#17,952 in History books
Use arrows to jump to the previous/next product

Reddit mentions of Going to Tehran: Why America Must Accept the Islamic Republic of Iran

Sentiment score: -2
Reddit mentions: 6

We found 6 Reddit mentions of Going to Tehran: Why America Must Accept the Islamic Republic of Iran. Here are the top ones.

Going to Tehran: Why America Must Accept the Islamic Republic of Iran
Buying options
View on Amazon.com
or
Specs:
Height9 Inches
Length5.999988 Inches
Number of items1
Release dateDecember 2013
Weight0.99648942424 Pounds
Width1.11 Inches

idea-bulb Interested in what Redditors like? Check out our Shuffle feature

Shuffle: random products popular on Reddit

Found 6 comments on Going to Tehran: Why America Must Accept the Islamic Republic of Iran:

u/lizzieb_23 · 17 pointsr/NeutralPolitics

SECOND

What the "Iranian nuclear threat" was actually all about, was a pretext to impose regime-change in Iran, pushed by the Isreaelis and NeoCons, just as they pushed for the Iraq war with bogus claims about "WMDs in Iraq"

They exaggerated the iran threat
http://www.pri.org/stories/2015-02-27/israeli-government-has-exaggerated-iranian-nuclear-threat-years

And the Iraq threat
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-12-04-israeli-iraq-threat_x.htm


The pushed for the Iraq war
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/israel-to-us-dont-delay-iraq-attack/

and a war on Iran
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/israel-prodding-us-to-attack-iran/

The pro-Israeli lobby had been pushing a PR war on Iran for a long time already, ie:
http://www.uscatholic.org/culture/war-and-peace/2008/06/iran-spam

And AIPAC (American-Israel Public Affairs Committee) spent millions of dollars trying to undermine the deal

https://www.thenation.com/article/inside-the-effort-to-kill-the-iran-deal/

http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/08/06/429911872/in-iran-deal-fight-lobbyists-are-spending-millions-to-sway-12-senators

See, the Israelis (and Saudis) and their supporters in the US including the NeoCons and Iran hawks consider an improvement in US-Iran relations as coming at their expense, so they don't want to see the US and Iran getting along and they would rather see the US engage in regime-change in Iran

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/john-bolton-iran-regime-change-231586

http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/01/05/its-time-to-pursue-regime-change-in-iran/

This book is all about that: http://www.amazon.com/Manufactured-Crisis-Untold-Story-Nuclear/dp/1935982338

On the other hand, there are people who say that the US should "go to Iran" just as Nixon went to China because that will promote US interests the best
https://www.amazon.com/Going-Tehran-America-Islamic-Republic/dp/1250043530

Note that when Nixon decided to recognize Communist China, the US had to dump relations with Taiwan. Israel does not want to become a Taiwan if the US decides to mend relations with Iran.

Here's another book I plan to read once it comes out: https://www.amazon.com/Deal-Century-Iran-Blocked-Wests/dp/0997896507


FINALLY

The nuclear agreement called the JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) is not technically a "treaty" but is an "executive agreement"

Executive Agreements are more common in international affairs than treaties, they also don't have the same formalities such as a need to be ratified through the Senate. There's a lot of hype claiming that Obama somehow violated the constitution by entering into the agreement but there's absolutely nothing unconstitutional about executive agreements, they're actually VERY common. https://www.state.gov/s/l/treaty/faqs/70133.htm

There's all sort of BS being claimed, namely that Iran did not "sign" the agreement and that it is not "legally binding" -- but in fact international agreements including treaties are not legally binding (there is no court, judge or police to enforce them) and instead they are political agreements that are "binding" only as long as each party agrees to be bound by it. International agreements are also not a car loan that require you to sign them to be valid.

It is also claimed that there were "Secret concessions" made to Iran which were "exposed" by the UN.
Example:

>U.N. watchdog exposes secret concessions in Obama’s Iran deal

http://www.theblaze.com/news/2016/12/25/u-n-watchdog-exposes-secret-concessions-in-obamas-iran-deal/

But in fact literally EVERY WORD in that headline is actually false. The documents were not "exposed", the signatories themselves decided to make them public so as to end the hype about "secret deals", there were no "concessions" just technical agreements like agreeing to not count unrecoverable waste Uranium in the amount that Iran was supposed to be able to keep, and in fact the IAEA is not part of the UN but is an independent agency, and it isn't a "watchdog" either its role in the NonProliferation Treaty is just as an accountant that measures declared nuclear material to make sure the declared amounts match the actual amounts, that's all (it isn't an investigative agency or an intelligence agency charged with finding WMDs, in fact its actual job is to promote the use of nuclear technology)

