“In 2003, Iran Halted its Nuclear Program”

Evaluating the Impact of the NIE

Everybody’s talking about the NIE — the “National Intelligence Estimate” about Iran and its alleged nuclear weapons program. This report was requested by the Congress in the National Defense Authorization Act signed by President Bush on October 17, 2006. An NIE on the topic had been released in 2005, and another had been completed at the time the Congress passed the defense authorization bill. But the latter, according to former CIA officer Philip Giraldi writing in the American Conservative in October 2006, was being withheld due to objections from Vice President Cheney’s office. It apparently reflected the judgment of the Director of National intelligence, John Negroponte, who had stated in April 2006 that it would still be “a number of years off” before Iran would be “likely to have enough fissile material to assemble into or to put into a nuclear weapon, perhaps into the next decade.”

According to Gareth Porter, “Cheney’s desire for a ‘clean’ NIE that could be used to support his aggressive policy toward Iran was apparently a major factor in the replacement of John Negroponte as director of national intelligence in early 2007.” The release of this NIE was long delayed, again reportedly due to objections by Cheney’s office. Administration officials even intimated that the non-classified part of the report would be withheld from the public.

The “key judgment” in the document is of course the following: “We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program; we also assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Tehran at a minimum is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons” It has met with various reactions.

Those worried about a U.S. attack on Iran and the expansion of the U.S. war in Southwest Asia have generally welcomed the NIE, concluding with relief that it finally takes war on Iran “off the table.” Nebraska Republican Senator Chuck Hagel, who has opposed an attack, says that “if nothing else,” the report removes “the urgency that we have to attack Iran, or knock out facilities.” He adds, “I don’t think you can overstate the importance of this.” But some of those welcoming the report combine relief with hard questions for the administration. They note that the “great discovery” it contains was (according to the December 6 New York Times) made last summer, and that Bush’s warnings about the threat of Iran’s nuclear program actually became progressively more shrill after that. In late August he warned of a “nuclear holocaust” if Iran continued to enrich uranium; in October he declared that Iran must be stopped “if you’re interested in avoiding World War III.” Some people want to know what the president knew, and when he knew it.

Those gung-ho for an attack, meanwhile, who had assumed that their cowboy prez would deliver on his bellicose anti-Iran rhetoric, feel stabbed in the back. Norman Podhoretz, for example, neocon godfather and father-in-law of the leading neocon in the administration at present, Deputy National Security Advisor (and convicted Iran-Contra figure) Elliott Abrams. Last May Podhoretz cheerily wrote in an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal that he expected Bush would “within the next 21 months…order air strikes against the Iranian nuclear facilities from the three U.S. aircraft carriers already sitting nearby” and thereby “ensure the security of this country in accordance with the vow he took upon becoming president, and in line with his pledge not to stand by while one of the world’s most dangerous regimes threatens us with one of the world’s most dangerous weapons.”

Now Podhoretz gloomily writes of his “dark suspicions about the NIE.” He declares that “the intelligence community, which has for some years now been leaking material calculated to undermine George W. Bush” is trying “to head off the possibility that the President may order air strikes on the Iranian nuclear installations” — as though that were somehow a nefarious act of sabotage. Like Cheney and his team, Podhoretz seems convinced that the professional intelligence community is dominated by liberals, Democrats and pacifists (if not anti-Semites indifferent to the “existential” danger and threat of “nuclear holocaust” he insists Iran presents to Israel).

For my part I’m guardedly optimistic that the NIE will diminish the prospects for an Iran attack, and pleased to watch the neocons throwing their shit-fits. But I think people are missing something here. The report says, “in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program.” On the one hand it says, Iran probably doesn’t have a program now. On the other it says definitely: it had one. This is really the centerpiece of what AP calls the “blockbuster” report: that Iran (like Iraq in the late 1980s) had a secret military nuclear program in violation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Why is this important? ” It’s important because the Bush administration has a unique sense of time, in which past, present and future are all happening simultaneously. White House spokeswoman Dana Perino stated on December 5, “Iran does in fact have a covert nuclear weapons program, but it may be suspended.” (It is, and yet it was…it really depends on what “is” is, doesn’t it?) If Bush can posit that Iran had a nuclear weapons program, or has a “suspended” one, he can use such allegations by themselves to justify an attack.

