Good comments on both the United Nations and international law.

No they're not, they're simplistic and ill considered! Of course "international law is value laden and highly politicised" - so is national law, so is state law, so is local law. Let's get away from this fantasy that somewhere there is a perfect and absolute system of laws - politicians make the law (a fact that the Right has been pushing very hard of late!). Does this mean we should scrap all law?

The notion that because something is difficult or faces challenges it should be deemed a failure is simply ridiculous. The idea that bombing Iran is the simple solution to cut this Gordian knot is dangerous rubbish! International law is far from perfect, but it is an evolving system - better that we move towards addressing the problems inherent in it (ie. that the values/politics of the powerless are under-represented) and finding a means of administering it than we throw in the towel and trust all to the might of the US war machine.

It won't be easy, and it may well not be efficient, but news flash... this is international dimplomacy we're talking about!!

In another blog site the question was posed.

With Afganistan to the east and Iraq to the west,(both occupied by the U.S.) Russia, China to the north, India and Pakistan, and Israel all having nuclear capability, Iran certainly would like to have the same, as a deterant ?

Personally, I would like ALL nuclear weapons dismantled !

And as for Austalia selling Uranium, well, we will just be adding to the danger. If we sell Uranium to China, who guarantees that it will not be used in Armaments.

Oh yes, Iran has THE largest reserves of oil!

With hostilities surrounding Iran, is it any wonder they display such aggression towards those possessing nuclear weapons and threatening to use them.
There is much wrong with the UN that should be corrected but scrapping it is not a solution.
Diplomacy will not work whilst nuclear weapons are brandished like a 'big stick'.
The biggest threat to peace in the world is the USA. What do you propose should be done about their rampant empire building and war mongering.?
I am surprised that such an ill considered article should come from a senior Lecturer in law.

International law is a facade for the powerbrokers to manipulate.

They will enforce on the weak and be ignored by the strong, who run it surrogately anyway.

Both the un and international law is needed, but the driving force behind it will always be the powerful and wealthy, as it provides the greatest redress avenues against their less powerful counterparts without a single country (like the US) having to enforce.

Sadam has every right to question the validity of the system. if iran decides not to pursue nuclear means, it will be implied and planted anyway to keep the grounds for attack in the eyes of a concerned population.

What a joke, their is a sngle entity that realy runs things, just with differing facades.

Iran's potential as a threat does not mean it is breaking international law.

Iran can legitimately run a civilian nuclear program. The hard part is knowing if enriched uranium is being siphoned off for nuclear weapons development. The way to legally determine that is through a nuclear inspection regime.

The time-frame for such an inspection regime would probably be too late for necessary military action.

So international law is therefore not a solution in terms of launching timely military action.

The President of Iran uses his people as "human shields" at his, and their, peril.

James,
You are already getting into trouble for pointing out the emperors nudity.
You are right of course. There can be no law without dominion, and it is very unlikely that the Australian electors would give this fairytale dominion, and even less likely that the kleptocrats who run the majority of countries in the world would agree.
Nonetheless the previous posts demonstrate brilliantly that 'There is none so blind as he who will not see.'

An excellent article. One aspect of international law is its profoundly anti-democratic nature. The Australian people have never recognised the United Nations in our Constitution, and have never delgated to the United Nations any power to make laws binding on them. Federal politicians have the limited powers assigned to them in the Constitution , but have no authority to delegate these powers to any other entity.

Another problem with international law is its retrospective nature. It needs to be remembered that the Nazis tried at Nuremberg were tried under international law that did not exist at the time they committed their crimes, and that Hitler had been very careful to ensure that everything they did was legal under german law. It would have been much better for the Nazis to have just been put up against a wall and shot.

The US has done, and continues to do it's best to undermine both the value of international law and the place of the UN in the world community. Organisations and their rules/laws only have the power that the members choose to invest within them.

International law could be of great assistance, but Mr McConvill is probably right that it will not be of any assistance, especially in this case. It matters not whether you have more oil or more military power, as long as the two can strike a balance in perceived best interests. The US has it's agenda in the Middle East and nothing, not even international law, will stand in it's way.

The big problem with this article is that it paints Iran as guilty before they've even gone to court. US propaganda is spouted ad nauseum without any consideration or balance. Maybe Iran realises that the oil will eventually run out, and that having nuclear power might help it survive into the future. At least it is being constructively pro-active on that issue, rather than trying to take over other countries oil provinces to secure it's future.

