Fear Mongering NY Times At It Again...Lies about IAEA report tying Iran to warhead

• Footwedge

  Dejavu all over again...only this time...it's not neocon Judith Miller leading the charge.
  
  Manipulation of the actual verbage is a common tactic for the fear mongers. This is just another example of more of the same.
  
  http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/19/world/middleeast/19iran.html
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  While Iran is not currently building or fielding a warhead, Sections 41 and 42 of the latest IAEA report does say, through verifying many sources, that Iran has not answered any questions regarding military activities surrounding the nuclear program.
  Those activities include, high explosive spherical testing, testing neutron generators, and using UF2 gases that could boost yield in a warhead. The report also mentions that Iran needs to answer whether they are building shielding for a possible reentry vehicle for the Shahab 3 medium range missile.
  
  I'll link to the report again once I get to work, but while the IAEA does not explicitly that Iran is working on a warhead, the fact that they have these questions that have not been answered since 2008 and believe the activities have continued since 2004.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  A Piece that I have written for my boss last week. It is long, but informative.
  
  Much news has been made about the IAEA report released last week indicating, for the first time publically that Iran may be working on a nuclear warhead for the Shahab missile and has been since 2004. However, just a few months ago, portions of an internal IAEA report entitled, “Possible Military Dimensions of Iran’s Nuclear Program” were leaked to the AP and our friends at ISIS, who did a great review. It seems that the language of the leaked internal report has made its way into the publically released IAEA report. While the information is not new, the fact that the information is now public is noteworthy, especially given language of the new report.
  
  While the language of the latest IAEA report is not as forceful concerning the accusations toward Iran weaponization as the leaked internal report, there are still bits and pieces that have made the transition.
  
  Already one section of the internal report found its way into a previous IAEA report:
  
  The leaked report, page 3:
  

  The information, which has been obtained from multiple sources, is detailed in content and appears to be generally consistent. The information refers to known Iranian persons and institutions under both the military and civil apparatuses, as well as to some degree to their confirmed procurement activities.

  The August 2009, GOV 2009/55, pages 4 and5:
  

  Notwithstanding, as the Director General has repeatedly emphasized, the information contained in that documentation appears to have been derived from multiple sources over different periods of time, appears to be generally consistent, and is sufficiently comprehensive and detailed that it needs to be addressed by Iran with a view to removing the doubts which naturally arise, in light of all of the outstanding issues, about the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear programme.

  The latest report, pages 8 and 9:
  

  The information available to the Agency in connection with these outstanding issues is extensive and has been collected from a variety of sources over time. It is also broadly consistent and credible in terms of the technical detail, the time frame in which the activities were conducted and the people and organizations involved.

  These passages are key in that previous reports have only focused on one or a limited set of documents, but now the IAEA has a more solid foundation of evidence for their accusations about the nature of the Iranian program.
  
  Another item that has made its way over is the reference to “activities related to the development of a nuclear payload for a missile” in the latest IAEA report.
  
  The leaked report, page2:
  

  The Agency has information, known as the Alleged Studies, that the Ministry of Defence of Iran has conducted and may still be conducting a comprehensive programme aimed at the development of a nuclear payload to be delivered using the Shahab 3 missile system.

  The latest report, page 9:
  

  Altogether, this raises concerns about the possible existence in Iran of past or current undisclosed activities related to the development of a nuclear payload for a missile. These alleged activities consist of a number of projects and sub-projects, covering nuclear and missile related aspects, run by military related organizations.

  Following that the IAEA report on page 9 stated:
  

  42. Among the activities which the Agency has attempted to discuss with Iran are: activities involving high precision detonators fired simultaneously; studies on the initiation of high explosives and missile re-entry body engineering; a project for the conversion of UO2 to UF4, known as “the green salt project”; and various procurement related activities. Specifically, the Agency has, inter alia, sought clarification of the following: whether Iran was engaged in undeclared activities for the production of UF4 (green salt) involving the Kimia Maadan company; whether Iran’s exploding bridgewire detonator activities were solely for civil or conventional military purposes; whether Iran developed a spherical implosion system, possibly with the assistance of a foreign expert knowledgeable in explosives technology; whether the engineering design and computer modeling studies aimed at producing a new design for the payload chamber of a missile were for a nuclear payload; and the relationship between various attempts by senior Iranian officials with links to military organizations in Iran to obtain nuclear related technology and equipment.

