The hurdle to UN Security Council action is going to be China - who import a large percentage of their oil from Iran. Sanctions would hurt the oil market and drive global prices up... and China doesn't want to have to go elsewhere and pay more for its growing thirst.

But China's logic is flawed. Needless to say, it improperly weighs the fight between non-proliferation against the demand and price for oil. The biggest flaw, however, in China's (and the oil market) is the failure to take into account what consequences sanctions (or Iran stopping exports on their own) will have internally on Iran. The consequences of such a break in the largest section of their economy could be devastating if they were to last.

Iran is instigating this situation, believing they are strengthening their hand for when they do return to the negotiating table. They believe that the closer they get to the point of no return, the more they'll be able to extract from the West.

They're dead wrong in this assumption. The West and the international community will not back down or give in to Iran's conditions. To do so will invite the same escalation tactics elsewhere in the future.

The real question in regard to Iran is whether the people who would be in control of the potential nuclear weapons are rational human beings or fundamentalist lunatics. The statements made by Ahmadinejad over the last few months do not provide a reassuring answer to that question.

The real question in regard to Iran is whether the people who would be in control of the potential nuclear weapons are rational human beings or fundamentalist lunatics. The statements made by Ahmadinejad over the last few months do not provide a reassuring answer to that question.

Artificial crisis.

How so?

Messers Cheney, Feith, Kristol, Perle, Rumsfield, Wolfowitz et al. have *EVIDENTLY* had a hard-on for Iran since the 1990s.

All one needs to do is go to their homepage (i.e. the PNAC homepage) to see the machinations of their paranoic chickenhawk minds.

Cheney=Chickenhawk:

Regardless of the doofuses currently running our country, I think most people in the world would rather the mullahs not have nuclear weapons. Even the crude, Wily Coyote-esque drawing of a nuclear weapon that was found is enough to send shudders down peoples' spines. Iran's government is an unhealthy mix of religion and regional aspirations.

Given that with the exception of Syria, the Arab nations are not allies of Iran, the criticism in their media is not surprising. Does anyone in the media understand the Middle East? Or care to point out of this obvious fact? Obviously not. Mr. Morley would serve his readers better if he contextualized the news that he presents as the "World Opinion."

Ultimately, any nation making or having nuclear weapons that can kill millions of people is a crisise for the world. However, Iran having nuclear weapons is specifically the problem of nations who want to attack or invade them for whatever reasons e.g. OIL.

Bush did say over and over that Iran is part of the axis of evil and that he intends to invade. I'd want to have nukes too, because Bush will apparently invade anyone no matter what.

Over 85% of Iranians are under the age of 30 and are as modern as you or I. They are stuck with these fanatical leaders until the old idiots die off and they can take the power. It is all a matter of time.Iran used to be much more progressive than the US and it will go back there. They also have a much higher literacy rate and rate of those with University degrees than the US. The youth are a whole different kind of people than their elders. Give them a chance and let them lead. Do not kill them the way you are killing Iraqi's, spreading democracy through mass murder is only that. Read the Dummies Guide to Spreading Democracy through Mass Murder.

Brian: Iran's government is an unhealthy mix of religion and regional aspirations.

Warning From a Student of Democracy's Collapse

01/06/05 "New York Times" --

FRITZ STERN, a refugee from Hitler's Germany and a leading scholar of European history, startled several of his listeners when he warned in a speech about the danger posed in this country by the rise of the Christian right. In his address in November, just after he received a prize presented by the German foreign minister, he told his audience that Hitler saw himself as "the instrument of providence" and fused his "racial dogma with a Germanic Christianity."

"Some people recognized the moral perils of mixing religion and politics," he said of prewar Germany, "but many more were seduced by it. It was the pseudo-religious transfiguration of politics that largely ensured his success, notably in Protestant areas."

Dr. Stern's speech, given during a ceremony at which he got the prize from the Leo Baeck Institute, a center focused on German Jewish history, was certainly provocative. The fascism of Nazi Germany belongs to a world so horrendous it often seems to defy the possibility of repetition or analogy. But Dr. Stern, 78, the author of books like "The Politics of Cultural Despair: A Study in the Rise of the Germanic Ideology" and university professor emeritus at Columbia University, has devoted a lifetime to analyzing how the Nazi barbarity became possible. He stops short of calling the Christian right fascist but his decision to draw parallels, especially in the uses of propaganda, was controversial.

