What is Reddit's opinion of
Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare?
From 3.5 billion Reddit comments
10 reviews of this product found across Reddit:
Even accepting it's up to other countries to "allow" Iran to produce nuclear weapons, the mechanisms used to attempt to stop them always end up hurting the innocent Iranian civilians who do not deserve the brutal economic hardships that are being thrust onto them.
On top of that, the idea that the Iranian Regime is itching to get a nuke so it can destroy Israel or something is flawed. Read Gareth Porter's excellent book Manufactured Crisis to get a full explanation.
Basically, declarations made by Ayatollah Khomeini forbade weapons of mass destruction from being used by the Islamic Republic. All "proof" that they were trying to build and use nukes comes from the MEK and Israel and isn't credible upon close examination.
Iran realized later that they could get sanction relief and just generally get a leg up in negotiations by playing up their nuclear program which is clearly for energy production as of now.
(P.S. I realize this sounds like I'm all pro-Iranian Regime but that's not the case. The Iranian Regime is one of the most evil, totalitarian governments in existence today and I hope for a future in which it no longer exists, but I also recognize that all attempts by western nations to dispose of it will make things worse)
Specifically on Iran, which is really important for understanding the rest of it, there’s Gareth Porter’s Manufactured Crisis:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1935982338/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_awdb_imm_t1_TQa2FbCS2DTBY
How the "Iranian nuclear threat" was just a pretext to impose regime-change in Iran, just like "WMDs in Iraq" and brought to you by the very same people, and which involved the US deliberately ignoring multiple Iranian compromise offers that were BETTER than the current nuclear deal, but which ultimately not only failed to achieve regime-change in Iran but instead caused Iran to expand her nuclear program beyond what was initially planned, and which caused a nationalistic backlash among ordinary Iranians who overwhelmingly supported their govt on the nuclear issue.
>I have seen the Iranians ready to accept putting a cap on their enrichment [program] in terms of tens of centrifuges, and then in terms of hundreds of centrifuges. But nobody even tried to engage them on these offers. http://www.newsweek.com/elbaradei-iranians-are-not-fanatics-80021
but
>They weren't interested in compromise with Tehran, but regime-change, by any means necessary http://news.antiwar.com/2011/04/20/elbaradei-us-europe-werent-interested-in-compromise-with-iran/
https://www.amazon.com/Manufactured-Crisis-Untold-Story-Nuclear/dp/1935982338
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/17/AR2006061700727.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/05/opinion/we-in-iran-dont-need-this-quarrel.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/21/opinion/21iht-edcohen.html?_r=0
Claims that Iran blocked legally-required inspections were denied by even the IAEA http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/05/11/us-iran-nuclear-iaea-idUSKRA15680720070511
So lets see, that's ELBaradei, Blix, and even Amano (who had secretly sworn loyalty to the US http://www.theguardian.com/world/julian-borger-global-security-blog/2010/nov/30/iaea-wikileaks) say Iran is not making nukes
And actual arms inspectors
>Iran has mastered many technologies in the uranium-handling and enrichment areas, such that if they wanted to go ahead, they probably could do it. That would make them a threshold state. We can name any number of other states in the world with the same level of technology and expertise. It's the intent that you have to worry about. We don't see intent to this case.
