Iran Letter Shows Mitch McConnell's Weakness

Republicans are backtracking from the letter signed by 47 GOP Senators and drafted by freshman Tom Cotton. Republican aides is hysterically telling The Daily Beast was all a joke.

Republican aides were taken aback by the response to what what they thought was a lighthearted attempt to signal to Iran and the public that Congress should have a role in the ongoing nuclear discussions. Two GOP aides separately described their letter as a “cheeky” reminder of the congressional branch’s prerogatives.

Megyn Kelly mocked Cotton on her show.

"You've offended the Obama administration and you may have offended some of the Democrats who would have come over with the Republicans depending on what happens with this deal, to have a stronger say in the Senate,” Kelly said.

The real question is why is the Republican caucus continuing to allow freshmen senators to drive the agenda. Republican Senate members can't stand Ted Cruz but they let him shutdown the government. Republican asllowed Cotton to not only write an open letter to Iran - the majority of the membership signed it. The Republican Senators are now being accused of treason. The frontpage of The New York Daily News was brutal.

This is what happens when Mitch McConnell doesn't tell the freshmen Senators to sit down and shut the fuck up.

Louie Gohmert Is Too Crazy For Government

Rep. Louie Gohmert is batshit crazy. Gohmert is advocating for starting war with Iran. Gohmert's reason is the Israeli invasion of Gaza.

“It is time to bomb Iran’s nuclear capabilities,” Gohmert concluded. “It is time for the United States, if we are not going to stop Iran’s nukes, then let Israel do it. A friend will not put another friend in this kind of jeopardy.”

Gohmert is conflating the Gaza conflict with Iran's nuclear program. Raw Story reports that Iran is complying with the International Atomic Energy Agency agreement.

As agreed under a so-called Joint Plan of Action reached in November, the Islamic Republic has cut half of its stock of 20-percent enriched uranium down to five-percent purity.

The rest was being converted into uranium oxide.

Tehran also refrained from enriching above the five-percent level at any of its nuclear facilities, the IAEA report said.

Gohmert has no idea about the current state of Iran's nuclear program. Yet, Gohmert is advocating for war with Iran. People look at Gohmert as a clown and mock him. I find the man's stupidity to be scary and dangerous.

Wingnut of the Day: Duncan Hunter

Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) made this insane statement on C-SPAN.

"I think if you have to hit Iran, you don't put boots on the ground. You do it with tactical nuclear devices, and you set them back a decade or two or three," Hunter said in an interview with C-SPAN. "I think that's the way to do it --with a massive aerial bombardment campaign."

Most of the Iranian casualties of a "massive aerial bombardment" will be civilians. Does Hunter think no civilians will be in the 25 mile blast radius of a nuclear explosion? Iran and neighboring countries will be uninhabitable. The fallout could travel for years across the Earth. Hunter's solution is scrap the talks between the United States and Iran and commence with genocide and environmental damage to the Earth. It is scary someone this stupid is in Congress.

Quote of the Day

"On occasion scientists working on the nuclear program in Iran turn up dead. I think that's a wonderful thing, candidly."

Rick Santorum

Let's put aside whether the assassination was necessary for Israel's and the United States' national security. That is the subject of another post. Santorum reminds people that he he "pro-life." However, Santorum says that an Iranian scientist being killed is a "wonderful thing." What Santorum is saying that he doesn't value the life of someone he opposes. That isn't the view of a Christian. Santorum isn't a Christian. He is a fanatic.

Triangulation Man: Libya

In 2007, Boston Globe reporter Charlie Savage asked candidate Triangulation Man when the president has the authority to call for military action against Iran. Our fearless hero made it clear any military action must be approved by Congress.

SAVAGE: In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites -- a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)

OBAMA: The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.

As for the specific question about bombing suspected nuclear sites, I recently introduced S.J. Res. 23, which states in part that “any offensive military action taken by the United States against Iran must be explicitly authorized by Congress.” The recent NIE tells us that Iran in 2003 halted its effort to design a nuclear weapon. While this does not mean that Iran is no longer a threat to the United States or its allies, it does give us time to conduct aggressive and principled personal diplomacy aimed at preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

If there is one thing we learned about Triangulation Man is that he would never take the Republican Party position on domestic or foreign policy.

