The biggest threat to world peace is Israel followed by the USA and Europe.

The reason why they want to control Iran is that is has lots of oil and is one of the last few countries that have an independent banking system free of the BIS.ie Banking of International Settlements

China also has a Govt owned central banks and lots of State owned ones. The Rothschild Banking Empire want to control the planet.

A lot of unsubstantiated claims in this article and an awful lot of hypocrisy. Never fails to amaze me how completely different standards of behaviour are demanded of Iran compared to the behaviour displayed by those making the demands. Is the US, UK, or any of the other P5 members destroying or reducing their own nuclear weapon stockpiles? Somehow Iran supporting an ally in a neighbouring country (Syria) is a "rogue state" activity, while no mention is made of US support for opposition rebels doesn't even rate a mention.
If anyone in the middle east needs nuclear weapons to protect itself, its the Iranians. They face constant threats of attack from the Israelis and the US. I can't help feeling the whole region would be a lot safer if Iran had the bomb, after which such threats would cease.

An insightful comment on the Iranian strategy and the West's current impotence. Another thoughtful response by one of the best journalists in the UK is here:
https://www.embooks.com/blog/single/game-on-why-iran-goads-the-gullible-west

David Long,

Yep, sets it out very well.

And I'm sure the Saudis can do the same calculation. Wonder what their reaction will be. On the one hand they have their links with Pakistan which could get them all the technical expertise they need. But does it extend to actually purchasing devices?

On the other hand they do not have Iran's depth of scientific manpower.

It does however look as if we're going to see, or maybe already are seeing, a nuclear arms race between two Muslim theocracies.

An added complication is the inherent instability of the Saudi regime

An article that could have been written any time in the last ten years - nothing new here.

The author adopts the tone of a shockjock journalist rather than a scholar - hence "nightmare scenario". Odd how US-Israeli academics are so hawkish.

No mention of Israel's thermonuclear deterrent that would deter, hence nullify, any Iranian moves to utilise 6 or 7 crude uranium fission bombs.

No mention in the article of Saudi Arabia (because its America's friend?) which may be a greater concern to Iran than Israel.

Pete

People who only think about a subject after someone has gone to the trouble of telling them all about it should be careful about rushing into print. Ayatollah Khomeini was reported as saying that it would take only one nuclear bomb to destroy Israel but Islam would suffer only some damage from Israel's retaliation. Then, to top it off, all the Shia fanatics are rewarded by going straight to Paradise.
So, mutual assured destruction does not sound like an effective deterrent to me.
And remember, Shia Islam believe that the real or Shia Caliph will not return until after the event of fire - which to a fanatic Shia supporter might sound like a nuclear explosion.
Best not to let the Persians get the bomb - just in case they have some people in charge who are fanatics and don't think before they act.

There's no evidence that religious feeling would override fears of nuclear retaliation.

There's only volumes of unrealised, unproven, immediate post 9/11, alarmism about nuclear terrorism from the same US-Israeli hawk group as the author.

Pakistan is a very Muslim country that has had the bomb since at least 1998 when it conducted several test explosions.

No-one is saying that religious nutters in Pakistan's nuclear forces are going to disregard India's nuclear deterrent.

The fact that Iran is dominated by a different strand of Islam doesn't change the validity of MAD. MAD has been in play since Russia tested a bomb in 1949.

Rhys Jones and Pete P. Agree with what you both say. It has never been clear to me (and this article doesn't add to the enlightenment) as to why Iran's possession of nuclear weapons is so potentially dangerous, yet the terrorist financing Saudis, militant (nuclear armed) Pakistanis or the immensely dangerous Israelis do not constitute a threat.

I suspect that US antagonism to Iran has little to do with their alleged nuclear program. Rather, it lies in their joint history. The US overthrew a democratic and nationalist Iranian government in 1953 (which they only publicly acknowledged what everyone knew in 2013) and replaced it with an autocratic (but pro-American dictatorship) which survived until 1979. The theocratic regime that came in then may not be very pleasant but it puts Iranian interests first and will not kow tow to the Americans. That of course is an unforgivable sin. Cubans will tell you a similar story.

Iran does not have nuclear weapons, but Israel has between 200 and 400. Iran has signed the NPT, but Israel has not. Iran has not invaded another country for hundreds of years but Israel attacks, occupies and threatens others on a regular basis. But who suffers the sanctions?

