I am not so sure you want to do away with the analogies so fast, at least yet. Curtis LeMay could not guarantee that his precise bombing attack on Cuba would be enough to rid Cuba of all the missiles. Kennedy had to worry that the atack could be successfula and he coud still lose the existence of Florida.

McNamara at the Kennedy Library conference on the Cuban Missile Crisis said he only just learned tha the Russian troops in Cuba were armed with tactical nuclear weapons and were prepared to use them. Thus an American force invading Cuba after the successful bombing of the missile sites would have been hit with nuclear weapons triggering a nuclear response and presumably WWIII.

Two lessons if not anaogies to keep in mind.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

And since Iran doesn't have any nuclear weapons, the lesson is . . . what?

J. McCutchen "JmacSF"

San Francisco. CA

Wonder when the IRNA will pick this up?

Neither the United States of America, nor the world community of nations can tolerate deliberate deception and offensive threats on the part of any nation, large or small. We no longer live in a world where only the actual firing of weapons represents a sufficient challenge to a nation’s security to constitute maximum peril.

Which brings up another illuminating dissimilarity, C-word and IraQ. Maybe Jimmy Carter should send Georgie a copy of his Malaise Speech

Americans Wary of Action on Iran, Gloomy on Iraq, Poll Shows

April 13 (Bloomberg) -- American pessimism about the Iraq war has deepened and may be feeding doubts about President George W. Bush's efforts to thwart Iran's nuclear ambitions, the latest Bloomberg/Los Angeles Times poll found.

A majority of those surveyed -- 56 percent -- said Iraq is now in a civil war, and just 37 percent said they believe Bush when he says a lot of progress is being made there, down from 45 percent who said they believed him in January.

Forty-eight percent said they would support military action against Iran if it continues to produce material that can be used to develop a nuclear bomb, down from 57 percent in January. Forty percent oppose military action, up from 33 percent in January.

A majority -- 54 percent -- said they ``don't trust'' Bush to make the right decision about whether the U.S. should go to war with Iran, compared with 42 percent who said they do trust him. Forty percent said the Iraq experience had made them less supportive of military action against Iran, while 38 percent said it had no impact. The poll surveyed 1,357 American adults by telephone April 8-11 and had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Analysts said negative perceptions of the war in Iraq are driving sentiment on Iran. ``The Iraq experience is very sobering; it tells people that the military solution that looks so easy can be an illusion,'' said Joseph Cirincione, director for nonproliferation at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington.

``I expect those numbers to go down,'' Cirincione said of the support for an Iran strike. ``The more war with Iran is discussed, the lower the numbers will be.''

I find it hard to accept that nations who want to maintain peace have ulterior motives. Both Russia and China have stated that Iran should not be developing nuclear technology or enriching uranium. But, both say we need a diplomatic approach to the issue, which we most certainly do.

Neither China nor Russia is an enemy of the United States.  Neither  has given signs of ambitions to conquer us or to push us out of any portion of the world.  Both would like to compete with us economically, but China actually props up our economy by buying up our debt.  It is long past time to stop viewing those countries as enemies, and viewing them as friendly competitors instead. 

Hoppy in Sacramento

I agree, Pakistan is scarier.  But can we please dispense with the lame, it's-all-about-oil reasoning?  Oil or no oil, the Iranian government has been our enemy for more than two decades.  Most importantly, it doesn't yet have the bomb, whereas Pakistan does.  An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure and all that.

Hoppy

I was not insinuating they were our enemies. I was merely pointing out that the crux of their position is not only that they have a sincere desire for peace. China, for instance, has an oil appetite every bit as insatiable as ours. It is not American desire for that oil which they fear as much as it is possible production disruption by a military or economic war. Russia has similar aims but is likely more concerned about their trade relationship with Tehran. Not that China and Russia have no concerns about another Iraq-style conflict erupting in Iran, but they have strategic reasons for wanting calm aside from the peace-loving variety.

I think we can be sure that Israel will make an effort not to be destroyed, and certainly not without a single shot being fired.  My guess is that before Iran could launch a single missile in Israel's direction they would find their skies filled with nuclear bomb carrying Israeli jets.  So, the problem is not Israel's destruction, but the nuclear war that any perceived attempt to destroy Israel would start.

Hoppy in Sacramento

Read what I wrote again.