"When I saw the speech my eyes lit up," said John R. MacArthur, whose book "Second Front" examines wartime propaganda. "The comparison between the propagandistic manipulation and uses of Christianity, then and now, is hidden in plain sight. No one will talk about it. No one wants to look at it."

Dr. Stern was a schoolboy in 1933 when Hitler was appointed the German chancellor. He ran home from school that January afternoon clutching a special edition of the newspaper to deliver to his father, a prominent physician.

"I was young," he said, "but I knew it was very bad news."

The street fighting in his native Breslau (now Wroclaw in Poland) between Communists and Nazis, the collapse of German democracy and the ruthless suppression of all opposition marked his childhood, and were images and experiences that would propel him forward as a scholar.

"I saw one of the last public demonstrations against Hitler," he said. "Men, women and children walked through the street and chanted 'Hunger! Hunger! Hunger!' "

His paternal grandparents had converted to Christianity. His parents were baptized at birth, as were Mr. Stern and his older sister. But this did not save the Sterns from persecution. Nazi racial laws still classified them as Jews.

"It was only Nazi anti-Semitism that made me conscious of my Jewish heritage," he said. "I had been brought up in a secular Christian fashion, celebrating Christmas and Easter. My father had to explain it to me."

His schoolmates were swiftly recruited into Hitler youth groups and he and other Jews were taunted and excluded from some activities.

"Many of my classmates found the organized party experience, which included a heavy dose of flag waving and talk of national strength, very exhilarating," said Dr. Stern, who lost an aunt and an uncle in the Holocaust. "It was something I never forgot."

His family fled to New York in 1938 when he was 12. He eventually went to Columbia University intending to study medicine. But his passion for the past, along with questions about what happened to his homeland, caused him to switch his focus to history. He wanted to grasp how democracies disintegrate. He wanted to uncover the warning signs other democracies should heed. He wanted to write about the seductiveness of authoritarian movements, which he once described in an essay, "National Socialism as Temptation."

"There was a longing in Europe for fascism before the name was ever invented," he said. "There was a longing for a new authoritarianism with some kind of religious orientation and above all a greater communal belongingness. There are some similarities in the mood then and the mood now, although also significant differences."

HE warns of the danger in an open society of "mass manipulation of public opinion, often mixed with mendacity and forms of intimidation." He is a passionate defender of liberalism as "manifested in the spirit of the Enlightenment and the early years of the American republic."

"The radical right and the radical left see liberalism's appeal to reason and tolerance as the denial of their uniform ideology," he said. "Every democracy needs a liberal fundament, a Bill of Rights enshrined in law and spirit, for this alone gives democracy the chance for self-correction and reform. Without it, the survival of democracy is at risk. Every genuine conservative knows this."

Dr. Stern, who has two children from a previous marriage, is married to Elizabeth Sifton, a book publisher. They live in New York. He is writing a book called "Five Germanys I Have Known," a combination of memoirs and reflections that looks at Weimar, Nazi Germany, the Federal Republic of Germany, East Germany and unified Germany. He is widely read in Germany and has won its highest literary prize.

"The Jews in Central Europe welcomed the Russian Revolution," he said, "but it ended badly for them. The tacit alliance between the neo-cons and the Christian right is less easily understood. I can imagine a similarly disillusioning outcome."

Correction: January 7, 2005, Friday:

The Public Lives profile yesterday, about Fritz Stern, the scholar of European history who has recently warned of the danger of the rise of the Christian right in the United States, misspelled his wife's given name. She is Elisabeth Sifton, not Elizabeth.

Death to Jefferson Morley and the filthy pigs of Iran!

First off, Mr. Morley says "even the English-language Arab media" is coming down on Iran. Wow! The English-language Arab media is anti-Iran? What's the next shocker, "New York Times tilts toward Israel"???? C'mon Morley, you can do better than that. Why would the Arab media, especially the English language organs, be friendly to a non-Arab country? Or don't you know, Morley, that Iran is not an Arab country?