The Australian government applies sanctions to Iran for which there is no logical justification. The appalling Bishop cannot even muster a logical argument for her government's policies. She could actually learn something from the 3000 plus years of Persian culture were she not so blinded by her obeisance to the Americans/Israelis.

This article is so intent on pushing the US line that it does not even begin to consider the huge hypocrisy that underlines the whole "debate".

Further to the appalling Bishop. she was interviewed by the Times of Israel (where she was attending Sharon's funeral) and was asked whether she agreed or disagreed with the near universal view that Israeli settlements beyond the 1967 lines were illegal. She replied: "I would like to see which international law has declared them illegal".

Well Julie, the UN Security council, the European Union and many other states and international bodies rely on Article 49 paragraph 6 of the Fourth Geneva Convention (to which Israel is a signatory).

That paragraph states that an occupying power "shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies". Violations of the Convention are considered war crimes.

This appalling ignorance is also reflected in Australia's changed voting pattern in the UN after the Abbott government came to power. In November 2013 Australia was one of eight countries to abstain (160 voted in favour) on a resolution condemning Israeli settlement activity in the occupied territories. In December 2013 Australia was one of 13 countries that did not vote in favour of a resolution requiring Israel to "comply scrupulously" with the Geneva Convention (169 countries voted in favour).

Australians ought properly to be concerned about what is being said and done in our name.

Hi James,

Couldn't help noticing that you seemed to exempt Iran from your list of "terrorist financing" , "militant" or "immensely dangerous" states?

<< It has never been clear to me ...as to why Iran's possession of nuclear weapons is so potentially dangerous, yet the terrorist financing Saudis, militant (nuclear armed) Pakistanis or the immensely dangerous Israelis do not constitute a threat.>>

You must have missed these choice bits of news:
1)"An Iranian man who blew off his own legs was sentenced to life in prison by a Thai court on Thursday for his involvement in a botched bomb plot that rocked Bangkok last year...
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/22/us-thailand-iran-bomb-idUSBRE97L06Z20130822

2)" Azhar al-Dulaimi, had been trained by the Middle East’s masters of the dark arts of paramilitary operations: the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps in Iran and Hezbollah, its Lebanese ally.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/23/world/middleeast/23iran.html?_r=0

You can tell those whose opinions are unreasoned and spontaneous by the crude dismissives they use in order to perpetuate their own argumen. Words such as "There's no evidence that religious feeling .." despite the easily researched words of the nation's leader to the contrary; even though the principle doctrine of Shia religion says the contrary. Then, having quoted the example of Pakistan as a reason why Iran will not risk MAD, without mention that one is a military dictatorship, the other a divinely appointed theocracy (a chopped logic if ever there was one) who dismisses the religious difference as if the Shias who wait for the Caliph to emerge from the fires of destruction while the Sunnis believe the Caliph is already present; then has the hide to say that as MAD determined Russian (a Christian nation) actions, so it will determnine Iran's.
What else needs to be said?

To David Long

I think you are giving the corrupt mullahs too much credit. They are happy to send gullible and vulnerable young men and women to their deaths but I doubt they are willing to risk their own sacred backsides.

Ali Khamenei may rejoice in the title "supreme leader" but he's more Tony Soprano than a leader of a country.

There's an interesting piece in New Scientist: The Martyr Myth

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21929240.200-martyr-myth-inside-the-minds-of-suicide-bombers.html?full=true#.UtfanfQW2Sp

It turns out that, contrary to the received wisdom, almost all suicide bombers are suicidal in the conventional sense of the word. They're often depressed, many have attempted suicide before and some have been on anti-depressants. The picture that emerges is not one of brave martyrs but rather of vulnerable mostly young men being exploited and manipulated by evil men using religion.

But the people who are running the brothels in Tehran (I kid you not. They issue "temporary marriage licences" to make the transaction "kosher") do not seem suicidal.

Further, while the destruction of Iran would not mean the end of Islam it would mean the end of Shia Islam. And make no mistake, that one bomb on Israel would mean the end of Iran. There literally would not be enough people to bury the dead. We are talking tens of millions of deaths within a few hours.