The JCPOA required certain measures by Iran for at least 10-15 years (after which the "normal" Non-Proliferation Treaty obligations will continue to be in place) ie to limit the number of centrifuges it operates that are used to enrich uranium before using the material to make reactor fuel rods, to only enrich to 3.65% which can't be used for bombs (Iran never enriched uranium to bomb-grade anyway) to reduce its stockpile of enriched uranium, and to cease work on a heavy water reactor and to export any heavy water it produces beyond its domestic needs. Iran has done all of that and the IAEA has verified it in its reports. https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/16/11/gov2016-55.pdf

However the opponents of the deal have been claiming that Iran has supposedly "violated" the deal by producing 0.1 ton more heavy water than a the 130 ton "limit" contained in the agreement. The problem is that there is actually no such limit in the agreement.

Annex 1, Part C, Paragraph 14 of the JCPOA states that Iran is to keep enough heavy water to meet its domestic needs including contingency stocks (estimated to be 130 tons in total) and any excess is to be exported for sale.

All Iran is required to do under Paragraph 15 is inform the IAEA of its heavy water stock and allow occasional IAEA visits to the production facility to monitor the stock.

Iran has done all that too.

Note that neither paragraph imposes a specific upper limit on the amount of heavy water which can be produced.

See http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/245318.pdf for the exact text I'm citing



And 24 extra gallons of heavy water is not a violation of that "estimate". Note that heavy water itself is quite harmless and can't be used as a weapon and furthermore without an operational heavy water reactor (Iran poured concrete into the reactor their were building so it can't ever work, as the agreement required) there is no way that heavy water can somehow be used to make nukes anyway (and, the reactor was subject to IAEA monitoring anyway.)

In exchange, the US is supposed to lift as many sanctions as it can and release Iran's frozen funds. OF course the Iranians and the Obama administration new that they could not lift ALL the sanctions since most of the sanctions were imposed by COngress, not the President. So some sanctions have been removed but the US and Iran still can't do business especially since existing sanctions prevent Iran from doing business using US dollars which is the international currency. And, Congress is pushing for new sanctions. The Iranians consider this a violation of the agreement which requires the US to do its best to remove all sanctions but the text of the treaty does not actually require all the sanctions to be removed.

So bottom line is that despite all the hype, neither side has "violated" the agreement.

Note however that the US and Iran are not the only parties to the deal: Russia, China, Germany, UK and France that have signed it too, and it has been endorsed by the UN Security Council. The European courts had already ruled sanctions on Iran to be illegal before the deal,

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-sanctions-eu-idUSBRE91514220130206

http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-iran-nuclear-courts-insight-idUKBRE96E0M920130715

and the the other countries have told the US that they will continue to abide by the deal even if the US pulls out.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/07/iran-nuclear-deal-vital-warns-theresa-may-donald-trump-vows/

http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/In-a-message-to-Trump-China-defends-Iran-nuclear-deal/article16767795.ece

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-nuclear-eu-idUSKCN0PU0S520150720

http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Iran-News/Russia-Loss-of-Iranian-nuclear-deal-would-be-unforgivable-475468

http://www.breitbart.com/jerusalem/2016/12/06/china-warns-trump-iran-nuclear-deal-must-stand/

http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-iran-nuclear-europe-idUKKCN0RA2H420150910

u/sexymanish · 13 pointsr/worldnews

Because close US allies Israel and the Saudis object to the US and Iran getting along, since that would make them third wheels. Same happened to Taiwan when in 1979 the US to recognize Communist China. Taiwan is now not really recognized as a country by the US.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan%E2%80%93United_States_relations#1949%E2%80%931979 Israel doesn't want to become Taiwan if any US president wants to "go to Iran" as many have urged the US to do https://www.amazon.com/Going-Tehran-America-Islamic-Republic/dp/1250043530

Iran is after all now a Republic, that overthrew the US-backed monarchy and claims to be Islamic -- this threatens Saudi Arabia which is not only a US-backed monarchy but also supposedly the TOP Islamic country, defender of the Faith etc. Israel, because Iran refuses to recognize Israel and supports the Palestinian cause, and so should Iran and the US get along then Israel may have to make a deal with the Palestinians. The US being at war with Iran or Iraq, gives the Israelis the chance to continue taking Palestinian lands: https://www.haaretz.com/1.4775662