Recall Bush’s response to critics who were pointing out in June 2003 that no weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq. He denounced them as “some who would like to rewrite history — revisionist historians is what I like to call them,” adding: “Saddam Hussein was a threat to America and the free world in ’91, in ’98, in 2003.” His point was that the chronological details really didn’t matter. Saddam was pursuing a nuclear weapons program in 1991. It was destroyed by the IAEA, but its existence at a certain point in time legitimated an American attack twelve years later.

Now when the intelligence community publicly states in no uncertain terms that Iran’s nuclear program is not an imminent threat, Bush stresses a historical continuum. “Look,” he said at his December 4 White House news conference, as though stating the obvious: “Iran was dangerous, Iran is dangerous, and Iran will be dangerous if they have the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon.” Imagine him in the last months of his presidency, following a “shock & awe” campaign against an Iran with no nukes, and the inevitable international response of revulsion, responding to critics by saying “Iran was a threat to America and the free world in 2003, 2005 [when Ahmadinejad was elected], and 2008.”

His point in 2003 as well as now is: if we can show — or even just assert — that a state we dislike had, at some point in the past, aspirations to nuclear weapons capability, we’re entitled to attack it. We — a country with 5,000 nukes deployed and an equal number in storage, a military budget greater than the rest of the world’s combined, and military forces stationed in about 140 countries — do so in self-defense, lest they use their nukes on us. Or if they even Google-search the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon!

Why should we believe this charge that Iran had a nuclear weapons program in the first place? Sergei Lavrov, the foreign minister of Russia — a country with intelligence about Iran probably as good as that of the US — announced immediately after the NIE was made public that Russia “no proof suggesting that Iran has ever run a program for developing nuclear weapons” (emphasis added).

According to the New York Times, the “great discovery” was made “last summer,” so presumably in June, July or August 2007. By that time, the Cheney/neocon cabal and the intelligence community had already been at loggerheads for many months. Ray Takeyh, an expert on the Middle East at the Council on Foreign Relations, suggests that “a fundamental reversal of civil-military relations, and intelligence and political relationships” has occurred since 2002. He calls the NIE “part of a larger narrative, namely how the formal institutions of government are now determined to resist the White House, which wasn’t the case in 2002.” Is it not probable that opposition to an Iran attack within the military has recently forced Bush to rethink his glorious plans for regime change, but also to seek some face-saving explanation for a policy shift?

The publicly released document does not explain what sort of weapons program existed in 2003 or when it might have started. Perhaps the intelligence community actually thinks, like Lavrov and the IAEA, that there is no evidence of Iran ever having a nuclear weapons program. Perhaps the allegation of a now-suspended program reflects a compromise between the Cheney camp and the intelligence community. The latter has long been smarting over the humiliation it has suffered at the hands of this administration. Cheney and his notorious aide “Scooter” Libby repeatedly visited CIA headquarters in 2002, during the buildup to the invasion of Iraq, demanding the agency validate what it suspected or knew was disinformation supplied by Ahmad Chalabi & Co.; blamed the intelligence community for “intelligence flaws” in late 2003; and then reorganized it in a general purge, resulting in the departure of most senior officers. Just maybe, alarmed at the groundless accusations of the administration designed to justify an Iran attack, the intelligence community said, “No, we’re not going to play ball this time and give you another war. We really have no evidence for an Iranian nuclear weapons program.”

And then just maybe the Cheney folks said, “Well, tell you what. You can say that in your NIE. But we want it very clear that they had one and can revive it any time, and so remain a threat.” And maybe the intel folks said, “Alright, we can work with that. Actually we have some stuff that might be interpreted as expressions of discontent in the Iranian military about what might have been an order to shut down a nuclear weapons program in 2003.”

