PS FAQ: Is Iran Next?

Return to PSFAQ Home
Also see: " PS: Next: Korea, Syria, Al Qaeda"

Go directly to Iran in 2006; and See Washington Post special on Iran.

A few weeks after the March 2003 Iraq War began, in mid-July 2003, President Bush turned up the heat on both Iran and Syria., saying he would "hold them accountable" for sponsoring terrorism. The concern over Iran was its possible nuclear program. In October, Iran seemed to agree to halt its enriched uranium program.

Upset over allegations of Iran instigating anti-U.S. feelings, Wolfowitz proclaimed, "I think all foreigners should stop interfering in the internal affairs of Iraq." (Chicago Tribune, 7/22/03). 

Gary Milhollin, nuclear expert (Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control) is not so sure.  "It may be possible to convince Iran that the cost of building nuclear weapons exceed the benefit of having them.  Unlike North Korea, Iran has large trade interests that really matter.  However, unless the rest of the world is willing to put those interests at risk, it will probably soon have to live with a new nuclear power in the Middle East." (Chicago Tribune, "The Mullahs and the Bomb", 10/23/03). In late October, Iran agreed to submit to UN inspectors and then the U.S. announced it would resume talks with Iran  and an agreement with IAEA was soon reached. Into mid-November, IAEA and Europe disagreed with the U.S. as to the level of Iranian cooperation and progress.  The U.S. wanted Iran reprimanded at the UN. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A31357-2003Oct28?language=printer

Mid-June 2004 headlines in numerous media were of Iran nuclear program.  A known and active supporter of various terrorist groups over the years, including those fighting against Israel, a nuclear Iran would be potentially disastrous.  The IAEA was working to determine weather Iran's admissions  of "peaceful nuclear for energy only" held any water (or held enriched uranium).

Iran continued to be a front page story into the fall of 2004, with their on again, off again negotiations with the IAEA and with the EU.

In 2005 Seymour Hersh of The New Yorker broke the story that the U.S. had agents in Iran and was planning for a possible invasion. Hersh's piece was entitled "The Coming Wars."  They were also preparing a target list. 
http://www.newyorker.com/printable/?fact/050124fa_fact

Other media reaction came from a lead New York Times editorial, "Military Rumblings on Iran."  The piece recalls that Cheney has ranked Iran #1 in the world as a trouble spot and "darkly hinted that unless tougher measures were taken to curtail its nuclear program, Israel might launch its own-re-emptive air strikes...Thus far, Mr. Bush has kept his own course.  but these hawkish rumbling eerily recall [Iraq lead-up] when some of the same officials pressed hardest for military action, while the president remained publicly uncommitted. Given that experience, it would be foolhardy to dismiss the current rhetorical buildup.  we hope that this time, wiser heads in the administration will intervene before it is too late."  The paper continued, "American military action would almost certainly do far more harm than good."  Britain would not be on board for this war.  "American planes and missiles alone cannot knock out all of Iran's many secret nuclear sites.  An invasion of a country almost threat times as populous as Iraq is well beyond the means of America's depleted ground forces.  And an American military attack is probably the one thing still able to unite Iran's restive but nationalist population behind the unpopular clerical dictatorship."

A Washington Post editorial called for "A Better Iran Strategy":  "The chances are that the west will succeed in peacefully restring Iran...have been looking dismal at the meeting of the IAEA."  They began secret uranium enrichment 18 years ago.  Bush and Rice deserve credit for a shift.  "The Europeans have said that if negotiations fail, they will be prepared to join the US in referring Iran to the UN Security Council for possible sanctions.  By cooperating now, Mr. Bush can create the opportunity for tougher action by the West in the moths to come--action that otherwise will be hamstrung by transatlantic discord" (3/4/05)

Lead WMD searcher David Kay sees the administration's rhetoric toward Iran as strikingly similar to its rhetoric before the Iraq war.  "There is an eerie similar...The US is warning of a nuclear war because of Iran's nuclear program...Iran says it is now cooperating fully with international inspections...Cheney is giving interviews and speeches that paint a stark picture of a soon-to-be-nuclear-armed Iran and decaling that this is something the Bush administration will not tolerate."  Adds columnist Georgie Anne Geyer ("The next stop:  Iran", Tribune, 2/18/05), "In fact, the neocons' first target was always Iran because it was considered Israel's real enemy.  But Iraq was 'doable' as a starter in the American context." 

When President Bush traveled to Europe at the end of February 2005, he sought to assure worried Europeans that he had no immediate plans to attack Iran.  "Iran is not Iraq...Diplomacy is just beginning...This notion that the US is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous.  And having said that, all options are on the table."

The President added at his second inauguration, "Today, Iran remains the world's primary state sponsor of terror, pursing nuclear weapons while depriving its people of the freedom they seek and deserve.  We are working with European allies to make clear to the Iranian regime that it must give up its uranium enrichment program and any plutonium reprocessing, and end its support for terror.  And to the Iranian people, I say tonight:  As you stand for your own liberty, America stands with you."

Go directly to Iran in 2006

"US policy toward Iran is now a big, dangerous mess," commented Robert Sheer in his regular LA Times column.  He feels that Bush has "backed us into a corner with his confrontational framing of every dispute as one of pristine virtue versus stark evil, putting us out s sync with our allies in Europe and probably giving the ayatollahs in Tehran a public relations boost.".  Former weapons inspector Scott Ritter predicted an air strike before June 2005. 

The Chicago Tribune lead editorial of March 6, 2005 wonders if after Iraq and Lebanon, "Is it possible that Iran, with its repressive unpopular mullahs, could be next?...How quickly can the virus of democracy spread.  That is the question for other despots [in Iran and Syria] as they contemplate the likely fate of Saddam Hussein. They're trapped in their own spider holes.  No longer can they survive solely by stoking public hatred of the Great Satan."

When might Iran have nuclear weapons?  On March 9  the New York Times front page story placed doubt on US consistent allegations that Iran was trying to make nuclear weapons.  The article opened, "A commission due to report to President Bush this month will describe American intelligence on Iran as inadequate to allow firm judgments about Iran's weapons program."  The report followed a 14-month review.

A shift in US policy came on March 11, 2005, possibly a reaction to the story above just two days earlier.   The US introduced the "carrot" approach to Iran.  In the past, the US had only been threatening the "stick".

That day Donald Rumsfeld spoke of the "stick" in foreign policy, upholding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as powerful demonstration of US military prowess that, according to the Post article, "will make other countries think twice about making 'mischief' around the world."  Said the Secretary of Defense, "The world has seen, in the past 3 1/2 years, the capability of the US...That has to have a deterrent effect on people."  One assumes that the message was intended for Iran, Syria, and possibly North Korea.

The London Times reported a day later that Israel has plans to strike Iran.  They were approved by Sharon who gave "initial authorization" in February.  The secret plans call for a combined air and ground attack if diplomacy fails. 

Like administration's contradictory statements leading up to the Iraq war exactly two years previously, statements were inconsistent.  President Bush demanded that Iran abandon enrichment and reprocessing of nuclear material.  "The understanding is we go to the Security Council if they reject the offer."  

Go directly to Iran in 2006
See Washington Post special on Iran.

Iran in August 2005 was in the news when US intelligence estimated that Iran was still years away from developing a nuclear weapon.  The study had been completed in May. While Iran wishes to build a weapon, they will not be able to "until the middle or end of the next decade."  This report is in sharp contrast to the timetable earlier cited by senior Defense and State department officials. In early September a leading British research institute generally concurred and concluded that  Iran was at least five years away from making a single devise

The Detroit Free Press gave Trudy Rubin a chance to opine in her "Iranian plans inevitable" (8/12/05).  She opens, "back when the Bush administration was planning the Iraq war, the demise of Saddam Hussein was meant to have a ripple effect on other rogue states.  Especially, states that helped terrorist and were building nuclear weapons.  Neoconservative pundits predicted that Iraq's neighbor Iran, another member, of the president's 'axis of evil,' might also undergo regime change.  But the ripple effect has boomeranged."  Rubin concludes, "But the chance of halting the Iranian [nuclear] program probably ended with the Iraq invasion. Another unintended casualty of miscalculation about Iraq." 

US polls in March showed sizable majority opposed to limited military action or invasion of Iran or North Korea. 

The politics of war with Iraq were part of a Dan Plesch piece in The Guardian  (9/16/05).  Thought conventional wisdom precludes a war with Iran while the US is bogged down in Iraq, this "misunderstand the capabilities and intentions of the Bush administration.  American's devastating air power is not committed in Iraq.  Just 120 B52, B1 and B2 bombers could hit 5000 targets in a single mission.  Thousands of other warplanes and missiles are available.  The army and marines are heavily committed, in Iraq, but enough forces could be found to secure coastal oilfields and to conduct raids in to Iraq.  A US attack is unlikely to be confined to the suspected WMD locations or to involve a ground invasion to occupy the county."  What might go wrong?  Plesch sees a possible "increase in terrorism, a Shia rising in Iraq, Hezbollah and Iranian attacks on Israel, attacks on oil facilities...and a recession caused by rising oil prices."  When might the war begin?  Spring of 2005 can enable the administration "to win the mid-term elections and retain control of the Republican party, now in partial rebellion over Iraq."  

In September 2005 the US tried hard to move the UN toward sanctions against Iran.  In the fall of 2005, Iran continued to be in the "Next" news.  Tony Blair directly accused Iran of supplying explosives to the Iraqi insurgents.  The next day, October 6, President Bush's major speech referred to "those who harbor terrorists" also being targets for the American military. He spoke in harsh terms about both Iran and Syria.

Over a period of many weeks, Iran appeared to agree to negotiate and then talk tough.  Europe and the US, at times, wanted negotiations.  To what extent was the US exaggerating Iran's capabilities?  The UN sent in inspectors, but they were not satisfied with the results. 

At his  press conference following the December 2005 Iraqi elections, the President was asked if faulty WMD intelligence hurts the US claims on Iran's nuclear ambitions.  "People will say...well, if the intelligence failed in Iraq, therefore now can we trust the intelligence in Iran?  It's not questioned that the credulity of intelligence is necessary for good diplomacy."

One estimate of when Iran would have a nuclear weapon was about five years. Columnist Charles Krauthammer predicted only a matter of "months." 

Go directly to the latest on Iran in 2006.

The Tribune was hawkish and wary of "appeasement" toward Iran in their Jan. 13 editorial.  "Iran is back in the bomb-making business.  It was probably never out of business...Only a unified Security Council ready to isolate Iran economically ...has any chance...But the chances that the council will vote tough scenario remain bleak...And remember how Iran has challenged the world, again and again, and the world has blinked, again and again."

The same day the Times tried to be realistic about US options.  They don't want new nuclear powers because the weapons will be more likely to be used, "especially...in the case of Iraq under its radically belligerent leadership...There are no realistic military options, especially from Washington." 

David Sanger's Jan. 22 "Why Not A Strike On Iran" (New York Times "Week in Review") opens, "Diplomats around the world keep repeating the mantra:  There is no military option when it comes to slowing, much less stopping, Iran's presumed ambitions to get the Bomb."  He continues, "But even if taking out Iran's facilities delay the day...it would alienate allies and probably make firm enemies out of many Iranians who have come to dislike their theocratic government.  And Iran simply has too many way of striking back, in the oil markets, in the Persian Gulf, through Hezbollah." 

That same day, Steve Chapman's Tribune commentary was entitled "Bin Laden's "unintended generous gift to Bush."  "In politics, sometimes your best friend is the right enemy.  If you want to look handsome, stand next to a rhinoceros...The administration can also hope that by urging a speedy US departure from Iraq, bin Laden will deter Americans from embracing that option."

Might the renewed violence of February and March 2006 spill over to Iran?  The head of the Arab League had warned before the war, that an attack would "open the gates of hell."  Islamic parties are gaining power in Egypt and among Palestinians.  Will there be a flood of refugees?  Will Sunnis and Shiites battle each other in other countries?  Shiite populations are large in Iraq, Iran, Oman, Bahrain, Lebanon, Yemen, Kuwait, Syria, UAE, and Saudi Arabia. With Shiites often discriminated against, only in Iran is the government dominated by Shiites. Warned one former Ambassador to the US, "If Iraq disintegrates and there is sectarian division, then Iran will become the dominant power in the region." 

The Tribune editorial of Feb. 6 was pleased with Iran being finally confronted.  "A military confrontation is a sobering prospect."  The paper quotes Sen. McCain: "There is only one thing worse than military action.  That is a nuclear armed Iran.  The regime must understand it can't win a showdown with the world." 

The Times of Feb. 27, 2006 analyzed the possibility of "shock waves" spreading from Iraq. 

The rhetoric heated up between Iran and the UN/US.  In early March 2006 the Iranian ambassador responded to subtle threats from Cheney and others.  He threatened that the US will feel "harm and pain" if the UN brings sanctions.

A new National Security document, released in mid-March, ranks Iran as the #1 threat and challenge to the US.  "The world is better off if tyrants know that they pursue WMD at their own peril." Careful readers of this site will recall the National Security Strategy published in September 2002. 

When might the US attack Iran?  Politically for the US, one could imagine a US air strike or a key vote in Congress in September or October of 2006, prior to the mid-term elections.  This was the strategy used in the summer and fall of 2002 regarding Iraq.  

Jay Bookman, writing in early April in the Atlanta Journal Constitution, worried that we haven't learned the lessons from "for years ago this spring" when the "rumblings" of a war with Iraq began.  "At the time, most Americans--and most American news media--failed to pay those reports much heed, which was a mistake.  Today, similar rumblings...and...war signals...are being dismissed as mere posturing, a negotiating ploy...So is it all for show this time?  We better hope so."  

Bookman is concerned about legal and political questions, as well as the Straits of Hormuz and the Iranians people rallying behind their leaders, as Americans did after 9/11.  Has the administration learned from Iraq?  "Unfortunately, the White House showed no ability or willingness to think through the invasion of Iraq to its all-too-predictable outcome, and there's little reason to believe that has changed much" with only moderate Colin Powell gone from the leadership team. 

A former NSC aide under Clinton feels the US has lost legitimacy with collective international action, by not returning to the UN in 2003 for a second resolution on Iraq.  "We're reaping what we sowed here."

In a surprise move of mid-March 2006, Iran suggested a dialogue with the U.S., which would be the first time since the US-ally Shah was overthrown in 1979.  The Shah was replaced by Ayatollah Khomeini in the Islamic Revolution. The US refused to talk directly to Iran about nuclear issues. 

In March the UN voted against Iraq, which could be a turning point in the 2 1/2 year struggle by the US.

British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw labeled the idea of attacking Iran with nuclear weapons as "just nuts."  Rumsfeld called it "fantasyland."  President Bush said, "We do not want the Iranians to have a nuclear weapon, the capacity to make a nuclear weapon, or the knowledge as to how to make a nuclear weapon."

"Yes He Would" is the April 10 column from Paul Krugman. (For more on Krugman, see "Op-Ed" FAQ)  "'But he wouldn't do that.'  That sentence is what made it possible for President Bush to stampeded America into the Iraq war and to fend off hard questions about the reasons...until after the 2004 election.  Many people just didn't want to believe that an American president would deliberately mislead the nation on matters of war and peace."  But Hirsh (see above) who broke the Abu Ghraib scandal, is concerned.  "He wouldn't do that" is "wishful thinking" for two reasons.  First, pre-Iraq Bush really was "spoiling for a fight" despite telling us that war was a "last resort."  Second, we were intentionally misled and Rove cautioned aides that Bush's re-election campaign "would be severely damaged" if dissents on the aluminum tubes became public.  The President ignored warnings about Iraq.  