Well noted, plerdsus, on the loss of sovreignty due to internationalism. One might, however, consider this other plan of mine...

Australia is the best place in the world to store nuclear waste, and spent fuel. It has a stable, unchanging centre, dry and isolated from major centres of population. We can (at a nice cost) take the world's waste and store it safely here. What's more, we can make the return of waste a condition of our selling uranium. We can strive for an international covenant to put all waste in a dump (no, not Adelaide, but perhaps somewhere in South Australia... Woomera?). If Iran truly wanted to have nuclear power production, we could then assess its veracity by stringently controlling the movement of uranium in and out, to stop it being used for violent ends.

Protect the world and make money? Count us in!

"The United Nations should be preparing to strike Iran - in a military sense. That it is not doing so, and that there is every indication it will not do so, once again shows that the UN is useless."

Once again James McConvill starts a piece with a bad idea and things just get worst and worst.

No one least of all the big five want the UN to work effectively. Why would they. The UN can only work as a buffer to hopefully slow things down. James makes the childish mistake to believe that his POV is the correct one and only his can be correct. International law works well only when both parties want it to work. What international law in regards to nukes has Iran broken that Israel hasn't? You see James the only thing that makes laws valid is when they are applied to all. You like other wish to applied them to some but not to others. You want your POV reflected in those laws but not others. Do you want the UN security council to have veto powers or maybe you only want the countries you like to have veto powers? Grow up James.

Here's another fairy tale - that war will solve the problem.

While the intent of the author of this article was to bag the UN, he's inadvertantly demonstrated to us just how dangerous the religious, who he aligns himself with (whether he knows it or not), are.

What am I talking about?

Well firstly, war isn't the answer. I would have though the neocons would have realised this after their mess in Iraq. All we'd be doing is encouraging more angry terrorists and creating yet another breeding ground for them.

So what's the alternative?

Diplomacy - which considering the religious barrier and the arrogance of all religions that they're the one's who are always right - probably isn't possible.

So basically the world is in a lose-lose situation - we're damed if we do and we're damned if we don't...and all because of religious arrogance.

So don't harp on about how bad the UN is or how frivalice international law is. That's not dealing with the core issue at hand, it's just waffle - the same kind of waffle that people like James accuse the UN of doing too much of. How about we...ahhh...well, I guess there is no easy answer. Gee...thanks Christians and Islamists, you idiots will be the end us.

Personally I'm eyeing-off those lush looking oil fields. Who's with me neocons? We'll move in and let Fox News explain it all for us - they're good at inventing boogy-men.

I guess it is true that to a hammer, everything looks like a nail. But someone should gently take (lecturer in Law) Mr McConville aside, and let him know that not all the ills of the world can be solved by this chimera, "international law", or even the boondoggle gabfest of the United Nations.

At best, these devices only slow things down - which, for the most part is not a good thing, but when it comes to the management of warriors and terrorists, slowing things down becomes something of a virtue.

The question I'd put to Mr McConville is "if not, then what?"

If we didn't have a United Nations, how would the various countries approach the ticklish topic of Iranian nuclear weapons? If history is any guide, the world would divide very quickly into pro- and anti-, much as the nations and states aligned themselves into factions immediately prior to WWI. Pride would assert itself, and we'd be in some form of conflict faster than you could say Kofi Annan.

Toothless, corrupt, vacillating, inconsistent, illogical and fiendishly expensive it may be. But the very existence of a forum called the United Nations has its place in allowing discussions to take place multilaterally.

If it didn't exist, we would be wise to invent it.

International Law is a horse of an entirely different colour. The UN is designed to eschew bold leadership, which is the reason it is so vilified by "butch" nations such as the US and friends. International law on the other hand is the action tool of choice of those nations. Go get 'em sheriff.

Unfortunately, IL is actually quite difficult to get a handle on, as most of it seems to be voluntary. If you are powerful, no-one is going to drag you into court and accuse you of, for example, waging war without good cause. WMD anyone?

But be of good cheer, Mr McConville, this is also the reason it will continue to create wealth for lawyers.

Now, what was the question again?

All these cynical, smug and smart posts above.

When Iran buys enriched uranium (perhaps) in the next few months giving it a nuclear weapons capability it will be too late to be smug.

Who said the US wants to occupy Iran - just bombing the nuclear facilities would be sufficient.

"Peace in our time" was Mr Chamberlain's headline. He thought negotiations were the answer.