  In the leaked report, this is referenced in several sections. In reference to the “Green Salt Project” and Alleged Studies the leaked report states, page 3:
  

  The Alleged Studies conducted by Iran refer, inter alia, to the development work performed to redesign the inner cone of the Shahab 3 missile re-entry vehicle to accommodate a nuclear warhead. The Studies further describe the development and testing of high voltage detonator firing equipment and multiple exploding bridge wire (EBW) detonators as well as an underground testing infrastructure and the probable testing of one full-scale hemispherical explosively driven shock system that could be applicable to an implosion-type nuclear device. Another aspect concerns the conversion of (UO2) to uranium tetrafluoride (UF4), also known as Green Salt.

  In terms of High Explosives on pages 3, 4:
  

  Information received from a Member State indicates a round, semi-round and semi-spherical shock generator system for which an EBW detonator is being developed. It is said that the shock generator was fired in field test conditions with one detonator using a firing cable.
  
  [snip]
  
  It is believed that Iran has developed exploding bridgewire detonators and associated electronic high voltage firing systems. The Agency assesses that Iran has managed to develop a high explosives industry capable of synthesizing and formulating the raw materials into explosive compositions and that could be used in a nuclear weapon.

  
  The new report stops short of claims in the leaked internal report that Iran has sufficient information to build a crude nuclear device using HEU. Nor does the most recent IAEA report specifically mention the Shahab 3 Missile, although one could assume that the IAEA is referring to the Shahab 3.
  
  But, what is interesting is what is in the most recent IAEA report, but not in the leaked report. While previous reports have mentioned an issue with Polonium 210 which could be used for neutron generation of neutrons, considered resolved in February 2008, the latest report again mentions neutron generation as a possible concern. Page 9:
  

  The Agency would also like to discuss with Iran: the project and management structure of alleged activities related to nuclear explosives; nuclear related safety arrangements for a number of the alleged projects; details relating to the manufacture of components for high explosives initiation systems; and experiments concerning the generation and detection of neutrons. Addressing these issues is important for clarifying the Agency’s concerns about these activities and those described above, which seem to have continued beyond 2004.

  In addition, the report also mentions, for the first time publically, that these allegations have continued since 2004, which of course runs in contrast to the belief that the Iranians stopped their weapons program in 2003.
  
  It appears that the IAEA has taken a tougher line on Iran, now slowly using harsher, more specific language that previous reports. It also appears that in terms of the divides in the IAEA, the Safeguards division is winning out over EXPO. DG Yukiya Amano does seem to be ratcheting up the pressure on Iran. It will be very interesting to see if the trend continues of leaks in subsequent reports.
  
  Latest IAEA Report:
  http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/file_download/222/gov2010_10.pdf
  
  ISIS Report on the leaked IAEA memo:
  http://isis-online.org/uploads/isis-reports/documents/IAEA_info_3October2009.pdf
  
  August 2009 IAEA report:
  http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2009/gov2009-55.pdf
  Feb. 2008 IAEA Report:
  http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2008/gov2008-4.pdf
• queencitybuckeye

  ptown_trojans_1 wrote: While Iran is not currently building or fielding a warhead, Sections 41 and 42 of the latest IAEA report does say, through verifying many sources, that Iran has not answered any questions regarding military activities surrounding the nuclear program.

  Speaks volumes to anyone not going out of their way not to get the clear message that sends.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano made his remarks to the IAEA Board of Governors today:
  http://www.iaea.org/press/?p=392
  
  As it relates to Iran, he leaves open the possibility that Iran is working on a weapons program.

  The Agency continues, under its Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement with Iran, to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran, but we cannot confirm that all nuclear material in Iran is in peaceful activities because Iran has not provided the Agency with the necessary cooperation.
  
  The necessary cooperation includes, among other things, implementation of relevant resolutions of the IAEA Board of Governors and the United Nations Security Council, implementation of the Additional Protocol and of modified Code 3.1, as well as clarification of issues related to possible military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear programme.
  
  I request Iran to take steps towards the full implementation of its Safeguards Agreement and its other obligations as a matter of high priority.

