# Iran Predictions **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 17, 2006, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-predictions/340425 "2006-01-17T22:29:29Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d07c76/32.png) [@Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Age_Quod_Agis)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2006, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-predictions/340425/61 "2006-01-23T21:02:20Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > That’s a fact, is it? You really think so? I think Iraq’s WMD programs were one (of many) reasons that we invaded. When the Bush admin made its case to the US populace and UN, WMD was the admin’s main selling point. Do you disagree that WMD were one of the main justifications for invading Iraq? If so, what do you think was the real reason for invading Iraq? ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2006, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-predictions/340425/62 "2006-01-23T21:13:21Z")
I read recently (and now can’t find the cite, sorry, but I think it was in _Asia Times_) that some policy analysts consider the current hardline Iranian rhetoric largely a tactical maneuver to increase US support for keeping troops in Iraq. (It also earns Ahmedinejad brownie points with fundamentalist and anti-Israel fanatics in the region and boosts his standing in internal political conflicts, but according to this argument, those are secondary factors.) The reasoning goes that Iran has a lot to gain from solidifying a Shi’ite-dominated, Iran-friendly government in Iraq, and that this is more likely to happen if the occupying forces continue to help in putting down the mostly-Sunni insurgency. If the US were to “declare victory and leave” in the near future, on the other hand, Iran’s task would be more difficult and problematic, and Iraq might be seriously destabilized by full-scale civil war. So if Iran sounds like a scary new threat, the US will be less open to short-term withdrawal plans from Iraq, and Iran will have more time to consolidate its gains. If this analysis is accurate, then I would expect Ahmedinejad to keep pumping the nationalist, inflammatory rhetoric, but to combine it with a strategic concession like agreeing to IAEA negotiations. His object would be to maintain a delicate balancing act: i.e., to keep the West, particularly the US, nervous enough about Iran that they remain committed to suppressing the Iraqi insurgency, but not so nervous that they decide to actually launch an attack on Iran. ---
**Author:** ![KidCharlemagne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed8c4c/32.png) [@KidCharlemagne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KidCharlemagne)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2006, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-predictions/340425/63 "2006-01-23T21:30:55Z")
That sounds perfectly reasonable to me **Kimsitsu**. It always makes sense to assume the enemy is rational. ---
**Author:** ![wevets](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9a140/32.png) [@wevets](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wevets)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2006, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-predictions/340425/64 "2006-01-23T23:54:02Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > wevets, you are trying to parse the numbers so that we can essentially have our cake and eat it too…and then saying it won’t work. I vehemently disagree. That most certainly is not _our_ cake, and I do not even believe it to be a real cake at all; rather it is a mere facsimile of cake projected onto the wall of a cave, lacking in the true cake-like essence, a mere shadow of a cake, if you will, as the true form of cakey goodness lies safely in the Land of Summer’s Twilight… OK, actually we completely agree: “We can’t do it” and “We can’t do it without screwing our economy and our other global commitments” (which is what I think BG meant) are essentially the same. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2006, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-predictions/340425/65 "2006-01-24T00:06:44Z")
> [@Age Quod Agis](#): > > Do you disagree that WMD were one of the main justifications for invading Iraq? Do you know the difference between a justification and an excuse? Wolfowitz for one has stated publicly that they played up the WMD stuff essentially for marketing reasons. Many people are still buying it. Note, though, that the UN teams had already stated they were within a couple of weeks of reporting that there weren’t any when Bush decided he couldn’t wait any longer. Is that reasonable. Note too, though, that the US forces left all the alleged WMD sites alone when they got there. Is that simple incompetence, or did it reflect that the DoD already knew it wasn’t there? Now with how much courtesy should one assess your statement that it was a simple fact? > [@](#): > > If so, what do you think was the real reason for invading Iraq? > **[Will Iraqi Dinar Ever Revalue? Is It A Worthy Investment? ](https://www.newamericancentury.org/will-iraqi-dinar-ever-revalue/)** > > Will Iraqi Dinar ever revalue? Detailed answer and factors affecting the dinar valuation. Click here for more information. ---