http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=13286 And 5 European ambassadors to Iran say that too http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/jun/09/iran-nuclear-power-un-threat-peace
And actual nuclear experts http://original.antiwar.com/yousaf-butt/2014/06/18/what-is-the-quality-of-scientific-evidence-against-iran/
Oh and the actual international community also says it http://indianexpress.com/article/news-archive/web/india-with-nam-in-slamming-iaea-report-on-iran/
Nonaligned states protest Israeli attacks on IAEA http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/11/22/us-nuclear-iaea-nonaligned-idUSL2187147520071122
The US has been pushing some documents as proof that Iran supposedly engaged in nuclear-related studies (Called the "Alleged Studies" by the previous IAEA director, and "Possible Military Dimensions" by the new, US-backed IAEA director) until 2003 however the evidence -- to the extent the US has actually let anyone including the IAEA or Iran to see -- has been laughed at http://www.ips-dc.org/whipping_wisps_into_storm_clouds_iran_and_the_alleged_studies/
There have also been a variety of half-baked leaks of "proof" of a nuclear weapons program in Iran, for example the "AP Graph" http://bigstory.ap.org/article/ap-exclusive-graph-suggests-iran-working-bomb which turned out to be a hoax http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/nov/29/ap-iran-nuclear-program-graph-explanation as was the general quality of the scientific evidence against Iran http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2012/1205/Flawed-graph-weakens-case-against-Iran-nuclear-program-video
The US had even pressured the IAEA to accept these documents as proof against Iran, but the IAEA refused, and the IAEA director Elbaradei called the allegations "hype" leading to some in Congress to accuse the IAEA of "censoring" the reports and hiding a "Secret Annex" http://foreignpolicy.com/2009/10/05/iaeas-man-in-dc-no-secret-annex-on-iran/ which proved Iran's nuclear weapns program's existence. The Israelis even accused the IAEA head Elbaradei of being an "Iranian agent" http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4146150,00.html.
The US went after Elbaradei, http://no.alt.diskusjoner.usa.narkive.com/dCbdwInF/jakten-pa-elbaradei including tapping his telephones http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A57928-2004Dec11.html.
The IAEA replied that charges of it censoring info on Iran are "baseless and politically-motivated" http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/09/17/us-nuclear-iaea-iran-sb-idUSTRE58G60W20090917 and that there was still no evidence of any nuclear weapons program in Iran, http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/09/17/us-nuclear-iaea-iran-sb-idUSTRE58G60W20090917
But once the new US-backed IAEA Director, Amano, came into office after a highly contested election http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/03/26/us-nuclear-iaea-election-idUSTRE52O7P220090326 in which he had secretly sworn loyalty to the US http://www.theguardian.com/world/julian-borger-global-security-blog/2010/nov/30/iaea-wikileaks, and http://www.ips-dc.org/current_chief_of_iaea_releases_its_brakes_on_rush_to_war_with_iran/
Amano released the so-called "Secret Annex" that the previous iAEA director had refused to endorse, which supposedly proved everything about Iran's nuclear weapons program -- but despite the pre-release hype, it turned out to be a dud that didn't say anything new, and actually showed the evidence against Iran was "thin" as a former IAEA inspector concluded http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2011/1109/Iran-nuclear-report-Why-it-may-not-be-a-game-changer-after-all
Later, the trial of a CIA whistleblower showed that the CIA may have even been planting evidence in Iran, so it could frame Iran http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-02-20/cia-s-nuclear-bomb-sting-said-to-spur-review-in-iran-arms-case This book is all about that http://www.amazon.com/Manufactured-Crisis-Untold-Story-Nuclear/dp/1935982338
In short, the previous US policy of trying to use the exaggerated threat of a non-existent Iranian nuclear weapons program as a pretext and justification for a policy of imposing regime-change in Iran, was a giant backfiring fiasco. It only led to Iran's further development of its nuclear program which now the US has to negotiate down, and also created a nationalistic backlash in Iran, where the vast majority of poeple support their governments position. http://www.rand.org/pubs/technical_reports/TR910.html http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brmiddleeastnafricara/652.php
And actually Iran had been making BETTER offers that the US ignored
>In 2005, Iran offered a deal. We rejected it, refused to talk to Iran directly, and doubled down on sanctions. Ten years later, we settled for much less than what was originally offered. http://lobelog.com/lessons-from-americas-continuing-misadventures-in-the-middle-east/
Gullible people are the ones who once again believe yet another version of "WMDs in Iraq" brought to you by the very same poeple too
I don't really care what you think, the facts are the facts.
Israel was hyping the "nuclear threat" from Iran for its own reasons http://www.haaretz.com/livni-behind-closed-doors-iranian-nuclear-arms-pose-little-threat-to-israel-1.231859
Iran's nuclear program was started by the USA http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3983-2005Mar26.html
and was always quite legal http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/jun/09/iran-nuclear-power-un-threat-peace
There's zero evidence of any Iranian nuclear weapons program, ever.
