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.