Krugman cites Joseph Cirincionne who sees "the same script" on Iraq.  Maybe Bush feels he can redeem himself in Iraq.  Also, this could "blow the lid off multiple...scandals...Does this sound far-fetched?  It shouldn't.  Given the combination of recklessness and dishonesty Mr. Bush displayed in launching the Iraq war, why should we assume that he wouldn't do it again?"

 It was also not particularly threatening to nuclear experts because it is as if Iran has "mastered a difficult musical instrument, now faces the challenge of making thousand of them and creating a very large orchestra that always plays in tune and in unison."  These experts calls Iran's claims "exaggerated."  Does Iran have the right to continue nuclear research?

In how many years could Iran built a single nuclear weapon?  Experts inside and outside the US government predict 3-14 years, with most in the 5-10 year range.  The President felt the reported invasion plans were being overblown and urged that he was pushing a diplomatic solution. To some, the discussion sounds much like the fall of 2002. A Times report in Feb. 2007 quotes some nuclear experts outside the US predicted, potentially, 2-3 years.
See pre-war Iraq War FAQs for numerous comparisons. 

27-year CIA veteran Ray McGovern predicts the US will go to war with Iran most likely in June of 2006, but almost certainly before the November elections.  McGovern was in charge of the "daily briefing" from the CIA to Vice-President Bush in the Reagan administration. He spoke on April 13 at Lake Forest College in Illinois. 

Those who favor at attack on Iran point most often to two reasons:
1.  Hopes of making Israel safer;
2.  Controlling the oil flow from the Middle East;
3.  Iran's nuclear program could be set back a maximum of 2-4 years, if targeting is complete and accurate, according to experts. 

Those opposed to an attack have at least ten concerns:
1.  Iran would shut down their oil flow and possibly close the Straits of Hormuz, likely causing a world-wide recession;
2.  Iran would likely respond by attacking Israel with his wide-range of missiles;
3.  Iran would likely sponsor more terrorism in the Middle East;
4.  Iran's army could attack US forces across the border into eastern Iraq;
5.  The costs of this new war would further add to our financial woes;
6.  In a US nuclear attack, perhaps hundreds of thousands of Iranian civilians would be killed;
7.  The already low US reputation in the world would reach new lows
8.  Al Qaeda would surely gain new recruits.
9.  Iran is still 5-10 years away from producing a nuclear weapon, which even if they did have would commit national suicide if they ever used it or let terrorists use it.
10.  After any attack, Iran would redouble its efforts to build a bomb.

Do Americans want to go to war with Iran?  In early April polls, a majority don't trust President Bush to make the "right decision".  If Iran continued to produce material that could be used to develop nuclear weapons, Americans support "military action" 48-40%.  I would guess that the numbers would increase if Iran was very close to a nuclear weapon but would decrease if Americans understood the arguments above against an attacks. Only 1 in 4 support ground troops in Iran.  However, according to Seymour Hirsh, we already have ground troops in Iraq. 

In late April, 2006 the rhetoric continued to be threatening from both sides.  Iran promised retaliating to a US attack which could include Israel and/or inside the US.  

Action at the UN in late April included their conclusion that Iran is enriching.  Sanctions are on the table.  President Bush responded, "The Iranian government's intransigence is not acceptable."  He added that "diplomacy is just beginning."  Soon came reports of the Iranian military shelling Kurdish areas used by some Iranian Kurdish rebels.  Over 180 shells were fired into Iraq.  A similar attack took place on April 21. 

Eugene Robinson, Post columnist, reminds us in May of his favorite "Bushism", "There's an old saying...'Fool me once, shame on--shame on you....[Pause] Fool me--you can't get fooled again.'"  With the nomination of Hayden to head the CIA, Robinson feels that his primary mission should be "to make sure that American's don't get fooled on Iran the way we got fooled on Iraq...In the final analysis, the White House will probably fix the intelligence to suit which action it decides to take."  Robinson writes that there are no "'good' options on Iraq, and this includes doing nothing...An all-out invasion would make the Iraq quagmire look like the quick, tidy 'liberation' it was supposed to be...In the end, Bush will decide.  But the CIA should at least tell him the truth, not what he wants to hear."

Also in early May Iran's President Ahmadinejad opened up a dialogue with President Bush, sending him an 18-page letter.  "Let's talk, Iranians tell Bush," was the large front-page Tribune headline of May 9.  The letter represented the first direct communication between the two countries'' leaders since the Shah was overthrown and US hostages taken in 1979.

Rice said the topics included history, philosophy, and religion. and other officials quickly dismissed the letter. The Chicago Tribune concurred in their editorial, "Return to Sender."  International tensions are rising "because of Iran.  It is defying the world by enriching uranium, a prelude to building nuclear weapons...The demands on Iran are clear: It must cease all uranium enrichment and return to abiding by its responsibilities under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.  That is not negotiable"

David Ignatius of the Post had a differing view from the Tribune.  He thinks U.S. "silence" to the Iranian letter is "a mistake" because "taking advantage of it seems like a no-brainer...The US strategy is to warn the Iranians that they are approaching a fork in the road and to sketch what lies down each path."

President Bush continues to insist that the US is committed to exhausting all diplomatic options to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons.  As of late May, these options do not include bi-lateral, direct discussions. 

Hawk Charles Krauthammer disagrees with Kissinger. His May 29 Tribune commentary is entitled, "Direct talks with Iran? Of course not." He writes, "Mark my words. The momentum for US-Iran negotiations has only begun...You want to talk? Fine. We will go there, but only if you [Europeans] arm us with the largest stick of all: your public support for military action if the talks fail."

Also see "Was the War Inevitable?" FAQ for related discussions. 
See Washington Post special on Iran.

How do our allies feel about Iran? A PEW study from June 2006 showed that though many worry about Iran gaining nuclear weapons, in 13 of 15 countries polled, most say the war in Iraq "posed more of a danger to world peace."

The June six power proposal was that Iran was offered incentives in trade and energy to abandon its nuclear ambitions.

In August 2006, a UN deadline of the 31st approached, with Iran's response satisfactory to Russia and others but not to the US and some of its allies. Iran did not accept the UN offer and the US and others began discussing sanctions. Claims were made that Iran was contributing directly to the insurgency in Iraq. Was the summer of 2006 similar to the summer of 2002, with the hype toward war? Readings may need reminding that it was President Ahmadinejad who has repeatedly said that "Israel should be wiped off the map." As Ahmadinijad prepared to speak in New York at the UN in September, he challenged President Bush to a live debate.

Charles Krauthammer (also see "Columnists" FAQ) writes at the end of August that a US attack may be necessary and wise. "Realistically speaking" multilateralism cannot "stop Iran's nuclear program by diplomacy. That has always been a fantasy. It will take military means. There will be terrible consequences from such an attack. These must be weighted against the terrible consequences of allowing an openly apocalyptic Iranian leadership from acquiring weapons of genocide."

David Ignatius of the Post spent a few weeks in Iran in September of 2006. He feels that Iranians assume the US is "prudent" enough not to attack. But he is not sure who is the real voice of the Persian country. Into October Ignatius continued to write often of Iran, suggestion use of diplomat challenges.

However, in late November, President Talibani visited Tehran and spoke with Ahmadinejad, who expressed a desire to help Iraq gain stability. The US and Britain, the Iranian leader said, "have been trapped in your quagmire and locked in your place with nowhere to go. The Iranian nation is ready to help you to get out of the quagmire, on condition that you resume behaving gin a just manner and avoid bullying and invading." Also in Iraq-Iran news, the US accused Hezbollah, supported by Iran, of training 1000-2000 Mahdi Army fighters in Lebanon.

At the UN, both Bush and Ahmadinijad spoke to large audiences. The Times quoted Bush's key point to Iranians: "The greatest obstacle to this future is that your rulers have chosen to deny you liberty and to use your nation's resources to fund terrorism, and fuel extremism, and pursue nuclear weapons."

In December at the UN, outgoing leader Annan warns that military action would be "disastrous."

Those who fear the war with Iran may be inevitable look at the Time Magazine cover in mid-September and at the Iran Desk. This group, within the administration, seems to be playing the same role as the Pentagon's Office of Special Plans. They look over intelligence to find the threats others don't see.

Nicholas Kristof's commentary that month, "Starting Another War" examines Iran. He has "never been in a country where the government is so unpopular...with the possible exception of Burma. The government is so corrupt, tyrannical and incompetent that it will eventually collapse--unless we attack its nuclear sites and trigger a nationalistic surge of support for the regime." As part of a small history lesson, Kristof adds, "We Americans are still paying the price for our involvement in the 1953 overthrow of the elected Iranian government of Mohaddmed Mossadegh; if we bomb Iran, we may cement the mullahs in power for another 50 years." The Times columnist feels that "the military options are wretched." He concludes, "however one judges the risks, the one thing we should have learned from Iraq and Lebanon is that military 'solutions' can leave us worse off than before."

Iran remained in the headlines into October. Ted Koppel wrote a Times op-ed piece (10/2/06) expressing worry over the country but if Iran is "bound and determined to have nuclear weapons, let it...But this should also be made clear to Tehran: If a dirty bomb explodes" the US "will not search around for the perpetrator."

The fall of 2006 feels like the fall of 2002 to some middle east experts. In the lead up to off-year elections, the administration was making the case for war. What are the parallels between the lead up to the Iraq War and the fall of 2006?
--The administration claimed they had no plans for war
--The leader of the country was vilified as a threat and a dictator
--Israel was threatened
--The US tried to have the UN bring or continue sanctions
--US Intelligence was not always consistent with UN findings
--The ultimate threat was the same; building nuclear weapons
--Both Iraq and Iran were accused of sponsoring terrorists

See Washington Post special on Iran.

Will the US bomb Iran in 2007? Some security experts think so. Seymour Hersh is one who agrees these strikes on WMD facilities. Daniel Ellsberg, the famed Pentagon Papers leaker during the Vietnam War, predicts an invasion of Iran "before 2008."

Sanctions were imposed the UN security counsel in December, 2006, for Iran's refusal to give up its nuclear program. Europe was resistant.

In early January, 2007 came reports of detailed Israeli plans to use "tactical nukes" to bomb Iranian facilities. New stories of Israel's plans continued into February. Israeli leaders vowed not to allow Iran to gain a nuclear weapon. Would they attack Iran if they felt the US would not?

As Iran continued to upset UN nuclear experts, one Times op-ed expressed that "International [inspectors] must disabuse Iran that it can have its uranium cake and eat it, to."

Ahmadinejad wrote a letter directly to the American people in late November. The six page letter, which made the front page of the Chicago Tribune and was written in English, spoke to the "noble Americans" and was another attempt to promote dialogue. The State Department reacted negatively and classified it as "a transparently hypocritical and cynical letter." Ahmadinejad wrote, "Both our nations are God-fearing truth-loving and justice-seeking, and both seek dignity, respect and perfection." He criticized President both, by adding that "Civil liberties are increasingly being curtailed." On Iraq, the Iranian President wrote, "Terrorism in Iraq has grown exponentially. With the presence of the US military...noting has been done to rebuild the runs, to restore the infrastructure or to alleviate poverty..I consider it extremely unlikely that you, the American people, consent of the billions of dollars of annual expenditure form your treasury for this military misadventure." He feels that Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo attempt to be justified was the "'war on terror,' but everyone knows that such behavior, in fact, offends global public opinion, exacerbates resentment and thereby spreads terrorism, and tarnishes the US image and its credibly among nations."

In early December 2006, the Iraq Study Group suggested negotiations with Iran and Syria. President Bush did not respond favorably. What of bringing in Syria and Iran to the conversation, wonders Charles Krauthammer? This is "the height of fantasy" because "they want chaos." Iranian expert and author Kenneth Pollack disagrees with Krauthammer. The suggestion to talk with Iran "seems so sensible" that "it is hard to fathom" why it hasn't been done earlier. We should also realize that though Iran is allied with some Shiite group, she "has limited sway over Iraq's Shiite militias" and so can't force the militias "to do things they do not want to do." We cannot count on Iran to solve problems, but they might be able to help. The US and Iran "have a shared interest" in stopping chaos in Iraq.

See much more on the Iraq Study Group, in "Will US Troops Come Home?" FAQ.

Iran's foreign minister said his country would negotiate only if the US agreed to committ to troops withdrawals. Outgoing US ambassador Negroponte says the "US wants a peaceful solution."

Accusations of censorship were attached to a New York Times op-ed from former CIA employee. The Dec. 22 op-ed, passed the CIA but were blocked from being published by the White House, allegedly emphasized Iranian-US cooperation since 9/11. Mr. Leverettt and Ms. Mann feel there is nothing confidential or classified, so they cite each of their points from the mainstream med ia.. Leverett's take is that the government doesn't "want us to say how many opportunities this administration has missed to put relations with Iran on a better track." The piece concludes, "If President Bush does not move decisively toward strategic engagement with Tehran during his remaining two years in office, his successor will not have the same opportunities that he will have so blithely squandered."

Domestically, Amadinijad was no doubt upset that his party lost December elections.

Is Iran adding to the violence in Iraq? Certainly Khalilzad, US ambassador to Iraq, believes so. His accusation in September 2006 became more specific, alleging, according to the Times, that "Iran was urging Shiite militias to step up attacks on US forces in retaliation for the Israeli assault on Lebanon."

On the night of President Bush's major address on Iraq in early January 2007, US forces raided the Iranian consulate in northern Iraq, Erbil. Though the Post called it a consulate one day, the next day the Times called it a building for diplomats. Rice confirmed that Bush ordered the raid. Iran said four of its citizens were kidnapped. It was the second time in a few weeks that US detaineed Iranians, in which US forces stopped an official Iranian embassy car. Another arrest was in the office of Hakim's Badr group. Haki is a Shiite leader. At one point, there was a tense standoff between US forces and 100 Kurdish troops in Erbil. Kurds are normally the closest ally of the US.

Evidence against them was at first unclear, though US officials say, "They are going to have to confront the evidence that the Iranians are deeply inovled in some of the acts of violence." Running guns was alleged. Iraqis didn't believe many of the accusations. Under pressure, the Iraqi governement released some of the Iranians. The US also sent more ships to the Persian Gulf. Could these actions be trying to provoke a strong Iranian response by those in the adminstration planning to go to war with Iran?

About one week later we learned that it was US policy to kill or capture any Iranians in Iraq who were suspected of being agents. This appears to replace the "catch and release" policy of the past few months. One is reminded of the US support for anti-Soviet forces in Afghanistan in the 1980s.

Iran alleged support for some insurgents was emphasized more by the adminstration in January. To what extent will Iran be blamed for US challenges in Iraq? The US was clearly trying to shift the blame for violence in Iraq to alleged Iranian meddling. The US-Iran rivlary is being played out in Iraq, Lebanon, and elsewhere in the Middle East, according to some foreign policy analysists.

Rhetoric heated up, coming from Bush, Cheney and others. The idea seemed to be adding ships to the Gulf area and warning Iran that if their "agents" helped to kill Americans in Iraq, then there would be "serious consequences...and we will respond firmly."