The neocons may also have demanded that the NIE having revealed the alleged suspension of the weapons program in 2003 imply that Bush administration efforts produced the shutdown. This also helps Bush save face. Immediately after the passage cited above we find the following: “We judge with high confidence that the halt, and Tehran’s announcement of its decision to suspend its declared uranium enrichment program and sign an Additional Protocol to its Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Safeguards Agreement, was directed primarily in response to increasing international scrutiny and pressure resulting from exposure of Iran’s previously undeclared nuclear work.”

Actually the “scrutiny” has been applied mostly by the IAEA and the “pressure” by the Europeans; while the U.S. has simply issued unproductive threats. But if there was a shutdown of a program in 2003 it was before the great American hullabaloo about Iranian nukes and pressure for sanctions and threats of military action to take out nuclear facilities. Still, some might read this as a validation of the administration’s hard line; “Yeah they backed off,” a Bushite might boast, “because we made it clear we’d bomb the hell outta them if they didn’t.”

But the chronology doesn’t quite work here. Bush had exerted a kind of “pressure” on Iran as early as January 2002, when hot on the heels of the regime change in Afghanistan he targeted the “axis of evil” (Iraq, Iran, and North Korea). In August 2002, the National Council of Resistance of Iran announced at a Washington news conference that Iran had a uranium enrichment facility at Natanz and a heavy water facility at Arak. Washington already had intelligence about these operations but for some reasons let the NCRI, centering around the Mujahadeen Khalq (an Iranian organization on the State Department’s terrorist list) make the announcement. But this did not immediately generate a movement to bomb Iran. Indeed, the State Department under Colin Powell favored a diplomatic approach and Powell’s deputy Richard Armitage in February 2003 alluded to Iran as a “democracy” (drawing fire from Michael Ledeen and other neocons).

On February 26, 2003, Iran signed a new agreement with the IAEA. It opened the country to intrusive inspections which have ever since resulted in reports of no evidence of a nuclear weapons program. On March 20 Bush invaded Iraq, ostensibly to destroy its weapons of mass destruction. In May 2003, with U.S. troops surrounding it in Afghanistan and Iraq, the Iranian government sent a letter to Washington via the Swiss ambassador in Tehran. It proposed talks towards normalization of U.S.-Iranian relations, cooperation on a comprehensive Middle East settlement, and measures to alleviate U.S. concerns over its nuclear program. Powell was inclined to respond positively, but Cheney rejected the initiative summarily, even warning the Swiss diplomat not to pass along such communications in the future.

The EU-3 (British, French and Germans) held talks with the Iranians from October 2003, and pursuaded Iran to suspend uranium enrichment from November 2004. The Paris Agreement signed by the Europeans and Iranians that month stated explicitely: “The E3/EU recognize that this suspension is a voluntary confidence building measure and not a legal obligation.” But by August 2005 the Europeans under pressure from the U.S. (which had viewed the talks between the EU-3 and Tehran with suspicion) joined Washington in demanding a permanent suspension of enrichment activity. Indignant at the apparent violation of the Paris Agreement, Iran resumed enrichment activity from August 2005.

The NIE does not indicate during what month of 2003 Iran shut down its military program “in response to increasing international scrutiny and pressure.” Is it supposed to have been in February (the IAEA agreement), or October (the EU talks)? In any case, if there was a weapons program, and it was shut down due to “international scrutiny and pressure” in 2003, its suspension likely occurred due to efforts that Washington treated with scorn. That won’t of course prevent Bush from boasting that Iran suspended a nuclear weapons program in response to his righteous threats, his muscular “diplomacy.”

I hope that Ray Takeyh is right in his assessment that the “formal institutions of government are now determined to resist the White House.” I hope the military and CIA will stand as defenders of the republic, constitution and “reality-based community” against Bush, Cheney and the neocrazies.