Second, someone really needs to give American reporters a history lesson on Iran. Do you not recall how the odious Shah came to power? Americans have an eternal wish to play the victim for 1979, but it was the U.S. which toppled the legitimately elected government of Iran 45 years earlier.
Third, this is not the only fact about U.S./Iran relations that would cause any nation's leader to consider pursuing nukes. We have invaded two countries directly next-door to Iran, after all, and looked the other way while Israel got the bomb. I guess the bomb is only OK for white folks to have.
Journalists, perfroming their natural role as unofficial national propagandists in foreign policy, find it fun to portray enemy leaders as nuts. But who started a pointless quagmire war that will cost trillions of dollars to clean up?
Do I want Iran to go nuclear? Of course not. But the West once again has only itself to blame.

Christian Right and Nazism:

That is certainly something I've seen in this country to a limited degree. We're seeing a push by a minority to control and enact agenda items that the rest of the country don't really believe in. This minority is embodied in the form of George Bush. But please don't forget that the major reason Bush was reelected was due to domestic concerns, not foreign policy. I've talked about this before and I think it came down to a matter of which guy the american people disliked less. I think in the long run this "coalition of right forces" will run out of steam and be thankfully dumped within the next 4 years. Interesting projections for the interim elections this year already point to America regaining some of its balance and turning away from the kooks that have hijacked the Republican Party (I'm a democrat, by the way). The best thing that could happen to the country is if the Christian Right broke off from the Republicans and formed their own political party. They would then marginalize themselves and take a big part of the Republican Party's base away.

Ahmadinejad has also displayed some creepy tendencies in his own right though. There have been several articles talking about him seeing a halo above his head and having the UN crowd mesmerized, etc...

Actually, the biggest threat Iran poses is its leadership; SpeakOutForDemocracy pointed to the fact that the younger generation are not as inclined towards that hardcore politico-religious blending of forces. Unfortunately, as in China, the majority aren't always able to capitalize on this fact. The Chinese regime has held fast even after the death of pretty much all the old hardcore CCP members and shows no signs of relaxing their grip on the people.

The point is, any dictatorial regime with nuclear weapons is a scary thought. I don't like that China, Russia, Pakistan and North Korea have them. The prospect remains that a totalitarian government seems much more likely to use such weapons, especially if they see their own regime about to fall, than a democratic nation. At least in a democracy if you don't like your leaders you can get rid of them peacably.

I worry that some people are letting their Anti-Bushism get the worst of them. When you discuss the utility (or utter lack thereof) of allowing Iran to get The Bomb, injecting some trite bit about Iraq just reveals your true position. While Iraq may just be a quagmire, a tragedy, an international crime, or bad policy, it is unrelated to the damage projected by Iran aquiring The Bomb.

Say what you want about America's imperialism, it's poor history, Iraq, and Israel, but if Iran gets The Bomb, millions of people will die. Many of these people will be Iranians.

Without mentioning the United States, I urge anyone to explain why we anyone should be encouraged by Iran's nuclear aspirations. Can anyone give me one legitimate reason why the world is a better place with Iran having The Bomb?

To James: We ALREADY have one group of "fundamentalist lunatics" (Bush & Company) with nuclear weapons at the ready. And, if a fundamentalist lunatic called me part of an Axis of Evil, I might seriously consider also having a nuclear weapon at the ready. To Brian: "At least in a democracy if you don't like your leaders you can get rid of them peacably." Wanta bet.

Reply to Will:
Raising the issue of U.S. misdeeds in Iraq has nothing to do with anyone wanting Iran to get the bomb.
Even if you are on the far right, and have no trouble with the idea of bombing or invading Iran, you have to admit that the fiasco next door has made invading Iran next to impossible due to U.S. troop limitations. It has also made the cost of airstrikes against Iran higher, because Iran can make heap big trouble for us in Iraq.
Finally, our unjustified invasion of the country next door gives hardliners in Iran greater reason to build nukes. If you are going to be invaded on the pretext that you have a WMD program even if you don't, where is the impetus not to start one? What do you have to lose?
U.S. actions have made nukes the only guaranteed safeguard against being subject to U.S. military intervention or invasion.
Iraq has a)made going after Iran harder and more dangerous and b) given Iran darn good reason to seek nukes.

