I guess when everyone in Iran start gluing in the dark, people in favour of nuclear power and arms, will be convienced that; a nuclear-armed mullah is the last thing people in the region want!

Whilst I agree that Iran has the right to have some sort of WMD arsenal as a deterrent and to advance its regional position, I think the most cogent reason for it not to have such weapons is the prospect of the domino effect of other nations in the Mideast( Syria, S.Arabia, Turkey and Egypt)going nuclear.This could, perversely, lead to a possible peace based upon the fear of mutual destruction or, equally likely, nuclear armageddon. The latter cannot be allowed to even come close to happening.

That argument that Iran acquiring nuclear weapons would encourage Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and other Arab countries to do the same is ridiculous.

If Israeli possession of nukes didn't do it, Iranian nukes won't do it either because Arabs see Israel as a bigger threat than Iran.

That's just great! What the world needs is another rogue state like Pakistan, albeit a shia state, so that it can terrorize its neighbors with nuclear blackmail. Why not 'effectively disarm' Pakistan and the problem is all solved!

What imperialism? I am sick of these b.s. armchair commentators insulting my country based on a lot of ignorance. What did we do in Iraq that was so horrible -- getting rid of a genocidal dictator? Wasn't this the same cause 500,000 Iranians died for? Didn't Khomeini say it was a religious duty to get rid of Saddam?

We installed a constitutional democratic government -- which no empire in history has ever done.

Iran cannot be allowed to have nukes for the simple reason that they have stated emphatically that they will proliferate the technology to "Muslim nations", plus a government that treats their own people so horribly would have even less regard for non-Iranians. Does the author want to trust the Iranian government won't use their weapons for blackmail, proliferation, and bringing the world to the brink of apocalypse? Sorry, I'm not betting those odds. If Iran contines to defy the whole world, we will have no choice but to make sure they don't get a bomb. Pakistan with the bomb is scary enough -- we don't need Iran too.

Is a nuclear Iran really a threat to the West?

I agree with Mr. Derakshan that Iran needs nuclear weapons, though for different reasons. And it certainly has a right to peaceful nuclear energy and research like any other state in the world. I also agree with Mr. Derakshan, that peacefulness alone cannot protect Iran from US interference: the US insists on submission in order to control. That is the jist of the latest "incentives package", essentially an invitation to Iran to accept the US master and its own slave status voluntarily.

The present turmoil in the Middle East, instigated by the US in search of total world energy and economic control, and constructed not unlike a worldwide NazicumStalinist regime, is unlikely to bring that control. Instead, unless Iran is left to play the expanded role of a major nuclear power in the Middle East, there will eventually be a regrouping. Iran will have to form a strategic relationship with Afghanistan, Pakistan, parts of central Asia, Indonesia and in time, China, for reasons of self-defense and protection of China's energy supply. India, as a US ally will be sandwiched in between; its Muslims pulling toward this new Muslim alliance, its Hindus pulling toward alliance with Japan and the West. Both Japan and India are in danger of destruction in any armed show-down, whereas the US isn't. They will therefore likely take a more neutral stand, like Russia. That new constellation would leave Israel as the dominant power in the Middle East, but faced with an opposition both much larger than now and including nuclear weapons, even if Iran is prevented from developing its own. Syria will align with Iran. Lebanon is too small to have a significant influence. The Gulf nations are rich, but militarily weak and will not likely side against their fellow Muslims. If Israel refuses to resolve the problem with Palestinian lands, such a new block will have the capacity to actually wipe Israel out despite US support. After Iraq, any war between Israel and Iran supported by these other Muslim nations, would be devastating to the US economy. India is not likely to go fight it as a proxy. Which will in fact exert the necessary pressure on Israel to force it to return all occupied territories.

By contrast, accepting Iran with nuclear energy, both peaceful and for bombs, leaves the current balance of powers in the Middle East: Israel, Syria, Iran, Iraq as the four pillars to uphold the Middle Eastern space in peaceful ways.

Ironically, if Israel does not intend to return all occupied territories outside its 1948 borders, it has more chance at doing so with Iran turning into a nuclear power, because it leaves the quarrel between Israel and Iran, which would both be nuclear powers, and directly affected by any use of these bombs. That is in neither's interest.

No peaceful world order can be designed with the US as the global terrorist nation which it is now. Nor does any world order in which the US has global control really work.

Simply put: World government just cannot be turned into one global corporation with the US as top CEO.

The Republicans in the United States absolutely need Iran to threaten to develop a nuclear device. It gives them ample occasion for fear mongering and sabre rattling. Also, if timed right, the Republicans could pull out of their current slump at a crucial time if the President schedules a bombing raid on Iran right before the November elections. After all, nothing builds more support for politicians than charred corpses.