Could Iran be exaggerating? Some military experts think "political showmanship" could be at some of the "work" being done at some sites. In a front-page Times story, David Sanger and William Broad report that Iran's "bluster may outstip its technical expertise." Ahmadinejad can be helped politically in a standoff with the US.

What if? If Iran made a mistake, would the US start a war? The US is raising the stakes, provoking Iran. With no diplomatic relations, could a mistake in judgement lead to war? One wonders if the times seems like the summer of 1914 in Europe, on the eve of World War I.

Iran responded to the accusations of its agents in Iraq. Their ambassador said that those arrested were "security officials" but said their actions and conversations were legitimate. One might wonder how the US would react if an enemy of ours invaded Canada. Would we intervene in some way to shape the future of Canada? Iran also responded on Feb. 8 by threatening to hurt Americans interests in many ways if the US attacked. The war of words continued to escalate. Another Iranian diplomat was kidnapped at gunpoint by Iraqi Defense Ministry forces. Would he be harmed? Iran blamed the US. Tension continued to escalate.

Will Congress try to stop a new war? Senator Obama is worried about "precipitious action" against Iran which are "unauthorized." Would Congress vote to declare war for the first time since December 1941?

Thomas Friedman was concerned in late January of a possible attack on Iran. Senior military have struck him as very concerned about the buildup against Iran. "Before we have even won one war in Iraq, the Bush team seems to be courting another with Iran. I am all for brandishing the stick with Iran, but it should be for the purpose of gaining leverage for a diplomatic dialogue with Iran and Syria about Iraq." As one author told Friedman, "When you house is burning, you don't go looking to start a fire in the next house."

Frank Rich worries that history is repeating itself. On the four year anniversary of Powell's "notorious" UN speech, the White House is "reviving the same script to rev up the war's escalation, this time hyping Iran-Iraq connections instead of Al Qaeda-Iraq connections...No one died in Watergate. This time around our country can't wait tow more years of the White House to be stopped form playing its games with American blood."

Former military leaders are very concerned. Lt. Gen. Robert Gard (at left), Marine Gen. Joseph Hoar, and Vice Admiral Jack Shanahan urge President Bush to open talks with Iran "without preconditions" and worry that military action could be a disaster for the region. They feel that a US attack "would have disastrous consequences for security in the region, coalition forces in Iraq and would further exacerbate regional and global tensions." These leaders are trying to pressure British officials to stop a US attack on Iran. I have heard Gard speak twice and public twice and had an opportunity to meet with him in a small group to discuss US foreign policy with Iraq and Iran.

France's Chirac thought his mic was off when he said that it would be no big deal if Iran had a few nuclear weapons because they wouldn't use them against Israel for fear of retaliation. The Tribune editorial of Feb. 8 was entitled "France's surrender to Iran?" The paper feels it is "perfectly clear" that France feels "a nuclear Iran is inevitable so why try too hard to stop it?"

"Bullying Iran" is the Times lead editorial on February 2007 opens. The piece opens, "Given America's bitter experience in Iraq, one would think that President Bush could finally figure out that threats and brute force aren't a substitute for a reasoned strategy. But Mr. Bush is at is again, this time tying to bully Iran into stopping its meddling inside Iraq. We have no doubt about Iran's malign intent...But more threats and posturing are unlikely to get Iran to back down. If Mr. Bush isn't careful, he could end up talking himself into another disastrous war, and if Congress is not clear in opposing him this time, he could drag the country along." The paper sees Iran interference but feels that the same militias have support from Maliki.

Did the US miss chances to negotiate with Iran? This was alleged in January 2006 and again toward Rice in February. Shitte leader Hakim, said, "Negotiations between Iran and the US are useful for the whole region."

What is the evidence against Iran? There are vague allegations of smuggling of explosives. Perhaps Iran's Quds force is involved. The legacy of Iraq pre-war distortions is looming. In what seemed like a repeat of four years ago, the attackers of Americans in Karbala "may" have been trained and financed by Iranian agents, say "American and Iraqi officials." One reason, the claim, is that the attacks for "sophisticated." Release of promised evidence in a dossier was twice delayed among disagreements between agencies and talk of "cherry-picking." February 2007 sounded much like the fall of 2002. They don't want to repeat another "Powell at the UN" in February of five years earlier. Iran has challenged the US to show "any shred of evidence" of their "meddling" in Iraq.

The lead Times story of Feb. 9 was accusations from "unamed Senior sources" that high-tech roadside bombs were being manufactured in Iran. Then came a dramatic presentation of allegations to the press. Iran was alleged to have been supplying bombs which have killed 170 Americans and wounded over 600. By "supplying" the unnamed officials alleged that circumstancial evidence led them to conclude that the Iranian government had authorized the weapons shipment. The US offiicials allege that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (Quds) controlled the delivery and they could only do this with the approval of the Iranian government. The US does little to guard the border with Iran. The press conference with unnamed officials was in mid-February in Baghdad, but have known about the evidence since 2004. Officials didn't provide all their evidence because, he explained, "There is a gap between what we know and what we can show." Explosively Formed Penetrators are known as EFP's.

Surprisingly, Joint Chiefs of Staff Peter Pace said the next day that he has no information that the Iranian government is behind the weapons. He feels, however, that the weapons do come from Iran. Likely embarrassed, the White House tried to parse Pace's words and then just said that he speaks for himself.

This reminds me of the pre-war allegations of al Qaeda being in Iraq. It turned out to be technically true that there were some al Qaeda members in Iraq, but not with the blessing of Saddam. They were a region, Kuristan, not controlled by the Iraqi government. See al-Qaeda pre-war issues for many details. For example, Times reporter Michael Gordon states that the Iranian roadside bombs have killed "at least 170 Americans and wounded 620." He does not credit this as an allegation from the military but states it as fact (2/14/07).

Reaction to the EFP allegation led many to ask, why now? Others in the media commented on the misleading pre-war evidence on Iraq and to react to these allegations with skepticism. Paul Krugman ("Scary Movie 2", 2/12/07) admits the Iran is probably helping factions in Iraq. "But you can say the same about Saudi Arabia, which is believed to be a major source of financial support for Sunni insurgents--and Sunnis, not Iranian-backed Shiites, are still responsible for most American combat deaths...Now, lets' do an OJ Simpson: if you were determined to start a war with Iran, how would you do it? First you'd set up a special intelligence unit to cook up rationales for war" as has been done with Rumsfeld's"Iranian directorate" inside the Pentagon. "Next, you'd go for a repeat of the highly successful strategy by which scare stories about he Iraqi threat were disseminated to the public...Why? Because there's no way congress will approve another war resolution...Finally, you'd build up forces in the area, both to prepare for the strike and, if necessary, to provide a casus belli...OK, I hope I'm worrying too much." Yet, Krugman worries about why US sources should remain anonymous. "It's still hard to believe that they're really planning to attack Iran, when it's so obvious that another war would be a recipe for even bigger disaster. But remember who's calling the shots: Dick Cheney thinks we've had 'enormous successes' in Iraq."

Another lengthy response to the Iranian allegations came in the lead Times editorial the next day (2/13/07). The paper is concerned with "the nameless briefers...Before things get any more out of hand, President Bush needs to make his intentions toward Iran clear. And Congress needs to make it clear that this time it will be neither tricked nor bullied into supporting another disastrous war. How little this administration has learned form its failure is a constant course of amazement It seems the bigger the failure, the less it learns." The paper worries about the lack of evidence and why they have sat on the information since 2004. "We have no doubts about Iran's malign intent...But we are also certain that the Iraq was has so strained the American military and so shattered this presidents' credibly that shrill accusations and saber rattling are far more likely to frighten the allies America needs to contain Iran's nuclear ambitions than to change Tehran's behavior." They suggest that Bush demand that Maliki stop "protecting the militias." Others wonder if the US is trying to provoke Iran to respond, with the allegations, arrests, and kidnapings.

News analysis in the Times (2/24/07) looks at the "increasing isolation" of Cheney. One wonders "at what point the Iranians will have pushed the US too far." One assumes this would be short of actually producing or testing nuclear weapons, unlike our policy toward North Korea. Bush seems "happy to leave the Iranians guessing" by, for example, adding to the Gulf an aircraft carrier and its supporting ships.

Hillary Clinton wants to President to seek direct approval of Congress before any military action against Iran. In the House, Rep. Murtha is considering similar legislation.

Among experts of weapons, David Kay was doubtful. Appointed by President Bush to search for WMD in Iraq after the US went to war, Kay desires more transparency on intelligence. "If you want to avoid the perception that you've cooked the books, you come out and make the charges publicly."

Other reaction to the allegations came from Congress. For example, Christopher Dodd is skeptical since the US has been known to "doctor numbers." Others wonder whether Iranian leaders are ordering these shipments. Obama commented that much of the evidence was months and old and wondered about the timing of the releases.

Tony Snow tried to assure Americans that "We're not getting ready for war." Added Defense Secretary Gates, "For the umpteenth time, we are not looking for an excuse to got to war with Iran. We are not planning a war with Iran." Gates also said, "The Iranians clearly believe that we are tied down in Iraq...that they are in a position to press us in many ways."

The President felt the need to chime in a few days later with a rare press conference, his first in two months. He was certain the government of Iran approved of using the weapons, but couldn't say for sure if it was the very top leadership. "I can say with certain that the Quds Force, a part of the Iranian government, has provided" the weapons. "We will continue to protect our troops." Would US forces chase Iranians back over the border in pursuit? The off-the-record became added a public face when Maj. Gen. Caldwell agreed to be quoted. The accusations for the link was based on information obtained from detainees in the past 60 days, he said. Some of the weapons were stopped at the border.

Whether the top of the Iranian government is directly involved doesn't matter to President Bush. Rather, "what matters is, is that we're responding." In response to critics who recall the buildup to war with Iraq, the President replied, "The idea that somehow we're manufacturing the idea that the Iranians are providing weapons is preposterous. "Other foreign policy experts feel is does matter because one would hold the Iranian government responsible.

Added Defense Chief Gates, "We are not planning for war." Hersh and others with inside sources say the war is planned for, and it would not be an invasion. Massive bombings would be the start. Some predictions are for the spring of 2007, while others guess sometime before Bush leaves office.

Reactions from Iran came from Ahmadinejad of ABC's "Good Morning America." In Iraq, "we are asking for peace, we are asking for security and we will be sad to see people get killed, no matter who they are....I think that Americans have made a mistake in Iraq and unfortunately are losing, and this is a shame, for America of course, and that's why they are trying to point their fingers to other people, and pointing fingers to others will not solve to problem." The US, not Iran, he added, is destabilizing Iraq. Added an Iranians spokesman, "The US has a long history of fabricating evidence."

Iran did not stop its uranium enrichment, the US alleged and the UN certified, missing a late February deadline from the UN. Further sanctions could be forthcoming. US officials talk of being very patient but "keeping all options on the table." The lead editorial in the Chicago Tribune feels the "weak sanctions" of 60 days ago should be strengthened. "Every day is critical" if UN leader El Baradei is right about Iran's nuclear progress.

"Wake Up! The Next War is Coming", writes Ray McGovern, former CIA leader.

Author Rashid Khalidi, in a February 2007 interview on NPR's Worldview, with Jerome McDonald, discusses the US role in the Middle East and Iraq, especially since 1979. His book, Resurrecting Empire, examines how US policy is viewed from the perspective of the people of the Middle East. "We are drifting toward a conflict with Iran." The same people from Iraq's "bogus" evidence are gaining this new evidence. "An extraordinary dangerous adventure" as Brzezinski has predicted, "one of the worst conflict in US history. "This is criminal folly; mistakes in Iraq look like child's play." The Vice President is a leading voice in pushing us to war.

Among media in-depth analysis or breakthrough stories were:
The BBC reported on Feb. 20 that the US had detailed plans for attacking Iran,
In Vanity Fair was an 11-page analysis by Craig Unger, "From the Wonderful Folks Who Brought You Iraq".

The New Yorker's Seymour Hirsh, "The Redirection: A Strategic Shift." Hirsh pointed out that a second carrier group was added to the Persain Gulf in the past months. In April, two carrier groups are set to replace these two. The writer suspects that all four groups might stay for the start of attacks on Iran. When asked how he feels about predicting war with Iran, for the past two years, Hirsh admits that he feels a bit like "a chicken little."

Candidate Bill Richardson urges "Diplomacy, not war with Iran," in his Washington Post commentary.

Richardson got his wish within a week (2/27/07) , as the US and Rice "accepted Iraq's invitation" to regional talks about stabilizing Iraq, which would include both Syria and Iran. This is a major shift in position, though Rice emphasized that they would not be discussing Iran's nuclear program. The first meeting was to be in the first half of March and would include Iran's foreign mininster, Hoshvar Zabari. Iran formally accepted Iraq's invitation within 48 hours. 13 countries attended. AS the conference opened in the heavily fortified Green Zone, Maliki issued pleas for the neighbors to back his efforts to control the violence.

Regarding allies of Iran, the major news of mid-March was Russia giving Iran an utlimatum on its enrichment: "Pay up, or no more economic assistance for a large power plant. The UN was pleased.

Actually, Iraq is increasingly dependent on Iran, economically. Electricity and trade are key to Iraqis. It is generally understood, according to a front page Times story of mid-March, that trade has grown since the US invaded. Americans officials are not so sure.

"A first step, but it is not enough on its own," was the reaction from Senate majority leader Reid. The Times editorial hopes that the meeting will be used to "explore ways of containing this mushrooming sectarian violence, not to engage in more accusation and posturing."

In mid-April, US intelligence concluded that Iran was aiding both Sunni and Shiite militias.

Obama spoke to the powerful AIPAC Jewish lobby in Chicago in early March. He said that Iran is "one of the greatest threats to the US, Israel, and world peace." Bringing up Iraq, he added, that "one of the profound consequences of the administration's failed strategy in Iraq has been to strengthen Iran's strategic position, reduce US credibility and influence in the region, and place Israel and other nations friendly to the US in greater peril."

North Korea was connected to Iraq and to Iran at the end of February, 2007. The US admitted uncertainty on North Korea's uranium effort. The accusations made in 2002 involved aluminum tubes, at the same time similar nuclear accusations were being made toward Iraq. Now doubts are being admitted about this separate Korean effort. The negotiating strategy would have been different, and perhaps the US would have negotiated so that Korea never did test nuclear weapons. Bolton says there was consensus, even in the State Department. But David Kay, nuclear expert who hunted for Saddam's WMD, feels that the accusation were much further "than the evidence indicated it should go." They made assumptions that were only guesses, Kay feels. One wonders if the US is making similar exaggerated assumptions of Iran in 2007. See much more on North Korea in "Next" PS FAQ.

There was a push in Congress to force the President to get prior approval before attacking Iran. In negotiations, Democratic leaders decided in mid-March to remove this provision from the supplemental bill they were considering.

In March, 15 British sailors were near the Iran-Iraq "border." According to the British, they were in Iraqi water; the Iranians disagreed. The 15 were captured by Iran and held for about 10 days. President Bush called them hostages. Iranians cited British "agression" while the Brits demanded their immediate release. Eventually, diplomacy released them on April 4, though the terms were not clear. President Amajinejad spoke of a "gift for Easter." Upon their return to Britain, the sailors talked of the poor treatment they received, though the Iraninas denied this.