I want to suggest changing Mr. Morley's subtitle to "IRAN NUKES: Artificial Crisis AND Brink of War".

We are watching a spectacle play out right before our eyes.

troutcor-

I certainly did not mean to make an administration apologetic post. Iraq was bad business. Recognizing mistakes from Iraq is important.

Here is what I object to:

"Finally, our unjustified invasion of the country next door gives hardliners in Iran greater reason to build nukes."

This could be contended. If Saddam knew in 2002 what he knows now, he might have been more willing to increase the transparency on his non-WMD program. I know how ridiculous that might sound (proving that you don't have WMDs when you don't have WMDs is a ridiculous endeavor) but there were some things he did correctly and some things he did not.

"If you are going to be invaded on the pretext that you have a WMD program even if you don't, where is the impetus not to start one?"

I think Iraq is an excellent example of why you shouldn't even be suspected of pursuing WMDs, which Iran is hardly even trying to deny. Saddam never publicly said he was going after Nuclear power, Iran has. The impetus on them is to prove they don't want nuclear weapons, and pursuing nuclear energy would be contrary to the goal.

You seem to be saying that Leaders of Nations will look to Iraq and say "Well it looks as if the United States doesn't need a reason to invade anyone so we should begin defending ourselves now." While I agree, in part, with the logic, the point itself is misleading. The United States *did* have a reason to invade Iraq (albeit a false one), and that reason was Weapons of Mass Destruction. If the burden of proof is so low on countries, namely they can be invaded even without actually having WMDs, then the only conclusion I would make is that countries will bend over backwards trying to be more transparent to avoid occupation.

Iran has not done this.

"U.S. actions have made nukes the only guaranteed safeguard against being subject to U.S. military intervention or invasion."

While we agree that Iraq was ridiculous, isn't it equally ridiculous to extrapolate from the Iraq conflict to universality? Has the United States invaded Sweden? Does Mongolia need to aggressively pursue nuclear weapons? There is exactly one country that can claim foul play against the United States, yet you somehow think this means all the others are justified in nuclear weapons' pursuit?

"Iraq has a)made going after Iran harder and more dangerous and b) given Iran darn good reason to seek nukes."

I think the b) is blatantly false, but we could disagree. Not even Iran is claiming they need nuclear weapons because of Iraq (in fact, they were pursuing nuclear power prior to the invasion). But I agree with a), in principle. It has shifted resources to a demonstrably non-dangerous country from other potentially more dangerous targets.

You want a worst-case scenario? Here it is:

A week after the last U.S. troops leave Iraq:

1) Israeli commandoes and fighter jets fly over Iraq en route to a strike on Iran's nuclear facilities.

2) Iran retaliates with missiles with nerve gas warheads. Unlike Saddam's Scuds, the Chinese-made missiles accurately strike Israeli urban areas.

3) Israel counters with a " demonstration, " a single nuclear-armed missile fired on an Iranian city.

4) Blaming the West, Iran closes the Persian Gulf, sinking several supertankers to block the waterway. Iranian troops cross into Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, to eliminate any bases that could be used by American forces entering the theater.

So in your worse case scenario, Israel, the U.S. ally is the aggressor? So the U.S. has no ability to demand that its ally who it financially supports not illegally attack a powerful oil producing country in order to prevent the U.S. and world's economy from being destroyed? With allies like that, ... well you know the rest.

Nuclear weapons are weapons of "uncontrolled" mass destruction. The use of these weapons against Israel would also take out the Palestinians, and parts if not all of the Arab countries surrounding Israel. Further, it would destroy Jerusalem and the "Noble Sanctuary" (Dome of the Rock), the third most sacred place in Islam. I do not think Iran or any Islamic country would consider attacking sacred soil in such a fashion. Any preemptive nuclear attack by a Middle Eastern nation against another Middle Eastern nation will come back and bite them. While the blast effects can be restricted to a very large measurable area, Radioactive fallout can be blown back on the attacker by the wind. As the wind changes, it can blow radioactive fallout in any direction.
Nuclear weapons are "Doomsday" weapons that can destroy whole countries, regions, or, even the world.
As a practical matter, I can why Iran or any country would not want such weapons. There is about as much evidence against Iran as their was against Iraq before this current war.
I believe the Bush Administration is waving the bloody shirt against Iran to distract the American people from their failures in Iraq, with hurricane relief, governmental corruption, illegal spying on Americans,the betrayal of the American worker, and senior citizens. Where is my evidence? Where is the evidence against Iraq and Iran?

