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?