The problem isn't Israel's destruction because Israel will not be destroyed by Iran. They will do everything necessary to prevent that, including taking the world into a nuclear war - and that is our problem. Protecting Israel is Israel's problem, and they handle that problem very well. They now have the capability of preventing Iran from ever even discussing an attack on Israel.

Brad, I have enough respect for you to know that you would not be uncaring about the destruction of any country, including Israel. I would appreciate a similar respect from you.

Hoppy in Sacramento

J. McCutchen "JmacSF"

San Francisco. CA

Here's a decent analogy. Simon Jenkins of the Guardian UK sees in the US/GB Iran hype, "jihadist" rhetoric the stirrings of ings of a Fourth Crusade.

J. McCutchen "JmacSF"

San Francisco. CA

Actually, I consider Israel's potential destruction to be a very big problem

 

Malarky

J. McCutchen "JmacSF"

San Francisco. CA

 That's because the world has never before seen a government run by messianic, fanatic, jihadist Muslims pursue nuclear weapons.  It's a unique situation.  It is a uniquely frightening situation.

 

Xenophobic hysteria.  Iran hasn't invaded another cuuntry since the Persian Empire. There aren't 130,000 Iranian troops occupying Mexico. Iranian B-2 bombers aren't being readied to attack ICBM's in Minott, North Dakota and no Iranian submarines lurk off the east coast waiting to launch SLCM's against command and control facilitiies in Washington, Maryland and Northern Virginia.

 Even before President Bush launched his war against Iraq, the Iranians, feeling surrounded by nuclear-capable American forces on three sides (Afghanistan, the Central Asian Republics, the Persian Gulf), were working as hard as they could to acquire nuclear weapons and delivery vehicles to match. Now that the U.S. has proved it is prepared to fight anybody for no reason at all, they should be forgiven if they redouble their efforts. Martin van Creveld, Into the Abyss

Iran has no dispute with the US about oil freely reaching the markets and while it would prefer more freedom for Saudi Shiites, it has not expressed any enmity towards the Saudis on their account and the Saudis have not expressed that they are threatened by Iran on that account.

Iran has a dispute with the US about Israel's right to keep its ethnic identity at the expense of refugees who are denied admission because they are not Jews.

That basic dispute generates disputes over Hezbollah and Hamas. Other than that, Iran is perfectly happy with the governments the US is installing in Iraq and Afghanistan. There are no other active disputes between Iran and the US besides that over Israel.

I would say Iran is not the enemy of the United States today, at least directly. Other than Israel, there is no US interest that Iran does or wants to threaten.

I respect your ability to admit an error.

But what to make of the guy who rated the misconceived comment a 4? :)

J. McCutchen "JmacSF"

San Francisco. CA

Against the Bush Administration's latest war terrorism and the incipient hysteria it has inspired in some,  Joseph Cirincione, director of Non-Proliferation Project at the Carnegie Endowment, in an April 4 Council of Foreign Relations interview declared the obvious.

Cirnincione: Time For Clear Public Understanding of Iranian Threat

The entire interview is a worthwhile read, I found this exchange particularly noteworthy

Now of course other countries in this same region I think are very worried about Iran's nuclear program. [CFR Senior Fellow] Rachel Bronson says that the Iranian nuclear program is terrifying the Saudis, for instance.

This is one of the more unappreciated, or underappreciated, parts of this nuclear challenge. The threat from an Iranian nuclear bomb is not that Iran is going to get the bomb and attack the United States, or attack Israel, or that they are going to give it to a terrorist group to wage those attacks. No, deterrence is alive and well. Iran understands that such an attack would be the last attack of its regime. It would be a regime suicide move to actually use the bomb. I believe that some elements of the Iranian government want to get nuclear weapons for the same reason that governments have always wanted them—security and prestige.

They want to deter a United States or possibly Israeli attack, and they want the prestige that such a weapon would give them for their regional ambitions. And it's exactly for those reasons that other countries in the region would react. Saudi Arabia could not tolerate the political, military, and diplomatic power that a nuclear weapon would give Iran. And that's the great danger—that other countries in the region would start exploring their nuclear options.

There are already stories that Saudi Arabia is cooperating with the Pakistanis on nuclear research. We don't know if this is true, but we do know that the Saudis bankrolled the Pakistani nuclear program. My great fear is that the Saudis might take a nuclear shortcut, and invite Pakistan to station some of its nuclear weapons on Saudi territory. This, in fact, would actually be legal under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which Saudi Arabia is a member of, just the way the United States stations nuclear weapons in Europe. Egypt might also react. They used to have a nuclear program in the 1960s; they might decide that they have to beat the Iranian challenge in their own way. So might Turkey.