So they've been pushing the US to attack Iran for a while now rather than risk the US and Iran getting along. They have powerful lobbyists and pressure groups spending a lot of money to get their way

​

https://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=5970

​

\>Attack Iran the day after Israel, demands Israel

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/attack-iran-the-day-iraq-war-ends-demands-israel-gnggkk7pzbw

​

https://lobelog.com/three-billionaires-paved-way-for-trumps-iran-deal-withdrawal/

John Bolton wants regime change in Iran, and so does the cult that pays him


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/global-opinions/wp/2018/03/24/john-bolton-wants-regime-change-in-iran-and-so-does-the-cult-that-paid-him/

​

​

u/tayaravaknin · 7 pointsr/geopolitics

> Many experts and analysts believe that's precisely what should happen: https://www.amazon.com/Going-Tehran-America-Islamic-Republic/dp/1250043530

These aren't "experts and analysts". These are two, and they are on the fringe of analyst opinion.

> But then the US turned around and started arming and funding a military dictator in Egypt who took power in a coup

Well that's certainly false. The US actually cut military aid to Egypt following the coup, and didn't restore it for over a year. See here.

This was also 8 years after Rice's speech, and under an entirely different President.

> When Nixon decided to "go to China" he had to cut US ties with Taiwan, which until then was officially recognized by the US as "China". Today Taiwan is not even officially a country.

Yeah, but Nixon didn't withdraw US support for Taiwan. He just accepted a compromise in between, but the US has undoubtedly been more supportive of Taiwan than China since then, with arms deals and protection.

> However the pro-Israeli lobby is far more powerful

Oh goodie, conspiracy theories. For some strange reason, you think Israel just chose freely to be on the side of Saudi Arabia and the Arab world instead of Iran, as if it didn't get attacked by Iran's proxies multiple times, as if Iran didn't multiple times reject any idea of peace with Israel, including after Israel assisted Iran during the Iran-Iraq war.

> and along with Saudi funding, makes it difficult for the US to "go to Tehran" as many analysts have said the US should do

Most analysts do not believe anyone should "go to Iran" right now.

> The last thing the Israeli and Saudis want is for the US and Iran to get along and they have powerful lobbyists who have been pushing for a US war on Iran instead on fake "nulear weapons" claims, just like how they pushed the US to attack Iraq on fake "WMDs" claims:

Ah, the old conspiracy theory that blames the Iraq war on Israel.

> CBS News - Israel prodding US to attack Iran http://www.cbsnews.com/news/israel-prodding-us-to-attack-iran/

The article has a clickbait headline. The text of the article doesn't actually make this claim.

> CBS News - Israel to US: Do not delay Iraq attack http://www.cbsnews.com/news/israel-to-us-dont-delay-iraq-attack/

Israel called on the US to attack Iraq based on intelligence of chemical and biological weapons programs. Iraq did have those for covert actions, and it was Saddam Hussein himself who wanted to play up biological weapons programs for the sake of deterring Iran. This led to other countries believing he actually had the weapons too.

Chemical weapons were also in Iraq. Chemical weapons shells were still being found in 2014, and they'd found thousands. They were all supposed to have been destroyed, and insurgents ended up stealing some and using them in small attacks on US forces in Iraq. Hussein had indeed planned to resume chemical weapons production.

Israel's statements were actually accurate about Iraq in the lead-up to the war. The only time they were inaccurate was when they were based on US intelligence, which we already know was wrong on nuclear weapons.

> These regular mailings from the Israel Project to "opinion agents" such as yours truly are, in effect, a public relations campaign for war. The monthly missives I receive from this one pro-Israel lobby are a small part of a broader effort to "secure the information stream" and prep Americans for the next exotic stop in the war on terror: sunny Iran. http://www.uscatholic.org/culture/war-and-peace/2008/06/iran-spam

This is absurd. Not only is this site not credible in the slightest, it claimed the war would begin in 2008. It never did. The website is clearly just publishing an extremely biased op-ed with little actual evidence.

u/fdeckert · 4 pointsr/neoliberal

Relevant
https://www.amazon.com/Going-Tehran-America-Islamic-Republic/dp/1250043530

20 years after the Vietnam war ended, the US recognized Vietnam, even though 58000 Americans had been killed there. We are now coming up to 40 years of trying to impose regime-change in Iran, and not a single actual Americans has been killed by an actual Iranian, ever.

