"Among other things, this could explain why Iran is cynically negotiating to send its low-enriched uranium to other states, such as France and Russia, to have it enhanced to a higher grade. Such a move, of course, would also be compatible with a "peaceful" program, if anyone is left who believes that this is all the Islamic republic really wants." What an argument, Hitch! No need to actually prove that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, just claim that everybody knows it! Just like Sadaam had those WMDs. We're proposing military action against a country for the crime of possibly considering a nuclear weapons program. You are essentially proposing attacking a country because "everyone knows it will have to be done." This war-- or rather, "military action" as we can be certain that it won't be declared, will be waged in defense of an "ally" that not only has nuclear weapons, but which is allowed to keep them secret for some reason. We would be starting our third war far, far away from our country, but it is those primitive backwards theocrats who are the true aggressors! And those of us who would think twice before charring some Iranians are "moral pygmies" as one poster would have it. You people are insane.

Hitch's "anyone who is left" refers to those (like you) who are either ignorant of, or in denial about, the plentiful intelligence revealing Iran's nuclear plans. You didn't know that the latest "secret' nuke site is incompatible with "peaceful" nuclear plans? Or that the illegal secrecy itself betrays illicit intentions?

Of course, anyone who could say we're "starting our third war" means you never heard of 9/11 or still haven't made the connection to those "primitive backwards theocrats" "far, far away from our country."

On or around September 21st, 2009, when Iran was visiting the UN, the US, Britain, Germany and France confronted Iran with rock solid evidence that they had been gathering over the previous three months that indeed, after years of denials, Iran was working on nuclear weapons.

When faced with this embarrassing, rock solid evidence, Iran admitted, "Okay, you caught us. We do have this teensy weensy little nuclear weapons site..."

You may accuse Hitchens of being in 1984 (I get the Orwell reference but don't really see how it relates to your post), but you haven't yet gotten into the Fall of 2009. You are entitled to your opinion about what to do, if anything, about Iran's nuclear weapons program, but nobody is allowed the opinion that Iran is not working on them.

Also, please note that nobody is suggesting another invasion and occupation, or "charring some Iranians" with nukes. Hitchens alluded to bombing of sites in order to the delay the program.

And you might call intervention in Iran's nuclear weapons program "insane," but that would suggest you have a lack of understanding of the Iranian regime, it's alliance with Russia, and what it would do with the untouchability of a nuclear weapon.

"but nobody is allowed the opinion that Iran is not working on them." Seems like a heard an awful lot of this kind of talk re: Sadaam and the WMDs that only an absolute whackjob fringe lefty would ever doubt he had. You'll believe anything as long as it supports the next in a line of endless wars.

Yeah, that's me: I'm on the side of endless wars. You're on the side of "peace" (at any cost?).

At what cost? That Iran will develop nuclear weapons and join the numerous nations that have those weapons and have never used them. We're the only country to have used the damn things. In light of that simple fact, and in light of the fact that we allow our ally, Israel, to maintain its status as an undeclared nuclear power, it is simply absurd for us to be assuming the role of nuclear cop vis a vis. Iran.

You could be right. It could be something that actually makes the whole "Death to America! Death to Israel" routine obsolete. The mullahs could become a victim of their own success. The Iranians might say, "What's with all the 'death to' stuff? We've got nukes. They're not going to invade us. The paranoia doesn't work any more. We're good." And they may be able to grow up a bit and get on with it.

I've thought of that.

But with nukes they could also just double down on the bullshit they've been running for the past 30 years, not by using nukes necessarily, but by acting like psychotic Islamist shitheads and threatening to use them. Why should we not take their relentless 30 year assault on Israel via its proxy army, Hezbollah, seriously? Why should we not take their endless public calls for the destruction of Israel seriously? It's like the violent, drunken wife beater down the street who's always getting into street fights suddenly gets ahold of a shotgun. Why shouldn't that bother us? We're not talking about Maryknoll missionaries getting nukes.

Which sort of goes to the point of "if we and Israel can have them, why can't Iran?" Well, Iran is no less entitled to them, on a moral level; it's that we have an interest in keeping this enemy - their description, not just ours - from getting them.

