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.

Wonderful opening! The UN’s theme for Environment Day could also have been exploited because the UN is certainly a desert when it comes thought and action. The plug should have been pulled on this ineffectual, but still interfering, organization years ago. Better still, our own hard left and totally misguided contributor to its inception, Doctor Evatt, should have had the plug pulled on him, and we could have stayed out of it.

An excellent, hard hitting article saying what must be said, but rarely is, about two failed institutions – the UN and the EU - and about the greatest threat to world peace, Iran.

Rossco,

I would like to return the complement to you by saying that your question: “Are their not benefits to Iran having a nuclear weapons program…” is the nuttiest thing I have seen on this forum for a long time.

Bravura cognitive "performance"! Robert should get a standing ovation for his in-depth article exposing both the political ineptness of the old Europeans and their malevolence against the US, as well as the "feckless" and politically feeble and corrupt UN, which by being a Tower of Babel and speaking in the separate interests of so many, misses to speak for the interests of all. That is, to prevent by all means the fanatic Islamic state of Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, with the possibility that the latter "surreptitiously" could fall into the hands of the terrorists, which would pose a grave threat to Western civilization.

Go to my blog for more: http://congeorgekotzabasis.blogspot.com

THE TRUTH ABOUT THE UNITED NATIONS: http://www.propagandamatrix.com/archiveun.html

I don't think we can expect the UN to do anything. It seems to be just an approval process. Countries feel validated going to war if the UN says ok. They feel no guilt when they don't act because the UN said not to.

The UN does much better in the area of health and humanatarian, though not a great job, a better job so very valuable organisation is some areas. Better than nothing. For sure.

But the war/peace thing..well Srebenica, Congo speak for themselves. It takes a particular interest from a major power for the UN to act. If not enough interest then who cares? Who is to blame?

Iran seems to be provoking an attack. Why? I don't know. if they wait a few years I am sure the younger generation of Iran are better equiped than any other nations to change the course of Irans future. Maybe we just need a delaying tactic as the younger ones do seem more progressive than their rulers.

“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.”

I’m sure many Jews are grateful Israel took unilateral action in the 80s to wipe out Iraq’s potential to make nuclear weapons, just like those who are sane would be grateful if Iran was never allowed to have the potential to make nukes.

“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.”

So your argument is that, if the West has nuclear weapons- to hell with it, everyone should have them?

Blackbob- good points, but we shouldn’t hold our collective breath for the UN to do anything, that place is a collection of the least democratic nations using an international democratic forum to their advantage.

Analysis by Elizabeth Kendal.

"Iran's Revolutionary Guards and Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS), two groups whose names are synonymous with Iranian repression and terror, are making a comeback under President Ahmadinejad.

As noted in the WEA RLC News & Analysis report entitled "The Islamic Revolution is now complete" (29 August 2005), "Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has flooded the Majlis (parliament) with former Revolutionary Guards while Ayatollah Khamenei has made key changes in security structures and strategies to entrench the Revolutionary Guards' hegemony over all law enforcement agencies."
Now Iran's MPs are purging their domains of Khatami-era officials and replacing them with heavy-handed hardliners, including many former senior secret police from the Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS) who were complicit in the serial murders of dissidents and intellectuals that took place in the late 1980s and throughout the 1990s.

President Khatami's sensitivity to international relations led to these murderers being removed from positions of public authority, but now under President Ahmadinejad they are making a comeback. For this regime, a proved track record in brutality, assassination and inflexible hard-line Islamic ideology makes an ideal prerequisite for a government job. In fact, having hands that are stained with the blood of Christian martyrs appears to be a perfect prerequisite for a senior position in the Ministry of Interior..............."
At http://www.worldevangelical.org/news/view.htm?id=275

Iran with nuclear weapons,this must be a nightmare even for us lefty's who from some of the posts to this forum, beleive we are in the favour of the destruction of Israel,and setting up a communist goverment there.My grandmother who was Jewish would be mortified.She didn't like Arabs, fascists or German Sheppards either must be a Jew thing I don't know. Still she's dead now rest her soul.