>'Mossad, CIA Agree Iran Has Yet to Decide to Build Nuclear Weapon' read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3983-2005Mar26.html
and
>Despite growing international concern about Iran's nuclear program and its regional ambitions, most U.S. intelligence shared with the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency has proved inaccurate, and none has led to significant discoveries inside Iran, diplomats here said. http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Most-U-S-tips-fingering-Iran-false-envoys-2646358.php
According to IAEA Director Elbaradei:
>I have been making it very clear that with regard to these alleged studies, we have not seen any use of nuclear material, we have not received any information that Iran has manufactured any part of a nuclear weapon or component. That’s why I say, to present the Iran threat as imminent is hype. http://svaradarajan.blogspot.com/2009/10/elbaradei-interview-language-of-force.html
And
>With respect to a recent media report, the IAEA reiterates that it has no concrete proof that there is or has been a nuclear weapon programme in Iran. http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/09/17/us-nuclear-iaea-iran-sb-idUSTRE58G60W20090917
and
>The IAEA is not making any judgment at all whether Iran even had weaponisation studies before because there is a major question of authenticity of the documents. http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/article28114.ece
Even the new, US-backed IAEA Director
>The incoming head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog said on Friday he did not see any hard evidence Iran was trying to gain the ability to develop nuclear arms. "I don't see any evidence in IAEA official documents about this," Yukiya Amano told Reuters in his first direct comment on Iran's atomic program since his election, when asked whether he believed Tehran was seeking nuclear weapons capability. http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/07/03/us-nuclear-iaea-iran-exclusive-idUSL312024420090703
and lets remember that Iran has bent over backwards and has actually allowed more inspections than legally required
>"Any country, I think, would be rather reluctant to let international inspectors to go anywhere in a military site," Mr. Blix told Al Jazeera English about Parchin in late March. "In a way, the Iranians have been more open than most other countries would be." http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2012/0420/Iran-s-Parchin-complex-Why-are-nuclear-inspectors-so-focused-on-it
Claims that Iran blocked legally-required inspections were denied by even the IAEA http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/05/11/us-iran-nuclear-iaea-idUSKRA15680720070511
So lets see, that's ELBaradei, Blix, and even Amano (who had actually secretly sworn loyalty to the US http://www.theguardian.com/world/julian-borger-global-security-blog/2010/nov/30/iaea-wikileaks) -- three heads of the IAEA say no nuclear weapons program existed in Iran
And actual arms inspectors...
>Iran has mastered many technologies in the uranium-handling and enrichment areas, such that if they wanted to go ahead, they probably could do it. That would make them a threshold state. We can name any number of other states in the world with the same level of technology and expertise. It's the intent that you have to worry about. We don't see intent to this case.
