what Iranian nukes?

Is there any possible evidence that Iran could offer you would believe? Demanding a "guilty" plea sounds like a kangaroo court to me.

I don't know about you but I don't read talking points. I read the actual reports and what I think are unbiased publications like the economist.

They had a good account of what we know Iran actual did and why there is still suspicion. You should read the article but i'll summarize the points.

1. Iran is still pressing ahead with the ability to produce highly enriched uranium. Nuclear reactors run on low-enriched.

2. Iran has claimed they never intend to build a nuclear bomb. The Intelligence estimate says they had a nuclear weapons program. It also says they could start it up again when ever they want and the estimates for them being able to make a nuclear weapon are still around 2015, the same as when the Intelligence estimate from 2005 said Iran still had an active nuclear weapons program.

3. Iran has not one single working reactor. Why does a country with no reactors need to move so fast on enrichment?

4. The IAEA is still investigating the unexplained traces of highly enriched uranium and a document Iran had for years showing how to shape uranium metal into hemispheres. The only use for that technique is making nuclear weapons.

And Israel has never used its supposed nuclear weapons even when in the Yom Kipper war when for the first few days the outcome of that war didn't look good for Israel. Israel also doesn't go around threatening other nations and doesn't support terrorists. Israel is also a democracy instead of being a state that is controlled by one man, aka the Supreme Leader. On top of that Israels supposed nukes never promoted an arms race in the middle east. Egypt and Saudi Arabia have already stated they are going to restart their nuclear programs if Iran doesn't halt. Now I think that is enough deflection from the real issue which is Iran. If you want to talk about Israel I would be happy to post in your CE thread on that topic.

Considering the IAEA still don't have answers for the traces of highly enriched uranium it found or the document showing how to shape uranium for use in a weapon those two would be a good start. Or how about giving me some evidence on why they need to enrich uranium so quickly when they don't have one working reactor.

And lets face facts. You can't have it both ways. If you are embracing this intelligence estimate it means you have to acknowledge Iran has a nuclear weapons program. Iran couldn't stop one in 2003 otherwise.

Had. Had.

I am in investment banker, I read the Economist cover to cover. I have been doing so for more than enough years to accept that their editorial view carries no more weight than any other publication.

I would be surprised to learn that you read the entire NIA report.

Fixed that for you since it is NOT what the Economist said, but what you wanted to read.

No, actually, there is no proof that they are; that is in fact what the IAEA imparted in their report; the discontinuance of that program.

However, the 2005 estimate turned out to be wrong didn't it? Why are you overlooking that fact? Why are you overlooking the IAEA account in advance of those claims that confirm the program shut down in 2003?

For a guy who claims to avoid the talking points, suggesting that he reads the facts, your assertions introduce a number of speculative points and most are counter to the prevailing reports from the IAEA and NIA. Go figure.

You must also be wondering why that question was irrelevant when Iran gained approval to purchase uranium from Russia; a plan permitted by the US. On the other hand, maybe you're not wondering.

I can't speak to the inability to get the facility at Brushehr up and running. However, progress seems to be sufficient to initiate plans for two more reactors in the same area.

It is idiotic to think that in today's world, any nation possesses enough oil and gas reserves to ignore the role nuclear energy will probably play in the future. One only need look at the recent announcements from oil exporting countries about their decision to reduce exports in order to protect their personal resources.

Sorry, not a smoking gun.

So, this somehow lets them off the hook? Should Israel have been allowed to use nuclear weapons in a moment of weakness and then later been forgiven?

You're not serious are you? Israel threatens several Middle Eastern countries, offers inflammatory remarks, and demonstrates aggressive behavior far outside the boundaries of what might be acceptable behavior in the region. The recent quote from Israel's defense department is only the latest example.

Okay spinmeister, enough bullshit.

US diplomatic efforts have always tempered the threat from Israel. Those bets were laid off when the neocons decided they needed a base of operations in Iraq.

Egypt discontinued their nuclear program shortly after the Chernobyl incident. You can call it coincidence, but that would only support your agenda and misunderstanding of Arabic culture. Egypt's population growth dictates they pursue options and they may very well complete a project at El-Dabaa.

