The problem here is what the US and other Nuke owning countries are saying is we going to keep our nuke but we don't want you to have any. The fact that the middle east already has nukes in it means that Iran at the very lest would like to a nuke deterrent. While the Israelis are not in the NNPT but is thought to have almost as many nukes as Britain. Also given that both Israel and the US has demonstrated there willingness to engage in illegal unilateral military actions and country that feels it may be a target of such action will take steps to defend itself. Ask yourself why should countries that have got nukes use the NNPT to stop other countries from getting them, while maintaining their own stock pile and developing new ones.

Regardless of the perceived injustice of the nuclear club trying to keep others from joining, it is a threat to world peace if a potential rogue country such as Iran obtains nuclear weapons. There is a high risk that Iran would use the weapons for attack, not just defence.

What the UN or any other countries could do about it though is a problem. A military solution appears unlikely and highly inadvisable. The US is in no shape to invade Iran anytime soon, it would be a much more protracted and bloody campaign than Iraq and with no guarantee of victory. The situation is further evidence of just how much the US has squandered its ability to act to shore up international security through its military and fiscal over-commitment as a result of its foolish Iraq adventure. Israel may try another pre-emptive air strike on any nuclear facilities that Iran is building, like they did in about 1980, but it is unlikely that it would be such a success as Iran would be expected to be prepared for such an attack in future.

UN sanctions against Iran? The success rate of sanctions is not high. Iran could probably survive sanctions on a combination of self-sufficiency and sanction-avoidance from Russia and other neighbours.

Probably, nuclear non-proliferation will only work if the nuclear club would be prepared to disarm. How likely is that?

Rob suggests that a nuclear-armed Iran would augur fear. Rob might reflect on the fact that Iran is an Islamic theocracy and the muslims who post on OLO inculcate the message that Islam is a religion of peace. We are reminded that a mere handful of nutters have hijacked Islam.

I'm sure that as this topic is being debated The Islamic-Universal Peace Movement will be sending envoys to Iran to placate the leadership of that country. And I bet that the 'handful' of nutters in Iran will be rounded up and re-educated.

I am totally opposed to nuclear weapons and would welcome total disarmament. However, given the number of countries that already have nuclear weapons would one more really pose such a threat to world peace? Why is it OK for Israel to be nuclear but it would be wrong for Iran?

Realistically any country, including Iran, knows that it if it uses nuclear weapons against another country, regardless of the circumstances, it would result in utter destruction of the initiator.
Russia and the USA avoided nuclear war against each other because of awareness of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD).
Are there not benefits in Iran having a nuclear weapons program, if indeed that is the path they want to go down, which the rest of the world knows about, rather than a clandestine operation such as in Israel.

Of course, Iran leaders have indicated their intention to nuke israel. Obviously they must be the few radicals who have highjacked islam.

1.Iran says it wants nuclear energy only to produce electricity.True.

2.The west including the EU have held talks over this issue for over 3 years.True.

3.Russia has negotiated to supply Iran with enriched uranium to run the Iranian reactors to produce electricity.True.

4.Russia supplying the enriched uranium can then monitor the spent fuel from the reators use to verify that none would be used towards weapons manufacturing.(What Russia supplies in enriched is then returned as spent in equal volumes)

5.The West and EU would be happy with this outcome.

6.But Iran doesn't want the Russian deal.It want's to enrich it's own supplies of uranium and therefore a possibility is some uranium could go towards making weapons.

7.Why does the West and EU and Russia want to negotiate a deal of openess and accountability and permit the peaceful production of electricity through nuclear power as Iran wants?

8.Why does Iran break open the seals that were negotiated shut until a peacful and negotiated outcome was reached?

9.Why does Iran want to enrich uranium on their own terms just to produce electricity? What is so wrong with the Russian,EU,US offer?

10.The US has stayed out of this muddle to permit the EU and Iran to come up with a negotiated settlement.After all,the Europeans were none too happy,rightly so, with the events that led to the Iraq war
and so the US has granted leeway.

11.Referral to the UN is good.Sanctions are not.A UN vote to knock out the research centers militarily unless the UN seals are replaced immediatly and the Iranians accept the Russian offer would be my choice of action.
No sabre rattling,no massive military biuld ups or invasions.A clean sharp clinical hit would send the message to all that yes,we will negotiate,and yes you can have what you want,but you can't have it all your way.