Henry and Habib, come out from behind your anonymity and tell us about the sources of your rage toward strangers.

Henry and Habib, come out from behind your anonymity and tell us about the sources of your rage toward strangers.

Troutcor, spare me the lectures.

I am aware that Iran is not an Arab country. I've written about that in the past.

I am aware of the CIA's role in the events of 1953. I was writing a brief item about Iran in 2006. I didn't omit these facts because I thought they were irrelevant.

I wrote what I wrote because I think that the fact that Iran's unyielding position on its nuclear program--viewed as threatening by Israel and the Bush administration--attracts so little sympathy in the Arab media is worth noting.

P. J. Casey: Where is the evidence against Iraq and Iran?

It is no secret that the Messers Cheney, Kristol, Perle, Rumsfield, Wolfowitz et al. and have had a hard on for Saddam Hussein for over decade.

At paranoic think tanks like the PNAC, the AEI, et al they have been pounding the drums of war since the 1990s by writing papers, giving speeches, forming the PNAC, etc.

Iraq--Iran---Syria: That is the plan.

These cowardly chicken hawks *USED* 9/11 and the *USED* Boy George as a cheerleader to execute *their* plans.

Go to their websites if you want the evidence.

"I wrote what I wrote because I think that the fact that Iran's unyielding position on its nuclear program--viewed as threatening by Israel and the Bush administration--attracts so little sympathy in the Arab media is worth noting."

Mr. Morley, really it wasn't worth noting i.e. dedicating your whole blog to the obvious. Frankly, troutcor's lecture was on well on point.

Simone-

I disagree. I think what we are finding and will find with Iran is that Mullahs are not practiced in the not-so-subtle nuances of successful geopolitics. Denying the Holocaust is generally considered poor form. Calling for the complete destruction of another country, no matter how much one personally dislikes Israel, is bad business *especially* if you are trying to justify your own *peaceful* nuclear program.

The fact is, breaking the seals is an overplayed hand even if Arab media made a bigger stink about it in Iran's favor. The fact that they haven't, as noted in the article, indicates just how outside the realm of reasonable international diplomacy this Iranian President is operating.

Morely: I wrote what I wrote because I think that the fact that Iran's unyielding position on its nuclear program--viewed as threatening by Israel and the Bush administration--attracts so little sympathy in the Arab media is worth noting.

What is also worth noting is the TOTAL lack of condemnation coming from the new Iraqi government, aka Bush's Islamic Republic.

Mr Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, from the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), is not at all clammering for the hauling of Iran to the security council UN, imposing sanctions etc.

Dr. Ibrahim al-َAshaiqir al-Jaafari, the new Prime Minister of Iraq in the Iraqi Transitional Government following the elections of January 2005, is not at all clammering for the hauling of Iran to the security council UN, imposing sanctions etc.

Mr Jalal Talabani, founder and secretary general of one of the main Iraqi Kurdish political parties, the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK), is not at all clammering for the hauling of Iran to the security council UN, imposing sanctions etc.

Iraq as an ally of the USA friend to Israel: ROTFLAMO!

Come to think of it when pray tell is President Bush going to invite these men for peach cobbler at the ranch?

I agree with corbett with this qualifier: What Ahmadinejad maybe does not understand is that this nuclear brinkmanship which he has instigated is not welcomed by any country in the region nor any oil importer. China's agreement that Iran cannot continue on its path is not that surprising. They need Iran's oil and supporting a nutcase like Ahmadinejad is not the way to ensure a continued supply.

I predict that Ahmadinejad will be replaced somehow. The Iranians are not happy with him either except for the hated mullahs. Either someone inside or outside will get him out of the way and negotiate a normalization with the UN on this matter, probably by agreeing to the NPT and IAEA inspections or enrighment in Russia.