We do not even need to explain people why we should be nuclear. It is in our national benefit.

The US sent 150.000 troops into Iraq to liberate it from Saddam Hussein. It did not send the more than 400.000 required to conquer and occupy the country and monopolize its oilwells.

People create their own reality. The US is imperialist only if you violate the very definition of empire. There are a vast number of empires in the past, from the Persian to the Roman to the British one they all occupied as much territory as they could and held onto it with military force.

The USA liberated Europe and Japan in '44 - '45 and created in Germany and Japan the 2nd and 3rd largest economies and two of the worlds most potent democracies, those two countries have some of the largest companies on the planet (Toyota, Siemens to name just two) who are in fierce competition with US based companies. Is that Imperialism?

China and India are seeing millions of people each year escaping poverty thanks to a globalist liberal economic system that has been established almost exclusively by the work of the US after world war II. The USA has worked tirelessly to contain the illiberal undemocratic countries of Eastern Europe until the Soviet Union fell and all of non-Soviet Eastern Europe converted to capitalism and democracy virtually immediately.

The US is imperialist only if you violate the very definition of what an empire is. Our columnist here wouldn't object to having the Iranians, who are backing SCIRI, Da'wa and Al Sadr in Iraq and Hezbollah in Lebanon, with nuclear weapons.

Sir your lack of historical awareness, knowledge of the definition of words such as 'empire' and support for arming one of the most dangerous nations on this planet is frighteningly naieve and disturbing.

I think Iran should do a nuclear test to finish this stupid show.

I think World start to realize nuclear iran is in benefit of world stability. we did not have taliban or alqayde problem in 70 because iran was in chage of near and middle east. now iran raised in larger scale in asia and central asia and near and middle east so you will see a dramartic changing politics in all political channel soon in comminig days.

When I hear questions like whether Iran will "really" be a threat if it had nuclear weapons, i can only shake my head in disgust.

Does any one really believe that Iran wants "peaceful nuclear energy"? I guess they are indeed so starved of energy that they want to build a pipeline all the way from Iran to India going thru Pakistan.And of course, they have a very sane guy called Ahmedinejad who wants to wipe a country off the map. If any one was even sleep walking during the conflict between Hezbollah and Israel, they would know how a "resistance" and "freedom fighting" group was stocked like an army.

There is a reason why "neo conservatives" even came into the picture in the first place. There is a reason why the Republithugs get away with brazen demagoguery on the war. There are enough people who naively wonder "what would happen if Iran would be nuclear armed?".

If Bush indeed bombed Iran before the November, that would win him more support than any thing he is (not)doing in Iraq right now

well said ,JVD70.

Whether we think Iran should have nuclear weapons or not we should at least have one standard for all countries in the region. If we are to allow Israel to have stock piles of nuclear bombs, then the world community cannot tell Iran that it may not do the same. The current opinion of the majority of Arabs is that there should be a nuclear-free Middle East but if that is not possible then all major Arab countries and Iran should have them as a deterrent.

People argue that Iran has a fanatical government and while that maybe true so do the United States and Israel. Israel's foray into Lebanon and the destruction it wreaked on civilians and their property, along with US acquiescence, is a perfect demonstartion of this maligned alliance. Israel's power must be checked in the region and it might as well be by Iran. Unlike Israel, who invaded Egypt in 1956 and 1967 and Lebanon in 1982, Iran has never invaded a neighboring country.

As for a deterrent against US actions, well the United States can't invade or bomb Iran in the near future due to the capability of Iran to ignite the Shiites all over the oil-glazed Persian Gulf. In the longterm, Iran will need nuclear weapons, if Israel stays armed, however.

As for a threat to Europe and the United States, get real. Iran never made such a threat nor can it even dream of the enormity of the ensuing defeat. At the end, Iranian nuclear arms are opposed by Israel and only by Israel. US opposition stems from Israel's opposition because Israel seeks to maintain its status as the lone super power in the Middle East. That cannot be. Ironically, Israel's nuclear weapons may prove to be useless in the face of its new adversaries in Gaza, the West Bank and southern Lebanon, which are much harder to hit than Cairo and Tehran. But what it boils down to is: if Israel were your neighbor you would go nuclear too.

I agree with the logic in this post, up to a point. I think it is true that a powerful segment of rightwing America has gone mad. I never realized how the threat of nuclear annihilation from the old Soviet Union kept our crazies in check, but now I know. The print edition of the San Francisco Examiner had an oped by Walter Williams on 8/22/06 that basically argued for nuking Iran. (Interesting that this is not in the online edition!) But here's a quote transcribed from the print:
"Any attempt to annihilate our Middle East enemies [Note he means with nukes, as in casualties in the millions] would create all sorts of handwringing about the innocent lives lost, so-called collateral damage."