In fact, if there's a unified government of Iraq within five years, Iraq—long-term foe of Iran—might consider that it needs to balance Iranian power. So that's really the great threat, is that you would go from a Middle East with one nuclear weapons state, Israel, to one with three, four, or five nuclear weapons states with the remaining political, economic, and ethnic conflicts unresolved. That's a recipe for nuclear war.

J. McCutchen "JmacSF"

San Francisco. CA

Halperin and Cirincione in a sense are victims of the very hype they decry. Whether or not Iran gets a bomb in 10, 5 or even 1 year, adds little to the strategic equation, which thanks to Bush's Iraq debacle is already decisively unbalanced in Iran's favor.

This is ridiculous. Americans do not speak for Saudis. Cirricione takes the stance that the Saudis are not too worried about Israels weapons but is terrified of Iran possibly being nuclear capable. That is a convenient position for an American to take, if the American himself is not too worried about Israel's weapons but is terrified of Iran becoming nuclear capable. But why are Saudis not saying this themselves?

The Saudi foreign minister said that he does not have any problem with Iran's current nuclear program. Then the former Saudi ambassador to the US traveled to Russia to lobby against any UN pretext for a US war on Iran.

Egypt may respond to an Iranian nuclear capability by becoming nuclear capable itself. Or it may not. Of course Israel's nuclear arms provide Egypt with more than enough incentive to nuclearize itself it is has the freedom to do so. Egypt, in its alignment with the US does not have the freedom to do so. It will not suddenly get this freedom if Iran becomes nuclear capable.

The level of nonsense that is being produced during this Iranian "crisis" is both mind boggling and sickening.

So how many Muslims are you willing to kill to prevent a theoretical threat to Israel? And how many Americans are you willing to get killed or put at risk to prevent a theoretical threat to Israel? Everytime we promise to defend Israel (or any other country), someone at least needs to ask the question, "At what cost?"

I don't want to write a very long comment, because I have already written about this issue in other place. But here is my nutshell appraisal of the situation. Comments and criticism welcome:

1. It will be a bad thing if Iran gets the bomb, not just for the US and its ally Israel, but for the entire Middle East region and for the world. While it is my belief that even if Iran gets the bomb, we can probably deter them through conventional means, the contrary view is not entirely without merit. It is a risk we shouldn't run.

2. It is not inevitable that Iran will get the bomb.

3. We appear to have a good deal of time - several years if the experts are right. The sudden heightened sense of crisis is partly driven by politics. It's good that people are now debating the issue, but it would also be good to continue to remind the public that we probably don't have to decide what to do this month - or even by November.

4. Iran appears willing to deal. They have sent numerous signals over the past few years that they are willing to discuss the nuclear weapons issue in the context of a broad discussion of security guaranteees and regional issues - even including the recognition of Israel. These signals have been sent both during the Khatami administration and the Ahmadinejad administration, and appear to reflect a continuing disposition on the part of the supreme clerical leadership.

5. The consequences of a military assault on Iran, in my opinion, carry an extremely high risk of grave consequences for regional and global peace and security. The situation would have to be desperate indeed to run these risks. It is not even close to desperate at the present time.

6. Dealing with the problem posed by Iran's nuclear program, and similar problem that are likely to arise with other countries in the years to come, will be aided greatly by a renewed commitment to global nonproliferation and counterproliferation efforts. This must be a global effort that involves commitments from all of the existing nuclear powers.

7. So long as the situation in Iraq continues to fester and deteriorate, it will be hard to make progress on the Iranian nuclear issue. The unstable situation in Iraq will continue to invite Iranian intervention, if only because the Iranians have an understandable interest in quelling instability on their border. But Iranian intervention will continue to exacerbate US suspicions about Iran's ultimate intentions, and lead to continued hostility.

8. It is important to focus on the challenges of the present situation, however that situation came into existence. History lessons have some relevance insofar as they help us gauge the likely behavior of present actors in various contingent circumstances, but the relevance is limited. Excursions into the removal of Mossadegh, the 1979 hostage crisis, the Hezbollah bombing of the US Matrines in Lebanon or the Battle of Gaugamela can sometimes provide useful insight, but they are even more often strategies of avoidance.

