It's Probably Nothing

What technology-:)

Iran is developing nuclear energy for peaceful purposes,just in case they run out of oil and natural gas in the next two hundred years. Nothing to see here.

So, there are two state sponsors of terrorism, one energy-starved but with the technologies needed to produce and launch nuclear weapons, and the other sitting on a pool of oil but suffering international restrictions on its export as well as restrictions on acquiring nuclear weapons. They meet to arrange agreements of mutual benefit - what could the downside be?

I guess the first downside would be that two oppressive regimes get to support each other, both in their maltreatment of their domestic populations as well as in their foreign policy.

The second downside would be that they will find in each other the means to resist the restrictions the world powers have been slowly and weakly asembling in an effort to curb their rogue tendencies and relieve the suffering of their peoples.

This sad state hasn't just sprung up, of course. The 600 pound gorilla on their team is China, guardian of both nations, which sees a benefit to having the attentions of the other 4/5 of the global population focused on other miscreants.

So two "rogue" states will further their domestic and international oppression, China gets a distraction, and the rest of us get closer to Armageddon.

Oh, how I miss the cold war.

Word on the street is the US will be involved in Iran before the election - they (Dem operatives) are counting on some "October surprise" incident to save the lame duck Obama presidency - the appearance of another Islamic evil blue meanie to battle and reconnect BamBam with the patriot vote is just the ticket.

Jimmy Carter's re-election hopes died in the Iranian desert. Obama is scheduled to replace him as the worst recent president.

I agree with Scar. Obama hasn't got the balls to attack Iran. Besides, he's no friend of the Jews.
Iran sees the US under the present administration as weak and uncommitted. He will continue with his ineffective nostrums until it's too late. The death of millions of people will be on his head.

Obama would rather let Israel attack Iran. Then he could either blame them or take the credit, depending on how it turns out.

IMO it ain't gonna happen. Nobody should attack Iran, North Korea, or Syria for that matter. Just quietly mention to the new nuclear partners if they get out line they'll be crushed like the pipsqueaks they really are, so f**ck off, keep starving your people if you must you morons. Something like that; IOW easily deterred, so who cares.

WRT Syria and Iran, I'm hoping no wag the dog moment here. Let the Shiites fight it out amongst themslelves so the winner can fight it out with the Sunnis in the rest of the Arab world. Stay out of that one, no good can come from it.

If there's a mess to clean up, let the Russians do it; and China can deal with Iran/NKorea. Oh BTW, for the worrier types, China is quite effectively deterred by the US, for the time being at least. You never know, though, with an apologist appeaser maybe getting re-elected.

Re: Doubts about Obama committing to conflict with Iran -

Don't underestimate the war hawks in the Dem powerbroker network. Dems sent America to all its 20th century wars and republicans have usually ended these conflicts - Bush broke that chain. Johnston going into Vietnam was done to save his presidency and placate salavating Dem war contractors - the provoking incident was a false flag attack in the Gulf of Tonkin, Nixon ended the ezpensive protracted conflict. Truman went into Korea as a matter of placating th state department hawks and Eisenhower ended the Korean involvment as being expensive and :unwinnable". He had something Obama doesn't, a drafted armed service.

BamBam need not commit to war to get involved ( remember all those executive orders give him leway to intervene in a "conflict" for US intersts W/O congress approving a war vote. Maybe Israel will be the proxy (this seems most likely at this time) - if Israel commits the attack the US MUST intervene and NATO will support them, the size of Obama's balls has nothing to do with the way foreign policy rolls out from the state dept and its intelligence community bosses and foreign and corporate allies. The intelligence-run US state dept and has operated @ arms length from congress and the POTUS since FDR. (Regan found that out with the conta affair).

We shall see if the doom sayers are right on this one - only 60 days to wait.

I don't believe Obama's "October surprise" will be an attack on anybody,unless it's a verbal attack to show his statesmanship to the fawning masses.

After all, Churchill just made speeches,and he was revered by the Brits and us.(need I say "sarc"?)

No,Obama will probably exact a guarantee from both NK and Iran that they will NOT pursue a nuclear weapons program,apart from the peaceful self-defence program of NK.

Those NK missiles to Iran may indicate a new Iranian interest in space exploration or maybe just atmospheric research.

I mean, if you can't trust North Korea and Iran,who can you trust?

Republicans get a bad rap as war mongers. They were more isolationists. The Democrats wanted to kill everyone and started the wars. Amazing how the Dems blame the Republicans for their past deeds.

The Republicans destroyed institutional racism and the Dems get credit. Has no-one read a history book?

Perhaps...no perhaps about it...I am prejudiced about NK and Iranian precision and skill....they simply lack the mindset...

Designing and especially manufacturing ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons demands near absolete perfection....no cutting corners or shortcuts....even with such a primitive device such as Hiroshima's destroyer (a crude guntype device).

The design of implosion devices demands optical precision in the manufacture of components.
The results of cutting corners or shortcuts was demonstrated in Tom Clancy's Sum of all Fears and the real world blunder with Castle Bravo.

Iran and NK cannot produce a reliable toaster.

We have yet to witness Iranian success in using developed weapons systems...or the NK succeeding in any more than alarming Japan with failed missile tests. There is more evidence of fizzles than success in NK underground nuke tests.

IMHO it is remarkable that NK has not unintentionally had an above ground nuke test.

dmorris --- " Those NK missiles to Iran may indicate a new Iranian interest in space exploration or maybe just atmospheric research."

Also,do not underestimate the growing market for medical isotopes.

"IMHO it is remarkable that NK has not unintentionally had an above ground nuke test."

Wouldn't that be nice.

Occam;
My history book tells me that NK invaded the south and that the USA stood beside SK. Johnson simply escalated the Vietnam war after Kennedy was shot.

I think the truly scary events in history were as you pointed out under Democratic presidents;
1) Kennedy's Cuban missle crisis: As young as I was I thought Kennedy did the right thing. Both Kennedy and Kruschev were WWII vets so I suspect they knew what each were capable of.
2) THe Carter administration's foreign policy (lack thereof): more concerned here than at any other time. Carter would have made a good president of a Rotary Club but not the USA. If the Russians were ever to attack it was then as Carter dithered.