'Handwringing'! 'So-called collateral damage'! My god.

So I see the author's point. However, I think that in the medium term, after the immediate peril from Bush and Company has passed, the consequence of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East may well be a nuclear exchange between muslim nations. That is a terrible risk.

As a secular Iranian, I have undergone the same transformation as Mr. Derakshan.

American and Israel paint Iran as a threat. How many wars has Iran launched recently? Iran has not started an offensive war for over 200 years!

Israel just started another war of aggression last month, killing a thousand innocent people. Israel is killing Palestinians on a daily basis.

America has killed even more in Iraq.

Incredibly, Iran is painted as the threat even though the evidence clearly paints another picture.

Israeli and American militarism is an exponentially greater threat to the region than an Iranian nuclear bomb.

Only with nuclear weapons will the Iranian nation guarantee its safety from the coarse military adventurism of the Israeli-American axis.

Mr. Derakhshan, you make me laugh

Iran should allow IAEA inspections, and so should Israel.

If anyone is interested in the op-ed I mentioned above, in which an American rightwinger advocates in print in mainstream media for nuking Iran on the basis of current circumstances, here is the text online:
http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/articles/06/defend.html
This appeared in the San Francisco Examiner on 8/22/06.

Iran has every reason to creat an environment of cooperation and peace in the region. The leadership in Iran now came to the conclusion that the country must advance in sience and technology. Some people may think that the leadership in iran may need to use WMD to deter US, UK and Israel to attach Iran, but Iran quickly becoming the major power in the region by becoming a symbol of independence and resistance. This is far more powerful that nuclear bomb. Just see what happened in last 5 weeks in the region and you get the point. The winners of world war II have already divided up the world into their region of interests. Iran now says that all the bets are off and people in this region no longer submit to the west influence. also it is important to realize that the France and Germany own the most advance nuclear fuel production technology in the world and they like to keep it that way.
So Iran should go ahead with enrichment and avoid any developement of Nuclear Bomb ( which that is ecxactley what they are doing). US loves to see any indication of developement of nuclear bomb to attack Iran immediatly. US used nuclear bomb against Japan not to finish the world war II, but to send a warning to USSR to stop advancing from North to capture Japan. So Neo-cons are waiting for opportunity to attack and level Iran. By now everybody knows that they have no respect for human life. So Iran is playing its card very well to keep the play on stillmate status. Neo-cons are pushed by defense and oil industries in US to change the balance of power in the region to get full control of the region again, but so far Iran has managed to turn around the dynamic against them.

I am not Iranian but a fellow Asian. I can very much appreciate the authors thoughts. Iran has the right to defend itself against agressive provocation and reckless agitation over the past 4 years.

if you walk down the street and see someone with a baseball bat it is intimidating.

if a country on the other side of the world has nukes it is intimidating.

the fact that they have the weapon does not necessarily mean they will use it.

many americans have firearms kept in their own home for "personal defense". not all americans use their firearms to invade their neighbors or make threats to their enemies.

let them get nukes if they want. if people die, people die. bullets, bombs, and nukes all kill just the same.

Iran have the rights for difence itself
yes, iran have all right for make nuclear arms,if you want stop the iran nuclear progam,US must change palucy of midle east and stop the support to isreal
and make the good relations with arab countrys,then automatically iran stop the nuclear program.

Hossein,

I am very pleased you have raised this issue and framed it in this way. Despite being a purely secular but very conservative Republican (or perhaps because of that) I am in substantial agreement with your position. Iran has ample cause to develop nuclear weapons for its own defense. It lies within relatively short range of several nuclear states, Israel, Russia, China, Pakistan, and India; all of which are capable of being or becoming nuclear threats. It has in fact been brutally attacked in the recent past (by Iraq in the 80's) with an enormous loss of life and treasure defending itself. Given what was discovered of Iraq's nuclear program in the early 90's and Bush's "well-founded" suspicions of its resurgence, how feckless would the Iranians be were they NOT intent on developing their own program?

No doubt the Iranians will delay to whatever extent they can any punishments administered by the "world community", but they will surely cling to developing the capability and capacity to enrich uranium, for which they have ample internal supplies of ore. This is necessary for nuclear power generation and they have a right to do it under the NPT. That it is also a necessary capability for a nuclear weapon is incidental and exposes one of many faults in the NPT itself.