And actual nuclear experts http://original.antiwar.com/yousaf-butt/2014/06/18/what-is-the-quality-of-scientific-evidence-against-iran/
Oh and the actual international community also backs Iran http://indianexpress.com/article/news-archive/web/india-with-nam-in-slamming-iaea-report-on-iran/
Nonaligned states protest Israeli attacks on IAEA http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/11/22/us-nuclear-iaea-nonaligned-idUSL2187147520071122
The US has been pushing some documents as proof that Iran supposedly engaged in nuclear-related studies (Called the "Alleged Studies" by the previous IAEA director, and "Possible Military Dimensions" by the new, US-backed IAEA director) until 2003 however the evidence -- to the extent the US has actually let anyone including the IAEA or Iran to see -- has been laughed at/ There have also been a variety of half-baked leaks of "proof" of a nuclear weapons program in Iran, for example the "AP Graph" http://bigstory.ap.org/article/ap-exclusive-graph-suggests-iran-working-bomb which turned out to be a hoax http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/nov/29/ap-iran-nuclear-program-graph-explanation as was the general quality of the scientific evidence against Iran http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2012/1205/Flawed-graph-weakens-case-against-Iran-nuclear-program-video
This book is all about that http://www.amazon.com/Manufactured-Crisis-Untold-Story-Nuclear/dp/1935982338
You should read this book: Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare http://www.amazon.com/Manufactured-Crisis-Untold-Story-Nuclear/dp/1935982338
Right about now Obama, wished that the US had established better relations with Iran far earlier, back when Iran tried repeatedly to reach out to the US (offering better nuclear compromise terms) and that he himself hadn't listened to pro-Israeli lobbyists left over from the Bush administration like Dennis Ross who was serving as the "pointman on Iran" and was also known as "Netnayahu's attorney in Washington" http://972mag.com/netanyahus-attorney-in-washington/67052/
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/Ross_Dennis
Obama fired him in his second term, when Obama didn't have to face re-election, http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/152032
This caused howls of protest from the crazy Iran-warmongering Rightwing pro-Israeli crowd, who accused his replacement of being a "proIran regime lobbyist": http://pamelageller.com/2009/11/the-fix-is-in-obama-fires-dennis-ross-and-replaces-him-with-a-regime-lobbyist.html/
But it may too late to try to win back Iran, it seems. Now with Russian intervention, the US doesn't have time to prop up an anti-Assad, pro-Israeli faction in Syria to fight ISIS. Syria will fall even further out of US/Israeli influence, as has Iraq. Great job.
Remember, these people pushing for imposing regime-change in Iran using the "Iranian nuclear threat" as a pretext, were the same folks who cooked-up the "WMDs in Iraq" lie and pretext to impose regime-change there. These were the same guys who got the US to attack Iraq and start this mess in the first place.
Obama himself acknowledged this too, but in his second term, once Ross had left:
http://www.latimes.com/world/la-fg-obama-iran-vfw-20150721-story.html
Ross is now busy lobbying against the Iran nuclear deal, having returned to his old job as a pro-Israeli lobbyist:
The other pro-Israeli groups have never given up pushing for war on Iran to suit Israel
http://www.uscatholic.org/culture/war-and-peace/2008/06/iran-spam
CBS News: Israel prodding US to attack Iran http://www.cbsnews.com/news/israel-prodding-us-to-attack-iran/
Just like:
CBS News: Israel to US - Don't delay Iraq Attack http://www.cbsnews.com/news/israel-to-us-dont-delay-iraq-attack/
The fact is that Iran had LONG been making compromise offers that the US rejected in favor of trying to impose regime-change there, to suit Israel:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/17/AR2006061700727.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/05/opinion/05iht-edzarif.html?_r=0
Everytime Iran accepted terms, the US moved goalposts and imposed unreasonable demands, including the demand that Iran* totally* abandon its nuclear energy program before negotiatiing about the same program. Iran suspended enrichment entirely for close to 3 years as a good faith gesture, in negotiations with the EU. According to EU officials themselves, IRan had made perfectly reasonable offers that they could not accept because of US pressure:
The US (in the first Obama term, with Dennis Ross acting as "pointman on Iran") even rejected a deal after Iran had agreed to the same terms that had been demanded by the US. American allies Turkey and Brazil, who had negotiated the deal on behalf of the US with Iran, were so ticked-off at the Obama administration pulling out the rug from under them like that, they publicized the letter Obama had written them endorsing the same terms just weeks earlier:
It had become obvious that the US was not serious about compromising with Iran but was instead following another agenda: using the cooked-up "Iranian nuclear threat" as a pretext to impose regime-change there instead, just like "WMDs in Iraq" was a lie and pretext.
