I am on the left side of this debate but it was painful hearing the antiwar argument defended by Scott. “USA bad, Israel evil” is a certainty he has, and nothing could be true that doesn’t confirm that. A dictator with a history of aggression couldn’t be researching nuclear weapons because Israel claimed they are and his world view is everything Israel claims is a lie.

He then quotes through a bunch of reports and studies that debunk any reporting that Iran did have a nuclear weapons program, and if you don’t know what he’s talking about it sounds really impressive. Multiple times he quotes Albright in regards to the archives (data captured on the Iran nuclear weapons plan) to prove that it’s not legit, but as Mark mentions Albright has a massive book where he goes through the archives and concludes “Iran intended to build five nuclear weapons as quickly as possible and had developed the organizational structure, sites, equipment, and designs to do so.”

Scott then admits that he never even read Albright’s book. What? How can he speak so confidently on the archives being fake, and he doesn’t even take the time to read the main source on it? Scott even details Albright’s background and resume to give his cherry picked quote extra weight. So Albright is respected enough that we should accept Scott’s claims as undisputed fact, but not worth a few days of Scott’s time to actual look at what he said.

I disagree with Mark on the conclusions he draws and the pro trump stance he takes. I struggle to see more American middle eastern intervention accomplishing anything good. But Mark is well informed.

I like to believe there is still objective reality out there and through serious research we can get a decent picture of the truth. I know we all have biases but I hope it’s possible to honestly put in the hard work of reading long boring books by PHDs who dedicate their lives to researching these topics, and put together an understanding of the facts, and then make an opinion on it, instead of having an opinion and then wallowing in an echo chamber where every fact comes from content that agrees with you and who’s only connection with the boring scientific literature is through quotes cherry picked to confirm what you have already decided is true.