Very timely, Dilo, hope the following Monbiot extracts might be interesting?

The UN Security Council has suggested to Iran that a promise from it to not go militarily nuclear would help to bring about a Middle-East free of nuclear destruction.

However none of the UN countries demanding finis’ to Iran’s possible plans for nuclear weaponry , have guaranteed the Middle East for the destruction of Israel’s 60 to 80 atomic warheads it now possesses.

Israel’s position has thus caused the UK to change its mind about its anti - nuclear proliferation promises, preferring to prepare itself with both America, and even Europe, to be ready to make preemptive strikes - next time apparently nuclear, even against non-nuclear states?

So much easily it will be for Russia and China to now press truly to try for the nuclear lead.

Monbiot also condemns the license allowed Condoleeza Rice abusing the job of the UN. Rice thus insists that India should now have access to US nuclear materials, despite the fact that India’s militarist nuclear venture is still illegal – all for the sake of a few million dollars of US export orders, as Monbiot expresses.

Certainly over the years it is political scientist s like Monbiot and Kissinger who have had the insight to purport how wrongful historical moves or halts by people in high places like the US shutting its mind to little Israel going nukisto way back, and even letting Condoleeza Rice try to manage the world rather than the UN.

Indeed, as a WW2 veteran going on 88, one trembles with thoughts of what an all-out attack on Iran might bring on- even somewhat hopeful that either Russia or China might be needed to step in and prevent it.

So sad to have to depend on historical irony for good - yet surely the blame must rest on a two-timist US foreign policy.

Finally, must suggest from a philosophical viewpoint, our OLO has sadly lost its more radical activity, letting Israel plus America abuse the original allotted true Kantian role of the the UN

Rock - scissors - paper - nukes - oil.

Hmmmm, let's see, paper beats rock, rock smashes scissors, nukes are a Golem, but nothing - nothing beats oil. Game over.

"Gotta get that oil. Gotta get that oil" (Dick Cheney to his own reflection in the bathroom mirror).

What is the problem with Iran having nuclear power?, and maybe nuclear weapons?
Is it because Iran is a Theocracy, a nation State governed by religion. Then isn't Pakistan and Israel in a similar position?

and will Russia use nuclear weapons in Georgia?

Hiro is thoroughly confused between Iran without a bomb, obviously his optimal position, and Iran with a bomb when on the one hand he states, and inexpressively hopes, that the National Intelligence Estimate finding is correct that Iran has “ceased working on a nuclear military program,” and on the other, when he believes that we could live with a nuclear Iran. But he doesn’t realize that to live with a nuclear Iran is to live with the widespread proliferation of nuclear weapons in the region, as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Syria, and Libya mount the horse of the nuclear race. This is where the catastrophe of astronomical dimensions lies and not in a pre-emptive attack on Iran.

He is also ‘fatefully ‘pessimistic about any positive results issuing by such an attack and focuses his attention, rightly so, on its dire repercussions that could lead to a conflagration of the region. In my opinion however, he underestimates the strategic nous of the planners of such an attack that would target not only the nuclear plants of Iran, but also the military, civilian and religious leadership of the country with the aim of decimating it. If the latter somehow miraculously escaped its destruction and took retaliatory action against the Americans or on any other countries of the region then such action would be calling for Iran’s nuclear destruction.

http://kotzabasis3.wordpress.com

From a historical viewpoint, reckon you are the one confused, Thermi'?

The point to ponder, is that since the end of its Persian days, Iran has never attacked another country, yet was nastily attacked by Iraq, with both US and Soviet backing.

Must say that many of us mature-age students clapped our hands when Iran won out, even though most of us did not relish being an Iranian citizen under an Islamic government.

But that is not what political science students are on about - it was and still is about global fair play.

What it has been ever since WW2, is the wish by certain nations for the Iranian spoils, sadly and viciously reborn little Israel, her illegal nuclear armoury obviously backed by Western neo-colonialists mostly after Iran's oil and strategic global positioning.

