Very timely, Dilo, hope the following Monbiot extracts might be interesting?

The UN Security Council has suggested to Iran that a promise from it to not go militarily nuclear would help to bring about a Middle-East free of nuclear destruction.

However none of the UN countries demanding finis’ to Iran’s possible plans for nuclear weaponry , have guaranteed the Middle East for the destruction of Israel’s 60 to 80 atomic warheads it now possesses.

Israel’s position has thus caused the UK to change its mind about its anti - nuclear proliferation promises, preferring to prepare itself with both America, and even Europe, to be ready to make preemptive strikes - next time apparently nuclear, even against non-nuclear states?

So much easily it will be for Russia and China to now press truly to try for the nuclear lead.

Monbiot also condemns the license allowed Condoleeza Rice abusing the job of the UN. Rice thus insists that India should now have access to US nuclear materials, despite the fact that India’s militarist nuclear venture is still illegal – all for the sake of a few million dollars of US export orders, as Monbiot expresses.

Certainly over the years it is political scientist s like Monbiot and Kissinger who have had the insight to purport how wrongful historical moves or halts by people in high places like the US shutting its mind to little Israel going nukisto way back, and even letting Condoleeza Rice try to manage the world rather than the UN.

Indeed, as a WW2 veteran going on 88, one trembles with thoughts of what an all-out attack on Iran might bring on- even somewhat hopeful that either Russia or China might be needed to step in and prevent it.

So sad to have to depend on historical irony for good - yet surely the blame must rest on a two-timist US foreign policy.

Finally, must suggest from a philosophical viewpoint, our OLO has sadly lost its more radical activity, letting Israel plus America abuse the original allotted true Kantian role of the the UN

Rock - scissors - paper - nukes - oil.

Hmmmm, let's see, paper beats rock, rock smashes scissors, nukes are a Golem, but nothing - nothing beats oil. Game over.

"Gotta get that oil. Gotta get that oil" (Dick Cheney to his own reflection in the bathroom mirror).

What is the problem with Iran having nuclear power?, and maybe nuclear weapons?
Is it because Iran is a Theocracy, a nation State governed by religion. Then isn't Pakistan and Israel in a similar position?

and will Russia use nuclear weapons in Georgia?

Hiro is thoroughly confused between Iran without a bomb, obviously his optimal position, and Iran with a bomb when on the one hand he states, and inexpressively hopes, that the National Intelligence Estimate finding is correct that Iran has “ceased working on a nuclear military program,” and on the other, when he believes that we could live with a nuclear Iran. But he doesn’t realize that to live with a nuclear Iran is to live with the widespread proliferation of nuclear weapons in the region, as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Syria, and Libya mount the horse of the nuclear race. This is where the catastrophe of astronomical dimensions lies and not in a pre-emptive attack on Iran.

He is also ‘fatefully ‘pessimistic about any positive results issuing by such an attack and focuses his attention, rightly so, on its dire repercussions that could lead to a conflagration of the region. In my opinion however, he underestimates the strategic nous of the planners of such an attack that would target not only the nuclear plants of Iran, but also the military, civilian and religious leadership of the country with the aim of decimating it. If the latter somehow miraculously escaped its destruction and took retaliatory action against the Americans or on any other countries of the region then such action would be calling for Iran’s nuclear destruction.

http://kotzabasis3.wordpress.com

From a historical viewpoint, reckon you are the one confused, Thermi'?

The point to ponder, is that since the end of its Persian days, Iran has never attacked another country, yet was nastily attacked by Iraq, with both US and Soviet backing.

Must say that many of us mature-age students clapped our hands when Iran won out, even though most of us did not relish being an Iranian citizen under an Islamic government.

But that is not what political science students are on about - it was and still is about global fair play.

What it has been ever since WW2, is the wish by certain nations for the Iranian spoils, sadly and viciously reborn little Israel, her illegal nuclear armoury obviously backed by Western neo-colonialists mostly after Iran's oil and strategic global positioning.

Also could recommend a few good books on the Balance of Power strategy, Thermi', which in all fairness, the Arab ME's very large majority is forced by America and little Israel to only hold the end of a big political power stick.

No wonder the Islamics would like our guts for garters, matey.

Cheers, BB - Buntine, WA.

War with Iran will not require occupation of Iran. That fact, plus the fact that the fear of Iranian nukes and the oil price spikes caused by the non-shi'ite Oil producer's to pressure the American's to act, will prompt action. The potential consequences of Israel striking Iran, will cause the Americans to act soon.

The price that will be paid, propping up Georgia (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/georgia/2534767/Georgia-Russia-targets-key-oil-pipeline-with-over-50-missiles.html), because the oil being pumped to the Mediterranean from Azerbaijan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan_pipeline) can to a large extent counteract the problems involved with shipment through the Persian Gulf. There is of course also the proposed Kirkuk-Haifa pipeline (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=332835&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y). Both of these could conceivably completely negate any pressure the Iranians could put on oil prices (similarly, so would a pipeline from Kirkuk-Eilat through Jordan). The power shift arising from such pipelines could be extremely significant, especially given the difficulties involved in targeting them (especially where they are routed through countries relying upon the revenue raised therefrom).

There is a whole lot more going on than even this Author appears to realise. The global oil-power shift is happening now, the importance of the Persian Gulf oil will decrease in proportion to its affect on global supply. As supply is routed from elsewhere to ports in the Mediterranean, the willingness of the United States to be held to ransom by Iran will decrease exponentially. As a nuclear Iran would threaten even these new oil supply ports, it will not be allowed to realise it's nuclear ambitions. It really is as simple as that.

As to Iran being a theocracy and that placing it in the same boat as Israel/Pakistan, that is a nonsense argument based upon a misleading reading of the term 'theocracy'(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theocracy). Iran is a country where the presidency exists solely at the whim of the mullahs (ie. the clergy), Pakistan is a country where elections are held solely at the whim of the military, whereas Israel is a representative/responsible democracy, very similar to our own, where the elected representatives are responsible solely to the electorate.