You are so very right, Marko. As one born in 1921, and been through the Roaring Twenties, the Great Depression and WW2, the second Great War to end all wars. Could reckon after finishing up in retirement with Honours in the social sciences, one could now have insight enough to suggest a few things?

We need to admit that as so-called Christians we have never really come to believe in the Sermon on the Mount as spoken by the young Jesus, but more the Old Testament tale of the Promised Land, giving us the excuse for the Western piracy that enabled the British to almost colour our 1929 schoolmaps mostly in colonial Britannia pink.

We now have Pax Americana's George W Bush disgracing the anti-colonialist promises after WW and upholding the Royal Britannic colonial tradition with Tony Blair onside as well as our Johnnie Howard.

The doubtfully courageous threesome is now battling to uphold the English-speaking Anglipholic tradition in Iraq. However. it looks like the problems in Iraq might yet prove a winner - giving our allies the excuse to capture the ME country the Yanks, Brits and Aussies were after all the time.

It might not be well known that Iran has by far the highest quality oil in the world, and similar to Iraq, among the easiest to recover.

Certainly what we need from our leaders is much less Spin and more the true facts of the matter

As Iran is I believe in oil depletion at present they do need to look
ahead as to what energy source they will use in the future.
Granted that a nuclear power industry may be desirable, then they should
have no objection to making their whole nuclear sceintific and
industrial complex available for inspection.
If it has no military value then what is the problem ?

The recent non-technical people that inspected the Iranian facilities
were not allowed to see another site where it is suspected that they
are running or building inrichment centrafuges.

Why not ? Is there a military secret there ?

If Iran is secretly out to produce nuclear warheads, Bazz, it could be said that she has every right to, seeing that she has had Israeli nuclear warheads pointing at her for the last ten years or so.

Remember that the Americans never complained one bit when the French illegimately gave or sold the Israelis the nuclear designs way back in 1978, while the rest of the world remained silent.

This is the way genuine historians should work, Bazz, to nip uncover activities like the above in the bud when necessary, especially when our leaders deliberately cast aside any part of history that might incriminate not so much ourselves, but the unipolar nation we are supposed to look up to.

Marko,

It's nice to see an informaed and rational view of Iran. The usual Zionist hysterics get tiresome after a while.

I think the Iranians have a huge strategic interest in developing a nuclear deterrent. Israel and the US see this too, which explains their fervent opposition. After all, a nuclear armed Iran would mean the end of Israeli hedgemony in the region. It may even then be in Israel's interests to pursue peace. And we wouldn't want that would we? Better start a war with them just in case...

I would just add that even if Iran actually had nuclear weapons the chances of them being used for a first strike or given to terrorists is close to zero.

Limiting inspections could be an attempt to prevent intelligence gathering for a military strike. Perhaps they think this is something UNSCOM did in Iraq. Limiting inspections doesn't mean bomb programme. Also, it could be a political gesture given recent sanctions.

I suggest checking out todays New York Times which has a good story on Iran and enrichment. Notice that the US intelligence estimate is based on a figure for SWU (seperative work unit) that many analysts argue is too genenrous.

Also, in relation to the first comment, going through all these world events in your time certainly means you have a good store of knowledge. You would be surprised but there exists a growing and vibrant school in the university system that considers these events to be quite irrelevant. For them a treatise on Foucault or Habermas or some other arrant nonsense, rather than "objective analysis of the facts", would greatly fascinate them.
Marko.

Marko

This is a very wide ranging and convincing paper. We think alike. See my website article of June 2006 "Nuclear Iran: Regional Implications" http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com/2006/06/nuclear-iran-regional-implications.html .

I put the implication of Iranian nuclear weapons for its influence over oil in a slightly different way:

"Iran has frequently had political disputes with its weaker neighbors (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the UAE) and a bitter war with Iraq (1980-88). A nuclear weapons capability would not only give it greater political prestige in relation to these countries (and in OPEC) but Iran could use its capability to increase anxiety amongst these countries in any serious political, economic or military dispute.

Greater influence in OPEC (the world’s major oil price and production setting club) would increase Iran’s say in setting world oil prices and production levels."

There is also a risk that the Saudis will develop a nuclear capability to counter Iran's.

Just a little nitpicking over "If the IAEA is to solely rely on intelligence from the US". The IAEA would no doubt get intelligence from other experienced intelligence players in the Middle East including Israel, UK, France and Germany. The last 2 despite the Curveball fiasco (see wikipedia) shared an accurate assessment in 2002 of the folly of invading Iraq.

I look forward to reading more of your articles and will soon visit your website.

Regards

Pete
http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com