Chris,

 Thanks.

I have seen the Pollack book, but not the others. I plan to look into them.

The Galbraith article, despite its broader perspective, has little to say on the questions I raised.

The present commotion over Iran is about the installation of 6,000 Mw of nuclear generated electricity.

Here is an alternative:

Insolation (i.e. received solar energy) in Iran is about 7Kwh per day.

There are 70 million Iranians.

If each Iranian were to be allocated 3 square metre of Photovoltaic film, the arrays would receive 1470,000 Megawatt hours of insolation per day.

At 10% efficiency (a conservative estimate, cutting edge PV reaches 20%) that gives 147,000 Megawatt hours (MWh) of electricity per day, from 3sq me solar per capita.

If the 6,000MW of planned nuclear capacity equates to 6,000 x 24 to give 144,000MWh per day, then the solar beats the nuclear. Including the down-time which forms such a fascinating part of civil nuclear power, I reckon we might need to give the Iranians only 2 sq meters of solar panel and keep one for ourselves.

I have not done the cost calculation. PV is expensive, but then so is a global nuclear war.

And yes, I know, mad Iranians might just break the panels up and use the sharp edges as a weapon against us.

It was just an idea...

now i find so difficulty in loging in so i change my password, my desktop i cant log in since several months, now i changed , i hope i would be able to participate later .

Iam saying that iran has a right to have both nuclear for solar and defence like other countries and she is also threaten by israel and america and daily america threaten iran , so what she has to do, it is obligatory to defend her self, it is logic and i hope no one will use it, but for defence it is permissible as the world now is dangereous and all these problems are from israel indeed as they creat the problem in ME and it was created purposly from the west as to have eyes to ME which is rich in oil as it is a very important source to the west.

Allow me to present to you the conclusions of a THESIS that is NOT fact, is not THIS IS IT, but is where seems to tentatively take me my information and analysis. I hope I'm wrong. And, I hope that in his apparent 360 degrees reversal Bush succeeds. As a fellow Christian, I believe in redemption, yet I can appreciate the insatiable desire for revenge of millions of Islamic victims of the Bush circle of thieves, liars and fools whose grand illusions of hate after 9/11, the neocons and Bushies never realized, are far beyond the capacity of their collective mediocrity. MY ONE HOPE IS TO GET OTHERS TO THINK OF THIS AND ALL THE OTHER POSSIBLE CATASTROPHIC EVILS THAT CAN HAPPEN WHEN GOOD MEN AND WOMEN DO NOTHING BUT SHOP UNTIL THEY DROP WHILE SENDING THEIR NEIGHBOR TO KILL AND DIE FIGHTING IN THE MUSLIM WORLD, LEAVING FAMILIES BEHIND, HELPLESS TO FACE THE CONSEQUENCES OF *MY OPINION* OF WHAT HAS BEEN GOING ON. AGAIN, I WISH I WERE DEAD WRONG....AND STILL DARE TO HOPE THAT I AM.

Suddenly an INR comes out from the intel community telling us that Iran had abandoned development of a nuclear bomb in 2003. Could it be that we just found this out, though two months ago President Bush invoked the risk of WW III?

Actually, the US knew all along that the only nuclear state in the Middle East is Israel. In 2003, Iran included the elimination of its nuclear program for the same reason that Libya had: With no threat of a nuclear power arising other than the old familiar Israel, why bother? Why not seek economic ties with the West instead?

But the real atomic bombshell in all this is what "dumb goyim" the neocons took us all to be in their insistence that we bomb Iran. For Israel, the real danger was that it does not dominate the Middle East, as the neocons sought to achieve, and that the opening of US-Iran relations might weaken the Rumsfeld-Cheney promise to the neocons to make Israel the dominator of the Middle East. Bush was reluctant to extend the "war on terror" beyond Afghanistan at cost to our efforts to eliminate alQaeda. But Rumsfeld needed a war in Iraq and quickly. Why?