But we live in an imperialist country. Its “democracy” entitles us to every so often vote for corporate lawyers representing two parties with no discernable ideological differences, who once in office automatically support whatever war the president as the chief executive of corporate America wants. Or if they decline to support the war (as Congress declined to support the proxy war in Central America during the Reagan administration) they stand idly by while the administration uses extralegal measures to kill in pursuit of its goals. There is no integrity here, in the ruling class of this imperialist country, but merely some factions at some points worrying that specific moves might jeopardize the whole imperialist enterprise. When Admiral Fallon says there will be no war with Iran on his watch, he’s not saying it’s wrong for the U.S. to invade countries to control their markets and resources (under the banner of freedom and democracy); he’s saying that an attack on Iran will explode in the face of the institutions he holds most dear.

There is obviously a deep divide in the ruling class, its contours increasingly clear. The Wall Street Journal editors, who best reflect the sentiments of the tiny stratum of exploiters controlling the U.S. economy and (usually) the U.S. polity, have suddenly spewed vitriol against “Mr. Bush and his staff” who “have allowed the intelligence bureaucracy to frame a new judgment in a way that has undermined four years of U.S. effort to stop Iran’s nuclear ambitions.” They whine that “the authors of this Iran NIE include former State Department officials who have a history of hostility to Mr. Bush’s foreign policy” — as though there were something wrong with being hostile to policy based on lies. On the other hand there are within the same class, deeply invested in the military-industrial complex, Pentagon generals absolutely disgusted with the dishonesty and recklessness of current imperial strategy. These probably include some aware of history, of fascist precedents, and fearing for their own posthumous reputations—if not war crimes trials in their lifetimes.

This NIE won’t end the debate within the ruling class about how to best serve the interests of those ruling this imperialist country at this time. It will however probably sharpen up the debate, and maybe even provide some space for people opposed to imperialism in general to expose and oppose the system. If the U.S. (under Bush, or Hillary, or Giuliani who retains Podhoretz as a key adviser) attacks Iran, the regime in power will have to simultaneously clamp down on dissent—big time. So we should use this time offered by the ruling elite, as they face off, to build a genuinely anti-system, anti-imperialist antiwar movement.

Gary Leupp is a Professor of History at Tufts University, and author of numerous works on Japanese history. He can be reached at: gleupp@granite.tufts.edu. Read other articles by Gary.

15 comments on this article so far ...

Comments RSS feed

  1. Neal said on December 8th, 2007 at 2:13pm #


    This is actually a pretty good article. I have, however, a few criticisms.

    First, how do we have any confidence in the report, since clearly the program that Iran had, whatever it actually was, managed to escape the notice of the spies until it came to light from other sources. So, how good are our sources?

    Second, during the Summer of 2007 – at the very time you have it that the new evaluation was reached, one of the principal authors of the report told Congress completely different information. He stated, on July 17:

    Iran and North Korea are the states of most concern to us. The United States’ concerns about Iran are shared by many nations, including many of Iran’s neighbors. Iran is continuing to pursue uranium enrichment and has shown more interest in protracting negotiations and working to delay and diminish the impact of UNSC sanctions than in reaching an acceptable diplomatic solution. We assess that Tehran is determined to develop nuclear weapons–despite its international obligations and international pressure. This is a grave concern to the other countries in the region whose security would be threatened should Iran acquire nuclear weapons.

    This appears under the heading ‘Iran Assessed As Determined to Develop Nuclear Weapons.’ See http://www.odni.gov/testimonies/20070711_testimony.pdf

    My point in quoting this is that we have a political judgment being made, both then and now, about how Iran intended to use its alleged civilian program. And, in fact, critics of the program note that, in fact, Iran is, by all accounts, developing ICBM’s which would be a pointless exercise since they are only useful for purposes of carrying nuclear weapons.

    Critics of the report point out three other things. One. They note that the time to convert the program that, if the NIE is correct, Iran clearly has (i.e. an enrichment program), the time to militarize the program is months, not years. Two. They point out that the report indicates clearly that they do not know what Iran’s intentions are, only that they have high confidence about what was in 2003. Three. They note skeptically why Iran would stand up to the world community if the program they have is really for civilian purposes. After all, it is not as if Iran has a problem with access to oil.