Ask youself, what fundamental US interest is promoted by eminity with Iran

u/agfa12 · 1 pointr/askaconservative

Even in the first Obama administration, Iran agreed to the terms of a deal negotiated on behalf of the US by Brazil and Turkey according to which Iran would have exported its enriched uranium in the hopes of receiving the reactor fuel it had been denied, only to see the Obama administration pull the rug out from under them AFTER Iran had said yes to the deal, upsetting the Brazilians and Turks so much they publicized the letter Obama had written to them just a week earlier endorsing the same terms that Iran had agreed to

http://www.todayszaman.com/diplomacy_brazil-reveals-obama-letter-in-spat-over-iran-nuclear-deal_211443.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/21/opinion/21iht-edcohen.html

One American expert on Iran affairs, noted that the very day after Iran had agreed to these terms, the US proceeded to impose yet more sanctions on Iran

http://garysick.tumblr.com/post/611735702/giving-the-finger-to-iran-and-turkey-and

The Bush administration had started out imposing an unrealistic and illegal demand called "Zero Enrichment" -

http://thinkprogress.org/security/2013/10/24/2823381/hawks-enrichment-war-iran/

which would have required Iran to give up her sovereign right as recognized by the NonProliferation Treaty to be able to make their own reactor fuel (which thanks to US sanctions, Iran was not able to import as usual.) This was a deliberate policy of the Bush admin, to prevent any deal by making demands that no country would accept.

The second Obama admin eventually dropped the zero enrichment demand, http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-clinton-backed-key-u-s-shift-toward-iran-nuclear-deal-1441753099?mod=rss_US_News

and thus signaled that it is willing to actually resolve the nuclear issue, which is what we're seeing today.

The significance of this is not in the details of the nuclear deal itself, but in that the US and Iran are POSSIBLY finding ways to get along rather than continuing towards a conflict.

That's why there are many forces opposed to such a deal and insist that the US and Iran should not be talking but that the US should be attacking Iran instead, including Israel and the pro-Israeli lobby in the US which has been pushing for a war for a while now.

http://www.uscatholic.org/culture/war-and-peace/2008/06/iran-spam

There are others who say that the US should not listen to the Israelis and should instead "Go to Iran" just as Nixon "went to China" and decided to open up relations with those countries rather than continue the emnity.

http://www.amazon.com/Going-Tehran-America-Islamic-Republic/dp/1250043530

So you see the nuclear issue is not really about nukes but is just a part of a larger political dispute. There are no Iranian nukes just as there were no Iraqi WMDs.

To make up for the lack of evidence of any Iranian nuclear weapons program in the past, the issue is instead framed as concern about Iran's "capability" to make nukes in the indefinite future.

In reality, Iran's "capability" to make nukes is hardly unique -- 40 nations were already capable of quickly making nukes if they wanted to, back 10 years ago. More now, presumably.

http://old.seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2002041473_nukes21.html

That's because the "capability" to make nukes comes with becoming technologically developed, not because these 40 nations want to make nukes. http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/ten-reasons-iran-doesnt-want-the-bomb-7802

There is a significant difference: the capability to make nukes is not illegal but the media coverage obfuscates this significant difference. In fact the NonProliferation Treaty is actually also intended to promote nuclear technology (which has to be shared "to the fullest extent possible" and "without discrimination") -- thus having the "capability" to make nukes is not a violation of the NPT but actually an inevitable part of following the NPT.

The US National Intelligence Estimate concluded that while Iran was engaged in "nuclear-related studies" until 2003 (for which the actual evidence is very questionable - more below) there's no sign they're interested in nukes now -

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/25/world/middleeast/us-agencies-see-no-move-by-iran-to-build-a-bomb.html

a conclusion that the Israelis agreed with, http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/mossad-cia-agree-iran-has-yet-to-decide-to-build-nuclear-weapon-1.419300

The Russians noted there was no evidence of nukes either http://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/oct/10/iran.russia

There's no reason to just assume that Iran wants nukes either http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/ten-reasons-iran-doesnt-want-the-bomb-7802

There's zero evidence of any Iranian nuclear weapons program, ever.