What would a few air bursts over Tehran do?

Hi Steven

Guess who started Iran's nuclear program?

The US

In 1967, the Tehran Nuclear Research Center (TNRC) was established, run by the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI). The TNRC was equipped with a U.S.-supplied, 5-megawatt nuclear research reactor, which was fueled by highly enriched uranium (HEU)

US President Ford signed a directive in 1976 offering Tehran the chance to buy and operate a U.S.-built reprocessing facility for extracting plutonium from nuclear reactor fuel. The deal was for a complete 'nuclear fuel cycle'.

It was OK then for the US to supply dual-use HEU to Iran. And the US offered reprocessing facilities. Both are desirable building blocks for a nuclear weapons program.

Now Iran is banned from even contemplating HEU and reprocessing.

Cheers

Pete

Yeah Pete, I knew that bit of history.

FYI the US also got my native South Africa started on the nuclear path. In those days there was a degree of nuclear cooperation between SA and Iran.

South Africa then got to the point of actually assembling six devices in the late 1980s early 1990s. They agreed to dismantle their nuclear program and accede to the NPT with a rigorous inspection program before handing power to the ANC. The latter were practically foaming at the mouth. They thought there were going to take over a nuclear armed state.

It was never going to happen. George Bush Snr made it clear that the US would bomb SA's nuclear installations. No way were they going to allow Muammur Gadaffi's good buddy, Nelson Mandela, get his hands on nukes.

Iran's drive to acquire nuclear weapons seems to have been triggered largely by fear of Saddam Hussein in the early 1980s. The fact that nuclear armed Sunni Pakistan, a friend of Saudi Arabia, was a neighbour may also have played a role.

While history is interesting we always have to deal with the present.

If Iran achieves near break-out status what do you anticipate the Saudis will do?

Hi Steven

Iran is at or near breakout status - with the three components being:

- substantial stocks of semi enriched uranium, which could become bomb grade (90+%) HEU within a couple of months using Iran's thousands of centrifuges and possible hidden laser enrichment capability.

- the delivery means in the form of Sejjil and Shahab IRBMs, and

- enough nuclear device plans and components acquired from Pakistan's A Q Khan network to have constructed crude fission devices (minus the HEU and/or Plutonium explosive) around 8 years ago.

see http://www.nti.org/country-profiles/iran/nuclear/

The Saudi's using their own info and that shared by Israel and the US, would be very aware of Iran's nuclear status. If Iran moved from breakout to fully assembled warheads on missiles the Saudis would probably rely on the US and Israel to strike Iran.

Meanwhile the Saudis might complete there own nuclear capability mainly by purchase in cash and oil from Pakistan, China more quietly from the US and perhaps even from Israel. see http://www.nti.org/country-profiles/saudi-arabia/

By 2010 the Iranians are likely to have conducted and maybe finished nuclear explosion simulations using a supercomputer at Isfahan - judging by the pattern of visitor activity to my website from the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI). The AEOI left no comments (but the right IP numbers) and eventually tried to disguise its identity :)

Pete

Steven and Pete. An interesting discussion, but it has yet to address the questions I posed in my earlier comment, especially at the 2nd and 3rd to last paragraphs.

I also puzzle over why Iran would wish to commit national suicide by attacking anyone in the region with its as yet unfinished nuclear arsenal. It would surely invite massive retaliation from both Israel and the US if Israel was the target.

On the basis of multiple public statements from Israeli politicians it is Israel that is more likely to attack Iran. They (Israel) also have an extensive track record in this area accumulated over the past 66 years.

If I was the Iranian President I would note that it is those who are best able to retaliate that are not attacked and therefore the possession of nuclear weapons would be a deterrent in the same way the Americans have been frustrated in their manifest desire to attack the then Soviet Union. Thankfully the mad men have been kept in check.

In his June 1963 speech to the American University Commencement Kennedy pointed out the inevitable result of unchecked nuclear ambition. It was one of reasons he was killed. But his point was valid: we will all end up annihilated unless we take meaningful steps to nuclear disarmament.

Rogue states like Israel have to be brought under control. Hence my earlier question: why sanction Iran and not Israel? I would welcome your thoughts on this particular hypocrisy.