Because his real goal was to become president and he knew that after 2004 his age would be a problem. So 2004 was his last chance. Towards his goal he demanded that Bush give him the job of head of the CIA. But Bush's father, Bush 41, recommended to Bush 43 that his, Bush 41's, old enemy, Rumsfeld, not be given that post but that Tenet be held there for continuity sake, something vitally needed to de-politicize the intel community. So Bush 43 offered Rumsfeld the SecDef post instead. Rumsfeld refused. But, with Cheney (Rumsfeld's troll), the neocons went to Rumsfeld and urged him to accept-- on grounds that Bush 43 "is a one term putz like his father"-- and as SecDef, Rumsfeld could start a war with Iraq, win it fast and clean, thus becoming a national hero that they would support in the 2004 Presidential race.

So Rumsfeld went off on his own preparing for war in Iraq, despite Bush's insistence that we cannot attack Iraq until the Afghan venture, then wobbly, is completed. It is ironic that Joe Wilson, enamored of Bush 41, was speaking across Wash DC until Feb. 2003, trying to convince people that Bush 41 had assured him that Bush 43 would not attack Iraq.

So how could Rumsfeld continue to have his way despite the President's insistence on delay? It turns out that the GW Bush's National Guard records-- "missing" from the Pentagon-- were in Rumsfeld's possession; he literally was blackmailing Bush into non-interference with Iraq War preparations. Unable to enforce his "no," Bush, under the advice of his father's retainers, attempted to slow down the invasion. Alas, wanting to be in on the decision (as they had been in on the first Gulf War), the Democrats in the Senate forced on Bush an irreversible position by passing a resolution. This is why Carl Rove twists the history to say that Congress, not the President, insisted on an Iraq War Resolution.

It seemed smart to slow down your blackmailer rather than oppose him. But in the end, Cheney got all the Oil Lobby people in to grease the skids and Bush was helplessly reading the teleprompter-- policy by speechwriters. At the same time, Cheney was putting out the word to the media that Bush would not go to a second term. Rumsfeld, Cheney, the neocons and Sharon thought themselves on an inevitable path to dominance of the Mideast by Israel and dominance of Iraq's oil by the US. Undercutting Bush, Cheney negotiated with the Saudis; the latter also wanted Saddam removed and Iran threatened. It was a "perfect storm," with the top Arab and Jewish states both pushing for the same war on Iraq.

In the end, the mediocrity of Rumsfeld and Cheney dominated the catastrophe that befell the best layed plans of mice (neocons) and little men (Cheney and Rumsfeld). Bush could do nothing but go along. In 2004 he tried to rid himself of the neocons in his Administration and of Cheney, replacing him with McCain. But Cheney threatened to expose Bush to the right wing "base," causing an electoral reversal. Bush was advised to keep Rumsfeld as his SecDef so that he could later be scapegoated for how badly Iraq goes. It worked, and in 2006 Rumsfeld was fired ignobly, proving again that mediocrities cannot be more than mere mediocrities.

But what of Iran?

Expecting the US to attack Iraq, in his last years Saddam sought better ties with Iran. He proposed that together they could destroy the US economy by converting their petrodollars into Euros. He also proposed collaboration with China through Pakistan to develop a regional nuclear bomb. Once Bush spoke of "the axis of evil" under necon-Rumsfeld pressure, Iran decided that it had no choice but to collaborate with Saddam while seeking diplomatic mollification of the US. Russia and China promised to under-write the project.

As Iraq was going from bad to worse in Bush's second term, he could not afford to change course, for fear of exposure as incompetent, the way Hurricane Katrina proved him to be domestically. He knew that fear was his only asset and he sought to switch focus from Iraq to Iran, always desperate to hide the incompetence characteristic of his administration. How incompetent Bush is was made clear by his re-adoption of the neocons after 2005 in pushing once again for expansion of the war to Iran under the guise of yet another lie-- that Iran was near to developing a nuclear bomb-- and that the US should link its Iraqi and Afghan Wars with a war on Iran.