**Author:** ![Imasquare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Imasquare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Imasquare)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2006, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-predictions/340425/66 "2006-01-24T00:37:52Z")
> [@ZebraShaSha](#): > > Not only that, but they know us and our allies could completely oblierate their country if push came to shove, especially if that shove was nuclear. Yes, but what if they really, seriously believe that Allah is on their side? What if they really are as crazy as they seem? ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2006, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-predictions/340425/67 "2006-01-24T01:03:02Z")
So meaningful sanctions probably won’t happen. A US military action is highly unlikely. Diplomacy is unlikely to be productive. So back to the wild card … Here sits Israel. They know that the President is of no real power and is probably just playing to his crowds, but they also that those of real power are not muzzling him. Why not? Probably Iran wouldn’t actually do something so irrational … but then again, from an Israeli POV one could get quite grey waiting for rational choices from some on “the other side.” What if they do really intend to destroy us? Can we risk the small possiblity? Can we succeed in taking them out? This isn’t Iraq; this program is buried and spread out. The cost of not trying to take them out is risking total destruction. The cost of trying includes no certainty of success and minmally lots more terrorist activity. Crap. My WAG: Israel will do its best to take out the program in one way or another. They have no choice if nothing else works. And the knowledge that Israel would do that will drive China and Russia to pressure Iran to compromises. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2006, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-predictions/340425/68 "2006-01-24T01:58:03Z")
> [@Age Quod Agis](#): > > If so, what do you think was the real reason for invading Iraq? Don’t go there, **Age!** You do n **o** t want to hand anybody that r **i** ch a straight **l** ine! ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2006, 9:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-predictions/340425/69 "2006-01-24T09:47:32Z")
> [@KidCharlemagne](#): > > I’m not sure if this was addressed somewhat to my use of the term but I wasn’t speaking of sanctions. I’m talking guerilla economic warfare - counterfeiting currency, sabotaging infrastructure, etc… Another illegal war with shades of terrorism. Yea - that’s bound to help, bound not to fuel anti-western muslim sentiment and create more determined terrorists, except now with a major state thinking ‘enemy of my enemy, here have some weapons, feast on this Intel’ etc. Serves us right if they screw the world economy in retaliation by halving oil output. What makes you think we have the goddam right to go around pulling shit like this? How about us living up to our reciprocal obligations under the NPT as we expect others to? We’re the people who overthrew their democracy and put them in the hands of a brutal puppet dictator, we’re the people who invaded next door on a transparent pretext, we’re the people who keep sayin ‘youse is next’ to any non-nuclear regime we take a dislike to, we’re the ones sabre-rattling over any democratically elected govt we don’t like the look of. We’re the ones that kept rattling the cage of the Iraq/Iran war and armed both sides. Frankly, given all this, and given Israel’s nuclear arms and given the kid gloves NK has to be handled with, they’d be insane not to want nukes. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2006, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-predictions/340425/70 "2006-01-24T16:03:03Z")
> [@tagos](#): > > Another illegal war with shades of terrorism. Yea - that’s bound to help, bound not to fuel anti-western muslim sentiment and create more determined terrorists, except now with a major state thinking ‘enemy of my enemy, here have some weapons, feast on this Intel’ etc. Yeah, no justification for an attack on Iran, right? Totally ‘illegal’. Yep. Got it. > [@tagos](#): > > How about us living up to our reciprocal obligations under the NPT as we expect others to? lol…our ‘reciprocal obligations under the NPT’ ehe? You mean our obligations as a nuclear power AND a member of the UNSC, right? Hm…just what are those ‘obligations’ tagos? The irony is killing me here. > [@tagos](#): > > We’re the people who overthrew their democracy and put them in the hands of a brutal puppet dictator, we’re the people who invaded next door on a transparent pretext, we’re the people who keep sayin ‘youse is next’ to any non-nuclear regime we take a dislike to, we’re the ones sabre-rattling over any democratically elected govt we don’t like the look of. We’re the ones that kept rattling the cage of the Iraq/Iran war and armed both sides. Yeah, we are just evil aren’t we. And your unbiased appraisal just cuts to the bone there. > [@tagos](#): > > Frankly, given all this, and given Israel’s nuclear arms and given the kid gloves NK has to be handled with, they’d be insane not to want nukes. And so we should just give them to em, right? Or just look the other way while they get them. You should rejoice then…thats most likely what will happen. Then you can bitch and moan some time in the future if bad things happen…or break your arm patting yourself on the back if nothing happens, all the while crowing about how farsighted you were and how evil and stupid the US was for ever trying to oppose Iran. Hell man, you are covered either way, yes? -XT ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2006, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-predictions/340425/71 "2006-01-24T18:38:54Z")