Pete

If people think that intellectualising James’s article and putting it into the framework of academic critique stops the reality of the message, they are in need of some serious academic recovery.

There can be an ad nauseum debate on the efficacy of war till the Pyrrhic reality of fundamentalist rationalism lands on our doorstep but until such passionate, albeit cold and hard, realities are driven home, the world will teeter on the brink.

Wake up. Because we do not want war, because we know that conflict creates nothing but conflict, because the use of might corrupts the user, do not think for one second that fundamentalist religious fanatics have a concept of rational and pluralist humanity. What do we do? What do we do when an irrational influence becomes responsible for rational decisions? Do we retreat to some Utopia that pretends that it will all work out and the lion will lie with the lamb?

I am not extolling the virtues of any response but I am against those arguments that only survive in a vacuum remote from human reality.

Conflict is never an answer but neither is vacuous sentiment

James.The only way to placate President Ahmadinejad,is to send him a lovely box of chocolates a few bucks,and a nice new shipment of Australian golden wheat.

Small wonder the new leader of Iran has gone off half-cocked, because looking at Israel's arsenal of nuclear rockets, with powerful infuential Anglopholic backing, Iran has every right to be. And even more so, when we hear that Israel is setting up what looks like a military base in North-East Iraq, right by the Iranian border with the full consent of the Kurds who are now established there, and of course, also from Pax Americana.

Though it seems our group has proven to have a distaste for academics, which must include specialists dealing in warfare and Theories of International Relations, surely it is about time rather than sniping at one another, we get opinions from Phd's and Professors rather than from our leaders who seem to believe the only answer is to charge in and decimate Iran as has been done to Iraq.

To give a little gound at this point, it may be true that some persons who do spend their whole adult lives as academics, can appear to have all the answers in areas like international relations, and while they make good tutors, they still lack insight, which an American Phd told a group of us oldies during the Cold War, that what most of us had above younger students was insight gained through non-academic experience, especially having experienced the Great Depression and WW2. But it could be said that such oldies also could possibly feel like Socrates that it is not so much following faith or revelation, but by looking for the real good inside our souls and asking what we should do, using what is called the deepness of reasoning. Thoughts of true global justice from our West for today's Third World, including today's Middle Eastern peoples, is surely a major part of it.

George C, WA - Bushbred

DFXK,

I totally agree with you on the benefits to everyone if Australia were to store radioactive waste in the desert for a fee. However, I don't think it would work for Iran. The Russians have already offered to enrich their uranium for them to power station standard, and this has been declined, exposing the real reason for their desire for enrichment facilities. What everyone needs to realise is that Iran has its own uranium mines, and doesn't have to buy it from anybody. So none of the sanctions that uranium suppliers like us could apply have any relevance. I have a gut feeling that a major war is brewing in the Middle East this year, and that Paradise is going to become very crowded.

Let me see if I understand this article:

The problem:
1. Iran is a nuclear threat to Israel
2. The United Nations should preparing to strike, but is not.
3. The US, Europe, China and Russia are not willing to strike against Iran because of oil and trade issues

The solution:
1. Abolish the United Nations
2. Abolish International Law (or the notion of it)
3. Abolish International Organisations except corporations

I am only guessing, but is it that the author believes its best for Israel and Iran to attack each other without restriction and the rest of the world should not be involved? That would be cheaper for us, I guess, well... in the short-term.

But I don't understand how multi-national corporations can exist without international law. Surely, they would need to be abolished too. He says "leaving aside"? Hmmm, is this a coded argument against international commerce and free trade?

Frankly, I don't see how any of the quotes support the argument. We have an "international side" to our lives?

Wait a minute! This guy is a Senior Lecturer in Law! Not supposted to make any sense of those damn left-wing academics.

"The United Nations should be preparing to strike Iran "

James McConvill you are nothing but an ignorant short sighted warmonger. if you beleive in war so much I suggest you resign from your current post, volunteer for the army as a frontline soldier and reuest transfer to Iraq. If you have any children of fighting age you should make them do the same. Will you ? Of course not. Its easy to advocate killing people its much harder to prostrate your own life as a role model.

"thou shalt not kill" simple.

Not "though shalt not kill except where UN mandate xyz cannot resolve to blah blah blah". You are what is wrong with this world.

The question could be asked, what has Iran done to cop all this flak from James McConvill as well from our commentators?