In any case, the so-called world community acting through the UN will have a devil of a time applying pressure on Iran without also addressing itself to the more egregious case of North Korea. The brutal fact is that the "world community" has neither the will or the cohesion necessary to apply Security Council decisions on the ground; witness the latest brou-ha-ha in Lebanon. As for us in the USA, we have a lame duck President waddling through the quicksand of Iraq with zilch leftover military capacity to engage Iran on its own turf, no matter how much we huff and puff.

I also take issue with your characterization of our national policies as "imperial". We might be better off if in fact they were imperial. It is the nature of "Empire" as the Romans, the Mongols, and the British taught us to at least extract resources from afar exceeding the cost of imperial maintenance. No, we are merely hegemonic, wasting our wealth on bullying various parts of the globe to comport with our vision of proper government and commerce.

It won't happen while Bush is President, but at some point we must recognize that like it or not, other states will become nuclear simply because it is imperative to their security; and, as you have pointed out, we ourselves are a cause of such insecurity. We have not the capacity to police the NPT throughout the world; a fool's errand if there ever was one. The constructive role we should play instead, is to execute any nation, except Russia or China, that makes use of a nuclear weapon for offensive purposes. For this we have ample capacity and reach throughout the world. Under this regimen, Assured Destruction, the offensive use of nuclear weapons is no longer a useful threat against neighbors.

We have a long history of interfering in the internal affairs of other nations, to include Iran (remember the Shah, God rest is soul). It is rarely successful and you would think we would learn from it, but alas, hope seems to spring eternal. Iraq is becoming part of that tradition as we learn once again that you just can't create democracies by forceful means. It is something we couldn't do in Vietnam either. Iran is a constitutional theocracy of sorts. It was established by a popular vote of the people. If it is to be changed, it should be the Iranians who change it, not Americans. We have enough problems keeping our own mullahs under control, leave the Iranian ones to the Iranians.

Again, my complements on your post.

Notwithstanding the author's vitriol, a single inescapable fact will result from Iran's development of nuclear weapons - Israel will not be wiped off the map without Iran/Syria also being wiped off the map. It's called MAD - Mutually Assured Destruction. If or when attacked , Israel will assuredly respond with complete and total nuclear annihilation. Is Iran/Syria ready to deal with 18 million dead and 30 million wounded?

I suppose the USA could spare giving Iran some nukes... we can ship them over via orbital transit...Iranians problem "catching em" and refill the Silos with some newer missles...

I'm affronted by those that call USA "imperalist" If We were, we would still hold as US Territory the Phillipines, Japan, Cuba, Grenada, and various other islands and areas ...hey we could still with British Control what was France,West Germany and Italy...

Get Real...

What is foremost going to provide our citizens safety and security is the empowered and the strengthened international institutions that can monitor and uphold international law without the sense of naivity that may undermine the regional and domestic stability.

The Washington-Tel Aviv axis since the election of Bush have repeatedly violated international laws and regulations and tried to discredit any global institutiions which been influencing the interests of the world community at large such as non prolifiration of weapons of mass destructions. Since they have been found in gross violation of variety of issues ranging from human rights abuses to committing war crimes, genocides and ethnic cleansing, the zionists-christian extremists view such institutions as obstacles towards their expansioinist and hegemonial aspirations and have fueled the American publice opinion with cynicism and skepticism towards UN, Kioto, Human Rights Commissions, and the NPT.

The crusade mentality that fills the neo-conservative agenda has inturn ushered a sense of purpose among disenfranchised and marginalized Americans that just about some years ago were looking for the invading UN helicopters with binoculars in places like the state of Montana. This constituency whose anger fostered the Oklahoma massacre and the Koresh incident was organized under the religious right and helped Republicans gain control of the congress and the White House. A very dangerous and violent populism was brewing with military and oil interest with the disguise of morality, free market and democracy. This populism was led to total dominance of civic and cultural life in America after the 9/11 and the American populism had found its match in Bin Ladin. The current split and divisions among the ruling elite is the reflection of dissatisfaction regarding the failure of populist agenda that has dominated the foreign policy of the ruling party which nevertheless brought about a boom in the oil and military industry through fear, hate and lawlessness at the cost of instability and insecurity and declining democratic values for most of the people around the world.

Unfortunately the increased public awareness and world condemnation of the Bush-Lihud axis has not turned into substantial dividend for law abiding and the anti aggression resistance in the region. Iran still has a long way to go to convince the international and the domestic communities of the correlation of the shia culture and democracy and in order to do so we cannot afford to abandon our core demand for justice, understanding and rule of law for the tempting but detrimental to trust building efforts by building a nuclear weapon. We cannot afford to succumb to Bush's lawlessness and intimidations and reward the oil-military-religious extremism with a new cold war.

