Iran Puzzle: Applying the lessons of the WH ruse over Iraq WMD

There's talk about what to do after Iraq.

There's an interesting disconnect in the arguments about Iran



Despite protesting US accusations about Iran developing a nuclear weapon, Iran's president couldn't have spoken out at a worse time.

The issue isn't that the statement was issued, but that the timing couldn't have been worse. At the very time that the US hopes to build off the momentum in Iraq and Syria, the last thing the Iranians needed to do was to increase concerns over their nuclear program.

The Iranians have denied developing nuclear weapons.

* * *

There are two issues. First, is the statement linked with an imminent threat of nuclear weapons.

Second, and for the debate team to review, how do the recent Iranian president statements squqre with other Iranian leadership's comments about Isreal.

* * *

The lesson of Iraq's WMD issue, in light of Libby's indictment and finding no WMD, is that the White House will spin things to justify taking forceful action.

* * *

With respect to Iran, we need to apply the lessons of Iraq: Just because someone talks about doing something, it doesn't mean that they are actually developing, nor do they have, an imminent capability to act on that threat.

Iranian leaders have already discussed using nuclear weapons against Israel. THe question in 2005, is do we take their 2001 statements, with the 2005 staements in a different light.

* * *

Our concern is that although it is dangerous to infer the Iranians have nuclear weapons, its important to know their intention relative to actual capabilites.

The WH may spin, but taking about wiping Isreal off the map is different than actually having nuclear weapons or a program to do so.