One thing to recognize here ... this is what the UN was designed to do. A nutcase is threatening not only nuclear war with Israel, it is threatening the economies of many oil importers. This instability is what the UN was designed to deal with. It will be interesting to see how it resolves this problem but one thing is for sure, it will happen. Ahmadinejad has few friends and has now made many countries nervous if not enemies. Ahmadinejad has set himself up for a big fall.

"The United States *did* have a reason to invade Iraq (albeit a false one), and that reason was Weapons of Mass Destruction. If the burden of proof is so low on countries, namely they can be invaded even without actually having WMDs, then the only conclusion I would make is that countries will bend over backwards trying to be more transparent to avoid occupation."

First, that logic would only work if the US military were actually capable of simultaneously occupying another country. Given that Iran is three times the size of Iraq, mountainous, and contains no serious US-friendly factions, US occupation looks a pretty unlikely prospect, as the Iranians know. Iraq rather shot that bolt.

Secondly, that logic would also only apply if foreign governments actually believed that the US government was sincerely mistaken in its WMD claims about Iraq, rather than just making the whole thing up. Foreign governments aren't that dim.

Finally, far from being a disincentive to armament, most people see Iraq as quite the opposite. North Korea was more uncooperative than Saddam and had a much more serious program - even the Administration never really denied that. While the US government never suggested that Saddam actually had a nuclear weapon, they clearly thought NK might. Yet Iraq, obviously the weakest member of the "Axis of Evil", was the one that got invaded.

The lesson is obvious. Get the Bomb and America won't prey on you.

"Can anyone give me one legitimate reason why the world is a better place with Iran having The Bomb?"

Since mutual deterrence allegedly protected us during the Cold War, why shouldn't it prevent war in the Middle East? The argument that Iran is a suicidal country is strictly for dummies and Heartland patriots. In fact, Iran has a remarkably peaceful history in a violent region. The mullahs have never started a war with anyone, which is a lot more than the nuclear-armed Israelis can say. In fact the last country to be attacked by an Iranian army was the Ottoman Empire.

The only war Iran has fought in modern times was a defensive one, against Saddam Hussein, after he attacked them with US backing.

In any case, there is no need to find good reasons for Iran to have the Bomb. This is not actually a choice between Iran having the Bomb and Iran not having the Bomb. It's a choice between Iran having the Bomb, or the US/Israel attacking Iran and opening a Pandora's Box that will make the invasion of Iraq look like a good idea.

The problem with American thinking is this assumption of godlike military power, that you can wish a thing and make it so. There are no guarantees that the US could stop Iran's program even if it tried, unless it used unthinkable methods.

Incidentally, Iran first got into WMD under the Shah, but abandoned it after the Mullahs took power. They only became interested again towards the end of the Iran-Iraq war. Throughout that war they were repeatedly attacked with chemical weapons but didn't reply in kind, hoping to gain the moral high ground and thus international support.

But the US government ran a disinformation campaign to suggest both sides were using them. The worst instance was Halabja, the famous case where Saddam "gassed his own people". It's forgotten today, but Halabja was a battle in the Iran-Iraq war, and the town fell to Iranian forces the day before Saddam's gas attack, which was actually part of his attempt to retake it.

Nowadays the US government paints Halabja as an attack by Saddam on Kurdish civilians, but at the time America was still friends with Saddam, and so the State Dept found it more convenient to pretend that Iran was the guilty party in the Halabja gassing. Look it up if you don't believe me. They only started blaming Saddam after he fell out with them.

The result of the US campaign was a UN resolution condemning both parties. Iran concluded that refraining from WMD use was gaining it nothing, and started building facilities.

Sully: Ahmadinejad has few friends and has now made many countries nervous if not enemies.

I think you are wrong.

Why?

No high powered Iraqi politician is speaking out against Iran: Mr Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, Dr. Ibrahim al-َAshaiqir al-Jaafari, and Mr Jalal Talabani are his friends.

The Sunni Association of Muslim Scholars (Hayat al-Ulama al-Muslimin) are not speaking out against Iran.

