There are two-and-a-half Muslim members of the current security coucil.
Qatar and Tanzania are both Muslim countries, and Ghana's population is 30% Muslim. Ghana is also on the IAEA board.

I predict that the harder the US pushes this issue, the more annoyed non-aligned countries will get about the amazing hypocrisy over Israeli nukes. Not just Arabs, everyone.

Not to mention America's own hypocrisy, and that of the other permanent members, all of whom flout NPT every day by abandoning their own treaty committment to negotiate towards disarmament.

They will both vote to reduce tensions between Iran and the West. That means Iran's push for enrichment will not be agreed to. The way they make this happen is not important but will likely be complex and take a while to negotiate. Neither wants to see the tensions escalate between a crazy Iranian leader, a crazy American leader and Europe which will push for sanctions. Reducing the tension is in both Russia and China's best interests, so that is what they will do. As far as an up/down vote on sanctions, if that is what it will take to force Iran to reduce the tension, then that is the way they will vote. Iran is not old-Iraq and level headed Iranian politicians will do what they can to reduce the tensions as well. Watch for them in the coming months.

The problem with Iran having nuclear weapons is that they will be controlled by fundamentalist lunatics.

Thanks Glenn for that singularly stupid observation as if Israel is not controlled by lunatics who claim they belong to a place their God promised them 2000 years ago. I just love ignorant Westerners like Glenn.

Nuclear Weapons concern me not just with Iran but America, China, Russia...

America has lunatics too you know?

Think about this mis-leading intelligence given to our leader which led him to go to war. Just imagine some pro-right FBI agent saying it wasn't WMD's but nuclear bombs and they were aimed at America. (Thats scary)

An entirely different story huh?

Rob, one difference b/w Israel having a nuke and Iran seeking one is that Iran - unlike Israel - is led by a man who has vowed to use the nuke offensively against the other. You may dismiss that as just talk, but sometimes talk leads to action. (I won't bother to point out the many other reasons Israeli possession of a nuke is less worrisome than Iranian possession would be.)

Speaking of singularly stupid, Rob, if you don't like 2000 years of Judaism, how about the 1948 UN Resolution establishing Israel, approved by the US AND the USSR? If the Israelis are lunatics, how come they haven't used their nukes? Because many are afraid that President Nutjob of Iran will do just that not long after he gets them. But that doesn't seem to bother you, Rob. Is Ahmedinajad NOT a fundamentalist lunatic? Care to make the case for his lucidity?

I think Russia and China would be rather stupid to vote for sanctions against Iran. Just because the Bush administration is ready to jump off a cliff, there is no reason for the world to follow.

I don't like the idea of any government having nuclear weapons. In an ideal world, the only legitimate use of the military is to stop genocidal actions, such as those in Rwanda or Sudan. Nukes are no good for that, or anything else. Though they did put a stop to WWII.

Our stupid governmen (Bush et al) opened Pandora's box by saying how great nuclear power is. What do we do now? Send Colin Powell to the UN with evidence of weapons programs?

The stupidity of our so-called "heartland" astounds me. The Republicans are dragging this country down, they don't care about the damage or the cost (to be paid later), as long as they feel tough and in charge.

Kind of like those lunatics in Iran, huh? Or anywhere else for that matter.

But ofcourse once again Iran's "nookilar" program is just a pretext of the real nuclear weapon that Iran is about to unleash which is the Oil Bourse set to open in March to trade oil in Euros. This has the real potential of ending America's economic hegemony and make the Euros the real reserve currency of the world. Since the US is not on the gold standard there will be nothing else undergirding the dollar. Can you say FREEFALL?

Rob, you're not reading the news if you don't think the Iranian president threatened Israel.

also, the racism angle you seem to be playing is silly. Iranians are white, for starters.

The West is worried about Iran getting a nuke because it's governed by medieval minded theocrats with apocalyptic ideas who seem enthralled with the notion of wiping Israel off the map, among other scary notions. Hopefully if they get one you will be correct and they'll behave like Denmark, but I doubt it.

Wow, what a heated argument. I do see the point in Iran getting nukes asap, I'm sure they are feeling a bit claustrophobic, sandwiched in between Afganistan and Irak.

However, it does seem that this would be the last opportunity to nock off Iran, as it seems a withdrawal from Iraq is in the books.

If Iran is not showed its place before a withdrawal, they will have a stake in the fundamentalist dictatorship that is formed.

OD, if an Iranian bid to trade dollars for euros is what's driving the stated concerns re Iran, why are France and Germany on board?

Merkel, as everyone knows, is in frantic suck-up-to-the-States mode, in an effort to rebuild relations.

As for Chirac, he's always been a nuclear sabre-rattler. This is the guy who ran illegal nuclear tests in the Pacific and blew up the Rainbow Warrior.

Anyone who heard his wild nuclear threats the other day will have immediately been reminded of the Bush doctrine.

But yeah, your point is a good one. On the other hand, if you believe the likes of Krauthammer, the Europeans are really just stringing America along to forestall "military action".

So far, it's costing them nothing to talk tough. They may simply have calculated that, for the moment, they have more to lose by annoying America than by annoying Iran.

An equally interesting question is why Britain's foreign secretary Jack Straw has for months been telling anyone who will listen that attacking Iran is not an option. Once bitten, twice shy perhaps?

BTW, I think oil trading played a role in Iraq, though not a decisive one. I think it's worth considering the possibility that it's a factor in Iran.

But I've always believed that the number one reason America keeps generating these crises is simply its frantic search for a bogeyman to replace the Soviets. A permanent climate of military confrontation and insecurity is vital to maintain US 'global leadership' and astronomical arms spending.

it`s clear to many people around the world,american foreign policy is drafted in israel.of that there is no doubt.

the question is,how much will americans be willing to pay,in tax dollors and lives,before they reverse this skewed and detrimental foolishness.