Do you really believe this violent, meddling country is really just going to quietly play nice with others once it gets nukes? I'd like to believe that but I expect that at the very least they will just seriously ramp up their terrorist campaigns in the region. But I expect that with the help of its buddy, Russia, Iran will take control of the bulk of the world's oil in Central Asia and the Middle East, and have a field day with the world economy. It could use the nuclear umbrella to send out Islamist terrorists worldwide. I don't expect they will use the nuclear umbrella to work hard on world poverty, or AIDS research, or to solve the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, or make really good art, or fix global warming.

Do you?

You make it sound like Iran is the country that is waging multiple wars of aggression far away from it's territory and we're the calm, sober ones.

EarlyBird:

You're 'through here.' As I said about the 'starting our third war' comment, the "wars of aggression" bullshit further indicates a hardcore anti-American leftish shithead that you can't reason with because he's determined to think the world's most active state sponsor of terrorism is an innocent victim, and the US is a bully spoiling for a fight.

No doubt the Iranian politicians are as stupid and immoral as our own. When we as a country are so cavalier in discussing the deaths of untold innocents, we sure aren't the good guys.

That's quite an impassioned post Varian,

Has 10 months in the political wilderness made you that bitter?

Were you to apply a legitimate definition of the otherwise meaningless phrase "terrorism", the worlds most active state sponsor of terrorism would be us.

Seeing as we've started 70 or more fights since WWII, it's pretty obvious that we do spoils for a fight pretty consistently. After all, how else would you describe a state that reserves the right to bomb a country that is exercising it's legal; rights, while turning a blind eye to states that flout them?

You've gone completely off the rails EarlyBird,

First, for any of your ramblings to have any consequence or relevance, Iran would have to be pursing nukes and as it turns out, there is no one iota of evidence that they are.

So yeah, you can go off on your fanciful litany of what if's till the cows come home, but they count for nothing.

It beggars belief that while we occupy the contries over Iran's Eastern and Western border, you should be so unaware as top describe Iran as violent and meddling country. I mean, serously EarlyBird, can you not see the hypocrisy and irony in that?

What countries has Iran attacked in the last, oh I dunno, 300 years? And why do you think Iran is any less entitled to meddle in it's own neighborhood, while our history of laying waste to South America, Asia and the Middle East makes theirs look positively benign?

What moves have Iran mae to take control of the bulk of the world's oil in Central Asia and the Middle East? For that matter, what moves has Russia made? Please enlighten me.

How does a nuclear umbrella enable Iran to send out Islamist terrorists worldwide. Has it not occured to you that it is the US that is supporting Jihaidts groups like Jundullah (Kaleid Sheik Mohammed's old gang) and the MEK (listed by the State Department as a terrorist organization) as they set off bombs in Tehran?

Of course not, because you have drunk the kool aid and decided that we, the US, own the world (or should) and are morally imfallible.

Clearly the FUBAR or Iraq has become a forgotten memory.

All you folks frothing at the bit to attack Iran, tell me this: Just what do you expect to accomplish? You'll set their nuclear program back a year or two, maybe. Then what? You're buying time for the Iranian people to overthrow the dictatorship? Please. An external enemy is every dictator's favorite tool for maintaining control; the enemy can be blamed for everything that's wrong with the state, giving the dictator an excuse for not fixing it, and people unhappy with the dictator's rule can be told, "Support the dictator or THEY will get you!" Launching an attack on Iran will just solidify the hard-liners' grip on power for years to come... ...unless you were planning to invade and occupy the place. Did I mention Iran is three times the size of Iraq? And while the Iranian government is hardly a beacon of democracy and justice, the people of Iran are not NEARLY as oppressed as the Iraqis were. If Iran really wants nukes, they'll get nukes. We can either try to talk them out of it (unlikely but not inconceivable), or we can damn well live with it.

Well put Dausuul.

These wingnuts just never seem to learn from history, recent and otherwise. It was the bombing of Iraq's Osirak reactor that convenienced Saddam that a) he needed nukes and b) to take his program underground.

These idiots are determined to produce a self fulffilling prophecy.

What countries have they attacked? Israel, constantly. Just because they pay someone else to do it does not defer responsibility. If a murderer hires a hitman he is still a murderer.