While I agree that the evidence that Iran thought their cover was blown is weak, the fact is that their cover WAS blown, and there was really no other reason for them to admit the existence of the Qum (Qom) lab.
____________________________________

This analysis is a model of deductive reasoning. It's just not a working model; it's more like a "Spruce Goose" of misapplied logic.

When you refer to "evidence" as "weak", I presume you're referring to circumstantial evidence: the timeline, hearsay reports-- because that's all there is.

I am well aware of Thoreau's persuasive and lapidary argument that circumstantial evidence may be considered incontrovertible, even against sworn testimony-- e.g., the milkman's sworn denial that he waters his product may be decisively refuted by the presence of a trout in the milk.

You don't even have a guppy in the milk, alas!

You have a "fact" that their cover was blown. You then perform an operation called, in the arcane terminology of formal logic, "jumping to a conclusion". In the middle is a dodgy presumption or inference that the Iranians "must have known" that their cover was blown, because "there was really no other reason for them to admit the existence of the Qum (Qom) lab."

So I take it that you simply give no credence to the possibility that Iran did have a straightforward "reason" for disclosing the facility: cooperating with the IAEA?

Sorry - this time, I think you've tortured logic to reach conclusions that fit your presumptions and expectations.

You're ruining the story, Glenn!

And this isn't the first time-- you almost ruined the Bruce Ivins Lone Nut Anthrax Killer caper.

And you would have ruined it if the trail hadn't gone cold.

I suppose you've never hammered in a jigsaw puzzle piece that was a pretty close fit just to get on with solving the damn thing!

It pains me to say this, but... but sometimes I think bernbart is right, after all. You have no sense of perspective at times. (Or no snees of perscpection at itmes, as she might put it.)

Where does it end?

Next you'll be telling us that there's not a scintilla of evidence proving that those damned dirty Spaniards treacherously and villainously mined Havana Harbor and scurrilously brought down the noble USS Maine.

Well, if they didn't, they would have if they could have. And that's the point, dammit!

“The Safe Haven Myth”–Harvard Prof. Stephen Walt Takes on Obama’s Justification for Escalating the Afghanistan War
______________________________________

Among other points, in this "Democracy Now" interview [link@sig] Walt not only points out that "al Qaeda" is by definition a fluid and amorphous entity that could operate anywhere, but that in any case, the forbidding and desolate Afghanistan hinterland is entirely lacking infrastructure and technical developments indispensable for running an international terrorist organization.

In other words, even if al Qaeda is as formidable of a Boogie Man as the warmongers would have it, Afghanistan is the perfect place to leave bad enough alone.

Bear in mind that "al Qaeda" is a mix of fact and myth in the first place, despite the tendency to reify it by frequent repetition.

This analysis excludes the inane and puerile fantasy of utterly annihilating al Qaeda, root and branch, which I trust the Killfiled and non-participating reactionaries would claim is the ultimate and virtuous goal of the Amerikan hegemony.