Bush's big chance came in March 2006 when Israeli PM Olmert came begging for an extra $10 billion to save Israel's economy from collapse. Bush demanded that Israel attack Lebanon, then Syria, expanding to Iran; and when it gets into trouble, the US would be forced to come to its rescue. But Israel's air blitzkrieg on Lebanon failed and its invasion proved too costly because, like the US invasion of Iraq, it was intel blind. Olmert was man enough to pull out. All that remained possible is for Bush to recklessly attack Iran just before his term ends. But, supported by the new SecDef Gates, the Joint Chiefs threatened a mass resignation if Bush gives the order to attack. Finally, with some semblance of success in Anbar, Bush chose to pull a Bill Clinton and succeed where the latter had failed: to end his term with peace in the Middle East.

It is in that context that Annapolis followed by the recent NIE (which lied, claiming that only in the last year did we realize that Iran had abandoned its nuclear ambition) should be seen. A failure at war, desperate to be remembered as something other than a total bungler, Bush is seeking to be a miracle Mideast peace maker.

The neocons and Bush are, needless to say, utterly irresponsible. The "now we know" pendular swing of outrage at the neocons that will produce popular American anti-Semitism and an anti-Israel position were never considered in the carnal passion for power that drove them. As the finger pointing spreads in books and articles with the demise of the Republican Party, Americans will not consider that the neocons are a small cabal of Jewish-born profiteers-- NOT Jewish ideologs and NOT really Zionists-- who speak only for themselves and certainly not for many Jewish Americans or Israelis. A scapegoat will be needed and the Jews will once again be conveniently there-- especially for the Jesus fascists out to make America a Christians (of their stripe, of course) only country.

Oil avarice, entrepreneurship played with loaded dice and rape of the US treasury are the motivating material factors at issue, NOT ideology, NOT values, NOT principles. Right wing mediocrities never would had believed that one day they would come to power; and when they did, they made it into a perverted bacchanal. From then on, the rest was cover-up and the Constitution be damned as they manipulated a clueless President. In contrast to Bush, Nixon was seeking power in order to bring about a bloodless end to the Cold War, never to acquire wealth or self-interest. That Nixon was brilliant but those around him were mediocre thieves is an historical debate I am ready to enter with gusto. But in the case of the Right Wing that rode to power with Bush and 9/11, there is no question but that they are crooks with major psychological disorders, seeking to assert the one title that always evaded them: MENSH. For that, they recklessly sent America's real heroic men intel blind into insane Mideast war. It is only at the last moment that the few confidants left around Bush are trying to salvage their "legacies" by reversing course.

Of course those who cannot reverse course are the 30,000 or so dead or injured American heroes and the hundreds of thousands of Muslims massacred in the Bush-neocon quest for oil, cash and manhood.

Daniel E. Teodoru

We haven't heard of any predictions for the invasion of Iran lately. What's wrong with OD?

IM, you are showing your paranoia. Because there are a range of opinions expressed on OD, all of which are probably to the left of your viewpoint, you therefore imply that OD speaks with a single voice and you further imply that this voice is unreasonable and extreme. You do this by a trivial trick of association of the extreme views of some with all other contributors who do not conform with your opinions. This is an unworthy strawman attack on a site; a site which you clearly get pleasure from using. Perhaps you see yourself, and maybe ttrryosborn, as a bulwark against evil propaganda. It's a hard job but someone has to do it. Come on IM, at least try to take a reasonable view of the world.

On the Iran-US incident I think it was another case of a lack of a proper chain of command with the Iranian forces. This seems to have embarrassed many in Iran who were at pains to play down the incident. It has allowed Iran to "test" how far they can go without invoking retaliation, which has some strategic value, but I don't think the incident is going to change anything at a political level. The US navy responded with professionalism and absolutely correctly as far as I can see.