Also could recommend a few good books on the Balance of Power strategy, Thermi', which in all fairness, the Arab ME's very large majority is forced by America and little Israel to only hold the end of a big political power stick.

No wonder the Islamics would like our guts for garters, matey.

Cheers, BB - Buntine, WA.

War with Iran will not require occupation of Iran. That fact, plus the fact that the fear of Iranian nukes and the oil price spikes caused by the non-shi'ite Oil producer's to pressure the American's to act, will prompt action. The potential consequences of Israel striking Iran, will cause the Americans to act soon.

The price that will be paid, propping up Georgia (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/georgia/2534767/Georgia-Russia-targets-key-oil-pipeline-with-over-50-missiles.html), because the oil being pumped to the Mediterranean from Azerbaijan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan_pipeline) can to a large extent counteract the problems involved with shipment through the Persian Gulf. There is of course also the proposed Kirkuk-Haifa pipeline (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=332835&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y). Both of these could conceivably completely negate any pressure the Iranians could put on oil prices (similarly, so would a pipeline from Kirkuk-Eilat through Jordan). The power shift arising from such pipelines could be extremely significant, especially given the difficulties involved in targeting them (especially where they are routed through countries relying upon the revenue raised therefrom).

There is a whole lot more going on than even this Author appears to realise. The global oil-power shift is happening now, the importance of the Persian Gulf oil will decrease in proportion to its affect on global supply. As supply is routed from elsewhere to ports in the Mediterranean, the willingness of the United States to be held to ransom by Iran will decrease exponentially. As a nuclear Iran would threaten even these new oil supply ports, it will not be allowed to realise it's nuclear ambitions. It really is as simple as that.

As to Iran being a theocracy and that placing it in the same boat as Israel/Pakistan, that is a nonsense argument based upon a misleading reading of the term 'theocracy'(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theocracy). Iran is a country where the presidency exists solely at the whim of the mullahs (ie. the clergy), Pakistan is a country where elections are held solely at the whim of the military, whereas Israel is a representative/responsible democracy, very similar to our own, where the elected representatives are responsible solely to the electorate.

Bushbred,

You tiresomely repeat this mantra about poor Iran being a peaceful nation entirely ignoring the reality of their govt in word and deed.

So let me put this simply for you.

Irans leaders DENY the holocaust.
Irans leaders commune with a 1000 year old man living in a well
Iran’s leaders have threatened to WIPE OUT Israel.
Iran leaders wants to expand its revolution
Iran leaders wants Nukes to enable it to fulfil these desires.

That makes Iran VERY dangerous.

Any suggestion that Iran needs nukes because Israel has them is preposterous. Israel has no interest in Iran other than in maintaining their self-defence. Anyone who has a brain knows that Iran poses far more of a threat to Israel than vice-versa. This is especially so if Iran is non-nuclear. Iran's only valid fear of Israel is that Israel will attack its nuclear sites. Without the nukes there is no problem. So why does Iran really want nukes?

Fervent anti-semite that you are I know you don’t care about the real threat to Israel. The rest of the civilized world does care, however.

When it comes to choosing between a democratic state and a tyrannical theocracy, only the loony-left line up with militant, terrorist supporting, religious extremist, misogynistic, racists.

I never understand these arguments. Either all nations should be allowed nuclear weapons, or none. It's plain hypocracy to say, 'Disarm Now, but I'm keeping my nukes'. I can be trusted and you cant, and I am the judge of who is trustable because I have the nukes. Laughable man.

Usual Suspect,

Yeah its just crazy that we don't treat the worst, most insane dictators the same way we treat law abiding democracies. I mean after all we should be FAIR right? And how fair is to take a countries words and deeds into account when determining their likely behaviour? Totally irrelevant right?

If it wasn't Israel that was being threatened with extermination, but some socialist republic, the left would be screaming the house down. But because they see the chance for the Great Satan and its middle East clients to get hurt, leftist are strangely pro-proliferation on this subject.

