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.

To Sille and Alchemist,

You seem to be both using your noggins the right way, different
than too many others, icluding our grand-daughter who has joined the Pestocolo's and says, grandpa you are wasting your time with all this study, because it has to happen, you just can't do anything about it.

My Goodness, if this is the way our young people are beginning to think, and including even a group from our Anglican church in Mandurah who says they have gone charismatic?
No wonder our newspapers seems to be dumbed down to everything else bar homes and car sales and sport.

What in blue blazes has happened to our people? Is this why John Howard has performed so well after he gave praise to the Hillsong church, which also is said to be charismatic.

And, indeed, is this also why Dear John is so friendly with
George W Bush who is also said to have been saved by the American Religous Right, said to be very charismatic or something like it?

Is this the way, just shut all humsanities in our universities and besides science and literature and the practical studies, just let the smart-arse law sections take over, which Howard was one of, anyhow?

Well, goodbye any online friends who have not gone pestocolo',
for why worry about our futures if they've all been written in the sky, as the old Greeks would say?

I think the only answer to this is an international agreement for all countries to agree to not discriminate against Islamic countries, Israel, or Hindu countries like India. We missed the chance when George W Bush stupidly gave India permission to go nuclear. This now looks like favouritism. It has let the jeanie out of the bottle and this is the most foolish move in strategy. Now all countries expect the same right.

Lets put all paranoia of Iran and the motives of Islam aside now and look at the reality of nuclear power. To make this safe costs money, and plenty of it, and it takes very careful and professional scrutiny, and the highest possible standards just to contain it. Besides, we are running out of high grade uranium, so the future for the energy is bleak anyway.

The only way to deal with this is a UN agreement that NO MORE nuclear power stations can be built in any country on the planet. This does not politically discriminate, but it is a responsibility that we must take in looking to better alternatives, as a species. The agreement can trade the dismantling of a set number of power stations in every nuclear country of the planet. This way, the responsibility does not descriminate, nor does it give any arguement that it isolates any particular country, with any validity or credibility.

If the USSR could not control Chernobyl, how are other dysfunctional countries that are really insecure, supposed to manage such a dangerous substance? The only way to stop them is to practice what we preach, and to demand our own countries to do the same as any other country. Stop this madness now while we still can. That is the only hope we have. This means that any nonsense that Australia should have any nuclear power must end. As I have mentioned in other pages, this is not just an environmental issue, it is a matter of national security.

One of the problems that will need attention is the fact that the Iranian president thinks he is the Mahdi. Having created an aura around himself it will be hard for him to say: "Oooops! I'm sorry. I think I made a big mistake. I'm not the Mahdi I'm just an ordinary guy".

It will be hard for him to back down unless he can find a passage in the Qur'an that allows an adherent to have bouts of entheomania occasionally swamped by periods of boanthropy.

Ever since Ahmadinejad became president, I've been wondering who he reminds me of. Suddenly the name 'Hitler' flashed and I can see a physical resemblance and mannerisms between the two.
Then today's news said that Iranians are going to make Jews,Christians and others wear a distinctive badge or coloured cloth to identify them. The Jews must wear yellow, shades of the Nazi's yellow star.
There must be something in that re incarnation business.
I wonder how Iranians in the west would take to being forced to wear a distinctive badge.

Not just that but they also have cruel and nasty public executions of homosexuals. Last year, two teenage homosexuals were tied to a stake, and the whole community threw rocks at them. Then they gauged their eyes out, cut their tounges at, and finally, after they were covered in blood, were slit with many cuts, and finally they shot them. They were just kids. Probably just a little effeminate.

What causes such hate? I cannot comprehend how you could do this in the name of God. There might be worse in places in Africa, I'm just not aware of it. They are every bit as bad as the Taliban in Afghanistan, but at the same time they are not going to change, and I still think we have to be realistic.

All we can do is accept the refugees, and with nuclear power, we have to show consistancy so that they don't perceive us as isolating them. Too much confrontation will result in making things worse. The US and their allies are simply running out of money, will and recourses. This is not an easy call.

The Author said:

[.... reinforced by the Persian-speaking majority's unique ethno-linguistic heritage and profound sense of cultural superiority over its immediate neighbours.]

and there we have it... human nature (much as I'd love to point the bone and say its just 'Persian/Iranian' nature...) and we also have the seeds of pretty much every war since Adam was a lad.

Its one thing to recognize you are 'different' and therefore have a right to express your cultural differences without the intrusion of neighbours, its another to believe it is actually 'superior'.
Specially so when you have a goose stepping army, want to 'label' Christians with a green sticker and Jews with a Yellow one.. are seeing visions and listening to the chirping and muttering of various false prophets who will feed such a situation!

*Scratches Head*....I'm SURE I've come across this kind of thing in the not so distant past.... somewhere in Central Europe....

Bible....

King Jehoshaphat decides to go and beat the stuffing out of the Arameans..so enquires 'of the Lord'.. to his 400 yes men...

So the king of Israel brought together the prophets—about four hundred men—and asked them, "Shall I go to war against Ramoth Gilead, or shall I refrain?"
"Go," they answered, "for the Lord will give it into the king's hand."

He decides to get a second opinion, and finds good old Maicaiah ( a real prophet)....who never says what he wants to hear... and asks..

"Should we ?".......I LOVEEEE his answer...

"Attack and be victorious," he answered, "for the LORD will give it into the king's hand."

AH HAH ! the king smells a rat... but when he hears the truth (You will be destroyed) he gets irritated and decides to attack anyway.

It's all shaping up just like this today with Iran.

You can't really blame Iran for wanting to have nuclear weapons. So many enemies want to attack this country. Israel wants Iran, the only Middle Eastern state capable of challenging Israeli domination, to be drawn and quartered like Iraq. USA has threatened to invade Iran many times. The only way to deter these powerful enemies is to have nuclear weapon. US threats are just pushing countries like Iran and North Korea further in their quest in attaining nuclear deterrant.

Boazy

I agree with you.

Except, of course, not quite. I think the Iranian question is better typified as "Nuclear Nationalism" that cuts across religious divides.

I think religion is important to justify the extremely high cost of nuclear weapon's development and the high risk of attack from the US/Isreal to prevent further development.

I also think its likely that the nuclear program is more a way of boosting Iran's prestege and (nuclear) military power in order to dominate its Muslim neighbors.

With the exception of Pakistan these neigbors are rich in oil (an expansion incentive for Iran) but weak militarily. In the 1980s Iraq absorbed Iran's military power but since the 1990s Iraq's economy and military have been decimated by the US.

I think the use of Israel as an Iranian nuclear justification is a pretext for Iranian nuclear development aimed as cowering its Muslim neighbors.

Unfortunately I can't prove my views but I understand the US also cannot justify its "Lets bomb Iran tomorrow" campaign.

See the latest post "CIA My Face Critical Intelligence Gaps About Iran" on my blog at http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com/

Pete

Very well presented and informative article - thank you.

I agree, strangely, with PTBI. You can hardly blame the Iranians for developing a nuclear arsenal given the various issues in play here.

I personally feel equally hostile to nuclear weapons whether they be in the hands of Americans, North Koreans, Israelis or Iranians. It appears to me to be a classic case of 'do as i say, not as i do'