Why were the soldiers released so suddenly? I have a theory, which is similar to the secret deal made to end the Cuban Missile Crisis. Back then, Kennedy would soon remove US missiles from Turkey, near the Soviet border. The deal was kept quiet. Ironically, the Post confirmed my suspicions, by placing two articles above and below eachother on their web site. On the same day that the US let the Red Cross speak with Iranians prisoners, held by the US in Iraq for weeks after being taken from an Iranians consulate building (see above) the Iranians released the British. Those prisoners were then released. Of course, the US denies any connection. The Iranians allege that their prisoners were tortured by the CIA.

Similarly, an Iranian diplomat, Jalal Sharafi, said he was captured in Iraq and tortured by the CIA. He was the second security at the embassy in Baghdad. He was detained for two months. The NSA denied any US involvement.

Speaking of theories, I've wondered about how Iran reacts to a war on their border. Will Shiites, friendly to Iran, keep power in Iraq. Will tens of thousands of US troops stay within miles of Iran, as the US threatens to go to war with Iran? What if the US heard that China feels that the leader of Mexico (on our border) is a dictator who has or is seeking WMD. Mexico, however, has no missles on which any warheads could reach China. The UN goes to Mexico but doesn't find any of these weapons. The US and Mexico have gone to war before over territory. Meanwhile, China, seeking terrorists, has thousands of troops in China (like Afghanistan). Then, China invades Mexico. How would the US react? Would they aid one side in the war? What, in real terms, would Iran do with the US in Iraq?

Meanwhile, on March 25 the UN Security Council unanimously agreed to add to Iranians sanctions. The goals is to press "The Islamic Republic" to suspend uranium enrichment and rejoin negations. The financial sanctions were first passed in December.

In April, news of Iran stayed off the front pages, supplanted by the struggle between Congress and the President over war funding.

May news included an IAEA report that Iran was making more progress enriching uranium than was previosly thought. In a related story John Bolton, former US Ambassador to the UN, urge an attack on Iran. The head of the IAEA warned in early June of the "new crazies" in the administration who want to convince the President to attack Iran. The top attack dog appears to be Cheney or one of his top assistants.

Yet in late May ElBaradei of the UN concluded that Iran could enrich enough uranium to make a bomb in 3-8 years.

The author of a new book on nuclear proliferation was interviewed on NPR on May 16. He feels that Iran cannot be stopped, because "we can't bomb information out of people" who know how do produce the weapons.

The chaos of Iraq was predicted before the war by US intelligence, it was revealed in late May, 2007. Al Qaeda would have new opportunities and sectarian violence would flare. Further warnings were that Iran could be provoked. The report was released by a Senate Intelligence Committee.

Despite the adminstrations long stance against talking with Iran, the US ambassador to Iraq met with Iran's ambassador, the highest level meetings since the hostrage crisis of 1979. Ambassador Crocker met in Baghdad on May 28.

On the eve of Memorial Day 2007, the Post editorial suggests how to avoid the next war.

In August, former NY governor Mario Cuomo urged Congress to learn from history as to who has the power to declare war. "We should keep that in mind every time we hear another warmonger whisper that we should start getting tougher with Iran." (USA Today commentary, 8/1/07).

In early August the US again alleged that Iran was behind certain attacks in Iraq, by supplying bombs which killed US troops. The US charges that this support is with the knowlegde of the upper level of Iran's government. This front-page story detailed the roadside bomb used 99 times, according to the top US military.

The flow of weapons from Iran decreased in September, claimed Lt. Gen. Odierno.

Over the summer of 2007, the US ratcheted up the heat by declaring Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps as terrorists. Georgie Anne Geyer, syndicated columnist (8/17/07) who I heard speak a few years ago, writes in the Tribune that the harder line reduces US options. She quotes think tank expert Joseph Cirincione, who I've also heard speak recently, as saying, "All of us want to back Iran into a corner, but we want to give them a way out, too." Terrorist had always previously been "non-state actors", Geyer points out. "Bush actually thinks he is peeling off the progressive, younger elemnts from the Iran's theocratic regime when he is actually driving them into the same corner where ethnicity, religion and history overcome all."

The heat rose again in late August when the US arrested six members of an Iranian delegation in Baghdad at the invitation of the Iraqi energy ministry. The US claimed the unauthorized weapons were found in their cars, perhaps owned by their guards. Journalists filmed the arrests, as the delegates were eating dinner, and the delegated were taken out of their Baghdad motel in handcuffs and with blindfolds. The US could not confirm the arrests. However, the Iranians were released after spending a night in prison. In January Iranians had been arrested in northern Iraq under similar circumstances.

At the end of the 2007 summer, the UN's IAEA released a report doubting the veracity of US concerns of Iran's nuclear program. "Iran's slow pace continued," said one investigator of Iran's program. The Bush administration feels Iran is delaying and hiding their progress.

Within a week of this potentially conciliatory, less threatening news, Iran made more defiant statements, announcing 3000 active centrifuges to enrich uranium. If Iran could spin this many centrifuges all year long, experts say it could make enough enriched uranium for a single atom bomb. Harsher sanctions are being considered.

The Chicago Tribune rattled some sabers in early September, accusing Iran of "stalling for time" and always giving "empty promises."

Iran shelled Iraq, alleged Iraq's foreign minister that same week. Iran said it was in response to guerilla attacks within Iran. In Kurdistan, as many as 3000 villagers have fled their homes, with orchards ablaze. Will this boil over or lead to more conflict?

After the US made another night time arrest of an Iranian invited by Iraq for business purposes, Iran closed all its borders with Kurdistan. Vice President Talibani was very upset with the U.S. actions. Iran re-opened five crossings after about 15 days.

In September, more in the media considered that the US might go to war with Iran. Were they just crying chicken? Were they just part of a "broken record"? Might the US really begin another war? If so, how would Iran react? If Bush wanted to attack, he would need to do so in the next 15 months.

When Ahmadinejad visited Columbia University and New York in late September he again denied the holocaust and denied there were any gay citizens of his country. The President of the university included in his long introduction, "You are either brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated. The Iranian leaders comments included, "If you have created the fifth generation of atomic bombs and are testing them already, who are you to question other people who just want nuclear power."

Iran's top nuclear negotiator, not considered a hawk, resigned in October.

Then, in late September Congress voted to label the Iranians Quds Force of the Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization. This is the first time the US has targeted the armed forces of a sovereign government. President Bush could use this as the Gulf of Tonkin resolution was used, to begin a war. Others feel Bush is using a strategy to pressure Iran so as to avoid war. Most Democrats voted against it, but not Hillary Clinton, who receive flak from many Democrats, including columnist Gail Collins. "I am against a rush to war" sounded like her ideas in the fall of 2002. "Being against a rush to another war in the Middle East seems to be setting the bar a tad low. How does she feel about a measured march to war? A leisurely stroll?" (Times, 11/1/07). (See more below on the Revolutionary Guard)

"Bomb, Bomb Iran" was Maureen Dowd's column of mid-October. Critical of Sen. Clinton's vote, she writes that "if you know the dingbat VP agitating for conflict with Iran, if you know that Condi is chasing after Cheney with a butterfly net on Iran and Syria, if you know you can't believe anything this adminsitration says, why vote to give tem more backing on their dysfunctional Middle East policy?" Dowd quotes John Edwards as wondering if we go to war in six months will Clinton make similar claims, as she did after her Iraq vote of 2002. "Are we going to hear her once again say if only I had known then what I know now?"

Iran was alleged to be attacking Kurds in northern Iraq, just as Turkey was contemplating an invasion to stop Kurdish attacks (see "Allies" FAQ for more on Turkey)

A nuclear armed Iran could lead to "World War III," warned President Bush as he increased the hawkish rhetoric. This stark warning of mid-October included, "...if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon." In a new emphasis, the President differentiated between knowledge and having the actual bombs. He said he wants to convince Iranians to find new leadership.

Just a few days later, as if on due, VP Cheney added to the one-two White House punch when he spoke of the need to stop Iran before they made nuclear weapons. He promised "serious consequences" if Iran keeps up its nuclear program. He stated clearly, "We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon...Our county, and the entire international community, cannot stand by as a terror-supporting state fulfils its most aggressive ambitions." Cheney is upset that Iran has defied UN sanctions.

"Showdown with Iran" with the program that week on PBS's Frontline.

Increased sanctions came in late October, with the administration citing the Iranian Guard as a terrorist organization. The Times reported more in "New Steps By US on Iran." The Post editorial was supportive of "a boost for diplomacy" because harsher sanctions are "badly needed...to stop Tehran's nuclear program by nonmilitary means. For more than two years, the administration has supported negotiations" and made positive offers in exchange for a freeze. "Iran has pressed ahead" and has meanwhile "used proxies to wage was against US troops in Iraq. Faced with this defiance, the international coalition is getting weaker rather than stronger," especially China, Russia, and Germany. Those who oppose was with Iran are "senseless and irresponsbile...to portray the sanctions initiative as a buildup to war by Mr. Bush. We've seen no evidence that the president has decided on war, and its clear that many senior administration officials understand the package as the best way to avoid military acton. It is not they but those who oppose tough sanctions who make war with Iran more likely."

David Ignatius, Post columnist, thinks the US is falling into a trap. He wants everyone to "slow down." El Baradei, chief nuclear negotiator for the UN, wants to "soften" the talk. " Sen. Levin agrees that we ought to "dial down the rhetoric." Terming the rhetoric "quite irresponsible," Sen. Boxer adds, "What is does is" pull "the people of Iran together behind Ahmadinejad." Sen. Graham feels otherwise, stating, "I think the President is dead right."

Perhaps Ignatius was reading Scott Ritter, former Marine and weapons inseptor in Iraq. He got it right, though was much criticized, for saying in 2002-03 that Iraq did not have WMD. This time, Ritter feels the idea that Iran is a threat is "The Big Lie." Will he be listened to this time?

Mario Cuomo, former Governor of New York, was writing more op-eds in the fall of 2007. One was lecturing the Democrats to "announce that no money will be appropriated for any military action against another nation without a proper declaration of war."

Victor Davis Hanson, syndicated in the Tribune, writes in late October, "Whose Afraid of an Iranian Bomb?" "At first glance it would seem a straightforward thing to stop a relatively weak but volatile Iran from obtaining a nuclear bomb. It would also seem to be something a concerned world community would be actively working to do...But in truth, most players [especially Europe, Russia, and China] don't care enough to stop Iran from getting the bomb, or apparently don't think it's worth the effort and cost." He concludes, "Ahmadinejad may be viewed across the globe as dangerous religious nut.. But to many, he, like Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez, also represents an anti-capitalist, anti-globalization popular front against American and therefore shouldn't be ostracized. So who wants a nuclear Iran? No one and everyone."

An interesting debate on PBS Newshour was between neocon Podhoretz and Newsweek commentator Zakaria. (10/29/07). The questions was "Should we attack Iran?" Podhoretz argued that sanctions and negotiations haven't worked so we are left with "only one terrible choice:" allowing Iran to go nuclear or attacking them. He feels that deterrence can't work, because Iranian leaders are, in essence, suicidal. The adviser to Guliani feels we will repeat the mistake of not confronting Hitler. In response, Zakaria sees a third choice, if Iran goes nuclear in 3-8 years. Deterrence worked with Mao and the Chinese, with the Soviets, and with North Korea most recently. Iran is isolated and time is on our side. He does not want another unilateral U.S. invasion of a Muslim country, after Afghanistan and Iraq. Zakahria points out that Iran opposes al Qaeda.

A Fox TV special in the fall was "Iran: The Ticking Bomb," criticizing Ahmadinejad in a number of areas.

Paul Krugman, regular columnist for the New York Times writes of "Fearing Fear Itself" (10/29/2007). He feels that Republican presidential candidates have made "unreasoning, unjustified, terror the centerpiece of their campaign. Podhoretz, who advises Guliani, wants to start bombing Iran "as soon as it is logistically possible." The "Islamofascism" Podhoretz speaks of "is a figment of the neocon imagination. The term came into vogue only because it was a way for Iraq hawks to gloss over the awkward transition from pursuing Osama bin Laden, who attacked America, to Saddam Hussein, who didn't." Krugman feels Iran's weak economy is among the reason it doesn't threaten us. "The idea that bombing will bring the Iranian regime to its knees---and bombing is the only option, since we've run out of troops--is pure wishful thinking. Last year Israel tried to cripple Hezbollah with an air campaign and ended up strengthening it instead." All this tough talk "would be funny is it weren't so serious. In the wake of 9/11, the Bush administration adopted fear-mongering as a political strategy Instead of treating the attack as what is was--an atrocity committed by a fundamentally weak, though ruthless adversary---the administration portrayed America as a nation under threat from every direction." Krugman concludes that "al Qaeda is a real threat, and so is the Iranians nuclear program. But neither of these threats frightens me as much as fear itself--the unreasonable fear that has taken over one of America's two great political parties."

The same day as Krugman's piece came the lead editorial in the Times, "Trash Talking World War III." The "paper of record is concerned about the Bush administration's rhetoric. It opens, "America's allies and increasingly the American public are playing a ghoulish guessing game: Will President Bush manage to leave office without starting a war with Iran? Mr. Bush is eagerly feeding those anxieties...Four years after his pointless invasion of Iraq, President Bush still confuses bullying with grand strategy. He refuses to do the hard work of diplomacy--or even acknowledge the disastrous cost of his actions...The world should not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon, but here is not easy fix here, no daring surgical strike...Beyond the disastrous diplomatic and economic costs a bombing campaign is unlikely to set back Iran's efforts for more than a few years." The editorial feels that the neocons feel attacks may "unleash popular uprisings against the mullahs..." This was the "same kind of rose-petal thinking that was used to sell American a fantasy about the invasion of Iraq." Ahmadinejad is more likely to become a hero if we go to war. Rice still wants to hold off on war. "But, as with everything else she does, there's nowhere near enough follow-through." Rice and other need to offer Iran "a credible way back in from the cold." Bush should "tone down the rhetoric" and get other countries on board. Those who balk at trade restrictions find it alot easier to justify "when they say they're not giving the crazy American government an excuse for another war."

Might Israel attack Iran? The Israeli government was probably urging the US to attack their enemy, Iran. Ray McGovern feels that we would be attacking Iran "for Israel." The thought of an Israeli attack became more widespread by mid-Novmeber, after the attack on suspected Syrian nuclear facilities.

Frank Rich, in the Sunday Times, examines the prospects of war with Iran. You wonders what would happen in US, politically, if the US does not bomb Iran. Rich's commentary is "Noun + Verb + 9/11 + Iran=Democrats' Defeat?"

On the more conservative side was George Will, who in his Washington Post column (11/4/07) urges Congress to "end unfettered executive war-making by deciding to." They should enact the Constitutional War Powers Resolution. Congress has limited the President in the past, reminds Will, in another one of his history lessons. Most recently was in the '90s when troops withdrawal was mandated from Somalia and military actions in Rwanda were forbidden.

David Brooks, also in the Times feels that Iran has "done for decades of peace proposals" could not have done, brought many of its neighbors [including Israel and the Palestinians] in line against it. "In short, Iran is taking advantage of the region's three civil wars and could have its proxy armies on Israel's northern, western and southen borders."