http://garysick.tumblr.com/post/611735702/giving-the-finger-to-iran-and-turkey-and
Thus continuing the Bush admini policy, as noted by the Euopeans:
>...different agenda is at work, which we believe has little or nothing to do with Iran’s non-existent nuclear weapons. The US and its European clients are driven by a different compulsion: the humiliation and eventual destruction of Iran’s Islamic regime. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/10007603/Iran-how-the-West-missed-a-chance-to-make-peace-with-Tehran.html
Iran was even making better compromise offers than what the Obama administration negotiated recently. Even IAEA Director Elbaradei pointed this out:
> I have seen the Iranians ready to accept putting a cap on their enrichment [program] in terms of tens of centrifuges, and then in terms of hundreds of centrifuges. But nobody even tried to engage them on these offers. Now Iran has 5,000 centrifuges. http://www.newsweek.com/elbaradei-iranians-are-not-fanatics-80021
Because,
>“They weren’t interested in a compromise with the government in Tehran, but regime change – by any means necessaryhttp://www.theguardian.com/world/julian-borger-global-security-blog/2010/nov/30/iaea-wikileaks,” reported ElBaradei. http://news.antiwar.com/2011/04/20/elbaradei-us-europe-werent-interested-in-compromise-with-iran/
(The US pressured ELbaradei and replaced him with a pro-US candidate at the IAEA, and Israel accused Elbaradei of being an "Iranian agent" for his refusal to endorse the hype against Iran:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A57928-2004Dec11.html
http://www.theguardian.com/world/julian-borger-global-security-blog/2010/nov/30/iaea-wikileaks
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4146150,00.html
The resultant politicization of the IAEA agasint Iran has caused worldwide outcry in support of Iran: http://indianexpress.com/article/news-archive/web/india-with-nam-in-slamming-iaea-report-on-iran/
http://indianexpress.com/article/news-archive/web/india-with-nam-in-slamming-iaea-report-on-iran/
In reality, Iran's nuclear program was perfectly legal : http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/jun/09/iran-nuclear-power-un-threat-peace
And despite the hype, there was never any actual evidence of any nuclear weapons program in Iran, ever:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/09/17/us-nuclear-iaea-iran-sb-idUSTRE58G60W20090917
http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/07/03/us-nuclear-iaea-iran-exclusive-idUSL312024420090703
Just as in the "WMDs in Iraq" case, the "evidence" this far against Iran has proven to be fraudulent and hyped: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/nov/29/ap-iran-nuclear-program-graph-explanation
http://armscontrollaw.com/2013/01/22/yousaf-butt-pretty-in-pink-the-parchin-preoccupation-paradox/
Including possibly evidence that was "planted" by the CIA http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-02-20/cia-s-nuclear-bomb-sting-said-to-spur-review-in-iran-arms-case
None of the "intellignce tips" against Iran ever panned-out, according to IAEA officials:
http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Most-U-S-tips-fingering-Iran-false-envoys-2646358.php
Leading to the conclusion:
>"Some people do not want to see the Iran issue resolved because that would contradict their hidden agendas, he said, adding that "people should have learned from their mistakes in the past, when all the hype over alleged weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq turned out to be just that -- hype". http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/02/12/us-iran-nuclear-iaea-idUSL1283850220080212
And what's changed since 2009, since even the US only claims that Iran had conducted nuclear-related studies until 2003, and nothing after that. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/25/world/middleeast/us-agencies-see-no-move-by-iran-to-build-a-bomb.html?gwh=395CD7F2D86D0E96EC04936B5106C7FD&gwt=pay
And the evidence of any nuclear "studies" before 2003 is actually pretty flimsy too http://lewis.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/1409/is-the-laptop-of-death-bogus
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/IAEA_suspects_fraud_in_evidence_for_1109.html
http://www.amazon.com/Manufactured-Crisis-Untold-Story-Nuclear/dp/1935982338
And, it is even questionable whether such studies are in violation of the NPT since, according to the IAEA itself, Iran's past undeclared activities were not related to a weapons program and involved no diversion of nuclear material for nonpeaceful uses
To quote actual weapons-inspector Scott Ritter: We ain't found shit http://www.lrb.co.uk/v37/n13/scott-ritter/we-aint-found-shit
There is a lot of deliberate misinformation as well as plain ignorance in the reporting since this is a highly polarized and legal/technical area. I suggest this book:
Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare by Gareth Porter http://www.amazon.com/Manufactured-Crisis-Untold-Story-Nuclear/dp/1935982338
More http://www.juancole.com/2012/09/top-myths-about-irans-nuclear-enrichment-program.html
But yes, the US encouraged Iran to go nuclear in the first place, back in the 1970s. Since then Iran's population has tripled, its oil production has halved, and it burns half of that at home instead of exporting it.