Irans building (if that's what their up to) nulear weapons must be stopped,however I hope that a political solution can be found and not a pre-emptive strike by the U.S. or indeed Israel,still doing nothing is not an option either..After the Russians having there noses rubbed in it for so long by the Americans, this just may be catylyst for a super power confrontation.With the current economical ties Russia has with Iran ,doing nothing is not an option for Putin either.He loses no matter what he does.

Hey Philo! excellent piece,pity you lifted it straight off the net.I would like to have seen you include a bit of info on that Pahlavi bloke,You know that fellow,he used to don a crown now and then, who also killed thousands of Iranian dissidents, probably fed the christians to the lions or were they persians then who cares what's in a name. The trouble was he was pro-western., and that makes it just dandy.But you see I don't have to consult my Funk & Wagnalls or the net, it's all in my head,cause hey I was around at the time.

The UN is not a democratic organisation, it is purely a means to hoodwink the world populance into believing that there is a body that cares and supports the oppressed of the world. Sure it jumps up and down every now and again, but it's real job it to shift the focus from the reality of what the elite are doing, bleeding everyone dry.

The amount of corruption and bias within the UN will probably never be known, but you can see its influence, in what action or non action the UN takes. Sudan and lots of africa requires UN intervention, but you wont see it. The controlling interests don't want their economic power and control upset and those countries don't provide an economic advantage for them

The middle east is not getting better, it is collapsing rapidly as is most countries controlled by religion. There will be a nuclear conflict. As long as there are nuc's, they will look for a reason to use them sometime. A surgical strike was what the US used in Iraq, note the outcome.

The US will attack Iran in the not to distant future, they have to control oil or the US will collapse within 3 years. Laugh, but it is already happening

Just another piece of fantasy by a lawyer, but from that profession you can expect nothing less.

No stewie my point it Israel has not signed the NNPT and any pressure on it to do so is being block at the UN by the US. The middle east is already nuked but we are trying to stop it from being balanced by the other side. History has showed that countries only go to war if they think they can win. Read your history books find out why the US didn't use nukes in Vietnam. Nukes are to foreign policy as the colt was to the wild west. Ultimately what I'm saying lets get rid of all nukes..

I was in Iran last year and was struck by not only the friendliness of the people, but in particular, by their disdain for the mullahs. Even those that didnt speak english, made the sign of the mullah (a swirl of the finger around the top of the head) and signs of disgust. A remarkably common practice. In Tehran, I noted squares like Khomeini square with many policemen around the periphery no doubt to contain any embarrassing protests as have occurred in the past. With the Guardian Council vetting aspiring politicians rejecting any ‘reformists’ , it is clear the government does not represent the common will of the people. Iran is repressed. Satellite TV is limited to feel-good channels. Again the people of Iran are among the friendliest I have met.

While there, I met with people who made it clear that Iran was funding the terrorists in Iraq for the last thing Iran ones, is a demonstrated success in democracy across its border. Arguably heresy but most plausible.

With tightly controlled media (one Iranian put it to me, “We have freedom to speak, until we speak”) the people will be readily led by the government. A nuclear bomb will cement the power of the regime and caste a shadow around its neighbours. So then what should the UN do?

Time and again, the UN barks leaving it to others, NATO or the Americans to fill the gap and then, of course, where there is self interest. A model for action was in Yugoslavia where Milosevic had some 82 per cent popularity that fell within weeks to below 20 after NATO took out the TV station. Here is an ideal role for the UN, like in Zimbabwe, North Korea, to somehow do contribute to undermine the media. I have little doubt the Iranians would love to come out of the cold. The regime needs removal. The UN like the club it represents, respects sovereignty – the rub

The United Nations does have the potential to be a force for world peace.

However the U.S. Britain, France, Japan, Germany, and other 'leading' nations will not allow this to happen.
It would take away their power.
And who wants to give up their power, ...anybody ?