>Despite growing international concern about Iran's nuclear program and its regional ambitions, most U.S. intelligence shared with the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency has proved inaccurate, and none has led to significant discoveries inside Iran, diplomats here said. http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Most-U-S-tips-fingering-Iran-false-envoys-2646358.php

According to IAEA Director Elbaradei:

>I have been making it very clear that with regard to these alleged studies, we have not seen any use of nuclear material, we have not received any information that Iran has manufactured any part of a nuclear weapon or component. That’s why I say, to present the Iran threat as imminent is hype. http://svaradarajan.blogspot.com/2009/10/elbaradei-interview-language-of-force.html

And

>With respect to a recent media report, the IAEA reiterates that it has no concrete proof that there is or has been a nuclear weapon programme in Iran. http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/09/17/us-nuclear-iaea-iran-sb-idUSTRE58G60W20090917

and

>The IAEA is not making any judgment at all whether Iran even had weaponisation studies before because there is a major question of authenticity of the documents. http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/article28114.ece

Even the new, US-backed IAEA Director

>The incoming head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog said on Friday he did not see any hard evidence Iran was trying to gain the ability to develop nuclear arms. "I don't see any evidence in IAEA official documents about this," Yukiya Amano told Reuters in his first direct comment on Iran's atomic program since his election, when asked whether he believed Tehran was seeking nuclear weapons capability. http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/07/03/us-nuclear-iaea-iran-exclusive-idUSL312024420090703

and lets remember that Iran has bent over backwards and has actually allowed more inspections than legally required, in addition to suspending enrichment of uranium entirely for more than 2 years in the past, and currently.

>"Any country, I think, would be rather reluctant to let international inspectors to go anywhere in a military site," Mr. Blix told Al Jazeera English about Parchin in late March. "In a way, the Iranians have been more open than most other countries would be." http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2012/0420/Iran-s-Parchin-complex-Why-are-nuclear-inspectors-so-focused-on-it


u/thelasian · 1 pointr/changemyview

CONTINUED


The significance of this is not in the details of the nuclear deal itself, but in that the US and Iran are POSSIBLY finding ways to get along rather than continuing towards a conflict.

That's why there are many forces opposed to such a deal and insist that the US and Iran should not be talking but that the US should be attacking Iran instead, including Israel and the pro-Israeli lobby in the US which has been pushing for a war for a while now.

http://www.uscatholic.org/culture/war-and-peace/2008/06/iran-spam

There are others who say that the US should not listen to the Israelis and should instead "Go to Iran" just as Nixon "went to China" and decided to open up relations with those countries rather than continue the emnity.

http://www.amazon.com/Going-Tehran-America-Islamic-Republic/dp/1250043530

So you see the nuclear issue is not really about nukes but is just a part of a larger political dispute. There are no Iranian nukes just as there were no Iraqi WMDs.

To make up for the lack of evidence of any Iranian nuclear weapons program in the past, the issue is instead framed as concern about Iran's "capability" to make nukes in the indefinite future.

In reality, Iran's "capability" to make nukes is hardly unique -- 40 nations were already capable of quickly making nukes if they wanted to, back 10 years ago. More now, presumably.

http://old.seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2002041473_nukes21.html

That's because the "capability" to make nukes comes with becoming technologically developed, not because these 40 nations want to make nukes. http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/ten-reasons-iran-doesnt-want-the-bomb-7802

There is a significant difference: the capability to make nukes is not illegal but the media coverage obfuscates this significant difference. In fact the NonProliferation Treaty is actually also intended to promote nuclear technology (which has to be shared "to the fullest extent possible" and "without discrimination") -- thus having the "capability" to make nukes is not a violation of the NPT but actually an inevitable part of following the NPT.

The US National Intelligence Estimate concluded that while Iran was engaged in "nuclear-related studies" until 2003 (for which the actual evidence is very questionable - more below) there's no sign they're interested in nukes now -

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/25/world/middleeast/us-agencies-see-no-move-by-iran-to-build-a-bomb.html

a conclusion that the Israelis agreed with, http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/mossad-cia-agree-iran-has-yet-to-decide-to-build-nuclear-weapon-1.419300

The Russians noted there was no evidence of nukes either http://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/oct/10/iran.russia

There's no reason to just assume that Iran wants nukes either http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/ten-reasons-iran-doesnt-want-the-bomb-7802

There's zero evidence of any Iranian nuclear weapons program, ever.

