Bending the Third Rail
Because We Should, We Can, We Do
Blogger jgug1 said...
My sense is that it is exceedingly iportant for our side to tell the story accurately. It appears that you haven't. First, it would make no sense for Iraq to support Iran having nuclear weapons. Second, Juan Cole tells it this way: Iran is perhaps the only unambiguous winner in the new situation in Iraq, and its foreign minister was basking in the glow on Saturday. On Friday, Iraqi foreign minister Hoshyar Zebari defended Iran's right to have a civilian nuclear energy program. That can't be what Washington was going for in backing the new Iraqi government.
There is quite a significant difference between nuclear weapons and nuclear power.

Blogger GreyHair said...
You are technically correct ... if we assume that Iran's ambitions are purely to obtain nuclear power. I don't believe that is the case. I think they have plenty of incentive to acquire nuclear weapons, and are actively doing that. I also think that Iraqi leaders know this.

Next. These days, what is good for Iran is good for Iraq. This is the case precisely because of what Juan Cole says. And of course the U.S. wouldn't agree with Iraq's support of a nuclear anything in Iran. But isn't that exactly the point? It's the unintended consequences unleashed in the middle east of Bush's little adventure. That's precisely why I posted this.

Blogger Lynne said...
With all the oil Iran has, whey do they need nuclear power?