L.A Times, "U.S. does not believe Iran is trying to build nuclear bomb", February 23, 2012:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iran-intel-20120224,0,6528507,print.story

"As U.S. and Israeli officials talk publicly about the prospect of a military strike against Iran's nuclear program, one fact is often overlooked: U.S. intelligence agencies don't believe Iran is actively trying to build an atomic bomb. A highly classified U.S. intelligence assessment circulated to policymakers early last year largely affirms that view, originally made in 2007".

"Both reports, known as national intelligence estimates, conclude that Tehran halted efforts to develop and build a nuclear warhead in 2003. The most recent report, which represents the consensus of 16 U.S. intelligence agencies, indicates that Iran is pursuing research that could put it in a position to build a weapon, but that it has not sought to do so. Although Iran continues to enrich uranium at low levels, U.S. officials say they have not seen evidence that has caused them to significantly revise that judgment. Senior U.S. officials say Israel does not dispute the basic intelligence or analysis..."

I ask all the Zionist posters to seriously consider the CONSEQUENCES of an Israeli attack.

A war initiated by Israel would spread to our interests in about half an hour. Iran would certainly hit back to the best their abilities. Prices for petroleum would certainly skyrocket to who knows what level, collapsing our fragile economy like a house of cards. Same for the whole world's economy for the same reasons. Mass chaos from Lebanon to Pakistan. Things quickly spiral out of control. Afghanistan explodes. Al-Qaeda claps its hands in glee in Yemen and Somalia. China and Russia get quite hostile. Radioactive clouds drift eastward over India. And of course in this event, Iran would conclude that it must quickly obtain a nuclear WMD capability. Achieving exactly what you claim you want to avoid.

Great! An Israeli attack slams the whole world into what? Choose your own apocalyptic metaphors. Just who else would the world blame?

Zionism is racism and unending war. Either your are for it, or against it.

Some other snippets from the L.A. Times story you have cited, in the interest in presenting a balanced story, as the journalist intended:

"Albright's group estimates that with the centrifuges Iran already has, it could enrich uranium to sufficient purity to make a bomb in as little as six months, should it decide to do so."

"Some developments have bolstered the view that Iran is secretly pursuing a weapon."

Either way, Israeli intelligence assessments will depend upon more timely information, and be impacted by political force bearing more weight, than that borne by an L.A. Times article.

Your definition of zionism is really interesting. Now Im not Jewish but...

According to wikipedia "Zionism is a form of nationalism of Jews and Jewish culture that supports a Jewish nation state in territory defined as the Land of Israel."

Can you just have the courage to come out and say that you hate jews instead of brandishing this zionism word about?

Im tired of the whole "i dont hate jews i hate zionists" argument. Its like saying I like jews as long as they stay the hell away from the middle east. Or you could say "I dont mind having jews in the middle east as long as they are ruled by a foreign country/religion and as long as they dont try to protect themselves".

Cut the crap and admit that you are the racist.

THAT is the problem, not morons like tarq...the problem is foreign policy.

You are jewish dont lie.
There is something very wrong with zionism, jews have no right to steal palestine. Imagine if the chinese decided to build a homeland in vietnam. Everyone would call that evil. Stop calling people racist most of you "jews" are white europeans with no hebrew blood. Ashenazi are not real jews. Zionism is evil and disgusting, How can you build a homeland where others live?? By shoving them in ghettos? Walling them off and stealing more and more land? Calling that idea disgusting is racist? The race card is worn out by you zionist losers. If anyone does hate you guys its for the monsterous actions you inflict on others and that you continue to support. For once it would be nice if you could make friends with your neighbors, but history says thats not possible

So foreign policy should ban those that disagree with you? what a nazi. He said nothing hateful, even if you think he is anti isreal. Its cool since you are clearly anti iranian. You zionist losers think you can silence people by calling them jew haters are too funny, especially since most of you are europeans

The comments, particularly about empire don't really make any sense. What is 'on the path of empire' supposed to mean?

If Iran ended its support for Hezhbollah and Hamas and made peace with Israel the U.S wouldn't have many issues with it, though if Iran did all that then its relations with the U.S would have already improved.

In any case people overstate Iran's power. It isn't an existential threat to Israel, not without nuclear weapons anyway. The Iranian military might be relatively large but it's far less advanced than the Israeli military and Iran can't even reach Israel without Iraq allowing Iranian soldiers to pass through (something that won't happen no matter how friendly Iraq gets to Iran).

1. Parthia/Sassanid Iran were never "rivals" to Rome, merely the closest thing to an organized foreign power within any meaningful distance of Rome. As far as a Roman emperor's head (actually his hollowed out skin) on the walls of Ecbatana (actually Ctesiphon), you have your details incorrect, and despite Roman troop lost fighting within Persia, these were mere border wars for Rome but life and death struggles for Parthia?Sassanid dynsaties. Ecbatana and Ctesiphon were sacked many times, Rome never was. I believe the furthest a Persian army (raid) ever got was Antioch.

2. Iran today, while of some strategic importance globally, is not the massively relevant strategic location that it was in ancient times. Iran isn't worth the bones of a single Pommeranian lancer, and is easily bypassed/ignored/sanctioned.

3. You may be correct vis a visa Israel, but only in the sense that Israel "needs" an existential threat to keep alive some of the dated "national myths" certain right wing Israeli group (and their supporters) need i order to keep their "base" engaged.