• bigmanbt

  The thought of Iran using a nuclear warhead is scary, but if it did happen, the only thing that would be left in the Middle East would be Isreal and Kuwait. We would blow up everything else in retaliation, and maybe deserved retaliation. Any world leader has to know an attack on us with nuclear bombs would result in the death of themself and near 100% of their populace.
  
  Edit: I should say I hope this never happens, obviously.
• cbus4life

  bigmanbt wrote: The thought of Iran using a nuclear warhead is scary, but if it did happen, the only thing that would be left in the Middle East would be Isreal and Kuwait. We would blow up everything else in retaliation, and maybe deserved retaliation. Any world leader has to know an attack on us with nuclear bombs would result in the death of themself and near 100% of their populace.
  
  Edit: I should say I hope this never happens, obviously.

  Why would we blow up everything else in retaliation?
  
  I would hope that more would be left than Israel and Kuwait. Would suck to blow up Iraq after we just spent so much time there.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  bigmanbt wrote: The thought of Iran using a nuclear warhead is scary, but if it did happen, the only thing that would be left in the Middle East would be Isreal and Kuwait. We would blow up everything else in retaliation, and maybe deserved retaliation. Any world leader has to know an attack on us with nuclear bombs would result in the death of themself and near 100% of their populace.
  
  Edit: I should say I hope this never happens, obviously.

  As far as I know, if the unthinkable happened and Iran did launch a nuclear weapon, the U.S. respond with full conventional and nuclear retaliations.
  I'm not sure everything else would be blown up, but Iran as it is now would be no more.
• Footwedge

  ptown_trojans_1 wrote: While Iran is not currently building or fielding a warhead, Sections 41 and 42 of the latest IAEA report does say, through verifying many sources, that Iran has not answered any questions regarding military activities surrounding the nuclear program.
  Those activities include, high explosive spherical testing, testing neutron generators, and using UF2 gases that could boost yield in a warhead. The report also mentions that Iran needs to answer whether they are building shielding for a possible reentry vehicle for the Shahab 3 medium range missile.
  
  I'll link to the report again once I get to work, but while the IAEA does not explicitly that Iran is working on a warhead, the fact that they have these questions that have not been answered since 2008 and believe the activities have continued since 2004.

  Thanks for spending so much time on the research and subsequent post. My rant remains the same. the NYTimes needs to be accountable and accurate with their reporting.
  
  Stating that Iran hasn't been fully transparent does not equate to them actively working on a nuclear weapons.
  
  You may not like the source I cite here, but they go line item veto on pretty much debunking the entire NY Times' fearmongering article.
  
  "The Times imputes to the IAEA report statements, declarations, and conclusions that just are not there. One can see this easily, just by reading the report and comparing it to the story. You do not need a degree in nuclear physics or chemical engineering to see that the New York Times story is, quite simply, false.
  
  The Times was not alone in fabricating content for the IAEA report. The overwhelming response of American media grossly overstated its significance and rewrote it beyond recognition. The Times‘ story, however, is transparently dishonest, and it raises the legitimate question: Is America’s "paper of record" consciously misrepresenting facts to "accelerate confrontation" between Iran and the West?
  
  The Times wasted no time with facts. It got down to the business of distorting the report right away – in the headline itself, followed by the near-hysterical lead paragraph. Contrary to the Times, the IAEA inspectors do not "say Iran worked on warhead," nor do they for the "first time declare … that they had extensive evidence of past or current undisclosed activities by Iran’s military to develop a nuclear warhead." Instead, the report (paragraph 41) summarizes information that the IAEA has discussed in over a dozen reports beginning four years ago, making no new "declarations," referring to no new circumstances. See February 2006 report [.pdf], paragraph 38. It then states:"
  
  http://original.antiwar.com/peter-casey/2010/02/28/read-the-iaea-reports-on-iran/
• Footwedge

  ptown_trojans_1 wrote:

  bigmanbt wrote: The thought of Iran using a nuclear warhead is scary, but if it did happen, the only thing that would be left in the Middle East would be Isreal and Kuwait. We would blow up everything else in retaliation, and maybe deserved retaliation. Any world leader has to know an attack on us with nuclear bombs would result in the death of themself and near 100% of their populace.
  
  Edit: I should say I hope this never happens, obviously.

