NEWS: Iran Nuclear Threat is Bullshit

POLITICS: Iran Nuclear Threat is Bullshit

During the most recent Republican Presidential debates, nearly every GOP candidate expressed willingness to nuke Iran in order to stop them from developing nuclear weapons (only that nut job Ron Paul was against turning the lands of ancient Persia into a parking lot). Hillary and the other top Dems are talking tough on Iran also. Is the Islamic Republic really a threat to the national security of the United States?



Scott Ritter, the former UN weapons inspector who tried to tell us back in 2002 that Bush was lying about Iraqi WMD, is saying the same thing now about Administration policy toward Iran. Ritter recently visited Iran and wrote a new book Target Iran: the Truth about the White House's Plans for Regime Change. His view on Iran runs counter to the American media's portrayal of that country:

No threat, is he nuts? Did he forget about those hostages back in 1979? And what about that psychopath Ahmadinejad? He says all sorts of terrible things about the United States and Israel. Surely this religious fanatic, who is the president of his country, is a serious threat to us? Ritter disagrees:

The real power in Iran is with the Clergy and their Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei. He calls all the shots, he controls the military, and he controls the nuclear program. And here's the kicker: the Supreme Leader issued a fatwa or religious edict that forbids the development of nuclear weapons because they run counter to Islamic Law. Even more surprising is the fact Ayatollah Khamenei sent the Bush Administration an olive branch back in 2003, an offer of peace that the White House rejected:

Bush declined to normalize relations with the Iranian regime because it is US policy to bring that regime down. While toppling the Theocracy won't be as easy as it was in Iraq, Bush may want one more crack at the Axis of Evil before he leaves office. Condi Rice assures us their is no plan for war with Iran so we'll have to take her word for it. The question remains: are the Iranians trying to build a bomb? Its certainly possible and one only has to look at Iraq vs North Korea to see what it takes to keep the US military out of your country. But the United States has over 10, 000 nukes and Israel could wipe Iran off the map with its own nuclear arsenal. Are those Ayatollahs really gonna commit mass suicide by managing to lob a nuclear-tipped missile into Tel Aviv?



While there are reports of clandestine US military operations within Iran and plenty of sabre rattling (with two aircraft carrier groups close enough for Ahmadinejad to spit at) it appears at the moment that some cooler heads are starting to prevail and the outright war with Iran that has been threatened for several years now has been avoided. Can there be any doubt as to how great a disaster such a war would be? It would make Iraq look like a cakewalk.

Why does Scott Ritter hate America?

Oi. No need to expound on that. OI.

Problem is, Bush can start it without having to finish it. He is in the position of extremists everywhere: If he starts a war, there's going to be a war.

Personally, I think that removal of US citizenship should be on the list of penalties for war crimes.

And why does he hate freedom so much?

Seriously, this whole fucking Iran thing has smelled like a big fat fucking rat since they first started talking about Iraq (Yes, I said Iraq -- not a typo).

But I'll bet money that the rest of America goes along with it without any real criticism, or even an expectation of a clearcut victory strategy, as usual.

To BushCo's credit, (and if you look at the map), at least this will turn two moderately sized policy disasters into one giant disaster.

But who knows-- maybe the third war's a charm?

And the cycle repeats...

Project Censored

It would be so nice if the US stopped training/arming/financing other countries/groups.

The Bush administration's interactions with other state is, not surprisingly, just appalling. What's annoying is that having *some* gripes about Iran makes sense. Hell, there are things about *most* states that I could find to complain about. But rather than interacting with Iran in a mature manner - treating them as equals and as rational actors having legitimate interests - the US approach is this sort of "all or nothing" bellicose thing. And clearly, we don't HAVE to be that way - policy with China (currently) or Russian/the Soviet Union (historically) had much more nuance than our current behavior towards states like Iraq, Iran etc. Undoubtedly, perceived "size of threat" matters here - it's unfortuante though that we couldn't be a bit more long-term and equitable in our dealings.