    So, we remain in complete mystery. If, in fact, you are correct, the NIE is a good product that will help prevent a war. If, however, you are incorrect and the critics are correct, then Iran will, in due course, work to complete the three legs of a program: (a) the civilian program, (b) the ICBM program (which no one disputes) and (c) the conversion of the civilian program into a military program, once the civilian program is complete; and, having neared the end of the program with the world sidelined by the NIE report, there could be an even worse war.

  2. gerald spezio said on December 8th, 2007 at 3:59pm #

    You and James Petras agree that the Pentagon Generals are only significant immediate thwarting of the murdering designs of the Zionist agenda to turn Iran into another Iraq.

  3. Mike McNiven said on December 8th, 2007 at 5:00pm #

    NIE or no NIE, the anti-imperialist people of Iran, who overthrew the puppet shah, have a position of their own on peace with social justice:


  4. dan elliott said on December 8th, 2007 at 8:26pm #

    To any newcomers to DV:
    this “neal” is a Zionist troll strongly opposed to the main thrust of DV editorial policy. His purpose is to spread confusion, disrupt any educational process that may be taking place, and if nothing else, waste activist’s time by involving them in endless “debates” over recondite points having minimal relevance to the task at hand.

    He seems to have nothing to do but hang around webpages appending noxious “comments”, so my guess is he’s being paid out of “isreal”s treasury, just as was AIPAC founder Si Kenen back when nobody was paying attn. (cf. Grant F Smith, “Foreign Agents”, IRmep2007).

    Recommendation: take a pass. Don’t waste your time & attn on this jerk.

  5. Mulga Mumblebrain said on December 8th, 2007 at 10:16pm #

    dan elliott – I don’t think it best to merely admonish Neal as a Zionist stooge, although that is obvious. Better to answer his casuistic arguments. I note in his ‘contribution’ above that he speaks of ‘.. why Iran would stand up to the world community..’. This is of course the standard racist definition of ‘world community, or ‘international community’ one expects from the racist Right. In fact at the latest meeting of the Non-Aligned Movement, representing 118 countries, the vast bulk of the world’s population, there was unanimous support for Iran’s inalienable right to pursue peaceful nuclear power., under the NPT. By’ world community’ of course, Neal means the racist states of the West, including the nuclear powers the USA, France and the UK, that have failed to respect their obligations under the NPT and disarm. Still, one law for the Masters and another for the ‘niggers’ is standard intellectual practice on the Right. Neal never explains quite how it is such a good thing that the racist, belligerent, militaristic state he supports, Israel, should have hundreds of nuclear, thermonuclear and neutron weapons, plus large bio-warfare and chemical warfare capabilities, and be a perennially aggressive attacker of its neighbours, while Iran, obviously a state threatened by Israeli bellicosity, is not entitled to defend itself. I suppose he could wail on in the standard Zionist racist manner that Iran is irrational, fanatical etc, but this description seems to me far more descriptive of Bush’s US or Olmert’s Israel. It will be a truly evil day if the Zionists succeed in manufacturing another war of mass murder and aggression against Iran, but one cannot doubt that the Zionist Right, its ‘Christian Zionist’ and neo-con allies, and the dupes of Europe, are capable of yet another excursion into mass murder of Moslem untermenschen, accompanied, as ever, by hosannas to their ‘moral purity’.

  6. Neal said on December 8th, 2007 at 11:29pm #


    Actually, you misinterpreted my comment. The point I made about the world community was that if, as is alleged in the NIE, Iran makes its judgments based on a cost benefit analysis, why does Iran stand up to the world community, meaning e.g. the United Nations Security Council as well as the US, France, Britain and Germany.

    I trust that you will provide the rejoinder that the noted nations – and even the UN Security Council – is not the world community. That is a fair point, so you do not have to repeat it. My point was the willingness to stand up against the world’s mains political and military powers.