"The middle east is not getting better, it is collapsing rapidly as is most countries controlled by religion. There will be a nuclear conflict. As long as there are nuc's, they will look for a reason to use them sometime. A surgical strike was what the US used in Iraq, note the outcome."

Alchemist, sadly I have to say that I think you are correct. Iran knows that the West is hooked on Middle East oil, so sanctions would be a joke and a failure. The US has also shown that its idea of
hijacking a country and its oil won't work either, there is more to it then owning lots of planes and bombs.

Somebody will misuse nukes one day in the Middle East, believing that their god is on their side. Thats the sad state of human stupidity and the danger of religious fanaticism.

Well, we know what side your on.

Iran was on the agenda long before Iraq was with the Bush brigade. It is the next phase and it will be dealt with. They need to build up the reasoning and support now.

That is why the propoganda has begun, and it will continue until their is enough support to commence phase II of the middle east restructure.

What i cant believe, is that the Author perhaps does not see this. I put it to you that North Korea is much more dangerous than Iran, yet the US (or UN the same people pull the strings) does not want a fight that will involve full effort and mass murder.

They are like schoolyard bullies, and i hope you dont continue to be taken hook, line and sinker.

Remember how bad Iraq was? it was found not to be so bad afterall. If they talk about liberating, why dont they 'liberate' one of 10 other nations like Zimbabwe then, for instance?

Their is plenty of coin in war and there is plenty of coin in oil. dont be fooled by what you hear and see. The plan is in place already, dont get on the bandwagon or worry about Iran, the US are locked on to them.

WHY THE UN WILL ALWAYS FAIL.

Its really simple.
1/ Theologically "All have and (continue to) sinned"
2/ National Interest is always, but ALways at the forefront of nations thinking, unless overall survival at stake and even THEN they hum and hah.
3/ Linguistically. The UN is not the reconstruction of the human race in reverse to Babel. Language and culture and prestige for those things is always in the minds of the member nations.
4/ Corruption. Due to the above, nations attempt to:
a) Buy (with aid)
b) Bully (with threats)
c) Manipulate (using economic power)
d) Persuade. (almost legitimate)
voting nations in terms of their own national interest. (Whaling)
It goes further, reaching into issues of 'discrimination' which are beneficial to certain cultural agendas but deleterious to others.

Ultimately, the security council has veto powers over actions.

Such veto's are due to national/cultural/economic interest. The nations on the security council are those with real power to gain or lose.

To all those who think there is some idealism at work in the UN, I will pay for your first session of therapy :)

Coyote “The United Nations does have the potential to be a force for world peace.”
Much as it would be nice to agree with you, not withstanding the power loss, which you correctly observe. It has always been the way of mankind and is nothing particular to any national sub-group.

Unfortunately what David_Boaz has written “WHY THE UN WILL ALWAYS FAIL” is not only true but more likely “unduly optimistic”.

The UN is a talk fest. I suppose it enshrines the greatest problem of human kind, that we remain a series of national entities.

The UN was a product of the peace with followed WWII and replaced the League of Nations. It was a compromise which allowed the Soviet Union to claim the Eastern half of Europe and much of the intervening time has been consumed in ensuring that corrupt system did not consume more.

With the passing of the Berlin Wall and the Soviet block, the world has changed. In recent years greater emphasis has been placed on trade, free trade in particular.

The future for a successful replacement to the UN might be found in something based on trade.
Trade produces inter-dependency. Inter-dependency breaks down nationalist interests and the xenophobia of nation-states. Ultimately, enhanced trade will do more to ensure world peace than the UN talk fest will ever achieve.
In the very simplest of terms, when every nation holds real estate and production capacity in every other nation, the people of the world will have more to lose from warring because it would lead to destroying their own productive investment.

Quiet frankly, getting fed up with the blatant Iran bashing being escalated to the extent it has this new year.
Appears every dog and his/her master/mistress are jumping on the band wagon and trying to get their two bob's worth in while the going's good.