  As far as I know, if the unthinkable happened and Iran did launch a nuclear weapon, the U.S. respond with full conventional and nuclear retaliations.
  I'm not sure everything else would be blown up, but Iran as it is now would be no more.

  
  
  There is always the possibility of the "unthinkabe" happening. If the "unthinkable" happens, it won't be initiated by Iran, Just my opinion. I base that opinion on the relative pacifast history of Iran. They have not as much as invaded another country fpr over a century. Not too many other countries can lay claim to that squeaky clean record.
• eersandbeers

  ptown_trojans_1 wrote:

  bigmanbt wrote: The thought of Iran using a nuclear warhead is scary, but if it did happen, the only thing that would be left in the Middle East would be Isreal and Kuwait. We would blow up everything else in retaliation, and maybe deserved retaliation. Any world leader has to know an attack on us with nuclear bombs would result in the death of themself and near 100% of their populace.
  
  Edit: I should say I hope this never happens, obviously.

  As far as I know, if the unthinkable happened and Iran did launch a nuclear weapon, the U.S. respond with full conventional and nuclear retaliations.
  I'm not sure everything else would be blown up, but Iran as it is now would be no more.

  You have to love this irrational and illogical thinking from military planners. They murdered millions of innocent people so in return we will murder millions of innocent people.
  
  The chances of this happening are pretty much zero. If India and Pakistan haven't blown each other up then the rest of the world is fine.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  Footwedge wrote:

  ptown_trojans_1 wrote: While Iran is not currently building or fielding a warhead, Sections 41 and 42 of the latest IAEA report does say, through verifying many sources, that Iran has not answered any questions regarding military activities surrounding the nuclear program.
  Those activities include, high explosive spherical testing, testing neutron generators, and using UF2 gases that could boost yield in a warhead. The report also mentions that Iran needs to answer whether they are building shielding for a possible reentry vehicle for the Shahab 3 medium range missile.
  
  I'll link to the report again once I get to work, but while the IAEA does not explicitly that Iran is working on a warhead, the fact that they have these questions that have not been answered since 2008 and believe the activities have continued since 2004.

  Thanks for spending so much time on the research and subsequent post. My rant remains the same. the NYTimes needs to be accountable and accurate with their reporting.
  
  Stating that Iran hasn't been fully transparent does not equate to them actively working on a nuclear weapons.
  
  You may not like the source I cite here, but they go line item veto on pretty much debunking the entire NY Times' fearmongering article.
  
  "The Times imputes to the IAEA report statements, declarations, and conclusions that just are not there. One can see this easily, just by reading the report and comparing it to the story. You do not need a degree in nuclear physics or chemical engineering to see that the New York Times story is, quite simply, false.
  
  The Times was not alone in fabricating content for the IAEA report. The overwhelming response of American media grossly overstated its significance and rewrote it beyond recognition. The Times‘ story, however, is transparently dishonest, and it raises the legitimate question: Is America’s "paper of record" consciously misrepresenting facts to "accelerate confrontation" between Iran and the West?
  
  The Times wasted no time with facts. It got down to the business of distorting the report right away – in the headline itself, followed by the near-hysterical lead paragraph. Contrary to the Times, the IAEA inspectors do not "say Iran worked on warhead," nor do they for the "first time declare … that they had extensive evidence of past or current undisclosed activities by Iran’s military to develop a nuclear warhead." Instead, the report (paragraph 41) summarizes information that the IAEA has discussed in over a dozen reports beginning four years ago, making no new "declarations," referring to no new circumstances. See February 2006 report [.pdf], paragraph 38. It then states:"
  
  http://original.antiwar.com/peter-casey/2010/02/28/read-the-iaea-reports-on-iran/

  Yeah, the NYT did hype it up. But the IAEA report did say, for the first time in a public report, that Iran has to answer reports regarding possible neutron tests, and the report states for the first time, that the questions surrounding Iran's program regarding nuclear weaponization has been going on since 2004.
  
  It is a subtle difference, but a difference nonetheless. The agency is saying for the first time publicly, that it has information, that Iran needs to answer about possible weaponization since 2004.
  
  Even today, DG Amano says he can't be sure if the program is for peaceful purposes.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  eersandbeers wrote:

  ptown_trojans_1 wrote:

  bigmanbt wrote: The thought of Iran using a nuclear warhead is scary, but if it did happen, the only thing that would be left in the Middle East would be Isreal and Kuwait. We would blow up everything else in retaliation, and maybe deserved retaliation. Any world leader has to know an attack on us with nuclear bombs would result in the death of themself and near 100% of their populace.
  