>Despite growing international concern about Iran's nuclear program and its regional ambitions, most U.S. intelligence shared with the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency has proved inaccurate, and none has led to significant discoveries inside Iran, diplomats here said. http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Most-U-S-tips-fingering-Iran-false-envoys-2646358.php

According to IAEA Director Elbaradei:

> I have been making it very clear that with regard to these alleged studies, we have not seen any use of nuclear material, we have not received any information that Iran has manufactured any part of a nuclear weapon or component. That’s why I say, to present the Iran threat as imminent is hype. http://svaradarajan.blogspot.com/2009/10/elbaradei-interview-language-of-force.html

And

>With respect to a recent media report, the IAEA reiterates that it has no concrete proof that there is or has been a nuclear weapon programme in Iran. http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/09/17/us-nuclear-iaea-iran-sb-idUSTRE58G60W20090917

and

>The IAEA is not making any judgment at all whether Iran even had weaponisation studies before because there is a major question of authenticity of the documents. http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/article28114.ece

Even the new, US-backed IAEA Director

>The incoming head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog said on Friday he did not see any hard evidence Iran was trying to gain the ability to develop nuclear arms. "I don't see any evidence in IAEA official documents about this," Yukiya Amano told Reuters in his first direct comment on Iran's atomic program since his election, when asked whether he believed Tehran was seeking nuclear weapons capability. http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/07/03/us-nuclear-iaea-iran-exclusive-idUSL312024420090703



and lets remember that Iran has bent over backwards and has actually allowed more inspections than legally required, in addition to suspending enrichment of uranium entirely for more than 2 years in the past, and currently.
> "Any country, I think, would be rather reluctant to let international inspectors to go anywhere in a military site," Mr. Blix told Al Jazeera English about Parchin in late March. "In a way, the Iranians have been more open than most other countries would be." http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2012/0420/Iran-s-Parchin-complex-Why-are-nuclear-inspectors-so-focused-on-it

Claims that Iran blocked legally-required inspections were denied by even the IAEA http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/05/11/us-iran-nuclear-iaea-idUSKRA15680720070511

So lets see, that's ELBaradei, Blix, and even Amano (who had secretly sworn loyalty to the US http://www.theguardian.com/world/julian-borger-global-security-blog/2010/nov/30/iaea-wikileaks) say Iran is not making nukes

And actual arms inspectors

>Iran has mastered many technologies in the uranium-handling and enrichment areas, such that if they wanted to go ahead, they probably could do it. That would make them a threshold state. We can name any number of other states in the world with the same level of technology and expertise. It's the intent that you have to worry about. We don't see intent to this case.

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=13286 And 5 European ambassadors to Iran say that too http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/jun/09/iran-nuclear-power-un-threat-peace

And actual nuclear experts http://original.antiwar.com/yousaf-butt/2014/06/18/what-is-the-quality-of-scientific-evidence-against-iran/

Oh and the actual international community also says it http://indianexpress.com/article/news-archive/web/india-with-nam-in-slamming-iaea-report-on-iran/

Nonaligned states protest Israeli attacks on IAEA http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/11/22/us-nuclear-iaea-nonaligned-idUSL2187147520071122

The US has been pushing some documents as proof that Iran supposedly engaged in nuclear-related studies (Called the "Alleged Studies" by the previous IAEA director, and "Possible Military Dimensions" by the new, US-backed IAEA director) until 2003 however the evidence -- to the extent the US has actually let anyone including the IAEA or Iran to see -- has been laughed at http://www.ips-dc.org/whipping_wisps_into_storm_clouds_iran_and_the_alleged_studies/

There have also been a variety of half-baked leaks of "proof" of a nuclear weapons program in Iran, for example the "AP Graph" http://bigstory.ap.org/article/ap-exclusive-graph-suggests-iran-working-bomb which turned out to be a hoax http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/nov/29/ap-iran-nuclear-program-graph-explanation as was the general quality of the scientific evidence against Iran http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2012/1205/Flawed-graph-weakens-case-against-Iran-nuclear-program-video

Later, the trial of a CIA whistleblower showed that the CIA may have even been planting evidence in Iran, so it could frame Iran http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-02-20/cia-s-nuclear-bomb-sting-said-to-spur-review-in-iran-arms-case This book is all about that http://www.amazon.com/Manufactured-Crisis-Untold-Story-Nuclear/dp/1935982338

In short, the previous US policy of trying to use the exaggerated threat of a non-existent Iranian nuclear weapons program as a pretext and justification for a policy of imposing regime-change in Iran, was a giant backfiring fiasco. It only led to Iran's further development of its nuclear program which now the US has to negotiate down, and also created a nationalistic backlash in Iran, where the vast majority of poeple support their governments position. http://www.rand.org/pubs/technical_reports/TR910.html http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brmiddleeastnafricara/652.php

And actually Iran had been making BETTER offers that the US ignored

>In 2005, Iran offered a deal. We rejected it, refused to talk to Iran directly, and doubled down on sanctions. Ten years later, we settled for much less than what was originally offered. http://lobelog.com/lessons-from-americas-continuing-misadventures-in-the-middle-east/