BTW, I was not one of those who ever suggested the US were about to attack Iran. In fact I spent a lot of time saying that this was not on the immediate agenda and pointing out that the leaked "phone call" from the US naval officer making such a suggestion was clearly faked.

I think that should be 'who provoked whom'. 

Oh we are in a surly mood today ! But then as part of the Fascist Left you hate reading any view other than your own, but if you did you might learn something. But then again ......

Iron Mike has posted something on this, so go read it and learn. 

"If IM is just being paranoid and unreasonable why do you bother trying to convince him that you weren’t one of ‘those’ that ever suggested the US was about to attack Iran - unless of course you think previous questions regarding US motives surrounding Iran were unjustified as well."

To point out that he was being paranoid. There was only a few on OD who went along with the idea that the USA were about to attack Iran which I, and others, argued against at the the time, however IM seems to think that all of the OD contributors were voicing such a position. "Questions surrounding US motives" is a broader point.

My, you are tetchy today :-)

True.  OD does not speak with a single voice, but clearly speaks with a dominate theme.  A number of posters and article witers have implied or outright suggested the US would create a pretense to go to war with Iran.  Here's a few such postings and articles from OD.

I think Iron Mike has merely pointed out what is blindingly obvious. As you say 'On the whole OD is left of centre' and actually it is entirely a creature of the Fascist Left. The articles it runs are almost always of that  bent, and in fact it would seem that never a right of centre thought is permitted to cross the editorial desk. Nor can you quite so easily dismiss 'old terms of political positioning' as you are perhaps seeking to do. Certianly here in the UK I think it is almost a sort of brain washing: the media in the UK is basically of the left and this is one of the reasons why the Blair/Brown Government (the sleaziest in living memory) has been allowed such an easy ride.

As to the majority of the posters on the Forums IM is again quite right in his observations. The vast majority of them are of the Fascist Left. There are very, very few voices who give an alternative point of view and when it is so offered I have to say it is never welcomed. Why do you think a number of those voices never come here any more ?

Over the years I have found that the Fascist Left only ever want to debate an issue on their terms and only welcome and respect views which echo their own. Open Democracy in its editorial policies and as reflected by the majority of those who take part in the Forums is no different.

I don't expect IM or Owly to take any other view. When you are as far to the right as you two, everyone seems like a lefty wing conspirator. Do you really think this is a reasonable position from which to judge others? This is rhetorical by the way, as I'm sure you do.

I made a distinction betwen the editorial position of OD and the forum, which is entirely a different beast, and I thought that was clear. I note this use of "fascist" left which Owly and IM use regularly. It is an derogatory association that is rarely warranted. We could also speak of the fascist right but it doesn't help much in debate, apart from adding a bit of unjustified name calling. Owly, I know you have the newly popular and absurd view that Hitler was somehow left wing because the party was called National Socialist, so please do not trot out this argument again. The differences between left and right thought are more to do with the psychology of individuals and how they relate to others in a social group. This in turn can lead to unscrupulous exploitation by political groups and this has happened in the past, and continues to happen, to both left and right leaning people. Both claim some sort of superiority of view but in fact I expect social groups (and nation states) need both types of people.

Owly, you say the British media is left wing, but I expect you read the Daily Telegraph and (almost certainly) the Daily Mail which hardly fit this mould. Am I correct? The main left wing paper is the Guardian and most others are approximately centrist. The BBC is left of centre but makes efforts to be balanced. As, I think, is channel 4. Most other TV channels are centre or right of center. Of course this depends on your perspective. My problem with the media is that its incentive is to "sell" its material so the reporting is often at a sound bite level and concentrates on sensationalism. I have to say it provides a service that people seem to want, and maybe the criticism is better directed at our education system. Unfortunately people are "educated" to a large extent by the media itself so change will only happen slowly.

That the US government couldn’t muster up
enough pretexts for military action in Iran isn’t proof that the US government
wasn’t chomping at the bit for military action against Iran. In fact, the
overwhelming evidence and rhetoric coming from this US administration these
past two years shows quite clearly that the US was clearly expecting some sort
of military conflict with Iran.

