... where does the Constitution authorise the President to decide what weapons a sovereign nation may possess?

As posted earlier I am not a proponent of attacking Iran over its nuclear ambitions, but I will say there is a case to be made over the issue, as it would be a violation of the Non-proliferation treaty which Iran is a signatory to.

Also, any threat to the peace may require use of force under the doctrine of collective security, which is the foundation of the United Nations (see article 7 in particular).

If Iran's real leader really was a psychopath intent on nuking Israel or other countries the moment he acquires nuclear weapons, it would be legitimate casus belli for the US or any other country to seek to prevent that.

Of course, the problem is that the Supreme Leader of Iran is not a psychopath and Israel has second-strike capacity so MAD, if nothing else would prevent Iran from actually using nukes in a first strike - the real reason the neo-conservatives want to prevent Iran from getting them is that then invasion would be off the table and Iran would have to be treated with respect.

This whole story comes down to some terribly predictable game theory where each party is causing the other to behave in certain ways that predictably lead to the worst outcome for all. With Obama at least there is some hope of breaking the cycle but if he keeps talking about their nuclear program as a certified fact when it is not, that hope grows ever dimmer.

As someone else noted, it is perfectly rational for Iran to want nuclear weapons. The situation from their perspective:

1) Bush named them, Iraq and North Korea to the Axis of Evil.

2) Iraq complied with the inspectors and was invaded for their trouble, despite not actually having WMDs or a functional program to create them.

3) North Korea made nukes and was not invaded.

4) Iran's overture of peace and willingness to talk about everything was completely ignored.

You're the Ayahtollah: What would you do with these facts?

There is something congenitally wrong with neo-conservatives (well, conservatives generally) that they utterly lack empathy and the ability to imagine situations from someone else's perspective.

I bet they all suck terribly at chess or other turn based board games where the ability to anticipate the opponent's moves is key to victory.

Maybe instead of (or in addition to) debates, Presidential candidates should play Risk.

Quit ruining the funny.

The only possible reason I can come up with is that as a black Democrat Pres-Elect, he has decided not to rock the boat and get the Village all pissed off at him before he even takes office.

If he is smart, he will ask for a new NEI on Iran once his new heads of intelligence are in place. If the new NEI agrees with the 2007 study he can then use that to justify employing a more diplomatic approach to Iran. It would be very hard for the village to screech about the scary Iranians with two consecutive NEIs - one under the Bush Admin - agreeing that Iran is not pursuing nuclear weapons.

How many NIE's does one need to not attack a country over its non-existant nuclear arms program? If one doesn't suffice, why would the reality-abhorring villagers accept a second? How many reputable economists line up to say "social security is not in serious trouble" yet every villager brings up "entitlement spending" and calls social security a "crisis" at every opportunity? Israel broke the cease-fire with Hamas and yet to the village, Hamas did.

These people believe what they need to believe in order to justify what Atrios smartly calls the American Hegemony Project. No amount of official reports by people actually interested in fact or reality will dissuade them. If the CIA finds that Iran isn't pursuing Nuclear arms, then this is proof of the politicization and bias at CIA. That's how the mental process will work.

This is how we hold elected leaders accountable and not become what the beltway centrist mythology says we are: bizarro freepers from the goatee universe.

This is also reason to remain disappointed that Obama's chief foreign policy offical, Secretary of State, will be someone who is even more hawkish and wrong on Iran.

Obama will hear advice from the whole spectrum (as defined by the Serious People) of course: From the New Republic to the Free Republic.

Check out this highly recommended diary at Kos, which tries to argue in favour of the proposition that appointments don't matter by equating obama to a mafia don. It doesn't get more "interesting" (As Glenn puts it) than that in terms of rationalizing/justifying obama's picks.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/12/8/101026/695/605/670633

But yeah, Obama appointing someone he previously voted against confirming should really put this sort of thing over the top, the shark and the moon all at once.

This passage raises some very interesting questions. Given the parallels in the warnings from PBS and CNN, it appears that somehow, these producers are basically censoring the news. On what authority are they doing this? Is corporate management of both organizations requiring it, or is the government forcing these organizations to censor?

Among the many congressional investigations or public inquiries I would like to see, is one of the media. I would like to see the top officials and journalists subpoenaed and put on the record about their actions and motives after 9/11 and during the run up to war in particular.

A truth commission.

PBS is particularly tragic since it shows the success the Bush admin had at warping public media to their will. Horton had a piece not so long ago about PBS delaying the airing of a documentary until January 20th. Literally the day Bush leaves office.