The idea that he was kidnapped by the CIA and then allowed to post on utube and later walk out is absolutely absurd – not even the CIA would be that dumb.

I think that Obama is continuing the same foreign policy as Bush, that he too wants “a New Middle East” and that Iran is next on the list. People often accuses the Israelian lobby for the hawking attitude of the US in ME. Personnally I think that the true reason is the geostrategical importance of this oil rich ressource region. With peakoil nearing and the growing needs of oil by huge and fast developping countries like China and India, the US wants to make sure that it can keep its easy access to oil unhindered.
If even Obama stands behind the worst misdeeds of Israel against thePalestinians, it is not because of the powerfull lobby of Israel, it is because Israel is the only place where they have secure ally they have in ME. The only place where they can be sure to have access.

On what basis is this more implausible? This theory makes more sense than defecting without his family or taking the reward money, then saying he was kidnapped and leaving. You act like the US does not practice extraordinary rendition.

“A second-tier country is in little danger of invasion or occupation on the part of the Great Powers in the 21st century if it only has conventional weapons. ”
21st century: What about Yemen? Somalia? Haiti? Why ignore the 20st century? See link.

link to academic.evergreen.edu

“where those rogue states appear to go for broke in constructing a nuclear weapon, they become vulnerable to direct military intervention by one of the Great Powers. The major case here is Iraq. ”
This make no sense, as you completely ignore that Iraq was an ally when they were constructing their nuclear program and that we assisted them (along with many other countries) in developing it. Iraq only became a “rogue state” after the invasion of Kuwait (which many believe, due to April Glapsie’s comments, was a set-up. Read: link to chss.montclair.edu

“Fully nuclear-armed second-tier powers are also safe from invasion and occupation, since they already have a nuclear weapon. Israel, Pakistan, India and North Korea fall in this category.”
This contradicts your previous argument, because when they were “rogue states appearing to go for broke in constructing a nuclear weapon”, nothing happened. In fact, in the case of India, they were eventually rewarded: link to en.wikipedia.org
And for Israel,well…

Israel was rewarded with full nuclear cooperation,
“Israel’s Army Radio reported on Wednesday that the United States has sent Israel a secret document committing to nuclear cooperation between the two countries.”
link to campaigniran.org

As for Pakistan, didn’t we invade and bomb them after they got their nuke?
link to thenation.com
link to wired.com
link to commondreams.org

And it would make no sense to say that it’s not war/occupation in Pakistan because we have the support of their government, unless you apply the same logic to Afghanistan and Iraq. Which would be absurd.

“And what if the Iranians fail to scare the US but rather spook the Obama administration into confrontation?”
Read Obama’s speech to AIPAC about Iran (link to npr.org
He has already threatened them, just like Bush, and has been doing so for years. It is highly propagandist to even suggest that the US could be “spooked” (an ironic word) by Iran. They are no threat to our safety. We only threaten their safety. What are we expecting? Iranian “Red Dawn”?

“So he lied about his country’s having destroyed most WMD by that point”
But Saddam did not lie to the UN or UNSCOM or ISG. That’s crucial.
“He would say he had no WMDs to some and say that he did to others.”
The “others” being his regional enemies.
Right before the invasion, Iraq delivered its declaration on weapons of mass destruction programs to the U.N. on Dec. 8. Made up of almost 11,800 pages,

“Although the report was prepared for the United Nations, U.S.
officials intercepted the report, edited out 8,000 pages
(link to sundayherald.com
(over two thirds) of it, and
delivered its Reader’s Digest version of the report to the UN.

It was dismissed out-of-hand as lies, without objection from yet hindsight proves it was accurate.

A German reporter managed to obtain a copy of the original report from
Iraq, and then compared it with the truncated copy
(link to truthout.org
the U.S. gave
to the UN. He found that the missing parts covered the Iraqis’
acquisition of chemical and biological weapons from the U.S., the
delivery of non-fissionable materials for a nuclear bomb by the U.S.
to the Iraqis, and the training of Iraqi nuclear scientists at U.S.
nuclear facilities in Los Alamos, Sandia, and Berkeley.

UN weapons inspector Hans Blix said the conclusions stated in the
report were basically true — that Iraq no longer had dangerous weapons.

Scott Ritter said, “One of the tragic ironies of the decision to invade Iraq is that
the Iraqi WMD declaration required by security council resolution
1441, submitted by Iraq in December 2002, and summarily rejected by
Bush and Blair as repackaged falsehoods, now stands as the most
accurate compilation of data yet assembled regarding Iraq’s WMD
programs (more so than even Duelfer’s ISG report, which contains much
unsubstantiated speculation).”

Where were the objections from the ISG at this time?

Let’s also not forget that Charles A. Duelfer was chosen by Tenet and was a dual employee of the ISG and CIA. The ISG’s mission was never objective or independent, though they did want a CIA-based assessment of Iraq’s WMD’s due to the turf-war with with Cheney’s OSP. They just couldn’t interfere with the war itself. Because the war was going to happen, the inspections were irrelevant. Right after the invasion, David Kay had just quit, saying “”I think there were stockpiles at the end of the first Gulf War and a combination of U.N. inspectors and unilateral Iraqi action got rid of them.” Rather than actually use this conclusion, the charade of inspections was allowed to continue. What choice did they have since we’d just occupied Iraq. It was just PR, “we haven’t found WMD’s but we’re still looking”. Charles A. Duelfer continued the mock exercise in weapons inspections just long enough to say that David Kay was indeed correct. By then, it was 2005. The war was raging. Charles A. Duelfer left to become the Special Advisor to the CEO of Omnis Inc. and therefore a war profiteer.

Here’s an example of how un-neutral the ISG was,
“In late 2004 the ISG and the MCTs (mobile collection teams) undertook some counterinsurgency operations, although many details remain classified. There were other missions and organizations operating within the ISG which are Top Secret and are unlikely to be declassified anytime soon.”

Now, Charles A. Duelfer is working his magic on Iran.

“Mr. DUELFER: Well, Neal, this is a problem. There’s a long track record with respect to Iran of lying, where they have been concealing things. And I would point to a similarity with Iraq in this case, where for many years the Iraqis were lying to the weapons inspectors, and it got the point where even when they were telling the truth, no one was prepared to believe them. And if Iran continues down the path that it has been on for the last almost two decades, the same situation could arise, and it really becomes a tough problem to know the truth.
CONAN: And does the suggestion that IAEA – International Atomic Energy Agency -U.N. inspectors visit this newly revealed facility near Qom – does that give you confidence?
Mr. DUELFER: Well, it doesn’t give me a lot of confidence that we’re going to get to the bottom of the Iranian program just by allowing the inspectors into this site. ”

It always amazes me how he manages to make a country look so threatening while saying “well, we’re really not sure”.

link to npr.org

so. Iran is next. with Israeli pushing for the OK, i doubt only the time table involved. that is the only thing left unspoken.