the inalienable right of all signatories to the NNPT. Iran blatantly violated its NNPT agreement by pursuing uranium enrichment in secret, whereafter it was ordered by the UN Security Council to suspend all enrichment activity (Resolution 1737). Since then, Iran has continued to enrich uranium in violation of this order. All the while, Ahmadinejad just can't help himself, and every week or two, stridently threatens Israel with impending annihilation. Iran has no nuclear reactors capable of using enriched uranium. How stupid are we supposed to be?

Hawks seem to have selective deference to the United Nations, no?

You know who else violated the NNPT? The United States! When it agreed to just give tons of nuclear technology to India. Or at least they almost did until elements of the Indian left--perhaps temporarily--scuttled the plan.

India exists in a perpetual state of low intensity warfare with Pakistan and in a perpetual state of diplomatic antagonism with China--not a great place for nuclear technology!

Iran, meanwhile, has generally not acted suicidally outside the bounds of their national interest and it would be stupid to just assume that they'd spend decades slowly accruing power and influence just to give it all up by nuking Tel Aviv. It would also be stupid to become so paranoid about this possibility that we attacked their country, drew them more deeply into Iraq and then sat mired in a broad middle east conflict while they restored their nuclear capability in the meantime.

We need to think farther than one day into the future on this stuff.

"... generally not acted suicidally outside the bounds of their national interest?" And "stupid to just assume that they'd spend decades slowly accruing power and influence just to give it all up by nuking Tel Aviv?"

Ruhollah Khomeini, still much revered in Iran, is quoted as having said: "We do not worship Iran, we worship Allah. For patriotism is another name for paganism. I say let this land [Iran] burn. I say let this land go up in smoke, provided Islam emerges triumphant in the rest of the world."

It would unwise to ignore his words, or to ignore Iranian glorification of suicide bombing, or such risky behavior as the empowerment of Hezbollah, or the murder of Jewish innocents in Argentina (of all places). Countries do not always act rationally, as I am sure you would agree. Nor can they always be trusted to act in what might seem to be their best interest. Certainly we cannot trust Iran to do so. Iran cannot be trusted to have nuclear weapons under any circumstances. Iran must not even come close to acquiring nuclear weapons. This is not paranoia, but sound policy.

Is it militarily possible to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons? Certainly. Would it mean that we would need to hurt them a lot? Unfortunately, probably yes.

Ahmadinejad is certainly capable of attacking Israel - for the glory of Allah, to distract attention from the horrible domestic problems in Iran, or simply to demonstrate his power. Hell, that's pretty much what GWB did in Iraq, and Ahmadinejad is crazier and more of a meglomaniac (maybe). And he's very close to Israel. And he has nothing to lose.

That being said, I'm not sure that "attacking" Iran will prevent them from "attacking " Israel. Our intelligence is too poor, our resources are spread too thin, and after watching the long, painful, expensive, and larely unsuccessful struggle with Iraq, I have no reason to feel confident that we can effectively protect Israel.