Uranium sales to India? No Way, they haven't signed the non-proliferation treaty. Call out the greenpeace "save-the-whales-boat" and blockade our ports. But Iran is chasing nuclear weapons so that it can obliterate Israel and its Sunni neigbours with impunity. Well thats just too bad, and besides, we have a fire twirling conference.

The fact that the left cannot recognise the toxic nature of the regime in Tehran is hardly surprising. They spend all their time looking for the conspiracies of the Imperialists, so religiously inspired bigotry, misogyny and racism don't really register.

The coalition talks about destroying a nuclear program far from the centres of population (a program the Iranians deny having btw). Iran retorts it will lay waste to the region in retaliation. Yet the peaceniks don't blink an eye. Proportional response? Thats only for westerners.

The black armband view that pervades the left has left an indelible mark upon its faithful adherents. It is clear that only western democracies should be held to account for their actions, as we are inherently BAD people, ruled by BAD govt's. The actions of the rest of the world can only be understood through the prism of western injustice perpetrated in the name of imperialism.

So the brutal theocracy in Tehran, controlled by men who would be institutionalised under mental health statutes in the west, which has repeatedly made threats of oblivion to its neighbours, should be treated the same way as say, Britain, makes me ROLMAO. Nice one mate.

So you are back again Paull with the same worn-out story as if Israel with her illegal nuclear warheads is only after peace?

Tell us political scientists another one, Paull.

Also waiting for an apology to both Geneva and Hague Conventions which have Israel on their criminal lists.

Of course, if the UN was not so dominated by the US - now so much more rotten under the spell of Condy Rice - it would have Israel well up on its list right now of nuclear terrorist states.

Funny how things change.

Once upon a time -

Iran’s current nuclear industry was created at the insistence of the USA who, along with France and Germany provided the technology and assistance. Uranium was coming from South Africa and enrichment facilities from France. It was actually the Shah who first hinted at the desirablilty of nuclear weapons.

Iran was one of the first countries to recognise the State of Israel and they once worked together to develop ballistic missile technogy (Project Flower).

Iran was giving Israel oil and Israel was providing Iran with weapons and Israel once regarded Iran as another natural non-Arab ally on the edge of the Arab world.

But now?

It's easy to blame all entirely of the words and deeds of a few radicals on one side but history suggests the changes go far deeper and are more complex than the pre-digested Hollywood pap we are fed.

The background of North Korea's recent foray into nukes has more to do with Clinton's broken promises and renegeing on deals than just loony posturing. In the end, all they got was what they were already promised years before but had to drag us closer toward the edge of the pit to get it.

Also, what Ahmadinejad actually said about the Holocaust was -

"Any historian, commentator or scientist who doubts that is taken to prison or gets condemned.
Although we don't accept this claim, if we suppose it is true, if the Europeans are honest they should give some of their provinces in Europe—like in Germany, Austria or other countries—to the Zionists and the Zionists can establish their state in Europe.
You offer part of Europe and we will support it."

"Certainly over the years it is political scientist s like Monbiot and Kissinger who have had the insight to purport how wrongful historical moves or halts by people in high places like the US shutting its mind to little Israel going nukisto way back"

US did not assist Israel with Nukes at all. France helped, because Jews helped France establish its nuke programs, as they did with Russia and America. Atomic fussion technology was based on Einstein's theories; it was a Jewish Russian scientist working in America, who gave the Russians this knowledge, not wanting this power to be in one nation's hands.

There is no country which has a more legitimate need for nukes than Israel - and no country which is more responsible to have it. Israel is one of the very few nations which has never stolen anyone's lands in all her 4000 year history - despite being dispersed throughout the nations. If Iran overwhelms little Israel - it certainly won't stop there. The doctrine of rejecting democrasy and free party votings is based on a lie - democrasy is not in contradiction of any religion, only in the usurping of Regimes ruling by oppression. Rejecting democrasy = rejecting laws for the benefit of Regimes.