Sen. Lieberman, on the other hand, is supportive of the President's policy. He said on NPR, "Iran is responsible for killing hundreds of Americans" in Iraq. He labeled their leaders as "fanatical" and not able to respond to a deterrent policy.

30 Democratic Senators urged Bush not to attack in a letter. They feel he has no congressional authorization. "We are writing to express serious concerns with the provocative statements and actions...These comments are counterproductive and undermine efforts to resolve tension with Iran through diplomacy." Replied Republican Senator McConnell, "What conceivable purpose would be served, at a time when we're trying to squeeze the Iran economically, by telling them what we will or won't do in the future military?"

Obama brought up President Kennedy, who said "We should not negotiate out of fear, but we shouldn't fear to negotiate." He criticized Clinton vote to condemn the revolutionary guard as a terrorist organization, responding that "we're foolishly rattling our sabers in passing this reckless amemdment" which could use used "to justify an attack on Iran."

Robert Novak, Post commentatator (11/19) , feels that for Democrats, "the trick is to condemn both" Cheney and Amhamdinejad. The veteran columnist points out that Obama co-sponsored SR 970 in March, which used similar language. In the mid-November Democratic debates, Sen. Biden attacked the vote by Clinton, which Obama missed. "It's a serious, serious mistake...It convinceds the rest of the Muslim wordl this is really a war against Islam...If [Bush] takes the country to war in [Iran] without a vote of Congress....then he should be impeached." Novak wonders if Clinton or Obama could "co-exist with a nuclear Iran? Do they forswear the military option?" See more on Novak in WMD/CIA/Wilson FAQ.

Giuliani feels differently and takes his lessons from the 20th century. "We learned" that "you don't beg to negotiate with dictators, tyrants and supporters of terrorism." Also see "US Politics 2007"

Sec. Gates, probably of fan of Sen. Lieberman, traveled to China to show his concern for their growing defense budget. He also wants to pressure China to stop providing missile technology to Iran.

Do Americans want to go to war with Iran? Polls vary, of course, depending on how the question is asked. For example, should the US "strike" Iran if they are on the verge of gaining nuclear weapons is different than, should the US "go to war" with Iran to stop their nuclear program? One poll showed that over 50% of Americans think we should bomb Iran. As McCain might sing, "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran" to the tune of the Beach Boys' Barbara Ann.

The question that was not asked very often in October and November of 2007, as some thought we were marching to war, was, "Is Iran trying to or about to develop a nuclear weapon?" The McClatchy Newspapers, one of the few media outlets to get the WMD story correct before the Iraq war, has its doubts on the administration charges toward Iran. The quote experts who see no evidence of an Iranians nuclear weapons program. "Despite President Bush's claims that Iran is pursing nuclear weapons that could trigger 'World War III', experts in and out of government say there's no conclusive evidence that Tehran has an active nuclear weapons program." One US official who request anonymity, said, "I don't think that anyone right today things they're working on a bomb." There is circumstantial evidence but Bush's "rhetoric seems hyperbolic compared with the measured statements by his senior aides and outside experts. The paper outlines reasons to be skeptical of Iranian claims, including their seeming lack of need for nuclear power. On the other hand, since oil prices are so high, it makes sense for Iran to sell its oil at a great profit and use nuclear for its domestic energy uses. But Bush has not revealed "conclusive proof", not have four years of UN weapons inspections.

McClatchy followed up on Nov. 12 with the "hype" of Iran's nuclear program.

John Bolton is more hawkish. The controversial and former UN ambassador has written a book, Surrender Is Not An Option: Defending American at the United Nations and Abroad. Out in the fall of 2007, the neocon is critical of Bush for not being hawkish enough, especially concerning Iran. The Times details his views in their Nov. 9 edition. He feels that the administration has used 4 1/2 years on "failed diplomacy." Once a strong supporter of Bush, he has become a critic on many issues, from the right. Iran is "not going to give up their nuclear weapons voluntarily" and the current policy "won't achieve the stated objective...The choice is between the use of force and Iran with nuclear weapons." See more books and videos.

What lessons can we learn from history? Might history repeat itself in Pakistan? David Ignatius sees echoes of Iran in 1979. Today, as then, we are supported an ever unpopular dictator, because we fear the alternative might be force than him. But in 1979, our long-term support of the dictator led to a strongly anti-American government appearing, which is still in power. Could the same occur in nuclear-armed Pakistan, or could democracy take root there? Ignatius was eerily prescient when Benazir Bhutto was assasinated just a few weeks later. See "Next" for much more on Pakistan.

There were few conciliatory gestures in the fall of 2007. However, the US released 9 Iranians because they "no longer represent a threat". Three suspected of being part of the Quds force are still being held. The Iranian ambassador denounced the detentions as illegal and said 25 more Iranians were being held by the US. The US claims this number is only 11.

In November the lead Tribune editorial reminded readers that Iran's "magic number" is 3000, the number of centrifuges working for about a year. This generates enough nuclear fuel that could be turned into a bomb. Experts call this a "breakout capability."

In a rare display of public criticism of the regime, 500 Iranians "mothers of peace" signed a letter expressing fear of war of Iran's nuclear program.

US Intelligence determined that Iran has not been working on nukes for years, we learned in early December from the Times. The largest headline in weeks read, "US Finding Says Iran Halted Nuclear Arms Effort in 2003." The National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) is the consensus view of the CIA and 15 other spy/intelligence agencies. The Times front page story opened, "Rarely, if ever, has a single intelligence report so completely, so suddenly and so surprisingly altered a foreign policy debate here" because Iran's nuclear policies was "the rationale for an aggressive" policy to head off what Bush recently called "World War III." A bold front page headline from the Tribune includes an article which "raises new questions about [Bush's] credibility."

A controversial NIE was released in October 2002, just before Congress voted for war against Iraq. The New York Times headline of December 4 blared, "US Finding Says Iran Halted Nuclear Arms Effort in 2003." This contradicted and disavowed a previous NIE of 2005, gained mostly from a labtop, as well as the views of Cheney and other administrative hawks. Europeans and others in 2005 questioned what they were being shown from the lab top slide show. Iran's primary motivation was in response to "increasingly international scrutiny and pressure."

Many questions were raised: How long had Cheney, Bush, and other known about these new conclusions? Why was the 2005 NIE so wrong? Was their political pressure involved, as with the 2002 Iraq NIE? Who knew and when did they know? What did Bush know a few months ago when he changed his focus to warning that Iran could not be allowed the knowledge to make nukes? What will the effect be on sanctions against Iran?

Some answers include: One source reported that the NIE has been classified since before the 2006 elections. Cheney and other were presented with outlines of the findings two weeks ago and knew previously that conclusions were under review. Cheney had said in Dec. 2005, "There's every reason to believe that they are seriously pursuing nuclear weapons. We're not the only ones who believe that. Obviously...the Europeans do, as well." Then, just in October 2007, he alleged that Iran is "working aggressively to develop the capacity to enrich uranium, and the end of the process will be the development of nuclear weapons." Also in October, President Bush invoked World War III in talking of the Iranian nuclear program. (see above). Bush told the press that Mike McConnell alerted him in August about new intelligence on Iranian weapons but not not explain in detail. The story was revised. "That's not believable," retorted Sen. Biden. "I refuse to believe that. If it's true, he has the most incompetent staff in America, modern American history and he's one of the most incompetent presidents in modern American history." The 2005 NIE was wrong due to a combination of "poor tradecraft or political pressure," asserts the Times report.

What were the new findings? Iran stopped trying to get nukes "primarily in response to increasing international scrutiny and pressure." The country uses a "cost-benefit approach rather than a rush to a weapon irrespective of the political, economic and military costs." The NIE also concluded, "We do not know whether [Iran] currently intends to develop nuclear weapons" but they probably will not have enough plutonium (and be "technically capable") for a nuclear weapons until 2015. One wonders how could the NIE know Iran's "intent" for certain? As the Times article opens, "Rarely, if ever, has a single intelligence report so completely, so suddenly, and so surprisingly altered a foreign policy debate here." Push for sanctions will be weakened. Congress requested the NIE and covert sources supplied information to the US over the summer of 2007, but the NIE was scheduled to be released to Congress only in the spring. Now the US is in agreement with international arms inspectors.

Response from the Senate included Reid, who feels that the assessment "directly challenges some of this administration's alarming rhetoric" and should lead to increased diplomacy. Added Biden, (at left) clearly upset, after Iraq and intelligence issues, "to knowingly disregard or once again misrepresent intelligence about the issue of war and peace, I find it outrageous. This is exactly what he did...in the run-up to...Iraq in consistently exaggerating the intelligence...suggesting that Iraq had WMD; the vice president saying Iraq had reconstituted its nuclear weapons program...It further undermines America's credibility around the world, which is at an all-time low, and it undermines the credibility here at home." After the Iowa caucus, Biden withdrew from the Presidential race.

Another Senator, Republican Hagel feels the news removes, "if nothing else, the urgency that we have to attack Iran, or knocking out facilities. I don't think you can overstate the importance of this."

In the House, Rep. Rahm Emanuel classifies the new information as "a game changer...We've been operation out of hype and fear." Fellow Democrat Dennis Kucinich suggests that his campaign "offers the American people someone who was right the first time."
See more of Biden, Kucinich and other in "US Politics '07" FAQ.

Bush and Cheney defended themselves by saying "nothing has changed" and "we were right to be worried about Iran" and "this shows our policies have been working." National Security Adviser Steven Hadley calls the report "good news...it tells us that we have been making progress." Sec. of Defense Gates and State Rice see a non-nuclear Iran as still a serious threat mostly because of its support for terrorists. Gates feels that Iran "remains a threat" and demands that Iran "come clean" about its efforts to develop a bomb. Added Rice, "The Iranian regime remains problematic and dangerous." She worries about them "perfecting" their enrichment.

Bush feels that Iran "poses the same danger" to the world. Further, Bush emphasized what he started saying in October (see above) that Iran should be allowed the "knowledge" to enrich uranium. "Look, Iran was dangerous, Iran is dangerous, and Iran will be dangerous, if they have the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon." Does they President suggest trying to kill all the hundreds of Iranian nuclear scientists, wonder some. Bush also called for more sanctions, arguing that "Iran must explain to the world why they had a program." A sanction vote at the UN was delayed.

Among Presidential candidates, aside from Biden, were the Clinton campaigns criticism of the "latest effort by the...adminstration to distort intelligence to pursue its ideological ends." Added Gov. Hucackabee, "Iran will not acquire nuclear weapons on my watch."

What had the administration charged about Iran? Careful readers of this page may need no reminder of the comments of Bush, Cheney, Sec. of State Powell, National Intelligence Director (and previous Ambassador to Iraq) Negroponte The language was the same, with the phrase "is determined to develop" or "is developing." For example, said Powell in 2004, "It is our judgment that Iran is developing a nuclear weapon." Added Negroponte in January 2007, "Tehran is determined to develop nuclear weapons." Cheney chimed in regularly, such as in February 2007: Iran "appears to be pursing the development of nuclear weapons." Finally, at a 2005 news conference, the President commented, "People will say, if we're trying to make the case on Iran, well, the intelligence failed in iraq, therefore, how can we trust the intelligence in Iraq?" To build pressure on Iraq "requires people to believe that the IRanian nuclear program is, to a certain extent, ongoing."

Outside of the administration had come comments from those running for President, such as Guliani in October: "As we all know, Iran is seeking nuclear weapons, and they 're threatening to use them."

We slowly learned how the US obtained the new information that led to the drastic change. They sought defectors and key officials in a program called "Brain Drain."

Allies of the administration now, ironically, support the UN's nuclear watchdog in their less certain conclusions.

Reaction from Iran was generally positive, with its President, Ahmadinejad calling the NIE report "a watershed" and trying hard not to beam, "I told you so." Ahmadinejad said at a rally, "With the help of God, our people have resisted, are resisting and will resist until the end. They are disappointed that they cannot make you compromise even an iota...This wa a final shot to those who, in the past several years, spread a sense of threat and concern in the world through lies of nuclear weapons." A top official in Iran added, "It shows that the US is showing flexibility and wants to find a solution."

Sec. of Defense Gates hopes that the Iranian leader will also support the NIE's which details Iran's support of terrorism and groups in Iraq. "Iran cannot pick and choose" only the US intelligence it likes.

Response from the press came in op-ed pages. For example, David Ignatius of the Post, who writes frequently on Iran writes of "The Myth of the Mad Mullahs." Helen Thomas, veteran White House reporter, feels that Bush as "lost credibility" on Iran.

Two foreign affairs experts write on "How to Defuse Iran." While Democrats criticize Bush for hyping the threat, the crucial question is "What do we do now." Leverett suggests we cannot ignore Iran. We could recognize Iran's legitimate security and regional interests to try to settle differences. We should clarify that we do not seek regime change and "change in behavior." Iran would have to pledge to stop aiding Hamas and Hezbollah. "Since Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomenei's death in 1989, US policy toward Iran has not served American interests," the piece concludes.

Maureen Dowd of the Times feels that "If W. can shape the intelligence to match his faith-based beliefs, as with Iraq, then he will believe the intelligence --no matter how incredible it is. If he can't shape it to match his beliefs, as with Iran, then he'll disregard the intelligence--no matter how how credible it is...Sy Hersh [of the New Yorker] claims that the top echelon of the White house has long known of the conclusion that Iran had stopped its nuke program and that Dick Cheney 'has kept his foot on the neck of that report.'" The President claims he was only briefed on the report last week. The "burned spooks", Dowd continues, "may not have wanted to play the patsy again while W., Cheney, and the neocons beat the drums for an Iran invasion." She recalls that in response to the NIE of 2004 which "didn't match his sunny vision of the Iraq occupation," the President said that the analysts were "'just guessing as to what the conditions might be like.'"

Nuclear experts Valerie Lincy and Gary Milhollin co-authored a Times op-ed, "In Iran We Trust?" (12/6/07). Like the Iraq report of 2002, they feel this latest report is "both misleading and dangerous, primarily because nuclear weapons are defined "in a ludicrously narrow way." They are concerned that the sanctions policy has been "upended...just as it was beginning to produce results." The authors wonder if the administration is just "washing its hands of the intractable Iranian nuclear issue by saying, 'If we can't fix it, it ain' t broke.'"

Some commentators wondered if the Intelligence got it wrong on Iraq in 2002, why should we believe them now?

Thomas Friedman imagines an NIE from Iran concerned with the US. It might read, "Therefore, it is 'very likely' that Iran's current level of high oil revenues will also for decades and insulate our regime from any decisive pressures from abroad or from our own people...We now have 'high confidence' that America is on a path of self-destruction, for three reasons: First 9/11 has made America afraid and therefore stupid. The 'war on terrorism' is now so deeply imbedded in America's psyche that we think it is 'highly likely' that America will continue to export more fear than hope and will continue to defend things like the torture and Guantanamo Bay prison and to favor politicians like Mr. Giuliani, who alienates the rest of the world."

Among editorials was from the Post on December 5, "Intelligence on Iran." From the Times of that day came good news and bad news. The good news is that President Bush has no excuse for going to war. But the "worrisome news" should not be overlooked. "After Iraq and Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, it is hard to imagine that this administration could do any more damage to this country's credibility. Then it does. Less than two months ago. Mr. Bush was warning that Iran's nuclear ambitions could unless World War III. Yesterday, the president insisted that he found out about the new assessment only last week...The new report is not an argument for anyone to let down their guard." The paper suggests that Rice get directly involved in negotiations.