Immediately after WW2, we had American and British intrusion in Iran, on the excuse that they were trying to prevent the adoption of Communism. Then next we had the setting up in Teheran of the puppet Shah, Pavlevi, sworn to by the Americans to have been related to the ancient Persian Peacock Throne dynasty.

Then we had the Shah kicked out by the Islamic Primate Kolarmie the whole American embassy crew being locked up and used as a bargaining tool against the CIA re' the South American Conga weapons controversy.

As if that was not enough, then in 1982, we had the US backing and supplying Iraq with arms and killer chemicals in its attack on Iran. Henry Kissinger was said to feel sure the US could win both ways, either Iran would become easy prey for the US after being knocked out with US help, or better still if Iraq got stuffed out as well, American Big Biz doubling up on the oil wells.

But even after nine years both brave countries made the grade. But the US eventually has grabbed its former ally, Iraq, and is now in occupation trying to invent some sort of ruse to have another try for Iran.

Suiting America, of course, is her allowance of letting little Israel go nuclear, now having 200 primed rockets mainly aimed for Iran, a report that the Americans have also allowed Israel to set up a suspected rocket site, in north-east Iraq right close to the Iranian border.

Now taking note of a university Honours backed historian writing a thesis on the above subject, our Online contributors are asked, what should the historian do about it, or because Iran has been concidered a rogue state, and our PM has agreed to the above US tactics, should this Honours historian be banned from making comments, as Mr Costello suggested about education areas a few months ago?

George C, WA, Bushbred

You do not seem to be listed as a senior lecturer at LaTrobe

David,

Brilliant post.

It never ceases to amaze me how The Right hate the UN but love the corporations. I'll never understand how they can waste so much energy on hating the UN when their beloved corporations are busy destroying people and the environment. And all in the name of profit.

Since when was the UN involved in something like Nestle's baby milk scandal? You'll never hear a peep from The Right about more important issues like that. Derrr...Corporations Goooood...UN Baaaaad. Like brain-dead drones. This is demonstrated by the fact that Mr McConvill actually makes a point of "leaving aside corporations".

Sure, the UN and international law may not be good for the sovereignty of individual nations, but what about the sovereignty of the individual victims of:

- Nestle
- Pfizer
- Chevron
- Coca-Cola
- Lockheed Martin
- Dow Chemical
- Monsanto
- Ford
- Wal-Mart...

...I could go on all day.

Abolish the UN if you will. But at the same time fragment the multi-national corporations. Re-assess your priorities while you're at it.

Bushbred

I agree that the West has always intervened in Iran (and Iraq) for the benefit of the West. This is unsurprising. Thats what countries do.

It is also in the West's (including Israel's and Australia's) interests that Iran and its President (Ahmadinejad) not have a nuclear capability.

To illustrate what Ahmadinejad thinks of International Organisations (including the UN) I think its useful to introduce some fairly current information (with a concerned tone - find something "objective" and I'll read it).

This 6 Jan 06 article http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,1703079,00.html in the (UK) Guardian Unlimited states in part:

"Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, taunted the west yesterday after his country was referred to the UN security council over its suspected nuclear weapons ambitions.

As Tehran took swift retaliatory action, Mr Ahmadinejad told the west there was nothing it could do to stop Iran.

He said: "Our enemies cannot do a damn thing. We do not need you at all. But you are in need of the Iranian nation."

His defiant response came after the board of governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN's atomic watchdog, voted on Saturday by 27 to three - Syria, Cuba and Venezuela - with five abstentions to refer the issue to the security council, which could impose sanctions...

Tehran responded to the security council referral by:

· Stopping IAEA inspectors from carrying out surprise inspections of Iranian nuclear sites, making it harder for the international community to police Iran's activities.

· Scrapping a voluntary agreement reached in 2003 that included not only the surprise inspections but a suspension of uranium enrichment, a step towards attaining a nuclear weapons capability."

Pete

James is certainly an angry young man. I dont know who or what he is most angry at, Iran, the notion of International law or the UN.

It is not hard to find problems with the UN or the principles and application of International law but I wonder what Jimmy considers the best framework in which to operate? The Law of Mc Conville I suspect.

This is the guy who recently wrote a piece about the need to move away from the left/right notion of politics towards something he labled "positive poitics" - an unbridled declaration that some one who has the time should blow the crap out of Iran and the Iranians doesnt strike me as a very positive notion. But then again this guy thinks torture is an OK pastime as well.

