More on Iran's Nuclear Intentions
Here's a good article that summarizes why the recent NIE report should be kept wide open to debate and at the top of the news.
Despite report, Iran still a threat
Recalling that the report suggests Iran abandoned development of their weapons program in 2003, we all know what happened in 2003, don't we. But one of the most intriguing arguments in this article, which is probably correct, relates to the impact of the NIE report, or rather the hyped up cherry picked parts of it, on the attempt to bring about a peace settlement between the Palestinians and the Israelis.
Relevant passages that would support both Bush's assessment and that of the neighbouring countries follow:
....
....
....
....
....
....
The sad part of this whole affair is that the Democrats are once again ignoring a national security issue and have started a new round of full steam ahead obsessing on the Bush administration's failings. Talk about head in the sand politics. Do they not wonder why their approval rating got to be so dismal? Do they think their approval rating is the only thing that matters to Americans and the rest of the free world? What sick bastards!!
Despite report, Iran still a threat
Recalling that the report suggests Iran abandoned development of their weapons program in 2003, we all know what happened in 2003, don't we. But one of the most intriguing arguments in this article, which is probably correct, relates to the impact of the NIE report, or rather the hyped up cherry picked parts of it, on the attempt to bring about a peace settlement between the Palestinians and the Israelis.
Relevant passages that would support both Bush's assessment and that of the neighbouring countries follow:
....
"That year marked the high tide of Bush's policies. Those were the days when Libya abandoned its nuclear program and Pakistan dismantled the atomic weapon network of A.Q. Khan. The year before the president had branded Iran part of an "axis of evil" and in late 2001 American forces had toppled the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, like Iraq a country sharing a border with Iran. The president assembled multinational coalitions for Afghanistan and Iraq. That adds up to a lot of 'international scrutiny and pressure.'"
....
"Much of official Washington seems to run away from recognizing any success from Iraq....The White House seems more worried about the implications of its success than claiming credit for it. With good reason. Support for stringent sanctions to stop Iran from enriching uranium is collapsing."
....
"In this country [USA], with the exception of Hillary Clinton, the Democratic presidential candidates promised Neville Chamberlain-like "engagement" as the best strategy for Iran."
....
"All this debate of course begs the question of the reliability of the NIE report, which after all is an estimate, and NIEs have been wrong in the past, most notoriously about Iraq's WMD program. Many conservatives don't believe the latest one and even the International Atomic Energy Commission, responsible for monitoring Iran's nuclear program, is described as skeptical of the NIE's conclusion." (Emphasis mine.)
....
"Fear of a nuclear-armed Iran with hegemonic aspirations was seen as the prime reason Arab nations turned out in Annapolis last month in a show of support for Bush's efforts to jump-start a new round of Israel-Palestinian talks. With Washington's spy agencies concluding that Iran suspended its nuclear weapons program years ago, that motivation could fade. The good news is the Los Angeles Times reports the Arab world is not persuaded by the NIE and is worried that it will gut Bush's policies and embolden Iran's regional ambitions."
....
"And we shouldn't forget things the NIE said that have been overshadowed by its "high confidence" conclusion about Iran suspending its program in 2003. It said that Iran is keeping open the nuclear arms option and that it had only "moderate confidence" that Tehran has not restarted the weapons program."
The sad part of this whole affair is that the Democrats are once again ignoring a national security issue and have started a new round of full steam ahead obsessing on the Bush administration's failings. Talk about head in the sand politics. Do they not wonder why their approval rating got to be so dismal? Do they think their approval rating is the only thing that matters to Americans and the rest of the free world? What sick bastards!!
posted by Louise at 7:23 am
3 Comments:
And what do you think of the very popular view by a leading Israeli analyst Obadiah Shoher? He argues (here, for example, www. samsonblinded.org/blog/america-arranges-a-peace-deal-with-iran.htm ) that the Bush Administration made a deal with Iran: nuclear program in exchange for curtailing the Iranian support for Iraqi terrorists. His story seems plausible, isn't it?
Hi, Alex. Thanks for that article. It makes perfect sense to me. There is definitely something very fishy about the release of the NIE report and the change in tactics which seem to taking place in Washington. The sequence of events that have transpired over the past several weeks is just to coincidental to be by chance, if you ask me. Is a a grand ruse? Has the US really blindsided Israel? Is anybody in the free world's intelligence and governing bodies really so stupid that they believe Iran would not continue on with whatever nepharious plans they have. I don't think so. Something's up and we mere peasants won't know what it is for a long time.
I'd like to hear your opinions on these events. There seems to be some internal power stuggle going on in Iran, too, from what I've been reading. It's so hard to tell, though.
Upon re-reading the passages I quote from the article linked to in my posting, I noticed something that hadn't really jumped "off the page", so to speak, before, namely this:
"The good news is the Los Angeles Times reports the Arab world is not persuaded by the NIE and is worried that it will gut Bush's policies and embolden Iran's regional ambitions."
Was that the plan???? I'm not much for believing in conspiracies, because in international politics so much cannot be controlled or predicted, but there was just something about what seemed to be a colossal stab in Israel's back the was too surreal to be believed at face value. One of the articles I linked to here, suggests that the Annapolis meeting was meant to forge an anti-Iran alliance.
If that was the plan, then it could certainly backfire. The Arabs may decide to become all kissy-kissy with Iran, which some reports suggest is already happening. Shortly after the Annapolis meeting (like a day or two) an article appeared that described what would happen to the Middle East and Iran if Israel let loose with their nuclear arsenal. I posted it somewhere, but darned if I can remember where. The publication of that article almost seemed too coincidental to be anything but planned.
BTW, dumb question, but I've got to ask it. Two or three years ago there was an Alex posting at ITM who was a Canadian. You wouldn't happen to be him, would you? I mean there are only a few hundred thousand men named Alex in the Anglosphere, so it could be. ;-)
Post a Comment
<< Home