Bill Kristol

"No, we cannot leave Gaddafi in power," Kristol agreed. "And we won't leave Gaddafi in power."

"The immediate military mission, Admiral Mullen correctly described but the political goal is to remove Gaddafi and ultimately military assets will serve that political goal."

John McCain

“We can't risk allowing Qaddafi to massacre people from the air, both by helicopter and fixed-wing [aircraft]."

Our hero quickly moved to the right of center to please Republicans. Triangulation Man's efforts led to House Speaker John Boehner to publicly criticize the Libya policy.

“All of these concerns point to a fundamental question,” Mr. Boehner writes, “What is your benchmark for success in Libya?”

Mr. Boehner, who issued a short statement on Libya over the weekend, ratcheted up his criticism of Mr. Obama’s handling of operation as Democrats and Republicans continue to voice concerns about the cost of the mission and the president’s decision not to pursue approval from Congress before authorizing military force.

In his letter, Mr. Boehner writes that he is “troubled that U.S. military resources were committed to war without clearly defining for the American people, the Congress, and our troops what the mission in Libya is and what America’s role is in achieving that mission.”

Obama ordered the no-fly zones over Libya. Republicans now refuse to support the policy. Boehner is willing to sound like a peace activist to garner political points against Obama. Another sore point for Congress is Obama ordered the air-strikes without congressional approval. Polititifact ruled that Obama did a full flip flop from his 2007 position.

The use of military force against Libya should be argued on the merits of the operation. However, Obama's flip flop smacks as a president attempting to appear tough on foreign policy. Either Obama was telling voters what he thought they wanted to hear in 2007 or he has developed a contempt of Congress since becoming president. The politically smart thing would have been to force Congress to vote on the use of military force against Qaddafi. This would have forced Republicans and Democrats to take a position and own it. Apparently, Obama had little confidence that his powers of persuasion and military strategy would be approved. That does not inspire confidence.

Update: John Bolton was in Palm Beach, Florida today. Bolton was highly critical of Obama's handling of Libya. Anyone want to place bets on Bolton would have still criticized Obama, if the President didn't order the no-fly zones.

Mike Huckabee 'Knows Less Than Nothing'

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Lawrence O'Donnell takes Mike Huckabee to task for spouting nonsense about President Barack Obama growing up in Kenya. Huckabee said the "one thing" he did know about Obama is growing up in Kenya. O'Donnell said that if that is the one thing Huckabee knows then the former governor knows less than nothing. O'Donnell wonders if that lack of knowledge extends to policy issues. The answer is yes. In 2007, Huckabee was not aware of the National Intelligence Estimate finding on Iran's weapons of mass destruction program. Huckabee had no idea what the NIE was.

Kuhn: I don’t know to what extent you have been briefed or been able to take a look at the NIE report that came out yesterday ...

Huckabee: I’m sorry?

Kuhn: The NIE report, the National Intelligence Estimate on Iran. Have you been briefed or been able to take a look at it —

Huckabee: No.

Kuhn: Have you heard of the finding?

Huckabee: No.

Kuhn then summarized the NIE finding that Iran had stopped work on a clandestine nuclear program four years ago and asked if it “adjusts your view on Iran in any sense."

Huckabee is aware of Obama birther conspiracy theories. However, Huckabee had no idea about the NIE. Less than nothing, indeed.

Documentary on Neda Agha-Soltan

Frontline has a documentary on the slained Neda Agha-Soltan. A Basij member fired into a group of protesters. Indications are Agha-Soltan was an innocent bystander. The Iranian government would not let Agha-Soltan's family bury her body.

Fiance of Neda Soltan Speaks

Neda Agha-Soltan's fiance, Caspian Makan, tells Al-Jazeera about the events leading to Neda's death. Makan said they were driving from a long trip. They stopped and Neda got out of the car to get air. Shortly afterwards she was shot.

Makan said Neda paticipated in silent protests but was not affiliated with any of the candidates. Makan's story of Neda's shooter being Basij militia member matches Arash Hejazi's account.