Re: A key difference, however...

The key difference however is that in 1914 the two alliances were roughly at parity in strength and each side had a reasonable hope of victory. In this case Iran and its allies are extermely weak and could not hope to win a war with their opponents. Such a war would not be cakewalk (more insurgencies!) but would not lead to a redux of 1914 either. More likely a redux of 2003 and following in Iraq.

Re: There's no reason to assume Iran would have been the United States enemy for the last two decades, if it hadn't had oil in the 1940s.

Um, do you mean the Safavid Empire of the 16th and 17th century? Persia and the Ottomans routinely slugged it out over mastery of the Middle East back in those days.

Actually Iran and its allies would almost certainly win a war in Iran. There is more than one way to win a war, and doing so with superior military forces is not the way Iran would win. A guerilla war is where the victor would emerge, just as it is in Iraq. We could, of course do some major damage by bombing Iran, especially if we used nuclear weapons. That would unite the remaining Arab countries to wage an unceasing guerilla war and a series of terrorist attacks on our soil. It would unite the oil producing Arab countries to stop their production of oil, which would bring about a major recession, at least, in our country. There is no way at all that an attack on Iran by our country would bring about anything good for our country. Just as it hasn't in Iraq.

Hoppy in Sacramento

Bullshit. Iran is not run by fanatics. It's run by clerics with a different ideology than you. Even the hardliners aren't really fanatics - and even if they were, they're under the absolute control of the clerics who aren't.

There is absolutely NO possibility that an Iran with one or more nuclear weapons would initiate a first strike against anyone in the region.

They may be messianic, but they aren't STUPID. They can see that they don't have the power to pull off something like that without devastating consequences to themselves and their agendas.

The REAL threat is an asshole like Bush who KNOWS he can do something like that and the worst he faces is - what? Impeachment? Big fraggin' deal! He's never going to do hard jail time for anything he does, and he knows it! What incentive does he have NOT to do anything he bloody well feels like it?

Richard Steven Hack

www.computerproblemssolvedcheap.com 

And what happened in the 16th century has a bearing on relations between the US and Iran exactly how? (Other than the obvious fact that both would like to control the oil.)

Richard Steven Hack

www.computerproblemssolvedcheap.com 

I am not familiar with the WWII history you cite. I thought the referrence was to the deposition of Mossadegh.

Most of your comments are useful, except for the phrase "it's a risk we shouldn't run."

Once you say that, you place yourself dead against the Iranian intention to have a nuclear energy program - because both Bush and the Israelis have said that even a peaceful use of uranium enrichment is simply not acceptable.

The fact of the matter is that Iran is entirely entitled to have a uranium enrichment program under the NPT. Once they have such a program, yes, they can at any time walk out of the NPT, dumpt the IAEA inspectors, and build a bomb. Their critics are right about that.

Where their critics are WRONG is that the US, Israel or anyone else has any right under international law to DO anything about it, absent a "clear and present danger" that the Iranians intend to USE any such bombs.

And that is where you and practically everyone else in this debate err.

On the other hand, I have often said that Israel should be pressured by the US, Europe and the UN to unilaterally disarm its nuclear arsenal under pain of total economic sanctions.

This position would seem to be contradictory to the one I take on Iran. Technically, I suppose it is. However, since it was the US's ignoring the buildup of the Israeli nuclear arsenal which contributes to the various problems in the Middle East, I feel that if ANYTHING is to be done, it needs to be done even-handedly. So if we're going to pressure Iran, then we need to pressure Israel as well.

On the other hand, if we agree that the US has no business trying to interfere with Israel OR Iran OR the Palestinians OR Iraq, then Iran should be left alone to build a nuclear arsenal just as Israel was.

It is the height of hypocrisy to say that the Israeli Zionist fanatics are "good guys", and the Iranian mullah fanatics are "bad guys", and thus justify an attack on Iran.

They're both fanatics. A pox on both their houses. Let's keep the US out of it completely and stop being so dependent on ME oil, so if these idiots nuke the oil fields, it won't cost us OUR economy, just THEIR economy.

Richard Steven Hack

www.computerproblemssolvedcheap.com 

I'm wondering how Iran having nuclear weapons would be "uniquely frightening" in a way not analogous to China having nuclear weapons, or the USSR having nuclear weapons, or Pakistan having nuclear weapons.

I'm sorry that this frightens you, but quite frankly, it doesn't frighten me.

