It also dismisses conspiracy theories redirecting blame towards Iran or Syria.  From Stratfor and published on the Asia Times:

 http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/KH28Aa01.html

@ Kapitein

Your "belief" (as of 2003...) is almost endearing. It reminds one of a variant of the old joke that re-marriage is the triumph of wishful thinking over experience.  I have seen all this before, particularly in the 1990's in several places.  How many times do you have to be lied too, before you accept that you are dealing with 'liars'?   

As to those "few 'dirty' bombs", your new feigned concern for Israel is nice. How about some concern for Barcelona or New York?

As to your illusions about HUMINT, the latter is being dismantled as we speak, and for the SECOND time in the last 20 years!  No, the real problem has nothing to do with any Iranian "clock".  The real problem is the absence of political will in the West to impose real 'supervision' - as it was in North Korea and in Iraq before (and we know what the result of that 'uncertainty' led to in the latter case) - in combination with the dangerous 'games' of big authoritarians elsewhere.   We will have to live with the consequences of that 'failure' of Western will, if we get to live...

You're missing the point.  Iran can advance towards nuclear weapons via its "civilian" programme, which involves production of HEU.  When Iran will amass sufficient HEU for a weapon is unknown, but likely within the 2010-2015 time period.  Moreover, Iran would still have to weaponize the HEU, a 30 to 60-day process.  However, I do believe that Iran no longer has an active nuclear weapons programme as of 2003.  HEU produced by the Iranian civilian programme would not deter "regime change" nor further Iran's bid for regional dominance.  Several small and crude atomic or "dirty" bombs would hardly constitute an existential threat to Israel, nor challenge the Israeli deterrent.

Au contraire, I am worried about Iran.  However, I am also wary of the manipulation and manufacture of intelligence and news on targets of Anglo-American "humanitarian" interventions e.g. Serb atrocities in Kosova, Iraqi WMDs.  The Iranian clock hasn't yet reached midnight.  If and when it does, I sincerely hope that we have considerably improved HUMINT on Iran.

@ Kapitein

Sorry, but I do not accept your premise, as if your assertions constituted an "argument". 

 Unlike you, I do not claim to know with certainty how far Iran has advanced towards nuclear weapons.  I know with 'near-certainty' that they are trying to achieve that capacity.  That is based on my 'common sense' (knowable knowledge of the regime and its history).     

Your contention is again, and not for the first time, one of 'don't worry'.  That is very much in the tradition of Chamberlain, who should have known better (based on preceding recent history).  And you should know better too!  I for one, I would not be satisfied having to rely on how you are going to know  when "Iran will choose to weaponise its HEU".  In fact, I have reason to believe that you couldn't even "recognise" such a development if it had occurred AND you knew that it had occurred.

@ pvdh

1) If you think that Megrahi has a "conscience", in the same sense that you and I think of that term, then I must call you "naive". He is simply a "puppet" and an instrument of an evil man and an evil regime.

2) Labelling the President of the United States an "actor" in the way you did, is disrespectful.  There was nothing actor-like about the attempts to reign in Khadafi's terrorism abroad. 

3) I agree with you that, IDEALLY, Khadafi would have been in the dock, besides a few others.  However, that was (and remains) impossible, not in a literal sense, but in a realistic sense.  The costs of war in his case were judged to be excessive relative to the benefits of war.  Saddam was put in the dock, and we know what you think about the unavoidable 'prelude' to make that possible.  In the case of Khadafi, pressure was exerted in a way that achieved some limited measure of 'justice', without having to resort to all-out war between states.  

4) The release of Meghrahi makes a mockery of justice, and it demolishes the tiny little piece of justice that the victims' families had obtained.   And the fact that Khadafi was never put in the dock for his misdeeds IN NO WAY diminishes their sense of betrayal by the British (and especially the Scottish) authorities in this matter of the release of a monstrous puppet.

Paul Warfield Tibbets has never been put on trial for the atrocity he triggered, and probably rightfully so. Working for a western democracy he had certainly more reasons then abdelbaset to believe he was doing the right thing. He even believed it till the day he died. That he later had to replay the whole bombing, including mushroom cloud at a military base like a bad western of John Waine against the villain Indians, doesn’t speak in his advantage, but then again we can’t put people away because of bad taste.