Perhaps you could provide the links to *Iraqi political leaders* that are speaking out against Iran?

Bush's Islamic Republlic wrote:
"I think you are wrong ... Perhaps you could provide the links to *Iraqi political leaders* that are speaking out against Iran?"

I would not expect Iraqi leaders to spreak out against Iran considering the many friendships and Iraq's current instability. However maybe you could give links of those in Iraq who are defending Iran? If I were an Iraqi I'd try to stay neutral in this.

Ahmadinejad has little support within or outside Iran. What I'm pointing out is that Ahmadinejad is creating this crisis, not Iran in general, and if Ahmadinejad is no longer the leader of Iran the crisis will likely resolve much easier. Don't think the West, Russia and China, which all have the means to make this happen are not considering it, as well as some within Iran who do not want sanctions. Ahmadinejad is not Saddam. He has not killed everyone who can replace him. He is making big enemies and powerful countries are not happy. My bet is he will likely be removed somehow within Iran after sanctions are imposed or he will be pressed by Iranians to resolve it against his will.

Hopefully Iran can be rehabilitated peacefully and become a working member of the international community. Iran's present government seems desirous of a traumatic showdown with the US. I hope that in private these same rulers are more rational and less rhetorical than in the press. On the other hand, I had earnestly hoped the same thing for the US before Spring of 2003.

A war between the US and Iran would be a disaster of grand proportion. Iran would be partially destroyed and its youth, referenced in one of the posts here, consigned to a survival existance. The US would suffer many dead soldiers: our troops in Iraq are effectively hostage to Iran's good behavior as I write. The world's economy would be laid waste as Iran would likely be able to shut down Arabian oil production. Israel would suffer some kind of cataclismic strike. More horrors ad nauseum.

This doomsday scenario is preventable, but it appears possible that it could happen. Unfortunetly, the US Administration appears more likely to pressure Iran than to finesse it. Whether he believes his own commentary or he has motives he will not divulge, this President may leave the rest of the world an even nastier legacy than he already has.

The questions at the end of my previous comments were rhetorical. There is no evidence that Iran is going to produce nuclear weapons, and I am fully aware of the origins of the Iraq war.
The object of my previous comments was to point out that nuclear warfare between close neighbors is suicidal. In deed, nuclear warfare is suicidal.
There are members of Congress who actually believe that a nuclear weapon is about to be dropped on Israel. America has a foreign policy based on panic and not reason. The same can be said about Israel. The leadership in both countries are brainless, and we will all be very lucky if they don't get us killed. But, it is by panic and not reason that they stay in office. The only thing they have to offer the voter is fear.
Bush's Axis of Evil speech was an exercise in stupidity, and I knew that Sharon marched around the al-Aqsa mosque was designed to break the Oslo Accords. I cannot repeat my remarks at those times.
Using Nuclear brinksmanship for political gain is flirting with disaster. One slip and everything goes.

Ahmadinejad is posturing the same way Castro has succesfully done so for as long as he has remained in power. By making these gestures he insures western condemnation and can then turn to his own people and say "Do you see how they attack us."

I'm not sure what the answer to this predicament is. Why do we feel that as a super power we must weigh in on every issue?

I think the most interesting thing posted in these comments was:
"This is not actually a choice between Iran having the Bomb and Iran not having the Bomb."

If you really examine that question you must ask yourself what can other coutntries do to stop it? An ill-fated invasion?

I'm sorry for raising more questions than providing answers, but I think too many senators think they have easy answers such as "An invasion should be an option just the last option." at their fingertips.

Sully: However maybe you could give links of those in Iraq who are defending Iran?

Saudi Arabia, Egypt tell Cheney to give Iran more time

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia -- The Arab world's two major powers urged Vice President Dick Cheney on Tuesday to give negotiations more time in the growing diplomatic conflict over Iran's nuclear program.

As Cheney wound up a meeting with Saudi King Abdullah at his ranch outside Riyadh late Tuesday, officials close to the talks said the monarch had spoken of ''the necessity of giving negotiations a chance'' before pressing for Iran's referral to the U.N. Security Council for possible sanctions.

