http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/mar/11/peter-beaumnont-iran-nuclear-threat?commentpage=last#end-of-comments
It is an interesting thesis that other papers around the world have promoted recently as well. There are sever flaws however. It is based on a premise that Iran ceased military dimensions to its nuclear technology in 2003. Come on, give us a break. I wish this were an identical situation to Iraq's "weapons of mass destruction" but it isn't. To pretend not to know the difference is as a credible journalist, simply and exercise in intellectual dishonesty, or profound laziness since the idea has been published earlier this week, this could be an innocent "regurgitation". It could be that due to incompetence the writer has opted out of the merest modicum of critical thinking. However the reason for this, it is a tragedy that many readers who are simply not aware or are not trained in critical thinking, to line up behind this idea.
The first and obvious difference begins with the very fundamental issues of science. We knew Iraq had a nuclear program before the first gulf war. We didn't know if it had one when the hew and cry for WMDs were happening under Bush. Sure we had suspicions, but we didn't know. How different is Iran? The whole world knows it has a nuclear program. The whole world knows it's fairly recent non-compliance with the IAEA. (ahem, notice that this fact is certainly true post 2003),
The second involves the very publicised acquisition of nuclear triggers. To think this is a pre-2003 issue is beyond comprehension: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/25/world/middleeast/25iran.html?pagewanted=all This was published everywhere last year. This issue hardly compares with the Iraqi inspections. Sure both countries were evasive to inspectors, but Iran was caught with the goods--as it has numerous times in the past decade.
Do I really need to go on to recount what this author has apparently forgotten? This was the initial premise the argument was written upon. Since it is a profoundly false or ignorant premise, so falls the rest of the logic. How many decades can Iran's nuclear reactors run on just the 20% proof-uranium it now has? No, this article is the sort I would expect from PressTv or some other Iranian propaganda organ, but not the Guardian.
____________________________
"Come on, give us a break. I wish this were an identical situation to Iraq's "weapons of mass destruction" but it isn't. To pretend not to know the difference is as a credible journalist, simply and exercise in intellectual dishonesty, or profound laziness since the idea has been published earlier this week, this could be an innocent "regurgitation"
This is getting tiring Pot calling the Kettle syndrome on your part.If you have the inclination or willingness to read the above excellent @AnthropoidApe post and his links, please do , otherwise you are blowing the same trumpet of war. Either sir or madam you are willingly or unwillingly misinformed hopefully the latter or you have some sinister private agenda hopefully not. Of course yo have an absolute right to your own opinion,unlike the real threat to innocent people who may die or be maimed in any hostile from either side who will most certainly not have such recourse.
_____________________________
This was a simple critical analysis of the thesis of the article. If an argument is based on a clearly flawed premise, it cannot stand as a credible piece. It is clear many commenting here have bought into the conclusion, and giving every benefit of the doubt, if they arrived at these conclusions only as a result of this argument and presupposition: it is evidence of the deception and devastation of illogical arguments. If every commentator was not prejudiced prior to reading this, it would be one thing, however it would seem both author and commentators are demonstrating the profound ignorance of the herd mentality: Moved and herded by logic simply imperceived. (unrecognized)