We can’t but assume that the western legal system is sufficiently robust to withstand political pressure, and thus we have to believe that Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi was indeed a key person in bringing down Panam flight 103. It is clear however that, like Tibbets, he did what he was asked to do by the government and more precisely Gaddafi. He did what was his duty. I don’t think however that releases him from the duty to act according to his conscience. But then again, we must admit that going counter your own environment and roots is mighty difficult.

Abdebaset was the latest exponent of a tit for tat war going on between the mad man in Tripoli and the actor in Washington. Again, the actor was democratically elected, and backed by a total administration, I don’t even want to begin to think that those people had anything else in mind then the safety and prosperity of the Americans and the world in general. The mad man in Tripoli, there we can absolutely be sure of, was only interested in revange for his own fame and glory. Knowing all this, however, it is absolutely clear that the person who should have been in the jail next to Abdelbaset, should have been Colonel Gaddafi. Yet rather then putting him in jail, the west rehabilitated him. My question is then, who really hurt the feelings of the family of the victims? Those who shake Gaddafi’s hand, or some judges who release a dying puppet?

1.2

Proponents of anthropogenic global warming are equally vehement about their "common sense".  Referencing Hitler - or alternatively dinosaurs - does not illustrate either arguments, it merely obfuscates full and fair debate.

@ Kapitein

1) Sorry, but your statement "I am satisfied that currently, Iran has no active weaponization programme" is about as silly as Chamberlain's statement on returning from his visit to Herr H.  It defies common sense.

2) One does not exclude the other.  The fact that "totalitarians cannot abide one another" does not contradict my contention that they cannot always be "used" against one another.  It is only natural that people who are used to being treated like unconstrained 'prima donnas' (or even 'gods') in their own environment, do not like other 'gods'.

3) Readiness is perhaps the best proof of willingness.  It gives it credibility.  As always, it is not cheap words that matter, but deeds.  Nevertheless, I agree with you that the Germans could have smashed the Swiss.  It doesnt preclude that willingness was 1 factor considered.  And "being useful" to the Germans was another.

1.1

Please clarify.  I agree that Iran's "civilian" nuclear programme could produce enough highly-enriched uranium for an atomic device within the next several years.  It therefore has dual-use applications, and it is unknown if Iran will choose to weaponize its HEU.  However, I am satisfied that currently, Iran has no active weaponization programme.

2.1

In reality.  Totalitarians cannot abide one another.  Even faced with challenges that demand cooperation in order to be met, competition will take precedence, and any alliances will be of a convenient and temporary nature.

7.1

Polish willingness to fight the Germans did not improve Poland's readiness to fight.  While the Luftwaffe terrorized Swiss civilians, paralyzed defense efforts and destroyed vital infrastructure, Fallschirmjäger would seize control.  Given the Wehrmact's ability to bypass Switzerland's natural barriers, and success in diverse climates and terrains, Swiss willingness could hardly have factored in to German plans. 

@ Kapitein

1) The "2007 NIE" has been debunked.  I would not rely on it at all.

2) In theory, yes.  In practice, the totalitarians-to-be-used are not always willing, and often are not so stupid...

7) What you write about Switserland and nazi-Germany is true, but incomplete.  Surely, Swiss willingness to fight must have been one factor to give the nazis pause, and that also gave the Swiss 'time' to be rescued by others in the end. 

Furthermore, the two situations are not comparable. The Swiss, then, it could be argued, had no real choice. Today, they do have a real choice, and by choosing badly they are making the overall (long term) situation worse, for everybody (themselves included).   

RE:

1.

The 2007 NIE on Iran states that Iran aborted its nuclear weapons programme in 2003, in the wake of the US-led invasion.  However, this fact does not rule out the dual-use applications of Iran's nuclear energy programme i.e. uranium enrichment.  Moreover, the experiences in dealing with other non-Western nuclear powers indicate that much depends on the government in question's temperament e.g. Beijing vs. Pyongyang.  Unfortunately, the West HUMINT on Iran.  It relies mainly on the Mossad, however, Iranian Jews are a small minority and absent from the halls of power.  Vocal hardliners are found as much in Moscow as Teheran, yet the West does not take the threat of a Russian first-strike seriously.  Questions remain: how representative of the "mullahtariat" is the Ahmadinejad-Khamenei faction?  Would this faction risk retaliation from Israel by attacking Israel directly or indirectly with WMDs?

2.

And yet totalitarianism can be fought with totalitarianism.  Burned out tanks near Volgograd and in the shadow of the Hindu Kush testify to this.