  Edit: I should say I hope this never happens, obviously.

  As far as I know, if the unthinkable happened and Iran did launch a nuclear weapon, the U.S. respond with full conventional and nuclear retaliations.
  I'm not sure everything else would be blown up, but Iran as it is now would be no more.

  You have to love this irrational and illogical thinking from military planners. They murdered millions of innocent people so in return we will murder millions of innocent people.
  
  The chances of this happening are pretty much zero. If India and Pakistan haven't blown each other up then the rest of the world is fine.

  If they attack us and murder millions of people -- they are NOT innocent.
  
  Period.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  Writerbuckeye wrote:
  If they attack us and murder millions of people -- they are NOT innocent.
  
  Period.

  I believe eers (correct me if I am wrong) was referring to the millions of Iranian population that would die as action for their government. There is a serious view that it is deeply immoral to attack a city with a nuclear weapon, as the civilians should not directly be held responsible for the governments actions, as in just in war. In conventional war, civilians are spared, considered innocent. In nuclear war, they are considered pawns, hostages some say. Why should there be a difference?
  
  Some would argue that instead, that a nuclear response should refrain from attacking cities where millions would die and instead attack pure military targets.
  
  It is a discussion that have been going on in nuclear deterrence theory since the doctrine of massive retaliation in the 1950s. So, it is no period.
• queencitybuckeye

  Which is why there's a point where Iran's "peaceful" nuclear program should be considered an act of war against the United States of America.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  queencitybuckeye wrote: Which is why there's a point where Iran's "peaceful" nuclear program should be considered an act of war against the United States of America.

  Not really. We lived with a nuclear and hostile USSR pointing its missiles at us for 40 years and did not declare war on them. Same with China.
  Now, we have set the line that Iran should not get a nuke, but unless they take an aggressive action to engage the U.S. in combat, it is not an act of war.
• queencitybuckeye

  ptown_trojans_1 wrote:

  queencitybuckeye wrote: Which is why there's a point where Iran's "peaceful" nuclear program should be considered an act of war against the United States of America.

  Not really. We lived with a nuclear and hostile USSR pointing its missiles at us for 40 years and did not declare war on them. Same with China.

  I have far more faith in the old Soviet Union and China to act rationally than I do Iran. The way to prevent a nuclear altercation with Iran is to ensure that they do not have that ability.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  queencitybuckeye wrote:

  ptown_trojans_1 wrote:

  queencitybuckeye wrote: Which is why there's a point where Iran's "peaceful" nuclear program should be considered an act of war against the United States of America.

  Not really. We lived with a nuclear and hostile USSR pointing its missiles at us for 40 years and did not declare war on them. Same with China.

  I have far more faith in the old Soviet Union and China to act rationally than I do Iran. The way to prevent a nuclear altercation with Iran is to ensure that they do not have that ability.

  I differ on Iran's rational. I highly doubt they would do anything stupid enough to provoke a military response with the U.S.
  
  And exactly how do you propose to take out the facilities?
  Military strikes would not work. Iran's facilities are too dispersed, and too hardened for strikes to completely eliminate the program. We would set them back a few years, but still be faced with the same problem.
  
  I'd also add that if Iran did decide to launch a missile, their missile technology requires them to have the missile set atop a launch pad for several hours to fuel. We know where there launch pads are and where their missiles are. That would allow us enough time to find it, and take it out.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  I know what eers meant and I disagree.
  
  Sometimes innocents have to die if you are to stop further bloodshed -- and I don't care if the entire country has to be burned up if it means no more attacks on the US or other countries.
  
  The bottom line in this scenario is that the US was attacked in an unprovoked attack and millions died.
  
  A response of equal or greater force is necessary to make sure it NEVER happens again.
• BCSbunk

  Writerbuckeye wrote: I know what eers meant and I disagree.
  
  Sometimes innocents have to die if you are to stop further bloodshed -- and I don't care if the entire country has to be burned up if it means no more attacks on the US or other countries.
  
  The bottom line in this scenario is that the US was attacked in an unprovoked attack and millions died.
  