A Middle East free of nuclear weapon, ruled by the people, for the people, from the people in peace with all nations that respect human dignity and the territorial integrity of others should be the guiding principal of our foreign policy. The tragic state of Iraq, worrisome conditions of Afghanistan, and the devestation in Lebanon demonstrate that the goodwill alone cannot deter a determined aggression motivated by ethnic superiority and the world dominance with utter disrespect for human life. While we should work harder to build trust and reach out to the world community to resurrect the international law from under the ashes of Bush-Tel Aviv earth scorching and as we attempt to convince them of our peaceful intentions, we should help make it clear that such a nation cannot fall victim to demented aspirations and moronic assumptions of a few by voluntarily terminating its options for deterrence.

I agree with Hossein completely.

As far as the US being imperialist: I think the world has changed too much to call nations imperialists. It is now multinational groups that are the imperialists, like for example oil companies that exert massive influence in the US and Zionists, who's power base is actually the US, not Israel.

The war in Iraq did not serve the American nation's interests, just as giving Israel billions a year does not. These policies are the policies of certain interests using the American nation to gain power. US, the nation, if it were to engage in a struggle against anyone in its own interests, would try to check the power of China, which it evidently has no will to do (witness the growing trade deficit with China, China's growing military spending, and the Chinese government's adherence to total control over its populace- these facts make Iran look completely harmless in comparison).

Anyway, I really hope Iran stays safe.

Anyone who believes that Iran needs nuclear weapons to "defend" itself is not taking that argument to its logical conclusion: nuclear war. That, my global friends, is idiocy.

I am sorry, but Mr. Derakhshan seems to forget about all the lunacy of the Iranian regime. I wonder, where was he before migrating to Canada? On another planet?
Nuclear weapons? We do not need that. For defense or otherwise. The consequences of nuclear arsenal in the hand of mad dictators are grave. Please, be rational. Since when this nuclear issue has become a national pride and benefit for Iranians? It is all propaganda. This issue is nothing like the nationalization of the oil industry and it will never be.

Think about it: How many bombs can they make? one, two? Then what? What can they do with it? They are going to be obliterated(along with lots and lots of innocent people) before they can move a finger.
There is a difference, like it or not, between the US and Israel having nuclear weapons and a fundamentalist revolutionary theocratic regime in Iran having one.
If they are so interested in nuclear energy, they should come clean and be clear about it. Something they have not done to this day.
It is terrifying to see memebrs of a nation are willing to have death and destruction upon their land. Be realistic: the path to a nuclear free Middle East is not to have another country there with nucear weapons.
Having a nuclear armed Israel does NOT justify to have a nuclear armed Iran.

Sama Adnan, you wrote: "As for a threat to Europe and the United States, get real. Iran never made such a threat ... "

Let's get real and quote the President of Iran, Mahmut Ahmedinejad. On 26 October 2005, speaking at a seminar entitled "World without Zionism," he said: "We shall soon experience a world without the United States..."

Iranian Minister of Culture and Islamic Guidance Mohammad-Hossein Saffar Harandi stated that "Muslims have a common enemy in the United States" http://www.mehrnews.ir/en/NewsDetail.aspx?NewsID=358123

The regime believes the US is the enemy and that it will soon be destroyed.

Isn't that a threat? Or how should we read it then? I think any diplomat would take it as one.

Brook...wake up and read a couple books....Fox news wont do the trick buddy

Maryam wrote "Having a nuclear armed Israel does NOT justify to have a nuclear armed Iran"

~Yet you forget that North Korea has nukes, India, Pakistan, Russia, China and Israel too and all those countries can target Tehran

The perception of one country by another as good or bad is very subjective and varies with time.

For example, US supplied chemical weapons to Iraq when it was their ally and later accused them of possessing weapons of mass destruction and initated the war.

US and major enuropean nations proclaim that they are the champions of democracy but court dictators and monarchs when it is convenient for them.

Genuine approach to solving global crisis in AIDS, hunger, religious fundamentalism and racism is totally lacking.

UN is miserably failing in its efforts to maintain global peace. The personal agenda of the permanent members of the UN Security Council is putting the world at a greater risk.

An interesting topic of discussion could be on 'Global Threats' and the responsible players.

Cayambe, now that was worth reading.

Khalil, I intend to share your articulate post with everyone member of the lunatic right wing fringe in I run into online or elsewhere (it's usually online) who assures me all citizens of the Arab nations are hell-bent on mindless destruction.