The Iranian government did not allow Neda's family to hold a funeral in a mosque or their home. Public virgils have been broken up by security forces.

Ahmadinejad Plays Blame Game

The Iranian government runs a crooked election and murder protesters. The people have become disillusioned with the government. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is saying this is the fault of Europe and President Barack Obama.

On Thursday, Mr. Ahmadinejad said: “We expected the British and European countries to make those kinds of comments. But we were not expecting Mr. Obama, who has talked about change, to fall in the same trap and follow the same path that Bush did.”

Mr. Ahmadinejad did not stop there. “I hope you avoid interfering in Iran’s affairs and express your regret in a way that the Iranian people find out about it,” he said.

If a meteor hit Iran would that be the fault of Obama and the West? It wouldn't surprise me if Ahmadinejad tried to spin it that way.

Arash Hejazi Talks About Neda's Death

The BBC interviews Dr. Arash Hejazi about the day of Neda Agha-Soltan's death. Hejazi saw Neda shot and attempted to save her life. Neda died from a massive blood loss. The exact shooter is unknown. Iranian security forces were seen shooting at the crowd of protesters.

The video (NSFW) of Neda's death is harrowing. Blood poured out her mouth and nose. Neda convulses and the life from her eyes flickers out. In the confusion, people are screaming in shock and at their sense of helplessness. A young woman is butchered by an invisible killer. Neda was not armed and did not pose a physical threat. The cruelity of fate decided she would stand in a bullet's path.

Hejazi said protesters grabbed a Basij member they believe killed Neda. Hejazi said the protesters didn't know what to do with the man. They let him go and took his identity card. Hejazi said he saw the exchange between the Basij militia member and protesters firsthand.

Hejazi explained why he came forward.

"It was a tough decision to make to come out and talk about it but she died for a cause. She was fighting for basic rights... I don't want her blood to have been shed in vain."

He added: "She died on the streets to say something."

Update: Neda's fiance talks about the events leading to her murder.

Joel Award: Fred Barnes

It is time to give out the Joel Award. The award goes any celebrity, pundit, blogger or politician that purposely contradicts himself or herself.

The speed at which Fred Barnes contradicts himself on Fox News is amazing.

And then when you see, you know Obama has used — the most pathetic thing is to say, gee, well, we were involved in 1953 — 1953! This is an extremely young society. You think those demonstrators are thinking, well, we hope the U.S. stays out because they were involved in 1953? That's total nonsense.

Barnes then declares inside knowledge to the collective memories of the Iranian people.

POWERS: I think there is a history there.

BARNES: 1953?

POWERS: They do remember the United States meddling.

BARNES: No, they don't.

Barnes doesn't seem to have a problem remembering 1953 Iranian coup d’état engineered by the CIA on President Eisenhower's orders. The Democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammed Mosaddeq. The Prime Minister nationalize Iran's oil industry. The British wanted the oil and unsuccessful attempting to overthrow Mosaddeq. The British imposed an embargo.

The Shah and Mosaddeq had a fallout over the contol of the military. Mosaddeq resigned and protesters took to the streets. Three days later Mosaddeq would be back in office.

The West interfering with Iran's oil revenue and political process. Barnes is a fool if he believes Irans won't remember their own country's history.

Conservative columnist George Will explains how short sighted the neoconservative criticism President Obama is.

WILL: The president is being roundly criticized for insufficient, rhetorical support for what’s going on over there. It seems to me foolish criticism. The people on the streets know full well what the American attitude toward the regime is. And they don’t need that reinforced.

Freedom Is What You Eat

Ed Driscoll, Allah Pundit and Glenn Reynolds accused President Barack Obama of not supporting democracy in Iran. Their evidence was Obama had ice cream with his daughters on Father's Day. Amanda Marcotte read the conservative attacks of Obama's dietery and asks conservatives if their foodie tastes is freedom loving. Marcotte put herself to the Freedom Eating Test.

I challenge all right wing bloggers---all bloggers, really---to examine their own food consumption patterns over the weekend to see if their consumption was supportive or detrimental to the Iranian struggle.

Amanda's love of alcohol and Friday Night Lights was not enough from keeping her from being an anti-freedom loving hippie. Those vegan breakfast tacos will peg you as a socialist every time.

