That "report" is more about shafting Bush rather than Iran's new purity.

Iran doesn't need nuclear energy, they have oil. If they want nuclear reactors they don't even need nuclear fuel since the Russians have offered to give it to them.

Their ongoing "civilian" nuclear program doesn't appear to have a reason to exist other than to generate nuclear material to be used in nukes. That's the problem right there.

No, I think the report is more about the intelligence services new purity. Free from the malevolent influence of Dick Cheney and David Armitage the intellegence community can now operate free of political influence.

You'll recall that originally the CIA didn't think much of Wolfowitz, Pearle, and Cheney's contention that Iraq was in league with Al Qaeda and in the process of developing nuclear weapons. After months of OVP oversight there was a slam-dunk declaration by Tenet. Couldn't have been politcial could it?

You may be right that they are doing the peaceful nuclear development to set the stage for military use, but that's covered in the NIE. It doesn't say "stop paying attention to Iran," it says "Iran's not actively developing nuclear weapons." If Bush would accept the NIE and say, "but I'm still suspicious and we need to maintain pressure," I'd agree with him. Instead he just looks like he won't accept intelligence that is even *slightly* off his message.

SLIGHTLY off his Message? It totally says he is as wrong on iran as he was on iraq. His war mongering has been escalated by the last little rhetoric of altering tapes on the latest iranian speed boat blowing up big war ships. give me a break and now he wants to give the sauduis 20 billion in high tech weapons---hmmmmmm wern't them there terrorist that "supposedly" blew up the WTC from saudi arabia? maybe they can hit crawford texas this time.

1. Iraq liberated from brutal dictator
2. Best guess of postwar casualties below the average 83,000 deaths directly ordered by Saddam per year.
3. Thousands of death-tourists from the Middle East concentrated in one place and killed by US forces.
4. No sign of the regional instability predicted by some people.
5. Iraqi oil production now above pre-war levels

I'm with you on selling guns to the Saudis, though I guess it's good for the US economy. Nor do I claim to understand Bush's game on Iran.

But be careful in drinking too deeply of the received wisdom re: Iraq.

Why was Bush wrong on Iraq? Let me count the ways.

1. Iraq has WMDs. Flat out wrong.

2. Saddam is working with Al Qaeda. Also flat out wrong.

3. We're going in with enough troops. Military officials who openly contested this assertion were fired.

4. Said troops will be welcomed with candies and flowers. Pretty darn wrong.

5. Iraqis will band together in their own best interests, so there won't be an insurgency. State Department warned about an insurgency; the administration refused to listen.

6. Getting rid of Saddam will transform the Middle East for the better. See Gaza, Lebanon. See also Pakistan.

7. Iraqi oil revenues will pay for the whole enterprise. This thing will have cost us trillions by the time we're out, whenever that may be. That it's taken five years for oil production to match the meager pre-war numbers should be an embarrassment.

And who's saying a big "Thank you" to the US for invading Iraq? Iran, which has clearly been the biggest foreign policy beneficiary of the escapade.

The claim about "death tourists" is misguided. American military always has said that the vast majority of the fighting in Iraq is from domestic forces, not outside influences. I recall fairly recent government reports that Al Qaeda is stronger now than at any time prior to 9/11. I have real doubts regarding assertions that invading Iraq has weakened the organization; do we really think bin Laden would still be around if we hadn't taken our eye off the ball?

Removing a brutal dictator was not the prime reason for invading Iraq. The drumbeat prior to the war was "Saddam must disarm, or we will disarm him," not "Saddam must free his people, or we will free them." Bush himself admitted this; when asked on a trip abroad before the war what it would take to avoid the conflict, he said "complete disarmament," not "Saddam has to start acting like a nice guy."

If Bush had stated humanitarian reasons instead of WMDs for invading Iraq, I doubt there would have been much public support for the action. Instead, the administration scared us with talks of smoking guns being mushroom clouds. People supported the war mostly out of concerns for our own security, not out of concern for the Iraqis. If the real reason was humanitarian, then Bush did real damage in subverting democracy at home: the whole premise of our system is that government tells us why its wants to act, and the people then decide through their elected representatives. If government is deceptive about its motives, then the idea of representative government is a farce.

By definition none of Iran's nuclear research is "peaceful" because it's purpose isn't for making power, it's for making weapons.

The NIE had said they stopped breaking the various treaties they've signed in 2003 but we still think (like we did before when we said their program was for weapons) that they'll get nukes in a few years.

