Here’s something to consider. What if Iran really doesn’t want to build a bomb? What if they realize like anybody with half a brain that Nuclear weapons though really scarey are quite useless in the field of conflict which is why they have only been used once in anger. Why would you waste all that effort on something that dumb especially if you’re in Iran’s situation. If your Iran maybe a nuclear power station is more to the point. And look how stupid eveybody’s going look if their nuclear program’s just turning out electricity.
Perhaps then there will be an international call to put some of these ‘World leaders’ on some kind of new medication.

I agree with prisnersdilema; at this point it is all about “Controlling the Narrative”.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/10/27/1030526/-Controlling-The-Narrative?via=blog_744899

Context:

In the 50’s the CIA over threw the Democratically elected Mossadeq government in Iran at the request of a British company that now calls itself BP.

We installed a brutal Dictator (the Shah)who ruled with an iron for years until the his over throw by the Iranian people.

In the basement of the US/Iran embassy, the CIA plotted again to reinstate the Shah, and he ruled over the people for 10 more years until the Revolution of the Ayatollah Khomeini finally over threw this monster.

Americans were taken hostage by a group of Iranians and held for months to protest our interference in their country. None of the hostages were harmed.

We decided to turn our lap dog Sadam (at the time) loose on Iran. With our help (arms and intelligence) Sadam kill over a million Iranians.

During the Iran, Iraq War a US war ship shot down an Iranian “passenger” Air liner killing 200 plus of their citizens.

Add to this the covert actions going on in their country today by US Special forces, CIA and Mossad; the killing of their scientist is there any doubt of who the “bad guys” are?

Lybia, Syria and Iraq, Afghanistan and now Iran what we are living through is the “Re-Colonization” of the Middle East.

In the weeks and months ahead, as the plutocracy prepares for the slaughter in Iran.
You will be witness, to a constant rain of hysteria by their corporate owned media
outlets.

In addition you willl see a concerted effort to inhibit free speach, and intimidate or shut
down internet sites, that offer alternative views of the plutocracys efforts to rain down
helll on Iran.

This has already begun.

If these efforts succeed this country will enter a dark time unlike any in our history, filled
with paranoia, lies and suspicion.

These acts are desperate ones, for they know their days are ending.

Great article by N. Chomsky.

The paragraph at the top of the 4th page is confusing though. He states that it makes good sense to prevent Iran from having nuclear weapons.  He goes on to suggest that a peaceful alternative towards achieving that goal may be to promote the establishment of a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East and beyond.  Does this mean that all other countries with nuclear weapons would be allowed to keep their arsenals?  Who will buy this? I don’t get it.  Only a full international ban has any value.

of course, every people and each land actually should expand its
influence in all other lands.
some of the expanding iranian influences/strivings i indeed welcome;
others, i do not. i also strongly reject its cult and its godologists.
however, i respect the universal right of a people to posses arms that its
neighboring or far-away countries posses.
this is an universal right and not just an UK, french, russian, chinese,
indian et al’s right.

QUOTE, Noam Chomsky:

“the primary threat to the U.S. and Israel is that Iran might deter their free exercise of violence.”
____________________

Yes, a nuclear armed Iran is “dangerous” because it threatens to end the resource wars of aggression that the corporate party’s Republicans and Democrats keep voting together for.

Jill Stein for President:

http://www.jillstein.org

Voter Consent Wastes Dissent:

http://chenangogreens.org/home/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=498&Itemid=1

NC is correct in noting that to europeans a settler is a settler; settling
either an ‘empty land’ or inhabited by ‘uncivilized’, ‘unproductive’,
‘uncultured’ people or just plain “savages”.
however, praise for that discovery not be just to chomsky; many people
have over centuries noted that also! however, he, nevertheless, has my
thanks for putting that on paper. thanks

NC: “christian zionism in UK and US long preceded jewish zionism”.
as far as zionism in US goes, it is not older than four centuries. ashkenazic, and thus
nonjewish, zionism, probably began in e. europe in tenth century.
and indentifying british zionism with jewish [or is it actually sephardic, ashkenazic] zionism,
appears also a misevaluation.
NC also omits to mention and evaluate communist zionism [land theft and what it had done
against palestinians or even real jews.
but even the label “zionism” is a huge ruse. the label suggest that it is a kind of an ideology
and a valid or even holy one; while in fact ashkenazim [and thousand yrs later joined by real
shemites] wanted to oust palestinians and rob them of their ancestral habitat in which they
may have lived continuously for at least 10 millennia. thanks, bozhidar balkas, planet moon
[the hell with earth!!]

about NC’s “israeli-palestine conflict”? this label misrepresents reality.
facts prove that until, say, ‘22 there was no conflict between palestine and israel.
israel ceased to exist ca 825bc and since israel was not reestablished and recognized until ‘48 we cannot then
label the relationship palestine-israel conflict.
the fact that all communist and nearly all fascists lands recognized israel and thus rewarded war criminals with a
state of their own, shows NC’s label as a vast illusion.
yes, there were clashes between indigenes and european invaders even before UK got the mandate to rule
palestinians, but the conflict itself was actually between christo-talmudo-world jewry world and the arab world.
even today, the label christojudean-arab conflict appears by far more accurate/adequate than calling the
relationship “israeli-palestine” conflict.
NC, of course, thinks, as a smart zionist ought to think. it involves much halftruthing, inadequacy, and inaccuracy
in reporting the actualities.
‘religion’ was always a big factor in setting up israel by violent means, but i do no recall NC ever mentioning this
factor!
and if you leave out just that one factor and actual actors of the crimes perped against palestinians, then you’d be
misrepresenting harsh reality in palestine.

Thank you Mr Chomsky for putting things into perspective, once again. Though you don’t go into directly about the religous guys, is their need to fulfill their prophocies. I might suggest that it is such seductive quest that it might be the prime motivator behind centuries of Imperialist policies.
To think that a conscious effort has been made to create the conditions to be saved by the Messiah or the return of the Messiah or the victory of the Madhi or whatever is so incomprehensible that one must dismiss it as the thoughts of the insane.
However could it be possible?
Certainly the brave and beautiful work of Noam Chomsky makes you wonder, though the revealing knowledge in these perspectives is that it’s really all for the money, two for the show and assisted suicide on a global scale.

Almost nobody with a brain believes the Muashar Doctrine that nothing is wrong and everything is under control these days.  The problems standing in the way of action are what is at issue:
  What to do?  How best to do it?
Occupy has made two wise indications toward solution:
  Move away from radical capitalism and toward a more conservative liberalism (to mix everybody up and move all of us toward a more democratic open space).
  Conservative?  Yes, in the sense that capitalism has become so violent, so out of control that it should now be thought of as a radical economic system. Its root ideas such as “more is bettter” better”  “the sky’s the limit” “money is power” and ‘He who dies with the most toys, wins” have to be modified,  humanized, taken down from their place of dominance as accepted principles of operation.
  And replaced with a key idea more conservative of human and environmental life, such as “enough is enough”, “less is more”, “money is incapable of justice”, “fairness is worth more than wealth”,
“democracy depends on conserving resources of all kinds for public benefit” etc. etc.
  In other words, moving away from a wildly radical system called “unrestrained capitalismm” or “too big to fail” to something more practical like “too kind to kill”, “economics with a human face” etc.  Someone someplace will find a better catch phrase, but you get the idea because you already know what I mean.