(Part 3) Top products from r/askaconservative

Just to point out, many Conservatives would disagree that Austrian Economics and Ayn Rand's Objectivism are even remotely Conservative (this is more related to the Libertarian branch of the Republican Party and is more correctly labeled "Libertarianism"). That said, I hope that you don't leave your studies with the notion that Milton Friedman and Ayn Rand necessarily represent Conservatism, because they most certainly don't (but to be fair, they are Right-Wing).

I like that Russel Kirk was on your reading list. Since you've read The Conservative Mind, I'm sure that you've read about Edmund Burke. I'd recommend Reflections on the Revolution in France. Another good book you may want to check out is The North American High Tory Tradition by Ron Dart. These works represent Traditional Conservativism, of which Russel Kirk was included.

Crunchy Cons, a.k.a. Front Porchers, are conservatives who are localist, communitarian, traditional (but not traditionalist), often agrarian, often Catholic or other liturgically-minded Christian. Authors in this vein would be Wendell Berry, Russell Kirk, Robert Nisbet, Michael Oakeshott, Matthew Crawford, Jane Jacobs, Alasdair MacIntyre, G.K. Chesterton, Rod Dreher... not all strictly conservative, but definitely influential.

You may find this book interesting.

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