That your philosophy survives after all my own lost, misguided country and Israel have done to hurt, damage, and destroy your part of the world, means you are a truly superior people, and a far cry from the bloodthirsty savages the hypocrites in my country insist you are.

29 countries supported Saddam with money, weaponry and intelligence during the Iran Iraq war. 6 of those countries are the same P5+1 countries that we see today. Saddam used chemical and biological weapons on both Iranians and his own people while the UN and the rest of the world turned a blind eye. Iranians don't trust the world anymore, especially if "all options are still on the table".
Pakistan has nukes, Iraq is a mess, Afghanistan's not doing too well and US military forces cover all surrounding land including Persian Gulf. Iranian government would have to be on drugs not to develop nuclear bombs. Oh ... one minor point! Peace in the mid-East starts by disarming Israel of its' nuclear bombs.

For our global health we need a good balance of power. Right now Iran needs to be a strong power. Iran is not a rogue state or even close--readers have to understand that what they read in the American press has little to do with reality becuase it is almost always a reflection of what government officials say rather than reporting. Iran is a complex nation of highly cultured people with destructive and constructive forces as are most societies. The demonization of Iran is due to certain interests within the U.S. whose agenda it is to create instability, disorder, violence, hatred and suspicion in order to assert a perverted form of macho, or because of end-times theology, or (mainly) to strengthen that complex Eisenhower warned us about (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY). We have failed to heed his advice and now we need other powers to discourage our current militaristic and aggressive imperial designs.

I do not belive that Israel wouls accept to go on peace with Iran even Iranian regime accepts that. Iran - Israel mutual relations before 1979 shows that they are enemies becouse they both wanna be the best of the middle east.

Mr Derekhshan
Please stop pretending you are a secular Iranians and against iranian Regime!!! your links with Iranina Goverment are very clear for Iranian community. The country has not been ever important for you but the regime which you are backing their Nuke ambitions. So what you say is from mouth of a supporter of an ultra-religious Mullahs not a Secular who has ever been against them!!!

I do not belive that Israel wouls accept to go on peace with Iran even Iranian regime accepts that. Iran - Israel mutual relations before 1979 shows that they are enemies becouse they both wanna be the best of the middle east.

I teach in several countries including the U.S. One of my students in the U.S. was Iraq vet.
He now goes to the U.S. bases and purchases gas for his car. He said it was very cheap because it was Iraqi's. Iraqi's oil is pumped without any record(ing) and brought to the U.S. Many Americans do not know this.

When Saddam was gasing his own people, President Reagan said... it is not Saddam. It is Eye-ranians. Later, de-classified CIA information showed that it was Saddam. The gas came from Western countries.

Iran must have nuclear energy; the issue of Mullah's are different. The U.S. has its own Mullah's. Religious vaco's can be found in any part of the world.

Iranians and Americans need to work together to get rid of their vaco's. Peace.

Here is a recent comment by an Israeli General:

If Iranians "have not" or "are not" developing nuclear weapons, they must be smoking something very strong.

The recent events proved that the Israeli generals were smoking something very strong which smelled pretty bad. Wake up and see what they did in Lebanon.

Israel has not abided by or implemented over 100 U.N. resolutions; saddenly they wanted to implement only one of them. Very funny. It seems that their generals are not the only people who smoke something very strong.

Please go to this video and watch why Iran needs to defend herself. The evidence is powerful. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7866929448192753501&pr=goog-sl&hl=en

copy and paste entire url in your address bar.

Peace.

Kamangeer

Iran must and should strive to built an atomic bomb to stop united states from manipulating their country. Mullas are powerfull and I wish them more power in light of insane G.W.B persident. The record of Mullas are much cleaner than G.W.B or the wimpy Tony B.

The only way the world will be free from N-bomb is to let every single country get the
capability to make it (or to master the basic knowledge for doing so). If that happens then The ones who are bullying the world, with such weapons, will be willing to negotiate the matter. Hence:

VIVA Iran for empowering itself and possibly others to bring about a real Nuclear Disarmament in the world.

Remember a saying from a few centuries ago Iranian poet: "When Destruction (mal-functioning) gets to the highest, you see the light of construction (positive changes)".

Any other attitude will let the world keep its Master/Slave relation for ever. Hence any trouble should be tolarated to achieve the grand goal of all nations live on the earth with mutual respect. God bless those who are helpful in this regard.