5.

Duly noted.

7.

Switzerland preserved its independence by being useful to the Axis.  Swiss "military preparedness" had declined since the centuries when Swiss pikemen dominated the battlefields of France, Germany and Italy.  The Swiss never could have caused severe enough attrition to prevent a German conquest.  Moreover, the more frustrating booby-traps and sniper fire were, the worse revenge would have been visited upon civilians.

@ kappert

Hold on a minute, in a previous post you claimed to support "unilateral nuclear disarmament policies", then in a  follow-up post you suddenly get querulous over the fact that, while some countries apparently chose the unilateral route, others did not. Isn't that why they call it UNIlateral disarmament, ya think?

1 Had you chosen to answer my original post rather than attempt to evade doing so you could have saved both of us a lot of time and effort.

2 You don't say why, for example, you believe Libya chose not to pursue its nuclear weapons program, nor do you offer any explanation as to why you believe Iran isn't interested in having a bomb. Perhaps you'd care to elaborate. (probably not).

You and I will revisit this topic again if/when Iran HAS developed its nuclear capability and we'll see how you attempt to justify that fateful development. 

Thank you for confirming my suspicions, now answer the question.

The choice is yours, just answer the question.

There, you see, you DO have opinions. Now answer my question.

But you DO have opinions. I know you have opinions because I've ridiculed them often enough. In fact, you were quick enough to offer your opinion with regard to the UK's nuclear deterrent, when the real topic of conversation was Iran's nuclear program, so what's your problem answering my question?

@ kappert

In case there is some confusion here, my question wasn't directed at Medvedev or Obama, it was directed at you.

Have I heard that a murderer causing 270 innocent people, including Scots, to die in the Scottish town of Lockerbie has been released by Scotsmen? Was it impaired to me that this very murderer has been released on compassion grounds, as Mr Gaddafi clearly thanked 'the Scottish government for its courageous decision and understanding of a special human situation'? Which kind of 'special human situation' does a 270-casualty bomb attack actually embody? Surely, the noose, not an excited rabble vaguely reminiscent of Western teenage girls (and similar in intellect) should wait for such scum. We already knew of the "youths", another ilk has been invented that shall be called the "old", provisions shall include that being an "old" gives you the right to be released, whatever your crimes and wrongdoings, so that you may enjoy the couple of years that remain you, while the victims of the perpetrator are left with their personal pain and filled with despair about the cowardness of a few purported nationalists, it will serve some people right for supporting the hapless Alex Salmond.

WAR IS PEACE

SLAVERY IS FREEDOM

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

COWARDNESS IS COURAGE (Mr Gaddafi's most recent add-on)

@ kappert

I assume you are an avid CND supporter. And you are NOT a self-loathing Westerner, right?  So, tell me,  what possible reason could you have for not supporting a unilateral nuclear disarmament policy initiated by the West's enemies? Let THEM take the moral high ground on this issue and, where our enemies lead, the West must surely follow. Isn't that the theory?

1. Handlery refers to the UK: While a firm decision has yet to be taken on the replacement of the UK's nuclear deterrent, the manufacturer of the UK's warheads, AWE, is currently undertaking research which is largely dedicated to providing new warheads and on 4 December 2006 the then Prime Minister Tony Blair announced plans for a new class of nuclear missile submarines.
2. Handlery forgot the 'Starship Enterprise' greeting.
5. “America invented the gated community, sort of a reverse East Germany operated on a voluntary basis.” I like that one.
7. Finally Switzerland got some sense (by apologizing to Libya), yet it did not reach its banks and corruption system. And Abdel Basset al-Megrahi said he had suffered a "miscarriage of justice". Indeed the Lockerbie case raises many questions. a) Iran Air Flight 655 was a civilian airliner shot down by the United States Navy on Sunday 3 July 1988, over the Strait of Hormuz. The aircraft was flying from Bandar Abbas, Iran, to Dubai, UAE, when it was destroyed by the U.S. Navy's guided missile cruiser USS Vincennes, killing all 290 passengers and crew aboard, including 66 children. As part of a settlement in 1996, the United States agreed to pay US$61.8 million in compensation for the Iranians killed. b) The bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 killed 270 people, four years after al-Megrahi's conviction in 2001, Libya admitted responsibility and paid about $2.7bn in compensation to the families of those killed.