Of course, the problem with the preemptive attack notion is that it removes any incentive for good behavior on the part of purported enemies. Bush pretty much flushed cooperation down the toilet when he invaded Iraq. The new world order is that smaller nations require a nuclear deterrent to protect them from us.

1.  It is very easy to ensure that Iran doesn't get the bomb.  Iran doesn't want or need the bomb.  Iran is repeatedly offering to enter more restrictive inspection regimes that would make it impossible for Iran to have a bomb under those regimes, but where it would be possible for Iran to produce a bomb after a year or more if it was to leave the NPT.  Your statement that it would be bad for Iran to get the bomb does not address the US position, but it is presented as if you wrongly believe it does.  You may well feel that Iran being nuclear capable would be a bad thing, but using "get the bomb" in the place of "be nuclear capable" misdirects the conversation.

2.  It sure isn't inevitable that Iran gets the bomb.  If Iran is nuclear capable, that nuclear capability has strategic value even in the hopes that it is not used.  Israel didn't build several hundred nuclear weapons to use them, but to benefit from the adjustment it would cause their rivals' strategic calculations.  Iran insisting on keeping its capability is not to actually build a bomb, but to change especially Israel's calculations given that it would be possible theoretically for Iran to build a bomb.

3. If thirty years from now Iran, in a regional crisis, drops out of the NPT, then Iran will be able to produce a bomb in about a year using the technology they are contemplating today under real world conditions.  Until Iran drops out of the NPT, there really is no issue to even deal with.

4. Iran is willing to deal subject to some caveats.  I have not seen an offer to recognize Israel.  I very much doubt there is any constituency in Iran for that.  Iran is more likely willing to offer Israel a multi-year truce or something, and also reducing how actively it supports groups that Israel perceives as threatening.

5. Agreed with no qualification.

6. Iran being nuclear capable is not a primarily a proliferation problem the same way Israel having weapons is not a proliferation problem.  Iran rightly wants as much deterrent power as it can get subject to the terms of the NPT. If there is a proliferation regime that locks Israel's strategic advantage  into place, that will be opposed broadly in Israel's region.  The US has to make a political decision about how important, what is the US willing to sacrifice, to lock Israel's strategic advantage in place.

7.  Iran's ultimate intentions in Iraq are clear.  Hussein inexplicably attacked a potential partner is the anti-US/Israel alignment.  No Shiite led government would do that.  Sadr saying the triad of evil is the US, UK and Israel is a mainstream view in Iraq. Pretty much anything but Hussein is a tremendous victory for Iran.  Iran does not need and would not benefit more from anything more than that.  The US' ultimate intentions are much more murky.  The US allowed Israel to build bases in Kurdistan, which means the US is trying to break Iraq up.  It is unimaginable that a unified 60% Shiite, 20% Sunni Arab Iraq would tolerate Israeli military bases in Iraq.  It is not clear to what degree Iran is working against US efforts to dismantle the country.

8. Agreed without qualification. 

Most of your comments are useful, except for the phrase "it's a risk we shouldn't run."

Once you say that, you place yourself dead against the Iranian intention to have a nuclear energy program - because both Bush and the Israelis have said that even a peaceful use of uranium enrichment is simply not acceptable.

Richard, if you reread my post, you will see that I was speaking of the risk we would run if Iran actually gets the bomb. I think Iran has every right to a peaceful nuclear energy program, and believe there are many things we can do to try to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons while at the same time respecting their NPT-guaranteed rights to a domestic nuclear program. At the top of the list is a diplomatic initiative aiming at normalization and a broad deal covering the major outstanding problems in the US-Iran relationship.

I think we need to recognize that, at the current time, many people oppose such an initiative. In some cases, that may be because they sicerely doubt it will be successful. However, I suspect the greater opposition comes from those who worry that it will be successful, and fear a US strategic reorientation, and its significances for the future of US relationships in the Middle East.

Zionists aren't fanatics, unlike yourself, but nationalists not unlike your buddies the Palestinians. Your ignorace of the Israelis seems to know no boudnds. No amount of pressure will get Israel to give up its nuclear capabilities until there is firm peace in the region.

One of the particularly stupid things about the Arabs and their anti-Semitic supports is the fanatasy that Israel is going to agree to any policy that they believe will threaten their existence. Standard IDF policy strike first and strike very hard.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

... but it wasn't and the British and Americans would have lost all those oil profits, so Kermit Roosevelt (relative of FDR) was given the green light to destabilize the situation.