"So you are back again Paull with the same worn-out story as if Israel with her illegal nuclear warheads is only after peace?"

Israel is the only legal entity in this region. Israel was the only nation subjected to a UN Vote for her re-establishment, and all the Arab and Islamic states voted in that motion: who voted for the Arab states? Briton created these states for 30 barrels of oil, disregarding the Kurds, Coptics, Druse and the Jews - who predate both Islam and the Arab race in this region.

The illegal part was how the arabs perpertrated a multi-state attack on a UN established state, with a declared goal of genocide. And no UN Resolution to date: why not?

The other illegal part was the corruption of the Balfour Mandate, and the creation of the first 2-state in Jordan - which carved out 80% of the Balfour - for no legitimate reason. A Mandate is not negotiable, and this corruption was perpertrated when the Jews were at their most helpless, following W.W.II - and thus is was illegal and immoral.

Also a corruption is the handing out of countries to Regimes, and allowing them to treat the country as their private and personal property! Who's heard of such insanity - it smells putrid?

But who's there to take Briton to task?

Unlike Israel, none of the arab states created by Briton have any historical borders, and none of them existed 120 years ago. Half of these lands should be taken and handed to non-muslims and non-arabs, like the kurds, coptics and christians. Nor should mosques and citizenship in non-muslim lands be allowed when churches and citizenship are banned in muslim lands. Its called "RECIPROCITY'.

Oh what a joy it is to be godless, raceless and graceless.

How liberating it is to be free of internal voices, myths, spin, greed, nationalism and political correctness.

To not have the burden of a 3000 year-old pawn ticket for the land of Palestine.

A pawn ticket chiseled from a great heavy lump of granite.

A pawn ticket so crushingly burdensome, that the weight of redeeming it has turned a once vibrant, talented, philosophical and altruistic group of humans into -

- well - just Israelis actually. That's all. It's a pity isn't it?

(my grandfather managed a pawn shop - I know stuff about pawn tickets

"Briton created these states for 30 barrels of oil.."
- The same oil we have been happily using all these years.

"Unlike Israel, none of the arab states created by Briton have any historical borders".
- Like Australia I suppose? Why did the Jews leave anyway?

"Half of these lands should be taken and handed to non-muslims and non-arabs, like the kurds, coptics and christians."
- Which half, taken by whom and who decides?

I'm with Chris on this one. No wonder the Muslims feel as aggrieved and paranoid as the Jews while the Christians play them off against each other and wait to pick up the spoils.

“To not have the burden of a 3000 year-old pawn ticket for the land of Palestine.A pawn ticket chiseled from a great heavy lump of granite.”

Chris, that’s a pertinent and weighty statement. If only it had been carved out of soapstone rather than durable granite: they might now be free. After 3 millennia of wear and tear and terrible testing it would by now be ground down to a mere historical shadow of its origins, no longer acceptable as tender.

Get historically real, Iam Joseph. Surely you don't believe that Nixon did not know about it?

What we said earlier was that it has recently been found in White House archives how Kissinger warned President Nixon that if he did not clamp down on Israel's plans to go martially nuclear, the upsetting of the ME balance of power could cause unsurmountable hatred from Arab nations in the future.

Which it certainly has done, Joseph.

Once again, matey, please check up on your history, including the one about the US archives.

Bushbred,

I have asked you time and again to show me HOW the Israelis possessing nuclear weapons has made one IOTA of a difference to the relationship between Israel and its Arab neighbours.

You have consistently refused to do so.

There is NO evidence that I can see that the relationship would change at all if Israel had no nukes. Israel beat the combined armies of the Arab world into submission three times, conventionally. There is your cause for the hate and mistrust of Israel. Not in its possession of weapons which are purely defensive in their nature.

Israels nukes merely prevent its neighbours unleashing WMD attacks on Israel. Now I understand why it would annoy the Arabs that they can't just wipe out Israel with chemical and biological weapons, but the fact that it annoys you is proof, pure and simple, of your hatred of Israel.

