It would seem to me that an added reason for Iran’s insecurity is the placing of the Shah and the brutal police state that followed by America and Britain. This after helping depose the prime minister apparently in the interests of oil.
Additionally when a country is proclaiming a need to rule the world for its own protection and because their mix of truths and culture is god given, an exceptionalism belonging to America, all must beware.
Add to this the proclivity to attack weak countries leaving those armed alone. Iraq and Korea.
The story is more complex but might at little cost is seen as right. Iraq will prove this wrong but whilst such a view prevails others beware.
Support for terrorists as reason for interfering depends on the definition for America and UK record can hardly be classed as decent or non terrorising.

Many thanks for such a clear and enlightening article.

Part One

More a social scientific point of view, but hope this might fit in.

Commonsense for a troubled world - part taken from Dr Geoffrey Chia, cardialogist who believes that more wisdom and understanding is needed in modern global discussion, especially regarding international relations.

1. Like a trained medico curing an ill patient, possibly close to a mental breakdown, well chosen people must work together using the best known means available.

2. The topmost principle to bind such persons together surely must contain wisdom, meaning the persons we need must not only be learned and trustworthy but also compassionate

4. According to Dr Chia, owing to today’s overload of information, especially concerning international relations, we now have to be so careful about ascertaining the real truth of situations, especially political ones such as regards Iraq and Iran. Dr Chia would surely add a rider stating - “ with no interference from not only presidents, prime ministers, and other heads of state, but also from persons with strong conflicting interests, especially in oil, which surely locks out Dick Cheney and Condoleeza Rice, as well as certain other residents of today's White House.”

5. The trouble is in today's world, strong power, not sound reasoning is calling the tune, as could happen if the US gave honest and adequate support to the United Nations.

Part Two

1. Certainly there will need to be more weeding out, with special personages capable of sound reasoning gathering all information, then encouraged to move out into a desert - so to speak - looking at today;s Middle East problems from an overhead unbiased point of view.

2. However, this taking of the Socratic view, as some might call it, as regards the Middle East since WW1, could create much much more debate, because such a view could leave the Arabs and Iranians justifiably ahead of the West.

3. Still taking the unbiased view, we might say that besides Western penetration into the ME, coupled with a growing thirst for fossil fuels, there is not only the problem of letting genocidal wracked Jewish families settle in a Jerusalem which had become Arab or Islamic territory for over a thousand years, but also allowing Israel to break UN rules and go militarily nuclear - in so doing very seriously altering the balance of power in the whole Middle East. Hence the understandable anger of Iran.

4. To many of our people, it may seem that agreeing to Dr Chia's philosophical reasoning, locks out Christianity
, even liberal Christianity. But maybe using the unbiased view could be close to our much talked about humanistic view, or even a dinkum Aussie view, or even a true Christian view, making some of us reflect on what rotten selfish bastards we've become, as back in the colonial days, believing that the term liberal denotes the freedom to gain over the weak, rather tnan what liberal really does mean, trying to think kindly about your neighbour, and even your enemy, as it indicates in the Sermon on the Mount.

A nuclear arsenal in Iran would bring more uncertainty to the earth. It would be a disaster if an ayatollah could press the nuclear button to send him and his followers to the supposed paradise. This scenario is unlikely but it must be a possibility. Maybe the problem will dissipate when they eventually realise the paradise story is a myth. I am sure Israel would not hesitate to unleash its nuclear arsenal if Ahmadinejad’s threat to destroy it is enacted (scary stuff)

Think of the implications if Hamas and Hezbollah are able to carry suitcase size nuclear weapons or simply incorporate some plutonium into their suicide belts.

And excellent and informative article as it explains the different aspects of Iran's dilemma. Sure a non nuclear Iran would be preferable, but so would a non nuclear world, neither will happen. Iran also sees itself on USA radar and the next step in gaining control of the worlds major oil reserves, whilst its capable. We must also remember Israel's reliance on imported oil.

When you think about it, no country will take a backward step, they all have to much to lose, or so they believe.

Sillie, put plutonium in their suicide belts. I believe the handling of plutonium is very delicate and requires very heavy shielding, but not beyond the realms of possibility. As you can read from the article and other reliable sources, Iran isn't capable of fighting anyone around it and definitely not capable of engaging someone not their immediate neighbour. The only threat they are is they have large oil reserves, their next war will be a defence, not an aggression.