Hardliner John Bolton examines what he sees as "flaws" in the Iran Report. He and other hawks fear that Iran may have already mastered the technology and are "just waiting for the material" and hiding the weapons program. Maureen Dowd (above) quotes Bolton's belief that the intelligence "got Iraq wrong and they're overcompensating by understating the potential threat from Iran." A similar argument to Bolton was made by the US amb. to the IAEA. He challenged the NIE: "Iran's leaders could choose to restart that program. There is no certainty the IAEA would know..."

Former weapons inspector and nuclear expert David Albright is concerned that "Bush has made a big mistake, and he's not responding in a way that gives confidence that he's on top of this...He isn't able to respond because he's not able to say he's wrong."

A response came from around the world. For example, Israel has more urgent warnings of Iran's nuclear program. They doubt the latest NIE and feel that Iran still seeks a bomb and had probably resumed its programs. The Israel Defense Minister and former Prime Minister Barak, challenged the US view.

At the UN, the IAEA, which was right about Iraq before the war, is "more skeptical" and "not that generous with Iran." Condemned as peaceniks and naive before the Iraq war, now the IAEA was being quoted to defend the administration. "Despite repeated smear campaigns, the IAEA has stood its ground and concluded time and again that since 2002 ere was no evidence of an undeclared nuclear weapons program. It also validates the assessment" of the IAEA that "Iran represented no imminent danger."

Yet, the IAEA worries about the enriched uranium having military as its main use. This brings up the question, "When is a nuclear program a nuclear weapons program?" The Times reports on the "thin line" between civilian and military. But "as thin as it may be, there is a line." The "paper of record" explains that "one threshold is enriched uranium." At low levels it is for electricity. But if "uranium is purified in spinning centrifuges long enough, and becomes highly enriched, it can fuel an atom bomb." History tells us that "crossing over" is "relatively easy." So, Iran could have enough fuel to make a bomb between 2010 and 2015, which is about what the old intel predicted.

In Britain, a spokesman for P.M. Gordon Brown feels that NIE "confirms we were right to be worried about Iran seeking to develop nuclear weapons...intent was there."

Why was the intel so wrong? Some of the same analysts who concluded Iraq had WMD also concluded at the same time that Iran was actively seeking nukes. Few are claiming that policy makers tried to influence the intel, according to a Times report. Notes were obtained for Iranian military officials, rather than the previous key intel, a lab top computer. Some of the officials complained bitterly about the decision to shut down the nuclear program in 2003. According to a front page Times story, this led to "one of the biggest reversals in the history of American nuclear intelligence." A former top CIA officials feels this chapter shows how difficult intel is to get right. "I think," he added, "that people should take comfort from the fact that they've changed their views." There appears to be less "groupthink" as there was with Iraq intel.

Why did Iran stop its nuclear weapons program? Since the program stopped the same year as the US invasion of Iraq, some might claim that they were scared of the US. Others might see that Iran no longer felt threatened by Iraq's lack of WMD.

One of the borders with Iran was increasingly guarded by US troops, at Patrol Base Shocker. East of Baghdad and just 4 miles from the border, it is home to 240 US troops and contractors. Iraqi border guards are being trained to look for smuggled weapons and to monitor people and other goods.

Within Iran there was rare public criticism of Ahmadinejad just a week after the NIE. His predecessor, Khatami, defiantly stated that the current President was leading Iranians in the wrong direction.

Russia helps Iran's nuclear power program by delivering nuclear fuel. In a battle lost of the US, Russia announced in mid-December that it would help power an Iranian nuclear power plant. President Bush countered that with this assistance, "Then the Iranians do not need to learn how to enrich." Commented the Times, via their editorial page, "President Bush is not eager to pick another fight" with Putin. "So he did the diplomatic things..and said that it is good...Don't believe it."

When Bush traveled to the Middle East and to Israel for this first time in January 2008, he spoke at each stop about Iran. Generally the comments were about making allies to keep up the pressure on the Persian state "before it is too late." Iran, he alleged, is "the world's leading sponsor of terrorism."

That day, Iran promised the IAEA that within four weeks it would answer all outstanding questions about its nuclear program.

How effective are economic sanctions? They have been in effect against Iran since the 1979 Iranian Revolution. Congress' investigative armed released their report in mid-January, concluding that sanctions have had little effect.

Iran's omission from the headlines ended after just a week or so when the US alleged that five Iranian speedboats ships were hostile and agressive toward American ships in the Staits of Hormuz, near Iran. The US said its ships were in international waters and the incident was during the daylight. Was Iran testing US response?

What really happened in the Straits of Hormuz? Could it have been the Gulf of Tonkin incident which started a war? The voice over radio frequencies threatened to sink US ships. However, this voice was probably not coming from an Iranian boat but just a regular harasser of US ships. On Jan. 15, Jerome McDonnell explored Iran's alleged provocation in Worldview with an interview of former CIA intelligence expert Ray McGovern. McGovern feels the administration is looking for any excuse to go to war, even though the recent NIE seemed to make war less likely. He is suspicious of the timing and Bush's strong reaction.

"A Dangerous Game in the Strait" titled a Times editorial. They feel that Iran "played a reckless and foolish game...that--except for American restrain--could have spun lethally out of control...Feints by Iran, or anyone else, to bait America can go dangerously awry. At a minimum, the administration should use this incident to engage Iran in formal talks on conduct in the strait."

In a Times op-ed, a former marine, David Crist, reminds readers that Iran has been harassing us in the Gulf for 20 years. "A full scale war...would not be in America's interests But there is a world of difference between reacting to provocation by Revolutionary Guard boats and bombing sovereign territory. History shows that tough but measured military response to Iranian harassment may lessen the odds of a much bigger clash down the road."

"What is this Iranian Provocation BS?" asked David Lindorff in his Jan. 8 commentary. "Just who is provoking whom here? Imagine, for a moment, that Iran had sent its navy to patrol in the Gulf of Mexico, in international waters just off of the coast of Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas, and that its leader flew out to one of those ships [Cheney] and threatened to take out America's oil infrastructure. How do you think that US government would react? How do you think the American people would react?"

Another February Times op-ed came from a former CIA officer, now part of the American Enterprise Institute. Mr. Gerecht feels that the US should advocate "direct, unconditional talks...Strategically, politiically, and morally, such meetings will help us think more clearly....Negotiations are likely the only way we can confront this threat before it's too late" because the current approach is not working...If the mullahs don't want to negotiate, fine: making the offer is something that must be checked off before the next president coud unleash the Air Force and the Navy."

On the diplomatic front, a draft of new sanctions for the UN was approved in January, after China and Russia dropped their opposition. This was to bring pressure on Iran to stop enrichment of uranium. The US reversed course in February, agreeing to turn over data is says proves that Iran was trying to develop a nuclear weapon until about four years ago.

"Iran's nuclear shell game" was the Tribune editorial of early March. Iran was penalized for its refusal to cease enriching uranium. The paper is pleased with the new sanctions imposed by the UN "for its nuclear arrogance. This third set of sanctions comes none too late, because "once Tehran has mastered the ability to highly enrich uranium, building a bomb wouldn't take long." Would sanctions change the behavior of the Iranian government? How well did sanctions work against Iraq in the 1990s?

Ahmadinejad visited Iraq in early March, the first Iranian leader to visit since the 1980s war between the two, in which one million were killed. He road in a motocade not the helicopters US officials use. The Persian leader was open to "a new chpater" in Iraq-Iran relations. In addition, he chided Bush from Baghdad, "We believe that the forces that came from overseas and traveled thousands of kilometers to reach here must leave the region and must let the people of this country rule themselves...The Iraqi people do not like the Amerians." Responded Bush, "Iraq needed to send a clear message to Iran" to "quit sending in sophisticated equipment that's killing our citizens. The Iranian President replied, "Is it not funny that those with 160,000 forces in Iraq accuse us of interference?" Prime Minister Maliki seemed to distance himslef from American ciriticsim of Iran.

Reaction of the Shiite Ahmadinejad visit was outrage from some Sunnis . Commented one university student, "I think Ahmadinejad is the most criminal and bloody person in the world....This visit degrades Iraq's dignity, and it proves that Iraq is occupied twice, once by the US and once by Iran." A tribal leader from Kirkuk added, "Today we live under the regime of the clerics. The Iranian revolution [of 1979] has been exported to Iraq."

Can US forces move across the border into Iran? Yes, according to a 2005 classified document released in February 2008. They were authorized in rules of engagement to pursue Saddam allies and terrorists. US forces were also allowed to attack "mobile WMD labs."

Admiral Fallon resigned (retired early) in the week before the 5th anniversary of the war. Fallon, in charge of troops in the middle east, including Iraq and Afghanistan, had seemed to disagree with Bush on troop levels in Iraq (withdraw sooner), Afghanistan (add troops) and war with Iran (we should take that option off the table). Gates feels Fallon made the right decision. US News sees six signs the US may be headed to war.Three of these reasons involve Israel.

Also in late March, 2008, Cheney alleged that Iran was trying to make nuclear weapons, though the BBC points out that this is not consistent "with known facts" and is not consistent with US intelligence. What would be the motivation of the Vice President? A few weeks later Bush focused on Iran as "the top threat" in the region.

In April, the US again alleged that Iran is "fighting a proxy battle" in Iraq. Amb. Crocker and Bush seemed to be on the same page. Crocker offered to direct evidence but claimed that the paramilitary branch of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps was continuing to direct attacks by Shiites military against US and Iraqi targets. Attacks by Shiite militias decreased greatly in 2008. These allegations continued into October, as the US elections approached. The Quds force is said to train Iraqis. Iranian prisoners have told similar stories about their training in Iran.

In mid-May, Bush traveled to Israel were he feels those who want to talk with Iran (Obama) are practicing appeasement. "Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have an obligation to call this what it is--the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history," referring to the British as Hitler was gaining power.

Under what conditions will the US talk to Iran? Rep. Sen. Arlen Spector sees little logic in the Rice/Bush policy. The veteran Senator commented, "I think it's insulting to go to another country and say we're not going to talk to you unless you agree to something in advance. What we want them to do is stop enriching uranium. That's the object of the talks. How can we insist on their agreeing to the object that we want as a precondition to having the talks?"

In late May US and Iranian officials met in Baghad, with no breakthrough. The US insists that Iran stop supported Shiite militias and shipping lethal weapons.

In May there was talk of the US navy moving more ships closer to Iran and President Bush approving some kind of covert action. Reporter and author Andrew Cockburn wonders, "Will they really attack Iran?"

A large US base near Iran was going to be upgraded by the Pentagon. Details were at first sketchy.

"Full disclosure," urged IAEA chief inspector El Baradei, in June. Worldview featured details on the speech.

Also in June Iran told Iraq that their biggest problem in relations with Iran was the US military. Iraq may feel stuck in the middle.

Iran stayed on the "radar" of the US and Pentagon throughout the summer of 2008. Sy Hersh once again detailed Cheney encouraging an attack on Iran. There are already hundreds of US special forces operating in the country. "Preparing the Battlefield" was in The New Yorker at the end of June.

The IAEA was back in the news in November, 2008 when they announced that Iran had enough nuclear fuel to produce one bomb. However, they probably didn't yet have the technical skill or political desire. The milestone was therefore mostly symbolic.

If Iran got a nuclear bomb or the US wanted to attack pre-bomb facilities, they would be "too deep to hit", concluded western intelligence experts. Israel could not significantly damage or wipe them out. The facilities are located "in tunnels fortified by barriers more than 60 feet thick.

With Obama keeping on Gates, dialogue with Iran is more likely. With Hillary Clinton as Sec. of State, Obama and Clinton are generally on the same page with Iran: willing to talk, against any nuclear weapons, and keeping "all military options" on the table. A Times editorial after the US-Iraq Agreement about troop withdrawal argues that "there is no moving forward in Iraq without bringing Iran into the process--something Mr. Bush has fiercely resisted." Ahmadinejad sent a letter to Obama congratulating him on his election.

Newsweek commentary in November by Fareed Zakaria suggested that "we cannot deploy missile interceptors along Russia's borders, draw Georgia and Ukraine into NATO, and still expect Russian cooperation on Iran's nuclear program."

"We Should Talk to Our Enemies" opines 27 year veteran diplomat Nicholas Burns in the Nov. 3 issue of Newsweek. He recalls McCain and Obama have sharp differences over whether the US should talk to Ahmadinejad or Chavez. "McCain belittled Obama as naive" and Palin accused Obama of "bad judgment...that is dangerous." Burns examines how other Presidents have dealt with this question. Eisenhower, Kennedy, Nixon and Reagan, "none of whom was often accused of being weak or naive, deciding that sitting down with our adversaries made good sense for America." He concludes, "If we aren't willing to talk to Iran, we may leave ourselves with only one option--military action. The next US president will have little chance of securing peace in the Middle East if he doesn't determine Iran's bottom line on the nuclear issue through talks."

Late in January, after Obama took office, Iran's leader sough an apology for its actions over the past 60 years. The number one issue was the CIA coup in '53. Another includes the shooting down of an Iranian passenger plane in 1988, killing nearly 300 Iranians. Concerning US military deployed around the world, Ahmadinejad commented, "Who has asked them to come and interfere in the affairs of nations?"

Israel wanted US help and approval in attacking Iran, we only learned in January 2009. The Natanz complex was the target, and Israel sought huge US bombs and rights to fly over Iraqi air space. Bush said "hell no" to the airspace request, because the Iraqis might have been so upset they would have forced out US troops and Iran might attack US troops with missiles from nearby Iran. Prime Minister Olmert likely believed that he was more likely to get Bush approval than the next President. Bush denied the request but told the Israelis that he had "authorized new covert action intended to sabotage Iran's suspected effort to develop nuclear weapons." The covert action includes supplying Iran's suppliers with faulty parts. Gates and other convinced Bush that, though sanctions were not working well at limitted centrifuges, such an attack by Israel would be ineffective, lead to the end of UN inspections, and drive Iran's program to be even more secretive. Students of Middle East history may recall that Israel did indeed launch such an attack on Iraq in the early 1980s under Reagan.

Some in the administration like Bush and Cheney were stunned and upset with the US Intelligence estimate of late 2007 the Iran had suspended its nuclear program four years earlier. In retrospect, one wonders if that report could have been a political statement to stop US war with Iran.

Is Iran close to a nuclear bomb in 2009? UN inspectors have concluded that Iran had 3800 centrifuges spinning, but US officials now estimate up to 5000, enough "to produce about one weapons' worth of uranium every 8 months or so." Will the US begin talking with Iran? A few days later US military leaders agreed with the UN that Iran could build a nuclear bomb. Sec. of Defense Gates is more hesitant, because their unanium is not enriched to the proper degree. Gates claims, "They're not close to a weapon at this point."

However, by early June predictions seemed to change. Iran was reported by atomic inspectors to have enough nuclear fuel and centrifuges to make fuel for up to two nuclear weapons a year, if they so decided. It would take months to enrich to the purity necessary. There was no immediate comment from Sec. Gates. About one week leader Mohammed ElBaradei, head of the UN inspections, said that it was his "gut feeling" that Iran wanted to build nuclear weapons "to send a message to ther neighbors, to the rest of the world: 'Don't mess with us.'" Iran seeks to be a major power. "It is an insurance policy against what they have heard in the past about regime change" [from the Bush administration].