  A response of equal or greater force is necessary to make sure it NEVER happens again.

  Sometimes innocents have to die if you are to stop further bloodshed and I don't care if the entire country has to be burned up if it means no more attacks on Afghanistan or other countries. Signed Osama bin Ladin.
  
  Makes a lot of sense when the other side says the same exact thing.
  
  Time to just leave Iran and other countries alone and stop violating their sovereignty. IF a country attacks our borders then balls to the wall otherwise leave them alone and focus on our own problems in house.
• BCSbunk

  ptown_trojans_1 wrote:

  queencitybuckeye wrote:

  ptown_trojans_1 wrote:

  queencitybuckeye wrote: Which is why there's a point where Iran's "peaceful" nuclear program should be considered an act of war against the United States of America.

  Not really. We lived with a nuclear and hostile USSR pointing its missiles at us for 40 years and did not declare war on them. Same with China.

  I have far more faith in the old Soviet Union and China to act rationally than I do Iran. The way to prevent a nuclear altercation with Iran is to ensure that they do not have that ability.

  I differ on Iran's rational. I highly doubt they would do anything stupid enough to provoke a military response with the U.S.
  
  And exactly how do you propose to take out the facilities?
  Military strikes would not work. Iran's facilities are too dispersed, and too hardened for strikes to completely eliminate the program. We would set them back a few years, but still be faced with the same problem.
  
  I'd also add that if Iran did decide to launch a missile, their missile technology requires them to have the missile set atop a launch pad for several hours to fuel. We know where there launch pads are and where their missiles are. That would allow us enough time to find it, and take it out.

  We heard the same rhetoric when N Korea was making a bomb the cowards of this country all cried that N Korea is going to bomb people they are an axis of evil blah blah blah. Well so far N Korea is not bombing anyone, but the US sure as hell is not messing with N Korea very much anymore.
• BCSbunk

  Footwedge wrote:

  ptown_trojans_1 wrote:

  bigmanbt wrote: The thought of Iran using a nuclear warhead is scary, but if it did happen, the only thing that would be left in the Middle East would be Isreal and Kuwait. We would blow up everything else in retaliation, and maybe deserved retaliation. Any world leader has to know an attack on us with nuclear bombs would result in the death of themself and near 100% of their populace.
  
  Edit: I should say I hope this never happens, obviously.

  As far as I know, if the unthinkable happened and Iran did launch a nuclear weapon, the U.S. respond with full conventional and nuclear retaliations.
  I'm not sure everything else would be blown up, but Iran as it is now would be no more.

  
  
  There is always the possibility of the "unthinkabe" happening. If the "unthinkable" happens, it won't be initiated by Iran, Just my opinion. I base that opinion on the relative pacifast history of Iran. They have not as much as invaded another country fpr over a century. Not too many other countries can lay claim to that squeaky clean record.

  Exactly! Look at track records of countries that invade others Iran is not even on the list. Or take a good close look at what countries lead at having a military presence in other countries that is where you look to see what countries are war mongering and have a history of it.
• IggyPride00

  

  Any strike on Iran will end up leading to a global economic depression as oil prices will spike out of control in an environment in which economically we can not handle that right now.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  Writerbuckeye wrote: I know what eers meant and I disagree.
  
  Sometimes innocents have to die if you are to stop further bloodshed -- and I don't care if the entire country has to be burned up if it means no more attacks on the US or other countries.
  
  The bottom line in this scenario is that the US was attacked in an unprovoked attack and millions died.
  
  A response of equal or greater force is necessary to make sure it NEVER happens again.

  If the U.S. was attacked by a nuclear weapon, given our overwhelming conventional forces, why wouldn't we just stick to conventional forces to eliminate Iran?
  
  The only reason why our war plans included nukes in the Cold War was the U.S. did not have enough conventional forces to defend against the Soviets and in order to potentially stop a first strike (Silo busters). Neither of those situations apply to Iran, so why should nuclear weapons be used in an attack?
  
  Why not a 100 or so B-2s or B-52s with JDAMs and Cruise missiles to topple the Iranian leadership?
• fish82

  

  It's really way past time for giving a shit what Iran does. Ahmajinedad knows full well if he screws with us, we'll turn his little sandbox into a sheet of glass.
  
  If he gets too big for his britches, Israel will smack him down anyway. Let them handle it.