Reflexive anti-American paranoia is the only reason I could see for an otherwise reasonable western person to believe Iran "needs" Nuclear weapons. The idea that the U.S. would attack Iran for some kind of vaguely defined "imperial" aims of oil acquisition is patently absurd. That absurdity is the logic behind all of the claims made in this article. Don't think your homeland so important, sir. The U.S. has no ambitions on Iran, and never has. Were it not for Iran's aggressive undermining of the peace process, support for murderous terrorist groups in Lebanon, Palestine, and Iraq, and their desire for the acquisitions of nuclear weapons with which they rabidly assert they will "whipe Israel off the map," the U.S. would have no qualms with the country. Your logic is backward, and so is this surreal article.

Quote:"Maryam wrote "Having a nuclear armed Israel does NOT justify to have a nuclear armed Iran"
~Yet you forget that North Korea has nukes, India, Pakistan, Russia, China and Israel too and all those countries can target Tehran."
No, I do not forget that. But nobody is arguing that Iran should have nuclear weapons because China or India have them. So if this is the line of argument, hey, why not arm the whole planet with nuclear arms? Why stop at Iran?
The problem is it takes only ONE mad preson to bring the doomsday upon us.
I am dumbfounded by some of the comments here. I still fail to see how atrocities of one country in a war can justify another country with an illogical, rethorical, totalitarian government to get nuclear weapons?
I understand that US and Israel have wreaked havoc on the Middle East to say the least, but let's not lose our reason here.
Just because everyone is angry with US and Israel does not justify to wish Iran have nuclear arms.
It is a path ending in more destruction and nothing good can come out of those ruins.
Everyone who has lived in Iran, if they are honest with themselves, would understand that the Iranian regime is very good in propaganda and lying. I am very doubtful that they are only after nuclear energy. If that is the case, they should come clean about it. It is more likely that they are really after nuclear arms and try to deceit the world the way they have done it to their own people.
I don't know what the best solution is. The most optimistic way is for the Iranian regime to accept the reason. I hope so. But it is not likely.
Sanctions will probably won't work.
And the tragedy, or comedy of it is that they are still years away from the bomb. It is all a whole rethorical propaganda that has wrapped the regime's leaders in itself and the scary thing is that the dictators usually believe their own propaganda.
We might just go for a war over slogans.
The logical way is for Iran to come totally clean about its nuclear program, but they don't do that. There are crazy elements there that can't take back their slogans and those elements are in power now.
They are also crazy elements in the US who are just waiting for an excuse, and Iran is just giving them that excuse.

The only thing I am hearing from America is what the local news outlet which is owned by a rich politician who owes favors to one group or another is telling them. In there eyes we have become a bunch of pathetic, beleive anything they tell us morons. This puts us in great parrel as these news outlets can spin there story how ever they want and we will listen and beleive. After WW2 we created over 232 coups across the world in order to keep control of resources in the name of our national interests. ITS GOT TO STOP!! We have to be self reliant in every area. We have to find alternate fuels now. Listen to some of your own responses. How many times do you have to be lied to before the light bulb goes off and you finally question what they are telling you and stand up for what is right? These people leading our country are buisness tycoons with only profits in mind. They will risk the lives of our sons and daughters so that they can reep a profit. There was a time in this country when people stood for something. All of this being said, why shouldn't they have a nuke? We have them and are the only country to have used them and are building more of them, and are talking about how we will use nukes again....against them. We give them to people we like, we turn a blind eye to people that want to build them that we like but we know should not have them. We use them as bargaining chips to get people to do things we want them to do. If the local bully is using a baseball bat to threaten me, you bet I am going to try and find a baseball bat bigger then his. Stop the idiocy America, wake up before we realize that the world is our enemy and the resources are gone. We are half way there. I would rather have a world full of friends then full of enemies when that day comes. Do not let arrogance get in the way of progress. For me 9/11 was a wakeup call. I finally realized that I can be affected by people on the other side. So I started reading not only what my media was telling me but started reading what the enemy was writing, and also what the neutral parties were writing, in the hopes that I could come to a conclusion on my own! A middle ground. If Iran thinks Nukes are the way they can feel more secure then they will get it one way or another. If we bomb Iranian sites, they will build them in secret after quiting the NPT. If we attack and over throw them we will have the same situation maybe worse then when we sponsered the coup of 1957. The only way to solve these issues are through dialogue and negotiation. If we are sincere in wanting democracy and peace then this is the only way!! You can not force people by military means to become peaceful. The military option only accomplishes very short term results. In the end they will do whatever it takes as we would to feel safe.

