The So-Called Iranian Nuclear Threat

Anthony Gregory quotes a Reuters report that observes:

The United States, European allies and even Israel generally agree on three things about Iran’s nuclear program: Tehran does not have a bomb, has not decided to build one, and is probably years away from having a deliverable nuclear warhead.

Those conclusions, drawn from extensive interviews with current and former U.S. and European officials with access to intelligence on Iran, contrast starkly with the heated debate surrounding a possible Israeli strike on Tehran’s nuclear facilities.

He then adds:

Indeed, this has obviously been true for years. The official position of practically every authority on this subject has been: Iran has no nukes and is not trying to get them. This “impending” threat from Iran is completely bogus. Yet we see the anti-Iranian rhetoric stepping up, month by month, all toward an increasingly likely culmination in the form of war. Insanity.

In the last nine years, we have heard the repeated myth that “everyone thought Saddam Hussein had Weapons of Mass Destruction” and “everyone thought Iraq was a threat”….

So now I think it’s important that antiwar voices be even louder in calling out the war propaganda. If war breaks out and and a year later we hear, “Everyone thought Iran was seeking nuclear weapons,” I want it on the record that many of us did not.

Read all of “There Is No Iranian Nuclear Threat.”

Share this post:Digg thisShare on FacebookGoogle+Share on LinkedInPin on PinterestShare on StumbleUponTweet about this on Twitter
  • The Anti Al Gore

    There is a conspicuous silence in the Ron Paul movement about war. Only Ron Paul himself is outspoken. It seems the followers are against war because it makes them poorer, but the potential mass murder of millions a brown people hardly piques their interest. I’ve seen the statistics. Articles like this get relatively few reads. So sad.


    So everyones admitting what Ron Paul has been saying the entire time.   He’s the only one in the debates that says this, he gets boo’d by the idiotic far rights in the crowd for saying we shouldnt go to war & we need to change our foreign policy.  Give the man some credit here.

  • William Schooler

    The act of war is an ignorant act so doing this act is projecting far more ignorance.

    Defending is far different than an act of war, it means to protect yourself against ignorance, those provoking war.

    When did we decide to be the provoking? When we gave our nation to banking Cartels of the world who only have one intent in all the world, to control it. That is the most stupid idea of all so why do we continue to play their game of such ignorance?

    Stop the ignorance and stop the wars.

  • chris

    This is why the TEA Party is a failure, and why they refuse to back Ron Paul to their eternal shame.

  • chris

    When did it start?  I’d say the opening shots of the Civil War.

  • chris

    The Right has a hangup about Israel.  Being Christians, and not well read ones, they feel a very immature, irrational desire to protect Israel from all perceived threats.

    Not necessarily rational threats.  Perceived.

    The problem is that 1) Israel is capable of defending itself; 2) Israeli Likud does not take pains to keep the peace with its neighbors, and: 3) Israeli Lukud profits from the situation.

    So, said Right wingers will march their children off to war if they think Iran is determined to attack Israel, and Israeli political forces promote this idea in the US media, and in political circles.

  • Dither

    I don’t particularly care if Iranian IS seeking nuclear weapons. I’m still opposed to the war that’s coming. When we argue with the warmongers over what the intelligence says, we are accepting the premises of their argument: that a war against Iran is justified to stop the Iranians from acquiring nuclear weapons. It is the warmongers who should be put on the defensive regarding this position. On what historical basis can Iran be considered a mortal threat to other nations? What country has Iran attacked in the last 100-plus years? Contrast Iran’s record with that of the United States, and then explain why the latter is not the real threat to world peace. Why is it acceptable for the US, which has bombed and invaded numerous countries without justification, causing mass death, destruction and turmoil, to maintain a huge nuclear arsenal, but not acceptable for the outwardly peaceable Iranians to have even one nuclear weapon to deter an American/Israeli first strike?

  • Tom Woods

    The movement is big-time antiwar. Some of the hangers-on, not so much.

  • Mordrew

    It is interesting to me that Obama reportedly told Israel that he’ll give them bunker busting bombs if they’ll just hold off on any attack until after the election.  If the threat of Iranian nuclear capability is so great, and if final development is imminent, then why is it okay to postpone doing anything about it for another 9+ months?