I think we will get a respite from his utterances once uni goes back - at least we can hope

Just to clear up that James does work at La Trobe Law.

Part One

“I agree that the West has always intervened in Iran (and Iraq for the benefit of the West). This is not surprising. That is what countries do!”

Plantagenet, the above copy of the opening paragraph of your commentary, reveals very much why the Islamic world is so angry today with the former barbarian Western world. Indeed, it should be read out to a class in political history and philosophy as an example of Western colonialism which began early in the Age of Enlightenment, but to many moral philosophers has stained with human blood the Age of Reason which began when St Thomas Aquinas in the 12th Century AD, accepted an Aristotalian document from Islamic scholars, indicating how balancing reason with revelation could lift the Christian Church out of its six hundred years long Dark Ages. But despite the West benefitting from the gift of reason, it was spoilt somewhat by humanity’s natural greed as even Adam Smith said later concerning capitalism, that though greed was part of competition and progress it needed to be balanced with understanding and compassion, which was hinted at incidently, by the early Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount.

Sorry about the historical palaver, mate, but it all can be found in any good university-based Western history book. Recently an Australian political philosopher and historian, Dr Denis Kenny, teaching at Harvard Univeristy, explained how Americans and no doubt most Britishers like us are inflicted with two colonial doctrines, Calvinism being the driving one, as exemplified by the Pilgrim Fathers, who preached more the Old Testament story of the Promised Land which justified taking the territory off the American Indians. Later came the men of the Enlightenment like Washington, Jefferson and Franklin, who were more New Testament, and though more democratic still helped take possession of the so-called Promised Lands. Of course, now there is quite a mix as any Humanities lecturer will tell you.

Iran would be crazy not to make as many nuclear bombs as it could.

The lessons of world politics are clear: if you have a bomb i.e.North Korea, you'll be treated cautiously, if the West is certain you don't have the bomb i.e. Iraq, you have a big problem.

I hope they do make bombs, and lots of them. Israel is menace to world peace and that region badly needs a counter weight to Israeli aggression. Perhaps with a real deterrent Israel would decide it's expansionist policies wouldn't be in its best interests anymore. After sixty years of occupation, they may even make a genuine effort at making peace with their neighbours. Even better, they wouldn't be manipulating the US (a basically good country) to do their dirty work for them.

As for the article, it was a joke -

"An important tenet of the rule of law is that the law should apply without fear or favour."

See UN SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 242 NOVEMBER 22, 1967

Israel has done nothing for FORTY YEARS. No wonder Saddam feels hard done by, what did he get 1? 2? And he DIDN'T EVEN HAVE ANY WMDs!

bushbred

History is indeed important and easily forgotten. As you’ve pointed out the views and actions of the movers and shakers are influenced by religion and other idealogies. Of course oil and Israel are the main interests of the West in region.

The Iranian revolution, seizing the US embassy hostages and more recent brushes between the US and Iran all colour US perceptions.

The utterances of the Iranian President on Israel and the Holocaust as well as the "Cartoon Crises" have not improved Iranian relations with the West.

At the moment Iran appears to be an immature regime and have an immature leader full of religious fervour. However, fortunately it has little miliary power. As yet.

Every other country in the region that superficially set out to build a civilian nuclear program (Israel, Pakistan and India) built nuclear weapons as the main objective.

Iran has the precedent, motivation and “reason” to do likewise.

But this is deadly – because Iran (with proven terrorist connection - this time) is potentially an enemy of the West – which would make it potentially Australia enemy. Meanwhile Pakistan and India’s nuclear weapons are aimed at each other and Israel is part of the West (if not the “51st state”).

Some questions are:

1. How quickly can Iran obtain the necessary enriched uranium and a efficient device to make up a bomb (make them, buy them)?

2. Are Bush and Co merely manufacturing a crisis concerning the above time factor eg. as a diversion from the embarrassment of Iraq?

3. Would international Organisations be effective in influencing Iran?

The answer to question 1. is MONTHS if Iran could buy a device (with its uranium) off the shelf (say) from Pakistan, Russia or North Korea.

Or up to 7 years (from the various estimates I've read) if Iran has to develop things from the ground up. As Iran already has many Russian technicians this time fram might be lower.

So yes history is important (as somebody like Churchill knew) but it is also important to identify unprecedented dangers from nuclear weapons.