Maryam

You sound like one of these disgruntled iranian women who have found there freedom otside Iran. Now you are a westerner?!?!? speaking against the tyrants in Iran? Study a little harder madam because Iran did not become what it is today because it wanted to. The only way Iran could ever crawl out from underneath the huge rock that the west imposed on it was by being completly self sufficient in every aspect. Did you forget the war. Did anyone come to our aid? No, the whole world stood by while our people were hit by missles barrages carrying bio and chem agents from UK and US. I don't know if the mullahs are making n-bombs or not. But what I can tell you is that enrichment must be done by Iran in Iran. We can not trust the west or the Russians to supply fuel to us. The world now days is about profits not alliances. Iran is not as crazy as disgruntled people like your self make it seem. When Iran becomes independent and the powers that be leave it alone, you will see what a beautiful flower it can be. The imposition of sanctions and the constant threat of attack has made Iran what it is today. But it has also found great power out of its oppression. It stands up to the West when the fearful Arabs do not have the gumption to. So be proud of where you come from, don't sell out your self and your heritage.

Iran does not need a nuclear weapon to defend herself, simply because a nuclear weapon would pave the way for US and Israeli forces to occupy Iran. (Iran will not have enough time to produce enough bombs to counter the threats posed by US and Israel).

What Iran needs (and is doing) is to master the technology of producing fuel for nuclear reactors (which is undeniably in accordance with her rights, her international obligations, and NPT). Being able to enrich uranium is as deterrent as having a nuclear bomb. (because you can build one whenever you are under attack, or whenever you feel the need to do so).

Gene

You have got to be kidding me maddam. Please try, just try and not listen to FOX. Was Iran following all of the evil things you mentioned before 1957? If the US does not need Iran then why would they sponser such a dramatic coup to over throw a democratically appointed government? Maybe they were just practicing?!?!? Did you even know that Iran has the second largest proven oil reserves behind Saudi Arabia? Did you know that Iran has the second largest gas reserves behind Russia? Have you looked on a map to see where it is located? Right between Asia and Europe, and Middle East, and Africa? Come on lady, wake up and smell the roses, or the bombs you just dropped. Ignorance does breed!!

What many have not come to terms with is that Iran does not need a nuclear weapon.

Any military attack on Iran will result in retaliation so devastating to the world's oil and gas supply that the entire global economy will instantly plunge into a black hole that will make the Great Depression seem like Utopia.

During the recent war games Iranian Basij forces had hundreds of clean up crews with protective suits practicing the gathering up of residue from depleted uranium weaponry, packing them into missiles, and firing them into the Green Zone and nearby American military bases. The Pentagon claims depleted uranium is harmless, so most likely they will not be too worried about such a response.

A nuclear Iran will never attck another country especialy not Israel because Iran and Israel both have a common enemy which is all of the arab nations.Even this moron Ahmadinejad who is just a popet of the regim and holds no power whatsoever is not crazy enough to ever use nukes against Israel,it doesn,t matter if it is to defend the Shieh Iraq or brother Syria.Israel also knows this therefore will never attck Iran's nuke facilities.

Iran's nukes will only be used as deterent just like what USA and USSR did during the cold war.

If someone can think of a way of 'effectively disarming' a nuclear state like Pakistan, we should apply the same formula to the US, Russia, and other nuclear powers. Why hasn't anyone thought of this before?

Also, the man who said that 'the Iranian regime that treats its own people so badly would certainly have less regard for non-Iranians' is simply assuming that every state is as racist as America is. I bet you know within 1% how many American soldiers have died in Iraq. How many Iraqis have been killed, buddy? The British Medical Journal Lancet estimated - in early 2005! - that around 100,000 Iraqi civilians had been killed.

Why won't you chickenhawks stop using tactics that so easily backfire- an aggressive, nuclear-armed state, which thumbs its nose at world opinion on top of that of its own judges? Does this sound familiar?

Thomas,
First, Gene is not a woman's name. But that's neither here nor there.
If by "1957" you are referring to the coup against Mossadeq, then that was 1953, and it occurred because the British, in one of their final imperial spasms, had convinced Pres. Eisenhower that Mossadeq was planning on defecting to the USSR. Whether you defend that action or not, it had little to do with U.S. desires for Iranian oil, which we would've preferred to acquire on an open market. When was the last time the U.S. took over a countries oil reserves? We didn't do it in Iraq, nor in Saudi Arabia. I doubt you have a good answer.
In fact, I'm well aware of Iran's geopolitical positioning, as well as its oil reserves. There are many more countries that can be listed with similar endowments, whom the U.S. has no intention of attacking. For example, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Venezuela. The U.S. benefits the most from free trade, and not from imperial take-overs.
The point is broader, though. I see nothing in your statement responding to the simplest and most important of my points: the U.S. would not have any qualms with Iran were it not for their support for terror, undermining of the peace process, and nuclear ambitions. As such, the idea that Iran needs nuclear weapons because of some imagined U.S. aggression is exactly backwards.