    As for the view that Iran is irrational and fanatical, I note that Iran hosted a conference – attended by the country’s leader – dedicated to calling into question events the wholesale slaughter of civilians by the Nazis. And, for the view that Iran is irrational and fanatical, the country’s leader claimed to have a religious vision at the UN that the occulted 12th Imam would very soon return. Then there is the effort to create a dress code for an entire country. And, the denial by Iran’s leader that Iran has any homosexuals. And, the fact that Iran still employs stoning (to death) as a penalty for breaking the law. And, the fact that the country oppresses religious dissidents such as the Baha’i. The list goes on and on.

  7. gerald spezio said on December 9th, 2007 at 6:08am #

    The Zionists have engineered the most massive propaganda campaign to manipulate the intelligence of all humanity.

    The system is working.

    So far it has been overwhelming successful, but if it backfires – there could be hell in human society for all, including the perpetrators of the massive deceit.

    The Zionists’ dis-information campaign will escalate.

    The Zionists plan to continue winning, and will do anything to advance their murdering narcissism.

  8. Deadbeat said on December 9th, 2007 at 12:56pm #

    And, the denial by Iran’s leader that Iran has any homosexuals.

    There is a great deal of misogyny in Israel as well as racism toward Israeli Arabs. So it would appears that the U.S. should start bombing Israel to “liberate” women. Wasn’t this the “feminist” rational for bombing Afghanistan?

  9. sk said on December 9th, 2007 at 3:47pm #

    FYI, MP3 of an interesting discussion on treatment of gay people in Iran (starts around minute 31).

  10. dan elliott said on December 9th, 2007 at 5:48pm #

    Dear Mulga,

    As you can see from “kneel”s response to what you articulated so clearly, he is not at all interested in “intelligent debate”. He’ll go on all day if he thinks anyone is paying attn. Trying to peddle tired lies, such as claiming Ahmedine said things he never said. So my recommendation to anyone coming to these questions without a lot of background is this: get your grounding from somebody else.

    A newcomer could start with Lenni Brenner, or go straight to Herzl himself who makes no “neal”-style bones about what he has in mind. Jabotinsky was similarly candid. Which could explain why Mussolini was willing to fund his activities:)

    Thanks for your interest,


  11. Shabnam said on December 9th, 2007 at 8:37pm #

    Professor Leupp thanks for your article about NIE and your concern on certain parts of the report. You are not alone in this regard and the Iranian ambassador to the UN has expressed his opinion on NIE and he has divided the report into two parts. One is positive, Iran does not have a nuclear weapon program, and the other part is negative, Iran stopped his weapon program in 2003 where Iran has firmly denied all these years. The AIPAC has captured the moment to continue its belligerent treatment of Iran and has written:

    “Far from acquitting Iran, the NIE reveals that Tehran continues to violate the international community’s calls to end the pursuit of the fuel cycle and the ability to make highly enriched uranium, concludes that Iran has utilized and has at its disposal a hidden, secret second unacknowledged, unmonitored track for enriching bomb fuel, and has engaged in a nuclear weaponization program, an assessment never before made public by the American intelligence community,”


    Israel has also dared to threaten Iran again by calling Iran “To co-operate or pay price.” Israel where is sitting on more than 200 nuclear bombs and has not allowed anyone to inspect its nuclear weapon facilities and is not part of NPT actually dares to warn Iran “either co-operate with the West over its uranium enrichment program or face military action.” to wipe Iran off the map like the Palestinians. Israel ignores the fact that Iran is part of NPT and to uranium enrichment for its fuel is an undeniable right available to NPT’s members.
    It is even more comical to see those Zionists who do not learn anything from the past mistakes and continue with their campaign of lies and deception to convince ignorant people who are sitting on thousand of nuclear weapons to wage another Zionist war to support the Zionist expantionist policy in the region. To turn the international community against Iran they continue with their lies such as one by Robert Gates who said on Saturday December 8, “Iran is a grave threat to regional security even without nuclear weapons, and called on Tehran to account for American intelligence that describes its support for “terrorism” and “instability” around the world and reads Ahmadinejad’s mistranslation speech that “Iran’s president has made aggressive comments toward Israel, including a call in 2005 for Israel to be “wiped off the map” again.
    Other Zionists continue with their lies on “dress code” which first was published in a pro Zionist newspaper, “National Post” of Canada by a puppet close to Neocon, Amir Taheri, who has been exposed as a liar and “National Post” was forced to apologize by its readers and its own stupidity and yet the Zionists continue to hold this lie against Iranian nation. Amir Taheri is an associate of Benador, a pro Israeli think tank.