http://iranaffairs.typepad.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/15_billion_deal.jpg
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/14/opinion/14iht-edsahimi_ed3_.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3983-2005Mar26.html
Note that the US doesn't accuse Iran of actually having a nuclear weapons program, but of "intending to obtain the capability" to make nukes. This is neither illegal nor rare, but is inevitable in having a nuclear energy program. As a former IAEA inspector explained:
>And so, clearly Iran has mastered many technologies in the uranium-handling and enrichment areas, such that if they wanted to go ahead, they probably could do it. That would make them a threshold state. We can name any number of other states in the world with the same level of technology and expertise. It's the intent that you have to worry about. We don't see intent to this case. http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=13286
The "Iran nuclear threat" is actually just a pretext to try to impose regime change in Iran just as "WMDs in Iraq" was a lie and pretext. http://news.antiwar.com/2011/04/20/elbaradei-us-europe-werent-interested-in-compromise-with-iran/
You're welcome. I suggest you read this too:
https://www.amazon.com/Manufactured-Crisis-Untold-Story-Nuclear/dp/1935982338
The authors of that piece are all former European ambassadors.
>The IAEA has repeatedly found Iran to be in non-compliance with various verification measures under the NPT.
No, the IAEA found that Iran was in breach of safeguards for failure to report otherwise legal activities that, accoriding to the IAEA itself, had no relation to a weapons program and involved no diversion of nuclear material for non-peaceful uses --- and were all subsequently remedied, to Iran's vindication.
THe only thing the IAEA has now complaining about is that Iran has supposedly refused to respond to allegations from the US (obtained from a stolen laptop) that the US has refused to show to the IAEA in full, nevermind Iran, and that Iran has pointed out repeatedly are fakes, and that it was not allowed to see the documentation in full.
Read Elbaradei's book.
And to the extent they've been made public, they've proven to be fakes http://www.lobelog.com/fake-ap-graph-exposes-israeli-fraud-and-iaea-credulity/
And even former IAEA weapons inspectors consider the US claims to be suspicious. http://www.sipri.org/media/expert-comments/the-iaea-and-parchin-do-the-claims-add-up
Which is why the former IAEA director Elbaradei refused to endorse them.
ANd why the Isrealis and NeoCons in the US started attacking the IAEA Director, trying to push him out of office
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A57928-2004Dec11.html
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4146150,00.html
and replaced him with a new IAEA Director who had sworn loyalty to the US secretly, as Wikileaks proved. http://www.theguardian.com/world/julian-borger-global-security-blog/2010/nov/30/iaea-wikileaks
So Amano released a new IAEA report making all those claims that the previous IAEA Director had rejected as not authentic
and then again, even former IAEA inspectors pointed out that the claims were not new, and were actually "quite thin" http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2011/1109/Iran-nuclear-report-Why-it-may-not-be-a-game-changer-after-all
"Out of date" comment ? Sorry, nothing has changed. No one said "invade", He said "regime change" don't play dumb.
Oh and all the while, Iran was making multiple compromise offers that would have addressed any real concern about nuclear weapons proliferation, but the US either ignored or killed them off, because the last thing the US wanted was to resolve the nuclear issue with Iran while leaving the regime in power.
Examples: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/17/AR2006061700727.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/05/opinion/05iht-edzarif.html?_r=0
The US even pressed the Europeans to not accept a perfectly reasonable offer from Iran http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/10007603/Iran-how-the-West-missed-a-chance-to-make-peace-with-Tehran.html
If you actually read up on all this instead of just regurgitating the latest screaming headlines, you'd know.
Here, start with this
ww.amazon.com/Manufactured-Crisis-Untold-Story-Nuclear/dp/1935982338
Popular alternatives to Manufactured Crisis: The Un...
All the Shah's Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror
Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran, and the United States