Rednecks Against Obama

Southern conservatives explain they won't vote for Barack Obama because he is an "Arab" (false) and a n*&ger." These people are shit-faced drunk and vulgar. The woman thinks we are at war with Iran. That makes her about as savvy on foreign policy as the American Enterprise Institute.

John Conyers, Bush, Iran & Impeachment

Congressman John Conyers, wrote to George W. Bush, that invading Iran is off the table. Conyers will move to impeach the President, if Bush attacks Iran without congressional approval.

Late last year, Senator Joseph Biden stated unequivocally that “the president has no authority to unilaterally attack Iran, and if he does, as Foreign Relations Committee chairman, I will move to impeach” the president. 8

We agree with Senator Biden, and it is our view that if you do not obtain the constitutionally required congressional authorization before launching preemptive military strikes against Iran or any other nation, impeachment proceedings should be pursued. Because of these concerns, we request the opportunity to meet with you as soon as possible to discuss these matters. As we have recently marked the fifth year since the invasion of Iraq, and the grim milestone of 4,000 U.S. deaths in Iraq, your Administration should not unilaterally involve this country in yet another military conflict that promises high costs to American blood and treasure.

There is no way to be more rystal clear than that.

The 2007 National Intelligence Estimate made clear that Iran's nuclear weapons program is dead. The Bush administration ignored the intelligence and publicly overstated the Iran threat. These clowns continue to use the same playbook that got them into trouble with Iraq.

We assess with moderate confidence Tehran had not restarted its nuclear weapons program as of mid-2007, but we do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons.

We continue to assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Iran does not currently have a nuclear weapon.

Tehran’s decision to halt its nuclear weapons program suggests it is less determined to develop nuclear weapons than we have been judging since 2005.

The Vice-President won't let facts get in the way of his Iraq narrative. This year, Dick Cheney told blogger Hugh Hewitt, "And I (Israel) they perceive the possibility of an Iran armed with nuclear weapons as a fundamental threat to the very survival of the state of Israel."

The neoconservatives are convinced they can spread democracy by force; which isn't a very democratic way to spread freedom. The neoconservatives can't come and and say overthrowing Iraq and Iran is part of their grand egghead experiment. Instead, they use scare tactics. When that doesn't work they make shit up.

Hillary's Security Umbrella

The Bush administration and neoconservatives mad hard-on for war with Iraq has degraded America's national security debate. The 2007 National Intelligence Estimate stated that Iran ended their quest for nuclear weapons in 2003.

We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program1; we also assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Tehran at a minimum is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons. We judge with high confidence that the halt, and Tehran’s announcement of its decision to suspend its declared uraniumenrichment program and sign an Additional Protocol to its Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Safeguards Agreement, was directed primarily in response to increasing international scrutiny and pressure resulting from exposure of Iran’s previously undeclared nuclear work.

The ABC News debate sent Israel the signal that the next Democratic president will go to war if Iran attack Israel with their nonexistent nuclear arsenal. The Jerusalem Post article portrayed two presidential candidates ready to go to war for Israel.

Both Democratic presidential candidates threatened a tough response to Iran should it attack Israel, while sparring over the role of faith in American life and the validity of judging their candidacies by those with whom they associate during a debate Wednesday night.

"An attack on Israel would trigger massive retaliation from the United States," said New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, who proposed that the US create a security umbrella for Israel and other allies in the region to protect them from a nuclear Iran. "So would an attack on those countries that are willing to go under the security umbrella and forswear their own nuclear ambitions."

How exactly is the United States going to provide a nuclear umbrella for Isael and other Middle East countries. Excuse me, but Iran isn't the major security threat the neoconservatives would have us believe. This is scary talk and gives a glimpse into how Hillary views the world.

Obama used the vague "take no option off the table." That is political shorthand for attempting to sound tough and not commiting to any form of action. No candidate wants to look weak on national security. Hillary came off as Barry Bonds after a fix.

The Maverick Sees al-Qaeda Everywhere

John McCain is so unserious about foreign policy that he thinks all Ababic people support al-Qaeda. His latest political blunder reveals is utter cluelessness.