If they had stopped there, then it would have been slightly off message but still a respectable report. They didn't stop there, they then proceeded to make a political conclusion, i.e. that Iran isn't doing anything that's worth invading them for.

That's what makes the report a problem. The underlying facts remain mostly the same, even the year in which Iran gets the bomb remains the same.

Let's face it, the US does not invade countries for having WMDs. Otherwise, you'd have troops in France.

Iraq ticked an awful lot of boxes for invasion. Oil, yes, but also the fact that the US was already responsible for a fifth of Iraqi territory (Kurdistan).

Worse still, the four-fifths of Iraq under Saddam were dominated by Shia Muslims who hated Saddam's Sunni-Muslim clique. As you say, Shia Iran (understandably) supported this majority against Saddam.

Saddam was going to go one way or another. If he'd been overthrown by the Shia majority, as almost happened in 1991, there would have been a regional war. Why?

You are wrong on one significant fact. The Iraqi insurgency is not a "domestic" affair; it is both an Iranian and a Saudi one. The Saudis (and other Arabs) have given huge amounts of money to Sunni militants. Just as the Iranians support the Shia, so the Arab states support the Sunnis.

Without US preemption, Saddam eventual downfall would have given the Sunnis and Shias (and their regional backers) a green light to duke things out indefinitely. That wouldn't be our problem, apart from the fact that our economy relies on Gulf oil, which would be in the direct firing line of any such conflict.

Personally, I don't have a problem with Iraq being run by the pro-Iran politicians whom many Iraqis voted for. For me, Iran is not quite the great satan we're supposed to think it is, though I realise that many people disagree with this.

...Their ongoing "civilian" nuclear program doesn't appear to have a reason to exist other than to generate nuclear material to be used in nukes. That's the problem right there...

Hmmm...well, we have nukes (and have used them), and Israel has nukes, and Pakistan has nukes, so WHAT'S YOUR POINT?

Iran is bound by various treaties to not seek nukes, unlike us, Israel, and yes, Pakistan. So that makes their actions illegal.

They're also bald face lying about their activities and intentions, and have been bald face lying about this for the last couple of decades.

Add to that their support of terrorism, their support of war (with Israel, which as you pointed out is also a nuclear power), some of the retoric coming out of the high offices and we have a pretty toxic combination.

Further it's not at all clear that the people in charge in Iran have full control. Was the Revolutionary Guard ordered to buzz those US Navy ships and take the Brish saliors hostage, or did they just think it was a good idea?

Granted, for the same reasons it's probably worse for the world that Pakistan is a nuclear power, but this doesn't change that the rest of the world should be very uncomfortable or even alarmed that Iran is seeking nukes. One Pakistan is more than enough, and one stand off between two nuclear powers is also more than enough.

Further, if Iran gets the bomb it's regional rivals (just about everyone) will probably feel they have too as well (just like Pakistan did when India got it).

The bottom line is that Iran getting the bomb puts the world closer to a nuclear war.

So dbuss, what is your solution?

I'll jump on this wagon...solution? Ensure Iran upholds the agreements it's a party to....simple. This involves transparency with the IAEA....to establish confidence that Iran is truly only seeking a peaceful program like it says it is. Who has bombs and whom has used them matters not...Iran signed an agreement that it too can back out of like the DPRK did, but it hasn't, so we must insist that it upholds it's end of the bargain. The existing nuclear powers are to uphold their end of the deal by not exporting nuclear weapon technology to non-nuclear weapon states.

For Iran? The rest of the world needs to treat this as a serious problem. A big piece of the problem is they've grown too used to relying on the US to play global cop. Most of things the US can do on it's own would only make things worse, and we're busy in any case.

For those anti-war anti-Bush report writing bozos who are trying to drive policy? Probably they need to be fired, but it might be to toxic for this administration to do so.

DBuss:

By definition none of Iran's nuclear research is "peaceful" because it's purpose isn't for making power, it's for making weapons.

The NIE had said they stopped breaking the various treaties they've signed in 2003 but we still think (like we did before when we said their program was for weapons) that they'll get nukes in a few years.

If they had stopped there, then it would have been slightly off message but still a respectable report. They didn't stop there, they then proceeded to make a political conclusion, i.e. that Iran isn't doing anything that's worth invading them for.

That's what makes the report a problem. The underlying facts remain mostly the same, even the year in which Iran gets the bomb remains the same.

You sound exactly like bush himself.Ignorant,brain dead and just as deluded as the fool named bush.(i bet i'm not the only one who saw this after reading your eye opening post of insanity)

If you have a real argument or even disagreement feel free to make it. Deluded how?