Of course I’ve argued all along that if you
looked beyond the US governments rhetoric surrounding Iran and actually looked
at the facts, perhaps taking Iranian politics and culture into consideration
that a much different picture could be seen. I also refused to be taken in by
the proven lying Bush government that Iran was trying to build nuclear missile
technology, a fact now substantiated by Bush’s own intelligence.

Some of us though never learn, like IM, who
simply believes anything President Bush has to say, what a disappointment it
must have been to realize Bush was wrong once again, no WMD, no link between al
queda and Saddam, and now no Iranian conspiracy to build nuclear missiles to
destroy the world.

One wonders if IM or owly ever get tired of
getting things wrong time and time again.

Chris, there will always be some in the military who want to see some action but fortunately the military do tend to promote those who take a more reasoned line. Also, although there are still some of the neocons who are sticking to their plan, most have carefully disowned it, at least until times are more propitious. A war with Iran is simply not a politically or militarily acceptable option for the US to undertake. At the end of the day people have to do what is practical, whether reasonable, in their view, or not. There are plenty of people, including Bush I suspect, who would like to "stick it up" Iran, but realise that it is simply not a sensible option. That does not mean that maintaining the threat is not a good idea, and giving an impression of being slightly irrational is also not a bad thing to be convincing. This does not mean that the USA would not react if provoked in a serious way, but fortunately I don't think this is really likely.

I do not claim full knowledge of you or IM but merely what you repeatedly say is the case and I trust you are truthful in this. And, contrary to what you say, I do not ignore the views you or IM put and value your contributions. I have agreed with both you and IM on many occasions. It is more that I fear that you do not share such open mindedness by virtue of having such a committed politico-phlosophical stance.

As for your comment "... One does not hear you busily acknowledging this truth." - Owly

It is probably because it is not true!

You miss the point about left and right leanings being a state of mind that is able to be exploited. I would say that if you go back to the 1930's, for example, the left had a desire to have fairness based on everyone being equal. The right did not share this belief and thought that it was more everyman for himself. This is crude, but serves as a demonstrator. The truth is that everyone is not equal but we have come to believe in western society that they should be regarded so under law. This is a fair result from the two extremes. One can also see how such doctrinaire views can be exploited to get mass support. It has nothing at all to do with the philopsophy of those who are the exploiters. It is quite clear that fascism certainly did not believe in equality and espoused racism; this in order to exploit another deep seated human trait.

I am truly surprised you don't read the Daily Mail because your espoused views coincide with it frequently. I don't think I was wide of the mark at all and was right about the Telegraph. It is not intended as any slight but merely an observation. I read the Independent and the Telegraph but think both have gone downhill over the years.

As for your judgement on issues of bias, I would be interested to know how you think that you are able to make fair judgements from your committed position at the right of the political spectrum. Surely from your perspective most of the world appears left wing but you appear to see no possibility of this being due to any lack of objectivity. Your position is that my view from (as you probably rightly say is around left of centre on average)  does not see "outside the box". I am not sure what evidence you can give for this when I have supported and attacked both left and right views and do so on the basis, I think, of trying to reason through arguments rather than having a doctrinaire opinion.

abdulksaida; tosh. The root of the troubles in the Middle East lie where they have always lain: with you and your fellow citizens. When are you finally going to stop blaming everyone and anyone and actually start and accept some responsibility for the actions of your own Governments and peoples. If Iraq has shown anything it is that not one drop of Christian blood is worth being shed to bring freedom and liberty to Muslims lands. It would see all you are interested in doing is killing, killing and killing. Well get on with it. You deserve murdering tyrants like Saddam Hussain. What a pity he was hanged: I'm certain you would have regarded his restoration as a proper thing to do. After all you have done nothing but moan and whinge about his overthrow, so one must assume you would have preferred him remain in power.      

