As for the logical set of rules, you’re right; they don’t play by Western rules. The Koran has enshrined in it the sentiments behind the saying, “Diplomacy is the art of saying, ‘Nice doggie,’ while searching for a big stick.” That “big stick” is nuclear weapons, and they’re busy searching. They know that provoking a violent military response from the US, the only entity able to crush them, at this time would result in that crushing.

Their mindset is much like pre-World War II Japan’s. In case you forgot, the Japanese leaders knew that if they failed to deliver the knockout blow at Pearl Harbor, they would lose the war. That didn’t stop them.

As for my assertion that a Paul or Democratic Presidency would be all that is needed for Iran to transition back to a full-out quest for nuclear weapons, remember that the entire foreign policy goal of those candidates is to withdraw from the Middle East. The only thing that slowed down Iran’s quest (as noted above, they haven’t “stopped”) was the threat of forced regime change from the United States. Iran learned from the fall of their neighbor to the west that complete secrecy would likely result in the same thing happening to them, and scared up a semi-”civilian” program with just enough cover from the Sovie…er, Russians, Red Chinese and you lefties to run out the clock until 2009.

I keep hearing this, but I’m not seeing the solid evidence. In the what, 26 years or Iranian theocracy, you’d think these mullahs would already have self destructed, if they were as suicidal as was so often claimed.

Let’s say they do get a nuke, or even a few dozen. What incentive does Iran have to use them? None. After the destruction of Iran, the Shia Islamic revolution would effectively be over, with Sunnis now the completely dominant doctrine. What incentive does Iran have to give them to a terrorist group? It would likely be traced back to them, might not get used on the target they want, and defeats the purpose of having the most powerful weapon: waving it around in your enemies faces.

So, I just don’t buy the “crazy mullah” theory. Repulsive? Sure. Insane? No. They work by a logical set of rules like everybody else, just THEIR rules not ours.

I also have to take issue with the idea that Ron Paul or Democratic wins would be the trigger to starting a full program again. Is that possible? Sure. It’s just as possible that a Rudy or McCain win will do the same. I guess you’re trying to say that a win by a more bellicose candidate will “scare” Iran from starting up again? Maybe. Maybe not. I’d think that having your enemy surround you on two sides might cause you to try and develop the one weapon you know will scare them off (worked for North Korea).

In any event, military action is now off the table. If the intelligence community doesn’t even think there is a program, then logically we wouldn’t know exactly where to strike to knock it out if it did exist.

One more thing; Iraq was shopping for just that.

Care for some Yellowcake from Niger with your Vatloads of Anthrax?

(massive sarcasm)

As for the IAEA, they didn’t exactly notice South Africa’s or Pakistan’s nukes, and for 8 years, they denied that North Korea continued its nuclear program.

Iran NIE report – Are you lying now, or were you lying then?

If the 2005 NIE report was wrong, why should the 2007 NIE report be any more credible? If Iran really had a nuclear weapons program until 2003 as the new NIE says, then why has the IAEA found no evidence of it?

WHy should we believe that Iran EVER had a nuclear weapons program at all?