Does anyone else find it ironic that according to this article Iran has a mentally deficient president who claims to have the support of his country?

Yay, an article that told me things I did not know.

And some things I did, like Bush is a dick.

Every time I talk to my mom, I try to point out the Irony of our gov't trying to install a theocracy at home, while at the same time trying to discourage the installation of a theocracy in Iraq.

It kinda spirals into a, "Jesus good, Muhammed bad" thing. I guess a logical argument won't work huh?

Don't be so difficult, at least he's still trying to pretend he has legitimate reasons for trying to destroy and attack nations.

Oh come on, we haven't invaded a middle-eastern country in like, four years now! I'm getting bored with the last one - when can we do another?!

The Supreme leader is in charge so it is safe to say that he at least is ok with Ahmadinejad's rhetoric. I don't exactly see why that is supposed to make people feel any better about Iran and nuclear weapons. As for the fatwa as proof that he doesn't want nuclear weapons, you are basically taking his word for it.

Iran seems to be okay with suicide bombers. If they had a nuke they might use it as a stop gap for all sorts of reasons. What if the people decide they don't want to be ruled by the Ayatollah and revolt.

I think everyone is jumping the gun. All that is happening right now are sanctions because Iran won't stop it's enriching program that could be used to make highly enriched uranium used in nuclear weapons. Seems okay to me. Even the lowest estimates put of their ability to make enough highly enriched uranium for a bomb to 2010. Hopefully Iran will take Russia up on the offer to provide the uranium and Iran can have the peaceful nuclear power plant with out freaking out all it's neighbors (I am not just talking about Israel). Well that is if Iran only wants a nuclear power plant.

evanharos, you are a criminal.

And you call Ron Paul a nutjob? Compared to the "nuke 'em all" club, he is downright SANE. He may have his issues (like we all do), but at least he's not racing us toward arma-fucking-geddon.

No, he is just a different kind of nut-job.

Failing Iran wanting to develop nuclear wepeons, they could have those 'WMD' things instead. And also faeries, unicorns and other assorted works of fiction.

If the US was serious about wishing to avoid the dangers of nuclear wepeons, it would get rid of some of its own.
Not happening. Let's move to Antarctica- it's getting warmer anyway.

It's demoralizing to realize just how little our fearless leaders know or understand about the countries they're hell-bent on attacking and/or invading.

I mean, I knew most of this stuff, and I've never even been to Iran, nor do I know anyone from there. (And I don't have the entire CIA at my disposal, either.) What excuse do they think they have?

If Ayatollah Khameni views nuclear weapons as a violation of Islamic law, why hasn't he spoken out against Ahmedinejad and the nuclear programme?
Iran is rarely tolerant of percieved violations of Islamic law.

Or is Khameni just going along with the 'we're only developing nuclear power for energy' line?

Nuclear power is not against Islamic law.
Khameni is dictating the " only for energy " policy.

What? Bush is lying to us?

Yes, I know. What I was curious about it is why Khameni hasn't done more to state his opposition to nuclear weaponry and-re-assure the international community, given the radical language of the people in his administration. Or maybe I'm wrong and he already has?

Sorry, I think I must've phrased the question in an odd way.

And stop selling their delivery systems to the UK, as well.

If Iran isn't a threat why do they say they want to nuke the United States and Israel. Until USA nuclear inspectors are all over Iran, Iran is a threat. Until the ayatollahs like wine, free speech, and religious freedom; Iran is a threat. I was a captain in the US military reserves and have only the greatest respect for our brothers who are in the special forces (I wasn't). This world is a great blessing that God gave us. We have to use it well and love one another but we have to be ready for those who would mske us glow in the dark and kill us with nukes or whatever. Evil also exists and as one guy said Freedom is not Free.

Let's see, religious intolerance...halfbaked claims about "Freedom"...a claim to be in/have been in the military...

We have a winner!