Tom

Seriously stupid remarks.

First, as an anarchist I hardly am in favor of ANY regime, let alone the Iranian one. I'm simply a realist about how statists operate. Since I don't have any sympathy for statists, unlike yourself, I can see them clearly.

Second, there has been plenty of analysis of the organization and nature of the Iranian regime by people outside the US who happen to know what is going on, as opposed to the neocons and the CIA who don't.

It's not like such people have never existed in history before, either.

I'm not saying that it's totally impossible for some wacko hardliners to somehow get the entire population of Iran on their side, overthrow the current clerics, put in even wackier clerics, and then start a nuclear war. Nazi Germany to some degree at least demonstrates that this can happen.

But there is no evidence it either has happened or is happening in Iran. And its purely hypothetical that it can or will happen in Iran.

It could just as easily happen in the United States - and that would be far more dangerous.

You don't go to war on that basis. It's that simple.

Richard Steven Hack

www.computerproblemssolvedcheap.com 

I understood that you were referring to the Iranians getting a bomb.

My point was that there is no way to prevent them getting a bomb if you allow them to have a full-scale nuclear energy program IF they decide to drop out of the NPT and build one regardless of any of our diplomatic initiatives. And as long as Israel (and to a lesser degree Pakistan) has a nuclear armament, it is in the Iranians interests to do so - not to mention the various US threats.

This is why the US and Israel is insisting that Iran not even be allowed to "spin one centrifuge" as Roberts put it.

You ARE correct that we DON'T need to deny them a nuclear energy program and that we CAN persuade them not to develop nuclear weapons while allowing them to have a nuclear energy program.

But the problem is that neither the neocons nor Israel are going to follow that course.

Your statement was that "it is a risk we can't afford". In fact, it is a risk we have no choice but to afford - or we have to start a war. That was my point. Either the US is prepared to negotiate with Iran, pressure Israel to disarm its nuclear arsenal, and offer security guarantees and nuclear energy assistance to Iran in return for guarantees of no nuclear weapons and agreement in making the Middle East a nuclear weapon free zone, or we aren't.

And we aren't.

Richard Steven Hack

www.computerproblemssolvedcheap.com 

Um, I did quote it. Unfortunately the system repeated my previous quotation (the 1940 one), not the current one (this site has some a lot of bugs in it still since its annoying redesign, especially when accessed via AOL or on a WIN2000 machine.)

J. McCutchen "JmacSF"

San Francisco. CA

War Crimes R US...

The lies have begun

Britain took part in mock Iran invasion

Pentagon planned for Tehran conflict with war game involving UK troops

Julian Borger in Washington and Ewen MacAskill
Saturday April 15, 2006
The Guardian

British officers took part in a US war game aimed at preparing for a possible invasion of Iran, despite repeated claims by the foreign secretary, Jack Straw, that a military strike against Iran is inconceivable.

The war game, codenamed Hotspur 2004, took place at the US base of Fort Belvoir in Virginia in July 2004

You make lots of claims, mainly bigotted, but rarely every supported or proven. One thing seems clear you don't know what is going on virtually anywhere.

So your theory is wait for Iran to have nuclear weapons and then see how reasonable they will be?

Daniel A. Greenbaum

I'll say this slowly. Iran is NOT a threat. Iran is pursuing an energy policy that includes the realities of PEAK OIL. They are going to want to SELL oil instead of use it up themselves.

They are also positioning themselves economically by opening the Iranian Oil Bourse using Euros, not dollars. It's supposed to open any day now though its opening was scheduled for last month.

As for what you understand of Iran and the history of the region, you haven't provided any counter-arguments or citations to back up your objections to what Hack has said.

For what it's worth, I trust them to be saner than Bush for Bush has certainly proven he is not.

NeoLotus

********

- Making judgements without intellectual justification is prejudice.
- We do not act rightly because we have virture, we have virtue because we act rightly.
- To know a truth well, one must have fought it out.

#4: According to the Israeli Joel Singer, it appears that Iran may have supported the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative - http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/jan-june02/next_3-28.html - it's an interesting question, a cursory search didn't turn up anything better, pro or con. Iran certainly didn't loudly denounce it.

#7: I'm a bit puzzled. Neither the invasion of Iran nor Kuwait was "inexplicable."