US strategists are far more concerned with a Pakistani/Saudi nuclear relationship as an issue of economic, political, and military power. The Saudis financed Pakistan's program and it wouldn't be unreasonable to see some form of reciprocity. Those discussions have been going on for years. Musharrif is largely in power because he has heretofore agreed to forego such a relationship with the Saudis.

Nevertheless, for all the talk of messianic fanaticism, each of these governments remains focused on their economic and political fortunes. Iran is no different. Ultimately, Israel is no different. And no amount of wailing from those whose interests are served by promoting some other agenda will change that fact.

Now who is bullshitting. The equipment they are using can be easily used to make highly enriched uranium. And again the IAEA found traces of highly enriched uranium.

So because the 2005 estimate was "wrong" the 2007 estimate is infallible? Frankly question all intelligence since we got things so wrong on 9/11 and in Iraq. And why are you over looking the fact Iran had documents about shaping uranium for weapons use, had trace amounts of highly enriched uranium, and are going full steam ahead with an enrichment program when they don't have one single reactor. Also you can't have it both ways if you are embracing this 2007 estimate because it said Iran stopped it's nuclear program then you can't claim they don't know what they are talking about when they give an estimate on when Iran could have a nuclear weapon.

That uranium from Russia was going to already be enriched to the point needed for civilian use hence negating the entire worry that Iran would have the capability to enrich it to the point for weapons use since such a plan would also require Iran to stop its enriching project. I have zero problem with Iran having a nuclear reactor. I fully support any program that would allow Iran to get already enriched uranium. But Iran doesn't seem very interested in that instead they seem to want to be able to enrich uranium themselves oddly enough even before they have one single civilian reactor to use it in.

You seem to be adapt at falsely interpreting my opinion. Iran can have all the nuclear power it wants to long as it is not making nuclear weapons.

I didn't claim it was enough to attack Iran but considering they still haven't reviled their nuclear program and there are troubling outstanding questions what exactly do you have against sanctions until we have full truth?

As for the rest I am uninterested in your deflection. If you want to talk about Israel start a thread on it and we'll talk otherwise keep on the subject of Iran.

Can; transitive verb used to indicate possibility

Is; verb used to indicate reality or actuality

Can you see the difference? I do. I also see that an unhealthy level of myopia and paranoia shape your thinking and facilitates your willingness to jump to prejudicial conclusions, while pretending to ignore both the facts and the bigger picture surrounding this issue.

All I see is someone who seem to like personal quips and irrelevant tangents rather then an actual discussion. I decided to not respond to bullshit.

I'll ask again why when Iran has yet to acknowledge it had a nuclear weapons program, has been caught with trace amounts of highly enriched uranium and had a document that showed how to shape uranium into a form used for weapons is it unreasonable to demand that Iran procure it's uranium from a third party so that it can be verified that they can't use it for making a nuclear weapon. And to get to those means why is it wrong to use sanction, not military force, just sanctions.

Your snarkiness fails to disguise a seeming inability to grasp the simplest of concepts, follow a thread of logic, and unwillingness to read. Iran already acknowledged the weapons program that concluded in 2003. They enabled inspections by the IAEA. You can read that
here.

You may continue to suspect that they have rejuvenated that program, but that is NOT what the NIA reports says. These are your own illusions.

I think you are asking them to admit to a program that they abandoned in 2003, is confirmed to have been abandoned by the NIA, and only suspected to continue to exist by a handful of neocons in Washington DC and some Neanderthals in Austin, Texas. Oh, and obviously the Israel defense department.

Bring some proof of a program BEFORE you enact programs designed to goad them to tell you something you want to hear. And if you cannot see the reasonableness of that request, then you have one fucked up way of looking at the world.

a- Answer the question.

b- Provide sources for your assertions.

I'm not "embracing" it. I don't put much more credence in this than on previous reports; it's not obvious to me that I should believe a partisan intelligence estimate ahead of a neutral one.