[N_Fiddledog]

It's interesting, Thanos. Iran's nuclear energy plans start in the 60s with American approval.

There's a hiatus during the Islamic revolution, then in 1996:

$1:

1996: China and Iran inform the IAEA of plans to construct a nuclear enrichment facility in Iran, but China withdraws from the contract under U.S. pressure. Iran advises the IAEA that it plans to pursue the construction anyway.

They appeared to be looking for nukes before the 2003 invasion of Iraq though.

$1:

August 2002: A spokesman for the MEK terrorist group holds a press conference to "expose" two nuclear facilities in Natanz and Arak that they claim to have discovered. However, the sites were already known to U.S. intelligence. Furthermore, under the terms of Iran's then-existing safeguards agreement with the IAEA, Iran was under no obligation to disclose the facilities while they were still under construction and not yet within the 180-day time limit specified by the safeguards agreement.

December 2002: The United States accuses Iran of attempting to make nuclear weapons.

Then in 2003 they start looking scared:

$1:

Spring 2003: Iran makes a comprehensive proposal of negotiations with the United States that offers "full transparency for security that there are no Iranian endeavors to develop or possess WMD", joint decisive action against terrorists, coordination on a stable Iraq, coordination on nuclear matters, stop of any material support to Palestinian opposition groups (Hamas, Jihad etc.) resisting Israeli occupation, and a normalization of relationships. The offer is spurned by V.P. Cheney and the Bush administration, which instead criticizes the Swiss ambassador who forwarded the offer.

As America gets obligated in Iraq though, Iran starts talking tough.

$1:

June 2004: Kamal Kharrazi, Iran's foreign minister, responding to demands that Iran halt its nuclear program, says: "We won't accept any new obligations. Iran has a high technical capability and has to be recognised by the international community as a member of the nuclear club. This is an irreversible path." [2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_ ... am_of_Iran

So did all that happen, because they didn't want to go Nuke until America attacked Iraq and that scared them, or did they see America didn't want to expand the conflict so they could get braver with what they'd been doing all along?

Which makes more sense. You know where I stand, and I you. I think you should join the rational over on my side though.

BTW, speaking of neo-cons, I don't know a lot about them, but I did watch a youtube vid last night where Douglas Murray was represented as one. Dave Rubin was interviewing him. Murray was saying Neo-cons were originally liberals who lost patience with Progressives. There's a lot of that going around lately. The current counter-prog movement is staying left though, unlike what the neo-cons did.

Rubin is still a liberal so you can listen without getting Think Progress or Gawker mad at you if you want. Here ya go...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oX914A6dbbs

[Jabberwalker]

DanSC DanSC:

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

I think ISIS would have never happened if the west stayed out of Iraq in 2003 and Syria in 2012.

But no, we have to go and fucking meddle.

Diplomacy wont solve the problem we made, bullets and bombs will. The only way to solve a conflict once it's begun is to see it through.

Similarly, the Soviet crushing of the Prague Spring would have never happened if the Allies had stayed out of Central Europe in 1939.

Actually, the Allies were unable to get to Central Europe and Poland and Czechoslovakia stood alone against Nazi Germany. Had Britain and France been able to defend Poland (a real long shot, I grant you) there would have been no Russians there at all.

All of those "might have bens" are just dust.