4. Saddam went to war for his own reasons and as a non-US ally. The US cozied up to Saddam post-invasion.

Still the point about Iran's long tension with the West is well taken. The Persians, including the Parthians, always did consider the Eastern Mediterranean their proper sphere of influence, and their meddling in Palestine today has more to do with that than any desire to support co-religionists. They can do realpolitik with religion as well as anyone else can. Even the Parthians propped up their puppet Antigonous II Mattathais in Jerusalem (ah, the irony of it ) to turn Palestine into a buffering hedge against Roman encroachment after Pompey and Crassus tried to push them around. Like the Chinese, they have a long memory we Americans can barely relate to. Where some of us in the West hold up Marathon as a cultural icon, they remember Surena at Carrhae. It colors the discourse of animosity even today.

extending approximately from 1800 to 1945. And it directly correlates to the rise (and fall) of conscription and the advent of the industrial revolution. which is why the folks (on the left and the right) who think AUMFs and "shadow wars" and what-not are an aberration or something. They're wrong and ahistorical.

I've heard that, but it doesn't take the nature of covert actions into account and also forgets about the large (for their time) armies that could be raised against other powers in and outside the state.

My point wasn't on military size and national mobilization but rather the idea of there being clearcut wartime and peacetime. In other words semi-secret operations could be relatively normal between hostile states. The U.K armed First Nation tribes for a time after the American Revolution and Francis Drake was a clear example of asymmetric warfare. Those things complemented battles and war rather than replacing it. Of course this is simply looking at the U.K, but I suspect that proper investigation of Eastern Europe or the wider world would reveal a similar norm.

Incidentally I mention states, but that isn't to say that groups below the government level couldn't be engaged in such things. I simply don't include them here because that's going to be a long and drawn out argument taking into account violence between substate groups, violence by groups seeking to replace the state or separate from it etc.

The Utility of Force really should be mandatory reading.

We are definitely at war with Iran - we have been effectively since 1979. The US relationship with Iran has never been good since this time. Iran represents a major danger to both the region and the world. If they ever got their hands on some nuclear weapons, they could turn into a menace much worse than North Korea. This would have a huge effect on American efforts to bring peace to the region.

At the moment the US cannot afford either the risk or expense of another big war like the Iraq one. Therefore they will have to work behind the scenes to contain that threat that is Iran.

However, it seems hard to imagine how Iran can be stopped from developing nuclear weapons if it really wants to. It appears that without war, all the US can do is delay the inevitable.

Maybe what is required is a "Good Cop - Bad Cop" approach with Israel making the military strike and then the US stepping in to try to mediate the situation.

...so should I expect to see you on line with the rest of us on our way to Tehran? I mean cause you know a bombing campaign just will not get it done on without a GAF.

IMO, if you know your history, and the results of the last two wars between Israel and Lebanon, the whupping HZ in Lebanon sounds harder...at least the Israelis won't have to deal with an occupation of Iran if they whupp the Iranians 1200 miles away.

Nobody would have thought that the Israelis could fly 2500 miles to Entebbe and rescue the hostages and return with a stop in Kenya to transfer wounded and refuel. It wasn't as perfect as history has made it, but it worked.

So no one should suggest that they couldn't devise a plan that would work for them. By that I mean that they would be satisfied to set set the program back 5 years. It sounds like were we to believe that they were working to build nuclear weapons, we would want to completely destroy all their facilities with a dual or military pirpose.

The Israelis only have 125 strike aircraft available plus jammers and refuelers. Obviously we have many more aircraft available to strike in many different ways.

The other thing that is obvious is that there is no agreement on exactly what Iran is doing. Everyone should remember that Hussein made the mistake of deceiving his own military, Iran, and others that he was continuing to pursue a nuclear WMD program, even though development had ceased. Our statutory intelligence agencies had figured that out, but some in the Executive Branch didn't want to hear that answer. In this case, we, the public do not know what the intelligence communities consensus (the NIE) really concludes. Iran should not permit anyone to make a mistake about their capabilities and intent.

Three other words to keep in mind: Operation Eagle Claw. This sent an attack force into Iran to rescue the 52 American hostages taken by college students in Tehran several weeks earlier. It's wellknown that mechanical misfortunes thwarted the guys with vision, heart, sacrifice and the knowledge that it had to be done. It should be just as wellknown that had nothing mechanical failed, had the force arrived exactly at their destination, there were no hostages to be saved. The students had moved them all away before Operation Eagle Claw took to the air.

Thirtyone years later, a similar mechanical misfortune befell another group of men aglow with vision, heart, sacrifice and the knowledge that killing Osama bin Laden had to be done. Fortunately, only one chopper failed that time. Better mechanics would seem an important part of the mix; or better helicopters.

In the Internet/Google age, you could easily at least get your facts right. Operat Eagle Claw was executed 6 months after the embassy's seizure. At the time of the rescue attempt, all the hostages were being held in buildings on the embassy grounds and we had clandestine operators led by Dick Meadows already in place in Tehran. We addressed the reasons for the failure elsewhere on this blog. The mechanical failures were outweighed by poor planning, no joint rehearsals, incorrect personnel selection, and some poor decision making.

If you get your facts right, it provides a better foundation for your ludicrous conclusions and people will be confused instead of merely being entertained.