Problem is, it's all lies and self serving rubbish.
For many years, the U.S. has ASSISTED and SOLD Iran the where withall to build nuk reactors and during that time, NEVER ONCE insisted they could not enrich anything.
Course the FACT is, Iran IS ENTITLED to do just that, IT IS NOT, and HAS NEVER BEEN ILLEGAL.
Nor is it ILLEGAL, should they ever choose, to build a nuk or two, their neighbours have done just that, and the U.S. as well as Britian has embarked upon further manufacturing of nuk devices contrary to the NPT, is that LEGAL ?
Guess one could say, this whole issue smacks of the POT CALLING THE KETTLE BLACK.

Besides, I'd love someone to expalin to me when something is ILLEGAL AND WHEN IT'S NOT.
After all, the INVASION of Iraq was ILLEGAL, yet no one country or institution, counting the U.N. as well, has taken ACTION against the country breaching these International laws.
IMHO, the acts of the U.S. and Britain are far more serious then Iran striving to build nuclear power LEGALLY.
So WHY are there not SANCTIONS being moved against BRITAIN, U.S. and Australia as well as the remaining countries who've SUPPORTED this ILLEGAL act ?

Iran KNOWS very well, it does not sit very well with the current U.S. govt that their country sits atop a sea of oil that the U.S. has no hope of ever laying it's fingers upon under current circumstances, resulting prevention of the monopoly the U.S. desires regarding production/control of fossil fuels for the immediate future.
Make no mistake about it, THAT'S THE REAL ISSUE HERE, CONTROL OF DIMINISHING FOSSIL FUELS, nukes is just the way to get in the door.
Wake up people.

The UN has no independent armed forces other than its Nation States, so relies on the peace keeping roles of armed forces from those States. With the sofistication of the present war machine of advanced nations they are not going to share their technical edge with lesser members and unskilled forces. That is why the coalition of the willing act independent of UN decisions, as the dallying of the UN leaves them at risk.

Though the general population of Iran may be looking for a peacful life the fanatical Old Guard wish the fulfilment of their domination of the Middle East. Perhaps the UN should send in a sniper team to take out these fanatics before they do damage. It would be better to have a peoples revolt as happened before in Iran that allow these power hungry twits to survive.

Interesting posts - in particlar Col Rouge is very apt - theory of "if there was a McDonalds in every nation" - NOT that I am advocating that scenario per se - I am not in favour of the power exerted by multinationals. However, the point of trade breaking down barriers is probably our best chance to establish some form of peace.

Iran quite rightly bristles against the hypocrisy of the leading nations' dominance of nuclear power. No doubt Iran wants nuclear for both energy and weaponry - so, perhaps, this is where we should be establishing trade agreements rather than the corrosive effects of sanctions. Also, finding alternatives to oil would mean less dependence on the Middle East. After all, surely the western nations would prefer to hold the upper hand in trade.

Scout, apologies for not answering you on the other thread, I missed it for awhile.

Your post, “After all, surely the western nations would prefer to hold the upper hand in trade.” Is true and it would be the same for non western countries. Cols suggestion would have merit if it were possible, but the present examples of free trade has led to enslavement of populations to provide the west with its luxuries.

Trade is in the hands of the elite and has always been that way. It has been used to firstly open doors, then supplant the owners of trade items. This has always led to dissatisfaction in resource rich countries, as the returns leave their country for else where and they are left to clean up the mess.

If we all had the guts in this country we would take control of our own destiny and leave the rest of the world to destroy itself. We are losing our lifestyle to religion, our resources and assets to multinationals based overseas and our leaders are loving it. Doesn't that say how stupid and easily led we are.

Has anyone ever thought of the possibility that the oil we are draining out of the ground, could be part of the earths hydraulic systems, that keep the plates moving freely. In earth time, our removal of oil has been but a second, so the effects have not raised their head. But if there is any truth that oil forms an essential part of the earths system, we are in for some very big tectonic movements. Just like when a bearing starts to seize, it makes small noises, then big squeals, followed by sudden collapse. Not a pleasant thought.

It occurs to me that God and the UN are very similar - sitting up there doing nothing.