Cheney got a similar message from Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak when they met earlier Tuesday in Cairo. Neither spoke to reporters, but Mubarak's spokesman said Cairo would ''wait and see whether there will be a consensus'' on dealing with Iran at the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. nuclear watchdog.

''We call for Iran to show more flexibility and cooperation, and we call for a continuation of dialogue with Iran,'' presidential spokesman Suleiman Awad said.

Israel's arsenal an issue

He declared Egypt could not ''ignore our long-standing principled position ... which refuses to put all this fuss and focus on the Iranian nuclear program without looking at Israel's nuclear arsenal. We cannot give support to a resolution unless it makes reference to the universality of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, and unless it is free of double standards.''

Israel neither denies nor confirms it has nuclear weapons, but is widely believed to have them.

Washington is lobbying the 35-member IAEA Board of Governors to refer Iran to the Security Council over its recent decision to resume small-scale enrichment of uranium -- a process that can produce fuel for nuclear reactors as well as material for atomic bombs. Egypt is on the IAEA board.

The U.S. drive against Iran has met resistance from Russia and China, which hope for a compromise. They say Iran had not ruled out having its nuclear fuel processed in Russia, which would allow greater oversight. Russia and China are among the five permanent members of the Security Council who have veto power over any resolution.

While many Persian Gulf leaders are concerned over Iran's nuclear program, Saudi Arabia and Egypt in particular fear putting Iran before the Security Council could sharpen the confrontation, and both say the West should do more about Israel's nuclear arsenal. AP

http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-iran18.html

Sully: "...this is what the UN was designed to do. A nutcase is threatening not only nuclear war with Israel, it is threatening the economies of many oil importers. This instability is what the UN was designed to deal with."

I don't agree and I don't think the facts support you. The UN Charter has rules against unilaterally attacking and invading other countries. It doesn't have rules against saying mean things about them, however deplorable.

And the Non-Proliferation Treaty does not prohibit countries from reprocessing or enriching uranium.

On the other hand, NPT does require the nuclear-armed signatories to "negotiate in good faith towards complete disarmament", something the US Govt has said it has no intention of doing.

So in fact, it's actually George Bush that the UN was designed to stop. Unfortunately GW has a lot more guns than the UN.

"My bet is he will likely be removed somehow within Iran after sanctions are imposed or he will be pressed by Iranians to resolve it against his will."

I wonder how much you're willing to stake on that bet, Sully.

"...it is threatening the economies of many oil importers."

You also suggest that Iran's decisions about when and how to sell it's own oil justify some sort of military crisis.

That's pretty much Dick Cheney's reasoning on Iraq.

OD: That's pretty much Dick Cheney's reasoning on Iraq.

Well, one can't forget the Baker Institute's studies...sly old devil has moved under the radar....

Military strikes against Iran nuclear facilities would eventually lead the Islamic Republic to retaliate against US troops stationing in Iraq & turn the Shia south into another Sunni triangle of death for our troops. The only alternative to this dilemna is a US-Iranian summit with participation of China, the Arab world & the third world. Regardless of how we view the Islamic republic, it is likely to become a regional power with its abundant natural resources & a well educated young population. Lets learn how to adjust to a changing mulipolar world political landscape.

Well,
Coming to the question of Nuclear power, not only Iran but most of the contries in the world using/depend on the Nuclear power. One does not have the right to tell the other not to use it when they are already using it.

This was the case against Iraq, when the US said they are using Nuclear power/ have potential weappen. But they fail to prove till now, they found potential weapen in Iraq.

Second,if some body wants to talk about the others fault, they must deserve to talk about the point. US want to pose them self as peace keepers, but US was the one who also tested the Nuclear weapen during WWII and we know the impact. So apparently, if US talk about the use of Nuclear weapen, its pathetic.
I think the points of china and Russia are true and we must think before blaming iran.

Best Regards,
Senthil Kumar,R

It is not enough to survey the journalists and news papers. As one reader said 'it is biased from sources who can take money from their sponsors'.
Anyway, how can a journalist know that iran has a weapon nuclear program. From where do they get their information.
Media, unfortunatly, is being no more honest. Lot of famous writers, decided to take part of their party even onbehalf of the truth. They use the trust of readers in order to lie on them.