[Commitee on the Present Danger Calls for Regime Change in Iran](http://www.fightingterror.org/newsroom/index.cfm) Jan. 23, 2006 ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2006, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-predictions/340425/72 "2006-01-24T19:13:47Z")
Sounds good to me. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2006, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-predictions/340425/73 "2006-01-24T19:33:39Z")
> [@Squink](#): > > [Commitee on the Present Danger Calls for Regime Change in Iran](http://www.fightingterror.org/newsroom/index.cfm) Jan. 23, 2006 At least the document stops short of calling for any military action. ---
**Author:** ![Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d07c76/32.png) [@Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Age_Quod_Agis)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2006, 3:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-predictions/340425/74 "2006-01-25T03:11:13Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Wolfowitz for one has stated publicly that they played up the WMD stuff essentially for marketing reasons. Many people are still buying it. So they decided to put that reason at the forefront of the case. That doesn’t mean the reason was false. In fact, it suggests the opposite. Why would they put the one reason they all knew was false at the forefront of the case for regime change? If you’re going to give a reason for the war, why would you give the one reason that everyone knows is n false? If you’re going to lie about the reason, why would you make up a lie that’s going to be so easily discovered to be false? And if you’re capable of lying about the reason, why aren’t you also capable of planting evidence to support your lie after the war? It’s ridiculous. And if you look at [what Wolfowitz actually said](http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2003/tr20030509-depsecdef0223.html), you’ll see that it certianly does not imply that the WMD were the only reason for invading, or that the WMD justification was false. > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Note, though, that the UN teams had already stated they were within a couple of weeks of reporting that there weren’t any when Bush decided he couldn’t wait any longer. Is that reasonable. Cite please? I wasn’t aware that prior to the invasion, any UN team (let alone multiple UN teams) had already said they were a couple of weeks away from reporting there weren’t any WMD in Iraq. This is especially surprising when you consider that on March 7, 2003 – less than 2 months before the invasion began – [Hans Blix told the UN](http://www.fas.org/man/crs/RL31671.pdf) that even with a “proactive Iraqi attitude,” verification of disarmament would take months. And he certainly didn’t characterize Iraq as having a proactive attitude. It’s probably also notable that the UNMOVIC summary document published in October 2003 does not say anything about these supposed UN teams saying they were a couple of weeks from reporting that there weren’t any WMD. I can only think of two reasons such an important fact would be left out of the document: a) they didn’t think such claims were credible enough to include in the report; or b) they never happened. > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Note too, though, that the US forces left all the alleged WMD sites alone when they got there. Is that simple incompetence, or did it reflect that the DoD already knew it wasn’t there? Again, cite please? Because I was under the impression that they [cleared at least 87 WMD sites in the first month](http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=13029551&method=full&siteid=50143&headline=87%252) after the invasion. > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Now with how much courtesy should one assess your statement that it was a simple fact? Having read many of your prior posts on the subject, I don’t expect you to treat it with any courtesy. But it _is_ a fact. Nor have you provided evidence otherwise. Not to mention the fact that the [Joint Authorization for the use of Force in Iraq](http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html) is pretty clear about the reasons for the invasion (emphasis added): > [@](#): > > Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its **nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs** and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism; > > Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of **chemical weapons** and a large scale **biological weapons program** , and that Iraq had an **advanced nuclear weapons development program** that was much closer to producing a **nuclear weapon** than intelligence reporting had previously indicated; > > Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq’s **weapons of mass destruction** stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998; > > Whereas in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq’s continuing **weapons of mass destruction** programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in “material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations” and urged the President “to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations” (Public Law 105-235); > > Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant [n]chemical and biological weapons\*\* capability, actively seeking a **nuclear