Part One

Rob, hope info’ and some suggestions below might help,

Looks like Iran has become the latest US target, though it was Iran which was nominated a rogue state along with Syria and North Korea by the same United States well before the attack on Iraq. The far smaller Iraqi population split up into three unfriendly subcultures, Shias, Sunnis and Kurds, certainly made Iraq the best bet for a US attack.

Though Saddam’s ruling Sunnis were knocked out within weeks, most of the military rather than being captured did go underground and for nearly three years have given US forces a hell of a time possibly not as terrorists because it was their country, but acting like other Islamic terrorists as suicide bombers. Having arranged the beginnings of a sort of ersatz democracy, the Americans have even got to the stage of offering former Sunni officers command roles in a new Iraqi army helped with US training by Brits and Aussies.

Some observers are saying that a strike against Iran by America might very well have to be nuclear. There is also the problem of Putin’s Russia already aiding Iran with nuclear facilities, said to be only domestic, but accused by the US of being potentially militaristic. China is said to be also sympathetic to Iran, not only supplying rocket parts, but also prefers Iranian oil because of its superior quality. There is also a rumour that India would also back Russia and China.

Observers are even suggesting that with Russia, China and India’s possible stance, the US may need to tactically change its aggressive attitude towards Iran. And, in fact, according to the report, there could be the possibility of the US doing a deal with Iran.

Bushbred

At this stage it has become intensely interesting to political philosophers, formerly shut out, particularly in major US universities like Harvard, these intellectuals now able to bring out the old schism about diplomatically sharing the blame to preserve peace, which might indeed go a long way to solving the whole global terrorist problem. Not that conditions would ever be all sweet and light, but just having rumours about a more friendly Iran helping America get out of its Iraqi quicksand. might be sound commonsense so much needed in today’s nuclear-related world.

There is also the danger of an edgy Israel taking out Iranian nuclear installations before they become active, knowing that a later bombing could cause another Chernobyl polluting half the Middle East, including Israel itself. In fact, there has been recent reports that the US has already allowed Israel to set up a military base in northern Iraq, right close to the Iranian
border.

Indeed to help stop all this half-wittedness, it night be as well to let Iran join the nuclear club, using standard Realpolitik as a modern Bismark would suggest. Find peace using the balance of power principle. as was practised by statesmen during the Concert of Europe. A phrase coined for all the European diplomacy that went on after the Napoleonic Wars.

Certainly we can learn from the past, Rob, which means that one nation running the world has never ended successfully, and never will. We all have to solve it together by sharing the blame, as Socrates would say.

George C, WA - Bushbred

I just love these articles where somebody (usually a nobody) sounds off about what a sovereign foreign nation should be "allowed" to do.

What right, exactly, do we (I use the word loosely, to conjure the image of a bunch of suburban Australians going about their blameless daily lives) have to pass judgement on another country in this manner? We would certainly feel indignant if the Teheran Telegraph decided that Australia should give up the right to decide a particular issue for itself.

Would we, for example, sit around meekly if the Teheran Herald Sun, or the UN, or "world opinion" decreed that we should cease mining uranium? I think it more likely that we would choose to decide such matters for ourselves.

The judgements that "we" make in these situations say a lot about us. We decide that country A is bad, and needs to be brought into line, or this country B is good, and needs to be supported in bringing country A into line. We then sit about whingeing when country A thinks of us as international terrorists, and decides to do something about it. What we never seem to question is our infallibility in coming to these decisions.

And whatever the UN has become, it has become through our love of setting up parliaments to do our thinking for us.

The UN was established, as Col points out, as a follow-up to the League of Nations. The original concept was little more sophisticated than believing that it was better to have your enemies inside the tent pissing out, than outside pissing in. The idea that it may wield some direct influence on the issue is pure wishful thinking, thanks to our willingness over the years to pretend that it can.

For forty-plus years following the end of WWII it was largely the perception of MAD that prevented further use of nuclear weapons. Why should we think that the same capability in the hands of Iran is more dangerous than it was in those of Khrushchev and Kennedy?