Would you please stop replying to that asshole, electro robot?

Look, when an idiot puts a "Kick Me Here!" sign on their groin, one is simply obligated to kick them there.

And its not like they're taken seriously to begin with, is it?

Has anyone (but me) read this?

Cohen's trip into Iran was discussed here when it was first written about. I don't recall much about that thread, other than the usual suspects insisting (as the article you link does) it was all a propaganda ploy to "undermine support of Israel" or some other nefarious agenda.

Rule of thumb: if you want to read "Commentary", fine, but don't think for an instant anyone but wingnuts on the far fringes take it seriously.

That the John "Juan" Coles of the world have it precisely right that Farsi is seemingly, the most difficult language in the known universe to translate, except of course for people like John "Juan" Cole.

John Cole is conservative political commentator.

Juan Cole is a professor specializing in Islamic Studies and an expert linguist in Arabic and Persia Farsi.

Two different men with different backgrounds. And Farsi is not impossible to understand, merely difficult to master and translate into idiom-riddled English.

And if he's 100% correct then EVERY source of everything regarding Iran translated from Farsi to any other language is, according to their own words, suspect.

Again, I'm not convinced.

Its certainly possible the translations we're getting are inaccurate to some degree. Which is rather a pity as we may be missing things that are important.

Whether you're convinced Professor Cole speaks with authority or not is, frankly, irrelevant. I've looked over his publications and background and am satisfied in his expertise.

You and others seem to think the NPT is like a US criminal proceeding, but it's not. Nations who sign it are not presumed innocent until proven guilty. It is up to Iran to prove they are not working on a bomb. Instead of doing that they are stonewalling the IAEA.

A fair summation, provided one buys into the "guilty-until-proven-innocent" formulation, which I do not. A fool's venture that, in that it presumes "proving a negative" and that those demanding the proof will even accept it. Iran saw what happened in Iraq in early 2003 as clearly as the rest of us; they've no reason to think the same treatment won't happen to them.

And how many times does it need to be said that, going by all available evidence, Tehran has ceased its weapon's research? You begin to see the problem here?

And it isn't just Israel that is "hysterical" about this. France, the UK, the US, and Germany, among others, are on the same page.

As well they should be. But I'd prefer that page be read with clear eyes and an open mind, rather than one searching for excuses to pick a fight.

And I'll grant my use of the word "hysteria" has been a tad misplaced. You must admit, Jonathan, you have a bit of monomania when it comes to this particular subject. It lends to an image and responses that aren't conducive to reasoned exchanges.

How about you mind your own hysteria?

I would, if I had any on the issue.

And as long as Iran (both their leadership and their bloodthirsty crowds) calls for the destruction of Israel, and Israel doesn't do the same, we do indeed hold the moral high ground on the issue.

I can't speak for the 'bloodthirsty crowds', but my understanding is Iran hasn't actually called for the destruction of Israel. That's been the result a messy/lazy/deliberatly-distorted translation of what's actually being said, to whit: "this Occupation regime over Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time".(h/t to Prof. Juan Cole).

Taken in context, Tehran (Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khomeini specifically) was expressing the unsurprising wish to see Israel's political collapse and its control of Jerusalem - as holy a site for Islam as it is for Judaism and the branches of Christianity - ended. Farsi is a notoriously complicated language, with a lot of emotive nuances to it, something most Americans fail to appreciate.

Personally, I don't know that I'd classify Israel's response/non-response as qualifying it for the high moral ground (insofar as there's any to be had here). They do, after all, possess a nuclear arsenal they refuse to acknowledge or allow to be inspected, never mind refuse to sign onto the NPT. They've also a history of striking across their borders, not always with actual provocation. By those lights, Tel Aviv's not calling for Tehran's "removal" isn't all that compelling.

In short, there's plenty to criticize on both sides.

You cite:

"The report, titled “Possible Military Dimensions of Iran’s Nuclear Program,” was produced in consultation with a range of nuclear weapons experts inside and outside the agency. It draws a picture of a complex program, run by Iran’s Ministry of Defense, “aimed at the development of a nuclear payload to be delivered using the Shahab 3 missile system,” Iran’s medium-range missile, which can strike the Middle East and parts of Europe. The program, according to the report, apparently began in early 2002."

Bolding is my own.

We already knew there was some research in weaponizing their nuclear research. There is no evidence it ever bore any fruit.

Additionally, the title of the report itself (emphasis on the word "Possible") and the relevant passage (emphasis on the word "aimed") rather solidify the point here.

Again, its been established Iran started some weapons research between 5 - 7 years ago, but that's been closed down. There's no evidence its taken it back up, never mind that they've the actual capacity to deliver a nuclear payload outside its own borders.

The facility at Qom is a point of contention, yes, but doesn't appear to constitute a major break of any confidences or agreements.