weapons** capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations; > …. > Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use **weapons of mass destruction** against other nations and its own people; > …. > Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of **weapons of mass destruction** by international terrorist organizations; > > Whereas Iraq’s demonstrated capability and willingness to use **weapons of mass destruction** , the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself; > > Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of **weapons of mass destruction** and refusal or obstruction of United Nations **weapons inspections** in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949; > …. Still think the WMD had nothing to do with it? > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > [http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm](http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm) Care to comment on this? Because as far as I can tell, it just says that some folks thought Hussein’s WMD programs were a problem way back in the Clinton administration. Am I missing something sinister? ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2006, 4:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-predictions/340425/75 "2006-01-25T04:58:39Z")
> [@Age Quod Agis](#): > > So they decided to put that reason at the forefront of the case. That doesn’t mean the reason was false. How’s that Senate Select Committee on Intelligence investigation into the admin’s misuse of prewar intelligence going? I [checked their website](http://intelligence.senate.gov/), but there don’t seem to be any updates, despite chairman Robert’s promise to ‘get right on it.’ ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2006, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-predictions/340425/76 "2006-01-25T15:01:08Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Yeah, no justification for an attack on Iran, right? Totally ‘illegal’. Yep. Got it. > > lol…our ‘reciprocal obligations under the NPT’ ehe? You mean our obligations as a nuclear power AND a member of the UNSC, right? Hm…just what are those ‘obligations’ tagos? The irony is killing me here. > > Yeah, we are just evil aren’t we. And your unbiased appraisal just cuts to the bone there. > > And so we should just give them to em, right? Or just look the other way while they get them. You should rejoice then…thats most likely what will happen. Then you can bitch and moan some time in the future if bad things happen…or break your arm patting yourself on the back if nothing happens, all the while crowing about how farsighted you were and how evil and stupid the US was for ever trying to oppose Iran. Hell man, you are covered either way, yes? > > -XT Our obligations under the NPT. > [@](#): > > Balanced Obligations. Throughout the negotiations most non-nuclear states held that their renunciation of nuclear weapons should be accompanied by a commitment on the part of the nuclear powers to reduce their nuclear arsenals and to make progress on measures toward comprehensive disarmament. General provisions were included in the Treaty affirming the intentions of the parties to negotiate in good faith to achieve a cessation of the nuclear arms race, nuclear disarmament, and general and complete disarmament. [NPT background](http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/npt/back.htm) Building new generation nukes doesn’t fit this criteria. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2006, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-predictions/340425/77 "2006-01-25T16:13:56Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > I read recently (and now can’t find the cite, sorry, but I think it was in Asia Times) that some policy analysts consider the current hardline Iranian rhetoric largely a tactical maneuver to increase US support for keeping troops in Iraq. […] > > The reasoning goes that Iran has a lot to gain from solidifying a Shi’ite-dominated, Iran-friendly government in Iraq, and that this is more likely to happen if the occupying forces continue to help in putting down the mostly-Sunni insurgency. […] > > If this analysis is accurate, then I would expect Ahmedinejad to keep pumping the nationalist, inflammatory rhetoric, but to combine it with a strategic concession like agreeing to IAEA negotiations. His object would be to maintain a delicate balancing act: i.e., to keep the West, particularly the US, nervous enough about Iran that they remain committed to suppressing the Iraqi insurgency, but not so nervous that they decide to actually launch an attack on Iran. Emphasis added. Now this: [Iran ‘positive’ on Russia plan](http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/01/25/iran.russiaplan/index.html) > [@](#): > > An Iranian official said Wednesday Tehran supports a proposal under which Russia would enrich uranium for Iran, but believes the plan still needs some work, according to a report from the Russian news agency Interfax. > > Ali Larijani, Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator, said the question was discussed at talks in Moscow with Russian Security Council secretary Igor Ivanov. > > “Our attitude to the proposal is positive,” Larijani said at a Moscow news conference, Interfax reported. “We tried to bring the positions of the two sides closer … The plan can be fine-tuned in the future during the talks due in February.” > > He said the Russian idea “is good, but it should be considered together with favorable conditions relating to the time and place.” > > “The project won’t have the full potential to resolve all problems” regarding the furor over Iran’s nuclear program, Larijani said. “It should be fine-tuned, together with other measures.” > > Earlier this week, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said he hoped Iran would take steps to ease tension surrounding its nuclear program, Interfax reported. Might this be the sort of “strategic concession” I tentatively predicted? Does it argue for the Iranian “balancing act” I described? Looks possible to me but I wouldn’t swear to it. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2006, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-predictions/340425/78 "2006-01-25T16:38:50Z")