On the diplomatic front in the spring of 2009, the US invited Iran to a regional conference on Afghanistan. Will Iran accept this fig leaf? The US also claimed to have shot down an Iranian drone over Iraq. The Times reminded us that the US military has "long accused Iran of meddling in Iraqi affairs, arming militants and contribuing to sectarian strife."

The news from Iran was not good for journalists or the family of Roxana Saberi, found guilty of spying. The journalist of Iranian descent has reported for FOX, NPR, and the BBC. She had lived in Iran since 2003. Her trial, held in private, was said to have lasted only one hour. Saberi was sentenced to 8 years in prison, over the protests of Obama and Clinton. Within a few weeks, she was released when an Iranian appeals court rejected the sentence.

In May of 2009, Iran hosted a regional summit with Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Obama's June 5 Cairo speech to the Muslim world was viewed by millions. The Times editorial highlighted the section on Iran, where the President warned them that their "pursuit of nuclear weapons could set off a dangerous arms race in the Middle East. He also renewed his offer of serious negotiations" The paper is waiting to see what Obama will propose and how other countries could help to apply "a credible mix of punishments and enticements to try to change Tehran's behavior." I am left to wonder what lessons we could or should draw from North Korea.

Iranian elections of June 12 were long awaited. There seemed to be a chance to Ahmadinejad would not win re-election, or at least would be forced into a run off. The campaign was open and free wheeling. However, all candidates needed to be approved before they could even run.

However, on the day of the election, Ahmadinejad was declared the winner. His primary rival was the more moderate Mir Hussein Moussavi, who the next day also declared victory. Iran would dominate the headlines for at least another two weeks. The official totals showed Ahmadinejad with 69%, much higher than any polls had predicted. The next day his totals were announced at 63%. The front page Times article pointed out that the election commission is part of the Interior Ministry, controlled by Ahmadinejad. He increased their budget 15-fold.

Who is Mir Hussein Moussavi? Now 67, Moussavi was close to the first Ayatollah, who led the '79 Islamic Revolution. Though he was Iran's Prime Minister in the 1980s when he clashed with Ayatollah Khamenie, who was president. Khamenie should not be confused with Khomeini or Khatami, the reformist cleric and president from 1997-2005. Over the past few years, while out of office, he became upset with the morality police and the tighter of press restrictions. Moussavi is generally considered a soft-spoken architect with little charisma. He urged his followers to not take the "defeat" sitting down. An early supporter of his country's nuclear program,. Some took to calling Moussavi "the Gandhi of Iran," as he urged an end to the violence. During the campaign his wife, a well-known professor of political science, played a prominent role and he supports more rights for women. However, known to many as a social liberal he is "far from being a liberal in the Western sense." He urged closer relations with the west, more rights for women, and economic change.

Were the elections stolen? Millions of votes needed to be counted by hand, but Ahmadinejad was declared the winner before the polls closed. Normally, three days must pass before a winner is declared. Also, Moussavi did not win his home territory, even though the economy is much worse over the past few years under Ahmadinejad. More than 100% of voters actually voted in some areas. The government claimed that those traveling on election day may vote anywhere, but this seems an unlikely explanation because many of these districts are remote and rural. Other questions include: How did Ahmadinejad's margin of victory stay constant throughout the count? Why did the polls close earlier than usual? "Why were the votes counted centrally, by the Interior Ministry, instead of locally, as in the past? Why did some polling places lock their doors at 6 pm after running out of ballots? The Interior and Guardian Council run the elections but have a conflict of interest in that they endorse and some even campaigned for Ahmadinejad.

How did the opposition react? The opposition cried foul play. Biden "smelled a rat." Demonstrations were met with violence, likely by a pro-government militia called Basjj, loyal to Ahmadinejad. One Basjj spokesman thought Mousavi should be put on trial. Five students were killed on their University dorm. Hundreds of citizens were arrested by the government. It appeared that pragmatists and reformists had joined forces this time. The Basjj used clubs and electric prods.

The former President Rafsanjani , leader of the 86 member Assembly of Experts, has the duty of endorsing the supreme leader, allied himself with the opposition. His daughter was briefly detained. One prominent opposition ayatollah, once a rival of Khomeini, believes that "no one in their right mind" could believe the election results. During the week of June 15, protests and marches continued. This was the top story in the news for the entire week. On June 16 massive protests took place, probably in the hundreds of thousands, in acts of defiance. Many marched in silence. Most were peaceful, but seven protesters were killed. The demonstrators dress in green or black. Unlike previous demonstrations led by students, these protests include a wide range of Iranians. On June 15 the situation was still very fluid. Factions seem to be forming, with some clerics and powerful leaders such as Rafsanjani, allying against the Ayatollah. Moussavi wants new elections. Later Moussavi called for a general strike, adding, "A am ready for martyrdom"

For many nights, Iranians chanted from their dark rooftops, "Allah u Akbar" (God is Great), a symbol of their anger with the elections.

What was the response to those in power? The supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who seemed to support Ahmadinejad, belatedly called for an investigation. Then less than 2 days later, amazingly, the conservative elections commission (Guardian Counsel) agreed to re-count some (about 10%) of the votes. Was this a sham and thus a shame? One expert labelled it a "faux investigation." Hardliners tried to blame the West for interfering with the unrest. An Iranian political scientist felt that it was very difficult for the establishment to admit fraud because "its legitimacy" would come into question. "There is no legal solution to this dilemma and, we need a solution that neither side would lose face." "Then, on June 19 Friday prayers we learned that Ayatollah Khamenei had been uncharacteristically public in his comments. He concluded that the elections were fair and that the demonstrations should stop. It seemed doubtful that they would stop. Demonstrators were warned that they would "be held responsible" for any violence. He added that "there would be bloodshed" if protestors continued.

What role does history play? Iranians no doubt recall 1953 when an election was stolen from them with the US-led overthrow of President Mosadeq. The elected leader nationalized the oil fields, ending the British monopoly on oil. Others compared the street protests to the 1979 Islamic Revolution. In his June 19 sermon, the Ayatollah singled out Britain as "the most evil" not the tradition "Great Satan", the US. Maybe this is because Obama is popular among the Iranian people. Back in 1989 British citizen Salman Rushdie published his book Satanic Verses, considered blasphemy by the then Ayatollah. Muslims were called on the kill Rushdie, who went into hiding.

Obama responded to reports that, like 1953, the CIA was behind the protests. While false, he realizes that the claims give one "a sense of the narrative that the Iranian government would love to play into."

Back in 1999 and 2003 the protests were student-led, not as mainstream as 2009. After a few days the Basjj vigilantes stormed onto campuses and "flung a few students from the windows, bloodied as many heads as they could with bricks, chains, or truncheons, and jailed scores," reported the Times. At what point will Iran see its "Tiananmen moment"?

How would or should the US respond? Obama appeared to be careful. He advocated free speech and the democratic process but refrained from saying which candidate the US supported. Any direct involvement, he urged, would not be "productive, given the history of US-Iranians relations." McCain and other conservatives urged him to speak out more forcefully. Sen. Lugar, a fellow Republican, urged more caution. White House officials feel that harsh criticism or endorsing protests could have "the paradoxical effect of discrediting the protests and making them seem as if they were led by Americans." Even so, Iran accused the US of intervention. Obama, concerned with the nuclear program, said that with either President the US is "going to be dealing with" a hostile regime which has caused problems with neighbors and "is pursing nuclear weapons." Critics felt he was being dismissive of Moussavi and the chance for democracy. On June 20 Obama called the crackdown "unjust." The next day he labeled the government reaction as "violent and unjust." He added, "Suppressing ideas never succeeds in making ;them go away. The Iranian people will ultimatley judge the actions of their own government. If the Iranian government seeks the respect of the international community, it must respect the dignity of its own people and govern through consent, no coercision. Martin Luther King once said, 'The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.'" Obama became a little tougher after about 10 days, in a press conference of June 23. Then, on June 24 his strongest comments called him "appalled and outraged by the threats, beatings, and imprisonments of the past few days..Those who stand up for justice are always on the right side of history." Adminstration officials felt there was little the could do the influence the outcome.

Who has power in Iran? President Ahmadinejad is the public (and controversial) face, but certainly not as powerful as Ayatollah Khamenei, who controls the military, judiciary and all public broadcasts. By June 17, some experts were suggesting that Khamenei, who succeeded the well known Ayatollah Khomeini in 1989, could be losing power. Would Khamenei let the protests continue or respond to them with violence? One news analysis concluded that if he uses violence, "the myth of a popular mandate for the Islamic revolution will die." Some clerical leaders defied the Ayatollah, calling the vote illegitimate. The military seemed increasingly powerful.

Armed groups include the 3 million strong Basij militia are vigilanty groups allied with the government. They have detailed knowledge of each neighborhood. The Revolutionary Guards have their own navy and air force. Described as the most resolute, they number just 120,000. These two groups are separate from the military (430,000) and the police.

Sanctions were discussed again during the fall of 2009. The White House considered sanctions (some in place since 1979) on the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps, which is believed to run the nuclear weapons efforts.

What role is technology playing? Iran's leaders control the state run media. Most foreign journalists were kicked out within a few days of the election. Others were even threatened with the death penalty. Coverage of the demonstrations and any news conference linked to Moussavi was banned. Loggers tried to use blocked Facebook sites. For a few days, Moussavi supporters used the web, as he declared, "Protesting to lies and fraud is your right." Supporters around the world have made their own computers available as proxy servers. A top CNN commentator feels that "You can't keep any of this news down anymore...The process of getting the word out of totally democratized." YouTube videos abounded despite the censorship. Moussavi even used his public profile page on Facebook to organize protests. However, Twitter and other similar social networking technologies are being creatively used. I wonder if ny change in government could become known as "The Twitter Revolution" (copyrighted 6/18). Journalists were banned from covering the protests.

Despite the communication restrictions, 35% of the country still uses the internet. One early lesson, reports the Times, is that "it is easier for Iranian authorities to limit images and information within their own country than it is to stop them from spreading rapidly to the outside world." One analyst commented, "It's almost impossible for the censor to win in an Internet world, but they're putting up a good fight." People with cameras are threatened. Authorities were relatively successful in Myanmar and China blocked YouTube on the 20th anniversary of the massacres at Tienanmen Square

Arrests were between 240 and 600 protestors, including over 100 political figures. Hundreds of journalists were detained. Police and militia used tear gas, water cannons, clubs, and guns. One protestor challenges the forces, "They are out of their minds if they think with bloodshed they can crush the movement."

After Ayatollah Khamenei's Friday speech, about a week after the elections, demonstrations grew smaller for a few days. There was a strange lull on Sunday and Monday, though 10 more were reported killed over the weekend. If demonstrators returned, would there be a Tienanmen Square-type massacre? Would the police join the protestors? What the protestors just stop and give up? It was still not clear what was going on in other cities outside of Tehran. The news from Tehran came not from reporters but from homemade videos on YouTube from cell phones of citizens on the scene.

Who is Neda agha-Soltan? This 26 year old philosophy student and pop singer was shot to death when she stepped out of her car to look at the protests. Her bloody death was caught on video and circulated around the world. She appeared to lock eyes with the camera as she died. Despite Iran's strong attempts to crackdown on any information about the protests, "Neda" was transformed "from a namelss victim into an icon" of the movement. Women are not allowed to sing publicly, so she took her lessons underground. (Dress code arrests have increased with the past few years under Ahmadinejad.) Security forces stepped up their threats on those who would continue to contemplate protests. Riot police carried batons and wielded tear gas.

What is the reaction in neighboring Iraq? The Ayatollah's are quiet and don't even admit that they are following the story, as they were during Saddam's anti-Shiite reign. It was only before 2005 Iraqi elections, that some religious leaders urged their fellow Shiites to get out and vote.

Will Ahmadinejad be sworn in? This seemed increasingly likely 10 days after the June 12 elections. On June 22, election errors were announced by the government along with an insistence that the election was valid. Ahmadinejad won by so much that a little fraud (3 million votes) seemed not to matter, was their argument. As Khameni claimed, "One could say that there might have been vote-rigging. But how can they rig 11 million votes?" Weeks later, he was indeed sworn in.

Op-ed views on the post-election were many. Nearly all supported the protestors, to some degree. David Brooks provided some rare perspective on the quickly unfolding events. In "Fragile at the Core" Brooks opens, "Most of the time, foreign relations are kind of boring--negotiations, communiques...speeches. But then there are moments of radical discontinuity--1789, 1917, 1989--when the very logic of history flips."

Roger Cohen was in Iran (likely illegally) an dangerously in the midst of the protests. In "Life and Death in Tehran" (6/22/09) he writes that Neda was denied a proper service. "They scattered but Neda...is not going away. Martyrdom is a powerful force in the world of Shia Islam. Cohen urges Moussavi to be more visible, though some in Iran were calling for his arrest. As proof of fraud, candidate Mohsen Rezai, who won about 700,000 votes, says more than 900,000 voters have written to him with their ID numbers saying they voted for him. "Ten days on, the brutal use of force has drawn more Iranians toward an absolutist stance. Having wanted their vote back, they now want wholesale change. If Moussavi is to prevail, he must keep his followers focused, for now, on a new election. It's the one position the opposition within the clerical establishment will go along with." One demonstrating student felt the danger was worth it for the sake "of tomorrow's children...We did everything we could to create a better future for them."

Thomas Friedman linked Iran the the environment in his June 24 column. "Launching a real Green Revolution in America would be the best way to support the 'Green Revolution' in Iran" because the US could become less dependent on Iranian oil exports. Ahmadinejad "behaves like someone who was born on third base and thinks he hit a triple...Trust me, at $25 a barrel [much lower than current prices], he won't be declaring that the Holocaust was a myth anymore." The issue over whether to talk with the Iranians about their nuclear program is not about talking or not, it is about leverage. Friedman calls again for a "Freedom Tax" as gasoline, to keep the price above a certain level, about $4.50/barrel, so that Americans will drive less and drive smaller cars. The funds would go to mass transit and tax breaks for those who have to drive to work. Renewable energy would prosper and the "petro-dictator" would be weakened in countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia. Iran has been "buying off" its people with their oil profits. Friedman concludes, ""Let's get serious: An American Green Revolution to end our oil addiction--to parallel Iran's Green Revolution to end its theocracy--helps us, helps them and raises the odds that whoever wins the contest for power there will have to be a reformer. What are we waiting for?" Friedman has a whole chapter on this topic in his 2008 book, Hot, Flat, and Crowded.

Editorials included the lead Times of July 3, "After the Crackdown." The paper feels that it is "tragic" that the government "appears to have driven back the most significant challenge to its repressive rule since the 1979 revolution...Events of the last few weeks have complicated" Obama's offer to negotiate.

At one point, Iranian leaders blamed "outsiders" (as in '53) for urging to protests. Some Iranians working at the British embassy were arrested. Iran threatened to put British embassy employees on trial. On the US independence day, when Gov. Palin resigned, Iranians leaders claimed to have obtained confessions of a plot from top reformers. They were said to have taken "training courses" outside Iran

Some clerics broke with their Supreme Leader in mid-August. They issued an anonymous letter calling the Ayatollah a dictaor and demanding his removal, a strong attack.

