My issue with Iran is the two-track thing. It's heavy water or enrichment but not both.

Enrichment is legitimate to fuel light-water reactors such as the one in Bushehr. Although, as I mentioned above, it probably doesn't make any economic sense. If Iran wants to secure its fuel supply, it would be much better off by adopting a clear non-proliferation attitude and uses it to justify acquiring a big stockpile of lightly enriched uranium that would protect it from an embargo.

The heavy water reactor in Arak would also make sense if they want to develop a natural uranium track for civilian reactors (google for CANDU). But this is not what they are saying. And no, it doesn't make sense to build a new research reactor when they are not using the one they already have. Developing a sensible and useful research program is not something you pull off your ass like in "Mmmm, lemmesee, what are we going to irradiate today?"

As for Chirac, Bush, Ahmadinejad and assorted psychopaths, I play by Colman's rules of the Gnomemoot. First the facts, discussion of motivations later [thank you, Colman].

Right now, the issue I'm trying to discuss is whether or not Iran is trying to get nuclear weapons. And having looked at the available information, having run reasonable assumptions on said information, having considered the facts in the most dispassionate manner, having thought the expertise of reputable, knowledgeable and unbiased specialists, having maintained a clear-head and reasonable approach in the general assessment of the situation, my answer will be, trying to muster my best imitation of Lewis Black,

Yesssss!!! Yesssss, God damnit!!! Which part of the word "Yesssss!!!" do you fail to understand !?!?!?

[just a sec so I sponge the foaming spit which is dribbling from my mouth]

Yesssss!!! Yesssss!!! Yesssss!!!

Not that I see that as such a big problem, but that will be for another session of the Gnomemoot.