Actually Englishman, you have assumed - assumed you know what Iron Mike and my views are. What we both do - he far better than I, one must say - is present a different perspective on issues which is rooted in a 'right-of-centre' philosophy. IM must speak for himself, but as I am English my views are firmly rooted in Tory philosophy, underpinned by a belief in Liberty and Parliament. You will have noted how I have constantly defended Parliament and the rights of Parliament together with the Liberties of the people. You will also have noted I have a very good understand of how Parliament and Government works.

You refer to the Left/Right point. You are wrong 'I would say that if you go back to the 1930's, for example, the left had a desire to have fairness based on everyone being equal'. If you read what the Nazis and Mussolini did in power you will see they followed your advice. Things were very tightly controlled; small companies abolished etc etc etc. They set up organisations like the 'Hitler Youth'; all officials at a certain rank had to be party members and so on. Much of this is an exact mirror of what Stalin and Lenin did. So again why not actually read what IM has posted ? And you are wrong to assume that only the 'Fascists' espoused racism - look at what Stalin did or Mao. The reality is that all these philosophies have common intellectual roots and they are the enemies of Liberty and Parliamentary Democracy, two philosophies I continually espouse.

I again ask why are the views of someone who reads the Daily Mail any less worthy than your own ? That was the thrust of your comment. Whether I or you read The Times, Daily Telegraph is not an issue and the reason you raise it is a means of diminishing an argument with which you disagree. Just because something is in the Daily Mail does not in itself make it wrong. Your point was foolish and frankly disingenuous.

I remember discussing the point about bias with someone who worked for BBC News. Most of the staff are recruited via The Guardian and they all shared a common 'left of centre' view. I asked him how many of the staff voted Tory. The answer was to his knowledge not one. They were deeply hostile to the Tories and very pro 'New Labour' and I think this was and is reflected in the editorial composition of news and current affairs. There are many issues where the coverage has always been slanted to the left. To turn the point around I would ask you how do you know it is balanced ? It isn't as you well know, or it is because it reflects your own 'left of centre' views that you think it is balanced ?? And balanced in what way ?

Of course some of the bias is quite subtle. One example would be the excessive use of the Lib/Dems for comment. In polls they are getting in the low teens, so why is the view of the official opposition not more often sought and run with greater prominence ? Sometimes there is a story and a response is sought from the Libs/Dems and not the Tories. In other words there is a subtle marginalising of Tory views. Another example would be on issues like say the EU where the BBC have as an article of faith that the EU is a good thing; so any contributor against is selected with the utmost care, or they do not have a contrary view at all. It is a clever piece of manipulation, so much so that it passes most people by.

You accuse me of having 'doctrinaire opinions': well if a belief in Parliamentary Democracy and in Liberty are classed as such then it is so.

Offendin' Brendan;

"neocon bollocks"?

The US military (as well as militaries around the world) make daily reports of their activities. It is up to the world media and hacks to make a big deal out of any particular incident, just like abu Ghraib. If no reports were made, other hacks would find fault with that.

When I said there was no shortage of right wing trolls above. Ya, I was thinkin of you buddy.

Herric; 

The Pentagon does not make make daily press conferences?

I did not mention the Pentagon specifically. I said daily communiques are issued by the US military (there is more than one source--DOD, CENTCOM, Pentagon...) That does not mean the media listens. Case in point, the US military announced arrests for conduct unbecoming at abu Ghraib two months before it made headlines around the world.                          

Political Purposes of the Pentagon? 

That is always open to debate. As I already said, the media and hacks can spin anything in any direction. Perception is not always reality.

Abu Ghraib again. The military did not pass judgement on the guilt, or innocence of the accused. The media and hacks did. It took titilating photos broadcast on US television before the media made it into an international incident with judgement pre-ordained. The facts of the case (conduct unbecoming at the lower levels) have been long ignored.

As for the present incident involving Iranian threats in international waters,  the video and audio of the threatening conduct of Iranians speedboats speaks for itself