The misstep in question occurred during a news conference in Jordan earlier Tuesday, when the presumptive Republican presidential nominee repeatedly said Iran was supplying al Qaeda. Iran is predominately a Shiite country and is not aiding the Sunni dominated Al-Qaeda.

McCain ultimately corrected himself after Sen. Joe Lieberman whispered in his ear.

"I'm sorry, the Iranians are training extremists, not al-Qaeda. I am sorry," the Arizona senator said.

Iran gave the United States intelligence on al-Qaeda. That changed when Bush speechwriters David Frum and Michael Gerson decided to label Iran part of the Axis of Evil. There was no vetting with the State Department. The speechwriting department made foreign policy.

McCain has shown an equal lack of insight about Iraq.

Well, all I can say is that [Hillary Clinton] obviously does not understand nor appreciate the progress that has been made on the ground. She told General Petraeus last year when he testified that she would have to suspend disbelief in order to believe that the surge is working. Well, the surge is working.

So I just think what that means is al Qaeda wins. They tell the world that. And we fight here again and around the Middle East. And their dedication is to follow us home. All I can say is that this will be a big issue in the election as we approach November because at least a growing number of Americans, though still frustrated and understandably so, believe that this strategy has succeeded.

Iraq was not a stronghold for al Qaeda before 9/11. The Iraqi population is a Shiite majority and was purging al-Qaeda in Iraq before the surge.

At least I hope it's dishonest," wrote blogger Matt Yglesias. "Because if McCain is really that clueless about what's happening, then we're in more trouble than I thought." The Straight-talker really is that dense.

Quote of the Day

''How secure can we really be with the final analysis and key judgments?''

Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, casting doubt on the National Intelligence Estimate report that Iran ended it's nuclear weapons program in 2003.

First thought: the fact that she feels secure taking Bush's and Cheney's assertions on Iran seriously after they were dead wrong on Iraq should give her constituents pause. Second thought: Ros-Lehtinen didn't seem to bothered by the cherry-picked intell coming from the defunct Office of Special Plans. The intelligence agency was created by Donald Rumsfeld and Douglas Feith and reported directly to Dick Cheney's office.

Ros-Lehtinen voted to declare Iraq the central front on terror and to give Bush the authorization for war. She voted against giving President Clinton the power to invade Kosovo. She decides foreign policy on petty partisanship. Ros-Lehtinen is utterly unserious and should be treated as such.

When Exactly Is World War III Coming Mr. President?

Things are going bad for the White House when Pat Buchanan and Rachel Maddow agree that the Bush administration attemted to hoodwink the American public about Iran's nonexistent nuclear weapons program. Republican strategist Jack Burkman has the unenviable task of saying the NIE proves that Iran is an immediate threat. The National Intelligence Estimate states Iran ended it's nuclear weapons program in 2003.

From the NIE:

We assess with moderate confidence Tehran had not restarted its nuclear weapons program as of mid-2007, but we do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons.

We continue to assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Iran does not currently have a nuclear weapon.

Tehran’s decision to halt its nuclear weapons program suggests it is less determined to develop nuclear weapons than we have been judging since 2005.

There is nothing ambiguous about that statement. Dan Abrams tells the panel that the NIE strengthens Bush's and Cheney's case.

Jack Burkman: I think this makes the President's case stronger. I think he was charitable today.

Burkman gets a new one torn three ways from Dan Abrams, Maddow and Buchanan. Burkman never directly answered the question of was the White House honest about Iran's nuclear program.

The White House was already aware that Iran suspended their program when Bush made his infamous World War III quote.

THE PRESIDENT: I think so long -- until they suspend and/or make it clear that they -- that their statements aren't real, yeah, I believe they want to have the capacity, the knowledge, in order to make a nuclear weapon. And I know it's in the world's interest to prevent them from doing so. I believe that the Iranian -- if Iran had a nuclear weapon, it would be a dangerous threat to world peace.

But this -- we got a leader in Iran who has announced that he wants to destroy Israel. So I've told people that if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from have the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon.