As we have tried to tell you more than once, Paull, Political Scientists do not practice hate but official causal outcomes.

Just as US Minister of State, Professor Henry Kissinger did warn President Nixon about letting one small power like Israel be allowed the nuclear military means while the rest of the Middle East powers did not, was asking for trouble.

Though you and your Israeli friends might believe you have the right, as I have said before, in a university discussion concerning scientific balance of power theory, you'd all be lucky to get 4 out of 10.

Certainly your low mentality will be proven re' the situation if Condoleeza Rice as Minister of State gives the order to attack Iran.

Cheers - BB, Buntine, WA.

BB, if you are talking tactical nukes (and believe me, there is no evidence anywhere to suggest there are ANY strategic nukes in the ME, other than in the hands of UK/USA/Russia), then the predicating the entire balance of power argument on the fact that only one country possesses Nukes looks particularly shaky.

Given that there is a massive imbalance in the forces in that region, for example at the outset of the 1973 Yom Kippur War, there was something like a 5:1 advantage in favor of the attackers (Syria/Egypt) in terms of both Armor & Infantry (NB the Israeli's were also fighting simultaneously on two fronts, thereby splitting their defensive forces, interestingly, they appear to have adopted a modified 'Schlieffen Plan'; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schlieffen_Plan, trading territory in the Sinai for breathing space, allowing them to concentrate initially on preventing a breakthrough on the Golan Heights where there was little time to work with; see http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj99/fal99/netfal99.html), the use and/or possession of tactical nuclear weapons would do little more than even out the playing field. That is precisely why tactical nukes were developed, to allow NATO to blunt the advance of Soviet tank armies and to redress the enormous imbalance in conventional forces that was always going to face NATO in such circumstances.

I don't see how anybody could fail to understand this basic concept, unless of course they fail to comprehend the enormous difference between tactical and strategic nukes. One is designed to destroy attacking armoured formations (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_nuclear_weapons), while the other is designed as a deterrent, for offensive purposes and/or the destruction of cities. The effect of the two on strategic balances of power is very different.

PS What Iran is trying to build, given the much publicized recent tests of intermediate range rockets/missiles, are strategic nuclear weapons (tactical nukes are normally of only limited range, indeed, they have been designed for use in artillery shells in the past: cf Strategic Nuclear Weapons; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_nuclear_weapon). This is unlikely to have a minimal effect on the balance of power in the region.

Bushbred,

Despite Israels possession of a nuclear arsenal, the Arab armies invaded Israel on Yom Kippur 1973. Clearly Israels possession of these weapons did not deter the Arabs.

Israel managed to beat this larger force without resort to nukes and is a high water mark of Israels conventional power. So HOW has Israels possession of nukes changed things in the region?

Can you honestly claim that if Israel had not acquired nukes things would be ANY different in that region?

Paull and Hagana Bet, you are both wasting your time.

Our interest as said, is in Middle East power balances which can be confirmed also as said from political science theories.

Your arguments instead seem fully reliant on the premise that Israel needs its huge brace of atomic warheads to allay an Islamic anger.

An anger which in our studies is justified not only through Israel's illegal nuclear rockets - which the Arab nations are not allowed to have - but also from years of Western intrusion into the Middle East based mostly on colonialist-style greed

BB, I was in no way seeking to suggest that Israel has to allay anger on the part of anyone, what I was saying is that the 'tactical' nuclear weapons that Israel does have are designed as a sort of super artillery, the purpose of which is to stop enemy armoured formations.

Perhaps instead of simply blaming the whole thing on Israel/America, one should perhaps look a little more closely at the events prior to 1973, where the Soviet largesse in terms of material and weapons was most assuredly not in response to the actions of the USA, or Israel's possession of nuclear weapons. Perhaps the unlimited supply of what was in its day, advanced weaponry, by the Soviets to Egypt & Syria during the period 1948-1968 should be examined? The underlying cause of which most assuredly was not merely a balance of power argument, nor was in response to the USA (which was not then involved). Israel had no nuclear weapons in this period, so the causation was what? That Israel was there? That the Soviet Union traded advanced weapons to the Arabs in exchange for (1) Money; & (2) Oil? That the Soviet Union was seeking to provoke a proxy war in the Middle East?

