Here's another HuffPo attempt to "reframe" Iran as the victim of BushCo's aggression: Bill Scher: Reframing The Iran Debate. This one, at least, presents some supporting evidence, but ultimately I didn't find it very compelling.

1. Iran presently has a strong, rational incentive to get nukes. Bush is planting permanent military bases on Iran's doorstep in Iraq, and trying to proliferate nukes to nearby India. Iran's feeling the heat, and desperately wants to pull a North Korea: get a nuke to keep the neocons at bay.

According to this history of Iran's nuclear program (which, by the way, takes a very anti-U.S. stance), Iran announced its nuclear enrichment program on February 9, 2003. One would have to presume that it had been under construction for some time before that (apparently Iran obtained and experimented with plutonium in the 1970s -- plutonium is only used in building nuclear weapons). All these events occurred before the U.S. invaded Iraq and before the U.S. dealt with India, so it seems unlikely that an imminent threat from the U.S. is the cause for Iran suddenly wanting nukes now.

(I would also like to point out here that Scher cited on article from his own blog LiberalOasis.com as source material.)

2. Iran has acted rationally and can be reasoned with. According to former Bush aide Flynt Leverett, in 2003 the Iranian government offered Bush "a detailed proposal for comprehensive negotiations to resolve bilateral differences ... about its weapons programs and support for anti-Israeli terrorist organizations."

Yes, Bush rejected the proposal. Scher did not mention that the U.S. also rejected many requests from Iran in the 1980s when it asked for help from U.S. companies in building its nuclear program.

Why wouldn't we deal with Iran, you ask? Let's flash back to November 4, 1979. 500 Iranian students stormed the U.S. embassy in Iran, taking 52 American citizens hostage (men and women) for 444 days. Since an embassy is considered part of the sovereign territory of the nation it represents, that's basically an act of war against the United States. And yes, the new post-Revolution Iranian government could have stopped it and in fact but instead encouraged it. (Later, international court proceedings declared Iran should be held accountable.)

Has Iran ever apologized for that? Offered concessions? Not that I know of. A "reasonable" government, sincerely interested in talks, would have done so. So, the political situation stands at: Iran willfully attacked the U.S., and the U.S. responded with sanctions. The ball remains in Iran's court.

(By the way, unconfirmed rumor has it that President Ahmadinejad was one of the hostage-takers in 1980 1979.)

Scher's points 3 and 4 ("we have plenty of time" and "Bush isn't credible") are easy: Scher's own sources say 5 to 10 years, 2020 at the latest. That may be plenty of time for some, but it sounds pretty close to me. As for Bush's credibility, yeah it's a little shaky, but I see news bits all the time quietly citing new ways that Bush's Iraqi threat assessment wasn't so far off after all -- and besides, this isn't about Bush, it's about Iran.

5. The way to stop Iran, without causing more death, destruction and instability, is to remove the incentives for Iran to go nuclear, and negotiate. The only way that will happen is if we change leaders in the White House, junk the India deal, dismantle the permanent bases, and clearly renounce neocon foreign policy aims.

Why not call it what it is? Scher is talking about appeasement.

UPDATE: Pardon my earlier mistakes in history and grammar.