Hi James

You probably know more than I about international morality and law. So I'll leave your "I vill ask zee questions" call unresponded to. No offence.

Hi Steven

Further to my last Iranian and Saudi nuclear capabilities comment you might want to check out http://gentleseas.blogspot.com.au/2014/01/iranian-nuclear-program-iranian.html which I might turn into an OLO article sometime.

Cheers

Pete

James

I'll take the "plantagenet option" on your question. Once you call Israel a rogue state I see no point in debating with you.

Pete

I look forward to seeing your article.

Does Israel possess nuclear weapons? If so, what are the ethical or strategic arguments against the Iranians developing nuclear weapons to protect themselves from Israel?

Hi mac

Not officially, but Dimona was built for a reason and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mordechai_Vanunu was put away for a reason.

Best to read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_nuclear_program and wikipedia's "Israeli nuclear program".

Pete

plantagenent,

Interesting, apparently the trick for any nation to build nuclear weapons with impunity is, to deny everything, and of course, be America's pet.

mac wrote:

>>Interesting, apparently the trick for any nation to build nuclear weapons with impunity is, to deny everything, and of course, be America's pet.>>

That can help although both India and Pakistan made no secret of their nuclear programs. Nor can it be said either country is an American "pet." Neither country had to endure much in the way of punishment and India and the US have now signed a nuclear cooperation treaty.

Taiwan kept its program secret but the US discovered it and stopped them - so far as we know.

North Korea apparently claimed to have nukes before it had even succeeded in assembling one that actually went bang. Definitely not an American pet. Nothing America has done to that unhappy country remotely matches what the Kim dynasty has done.

See also my previous post about South Africa's nuclear program.

So apparently a number of countries have acquired nukes who were neither secretive nor "pets" nor did they suffer much in doing it.

stevenmeyer,

The reference was to small countries, which I thought was implicit, so let's compare apples with apples.

(1) "Taiwan kept its program secret but the US discovered it and stopped them - so far as we know." Obviously not "family" like Israel.

(2) North Korea is a Chinese 'pet", God knows why, however it is.

(3) India is far too powerful for even America to intimidate and if India has the bomb, Pakistan must have nuclear weapons.

(4) What role did Israel play in the development of apartheid South Africa'd nukes? Obviously SA wasn't anyone's favourite.

So, we're back to one of those special cases, Israel, like North Korea, has a powerful patron

mac wrote:

>>The reference was to small countries, which I thought was implicit, >>

Well mac, in fairness you did say "any nation", an explicit statement.

I don't think the Chinese are too happy about North Korea's bomb. In fact I think they regard the whole North Korea thing as a great embarrassment but don't know what to do about it. The Chinese leadership may be ruthless and in no small measure corrupt but unlike Kim Jong Un they're not clinically insane.

Seriously though, A lot of countries seem to think about the nuclear ace in the hole. The only way the new reactor at Lucas Heights makes sense is to keep in being a corp of scientists able to kick start a weapons program should the need arise.

Switzerland had a low level nuclear weapons program from 1946. They dropped it in 1988 when it became obvious the Soviet Union was a spent force.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Switzerland

Japan is a nuclear armed state in all but name but it's not a small country.

The fact is that nukes are, as Charles de Gaulle understood, the great equaliser.

stevenmeyer,

I've often wondered if our only reactor was 'insurance'.

mac:

"Insurance" is the only reason that makes sense.

I've also wondered whether Germany's willingness to supply Israel with Dolphin class submarines capable of carrying nuclear tipped cruise missiles at a subsidised price may be a bit of insurance on their part. Even now for Germany to be seen researching a nuclear strike capability would be a political impossibility. But doubtless the Israelis would be willing to share their expertise. The price for their cooperation may be reflected in the subsidy on the submarine deal.

When it comes to nukes Israel MAY be to Germany what Pakistan is to Saudi Arabia.

This is speculation on my part. However I do know that the Germans cooperated with South Africa on missile technology in the 1960s.

Some mighty interesting points stevenlmeyer and mac

Particularly on:

- Lucas Heights (ANSTO) seed for breakout insurance, and

- on German national interest Dolphin discounts.

Pete

Pete,

Just to be clear.

Both the Lucas Heights reactor and German submarines at a discount are pure speculation on my part. I have zero inside information on either of them.