That is what grabs me, that despite the events being directly comparable, the supposed 'causative issue(s)' did not then exist. If the supposed 'causative issues' of an event or class of events, is correctly defined, then surely it would be the most likely cause of every other event similar to, or of the same class as, that event? Did the USA's involvement and the fact that Israel got hold of nukes, somehow trump the causative issues of the proceeding events? Or did the issues which caused the bad blood, anger and/or hatred, exist long before and independently of, the USA's involvement and Israel's nuclear arsenal?

Please advise, I am not scared of reasonable debate, especially one based upon logic. All you need to do is establish, logically, how these two issues are causative of a problem which predates their existence.

Sorry to be hard, Haganah Bet, but if you were in a political science school your arguments would not wash.

Please remember that Israel with help from the French broke a law, as Professor Kissinger would really let you know.

A further point --

The very fact that Israel is agreeable to do the first strike on Iran, is further criminality also.

Finally, because though not published, it is obviously the US President that grants the allowance for Israel's bomber strikes, rather than the UN, America should go before a Global Court also.

It is because we have such a gutless UN in the grip of a crazy Texan-style America that little Israel has to make the first strike, Haganah, and only wish you and Paull would gain the brains to understand.

I really do hope I gain the brains to understand too...

However, and I really do hate to quibble, your last response was somewhat disingenuous. What I was looking for was an explanation for the logically inconsistent portion of your hypothesis, that the causal issues of the current situation are (1) the involvement of the USA; & (2) the possession of tactical nukes by Israel. As I point out above, the logical inconsistency arises from the fact that the current situation differs only in minor detail from the situation in the period predating the existence of (1) & (2), so it is logically unlikely that these two issues are truly causative of the current situation (ie. it is far more likely that the causal issues now are the same as the causal issues from the beginning, it is incredible to suggest that the same problem could have existed prior to the existence of the supposed 'cause' thereof, but to have been caused thereby). If pointing out that your hypothesis, and the conclusion reached through it, is logically inconsistent is an argument that would not wash in Political Science, then I'd have to wonder at precisely how political science works.

As to France and Israel breaking a law, I have no idea of what you speak. Further information is necessary or the argument will continue at cross-purposes.

As to Israel's willingness to conduct 'pre-emptive' strikes against Iran, the simple fact is that someone has to act first. Once a legitimate casus belli is established, in this case it would be that Iran has directly and without cause sought to endanger the existence of the State of Israel, a pre-emptive strike is legal. Another option would be to take advantage of the very next Hizbollah rocket attack, knowing that Hizbollah is armed & trained by Iran, as an excuse to strike (then Israel would not be the aggressor).

You are the one mixed up, Haganah Bet, seeing that nearly every Israeli attack against a ME nation, as well as the US behind her has been breaking a well-founded historical law as far as our studies are concerned.

And please don't prattle on about Israel's right to defend, especially as it has been Israel's unlawful nuclear rocketry which has caused Iraq much earlier and Syria just recently to try to go nuky nuclear, anyway.

Certainly you and your Israeli friends will have the whole Middle East aflame before you are satisfied, much of it caused through a UN made gutless through America cuddling Israel.

Apologies, Dilip, if I've upset your program.

Not that I disagree with your thesis, it was just that Haganah, Paul and Co, were getting too damned personal trying to Cut me Down.

Must say as one going on 88, they've got little chance, even if they try to get me for the things I said earlier about the lawbreaking dirty work the Israelis played on Mordecai for lawfully protesting over Israel illegally going Nuko.

Of course, the worst dirty work was that played by both the US and the UN, for both keeping dumb over it.

As a qualified historian, it is too late for me, but I only wish some of our academic younger ones will gain the guts to say something.

Regards - BB, Buntine - WA.