How were those alleged confessions obtained? In a related story, women and men in jail over protests claimed that they were raped and others were tortured to death. If protesters were killed, where did their bodies end up? New accusations claimed that those who died during torture were being secretly buried in a cemetary on the outskirts of Tehran.

Despite warnings, huge new protests occured in mid-September by tens of thousands. The protestors upstaged the annual rally for Jerusalem Day. The three main opposition leaders marches together for the first time in months.

Also in mid-September Obama announced plans to scrap the missile shield which Bush had planned to install in eastern Europe against Iranian missiles. Bush's and Obama's Defense Sec. Gates and the US have concluded that the Iranian missiles threat is medium range not long range. This was a large national security reversal. Republicans accused him of caving into Russian pressure. Sec. of State Clinton talked tough. The US has been trying to gain support from Russia for sacntions against Iran. Could or would the US lead sanctions which would ban Iranian oil exports?

Who will serve with Ahmadinejad? The man nominated to be his defense minister is wanted in connection with the 1994 bombing of a Jewish cultural centern in Buenos Aires, where 85 people were killed. Ahmad Vahidi had been head of the secret Quds Force.

In September the election news in Iran was superseded by two stories. First the US said that Iran has the fuel to make a nuclear bomb, but hasn't taken the last steps. Second, Obama announced the partly due to Iran's lack of progress on long-range missiles, the US was cancelling a Bush-era plan to put a missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic. This second developed, recommended by Bush's Sec. of Defense Gates, was mostly commended by Demoracts and criticized by Republicans.

An even bigger story hit the headlines in late September.Iran had a secret nuclear enrichment site. The headline of the Times read, "US and Allies Press Iran Over Nuclear Plant 'Deception.'" Obama announced this at the UN, flanked by the leaders of Britain and France. "They will have to make a choice," Obama warned sternly, demanding early inspection of the site, on a military base near the holy city of Qom. Even Russia rebuked Iran. The confrontation between the West and Iran rose to new levels. The US still estimates the Iran is 1-5 years away from a nuclear weapon. Iran admitted to the secret site and then launched a test missile capable of reaching Israel. "The Big Cheat" editorialized the Times, citing Iran's long history of "lying and cheating about its nuclear programs." The news was hardly a shock but the US must even more so be ready for tougher sanctions if negotiations fail to "persuade Tehran to abondon its nuclear ambitions." The original Natanz site was uncovered by the west in 2002, thanks to dissidents. Miltary strikes now, the paper believes "would be a disaster and unlikely to set Iran's efforts back for long." The Times urged talks scheduled for Oct. 1 to proceed.

A week later the US had long planned meetings, including the highest level meetings with Iran since 1980, just after the Shah left power. Iran was more flexible than in the past. Obama sought "deeds not just words..We're not interested in talking for the sake of talking."

At the high level meetings with the US, Iran agreed to key concessions, including international inspections within weeks and sending enriched uranium to Russia to be turned into fuel. Is the Iranian government serious this time? Could they be playing for time? Then, just before Halloween, Iran scared the world by rejecting the nuclear accord that had agreed to only a week earlier.

The UN tentatively concluded in October that Iran has the "data" needed to make a nuclear bomb. This goes beyond even the conclusions of the US government. Careful readers of this site will recall that two years ago US intelligence agencies concluded that Iran halted its nuclear weapons designs in 2003.

Fareed Zakaria writes in Newsweek about how to deal with Iran.

Wives of prominent detainees started being arrested in October.

In October, one cleric is still speaking up, in loud defiance. Mehdi Karroubi's aides have been arrested, his newspaper shut down. He has even indirectly been threatened with the death penalty. His response: "Bring it on." A former confidant of the first Ayatollah from 1979, Karroubi now accuses the government of corruption, voting fraud, and more. Why isn't he arrested? He could become a powerful symbol to the opposition.

Iran was brought into the Pakistan/Afghan violence in October, when twin bombings killed five commanders of Iran's Revolutionary Guard along the border with Pakistan. A Baluchi insurgent group, which is minority Sunni in Iran, took responsibility. In the past, Iran has accused the US of arming and supporting such groups, which the US denies.

November 4, 2009 marked the 30th anniversary of the takover of the US Embassy by Iranian students angry at US support for the Shah. The US personnel were held hostage for 444 days, and released the day Ronald Reagan was sworn in to replace Jimmy Carter. Every day that anniversary is marked with anti-US rallies.

A week after the anniversary, American hikers were held on charges of spying. Arrested in the summer after they hiked from northern Iraq (Kurdistan) into Iran, they are graduates of Berkeley. Sec. of State Clinton condemned the accusations.

A Iranians doctor had testified before Paliament about prisoner abuse. He was arrested and held for a week after visiting prisons. The government soon announced that he had died of a heart attack.

Charles Krauthammer, a leading conservative commentator, wrote in late December in The Chicago Tribune on the year of squandered opportunity. He describes Obama's latest "feckless floating nuclear dealine...We lost a year." He wants regime change in Iran and the US should start with strong sanctions. Krauthammer predicts that in 2010 "Either there will be an Israeli attack or Iran will arrive at--or cross--the nuclear threshold. Unless revolution intervenes. Which is why to fail to do everything in our power to support this popular revolt is unforgivable."

These thoughts are echoed by Alan Kuperman in his Christmas eve Times commentary, "There's Only One Way to Stop Iran," by bombing Iran's nuclear sites. Recalling Israeli's 1981 attack on Iraq's Osirak nuclear complex, Kuperman feels that history suggests these attacks can be successful. "Iran's atomic sites might need to be bombed more than once to persuade Tehran to abandon its pursuit of nuclear weapons...Yes, Iran could retaliate by aiding American's opponents in Iraq and Afghanistan, but it odes that anyway...Incentives and sanctions will not work, but air strikes could degrade and deter Iran's bomb program at relatively little cost or risk, and therefore are worth a try." The US should carry out the bombings, not Israel, urges the director of the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Program in Austin. Kuperman concludes, "Negotiation to prevent nuclear proliferation is always preferable to military action. But in the face of failed diplomacy, eschewing force is tantamount to appeasement."

Protests returned in December, this time with more radical demands, calling out the Ayatollah and even burning images of the founder of the Islamic Republic, Khomeini. The confrontation seemed to increase, while there seems to be a rift in the opposition. The civil tone of some earlier protests was gone. Most of the protestors were young and beaten with chains and truncheons. Hundreds were arrested. That week, after months of denials, the government also finally announced that some prisoners had been beaten to death. 12 would be charged. Would a trial bring about a guilty verdict? Will real change come to Iran in 2010?

A senior Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri, died in December. Born into a peasant family in 1992 and jailed by the Shah in 1974, Montazeri was once an ally of Ayatollah Khomeini and even named by him to be his successor. He helped to build the Islamic Republic. He was also seen as the most knowledgeable religious scholar in Iran. Thus, the current Iranians government felt a need to honor him, to some degree. However, he had a falling out with the leadership in the 1980s, after mass executions of political prisoners and the fatwa called for Salman Rushdie. Then the Ayatollah said, "People in the world are getting the idea that our business in Iran is just murdering people." He embraced reform, was stripped of his title as grand ayatollah, and ended up under house arrest in 1987. Over the years, Montazeri spoke out against the regime, defiantly and with courage. He sought women's rights and greater civil liberties. His recent criticism was harsh, even claiming that the Islamic Republic was neither Islamic nor a Republic. The US hostages taken in 1979 was a "mistake", though the government celebrates this anniversary every year since 1979. His death brought protests to the holy city of Qum. Tens of thousands gathered at the funeral. Afterward there were beatings and violence.

December 27, Ashura, will likely bring more large protests. Ashura for Shiites commemorates the death of Husayn, grandson of the prophet Mohammed. Any violence is strictly prohibited in Shiite Islam, and executions are halted in the weeks surrounding the holy day. Now, more religious Iranians have reason to hate the government. It was also the important 7th day since Montazeri's death. December 27 happens to be the one year anniversary of the Israeli invasion of Gaza and the two year anniversary of the assassination of Benezir Bhutto. It was also the day the Soviet invaded Afghanistan in 1979.

Those protests defied a ban, did come, and were large, with tens of thousands in Tehran and many other cities. The grand mosque at Qum was the central spot for mourning, where memorial services were banned after the funeral for Montazeri. 10-13 Iranians were killed, some shot by police, who, for the first time, fired into crods. In addition to Tehran, others were killed in Tabriz. Protestors in some places captured police cars and set a police station on fire. Some police joined the protestors or refused to fight. The protestors were not simply asking for new elections but an overthrow of the government. "Dictator, this is your last message: The people of Iran are rising!" read one sign. Another was, "death to Khamenei", the supreme leader.

Could this be the beginning of the end of the regime? Recalling 1953, Iranians again blamed US and Britain for supporting the protestors. What would the Shah be thinking now? Some security forces tore down poster of the dead Ayatollah.

Moussavi was increasingly being targeted, as his nephew was assassinated and his body guards were injured. Three of his aids were held. Some of the bodies were being held by the government, in at attempt to halt funerals and the protests that would accompany them. A few days later, a private funeral was held for the nephew. Gatherings of more than three people were banned. What if Moussavi were injured or killed? He claimed in the new year that he did not fear becoming a martyr. Detentions and arrest were up to about 1500. Even killing him would not end the unrest, Moussavi added.

As a spelling aside, it can be confusing to note that one held was former Foreign Minister Ibrahim Yazdi. "Yazid will fall" declared one sign. Yazid (not Yazdi) was the leader who ordered the killing of Imam Husayn in 680, also spelled Hussein, like Saddam.

A speech by former President Khatami was shut down. Mourning at the shrine of Khomeini's shrine was cancelled for the first time this year. The police confiscated anything green from subway travelers. Cell phones were searched for images and confiscated some. Could the government hold back this movement? Government forces even attacked cars which honked in support of the protestors, and smashed their windows. As usual, the government jammed phones and Internet service. One wonders what lessons Iranian leaders have taken from the Chinese Tienanmen massacres of 1989.

Pro-government protestors were ordered to the streets and driven in buses. Tens of thousands shouted support for their leaders on December 30. They cried "Death to Moussavi" and "Assassination, riots, and attacks are plots by the United States." bringing up memories of the US coup in 1953.

"Iran's War on Its People" was the lead Times op-ed of December 29. It opens, "We are inspired by the bravery of Iranians who continue to demand their rights, even in the face of their government's relentless and shameful brutality...Even Ashura...is not longer sacred." Journalists risk their lives. The piece concludes, "The Iranian people are demanding what all people have a right to demand: basic freedoms, economic security, and the knowledge that their government is committed to protecting, not killing its people."

Obama reacted, too. Those being held are being "unjustly detained...For months, the Iranian people have sought nothing more than to exercise their universal rights. Each time they have done so, they have been met with the iron fist of brutality, even on solemn occasions and holy days...The decision of Iran's leaders to govern through fear and tyranny will not succeed in making those aspirations go away."

Other reaction came from the son of the Shah, Reza Pahlavi. He urged other nations to withdraw their ambassadors to protest the crackdown.

Tehran professors asked Ayatollah to end the violence, in a risky move for their profession. The 88 professors could be arrested. "Nightime attacks on defenseless student dormitories and daytime assaults on students at university campuses" shows the government's weakness. Students continued to be arrested the following day. Also, five leading opposition figures from outside Iran called for the resignation of Ahmadinejad, free elections, the release of political prisoners, and greater freedom and speech and judiciary. Their letter read in part, "The hatred and resentment that has build up against the regime in the past three decades has deep roots."

In a rare move, an Iranian panel finally admitted that the protestors had been beaten to death in prison.

The opposition hardened its line in early February. Opposition leader and former prime minister Moussavi called the country's leaders dictatorial and terrifying. Nine protestors were hung within days.

On the nuclear front, Iran was defiant in late November, vowed to continue to build its nuclear plants, even the one that was once secret. Once again, there was talk of renewed sanctions, with China and Russia possibly on board this time. The IAEA has given Iran until the end of the year to comply. Inspectors feared Iran is hiding nuclear plants, because the once found are too small to produce nuclear power. Gates wonders why the facilities would be so far underground if they were not trying to hide them.

In ealry January Iran warned the West that it had one month to accept their nuclear counterpropsoal. About a month later, Iran announced its new uranium enrichment would begin. In response to Iran's nuclear moves in January, the US is sending missile defenses to four of Iran's neighbors in the Gulf. The NIE from the Bush administration, that Iran stopped trying to make nukes in 2003, is no longer believed by the Obama adminstration. The US has reportedly been sabotages key electrical part imports and computers.

More advances uranium enrichment was announced by Iran in Febraury. The US threatened stronger sanctions, targetted at the Republican Guard. Some sanctions by the US were announced a few days later. For wider sanctions, could Russia and especially China be brought on board this time? What other alternatives did the US have?

Should or could to US attack Iran? Sec. of Defense Gates discounts the possibility, feeling that it would only delay their nuclear amibtions by one to three years. Much of the development is underground in tunnels, so the US wouldn't know what is was attacking.

Could Iran soon make a nuclear bomb? Nuclear experts are now more likely to think so. By enriching uranium to 20% (up from 4%), it brings them closer to the 90% threshold needed to make a bomb. The technical leap from 20 to 90 is relatively straightforward. Enriching to 90% is just one step needed for a nuclear weapons. Iran has missiles that could hit Israel and other US allies, but no ability to hit the US. David Albright, a nuclear experts, guesses that Iran could, if they desired, have enough highly enriched uranium in 6 months.

Could the US benefit from a nuclear Iran? It wouldn't be so bad, asserts Adam Lowther, a defense analyst at the Air Force Research Institute, in his Times op-ed of Feb. 9. Some potential benefits of a nuclear Iran could allow the US to defeat Sunni-Arab terrorist groups like Al Qaeda because a nuclear Iran is more of a threat to its neighbors than to the US. Secondly, the US could break the OPEC cartel. Thirdly, Israel and the Palestinians might reconcile, because an Iranian attack on Israel would also devastate Palestinians. Finally, US taxpayers could save money by not sending so much to autocratic regimes in the area.

"Time's Up", writes the New York Times in their Feb. 10 editorial. Obama was right, the paper of record feels, to negotiate and look for compromises, even after Iran was caught, again, hiding enrichment. But now the administration must "step up the pressure" on Russia and China "Iran's two enablers, both with a veto, to go along" with tougher sanctions.

"Iran is moving toward a military dictatorship,"alleged US Sec. of State Clinton in mid-Februrry. She fears to power of the Islamic Revolution Guard Corps to control politics, military, and economics. "We see that the government of Iran, the supreme leader, the president, the Parliament is being supplanted." For months, Clinton has taken a hard line toward Iran, as during the Presidential campaign when she warned that if Iran attacked Israel the US would "totally obliterate" Iran. It seems that now the Sec. of State has been assigned by Obama to drum up support for new sanctions. In early March, Iranians authoriites closed two oppostion publications, among the last in circulation.

In mid-March, a State Department report concluded the human rights have degenerated. Abuses include killing of election protestors, acts of politically motivated torture, beatings, and rape.

My late March, international agencies concluded that Iran is preparing to build more sites, in defiance of UN demands. Obama got tough, too, promising a new, strong sanctions policy "within weeks." He spoke with the President of France by his side.