> [@Age Quod Agis](#): > > So they decided to put that reason at the forefront of the case. That doesn’t mean the reason was false. But the total lack of the stuff, after all these years of looking for it, does. > [@](#): > > Why would they put the one reason they all knew was false at the forefront of the case for regime change? Already stated, by Wolfowitz. That was the story that would _sell_. Once the war was started, it just wouldn’t matter what the cover story was. > [@](#): > > It’s ridiculous. Yet it’s been admitted that that’s what happened. > [@](#): > > I wasn’t aware that prior to the invasion, any UN team (let alone multiple UN teams) had already said they were a couple of weeks away from reporting there weren’t any WMD in Iraq. The statements were that there were so few places left to look that that’s how long it would take. Blix’s report 3/7/03 was that it would take a little longer to go through all the documentation for confirmation. Now are you claiming that there was still a ‘grave and gathering danger’ from those nonexistent, lied-about WMD’s at the time Bush invaded? Or did he invade then to keep his cover story (which, once again, \*was \* a cover story) from being blown? > [@](#): > > It’s probably also notable that the UNMOVIC summary document published in October 2003 does not say anything about these supposed UN teams saying they were a couple of weeks from reporting that there weren’t any WMD. Not notable, simply moot at that point. > [@](#): > > Because I was under the impression that they [cleared at least 87 WMD sites in the first month](http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=13029551&method=full&siteid=50143&headline=87%252) after the invasion. And found exactly bubkis. Your use of the term “WMD site” is disingenuous to the point of falsity. > [@](#): > > Having read many of your prior posts on the subject, I don’t expect you to treat it with any courtesy. To the contrary, I treat it with all the courtesy it deserves. > [@](#): > > But it _is_ a fact. No, it is not. > [@](#): > > Not to mention the fact that the [Joint Authorization for the use of Force in Iraq](http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html) is pretty clear about the reasons for the invasion (emphasis added) Based, as you know, only upon what Bush wanted Congress to think. What, do you think Congress had even equal, much less superior, information? We KNOW better by now. W > [@](#): > > Because as far as I can tell, it just says that some folks thought Hussein’s WMD programs were a problem way back in the Clinton administration. Is there anything you hold Bush responsible for? Is accountability only for the other guys? Is “But Clinton did it” the stock reply for every criticism? There was MORE shit on the ground during the Clinton years. It was being found and eliminated by the GOP-scorned UN teams. All the while Saddam was being completely contained, without a single US casualty at that. Clinton did not start a war and did not try to lie us into one. Your guy did. Don’t try to make excuses. > [@](#): > > Am I missing something sinister? You can’t expect your fellow Dopers to spoonfeed you forever. It’s outright astonishing that the PNAC policy statement urging an invasive war, and its membership (look at the signatures, and look up their more recent job titles), is new information to you. You asked why they wanted to invade Iraq, and I pointed you to where they themselves said why they wanted to invade Iraq. ---
**Author:** ![KidCharlemagne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed8c4c/32.png) [@KidCharlemagne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KidCharlemagne)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2006, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-predictions/340425/79 "2006-01-25T17:10:43Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Emphasis added. Now this: [Iran ‘positive’ on Russia plan](http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/01/25/iran.russiaplan/index.html) > Might this be the sort of “strategic concession” I tentatively predicted? Does it argue for the Iranian “balancing act” I described? Looks possible to me but I wouldn’t swear to it. That concession has been on the table for a long time. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2006, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-predictions/340425/80 "2006-01-25T17:24:20Z")
Yeah, but is Iran now publicizing it as such in order to maintain this “balancing act” that I speculated about? My prediction didn’t specify that Iran would necessarily embrace a **new** idea for a strategic concession. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-predictions/340425.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-predictions/340425.md?page=5)