Pete

Bushbred - Part Two

Anyhow, Plantagenet, there is no need to indicate which colonial doctrine your initial paragraph has indicated, more that of Calvinism, which many thinkers believe is the main driver of the US Republicans, assisted very much by the Right Wing Pentacostal Churches, as well as Jewish-American Zionists.

Moreover, the backing of Israel by the US and the earlier secretive illegal allowance by America for Israel to manufacture atomic weaponry, is a major reason for Iran’s suspected nuclear battle plan.

To cut a long story short, the above should give a very good indication of how much the Islamics and much of the undevelopod world are so angry and jealous of our Western world, the knocking out of Iran as with the capturing of Iraq, according to most political philosophers only expected to make the the tragic division of our modern global humanity last all the longer.

We can only suggest that there is a better way, using old lessons such as sharing the blame, part of which is getting together and without venom delving deep into each other’s pasts, which includes the period when the Moors in Spain built a place of liberal learning in Toledo, inviting people of all religions, especially those of the Jewish faith. It has been suggested that ancient Greek philosophy, especially Socratic style wisdom, is still admired by many cultured Islamics, as with more learned Western Christians. Maybe we should pray that it be given a go, even for the sake of our great grandkids

I am a critic of the UN solely because it has failed on numerous occasions to do what it was designed to do- ie negotiate, arbitrate and intervene where necessary. It cannot be argued that the UN has been successful-it hasn't. Bosnia, Rwanda, Somalia, North Korea, Iraq, Iran....

However there is no great alternative to it at the moment. Unilateral or even bilateral action is more inflammatory than helpful even if at times it gets the job done to an extent. Therefore commentators should be looking at proposals to make the UN more effective not dilute its potency. The most obvious fix would be to ensure security council resolutions could be passed by majority rather than constantly vetoed by the usual suspects. The second change would be to increase membership to the council- USA, France, Russia, UK, China, Japan, Germany, Brazil for instance.

Perhaps the UNO isn't useless James,since the "end of the cold war" it appears that American hegemony is the rule of the day, and every International Organisation that stands in it's way is subject to "flat earth bullying" as the Washington Post called it. The American government provides a lot of the funding for the United Nations Organisation and threatens to spit its dummy out every time that it can't get it's own way. There are signs that other nations are growing stronger and that the Americans are getting to some kind of end to the capitalist economic cycle. Their interest in education is dieing, social and wage mobility are flagging, and I notice today in "Le monde" that their trade deficit is 6% of GDP.
Possibly we are only going through a temporary phase of American Hegemony, let's hope so. In any case, is it a question of a useless UNO, or an irresponsible USA? The USA has often not been very thoughtful about its international relations.

John Hagee pastor for 50 years and prophetic written this book "Jerusalem Countdown"



He says,
"Those nations who align with God's purposes will receive His blessing," he says. "Those who follow a policy of opposition to God's purposes will receive the swift and severe judgment of God without limitation."




"Countdown to Crisis"

Is World War III going to start in 2006? Find out in Jerusalem Countdown, an explosive new book by Texas pastor John Hagee. In this book he reveals shocking details on the gathering war against Israel, which he says will have worldwide ramifications.

This book draws from today's headlines and numerous political and military experts. Hagee shares detailed information that he has received from top Israeli government officials concerning a nuclear showdown between Iran and Israel. Recently, Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said that Israel should be "wiped off the map."

"A casual glance at the geopolitical crisis of the Middle East with rogue terrorist states in possession of nuclear weapons [reveals that] we are standing on the brink of a nuclear Armageddon," writes Hagee, senior pastor of Cornerstone Church, an 18,000-strong nondenominational congregation in San Antonio.

"We are on a countdown to crisis," he adds. "The coming nuclear showdown with Iran is a certainty. The battle for Jerusalem has already begun. That war will affect every nation on Earth, including America, and will affect every person on Planet Earth."

You will be riveted by Jerusalem Countdown as Hagee explains whether this crisis is going to be an American Hiroshima; why Islam not only condones violence but also commands it; why the Roadmap to Peace is doomed to fail; and how an attack on Jerusalem will affect America.

An ardent supporter of Israel who has visited the country regularly since 1978, Hagee believes the book will be a wake-up call for all Christians to "stand in absolute solidarity" with Israel.

Hagee doesn't pull any punches in discussing the rise of anti-Semitism against the backdrop of historical attacks on Israel, Jerusalem, and the Jews from ancient times to the present. Jerusalem Countdown as the last plea for peace Middle East.