National Security advisor Stephen Hadley said Bush was brief on the suspension of Irans weapons program in "August or September." Bush made his World War III quote and stated that Iran hadn't suspended it's program on October 17, 2007.

Jack Burkman is either incredibly stupid or dishonest. Wonkette reports ole Jack is willing to pay $1,000 for three way action.

Everything Needed to Know About Mike Huckabee's Grasp of Foreign Policy

The recent National Intelligence Estimate states that Iran stopped it's nuclear weapons program in 2003. Mike Huckabee has no idea the NIE came out. He still thinks the intelligence agencies believe Iran is making nukes.
Someone running for President might want to clue himself in.

Kuhn: I don’t know to what extent you have been briefed or been able to take a look at the NIE report that came out yesterday ...

Huckabee: I’m sorry?

Kuhn: The NIE report, the National Intelligence Estimate on Iran. Have you been briefed or been able to take a look at it —

Huckabee: No.

Kuhn: Have you heard of the finding?

Huckabee: No.

Huckabee adds, "I don’t know where the intelligence is coming from that says they have suspended the program or how credible that is versus the view that they actually are expanding it." The Huckster isn't aware that the NIE is written by all the intelligence agencies.

"And I’ve heard, the last two weeks," Huckabee said. "... supposed reports that they are accelerating it and it could be having a reactor in a much shorter period of time than originally been thought." I like to know where Huckabee heard these reports. The Weekly Standard is not an intelligence agency.

In other news: Fox News say pay no mind to the NIE. We still still believe Iran has nikes no matter what anyone fucking says.

The Khan Theory

As I'm sure everyone reading this blog knows, a couple days ago parts of the 2007 national Intelligence Estimate were released, which say that Iran ditched its nuclear weapons program in 2003. And, as many of you already know, the finger-pointing from left to right began from there and hasn't stopped. Actors on both sides of the political fence have used this news as a "Gotcha!" moment: Lefties claim it's proof that warmongers from Bush/Cheney & Co. have been lying all along; and of those Righties who aren't trying to paint this news as a CIA conspiracy asking Cheney, they claim that this is proof positive that the Iraq war had a positive effect on the Middle East. After all, the invasion happened in 2003, which is when Iran quit trying to make nukes. That must be too much of a coincidence, right?

I'm here, of course, to throw a wrench into righty argument.

Sure, the Iraq War having an effect is a possibility, but has anybody stopped to consider AQ Khan, Pakistan's mad nuke scientist who sold the technology to other countries? North Korea.. Yup, Khan's fault. Libya? Almost Khan's fault. Iraq? Khan talk to them. And Iran? I don't think I need to google it, I'll just assume that Khan talked with them, too. The only safer bets in the galaxy are betting against the white boxer, and whoever's playing the Patriots.

Khan was arrested in early 2004, though it looked like he was out of commission by 2001... Though by 2003, it was really apparent that Khan was fucked.

It's kinda tough to get drugs without your supplier. Khan was the dealer, and Iran was the addict... Without Khan, Iran was stuck with the old as shit nuclear equipment they have now, which makes production of a bomb all the more difficult. As is, were it Iran's goal to get the bomb, they're at least 8-10 years from achieving it... Without somebody like Khan to sell them the right equipment.

With the dealer out of the picture, Iran could have recognized the reality of their plight, thrown up their arms and shouted "Fuck it!" in frustration.

Or not. But hey, it's about as plausible as Iran canning their nuclear weapons program due to Bush's invasion of Iraq -- actually, the Khan theory might be more plausible. Stopping such a program, we can all agree, would be construed as a peaceful overture. But Iran intended to look peaceful by taking this action, then why haven't they made any other peaceful overtures? To believe that Iran stopped trying to get the bomb because of the Iraq War is to believe that this peaceful overture is an isolated instance of such -- beyond this, Iran's foreign policy towards America has consisted of two words: "fuck" and "you".

Conspiracy theories should at least have consistancy. If Iran stopped their nuclear weapons program because of the Iraq War, then logic dictates that they should have been more friendly with America on other accounts; which certainly hasn't been the case. So I like the Khan theory better.... Maybe it's just because I thought of it, but hey.

[Crossposted from Sugar Land is Dreaming]