    Professor Leupp thank you for your article to tell “the other side of the story,” in order to remove the veil of ignorance for those who must see.

  12. Mulga Mumblebrain said on December 10th, 2007 at 3:08am #

    I cannot see your point in insisting on calling the US and its various lap-dogs the ‘world community’, although what you wish to call them is your business. I simply feel my description, which would be along the lines of ‘the neo-imperialist powers of the West’, or ‘ those Western countries firmly in the Zionist camp’, or’ those countries where Jewish money-power has corrupted the political process’, is better, but I’m prejudiced, as are we all. I can imagine you might find the last description offensive, but surely it is unarguable that Jewish money power is immense, and is wielded without restraint in Israel’s interests, or perhaps more correctly, in the interest of the Rightwing, militaristic Israeli ruling elite. Lots of jargon, I admit, but still superior to a phony ‘world community’.
    I do agree Iran is no ideal state, but who is? Israel was named last week as a world centre of female trafficking, and the US sentences juveniles to life without parole. Some of Iran’s misdeeds you mention, such as the ‘dress code’ furphy, were revealed long ago as black propaganda. The Holocaust Conference was attended by anti-Zionist rabbis as well as more unsavory characters, but it is surely fair that Iran and its leader ask why the Palestinians are paying the price for European crimes. Moreover it is true that at times various currents within Israeli politics have utilised the Judeocide as a device to suppress criticism of Israeli behaviour, in my opinion a dreadful insult to the victims. And it is not as if the Judeocide, abominable crime that it was, was unique in history, as some claim.Not only did the Nazis kill tens of millions of Soviet citizens, for which sacrifice the Soviet Union was rewarded with instant belligerence from it former allies, but millions of gays, Gypsies and others. Not to mention the tens of millions killed by European expansionism, in all its manifestations. As for Ahmadinejad’s alleged, and so many lies have been circulated concerning this fellow that I take any ad hominem stories with much salt, religious delusions, they seem exactly equivalent to those shared by many Israeli and US politicians, some rather close to the centres of power. I have no particular love for the theocratic regime in Iran, but my anger is aroused when I witness serial liars, with the blood of millions in Iraq, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Somalia and the Occupied Territories on their paws, mobilising their gargantuan propaganda apparatus to prepare the ground for another Hitlerite aggression, one that could kill millions of innocents in Iran and elsewhere, and leave the region further polluted by satanic weapons like depleted uranium and cluster bomblets. Particularly when Iran is threatened with destruction for pursuing nuclear weapons, if indeed they ever have done so, while the Holy State Israel, is rewarded for its non membership of the NPT and hundreds of nuclear weapons, with billions in aid, each and every year. It is the sheer, racist hypocrisy of one law for the Crusaders of ‘western Civilization’, and another for the ‘rag-heads’, that pisses me off.

  13. gerald spezio said on December 11th, 2007 at 12:11pm #

    The Zionists’ master plan says that Iran must go.

    Irag is gone.

    All the rest is flapdoodle.

  14. gerald spezio said on December 11th, 2007 at 12:12pm #

    The Zionists’ master plan says that Iran must go.

    Iraq is gone.

    All the rest is flapdoodle.

  15. Mike McNiven said on December 20th, 2007 at 7:57pm #

    Iran is not the same as “the Islamic Republic” which is ruling it, according to the Iranians who overthrew the puppet shah: