References and a comment:

For information on Iran's missile program see this on the website of the Federation or American Scientists:

Iran-North Korea-Syria Ballistic Missile and Nuclear Cooperation
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/R43480.pdf

Quote:

>>The U.S. intelligence community assesses that Iran has the largest number of ballistic missiles in the Middle East. It also notes that Iran’s ballistic missiles are inherently capable of delivering weapons of mass destruction and that Iran’s progress on space launch vehicles improves Tehran’s ability to develop longer-range missiles, including an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM)>>

Once Iran has ICBMs all NATO countries including the USA will in range of Iran's nuclear strike force.

Technically the negotiations are between the Iran and the "P5 + 1", not the US. However it was the US that was doing most of the running.

Steven,

Israel is already a nuclear state, so the 'mad mullahs' could argue that they need nuclear weapons to protect themselves from the 'Zionist entity'.

Iran has always been the main game, it's rather like Germany in the EU, too powerful in its region to be kept under American control, Persia will rise again and that's a fact that Israel and its friends in the US will just have to live with. Whether they will get the message is another question entirely, let's hope that post-Obama there's not another right wing Muslim hater in the White house and that Israel doesn't set the agenda. Sooner or later the strategists in the Pentagon are going to come to the conclusion that in the long term, continual unconditional support for Israel is pure folly, perhaps they already have.

Of course anything could happen, from all out nuclear war in the ME to a 'suitcase' bomb in the hands of some crazy jihadi.

Anybody believing that Iran can be trusted is a moron, just like Obama is a moron.

Hi mac

I thought you might respond.

You wrote:

>> so the 'mad mullahs' could argue that they need nuclear weapons to protect themselves from the 'Zionist entity'.>>

The impetus for Iran's nuclear program was actually the "Saddam Hussein entity". The Iranians were much more afraid of Saddam than the "Zionist entity".

I agree that Iran is too big to be constrained. It is, as you say, the "main game". It is emerging as something of a tech powerhouse in its own right.

My own feeling, by the way, is that the Israelis are panicking needlessly. The Iranians can be deterred with the threat of nuclear retaliation just as the Soviet Union was. The corrupt mullahs are quite happy to send young men, and even children, to their deaths but show no inclination to risk having their own sacred backsides reduced to radioactive vapour.

Some irony. China is Iran's biggest trading partner. It is also Israel's second largest single trading partner and rising fast. It looks as if China will surpass the US as Israel biggest trading partner with three years.

Israel has had remarkable success in diversifying it's trade away from Europe and North America. India is also emerging as a major market for Israeli exports.

Steven,

"The impetus for Iran's nuclear program was actually the "Saddam Hussein entity""

Yes, in fact, the US provided support to the Saddam regime during the Iraq-Iran war, I was referring to the current strategic situation. Perhaps one day we will discover why Saddam was set up over Kuwait.

"The Iranians can be deterred with the threat of nuclear retaliation just as the Soviet Union was."

Agreed, although I think that luck was a major factor in our survival during the Cold War.

I was a teenager at the time of the Cuban missile crisis and was perhaps more sanguine about the situation that I should have been at the time. According to some recent reports the world came very close to cataclysm, we can only hope.

In the stick and carrot approach many believe we should have just used a bigger stick, regardless of the unintended consequences for ordinary folk!

This overdue approach finally uses more of the till now missing carrot!

Currently the only nuclear armed nation in the middle east is Israel, and given their treatment of their near neighbors, why should they be more trusted to keep the peace than the mad mullahs?

I mean if they intend to renege, we will know and retain the option to turn the desert sands into a sea of molten glass!

I see no real reason why the Iranians would not keep to their word given their main protagonist Iraq has been effectively nullified as a threat to them!

Seriously, the only other option was a hot war and millions of lives sacrificed And who but warmongering hate filled morons would want that!?
Rhrosty.

Hi Mac

You wrote:

>>Agreed, although I think that luck was a major factor in our survival during the Cold War.>>

See my previous article:

You owe your life to Stanislav Yevgrafovich Petrov
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=14044

See also:

The World Was Never Closer To Nuclear War Than On Jan. 25, 1995
http://www.businessinsider.com.au/the-world-has-never-been-closer-to-nuclear-war-than-it-was-during-this-1995-event-2012-8

>>Boris Yeltsin was alerted, and immediately given the Cheget, the “nuclear briefcase” that connects senior officials while they decide whether or not to launch Russia’s nuclear weapons. Nuclear submarine commanders were ordered to full battle alert and told to stand by.>>

I think the most likely scenario for nuclear war is an accident involving Iran and Saudi Arabia.

Steven,

I really can't find any significant points of disagreement with your analysis of the situation.

"In some ways Australia's position is not dissimilar to Israel's."

You might be surprised--- I agree completely with that assessment, although there are significant differences. I've never put much faith in the "Great and Powerful Friend" doctrine which is a fantasy that seems to have infected most of the Australian population. In the final analysis Australia, like Israel, could find itself very much alone.

"I find it hard to believe that Australian governments have not considered the possibility of developing nukes should the alliance with the US falter while Indonesia's military power grows."

I hope so. Many years ago I read an article where the author claimed that the reason that the Menzies government allowed the British to conduct nuclear tests in Australia was because of a promise that they would transfer some nuclear weapons technology to Australia. Apparently, like so many times before, the British conned the colonials and no such transfer occurred.

"Given the proliferation of nuclear weaponry I think nuclear wars in the future are inevitable."

I wouldn't say "inevitable" but alarmingly close to 100%, one possible difference between the current situation and the Cold War period is that nuclear exchanges might be confined to particular regions, rather than global.

Some perspective-

Iran became involved in the "nuclear industry" way back during the Shah's reign when the USA convinced him that he should buy their nuclear power plants to diversify their energy dependence and the stations were built by the US and France.

As well as meeting its own domestic requirements, Iran is a major exporter of electrical power to neighbouring States and its a significant part of its economy.

Once you get to more than two nuclear power plants it becomes more economical if you refine your own fuel.

Whether that fuel is used for power generation or weapons is a matter for the agreed inspections and not the subject of propaganda and vague allegations and the process should be given a chance.

Also for the record, Israel was once an ally of Iran (because they were both non-Arab States) and they developed missile systems together.

The Kennedy Cuban Missile crisis stand-off was more a PR stunt than a real threat. The problem was actually solved diplomatically behind the scenes when the USA agreed to remove its own missile bases from Turkey. The world came much closer to nuclear war during the Reagan years during unannounced NATO exercises on the Russian border and again during a bird migration.

Sorry - that should have said Iran has Russian-built plants.

The "French Connection" was that Iran and France are joint shareholders in an enrichment facility called Eurodif, which makes enriched uranium for light water reactors.

All this is looking a lot like the pre-WMD days leading up the the invasion of Iraq - and hasn't that worked out so very nicely for the world?

Well Ive got to say this is the biggest load of propaganda based crap I've read in some time.
No insult intended.

Really - you are trying to convince us that its a great idea to bomb a nuclear facilities??

What you are suggesting is nothing short of complete madness.

Maybe you should go over to Iraq and check out all the deformed kids born after being poisoned with all the depleted uranium from the gulf wars.

All this talk of Iran's nuclear ambitions is political posturing with an agenda.

Some people say that Iran has had nuclear weapons for years but it doesn't have the delivery systems.

You make out like Iran will nuke Israel as soon as it is able to and I think this is all bs.

Israel has a stockpile of nuclear weapons.

If Iran launched a nuclear attack on Israel its almost a guaranteed certainty that Iran would be turned into glass - meaning its not in their interest to do so no matter how much they'd like to.

So stop trying to spread lies.

-And its only fair that Iran does try to get nuclear weapons, (whether its a good idea or not) since the Saudi's already have nukes on order from Pakistan and have been funding Pakistan's nuclear program.

I don't care about any sort of crap that comes out of the US or Israel on this matter.

Its just going to be biased rhetoric.

The US is the only nation to actually have used nukes on another country and both it and Israel should shut the hell up rather than try to impress us that it has some moral authority on the matter...