In 2008, Peter W. Galbraith wrote a book entitled, Unintended Consequences: How the War in Iraq Has Strengthened America's Enemies, in which he argued--much as we have here--that Bush's Doctrine has actually made us less safe against terrorism by taking the fight to the wrong people and by posturing ourselves with this ridiculously cowboy diplomacy of "yer either with us or agin us".

Well, don't look now, but we're doing it again. If we keep on ignoring our own intelligence and the IAEA to keep insisting that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons program, pretty soon, they have absolutely no motivation to behave, do they?

A conservative Iranian legislator warned Saturday that his country may pull out of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty after a U.N. resolution censuring Tehran – a move that could seriously undermine world attempts to prevent Iran from developing atomic weapons.

Iran's official news agency quoted a hardline political analyst who made the same point, another indication the idea could be gaining steam.
If Iran withdraws from the treaty, its nuclear program would no longer be subject to oversight by the U.N. nuclear agency. That in turn would be a significant blow to efforts to ensure that no enriched uranium is diverted from use as fuel to warhead development.

The lawmaker's threat came a day after the board of the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency passed a resolution demanding Tehran immediately stop building its newly revealed nuclear facility near the holy city of Qom and freeze uranium enrichment.

Speaking of that facility, if Iran pulls out of the NPT, it would be impossible to monitor the ten other sites now being planned:

Iran's government has approved plans to build 10 new uranium enrichment plants, according to state media.

The government told the Iranian nuclear agency to begin work on five sites, with five more to be located over the next two months.

It comes days after the UN nuclear watchdog rebuked Iran for covering up a uranium enrichment plant.

Western powers say Iran is trying to develop nuclear arms. Iran says its nuclear programme is peaceful.

BBC Tehran correspondent Jon Leyne says Sunday's announcement is a massive act of defiance likely to bring forward direct confrontation over Iran's nuclear programme.

Iran says the new plants would be of a similar size to its main existing one at Natanz.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told his cabinet that parliament had ordered that Iran should produce 20,000 megawatts of nuclear energy by 2020.

It therefore needed to make 250-300 tonnes of nuclear fuel a year, he said, which would require 500,000 centrifuges for enriching uranium.

Natanz has nearly 5,000 working centrifuges, with plans to build 54,000 in all.

Okay, when you're in a hole, you are supposed to stop digging. Clearly, the cowboy diplomacy has put us in a hole with Iran. Isn't it time we stop digging and try a different diplomatic approach?

UPDATE: And if there isn't enough instability in the region, the NY Times is reporting that Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari has ceded his position in Pakistan’s nuclear command structure to his prime minister, in a sudden political maneuver widely seen as a fresh sign of turmoil on the eve of President Obama’s strategy announcement for the Middle East.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (879)

PLAYS: (859)

Sen. Lindsey Graham believes the US should shoulder the responsibility of attacking Iran if an attack is necessary. An attack by the US is preferable to an an attack by Israel, according to Graham.

"I think an Israeli attack on Iran is a nightmare for the world, because it will rally the Arab world around Iran and they're not aligned now. It's too much pressure to put on Israel," Graham told Fox News' Chris Wallace Sunday.

He continued, "Military action should be the last resort anyone looks at, and I would rather our allies and us take military action if it's necessary."

But Graham doesn't think an attack should be limited to airstrikes on Iran's nuclear facilities. "If we use military action against Iran, we should not only go after their nuclear facilities. We should destroy their ability to make conventional war. They should have no planes that can fly and no ships that can float," said Graham.

Sen. Saxby Chambliss agrees. "The problem with military action also is that you're probably not going to be able to stop the production of uranium by just a simple airstrike. Lindsey's right. It's an all or nothing deal. And is it worth that at this point in time when we know they have the capability. We can slow them down, but a full-out military strike is what it would take," said Chambliss.

John Amato:

These warmongers are in their element in this clip. It's bad enough that members of Congress are talking about attacking Iran on national TV. Have they ever seen a country they wouldn't like to blow up? Not only do they want to strike the possible nuke sites, but want to engage in all out warfare regardless of how many civilians were to be killed. They forget to mention how the Arab world would feel about us if we were to strike Iran too. Do they think they would be putting America at risk for their Iran war fantasies? And do they honestly believe American would side with these Neocon war hawks that would actually put us in a third front?

As the United States ponders its next steps following this week's multiparty talks with Iran over its nuclear program, many of the cast of characters from Tehran fiascos past are coming out of the woodwork to weigh in once again. On Friday, the pardoned Iran/Contra architect Elliot Abrams emerged on Fox News to suggest that Iranians "would not rally around the flag" in response to a U.S. military strike. Meanwhile, Michael Ledeen surfaced on the pages of the Wall Street Journal to warn "change in Iran requires a change in government." Of course, Ledeen conveniently omitted his own nefarious role in the Iran/Contra scheme of the Reagan administration, a which policy consisted of giving the mullahs in Iran a cake, a Bible - and U.S. arms.

The Iran-Contra scandal, as you'll recall, almost laid waste to the Reagan presidency. Desperate to free U.S. hostages held by Iranian proxies in Lebanon, President Reagan provided weapons Tehran badly needed in its long war with Saddam Hussein (who, of course, was backed by the United States). In a clumsy and illegal attempt to skirt U.S. law, the proceeds of those sales were then funneled to the contras fighting the Sandinistas in Nicaragua. And as the New York Times recalled, Reagan's fiasco started with an emissary bearing gifts from the Gipper himself:

A retired Central Intelligence Agency official has confirmed to the Senate Intelligence Committee that on the secret mission to Teheran last May, Robert C. McFarlane and his party carried a Bible with a handwritten verse from President Reagan for Iranian leaders.

According to a person who has read the committee's draft report, the retired C.I.A. official, George W. Cave, an Iran expert who was part of the mission, said the group had 10 falsified passports, believed to be Irish, and a key-shaped cake to symbolize the anticipated ''opening'' to Iran.

The rest, as they say, is history. After the revelations regarding his trip to Tehran and the Iran-Contra scheme, a disgraced McFarlane attempted suicide. After his initial denials, President Reagan was forced to address the nation on March 4, 1987 and acknowledge he indeed swapped arms for hostages (video here):

"A few months ago I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions still tell me that's true, but the facts and the evidence tell me it is not. As the Tower board reported, what began as a strategic opening to Iran deteriorated, in its implementation, into trading arms for hostages."

Of course, the sad saga didn't end there.

Continue reading »